Churches Banned within a 1000 Feet of Strip Clubs

I was discussing with my brother the new law in Missouri that bans strip clubs from being located within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks or homes. My brother posed the question,  “Why aren’t there any laws banning churches within a thousand feet of a strip club?”

No Tolerance (134/365)I was embarrassed I hadn’t thought to ask the same question myself. In assessing any legislation, it’s a good rule to ask how would this law work if the roles were reversed. Evidently I need to remind myself to ask the question more often.

My response at the time was, “Strip clubs aren’t as popular as churches, and that’s how laws like that get passed.” I failed to consider what would happen if the majority view changed–what would happen if someday strip clubs become more popular than churches?

These types of zoning laws are the modern day version of segregation of what the majority finds morally repugnant. The laws are akin to the early colonies laws which fined, banished, and imprisoned those who did not follow the religious tenants of the colony.

The more I thought about it, the more I began to see more of these domes and bubbles of moral purity.

  • The FDA’s thousand feet ban on cigarette advertising near schools.
  • Firearms within a thousand feet of a school.
  • Smoking bans near the entrances to buildings.
  • Sex offenders banned from most of the city.
  • Needle exchanges within a thousand feet of schools.
  • Medical Marijuana dispensaries withing a thousand feet of schools.
  • College campus bans which have included military recruiters, medical marijuana, hate speech, and credit card offers.

Into the MatrixThe zoning bubbles are all around us and, the bans are rarely questioned for having the ability to ban a legal activity from within ones eyesight. As an individual I do not have the right to ban what I find offensive or fear from my field of vision or near to my home, so why should some groups have this right?

Britney SpearsI can understand a parents desire to protect their children from dangerous influences, as in banning the Jonas Brothers and or Britney Spears concerts from within 10,000 feet of their children, if simply to protect children from crappy music. As individuals, we do not have the right to ban what we find offensive, because an individual’s rights ends where another rights begins.

New York's Liberty Island - Statue Of Liberty & SeagullThe group for the liberty minded/libertarian/non-authoritarians to fear the most is not among smokers, gun-owners, sex offenders, drug addicts or even racists. Underlying all these laws is the same tyrannical group–the majority. They’re the ones you’ve got to watch out for.

Share Button

Political Job Offers: Abuse of Public Trust and Tax Dollars

Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin — White House Statement On Romanoff Doesn’t Answer All The Questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFQmdje5INg

Many have dismissed the Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff job offer controversy as political gamesmanship by Republicans. Throwing mud at political appointees that each side uses to further their own goals is political gamesmanship, just as offering  jobs to control who is on the ballot is political gamesmanship. There is already plenty of political gamesmanship in politics.

It’s fair game for Republicans to throw the hypocrisy mud at Obama, because Obama said his administration would be the most “open and transparent” government in history. It’s no different than pointing out the hypocrisy of congressional representative Souder having an affair while advocating abstinence.

Pointing out political hypocrisy generally doesn’t change public opinion. Supporters would say, “The higher you set you moral standards, the harder they are to live up to,” while opponents will declare, “I knew they were full of it the entire time.” Hypocrisy is viewed through the hypocritical lens of one’s political persuasion.

Unfortunately, the political gamesmanship by both sides will overshadow the issue: political appointments as a reward is a violation of the public trust. Offering jobs may be legal and therefore politicians can claim they are not improper, but that does not mean the practice is not harmful.

Elections are supposed to be about voters choosing who they would like to represent them; persuading someone to drop out of a race interferes with the public’s right to pick their representatives and is part of the reason why incumbents are so likely to be reelected.

It would clearly be illegal to offer money to a candidate to drop out of a race, whereas offering them positions paid for by tax payers dollars is not illegal. In essence, these political bribes are paid for by you and me and it’s all perfectly legal.

Then there is the damage done by these political appointments when the people appointed  are not the best qualified for the job. When the “best person for the job” is determined by who best maintains political power, you wind up with an inept, ineffectual and corrupt government.

Share Button

GOP Inconsistent on Defense

SA@TAC – Republicans War Fetish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMJ0TEnvUQ&feature=player_embedded#!

Jack Hunter takes the GOP to task on the one issue too many Republicans still consider non-negotiable. I agree with Hunter and want to add my frustration with the GOP’s inconsistent view of the Department of Defense.

The rule that waste, fraud, duplication, mismanagement, abuse, and inefficiency are natural consequences of major federal programs and departments applies to the Defense department as well.

