Federal Forfeiture Laws and the Constitution

This article was inspired by an article posted at http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/11/08/do-federal-forfeiture-laws-violate-tenth-amendment/.  If you’ve never read anything on the Tenth Amendment Centers website, I strongly suggest you check it out.  They have some great articles there, and you’ll learn a lot about one of the most abused articles of the Bill of Rights.  States rights are trampled left and right, so learn about it and recognize when it’s happening.

Here’s the basics.  There’s a man who owns a hotel.  He owns it outright, no outstanding liens, debts, mortgages, etc. are attached.  The property is in a small town, and valued at roughly $1,000,000.  The man is charged with no crime.  Why, then, are the Feds trying to seize his property?

Well, they claim that they have the right to take this property because it has been used for criminal activity.  Not by the owner, mind you, but by guests of the hotel.  I can’ t think of any way an owner could prevent guests from selling drugs in their hotel rooms without violating the privacy laws that are on the books, but apparently if you don’t prevent these things from happening, you may stand to lose your property.

The owner of this little hotel is fighting back, basis his argument on the tenth amendment.  He and his lawyers are alleging that the Federal Government, by enticing local law enforcement to cooperate with them in property seizure cases (which is likely how this property came to the attention of the Feds in the first place) is usurping the rights of the state government to run their own property seizure program.  An interesting defense.  To be perfectly honest, if we’re going to take a defense on Constitutional grounds, I’d like to know where in the Constitution it authorizes the Federal Government to seize property for people who break the law.  While we’re at it, perhaps they can show us the article where it says the Federal Government has the authority to make it illegal for people to smoke, snort, shoot, drink, whatever their drug of choice. 

Big fat hint.  Neither of those things are within the scope of the Federal Government, as defined by the Constitution.  These, and countless other things that are “managed” by the Feds on a regular basis are, in fact, 100% illegal.  What’s more, they know it.

The worst part?  The States and the Citizens of this nation are either too afraid or too ignorant to do anything about it.

Dollars and Cents doesn’t make sense

Ever stopped to consider how much money was wasted in the process of making money?  I know that sounds a little strange, but I’m sure most people have heard the little anecdotes about how it costs more to make a penny than it’s worth, etc., etc., etc.  Have you ever stopped to seriously consider that, or look up the actual numbers?

Well, if you haven’t and you’re interested, I just happened to take a few moments to look them up today.  This information is from http://news.coinupdate.com/cost-to-make-penny-nickel-0619/ and is comprised of data sent direct from the US Mint.  Quick tip, Seigniorage is the difference in cost of manufacturing the coin (cost of the process + cost of the raw materials used) from the actual value of the minted coin. So a negative number is a loss.

Historical Cost of Producing and Distributing the Penny

Fiscal Year        US Mint Cost        Seigniorage

2010                        0.0179                        -$ 27,400,000

2009                        0.0162                        -$ 19,800,000

2008                        0.0142                        -$ 22,200,000

2007                        0.0167                        -$ 40,100,000

2006                        0.0121                        -$ 18,300,000

2005                        0.0097                         $ 2,000,000

2004                        0.0093                         $ 4,600,000

2003                        0.0098                         $ 1,000,000

2002                        0.0089                         $ 8,800,000

2001                        0.0080                         $ 24,600,000

Historical Cost of Producing and Distributing the Nickel

Fiscal Year        US Mint Cost        Seigniorage
2010                        0.0922                        -$ 15,200,000

2009                        0.0603                        -$ 2,200,000

2008                        0.0883                        -$ 24,800,000

2007                        0.0953                        -$ 58,500,000

2006                        0.0597                        -$ 14,600,000

2005                        0.0484                         $ 2,400,000

2004                        0.0456                         $ 6,100,000

2003                        0.0378                         $ 8,900,000

2002                        0.0332                         $ 21,900,000

2001                        0.0331                         $ 28,200,000

Looking at the numbers, it’s very plain that in the last decade, it has gotten exponentially more expensive to mint coins in such small denominations.  Compared to the quarter, which costs only $0.10 to make, and the dime, small as it is, that costs roughly $0.04.  Anyone with a brain stem that’s partially functional can see this is a huge waste of money, but nobody seems to think twice.  Of course, we need these coins, right?

Wrong.  Why do we need pennies or nickels either one?  The only reason we need them now is because all of our prices are printed in 1/100 of a dollar (that’s a penny, for all you non-math wizards out there).  Why don’t we cut the BS, and save some money here.  Stop making pennies, nickels, quarters and dollar bills.  Dimes would be our new smallest coin.  So all prices would be $1.9 instead of $1.89 or $1.99.  Most things you buy would go up a penny, or possibly a nickel, to account for the new rounding.  Big deal.  So would your paycheck.  So we would have dimes for the small change, then fifty cent pieces, followed by dollar coins, and maybe even a two dollar coin like Canada is so fond of.  If not a two dollar coin, then maybe we’d add something between the dime and fifty cent piece.  Like a thirty cent coin.  We could even kill off the five dollar bill and replace that with a coin. 

Why get rid of quarters and dollar bills?  Well, for one, quarters are worth 25 cents, and if we’re going to rounding to tents, that extra five cents would get in the way.  for dollar bills, I’d kill them off because they have to be replaced about 100 times for every time a dollar coin needs to be replaced.  Same reasoning for the five dollar bill, if we wanted to do that.

The end result would be a US Mint that actually produced money for less than face value of the money, saving millions of dollars a year in production and replacement costs for our dollars and cents, and that just makes sense.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

I’m sure you’ve all heard of Thomas Jefferson.  Even the intentional dumbing down of educational standards in public schools can’t have taken away every historical fact.  I’m sure most of you are even aware that he wrote a few things, specifically large parts of the Declaration of Independence.  He was also the third President of the United States, and served as VP to John Adams, our second President.

Now I know some of you are lost already, but stick with me and you’ll likely learn something.  The ones who aren’t lost yet, congrats.  You’re the head of the class for sure.  Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer, a statesman, and beyond all else, a deep thinker who was concerned with liberty.  He authored many different papers mostly focusing on differing aspects of the law of our newly formed land. 

One such document, which he started working on when he was Vice President, was The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.  If you’re so inclined, you can read the summary version on Wikipedia.  He was inspired to write this after Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.  This was because he strongly disagreed with Congress thinking they had the power to deport any alien who was not yet a citizen based on the Feds believing they were “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States”.  Rightly so, Jefferson was worried that this could lead to a dangerous abuse of power, and take away individual liberties that were supposed to have been secured by the Constitution.

In a nutshell, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 proclaim states rights over federal rights, which allows states the ability nullify a federal law, or refuse to enforce it.  The Constitution of the United States is a document that specifically sets forth to limit the powers of the United States Government.  This is by design.  However, the only mechanism set forth in the Constitution to decide on those issues is the Supreme Court.  Enter Thomas Jefferson.

According the the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, it is up to the States, both individually and collectively, to police the actions of the Federal Government.  The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 put to law that states had the right to declare a federal law unconstitutional, allowing states to help police the federal power-grabs.  In 1799, there was another Resolution adopted that clarified in such an even, the proper resolution was nullification by the collective states.  Although we’ve never actually seen nullification take place in such a manner, the states can, with 2/3 majority, call a constitutional convention, where they can propose amendments, void other amendments, etc.  The states have a great deal of power, in this and other way, that they rarely or never exercise. 

