As if things couldn't get worse in California.

“Starting January 25th, thousands of dangerous criminals will be released early from California state prisons – and for the first time in nearly 30 years, sent back to local communities without any supervision,” stated the Los Angeles Police Protective League.”


What sucks for Californians most is that they have very strict gun laws. So they are told, "You don't need guns for self defense. We have Police and Court and Prisons to handle criminals. Don't be a vigilante." And now the "justice" system is failing them but they abdicated the right of armed self defense.
Add to this the ending of many of the state welfare programs, like CalWorks, and you have a population ready to revolt.

May God have mercy on them, because MS13 won't.

Freedom is great, right?

Why do statists get angry when I advocate for more freedom?

If I was advocating a Democrat's agenda then you could get angry that I want to tax you for Welfare.
If I was advocating a Republican's agenda then you could get angry that I wanted to tax you for Warfare.

But, I advocate a Libertarian agenda. I am not trying to force you to do anything or take anything away from you. I just want to be left alone.

I mean, most Americans say the reason America is the best country in the history of mankind is because of our freedom. Our founders sought to, “secure the blessings of liberty.”

We proudly sing, "My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty... Land of the free and home of the brave... I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free... with liberty and justice for all"

Then why do I have to justify to you why freedom is better than tyranny? Shouldn't the default policy decision in a free country be more liberty? Shouldn't you have to persuade me that tyranny is better than freedom?

Do we just believe that freedom is a nice idea, but it just isn't practical? That it just doesn't work in the real world? Freedom is great, but people are just too stupid to be free? Human beings are dumb beasts meant to be herded by their betters? Do we believe in a world of Slaves and Masters?

Didn't the fall of the Soviet Union show that political dictatorships and command economies don't work?

Wouldn't most people prefer to live in a free country? Free countries have to build walls to keep people out, while dictatorships have to build walls to keep people in.

Minimum Wage

Arizona voters passed Proposition 202 in November, raising the minimum wage to $6.75 an hour. Now workers are losing their job opportunities, just as free-market economists warned. The jobs that disappear as minimum wages creep up are usually not seen, but Arizona residents are witness to a clear example now.

Between 3,000 and 5,000 disabled workers are at serious risk of losing their jobs. Until now, they were exempt from federal minimum wage laws that made allowances for their special needs. The companies could reward their disabled workers with token amounts of money, sometimes as little as two dollars a week. The disabled also gained a chance to feel independent and develop job skills at a slow pace with a company that made allowances for their physical and mental conditions..

Randy Gray, president and chief executive officer of the Mesa Adult Rehabilitation Center in Mesa, Ariz. explained the rationale behind the federal exemption, "Why would someone want to hire someone who works at 10 percent and pay them 100 percent?"

But wait a minute, isn't that the point of allowing the market to set a person's wage? Those who produce less, earn less? The productivity of a day’s labor is not equal amongst all workers, so pay isn't either. If working hard was an entitlement to high pay, then ditch diggers would be millionaires. You must work hard and smart, which is one reason college is so important in attaining a high paying job. Why would an employer pay a person more than their labor produces? More specifically, why pay a person $6.75 an hour when what they produce can only be sold for $5.15.

Most of us have earned the minimum wage at some point in our lives. My experience working at Burger King was like that of millions of Americans: It was the first and last time I earned minimum wage. The truth is the older you get, the less likely you are to earn minimum wage. Among workers over the age of 25, less than 1 percent earn minimum wage.

Minimum-wage jobs are important because they represent the first rung on the employment ladder. If you raise the minimum wage, you hurt those you want to help, the poorest that have to struggle more to get a start.

The opportunity to get a job, even at the ground floor, is better than no opportunity at all for millions of young people. These jobs are where we learn how to take direction, be on time and interact with colleagues and customers. Young Arizonans need these first-time experiences so they can move on to better paying jobs later. Jobs that pay minimum wage are a beginning, not for a person to try and support a spouse and kids.

The idea of a minimum wage appeals to our best intentions. We don't like the idea that people can work hard, play by the rules and still be poor. It seems unfair that the fat-cat CEOs are making millions, while the lowest workers must survive with public assistance. Rebekah Friend, president of the Arizona AFL-CIO affiliate and original chairperson of the minimum wage campaign expressed, "Whether they're disabled or not, they're workers. What do we value? Someone who gets up and, against those odds (disabilities), goes to work every day, deserves the minimum wage, which is not a living wage."

In the movie “Unforgiven” Clint Eastwood sums up life when he says, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." Workers deserve only what they freely and mutually negotiate with their employer. We all get a chance to “take it or leave it” before we start any job. Sometimes you feel desperate, and are willing to take almost anything, but you do have a minimum. I don't think anyone feels they need a politician to make our career decisions for us. You make the decision what is fair compensation for your labor. That is your personal minimum wage.