In particular, the rule that all federal departments grow in size and scope is overlooked by many Republicans when it comes to defense. The original mission of federal defense was to defend only the United States , but has grown to defending the world.

There are ten Unified Combatant Commands; six regional and four functional

This map shows (AOR) Area of Responsibility for the six regional Combatant Commands. The original AOR for the Defense Department (originally called the War Department) was basically only one sixth of what it is today.

The Defense Department is run by an out of control government and subject to the same mismanagement and abuse by the President and congress as all other departments. Pointing this out should not be considered blasphemy.

Pointing out the inconsistent view within the GOP should not be seen criticizing the US Armed Forces personnel. Its a compliment to America’s fighting forces that they’ve repeatedly shown they are effective despite being run from DC.

Share Button

National Day of Shut the Hell Up

Federal judge rules National Day of Prayer unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0omBnUcdnm4

This video is about the controversy surrounding the National Day of Prayer. As pointed out in the video, a National Day of Prayer is nothing new, and has a long history in the US. The Continental Congress even issued a day of prayer in 1775 as “a time for prayer in forming a new nation.”

From judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling:

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

Acknowledgment of religion by anyone in the government is fine; the first amendment to the US Constitution should not be turned into a denial of religion. Judge Crabb’s ruling is correct on the part about the government is taking sides in a matter of individual conscience.

The real problem is not over religion–it is any time the government takes sides in areas of individual conscience. The government should not be used to call for days of service, or prayer, or to honor Confederate soldiers. The role of government is not to direct the conscience of the country.

The Constitution should go further in limiting the role of government’s interference in areas individual conscience. It’s a shame the constitution doesn’t have an amendment telling the government to “shut the Hell up” in areas of individual conscience in general.

These non-binding proclamations waste and time and money. They often lead to lawsuits because for every pro position, there is an anti position. Someone will speak up and say, “This doesn’t represent my views and the government should not be taking sides.”

Stop wasting tax dollars and the resources of our courts on these non-binding proclamations over what the people should think about or honor. The time of our government officials could be put to much better use if they were instead focused on their job and not proselytizing to the people.

Share Button

National Day of Shut the Hell Up

Federal judge rules National Day of Prayer unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0omBnUcdnm4

This video is about the controversy surrounding the National Day of Prayer. As pointed out in the video, a National Day of Prayer is nothing new, and has a long history in the US. The Continental Congress even issued a day of prayer in 1775 as “a time for prayer in forming a new nation.”

From judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling:

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

Acknowledgment of religion by anyone in the government is fine; the first amendment to the US Constitution should not be turned into a denial of religion. Judge Crabb’s ruling is correct on the part about the government is taking sides in a matter of individual conscience.

The real problem is not over religion–it is any time the government takes sides in areas of individual conscience. The government should not be used to call for days of service, or prayer, or to honor Confederate soldiers. The role of government is not to direct the conscience of the country.

The Constitution should go further in limiting the role of government’s interference in areas individual conscience. It’s a shame the constitution doesn’t have an amendment telling the government to “shut the Hell up” in areas of individual conscience in general.

These non-binding proclamations waste and time and money. They often lead to lawsuits because for every pro position, there is an anti position. Someone will speak up and say, “This doesn’t represent my views and the government should not be taking sides.”

Stop wasting tax dollars and the resources of our courts on these non-binding proclamations over what the people should think about or honor. The time of our government officials could be put to much better use if they were instead focused on their job and not proselytizing to the people.

Share Button

Blowback of Powerful Government: Homegrown Terrorism

Tron JailedOn the topic of homegrown terrorism: It is a natural consequence of government growth to produce homegrown terrorism. One of the dynamics in all forms of governing is to slowly increase the size and scope of power. To paraphrase, ‘power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Power grows; the growth of power is absolutely assured.

I’d add ‘government power grows’ to ‘death and taxes’ as things we can be sure of. It’s a law of nature for those in power to continually seek more ways to involve government in more areas. I assume it has something to do with the perception if you have power and don’t use it, it’s letting the power go to waste.

There is no political system I know of with a built-in mechanism for reducing the growth of government’s power. No governmental structures automatically review laws at some later date to examine the effectiveness or necessity. Laws are sometimes repealed and often updated, but few are reviewed directly, leaving many odd and outdated laws on the books.