At the same time that Thomas Jefferson was drafting his Kentucky Resolutions, James Madison was drafting a very similar set of Resolutions for Virginia.  These documents are but a small example of a great deal of history that points to the States having all the power, and the Federal government being beholden to the decisions made at the state level.  Although, the Feds would never admit that, and certainly don’t act like it.  Perhaps it’s time for the States to rise up and gather the reigns to themselves once again, and let the corruption in DC be put on notice.

Military Detainee Regulations

If you haven’t been paying attention recently, there’s a bill being debated in the Senate right now that has some rather far reaching impacts.  By right now, I mean it’s 8pm in DC as I’m typing this, and the Senate is in session discussing this bill.

It’s really a rather simple bill.  It is an authorization for our military.  What this bill would authorize is absolutely terrifying, though.  If you take a casual glance at the bill, and don’t pay attention to the specific wording, you’ll think it’s not problem.  It authorizes the military to detain terrorists indefinitely.  Where’s the problem in that?  They should be detaining any they catch, and they can keep them as long as they want.

What you missed by not paying close enough attention to the wording of this bill is that it actually authorizes US Military forces to detain indefinitely any person suspected of working with or supporting the Taliban or Al Qaeda, regardless of citizenship or location.  So, US citizens, who are protected from such things by the constitution, and specifically cannot be detained without due process, could now be detained without ANY process by any military official who believes they are in any way working or supporting terrorism.  Even better, it won’t matter if you’re in the US, or any other country.  If our military can get to you, you can be detained.  Indefinitely.  With no charges filed, and no trial. 

If you’re still fuzzy on where the problem lies, I’ll lay it all out for you.  There is no burden of proof, so it doesn’t matter if this happens to someone who is actually supporting terror, or if it’s just someone who happens to have pissed off the wrong person.  This bill gives unfettered power to the Executive Branch of the US Government, and the military, to take ANY PERSON into custody ANY WHERE in or out of this nation for ANY REASON or for no reason.

Now, the debate currently under way in the Senate is not on whether this bill should be enacted, but is specifically regarding the wording of such bill.  I, and others like me, are hoping that the folks who think liberty is important will prevail in this argument and force there to be some due process.  Obviously, if someone is shooting at our armed forces, all bets are off, return fire.  However, I don’t want to live in a nation where they can send troops to your home any time they like to take you away for as long as they’d like without having to answer to anyone about why, where, or for how long.  That’s not liberty, that’s despotism, with unlimited government and extremely limited personal freedoms.  Iraq in the 90’s had a very similar government.  Not my cup of tea.

Strangely enough, I finally have something that I agree with the Occutards on.  This bill is pure evil, police state, martial law crap, and should absolutely be killed, at least in it’s present form.  I’m all for fighting terror, but do not take away freedom, liberty, individualism, hope, and life to do so.  I fear my government by far more than I fear any member of the Taliban, and they have done far more to harm me and mine than any group of terrorists ever could.

I suggest you keep a close eye on Senate Bill 1867.  Information can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:.

To read more about this bill from people of greatly varying perspectives from mine, click a few links below.

http://www.naturalnews.com/034291_SB_1867_war_on_terror.html

http://libertynews.com/2011/11/30/senate-bill-1867-will-seal-the-fate-of-our-country/

And yes, even an Occutard post.  I can’t believe there’s something happening in this nation that leaves me agreeing 100% with this group of nit-wits. 

http://occupywallst.org/forum/sb-1867-worldwide-indefinite-detention-and-the-sen/

Question just begging for an answer

I stumbled across a question the other day that I felt a strong urge to answer.  Seeing as this question called out to me so strongly, I figured I’d make a blog post about it, and post that back to the website as my answer. 

Here’s the original question:

What is a good Libertarian response to Elizabeth Warren's "There is nobody in this country that got rich on his own" argument?

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you.
But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory…
Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Here’s my response:

You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

We were forced to pay for these roads, and the person moving the goods pays more than the rest.  Roads are maintained by gas taxes in most states.  Good thing that factory owner is moving all that stuff via road, burning up all that fuel, or else the roads might fall into disrepair real fast.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

And then had to teach them how to do the job, and how to work together as a solid team towards attainable goals.  Something which the public school system completely failed at.  Meanwhile, I'm still forced to pay taxes to educate more people that I'll have to turn around and educate myself if I choose to hire them.

You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory…

Think of the millions of dollars that would have been saved if I, and others like me, hadn't been robbed to pay for that police and fire force you speak of.  Do you honestly believe that intelligent business people, with enough sense and ambition to build a factory that employs hundreds, would be too stupid to hire private security who are armed and trained in fire prevention and firefighting techniques?  If not for the police and fire departments, I'd employ MORE people, and still not worry about roving bands of losers trying to take what's rightfully mine.

Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along

Perhaps you don't understand. You have roads because of my factory and the taxes you take from the gasoline I purchase to ship my products. You have police and fire protection because of the property taxes on pay on my manufacturing plant and warehouse, which combined are worth several dozen times the value of your average home. I keep the state general fund supplied by paying B&O taxes on my employees and the taxes I'm required to pay based on my gross revenues for the year, not to mention collecting up the sales tax in states that support that. I help keep the federal coffers full with the huge amount of "income" tax my corporation pays, even though corporations technically don't have "income".

The next time you open your mouth to say something about me and my factories, or any other aspect of my business, how about you just say "thank you".

• For supporting our roads.
• For supporting our schools.
• For supporting our police and fire.
• For supporting our welfare programs.
• For supporting our continued employment.
• For supporting our federal regulatory agencies.
• For providing quality products, made in the US by American workers, at reasonable prices.

Or maybe I should go where I'm appreciated. I hear Mexico is always looking for new factories.

Christine Gregoire is at it again…

Well, the evil wench is doing her usual crap.  Lying, manipulating, and stealing from the taxpayers of the state.  What else is new, you might ask, and not without reason.  The woman started her run as Governor by lying and cheating her way into the Governors Mansion. 

So what is she up to now?  Well, there were two stories in the Seattle Times this week end, and if you put them together, it might just make you mad.  If it doesn’t, you should check your pulse.

First, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016817276_statebudget21m.html

The headline for this reads:

Gregoire proposes half-cent sales tax increase

Printed this morning at 1041, this is the newer of the two.  Feel free to read the whole article, but to summarize, she want’s to add an additional half a percent to the sales tax, which is damned near 10% in King County already, for the next 3 years.  She says it would be temporary, but we know how that always goes.  It’s also said that this would bring in about $494 million annually.

The next story to read, from Friday 11/18:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016799736_statephones19m.html

Let’s just sum this one up real quick too.  Our state paid more than $500,000 in a single year for about 2000 cell phones that ARE NOT BEING USED.  Let’s repeat that.  The phone are NOT being used.  What in the hell?  But it gets better.  6679 additional phones were identified as being used minimally, which the audit defined as less than 30 minutes of talk time a month, costing $1,800,000.  The audit covered only the states largest agencies, so of course there are likely several hundred more ridiculous cell phone plans floating around out there, if not a few thousand.

How about this for a plan.  Any state employee who has their own phone will be paid for the use of that phone on state business instead of providing them a phone that barely gets used.  We could even go so far as to have tiers.  For instance, if the estimated usage is more that 200 minutes a month, you will receive $25 a month subsidy for using your phone on company business.  Between 100 and 200 minutes a month, you’ll receive $15 a month, and les than 100 minutes a month, you’ll receive $10 a month.  Now, if you want to spring for the $200 a month plan with all the bells and whistles, that’s fine.  Of you can go with the $19.99 a month plan the offers nothing but calling.  Your choice, but the state’s reimbursement stays the same.