In the real world, you can either work for what you want or you can hope that the government gives it to you. Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark said, “A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you.”

It's the System, Stupid

I came upon this article being done by ABC which reveals the fat cat donors who helped fund the DNC convention in Denver.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5667999&page=1

It is funny to be because many people stereotype Republicans as being in the pocket of it's corporate overlords. But, as the article reveals, the Democrats have the money coming in now in advance of their expected takeover of Congress.

I'm not the first to say that, "Elections are just a futures market for stolen goods."

It is also interesting to see the videos of legions of police clad in black armour, toting billy clubs. It seems the police state isn't just protection Republicans either. Do you think the libertarian party convention will get it's own riot cops and swat teams?

What do you do in a two-party system, when both parties are power-hungry and corrupt?

One Inch Revolution

"Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for _____" is a sarcastic bumper sticker people use to express their feelings of contempt toward the current government, while washing their hands of responsibility for the actions of the current administration. I’m sorry, but I still blame you.

Whether it is Republicans or Democrats in office it is a case of, “Meet your new boss, same as your old boss.” But there is a third option out there, other than moving to Canada. There are several so-called “third parties” to choose from.

I have been a registered Libertarian for years. The Libertarian platform combines the traditional aspects of both the Democratic and Republican parties; social liberalism, from the Democrats, and fiscal conservatism, from the Conservatives. Do you like the Democrats but hate their desire to raise taxes to pay for all sorts of social programs? Do you tend to agree with the Republicans, but think they should lay off legislating morality? Then you may be a Libertarian.

There is also the Green Party, Reform Party, a variety of smaller state parties and independent candidates. However, since 1853 history has recorded nothing but Democrats and Republicans in the presidency. Congress also has a 99 percent Republican and Democrat make-up.

When it comes to government spending, our elected representatives have shown there is really only one party. The U.S. budget has grown under Republicans and Democrats alike. Not even the Republicans try and cut the size of the government anymore. Both parties now fight over who gets control of the checkbook. The party in power is able to legislate on behalf of their corporate sponsors, and in-turn receive more campaign contributions.

A recent Gallup poll rated public satisfaction with Congress at 23 percent, a 12 year low, which I would suspect is ranks above hernias but below airline food. With so much dissatisfaction of the political status quo, why do voters keep putting these major parties back into office?

Many disaffected citizens have a mistaken belief that their vote doesn’t matter or things can’t change. That attitude is a victory for the major parties who are most interested in retaining control. Why worry about the best interest of disenfranchised non-voters? Instead they focus on pleasing their corporate overlords. Only a small portion of eligible voters register, only a third of those registered vote and only a tiny fraction of those who vote have the tenacity to choose a third party. If this continues, I'm sure we can look forward to Jenna Bush running against Chelsea Clinton in the 2024 election while Halliburton will still be getting no-bid contracts for serving food to our forces in the liberation of Venezuela’s oil fields.

Things can change. Our leaders don’t hold power through force, but shrewd marketing. It is time for a change. It is time for a revolution. Our forefathers knew authority should hold only a tenuous grasp on power. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. ”

For those reasons, the United States was designed to have a peaceful revolution every election. Perhaps the framers of the constitution could not have foreseen the rise of mega-parties and voter apathy, but the power does still ultimately lie with the people.

The revolution needed in this country is so close, and the power is in your hands. First, register to vote, and tell your friends to do the same. Not only your like-minded friends, but also that dumb guy who wants to do a write in vote for Hue Jass. Secondly, actually go out and vote. By law your employer has to let you leave work to vote, so treat it like a free lunch break. But when you vote, ignore the “Us vs. Them” marketing of both parties. Don’t satisfy yourself with voting for the lesser of two evils or automatically vote for the person with a "D" or "R" next to their name. Move your finger down One Inch below the Republican and Democrat status quo to a third party, any third party.

If the 77 percent of people who are dissatisfied with our representation did that, we would wake up the next morning in a new America. The America representing the principles of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison and Adams. Wake up America, and then wake up the politicians!

The New & Improved Deal

“If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” (Henry Ford)

First, the US economy is highly based on consumer spending. One way to increase consumer spending is to make easy credit, i.e. credit cards and other vehicles. At some point, consumers must stop buying, and start repaying credit cards (beyond interest). With credit you buy now, and pay later. Most people just imagine that later never comes. When this happens, consumers buy fewer goods causing a small recession.

However, this isn’t allowed to happen. The Federal Reserve is pressured by congress and the stock market to lowers interest rates, which in turn lowers all interest rates. This makes it easier for everyone to get credit and increases demand for goods and services.