The rule of power growth applies to all forms of government–it’s not an issue with just Communism, Socialism, Democracies, or Republics. It’s not a matter under which form government exists; it’s an issue of the dynamics of power itself. Eventually all governments grow and grow, the longer their existence, the greater the number laws.

With each new law comes the potential for more citizens to become criminals. As the laws grow, so grows the group of disenfranchised citizens who see themselves not as being protected by laws, but rather the victims of too many laws. The more power governments have, the greater the resentment when their power is exercised.

Day 166 of 365Once you see the government as deliberately excluding you and your way of life, you start to see yourself as a second class citizen. When the power of government grows to the point where people believe they have nothing left to lose, they often lash out towards their government.

People who have lost their property or children or right to vote often feel they have nothing to lose. There are several areas for potential homegrown terrorists in the US, due to the growth of governments power.

  • Budget shortfalls are causing most governments to seek new sources of revenue. Taxes and fines and license fees will see increases, so too will IRS audits.
  • Parental rights. Parents have had their parental rights taken away from them for a wide range of reasons. How they named their kids, too much religion and no religion, polygamy, weight, and even bath time photos.
  • Drug laws which allow government to seize personal property, imprison, and deny the right to vote.

I am ignorant as to just how others are impacted by the continual growth of laws, because every law and right has a unique impact on the individual. Freedom of speech is more important for those that have much to say than to those who keep opinions to themselves. Laws can’t have an equal impact on everyone, because we don’t all live our lives the same way.

While I can’t say which groups will be added to the list, I can say there are many more groups of the disenfranchised that will be added as governmental power grows.

Share Button

UK Post Office Resurrecting Freddie and Fannie Debacle

Just keep piling it on until the entire edifice falls down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs5mt5Bsvck&playnext_from=TL&videos=2If1BOIF2ds

The UK is working on creating its own version of a Freddie and Fannie debacle of low rate mortgages to increase home ownership. The interesting part is that in the UK the method of delivery is not a (GSE) government-sponsored enterprise, but the Post Office.

The Post Office plans to shake up the mortgage market in the UK

Despite the Bank of England base rate remaining unchanged at 0.5pc, Britain’s biggest high street financial services provider – with more branches than all the banks combined – has just cut its mortgage rates for the fourth month in a row. Better still, the new deals are fixed rates for up to five years and some are market-beaters.

This isn’t just good news for hard-pressed homebuyers but for many others too, particularly people in rural communities, because the company in question is the Post Office.

What? You didn’t know the place where you buy stamps also provides homeloans? Well, you do now.

So I looked at the UK Post Office web site to see for myself. Loans, very similar to the ones the US is still struggling with, are being touted as “Rate Designed For You” by the UK post office. At least the banks/Post Office are requiring 20 percent down, so it’s not as bad as some of the sub-prime mortgages were in the US.

2 year fixed rate

3.15% which is a fixed rate until 30/06/2012, then

3.49% variable, which is the Bank of England Base Rate plus 2.99% for the rest of the mortgage period

Government backed loans, low fixed rate to attract buyers, followed by variable interest rates–what could go wrong?

Back to the original article about the Post Office loans.

The new deals are part of the Post Office’s bid to reverse decades of decline – and its success could help revive commercial life in many villages, which might otherwise fade into dormitory suburbs.

It plans to follow up with a new current account and first-time buyer mortgages as part of its strategy to provide a viable alternative to the high street banks, whose reputations have been tarnished by charging borrowers too much and paying savers too little.

I had thought the lessons of government backed mortgages were clear by now. When governments back loans, it encourages risky behavior. The artificial demand for loans creates a bubble, the bubble eventually pops, and people are left upside-down in mortgages. I thought it would be at least a decade or two until this idea reared its ugly head again.

Thanks to The Modern Mystic for pointing this out.

Share Button

HealthCare Debate has Just Begun

After viewing these videos, I see no end in sight on health care quarrels. I’m starting to believe if the health care bill passes, it will become as contentious as abortion with decades of court cases to follow.

The first video has Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell arguing the health care bill is unconstitutional, because it violates article one section seven. McConnell said it violates the rule that before the President can sign the bill, it has to have been voted on separately by the House of Representatives and the Senate. McConnell also points to article one section five, that the votes have to be recorded in a journal if one fifth of the members present request a vote.

Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v6YUrP77gE

But then you have Andrew Napolitano arguing the Supreme Court would not rule deeming the health care bill as ‘passed’ unconstitutional, because the Constitution states the houses write their own rules for how bills are passed. The Constitution states a bill that has ‘passed’ the House of Representatives and the Senate can go to the President, the key word is ‘passed.’ The house can define how it chooses to pass a bill.