Once again, we are looking at proof that the government doesn’t give a rats behind about wasting your money, whenever and however they feel like doing so.  Why worry?  When they are strapped for cash, they can simply reach into your wallet and take a little more.  There’s no shortage when you can FORCE others to give you more and more of what they earn whenever you feel the need.

To Governor Christine Gregoire, I say this.  Go to hell, you lying wench. Your term is almost over, and I couldn’t be happier.  You are a malignancy on this state, and we will be well served by ousting you from the Governors mansion.  The only regret I’ll have upon your exit is that you never managed to get impeached for voter fraud or recalled for flat out incompetency.  Stay out of politics, and retire somewhere quiet you hack.  We’re through with you, and good riddance!

Occupy <insert city here>

I gotta tell you.  I’ve been rather annoyed by these schmucks in the Occupy Wall Street movement since they first came on the scene.  Here’s my problem with them.  They are pissed.  Something is broken.  They want it fixed. 

Ok, I get that.  I agree.  Hell, there are a lot of things that are broken, but these idiots don’t even know what is broken, and they DEMAND that the Government fix it.

HELLO?!?!?!  The GOVERNMENT is what is broken, you  no talent wastes of flesh!  You’re busily pounding out your angry emails on your new MacBook, and texting your buddies to let them know the police are moving their way on your Android smartphone, or maybe your nice shiny new iPhone 4s, or Windows Phone 7. 

You’re busily using all these things that corporations produce, while bitching about those corporations.  You’re demanding the government fix the problems caused by corporations, which by and large are caused by those corporations fighting to try to follow ignorant government regulations.  That’s like asking the ax murder to save you from the ax. 

The plain and simple truth.  Do they have a right to be mad?  Yes.  Should they protest?  Sure, if they feel that strongly about it.  Do they have the right to protest whatever they think is the problem?  Yup.  Do they have the brains God gave a fruit fly?  Nope.  The OWS movement is people by followers who want to be front and center in something important, idiots that don’t have the damnedest clue how the economy works, and left wing nut job agitators that are using this as an excuse to try to bring more things that the government has no business meddling in under government control.  It’s a certainty that there are a few other people in that group, but by and large, these are the Occupiers.

Go occupy an employment line, you morons.  Get out of the street, be productive, and learn something about the world.  When you have a clue, lets come back to this problem and address the cause.  DC will still be there when you’re ready to comprehend, and it will likely suck worse than ever.  Largely thanks to your ignorant efforts giving them a little more power. 

Even as I type this, I’m on a bus in downtown Seattle.  Trying to get home from work.  We’re not going out of our way around a few blocks because of a large group of these morons blocking up the street.  Thanks to you a-holes, I will be late picking up my son today.  I would much rather spend time with my kids than spend time driving around your stupidity in downtown.  So thanks, morons.  Go back to your mommy’s basements and get warm after you’re done marching.

Post Election 2011

Well, November 8th has come and gone, and the people that were interested in voting have already done so, or failed to do so.  It’s all over for this year.

Or is it?  Next year is a Presidential Election Year.  I’m sure some, if not all, have noticed that it’s already moving along.  Obama hasn’t really done anything but campaign for half a year now.  Then there’s the GOP debates, where one guy looks great in the polls for a week or two only to get knocked down a dozen points and have someone else rise to take their place.  The exception seems to be Mitt Romney, who has maintained a position in the top 2 – 3 on every poll I’ve seen.  This scares me, because he’s almost as conservative as Obama.  Which is to say, not conservative.

But enough of the national stuff today.  I want to go over the election results, briefly, in case there are any you missed.  We’ll start with the state-wide issues, then look at a few of the bigger ones specific to King County

First, the Initiatives.

I-1125 – this is the initiative concerning tolling, which would set a requirement that the tolling be done by the legislature, not an independent group of appointed folks.  It also would not allow for variable rate tolls.  It also would have restricted the use of the money collected from those tolls to be used ONLY for transportation projects.  I voted yes, but could have gone either way.  It failed, by quite a large margin.

I-1163 – This is the initiative that supposedly sets educational and background check requirements for elderly and disabled care workers.  They spent a little money on commercials talking about preventing old people from being abused by their care workers.  A great and noble idea, except that it’s complete BS.  This initiative changes nothing except where the required education comes from.  Specifically, this takes the education out of the hands of the state and gives it over to a SEIU, the Service Employees International Union.  I’m all for privatizing as much as possible, but to take something that the state pays for away from the state, and give it to a union who now will charge the state to provide services, and at a higher rate…..  well, that’s just stupid.  Remind me to thank the voters in this state for not paying attention, because this one passed with flying colors.

i-1183 – Likely the most talked about initiative you’ve ever seen.  It’s basically a rework of I-1100 from last year, and the end result is that the state would have to shut down their liquor stores, sell off the property (more likely let the lease go) and get out of the liquor business.  The state role will be enforcement, and only enforcement, and we’d get the privilege of purchasing our booze from businesses that are actually competing for our business.  Crazy, this whole free market system.  Contrary to the schmuck advertisements you see with the 14 year olds buying a fifth of Jack at the local 7-11, which isn’t even allowed to sell liquor under this bill, there really are no down sides to this.  Unless you happen to be the state and really like having ultimate power and monopoly over something that’s not your business in the first place.  As such, the voters saw through the BS this year and passed the initiative.  This was the most expensive item on a ballot in Washington State, ever, outpacing even the Gubernatorial election from a few years back when we ended up with 2 or 3 recounts.  You know, the one where the Dems “found” several thousand votes and we got stuck with evil and ugly for our Governor? 

Here’s the actual counts of each initiative from King County voters.

The number from King County usually tend to be skewed from that of the rest of the state, given that King County is extremely liberal, and most of the rest of the state is much less so, faring into very conservative in some places.  This year, the King County numbers look very similar to those of the rest of the state on the initiatives, as well as the Amendments to the State Constitution.  I was surprised, too.

The ballot measures to amend the Constitution both passed overwhelmingly.  8205 actually had over 80% in King County.  8206 had nearly 70%.  Seeing as 8205 actually did nothing except to change our constitution to match the laws we’re already following, I’m a little surprised that 20% of the people voted against it, but whatever works for them I suppose.  8206 established spending limits for years when revenues are flowing in, although it’s based in percentages where I would have really preferred an actual hard dollar cap.  It also requires the establishment of a rainy day fund that is specifically paid into in the years when we have good revenue, to be used in the years when we have a shortfall to avoid situations like we’re in now.  You know the one, where the folks in Olympia decided that they didn’t' need to cut spending, and now we have a $2 BILLION budget gap?  Obviously, there’s a chunk of folks in Olympia who would fail a Junior High level economics class, but I digress.  Here’s the actual vote counts for King County on these issues.

These are the only ballot issues this year that were state wide.  Everything else was school district, hospital district, water district, local, county, etc.  The big one around here was our County Council seats that were open.  Positions 2, 4, 6, and 8 were up for election this year.  Coming from someone who isn’t a fan of our County Council to begin with, I am pretty happy with the way it went.  I would prefer we had some folks that err on the side of individual freedom occasionally, but I’ll take middle of the road conservatives over the libtards we usually see any day of the year.  Here’s the results.

If you should happen to live in King County and want to check specific results, go to http://www.kingcounty.gov/elections/results.aspx.  You can find results for every election from the last decade there.  If you’re outside King County, I suggest you find the site for your local county department of elections.  Most should have results available for you to review, at least from the most recent elections.

