Here are some ideas off the top of my head for new amendments to the Constitution. Now they will not pass with the socialist enemies of America in charge but they might be worth thinking about.
1. Rewrites the amendment 22 to put down term limits for members of the House and Senate, limiting them to 4 House terms and 2 Senate terms.
2. Rewrites amendment 16 to outlaw progressive taxation on incomes and to force a single flat rate on all ratepayers.
3. Rewrites amendment 26 to indicate that for all legal purposes the age of adulthood begins at 18, except with due process of law in declaring one an adult earlier or later due to commission of a crime or through incompetency.
4. Would ban the federal government from spending money for, or giving funds to, non-government agencies, organizations or persons. This would have the effect of putting all welfare programs and wealth transfer programs such as medicare and social security on the state level. It would bar all forms of government subsidies and corporate welfare.
5. Bans Fractional Reserve Banking.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Plan for Re-Taking the Republican Party
George Soros took over the Democrat Party through his activities. It took years and hundreds of millions of dollars but through his many leftist organizations, especially the Center for American Progress, MoveOn, MediaMatters etc etc, he did it.
Neutralizing the Republican Party was much easier.
Open primaries and willing liberal Republicans were all that he really needed. The establishment of the GOP was more than willing to help. As a matter of fact John McCain was the candidate Soros wanted to be nominated, McCain was willing to fulfill this role. Did you know that John McCain spoke at the Soros-sponsored shadow convention in Philadelphia?
The Republican Party today is two parties. There is the McCain faction that cannot wait to compromise and then surrender to the leftists... and then there is the average GOP voter who is shocked at what his own party is doing.
Conservatives have rightly grown not to trust their own party, if the Republican Party can be said to be theirs. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, though, and that is Sarah Palin. Let me explain.
It has become quite clear that conservatives must form a party-within-a-party if they are to wrest control of the GOP from the idiot faction. They need to form their own local councils, state assemblies, national council and hold their own conventions. They need to set up their own fundraising arms and online media outlets. These things need to be kept completely separate from the Republican Party itself.
The conservatives must recruit and fund their own candidates for every race on the ballot. They must run candidates against established RINO's after selecting their candidate through an internal pre-primary. Everything from state legislature to the Presidential primary must be done this way. No need to have multiple movement candidates splitting the vote running against a RINO in an open primary where ACORN voters can make the difference.
This conservative faction must be able to communicate with its membership online as well as set up its own media outlets. From press releases to online radio to online television will be an important part of keeping members engaged.
An online TV "channel" with multiple newscasts per day, opinion pundits and pro-conservative programming is a must. It could be set up sort of like the Christian Broadcasting Network has theirs set up. Note they have separated CBN News Channel and CBN-TV and also have a spanish-language channel.
I would expect there to be an online radio system, with feeds from different regions that focused on state and local politics, not just national. But its not just politics is it? It's the culture, its the family and everything else thats being countered by the far left. We must respond.
So which conservative has the support, the charisma and the "can do" attitude that could actually get this done? The only one out there working tirelessly to counter and even ridicule the left and those in power is Sarah Palin. She even makes other conservative "leaders" look lazy.
Of course it needs to be done no matter who leads it to getting done. It will not mean we have support them for President, we can still support them for conservatism.
Neutralizing the Republican Party was much easier.
Open primaries and willing liberal Republicans were all that he really needed. The establishment of the GOP was more than willing to help. As a matter of fact John McCain was the candidate Soros wanted to be nominated, McCain was willing to fulfill this role. Did you know that John McCain spoke at the Soros-sponsored shadow convention in Philadelphia?
The Republican Party today is two parties. There is the McCain faction that cannot wait to compromise and then surrender to the leftists... and then there is the average GOP voter who is shocked at what his own party is doing.
Conservatives have rightly grown not to trust their own party, if the Republican Party can be said to be theirs. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, though, and that is Sarah Palin. Let me explain.
It has become quite clear that conservatives must form a party-within-a-party if they are to wrest control of the GOP from the idiot faction. They need to form their own local councils, state assemblies, national council and hold their own conventions. They need to set up their own fundraising arms and online media outlets. These things need to be kept completely separate from the Republican Party itself.
The conservatives must recruit and fund their own candidates for every race on the ballot. They must run candidates against established RINO's after selecting their candidate through an internal pre-primary. Everything from state legislature to the Presidential primary must be done this way. No need to have multiple movement candidates splitting the vote running against a RINO in an open primary where ACORN voters can make the difference.
This conservative faction must be able to communicate with its membership online as well as set up its own media outlets. From press releases to online radio to online television will be an important part of keeping members engaged.
An online TV "channel" with multiple newscasts per day, opinion pundits and pro-conservative programming is a must. It could be set up sort of like the Christian Broadcasting Network has theirs set up. Note they have separated CBN News Channel and CBN-TV and also have a spanish-language channel.
I would expect there to be an online radio system, with feeds from different regions that focused on state and local politics, not just national. But its not just politics is it? It's the culture, its the family and everything else thats being countered by the far left. We must respond.
So which conservative has the support, the charisma and the "can do" attitude that could actually get this done? The only one out there working tirelessly to counter and even ridicule the left and those in power is Sarah Palin. She even makes other conservative "leaders" look lazy.
Of course it needs to be done no matter who leads it to getting done. It will not mean we have support them for President, we can still support them for conservatism.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Death of Big Media is a good thing
I do not lament the death of big media in this country, in fact I applaud it. It is not only technology that is hastening the downfall of the newspaper or the big television networks, it is their ideology. The business model of the newspaper does not work anymore, news is more efficiently delivered online-even if its paid for.
