There was a call-in to one of the Marks that fill in for Limbaugh, responding to the Mark’s favorable comments on the “Fair Tax” today. The Mark repeated Steve Forbes’ call for a flat 17% income tax.
The caller tried to make the point that, although 17% would represent a large tax cut to the rich, which isn’t a bad thing, it would represent an undue hardship for those with the lowest incomes. The Mark’s reply was that at least this makes everyone a taxpayer, and therefore we’d all have a stake in things. True, but the major point was missed, in my opinion, by the host.
The correct reply to the caller’s concern is; “Perfect! Now you’ve started down the road to understanding, Little Grasshopper! If 17% percent is too much for the poor, it is too much for everyone else. If 17% will restrict the poor, it will restrict everyone else.
Let’s refer to the poor as our canaries in the income tax coal mine. If 17% makes the canary sick, we’re all being slowly poisoned, and whether we notice it right away or not, we’re all inhibited or restricted because of it.
Reduce taxes and investment and employment increase. Raise taxes and investment and employment decrease. Even if all you care about is revenue to the fed gov, and the issue of personal liberty is meaningless to you; do you want 17% of 14 trillion, or say, 8.5% of 28 trillion? That’s the sort of question we’re asking here. I say if there’s going to be an income tax it should be constitutionally limited to 5%. Any more than that not only cuts into charity in a big way, it encourages a black market, and stifles liberty and economic growth. If the fed gov can’t make it on a 5% flat tax, they’re either doing too much or wasting too much, and they need to be replaced with someone who can do the job right.
There’s another mechanism working here, that is at the same time obvious and proven, largely unreported, and almost never discussed. That is; America once was, and can be again, a haven for creativity, productivity, wealth creation, and a haven for wealth in general. Make it a safe bet that your property rights will be protected, and capital will flock to America, while at the same time wealth creation will be, once again, popping and scintillating across the fruited plains.
Let the enemies of Mankind go off and bang their heads against a concrete wall someplace. It doesn’t matter, so long as they’re ignored and powerless here.
Извините, что не по теме, но из России трудно оценивать различные американские явления.
Например, не ясно, что представляет из себя движение Militias.
Его часто описывают как экстремистское, но относится ли это ко всем , кто входит в различные негосударственные ополчения?
И второй вопрос:
Не способствует ли появлению Militias тот факт, что Национальная Гвардия фактически перестала быть “домашней армией”, объединяющей живущих по соседству людей, которые готовы к мгновенной мобилизации для защиты именно своих дворов и улиц?
Не слишком ли бюрократизировалась и оторвалась от улиц Национальная Гвардия?
Не потому ли удается так легко “обрабатывать” людей самозванным Militias?
Извините за беспокойство
Apparently he got his view of America from ABC/NBC/CBS, AKA the Old Media, AKA the Lamestream Media. I stepped in with the following comment, trying to set the record straight. I wanted to keep it short and to the point, hopefully without over-simplification. If I’m mistaken in any of this, let me know;
Traditionally, and by the intent of the American founders, the militia in this country consists of regular citizens with their own arms and equipment. They receive no pay, as the intent was to keep government influence upon the society to a minimum, thereby keeping government power from growing out of control and becoming destructive to liberty.
Some militias gather in groups of various sizes to train, while most either train on their own or not at all. Some militia groups are organized, with a headquarters and a command structure, and others are very informal, but have a common interest in fostering marksmanship among the population generally. Many years ago, our Congress formed a Civilian Marksmanship Program for that purpose. The CMP sells military surplus arms at very low prices to any regular citizen who can demonstrate that he or she has attended some number of organized marksmanship events.
Many militia members have no arms or equipment, but since they are citizens they are militia according to our nation’s founding principles. Some of them actively lobby for the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms. Hence they are citizens actively working against the citizenry.
If you teabaggers don’t like the president, you can always leave
America voted for socialism and if you hate big government, you hate America. Teaching kids about homosexuality, taxing the rich, abortion and gun control are American values now, if you don’t like it, fuck off. Redneck scum that you are.