On a side note to all the “No On 1183” folks.  Suck it.  We won, despite your advertisements having zero truth, and being so far beyond “misleading'” that they were simple, flat out lies.  Federal Law prohibits businesses from having monopolies on anything, even when there are valid reasons why they do, and will specifically require private businesses to take action to break up or avoid monopoly situations that are negative to the health of the business.  The justification is that it’s bad for consumers to only have one choice, and a monopoly makes it inevitable that a business will seek to take advantage of consumers.  But it’s ok for the consumers to only have one choice and be taken advantage of if it’s run by the state?

I’ll say it again.  Suck it, morons.  Freedom won.

Did you vote?

Just a reminder to all you folks here in Washington State, today is the day. If you haven’t gotten your ballot out, get on it.  There’s a couple places you can drop it off or get it to the Post Office prior to closing time.  It needs to be either post marked or delivered to a drop box today, so no more procrastinating.

If you’re still concerned about how to vote, let me help you.

I-1183.  Get’s the state out of the liquor business, reducing prices for consumers and increasing state revenue while at the same time decreasing state payables.  It’s a win, win, win.  Vote yes.

I-1163.  Maybe the dumbest thing ever.  Basically, it takes the requirements for training that are already in place with the state, and transfers it in such a way that it’s no longer in the hands of the government, but now in the hands of Unions.  Even better, it costs MORE money for the same training and background checks, but that’s ok right?  The state can just raise our taxes to cover the difference, so the union can have more jobs and more control over things.  Yeah, not happening.  Vote no.  You want to give more of your money to the State, fine.  Make a donation, I’m sure they’ll be happy to take it.

I-1125.  I’m really torn on this one, and I wish it wasn’t so all encompassing.  First, make it the responsibility of the elected officials to set tolls, not an appointed board of people who we can’t vote out if they tick us off.  Great.  I like it.  Let’s do it.  The second part?  Wait, what?  No more variable tolls?  Ok, I can kinda dig it.  I mean, it would be nice to always know what the toll was going to be, but on the other hand, the variable toll roads I know of open up to all traffic later in the day, and have lower tolls during less congested times to encourage more folks to use that lane.  That sounds like a win to me, but if this bill passes, it will be one price at all times. I’m sure they won’t set it too low, so we’re losing the benefits of a variable lane.  I voted yes on this, but only because I think the benefits of forcing the elected officials to set the price outweigh the ridiculousness of having it set at the same rate for cars and semis', day and night.  Whatever works for you, this is a bill that I can honestly say I don’t care one way or the other if it passes. 

I voted to approve both of the amendments to the state constitution because one really doesn’t do anything, and I think the other would help us limit how much more screwed we get by our state spending us into the hole.  Resolution 8205 cleans up language in our state constitution to match what we already do, which was dictated by a Supreme Court ruling.  So it changes nothing.  Resolution 8206  limits the amount of money the state can spend in times when the economy is wonderful, and requires that a certain percentage of revenue be put aside in a separate fund.  That fund can help continue the programs run by the state in lean times. 

I’m had to argue with myself over that, because that could obviously be manipulated, and I suspect it will, but I also believe that it will help limit how fast the state can increase spending.  Personally, I’d like a hard ceiling on state spending, but that isn’t likely to happen.  I’ll settle for slowing them down a bit.

That’s my $0.02.  Take it or leave it, but get out there and vote.  Unless you don’t have a clue what you’re voting for, then just stay at home until Thursday.

Lies, BS, and State Run Liquor Stores–The Tale of Initiative 1183

There has been a ton of controversy over I-1183.  Just like last your with I-1100 and, to a smaller extend, I-1105.  Mostly because people are either to ignorant or too lazy to read the text of the bill themselves.

Although, to be fair, I’d guess a majority of the people who vote wouldn’t even understand what it was they were reading, assuming they could take the time out from watching sitcoms to be bothered to read the bill.

The long and short of it is, if this bill fails, it will be because of lies.  It won’t even be partially because of lies, it will be entirely, 100%, because of lies.  I have not seen one single ad against this bill that was made of of anything remotely resembling the truth.  To the point that I think the people that run the campaigns against this initiative should be put on trial for blatantly misleading the public. 

There are two that I have seen on TV and heard on the radio that are just in-your-face with their lies.  The first one talks about the “new” 27% tax that will be added to the liquor sales.  It doesn’t mention anything about the states' current markup of 52% (on average) being done away with, so that consumers come out money ahead.  It also talks about the loss of revenue for the state first responders in this ad.  Amazing, considering that 27% is going to replace the current 52% markup, and the state will be making MORE money because they don’t have to pay the wages, lease, electric bill, water bill, etc. for all these fine state run locations.  It’s actually going to be roughly a 5% – 7% INCREASE in first responder funding.

The other ad, which is also prevelent on the internet, shows three kids, obviously under age, buying what you’re supposed to assume is a bottle of liquor at a convenience store.  It talks about increasing access to hard alcohol for children.  Never mind the fact that state-run stores fail to follow state laws requiring ID be presented an average of 33% of the time, as opposed to 25% for private retailers. Never mind the fact that convenience stores will not be allowed to carry hard alcohol, except in the rare cases where they are the only location in a specific geographic area that wants to sell it.  Never mind the fact that statistics on teen alcohol consumption show that the youngsters don’t like hard alcohol nearly as much as they want you to believe, and typically prefer light beer and wine coolers. 

If you haven’t voted, it’s your last chance.  Ballots need to be post marked by tomorrow, 11/08/11, or you’ve lost your chance to make your voice heard.

For more information on Initiative 1183, check out http://factson1183.com/?utm_source=gsearch&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=Yes1183Target, or read the full bill at http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2011/general/Documents/1183%20Full%20Text%20for%20VP.pdf.

Please remember, if you can’t be bothered to read the FACTS about something and understand the issues you’re voting on, skip that line on your ballot.  The only thing worse than not voting at all is voting on things based on what you see on television and hear on the radio.  In politics, unless you read and understand that actual law, bill, or initiative in question, you do not have all the facts, and an ignorant voter is as dangerous as a monkey with a machine gun.

The Most Misunderstood Document of All Time

Perhaps you have a guess as to what I'm talking about in the title.  The Bible?  The Qur'an?  Manifesto of the Communist Party?  Indeed, just about any book by Karl Marx was and is readily misunderstood by a great many people.

If not any of the above, then what else could I be talking (or typing, as the case may be) about?

How about the Constitution of the United States of America.  If you live in the US, I dare you to quote something out of the Constitution.  No, really.  Think about it, and try to remember something, anything, that it says, and BE ACCURATE.  How about the Bill of Rights?  Anyone?  Some people can’t even tell me the difference between the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

The truth is, although Americans are BIG on their 'Constitutional Rights', you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can define any of the rights that they are actually guaranteed by the Constitution, and many of the ‘rights’ people blather about aren’t rights at all.  First Amendment.  What is it?  Can you define it?  It promises freedom of speech and religion.  Can you define what that means?  I can.  How about the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  I'm sure lots of you know that has to do with gun rights.  Can anyone out there actually tell me WHAT the Second Amendment says, or better yet, what it means?

Can someone, anyone, anywhere on the planet, PLEASE tell me what the role of the United States Government truly is?

If you can't answer any of those questions, read on.  Perhaps you'll learn a little more about things.  Maybe you'll find yourself agreeing with things you never thought you would agree with.  I won’t go through the entire Constitution.  I’ll just go through the first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

Let's start with the first example I gave you, freedom of speech.  Where in the Constitution is the freedom of speech defined?  Everyone knows they're free to say what they want, but where is that defined?  What does it mean to have 'freedom of speech'?