The New York Times could save a bundle of money by giving all of its subscribers a free Kindle and stop printing the paper edition. Think about that. What if your big local paper announced it would give you a Kindle or a Netbook for your subscription dollars. Newspaper companies don't even want to consider this right now, but it makes sense.
Then there is their ideological bias. The newspapers in this country, especially the largest ones, have become so leftist that they are downright socialist in outlook. The recent Thomas Friedman column is an example of that rampant tyranny gene growing.
Of course if you get a Kindle or Netbook from your local big daily who is to say you wouldn't also get e-editions of the National Review or the Washington Times? You can bet that when millions and millions of people start paying for news to get these devices that conservative and libertarian alternatives will be offered.
Even satellite and cable television networks are finding that the internet is part of their competition. Google and Youtube are going to start selling movie downloads, something Netflix already does. Who is to say that pro-freedom media groups won't form to offer online television "channels"?
Broadcast is becoming widecast. Soon you will have dozens or hundreds or thousands of online viewing options. Some of them will be big studio productions and some of them will be home-made. They will have about as level a playing field as anyone can imagine.
Imagine a day when the biggest news scandals are ignored by the "mainstream" media but everyone knows about it. Those who still depend on the old media for news were scratching their heads last week when Van Jones resigned amid "weeks" of scandal. New York Times readers found out about it 3 days later.
I think we should all be looking forward to the day when conservative and libertarian internet TV channels reach millions of viewers.
The New York Times could save a bundle of money by giving all of its subscribers a free Kindle and stop printing the paper edition. Think about that. What if your big local paper announced it would give you a Kindle or a Netbook for your subscription dollars. Newspaper companies don't even want to consider this right now, but it makes sense.
Then there is their ideological bias. The newspapers in this country, especially the largest ones, have become so leftist that they are downright socialist in outlook. The recent Thomas Friedman column is an example of that rampant tyranny gene growing.
Of course if you get a Kindle or Netbook from your local big daily who is to say you wouldn't also get e-editions of the National Review or the Washington Times? You can bet that when millions and millions of people start paying for news to get these devices that conservative and libertarian alternatives will be offered.
Even satellite and cable television networks are finding that the internet is part of their competition. Google and Youtube are going to start selling movie downloads, something Netflix already does. Who is to say that pro-freedom media groups won't form to offer online television "channels"?
Broadcast is becoming widecast. Soon you will have dozens or hundreds or thousands of online viewing options. Some of them will be big studio productions and some of them will be home-made. They will have about as level a playing field as anyone can imagine.
Imagine a day when the biggest news scandals are ignored by the "mainstream" media but everyone knows about it. Those who still depend on the old media for news were scratching their heads last week when Van Jones resigned amid "weeks" of scandal. New York Times readers found out about it 3 days later.
I think we should all be looking forward to the day when conservative and libertarian internet TV channels reach millions of viewers.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
I am a freedomist
I have no political party. I am a political orphan in a land of dying dinosaurs.
It does not bother me that I might be alone. Individualists should not really complain about being alone, they're supposed to enjoy and thrive on it.
Government is the most inefficient and unfair means of wealth distribution possible. It would be impossible to come up with a worse way to do it, even blind chance would be better. Giving power and money to government should be considered a sign of mental health problems.
Anyone who thinks they can trust a politician is literally too stupid to breathe.
It does not bother me that I might be alone. Individualists should not really complain about being alone, they're supposed to enjoy and thrive on it.
Government is the most inefficient and unfair means of wealth distribution possible. It would be impossible to come up with a worse way to do it, even blind chance would be better. Giving power and money to government should be considered a sign of mental health problems.
Anyone who thinks they can trust a politician is literally too stupid to breathe.
The Crisis
Healthcare crisis, housing crisis, environmental crisis, flu crisis.... etc etc
Government creates a crisis
media fans the flames, celebrities spout off
Schools teach kids to worry about it
Kids bug parents to worry about it
Government offers a solution
Dissenters are called names, crisis deniers!
Apparently higher taxes, poorer us, and more government employees is the answer to every single crisis.
Government creates a crisis
media fans the flames, celebrities spout off
Schools teach kids to worry about it
Kids bug parents to worry about it
Government offers a solution
Dissenters are called names, crisis deniers!
Apparently higher taxes, poorer us, and more government employees is the answer to every single crisis.
The Right to Respond
Let us say, objectively speaking, that we are citizens of a nation that is falling. Times are getting tough and will only get worse and we want the politicians to hear our voices. We, most of us, feel our voices are being heard because there are voices we agree with on the radio, on TV and in the press. We always have the power to write our opinions online.
What happens if the state begins to restrict those rights? Will more and more people begin to rise up and protest? How many will shut up completely?
If the government of a country totally bans opposition voices from the media, censors the Internet and bans protest marches... what is left? How should the people react? Should they hold their tongues and go about their lives? Would not this simply encourage the government to stomp on them again and again?
At what point do the people of a country have the moral obligation to pick up rocks and hurl them at the limousines? To take down power lines and cellular phone towers? To do what they can to disrupt the operations of the state that has silenced them.
At what point do the citizenry have the duty to form their own army and attempt to drive the tyrants out?
What happens if the state begins to restrict those rights? Will more and more people begin to rise up and protest? How many will shut up completely?
If the government of a country totally bans opposition voices from the media, censors the Internet and bans protest marches... what is left? How should the people react? Should they hold their tongues and go about their lives? Would not this simply encourage the government to stomp on them again and again?
At what point do the people of a country have the moral obligation to pick up rocks and hurl them at the limousines? To take down power lines and cellular phone towers? To do what they can to disrupt the operations of the state that has silenced them.
At what point do the citizenry have the duty to form their own army and attempt to drive the tyrants out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)