At least Marxism and Nazism were beautiful.
Sure, lots of people think that. But they wouldn’t come out and say it. Would they?
I tend toward the rational rather than emotional way of thinking. However I realize that isn’t the case for everyone. And I realize music is means by which people express their emotions and influence others to feel similar emotions. The peace songs of the 1960’s were very influential in changing the attitudes and politics of that era.
I received an email from a musician about his song:
I’ll keep this short. I have a project, the goal of which is to use mass media and popular culture to change the psychology of the whole country. Participation is free and easy, but I need to get the word out. Here is the website with all the information http://mycountrymyass.com
I don’t usually care for country music but I do really like this one. You can listen to it here. The lyrics are:
Now tell me again how this country is the land of the free and the home of the brave You can’t really believe that what you see now is the reason so many brave men gave Teacher used to say we had the Bill of Rights I think they took our rights and sent us the bill Well I don’t know about you my friend but I think I’ve had my fill They been walking on me for my whole life I think it’s finally time to draw the line You can tell old John Cougar Mellencamp he can stick his song where the sun don’t shine My country my ass- This is not the land I learned about in class My country my ass- That freedom justice stuff is all in the past Got a checkpoint up the road ahead better pull out your ID And your taxes just went up again gotta cough up some more money Be careful what you’re saying when you’re on the phone you never know who might be listening in They got cameras watching everywhere you go so they know just where you been You know you better think about the books you read or your name might go on a list Don’t take too many pictures now, or they’ll think you’re a terrorist They’re watching you every time you turn around and they don’t like what they see You gotta be f*** ing kidding me if you think this country’s free My country my ass- This is not the land I learned about in class My country my ass- That freedom justice stuff is all in the past Well the banks messed up so they took money from us and gave a zillion dollar bonus And they didn’t give a damn what we had to say I swear to God they think they own us But when they say “bend over” and you say “yes sir” and then you vote for them again If you’re the kind of people who fought our wars tell me how’d we ever win? They been walking on us for far too long and don’t you think it’s time to draw the line? Why don’t you tell those jerks in Washington to stick their laws where the sun don’t shine My country my ass- This is not the land I learned about in class My country my ass- That freedom justice stuff is all in the past They say America love it or leave it Well I loved it, and it left me
A Supreme Court decision could alter what riders here see in ads on city buses and trains and in transit shelters.
Pro-gun images, which are banned under an ad policy of the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency, showed up recently on posters for a conference for the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group based in Washington.
…
When Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, read that Wahlberg and Ferrell had been stripped of their weapons, he had 16 posters printed to promote the group’s gun rights policy conference, scheduled to be held here. To his surprise, the posters were installed last week in what a news release called “something of a coup.”
Paul Rose, a spokesman for the city transportation agency, said that after the gun group’s posters went up, the city decided to take another look at its policy.
“At this point, we’re not taking any action to remove the ads. We are currently reviewing our advertising policy in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, which may have altered the legal landscape regarding firearm advertising.”
That would be the June 28 decision in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the right to bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun control laws.
The team of Alan Gura (the lead lawyer in McDonald) and Alan Gottlieb are a force to be taken seriously and are taking point on a lot of skirmishes these days.
The current batch of Democrats is not a particularly liberal bunch.
…
[L]et’s examine what America would look like under the current Republican Party ideology:
Health care reform will be undone. At least 45 million Americans will lack health insurance. According to a Harvard School of Medicine study, the absence of health insurance leads to the deaths of 45,000 Americans a year.
…
Republicans will eliminate all gun control. We now suffer about 30,000 gun deaths per year.
…
The current batch of Republican candidates ignores the overall benefit to society of redistributing wealth from the haves to the have-nots through taxes. For Republican politicians, deaths from abortion are unacceptable, but deaths from pollution, gun violence and poverty are just background noise.