Freedom of speech is guaranteed under the First Amendment.  The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Awesome.  What does that mean?  Let’s take it one step at a time.  First,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Pretty straight forward.  Hopefully you already understand it.  Plain English, it says “Congress can’t tell you what religion you can or cannot be, nor can they advocate for any specific religion.”  Yes, it’s that simple.  This is where people get their mistaken idea of the “separation of church and state”.  There is NO clause requiring any separation.  “In God We Trust” can be printed on our money, and the Ten Commandments can be carved on our courthouses.  There is no Constitutional Prohibition against that.

Next,

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Congress cannot tell you what you can or cannot say, and they have no right to control the media.  Ignore, for a moment, the fact that we have absolutely no unbiased news source in this nation.  Fox News (with a slogan of “Fair and Balanced”) obviously favors the Right.  Most of the other major news outlets strongly favor the left.  So, if you want to be “fair and balanced”, watch CNN and Fox, and compare the stories form each to the other.

Lastly,

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You have the right to protest, and you have the right to address any issues you have with the government.  In our modern times, that typically means going after what you what in court, or dealing with the administrative complaint process for whatever department you are having an issue with.

That’s the end of the First Amendment.  On to the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This has been the center of many, many arguments for a number of years, and the right has been slowly whittled away for years.  One of the biggest sources of these arguments is the use of the word ‘militia’ in the document.  Those who lean towards having fewer individual gun rights tend to read that to mean that the military should be well armed.  Anyone know the definition for ‘militia’?  Available from Google, there are two definitions that I believe are especially helpful in arguing against that view. 

1. A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2. A military force that engages in rebel activities.

The first definition would seem to apply to our Military Reservists and National Guard members nicely.  At the time of writing the Constitution, those didn’t really exist.  Guarding the nation was left to the citizens of the nation, and they would rise up as patriots to defend their home in times of peril.  This was one of the main reasons for the Second Amendment.  The other major purpose was for us to defend ourselves against our government, when the time came.  Thus, the second definition.

The founding fathers were wise enough to know that no government is truly benign, and over time all things change.  They wanted the people to have a way to ensure their freedom against enemies from abroad, as well as enemies from within.

Next,

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Again, pretty simple and straight forward.  It was put there to protect people against military members who may claim some ‘right’ to the property of a citizen.  It specifically states that during peace time, they have no right to your property, but leaves a whole for time of war “in a manner to be prescribed by law.”  They did this intentionally, as the threat of an invasion from another nation was very real and strong in their time, and they were not sure what may be required to defend this nation. 

The Fourth,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is a lovely thought.  Too bad it’s violated every day by thousands of police all across the nation.  In a nutshell, it says any government official that wants to search you, your home, or any personal property (like your car) needs to go through the proper channels (like a court) and prove to someone that they have a valid reason to want to search you.  Baring that, if they have reason to believe that a life is in danger, like hearing a blood curdling scream for help from inside your home, they can of course kick in the door and see what’s up.

In reality, there have been a number of laws passed that explicitly violate the Fourth Amendment by granting police powers to search based on observations made in the field, without going through a court or judge and proving they have a valid reason.  One of the most troubling to me is searching a home based on the smell of pot.  This troubles me for several reasons, but the most pertinent are that marijuana should not be illegal (at a minimum, not at the federal level, since nowhere in the Constitution is the US Government authorized to regulate any consumption it’s citizen choose to partake in), and the abundance of different incenses that smell similar to marijuana.  Not to mention an officer can say “I smelled marijuana, and proceeded to kick in the door and search” any time they have a suspicion they want to check out.  The Fourth Amendment is near death, and the Feds continually try to turn off the life support.

The Fifth Amendment,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It’s a bit long winded, but here goes. 

1) If you’re being charged with a capital crime, you will need to be indicted by the Grand Jury, who reviews the evidence against the person and decides if there is enough evidence to bring formal charges against that person (excepting military members while on active duty)

2) It is illegal to try you for the same crime twice.

3) You cannot be forced to testify against yourself (you likely have heard someone “plead the fifth” in a movie somewhere – this is what that means)

4) You cannot be imprisoned or otherwise punished without first having been convicted of a crime, nor can the government take your land from you to use for some public project without providing some compensation.

Yeah, the Fifth Amendment really crams a lot in, but it’s very closely related stuff.  The Sixth Amendment does sort of the same thing, and is also closely related to the Fifth.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Broken down, that means that you have a right to not rot in jail waiting for a trial forever, and you should be tried by people of the same general region where the crime was committed.  You have the right to representation by attorney, and you have the power to force people to appear before the court and offer testimony if you believe their testimony will help your case.  Further, you have the right to face your accuser and know what crime you’re being accused of.  Facing your accuser is rather a moot point, since typically it will be “the People of the State of” or “the People of the County of” or something similar.  The Seventh is again related, although this applies to civil cases against you, as opposed to criminal cases.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In a nutshell, this means you have the right to have a jury determine the verdict in civil cases as well as criminal cases.  Although, the majority of civil cases end in small claims court, as the cases are usually smaller in nature and are more quickly, easily, and cost effectively handled in such a court.

The Eighth Amendment follows along with the current trends, and spells out a few more details of what cannot be done to you by a Judge or jury.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Seems pretty straight forward again.  If you run over someone’s cat, you can’t be fined $10,000,000. Unless, of course, they can somehow prove that cat was worth $10,000,000.  Possible, but not likely.  Further, the judge can’t sentence you to be beaten bloody with a baseball bat for speeding. 

The Ninth Amendment is a security blanket, of sorts.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This one’s easy.  It means just because it’s not listed in the Constitution does not mean that you can’t do it, or that the government can do it.  It’s saying that the Constitution is not all inclusive, and shouldn’t be considered as such. 

Finally, the Tenth Amendment.  My favorite, and probably the most under-utilized of the bunch.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What does this mean?  Simple, and elegant.  It means if the Constitution does not say the Federal Government CAN do a thing, it explicetely CAN NOT!  EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Education….. and many, many more.  Likely hundreds more.  All are illegal, per the Tenth Amendment. 

Additionally, the Tenth Amendment says that if the Constitution doesn’t specifically say the States CAN NOT do a thing, it is implied that the power to do as they will inherently remains with the States, or the people who reside in them.  So the Feds can do only what is specifically given to them to do in the Constitution, and the States can do anything they want to do that is not specifically forbidden them by the Constitution.  That’s a lot of power that is reserved for the States and citizens of the States, and denied the US Government.

Yet, the United States attacked the legally formed free nation of the Confederate States of America, and forced them to join the Union.  Then they forced them to pay for the majority of the costs of the war for both sides. 

There are many, many hundreds of examples throughout our history of the Federal Government violating the constitution.  Most are not as graphically horrible as the War Between the States, which resulted in some 600,000 dead, but they are violations non-the-less.  ANY violation of the Constitution is unacceptable, and must be fought tooth and nail.  Every violation takes a tiny step towards a total loss of your individual liberties, and brings tyranny and despotism a little closer to being the new '’American Way’. 

You’ve just taken a positive first step towards defending those rights by reading this and learning what is actually defined.  Congratulations, you are now a defender of liberty.  Defend it well.

The War on (Some) Drugs

Today I’m sharing an article I read at the beginning of the week instead of writing anything new and awe inspiring myself.  You’ll find that I enjoy sharing well written articles from time to time.  You may also find that many of the things I choose to share come from the Libertarian Party Press Releases, the CATO Institute, DownsizeDC.org, and other similar place.

There’s a reason for this.  They are all institutes who are trying to fight back against the Federal Governments incursions into our liberties.  They, for the most part, want nothing more than a government that obeys it’s own constitution.  A novel idea, that.