Judge Andrew Napolitano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyQ_fMmfD8s

Someone probably will contest to the Supreme Court asking them to define what ‘passed’ means. If the votes were there, they would just vote on it and be done with it and not have to declare it as passed. If the houses can define what ‘passed’ means through rule changes to mean hypothetically voting on a bill, it should be taken to the Supreme Court.

Throw in states challenging the health care bill by means of the 10th amendment along with how the bill passed the house, and there will be no end in sight to Supreme Court challenges over this issue.

I was foolishly starting to believe that someday the health care debate would be over, but it looks like it’s really just begun.

Share Button

Hey Rangel: Would You be for Simple Tax Laws Now?

Charlie Rangel faces several charges of ethics violations and dodging taxes.

A quick summary of the charges from The Washington Post article,  “Rangel is alone in punishment but not wrongdoing”

The ethics committee scolded him for taking corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean, but has not yet ruled on claims about Rangel’s fundraising, his rent-controlled apartments, the taxes on his Dominican beach place, and even his storing of a vehicle without license plates in a House garage.

Here is another summary from NBC:

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

Rangel claims to have done nothing wrong, that none of the acts were intentional and are simply matters of forgetfulness and sloppiness. I want to assume Rangel is telling the truth and that they were all unintentional, because it makes a really good argument for making tax rules simpler. When someone who oversees the writing of tax laws can innocently break them, it’s a strong indication the laws are too damn complicated.

From the Cato Institute article 10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax.

  • The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
  • 32 million IRS penalties assessed each year.
  • In 1913 there were only 400 pages in the federal tax rules, in 2003 the number of pages had risen to 54,846.

With fifty thousand plus pages of rules, anyone–even the person who writes the rules–could unknowingly violate the rules. I would not be surprised to find out all members in congress are in violation of at least one tax code. The tax code is to large to be comprehensible by a single person.

Expecting someone to not violate the massive amount of tax codes is comparable to a bad parent telling a child to behave, but not telling the child what constitutes good behavior. The bad parent only lets the child know the rules of good behavior once they have broken them.

The other reason I hope Rangel has done nothing wrong is that maybe Rangel will learn some compassion for others caught in the web he has helped weave. When an average citizen claims their were ignorant or forgetful or sloppy with the IRS, they have to prove their innocence. If those in congress feel the sting of being a mere mortal, then someday the tax codes might include an “innocent until proven guilty” clause.

Share Button

Hey Rangel: Would You be for Simple Tax Laws Now?

Charlie Rangel faces several charges of ethics violations and dodging taxes.

A quick summary of the charges from The Washington Post article,  “Rangel is alone in punishment but not wrongdoing”

The ethics committee scolded him for taking corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean, but has not yet ruled on claims about Rangel’s fundraising, his rent-controlled apartments, the taxes on his Dominican beach place, and even his storing of a vehicle without license plates in a House garage.

Here is another summary from NBC:

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

Rangel claims to have done nothing wrong, that none of the acts were intentional and are simply matters of forgetfulness and sloppiness. I want to assume Rangel is telling the truth and that they were all unintentional, because it makes a really good argument for making tax rules simpler. When someone who oversees the writing of tax laws can innocently break them, it’s a strong indication the laws are too damn complicated.

From the Cato Institute article 10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax.

  • The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
  • 32 million IRS penalties assessed each year.
  • In 1913 there were only 400 pages in the federal tax rules, in 2003 the number of pages had risen to 54,846.

With fifty thousand plus pages of rules, anyone–even the person who writes the rules–could unknowingly violate the rules. I would not be surprised to find out all members in congress are in violation of at least one tax code. The tax code is to large to be comprehensible by a single person.

Expecting someone to not violate the massive amount of tax codes is comparable to a bad parent telling a child to behave, but not telling the child what constitutes good behavior. The bad parent only lets the child know the rules of good behavior once they have broken them.

The other reason I hope Rangel has done nothing wrong is that maybe Rangel will learn some compassion for others caught in the web he has helped weave. When an average citizen claims their were ignorant or forgetful or sloppy with the IRS, they have to prove their innocence. If those in congress feel the sting of being a mere mortal, then someday the tax codes might include an “innocent until proven guilty” clause.

Share Button