Few Republican voters would actually choose to live in the Republican ideological world. Most of them want good schools for all children, safe streets, a clean environment, fair treatment of the disadvantaged and Social Security benefits — all of which require taxes and regulation.
Steven Lachman September 7, 2010 A GOP-run nation would be barren [From the first to the last sentence of his opinion I was agape. I found it hard to believe he was serious. He had to be mocking the political left or something, right? Then I read his job title. He is a professor.
Under current Federal law the ATF is authorized to inspect Federal Firearm License holders (FFLs), unannounced, up to once per year and to do audits of their records. Every single gun must be accounted for by manufacture, model, and serial number. The FFL will face consequences if some buy wrote “N” and “Y” instead of “Yes” and “No”, they failed to include the county of residence in addition to the city, state and Zip Code, or they used the abbreviation “MINN” instead of spelling out “Minneapolis” in the small box for the city name. The FFL must record the NICS Transaction Number (NTN) on line 21b of the ATF Form 4473 and retain the form for auditing purposes. Form 4473 must be retained for 20 years.
Imagine if we had a Federal Book License holders (FBLs) and similar record keeping requirements. Would the book banners be able to claim such regulations were “common sense” and justified?
Imagine if the IRS were authorized one unannounced inspection and audit, without cause, of every taxpayer per year. Would people tolerate that?
Why is it that the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms can be so heavily regulated when the Second Amendment explicitly says “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Is there anyone surprised gun owners are pushing back and winning?
None can love freedom but good men; the rest love not freedom but license, which never hath more scope than under tyrants.
John Milton The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1649) [From the Wikipedia link above: “The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates is a book by John Milton, in which he defends the right of people to execute a guilty sovereign”.
I found the quote in The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2nd Edition, mine is the 1st Edition–1985) compiled by George Seldes.—Joe]
Frequently the anti-gun bigots claim that since “strict gun laws are the norm in most countries” we should have similar restrictions in our country. If that were, in fact, a valid basis for implementing laws then when this country was founded we would have had a state religion and a king.
And suppose slavery was the norm in most of the world. Would that be justification to implement slavery in this country?
A San Francisco transit agency spokesman says the city is investigating whether pro-gun ads, which an advocacy group recently purchased, should have been posted in transit stations this week.
The city’s policy on such ads is strict but clear: It says that “no advertisement” shall “promote the use of firearms.”
Have these people forgotten they live in the United States instead of someplace like Cuba or North Korea? I can’t imagine the courts siding with the want-to-be tyrants in San Francisco on this issue. Establishing more precedent for freedom is a very good thing.
Do not forget this is their goal:
Even toy guns must be destroyed. There is no common ground with these people.
It’s nice to know the money I have been donating (matched dollar for dollar by Microsoft) is being put to good use. SAF and friends haven’t been winning all their court battles but they sure have been making good progress with their objective to “win back our firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time”.—Joe]
I am quite sure there is common ground somewhere. Can we get there? Can we talk? Can we agree on just a few things?
…
Can we get together and do what’s right? Can we agree that too many people are shot to death in our country? Can we agree that some common sense laws make sense and won’t affect those who are law abiding and want to own their guns and carry their guns? Can we agree that there are actually a few places where we don’t actually need guns? Can we agree that gun violence is a public safety and public health problem? Can we agree that stopping the injuries and deaths caused by guns is a social justice issue?
What they do not seem to understand (or just a likely do not want to admit) is that any of the laws they advocate which would “prevent gun violence” are prior restraint on a specific enumerated right and have a chilling effect on the exercise of that right. We can no more find common ground on this topic than we can find common ground with someone who would demand we get government approval before buying a book, dating someone of the same sex, or marrying someone of a different race. And in fact a better legal case could be made for the last two examples because they are not specifically enumerated rights.
The guy yesterday that held people hostage at Discovery Channel making demands that they “save the planet” by having a programing agenda that advocated for the voluntary extinction of humans (thanks to Ry for sending me the link to his webpage) will be dismissed as a nut case. This is probably valid but perhaps further consideration should be given to the topic. Don’t forget that not only did this nut case base his philosophy on the work of Al Gore but so did Ted Kaczynski.