So, without further ado, the following is the Monday Message from the Libertarian Party Chair this past Monday, 10/31/2001.  If you prefer, you can read it direct from their website at http://announce.lp.org/t/86807/638298/958/0/

View this message at LP.org

Fellow Libertarians,

The United States government has just declared war on medical cannabis, throwing patients and dispensaries into a panic and with good reason. Even those with years of unblemished operations, including some of our finest and most respected MCDs, are being targeted. The Feds are even threatening to prosecute anyone who runs ads about medical marijuana. According to the latest proclamation from the Bluecoats, "Nobody is immune."

Many Libertarians saw this coming when President Bush holdover, Michele Leonhart, boasted she would ignore the administration's formal medical marijuana guidelines, yet was still appointed to head the DEA. As a result, our campaign team carefully crafted a revolutionary new voter initiative that will legally allow California to Opt Out of the Controlled Substances Act. Of course, the Feds can challenge our voter initiative once it passes, but we believe we have the necessary legal tools within this initiative to defeat them.

Libertarian James Gray, a retired superior court judge, and chief proponent for our initiative, blasted this unprecedented intervention by the Federal government in a press conference. "For the federal government to interfere with state and local implementation of California's medical marijuana law is tantamount to a government bailout for criminal gangs and violent drug cartels. For some reason the federal government wants to force legal medical marijuana patients toward a dangerous criminal market and away from an above-ground industry that pays over $100 million per year in state taxes and provides jobs for thousands of our citizens. California voters can tell the feds to back off and let Californians implement our own laws by voting to regulate marijuana like wine next November," said the former judge.

This action by the Federal government against the state of California is no more about marijuana than the Boston Tea Party was about tea. This is about tyranny and the battle to restore the rule of law to our Republic. By supporting this initiative to opt out of the Controlled Substance Act, you are laying the foundations for bringing a rogue Federal government back into compliance with the 10th Amendment, something that is long overdue. Last June the US Supreme Court made a 9-0 ruling that dramatically upholds the 10th Amendment and rebukes the Federal government for assuming powers through treaties to which it is constitutionally prohibited.

A Gallup Poll that was just released shows support for legalization at an historic high of 50% nationwide and 55% in California. We also have a poll by the Economist magazine which shows 62% support for regulation. The first petition to the White House to qualify for a review and comment by President Obama was a petition to Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol. It should be clear to everyone from these polls -- as well as the recent call by 35,000 California physicians to legalize marijuana -- that voters are more than ready to pass a legalization initiative that replaces unregulated black markets with a market that is regulated and taxed just like wine. Our initiative also places a strict cap on any other taxes or regulations for cannabis, beyond those that apply to growing grapes and selling wine.

We have just received our Title and Summary and have officially launched our petition drive. While I am confident that the big funders will come around, once they see us moving forward, it is imperative that every Libertarian in the country get involved now and make a 100% effort over the next three weeks to get donations and signatures. We need for large numbers of people to go to our website on Tuesday, November 1st, download a PDF of the petition, and print it out on both sides. After that, they will have a week to sign up their friends, family and coworkers, before they mail their petition to us to be validated and counted.

We will provide PDFs of our petition on our website and ask people to download and print on regular 8.5 x 11 paper or legal size paper, 8.5 x 14, on both sides. You can use your own printer for the regular size petitions or take our legal size PDFs to a copy story and they will make copies for you. Join the growing number of Libertarians who are working for the biggest victory ever for our party, this November 6, 2012. Remember, this is no more about marijuana than the Boston Tea Party was about tea. It's about Tyranny, be it King George or our own federal government. That's the way the Orange Country Register sees it and why they like this initiative.

During the Prop. 215 campaign, we also experienced a lot of apathy in the beginning. That changed once people realized we were actually collecting signatures and moving forward. Once the major funders realized we were within striking distance of qualifying, they set aside their objections and jumped on board. I believe the same will happen now, especially given the terrible sense of betrayal that so many people have about the mean spirited actions of this President and his unprovoked attack upon sick, disabled and dying patients who depend upon medical cannabis dispensaries and state law to protect them and keep them alive.

So the key to our plan is launch with a bang, make sure everyone knows we are for real, and give the major funders a reason to believe we are the winning ticket.

ACTION PLAN:

    --Go to the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine website at: http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/

    --Make a donation of whatever you can afford to create a future of liberty and a restrained Federal government.

    --Go to the website, download the petition, print it up, sign it and mail it back to us ASAP.

    --Do your part for freedom by speaking to friends, family and coworkers to pledge signatures and money.

It is up to us Libertarians to make sure our launch on November 1st is an impressive display of fireworks, not a dud. Your effort is urgently need to ensure that we have money and signatures three weeks from now. Please join us now and help make 2012 the greatest Libertarian victory of all time.

Yours in liberty

THE REGULATE MARIJUANA LIKE WINE COMMITTEE

James P Gray Chief Proponent

Steve Kubby Chief Officer

Bill McPike Chief Counsel

Steve Collett Treasurer

Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee

2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037

Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

---

Another example of why Occupy Wall Street is a bunch of morons

This is a very short post.  It’s a picture I took the other day in Seattle.  I think it is a pretty clear example of what so many of the people in this group are like.  We blame bankers and financial industry “big wigs” for causing an economic collapse that was, as usual, caused by government being…… well, government. 

This is how they like to get their message across.

Herman Cains 9-9-9 fumble…. and recovery?

Herman Cain was the first GOP Presidential candidate to release any sort of detailed plan for what he would do as President to help the economy out, but should he have been?
Yes, of course.  He has made tremendous headway with this plan, and it’s honestly not THAT good of a plan.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m actually a Cain supporter.  I’ve listened to his radio show off and on for years.  I’d have listened more if my schedule would have allowed it.  The man is smart.  He’s practical.  He knows things. 
Putting that aside for a moment, 9-9-9 is an abortion of a plan.  I’m STILL supporting him, because I don’t think he’ll get it passed as is, and I think with some changes and modifications it will be much more close to what his real goal is anyhow.  That’s the Fairtax, which is exactly what this nation needs. 
The reasons I say the 9-9-9 plan isn’t good are threefold.  First, you’re adding an additional tax without repealing another.  I love the fact that the overall tax rates go down.  I love the fact that it’s plain, simple, and easy.  I love the fact that it would replace a 10,000 page monstrosity of a tax code with something more like a leaflet.  I hate the idea of the feds having another avenue to get money.  I know that the Cain plan is to get this, then move to the Fairtax, completely eliminating the income tax.  What if he can’t do that while in office?  What if he dies in office and his VP disagrees?  What if he plans it for his second term and gets defeated (which I would not see happening – in Cain wins this one, he will be in for 8 year, I promise you, and we’ll all miss him when he’s gone). 
You see my point?  If they get another tax path, there will be very few in DC who will let go. They will keep it, and slowly it will increase and have extra pages added until it’s the same monster we have, only it will be attacking on an additional front.  Not what we need.
Next, while it’s catchy as can be to say 9-9-9 all the time, it’s not a serious plan.  I believe Cain feels like it’s a serious plan right now, or perhaps he feels like it’s an avenue to a serious plan. He’s wrong.  Brilliant, but wrong.  It has given him one hell of a boost in the ratings, but I believe he could have gotten that same boost by touting the Fairtax.  I also believe he should be touting the Fairtax.  Come up with a catchy phrase.  Like “fairness in taxation – not just for the Democrats anymore”.  Sounds good to me.  Fairness, and equality in what we pay.  What a wonderful idea.  Unlike the Obama idea of “fairness”, it doesn’t increase the taxes I pay to give someone else more money back at the end of the year who hasn’t paid anything.  I can dig it.
Third and final.  What happens when he gets into office and tries to push this through?  I don’t believe for a moment that he’ll be able to get 9-9-9 through Congress. I don’t think he could get the Fairtax through right now, either, but the Fairtax is a plan with $20 million in research backing it.  Even the people that don’t support it know that it could work.  At least, the ones who are honest and have more brains than Hank Johnson.  Hopefully, he’s one of a kind.  If a legitimate plan, strongly backed and well researched, hasn’t passed yet, or even been legitimately debated, how in the world can he expect to get this new plan passed through?
What does he need to do for a recovery?  Easy.  He needs to add to the 9-9-9 plan.  Specific, spelled out time tables to transition to the Fairtax and repeal income tax permanently.  It must be included as part of the bill.  It must be passed with the rest of the plan.  To do otherwise leaves us wide open to additional taxation, not a change in taxation.
It it's current form, the 9-9-9 plan simply isn’t a plan that would work.  Period.  That' doesn’t mean I’m taking my support elsewhere, because I believe that Cain, Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich are the only candidates with what it takes to be a strong, conservative leader and fix some of the things that are broken.  Of those three, I believe that Cain is the only one with a chance to win.  I will be caucusing for him, and I will do what I can to see him in office. 
Heck, if I had my way, I’d have a beer with him election night after he kicks Obama’s lower Obama!