As a side effect, it also increases the supply of money in circulation. In this short term, this also increases the demand for consumer goods and homes. However, soon the market realizes the demand is inflationary, and then the price of everything goes up. As consumer prices rise, budgets get tighter and it is harder to pay bills. People begin defaulting on their credit payments, including mortgages.

Further low interest rates are a message that credit is easy to get and both borrowers and lender make riskier decisions than they would have. This creates malinvestment.

The finance industry has been profiting from the credit boom. For example, they profited in the short run by pushing loans on risky people. But as people default on the loans, it takes the very same banks under.

And banks were also taking on lots of debt in the credit-induced mania. Carlyle capital had a $21.7 billion mortgage portfolio that was supported by just $670 million of net assets.

Now these mortgage backed portfolios have some net worth, basically the money you get when people pay on their mortgage. And they were pretty safe; most people don't like to lose their homes. But there are problems. Easy credit was driving up demand for homes, and encouraging real-estate speculation. This inflated the prices of homes. A person who bought a property at market peak may have a 500k loan on a 300k home. This includes people who took out equity lines of credit against the imaginary equity in the appreciation of their homes.

At some point there was a market correction. Once the market had its correction most people weren't willing to be "upside down" on a home loan, especially speculators. They just mail back the keys to the bank, called "jingle mail"

Now as this started happening en mass, the value of the mortgage backed securities plummet. Billions and Billions of dollars in "wealth" were artificial, and vanished leaving banks holding the bag. Increases in wealth to to increased standard of living, now we have decreasing standard of living, like USSR.

Now there are calls to save the banks. I feel bad for the banks that having problems, because the Fed enabled their activities. It was like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers. But we can’t just ignore the laws of economics, any more than we can ignore the law of gravity. Instead of letting the bubble pop, the Federal Reserve is attempting to keep the value of the mortgage securities high.

They do this by “buying” the securities and giving cash loans to the banks with the worthless securities as collateral. If they don’t do this, the entire market for securities may collapse. But someone is on the hook if the securities collapse, the American taxpayers. We are “eating” the bad debt. Or in other cases, otherwise healthy banks are doing the same thing. BoA bought Countrywide and Bear Sterns was eaten by JP Morgan Chase.

Is the fed “injection of liquity” going to create more inflation, creating more defaults?
Again people say Captialism failed. The Fed created the first Great Depression and it did it again.

And what happens now? Is the Federal Reserve held accountable for creating another bubble? No. Incompetence is rewarded in government. Federal Reserve is granted more power, even though it created the problem. It was only responsible for protecting banks through the use of loans, but now oversees entire financial industry.

It is up to the taxpayer, who by and large wasn't profiting in the financial speculation to catch the falling knife.

Why Constitutions Matter

In the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights the word "democracy" does not appear a single time in the text. This is not because such learned men had never heard of the concept, but because they knew all about democracy and wanted to avoid it as much as possible. The biggest shortcoming of democracy is the "tyranny of the majority" where minority viewpoints were oppressed.

Today we live in a country under the tyranny of the slim majority. We all face an uncertain future where what we are free to do today may be illegal tomorrow. If 51% of people are in favor of something, the other 49% of people are screwed.
If Republicans win, Democrats are screwed. If Democrats win, Republicans are screwed. Washington politics have become a high stakes power struggle and special interests battle to the death to "win it all or lose everything."

When the independent states came together to write a constitution, they foresaw this exact situation. The constitutional delegates feared handing the keys of power to another dictator, after suffering a long, bloody war to achieve freedom.

The framers knew that people would never agree on most issues. The constitution itself was barely agreed to. The solution, in essence, was to agree to disagree, and not fight about it. For that reason they created a federal government with strictly limited powers and enumerated duties, leaving a majority of decisions to the states and the people.

A federal government, unrestrained by the constitution can do anything it pleases. The Legislature can write any law. The Judiciary can create laws by ruling on cases. The Executive can ignore or interpret the law in any way through the use of signing statements and executive decree. President Reagan joked when he said, "I have just signed legislation outlawing Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." But, sadly, that is exactly the nation we live in today. If you can get majority support, you can bomb anything.

A constitution that can mean anything means nothing. What we have in the US now is not a constitutional republic but mob rule. Our nation is becoming more and more polarized, antagonistic, and disenfranchised with their representation. This is the result of a "winner takes all" form of politics.

Such a path can only lead to the failure of the union, and the end of the greatest attempt by a people to live free in the history of mankind. No one can know what will rise from the ashes but if 10,000 years of human history is any guide, it won't be a free nation.