We have known for a long time that anti-gun activists have strong violence tendencies. And such things as John Cusack’s “I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES [OF DICK] ARMEY AND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS” is not all that uncommon.
And of course all the great genocides of the last century were under leftist regimes.
My hypothesis is that at some level they know that is the only method by which they can achieve their goals. They, almost by definition, believe in the power of government to “do good” no matter what domain they enter into. They believe in central planning and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” But as George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” Government is force. It is violence. Every dictate of the government is backed up with people with guns who job it is to force compliance.
Those who want to expand government, by definition, want to expand the use of force to achieve their goals. It should therefore come as no surprise that liberal individuals and groups are inclined to use violence to further their goals even outside the domain of government.
This also might explain why most liberals are opposed to the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It explains why they keep insisting, long after the courts have ruled otherwise, that the Second Amendment only protects the power of a state to arm itself independent of the Federal government. The explanation is that they see the willingness inside themselves and those they associate with to use violence and they fear it. They believe they, and everyone else, might use violence in an unethical manner if allowed the tools and the opportunity. They believe in the wisdom of “the central committee” to temper the violent impulses they believe the individuals to have.
This might also explain why liberals accuse the others of violence tendencies. They are projecting the worst fears about themselves onto their opponents.
These violent tendencies can be dealt with at the individual and small group level via the police and the legal system and amount to noise in the big picture of things. It’s at the governmental level that we have genocides with millions dead in the span of a few years. It is at the government level that we must enforce strong restrictions on their power to deliver violence against individuals. This is why we have a constitution that (by design, not in practice) limits governments to a small set of enumerated powers and the Second Amendment to stop a runaway government from becoming tyrannical. One might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from liberals.
Ben Franklin Also attributed to a motto found among Thomas Jefferson’s papers. [You would think that with all the datasupporting the concept of the right to keep and bear arms as a legitimate method of last resort to overthrow a tyrannical government the anti-gun people would give up trying to scare people into giving up that specific enumerated right. It didn’t work when the Democrats in the deep south tried to “scare the white folks” about all the terrible things that would happen if people with dark colored skin weren’t closely controlled after the civil war. So why would they think it would work when Democrats from the west coast and the Northeast try to scare people about the exercise of rights that have existed since before this country was created? —Joe]
Last week Kevin posted My New Favorite Flag. I went over to have dinner and watch a DVD with son James recently. The Gadsden Flag on his living room wall reminded me of Kevin’s post so I told him, “There is a variation of that flag now. I saw it on a blog yesterday.”
“Oh?”, James said. James has a strong tendency toward cynicism and I could hear it in his voice this time.
I figured I would be able to put a little bit of a crack that cynical wall he puts up sometimes and so I described the flag to him, “Instead of the snake just being coiled it’s in the middle of a strike with the fangs bared. And instead of ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ it says, ‘Times Up'”. I’m sure I had a smirk on my face. That should break through I thought.
He didn’t even look at me. He just sighed and asked, “And where is there any evidence of anyone doing something about it being ‘times up’?”
Chet came by my office today and started talking about “When we were kids.” We are about double the age of most of our co-workers and have a little more in common with each other than we do some of the other people. We both grew up on farms. He in Kansas. And, of course, me in Idaho. It gives us a perspective that “some of the younger folk” don’t really appreciate. We remember when most of the homes had outhouses instead of indoor toilets. And our parents lived through the “Great Depression”. We remember what our parents told us about what they and others had to do to make it through. I keep wondering if that will someday be referred to as “GD I” and this go around “GD II” but that is another story.
We talk about economics quite a bit. “What is it going to be like this time?”, we ask each other. Back then it was a world-wide thing too. That was what enabled Hitler to gain power.
This time it wasn’t economics that Chet wanted to talk about.
“Remember those old movies about WW II when the Germans would stop someone on the train and demand their papers?”, he asked.