Occupy <insert city here> protests

Is it just me, or does it seem that the Occupy Wall Street crown gets a little more out of line each and every day?

Lets start with sheer volume.  The Tea Party Patriots movement that spawned protests all across the nation a few years back had 0 arrests attributed to it.  The OWS folks have (last numbers I got were this morning ) 1525.  That’s a lot of people being extremely stupid for a group that’s supposed to be protesting against corporate control and greed. 

Add that to the fact that you can go to any OWS protest in whatever city you find (me being local to the Seattle area, I see these schmucks out at Westlake Center every morning on my way to work – something they should try) and ask them what they are protesting.  Some of them will know the generic answer “Corporate Greed”.  Not all of them, which is really sad since it’s written on their signs, but some of them will get it.  Now, ask them some more questions.  Define corporate greed.  What do corporations do that makes them greedy?  Are all corporations greedy, or just some?  What about Apple?  Are they a greedy corporation? 

I see you’re holding an iPhone.  Does that mean you’re supporting corporate greed?  I see you’re wearing an Abercrombie shirt.  Oh, I couldn’t help but notice those Nike shoes you’re wearing.  Do you choose which corporations you support, or do you just go with the current trends and support whoever is coolest, because the cool are allowed to be greedy?

I trust you all are starting to see the point?  The Occupy Wall Street Movement, in itself, is not such a bad idea.  Corporations have caused damage by using their lobbiests in DC to try to get themselves into advantageous positions.  That is a bad thing.  OWS folks, you’re right!  The problem is, they have done so because the Government allows, even encourages and rewards, such behavior.  If I had the money to lobby for something that was advantageous to my business, don’t you think I’d do so?  Of course.  I’d be stupid not to.  These corporations that the OWS’s are complaining about would also be stupid not to.  It’s business, and it’s a competition.  That’s why iPhones don’t cost $1000.  If they did, you’d all buy Android devices instead.  DUH!

If these OWS folks want to really make a change, they need to march on DC.  March on the Capital. Camp on Pennsylvania Avenue. Protest in front of the White House.  All the little state branches should be occupying their state capitals.  The GOVERNMENT controls things in this country, and they do a piss poor job of it, I might add.  I have managed and owned several businesses.  The one thing they all had in common was that I was over-regulated, and spent far more time doing ridiculous loads of paperwork, often redundant, to send in to various government agencies, where people who are paid by the taxes that you and I pay would sift through it (eventually) and then do whatever needed to be done with it.  Whatever needed to be done often resulted in me paying them more money. 

Occupy Wall Street figured out the problem, but blamed some of the other victims because the OWSers aren’t rich and the other victims are.  Sounds like Obama rhetoric to me.  We’ve been hearing “blame the rich” for 3 years. Blame them long enough and they’ll find somewhere else to live.  They who are you going to work for?

You can occupy whatever you want.  Without the “evil rich”, you’re going to have a hard time finding a job, eating, or doing much of anything else.  Enjoy!

del.icio.us Tags: #OWS,Occupy Wall Street,Protest,OWS,Government

US Going to War. Again.

Anyone else getting REALLY tired of hearing about our newest operations over seas?  I thought the one thing Obama might actually accomplish (other than an irreversible destruction of our economy and way of live, and a massive transformation towards a totalitarian Socialist state) would be to get us OUT of wars.    Read about it on Jamie Dupree’s blog.  If you don’t follow @JamieDupree on Twitter, I suggest you do so as well.
Historically, Republican Presidents tend to tell us who to blow up where and when, and Democrat Presidents cut military spending to the point that we’re stretched so thin we couldn’t fight a war if we wanted to.  Apparently our current Dem in Chief, Obama, is more Republican than Democrat when it comes to war. 
Today there was an announcement that he order combat troops deployed to Uganda.  A whooping hundred, so it’s not out of hand yet, but the letter he sent to Congress promised there would be more.  This make 6 nations that we are currently involved in combat operations is.  Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Libia, and now Uganda.  The last time we were that embattled was also the last time we had a real DECLARED war.  WWII.  Yes, that’s right.  We have had LOTS of “police actions'”, “military involvement” and “combat operations”.  Even a solid handful of “peacekeeping missions”.  All of which are wars in one manner or another, but none of which were declared by Congress as such.  Which means, we’ve had a series of abuses by a series of Presidents taking matters into their own hands as well as a series of failures by a series of sitting Congresses to put a halt to the funding and call the President on his BS.
This President and this Congress are a tad different.  Usually it’s the Republicans that like to start wars.  What’s got this Democrat’s drawers in a wad? 
Nothing.  He’s simply doing everything he can to bring “fundamental change” to America, like he promised he would.  Stalin would be proud.  As would Mussolini, Hitler, and Mao.  Once again, our tax money being flushed down the crapper by some yutz in DC.  $15 TRILLION in debt, but we have enough money to police the planet, as if that’s our right, responsibility, or duty to do so.
It seems once again, everyone has forgotten history, and just assumes that ALL change is GOOD change.  Not even close.  I’m looking forward to some GREAT change in 2012, though.  See ya, Barry.  Your ass is out.  NEXT!

Tribal Gas Stations–Gas Tax Refunded?

I ran across this little store on the Washington Policy Center app on my Android.  I felt that I needed to share.  In a nutshell, Tribal gas stations are required to collect the State gas tax, but they can apply to be partially exempted, and the state will refund 75% of the tax collected back to the tribe. 

Full article:http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/new-wpc-study-washington-state-gives-away-gas-taxes-indian-tribes

Key points:

1) New tribal gas tax compacts negotiated by the governor require tribal fuel station operators to collect the state’s full gas tax rate, but then state officials give back 75%, or 28 cents per gallon, to tribes.

2) Since 2000, the number of tribal gas stations with agreements has more than tripled from an estimated 14 to 51.

3) Under the new agreements, the amount of gas taxes given to tribes has grown exponentially, from $5.31 million in 2005 to more than $28.14 million in 2010.

4) Since 2005, motorists lost more than $90.55 million in gas tax revenue to Indian tribes.

5) Tribal fuel station operators are consistently underselling regional non-tribal competitors by an average of 7 to 12 cents per gallon for unleaded fuel and 15 to 26 cents per gallon for diesel in most areas of the state.