My officemate had stepped out for bit and I knew we were going to have “a session”. I leaned my chair back and put my feet up on my desk and said, “Yeah. I remember.”
He continued, “We used to think how scary that was. How terrible it was they would do something like that. Right?”
“Absolutely!”, I agreed.
“There is an article in the New York Times today about how our government is doing that today on trains that run between New York City and Detroit”, he said.
I told him I had just read a blog post about that same sort of thing this morning. We chatted a while about it. Neither of us knowing what we could really do about it. “But it sure ain’t right.” we agreed. We always used to believe it couldn’t happen here. We were “special”. We were a free country and that sort of thing just didn’t happen here. It couldn’t happen here.
My officemate returned and Chet left with us both shaking our heads in sadness.
I found the New York Times article and after I read it I went over the Chet’s office. “The government is claiming that if they are within 100 miles of an international border or the three mile limit off the coast they don’t need warrant or anything. They can just grab people they think are ‘of interest’ and demand they prove they are citizens”, I told him. “Right here in this office we are within 100 miles of the Canadian border.” I let it sink in for a couple seconds then continued, “Think of what 100 miles inland from both coasts, the Gulf, and both the north and south borders cover. I’ll bet 50% of the U.S. population is covered by that.”
Chet and I didn’t have much to say after that you wouldn’t have already concluded. We could be headed for some scary times. We talked about it for a couple minutes and went back to work. I think we just got used to it.
If it makes you feel any better about the whole thing–the agent in charge of the Rochester station told the New York Times, “Our mission is to defend the homeland.”
Yeah, I’m sure it is. I think I heard that line in a movie when I was a kid.
We must throw the infantile model of “the people are under the cops as a
baby is under his or her parents” in the dustbin and instead transition to
a model of “you’re adults, you’re free to act as adults, and we both trust
you to be adults and assist us in our job of identifying crooks when necessary.
We also both believe in and support your right to stop the
thugs on your own in lawful self-defense should it become necessary, God forbid,
and we will not only cease and desist from interfering with that right we will
start encouraging you to exercise it.“
While there are few if any places in the United States where the victimless
crime view has been adopted, there are plenty where law enforcement both
respects the right of the people to self-defense and recognizes that they need the common citizens more than the citizens need them, especially if and when the government teat of “everyone can suckle all they
want” disappears.
Where I live is one such area in this country – if things get “really bad”
around here I’m quite certain the common man will be standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with local law enforcement agencies toward the same aligned
goal – stopping the Zombies from eating the citizens.
For Chicago to achieve that it’s law enforcement community is going to have
to quit treating the citizens like infants whom it can rob candy from any time
it feels like it.
There is a lot more of interest in the post. He explains why the cops are so hated in some areas of the country, why this is a bad thing, and how to fix it.–Joe]
If government is the source of rights, then the government can take those “rights” away. Don’t believe me? Reference; China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, USSR, and Burma.
Government can and will take your life. Where the hell are your “rights” then?
Here is a base truth; Government does not create, government meddles in the form of regulation and redistribution of human activity.
American Mercenary August 28, 2010 ubu52 [As I have said before, governments cannot grant or create rights. They can only protect them or infringe them.–Joe]
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
James Madison [But if there were no government who would give us our free medical care, free food, and subsidize our housing? I don’t think this Madison guy knows anything at all about the true business of government.–Joe]
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and
medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the
event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All
children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social
protection.
Hence it is not about someone depriving someone else of food, water, or air. This is about some government (people with guns) taking goods and services from some set of people and giving it to others.
And she “can’t believe anyone would argue” against that viewpoint? An “interesting” and totally naive perspective. I would like to remind anyone that believes such a thing that 100+ million people died in the last century because of attempts to create just that type of utopia. If she and others would like to volunteer themselves for the next experiment doomed to failure I only request they take it to some place where my family and friends don’t have to contend with defending our lives and property and disposing of the rotting flesh.