6) Tribal station operators charge up to 11.5% less for fuel than their non-tribal competitors.

7) In one example, a tribal station is estimated to have sold fuel at a loss of 2.5 cents per gallon.

8) The compacts allow state gas taxes to be used for non-highway purposes, subsidizing general tribal services.

9) Under the compacts, details of the tribal audits that are required to ensure compliance are kept secret from the public and state DOL officials.

10) The compacts allow tribes to undercut private fuel station operators, give away needed revenue for roads, harm taxpayers by allowing gas tax revenue to be spent on non-highway purposes, and hurt non-tribal businesses by creating an unfair playing field among fuel station operators.

While I have a problem with this on several levels, like creating unfair competition by giving an advantage to one group, the key problem I have is the state violating the Constitution. Yes, I know, it’s nothing new.  The Feds have been violating the US Constitution for nearly 2 centuries, as far as I can tell, why should the state be any different?

The Washington State Constitution clearly states that the gas tax is to be used ONLY for roads.  Section 40 reads:

SECTION 40 HIGHWAY FUNDS. All fees collected by the State of Washington as license fees for motor vehicles and all excise taxes collected by the State of Washington on the sale, distribution or use of motor vehicle fuel and all other state revenue intended to be used for highway purposes, shall be paid into the state treasury and placed in a special fund to be used exclusively for highway purposes. Such highway purposes shall be construed to include the following:
(a) The necessary operating, engineering and legal expenses connected with the administration of public highways, county roads and city streets;
(b) The construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, and betterment of public highways, county roads, bridges and city streets; including the cost and expense of (1) acquisition of rights-of-way, (2) installing, maintaining and operating traffic signs and signal lights, (3) policing by the state of public highways, (4) operation of movable span bridges, (5) operation of ferries which are a part of any public highway, county road, or city street;
(c) The payment or refunding of any obligation of the State of Washington, or any political subdivision thereof, for which any of the revenues described in section 1 may have been legally pledged prior to the effective date of this act;
(d) Refunds authorized by law for taxes paid on motor vehicle fuels;
(e) The cost of collection of any revenues described in this section:
Provided, That this section shall not be construed to include revenue from general or special taxes or excises not levied primarily for highway purposes, or apply to vehicle operator's license fees or any excise tax imposed on motor vehicles or the use thereof in lieu of a property tax thereon, or fees for certificates of ownership of motor vehicles. [AMENDMENT 18, 1943 House Joint Resolution No. 4, p 938. Approved November, 1944.]

(link: http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx)

How does this deal with the tribes stack up to the legal requirement in what is literally our states defining document and basis for all state laws?  Clearly, it’s not being used for highway maintenance.  If they wanted to make this deal, which should never have been made, they could have gotten around this section by not having the tribes collect the tax, or only collect a part of it.  The section clearly states all taxes COLLECTED should be set aside in a special fund.  If it’s not collected, that doesn’t count, right?

Most likely that’s wrong, too. I haven’t looked into the laws passed on how, when, and where to collect the gas tax, but I’d put forth a theory that it’s written in such a way as to make that illegal as well.

This is a clear violation of the Constitution of this state.  How does it feel to know that your highway funds are being given to privileged groups to create an unfair business advantage, while at the same time depriving you of road maintenance that you were told those funds would support?  Don’t let them continue to get away with breaking the laws they pledge to support and defend.  Enough is enough and 100 times enough is way overboard.

The “Rich” Pay Fewer Taxes…..right…

I realize that it’s been a long while since my last post, and I want to start off by apologizing for that.  You know how life goes, getting busy, changing priorities, etc.  I’m getting back to it now, and seeing as I’m too cheap to spend a bunch of money on gas and take the bus to work, it seems like I have no excuse to not post on a regular basis anymore. 

That said, there is something that has been really bothering me lately.  This ignorant idea that the “Rich” pay less in federal taxes than the “Poor”, “Middle Class” and “Less Fortunate”. 

Keep in mind, we are talking about Federal taxes.  Since there are 50 states, and who knows how many counties, cities, etc. in this country that all have their own taxes, I won’t even pretend to speak on that.

The biggest lie I’ve seen in a long while is this notion that Warren Buffet pays less in taxes then does his secretary.  If you look solely at income tax, this may be the case.  I don’t know that it is, but I have no knowledge of what he pays himself or his secretary.  However, income taxes are based on, what else…. your income.  If you are a billionaire, you may not even have an income.  You’ve already earned a great deal of income, and in the year that you made it, you paid income tax on it.  Income tax has a graduated tax rate, which means the more you earn, the larger percentage they take for taxes.  So, based on income tax, the “Rich” person certainly paid not only a higher percentage, but a great deal more in actual dollars than anyone who made less.

Now, if a “Rich” person has earned $20 million a year for 20 years, they may decide to retire. Obviously, they will have plenty of money to live on, so there’s no reason to continue working unless they would like to.  They will no have no income.  Therefore, they won’t have any income tax.  They have already paid taxes on the money they earned, every single year that they earned it. 

So the plan, as I understand it, is to make them pay their “fair share” of taxes.  Hmmm….. the taxes on $20 million a year would be close to $8 million a year.  Now they are retired and have no income.  Why should they be forced to pay more taxes on money they have already paid tax on?

So that’s for income tax. There are other federal taxes as well. Most folks making $20 million a year probably aren’t doing so working as a fry cook.  Most likely they own or run some sort of business.  If they own the business, they are going to get hit for a portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes for every single person they employ.  They’ll also get the privilege of paying corporate income tax on the revenues of the business.  Remember, we are only talking about federal taxes.  There is a whole host of other taxes that business owners will have to pay to the states/counties where they do business.  Additionally, they will likely have investments.  Any gain they make through an investment would be known as a Capital Gain, and will be subject to a 15% federal tax.

Now, through all the time they’re working, they will be paying ALL of these taxes.  Once they have retired, they won’t have income tax anymore, unless they still draw a salary of some sort from any business they might own.  If they no longer own a business, they don’t have to worry about paying all the taxes related to employees, gains, corporate income tax, equipment, etc.  Like as not, they’ll still have some investments, and still have to pay the 15% capital gains tax on anything they make off that.

So, in theory, if Warren Buffet draws no salary, or less of a salary than he pays his secretary, she most certainly will be paying more than he does for INCOME tax in a year.  How can y0u tax him on income he doesn’t have?  He’ll still being paying corporate taxes (he still owns a business) and employment taxes (if he’s got a secretary, I have proof that he has at least one employee) and capital gains taxes.  How is that remotely close to unfair to working Americans that this man who has already been taxed on all the money he’s earned doesn’t have to get taxed on that same money again?  I don’t have to pay income tax for money I’ve already paid income tax for.  Do you?

Am I saying we don’t need tax reform?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!!  We DESPARATELY need tax reform.  Painting the picture in broad terms and getting people all pissed off at the people who are successful (you most likely work for one) is not the way to do it.  What needs to happen is a complete tear down of the federal tax program. Is it right that someone with millions of dollars in the bank can “earn” more through investment and pay 15% while someone earning that same amount through a salary pays 38% in taxes?  Of course not!  The entire income tax system is ridiculous to begin with.  Income tax punishes success, rewards failure, and discourages economic growth.  What we need is one flat rate that EVERYONE pays, regardless of how much they make, with no deductions.  We will need to take into consideration basic living expenses and exempt that amount from the taxation scheme, and NO OTHER EXEMPTIONS.  Gee, where can we find something like this?

Check out www.fairtax.org to learn about a system that truly is “fair”, and not in the liberal “pillage from success to reward failure” meaning of the word.