Liberals for years have become more and more radical in their views and have been steadily dragging the republican party leftwards toward Marxist policies, which is why they got handed their pink slips during 2006/2008. McCain, Snowe, Graham, Huckaby and the list goes on.

The biggest shift, especially during the Bush reign, has been the total lack of fiscal conservatism and the renegade move to passionate conservatism (what some like to call ‘moderate’), which is nothing more than (socially) conservative (fiscal) liberalism imo. What’s worse is that bc ‘their’ guy (Buxh) was in office and Republicrats controlled Congress 2000-2006, conservatism, except the fundamentalist mentality, went out the window. So long as they followed the herd disposition and party line, all was fine. Both major political parties do it and in the modern era the blending of both party policies have been blurred to the point of obscurity. There truly isn’t that big of a difference between the two major parties any longer, especially if you examine their actions closely. Take the Obama administration for example. They have accepted, maintained and even expanded upon a majority of Buxh’s mandates and policies. Yet, you rarely see the mainstream media make that case.

This is why it’s a good thing to have checks and balances and not have one party with complete control over the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches of GovCo, like what we are experiencing currently, or during 2000-2006. 1994-2000 were good times, right?

The two-party system is a joke – all sorts of factors have led to the inability of third parties to gain traction, ranging from government laws to corporate media. The extremely restrictive ballot access laws in NC are part of the problem, for example:
http://www.lpnc.org/

Other big issues I have are the allowing of straight-party ticket voting, curbside voting and one-stop voting, especially in NC. This time around it primarily helped elect Democrats, yes, but there was a time not long ago when the tables were turned. An uninformed electorate is the biggest threat to this country and it is quickly becoming the norm by allowing such activities to take place.

11/09 Elections in Charlotte
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/Mecklenburg/11010/18880/en/reports.html
Curbside Voting – 92% to democrats
One Stop Voting – 60% to democrats
Straight Party Ticket Voting – 57% to democrats

Both of the major political parties advocate straight-ticket voting because it allows them to “hide” unqualified candidates in the hope that party loyalty will sweep their candidates into office. Requiring voters to go race by race through the ballot encourages more thoughtful decisions and, therefore, more responsible choices.

At least 33 states do not permit straight-party voting. Anyone can still vote for candidates of just one party – they just have to vote for them one-by-one, rather than all at once.

After voting in Mecklenburg County and seeing the results here:
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/Mecklenburg/11010/18880/en/summary.html

It has become quite obvious to me that straight party ticket voting is a problem in this country, particularly in this state, and that this(these) statute(s)/law(s) needs to be changed because of the negative implications on the democratic process.

I’ve been thinking about this since the 2004 election, (when Buxh was swept back into office as a result of these voting policies) and recently decided to make it my ultimate goal to get a ballot referendum that will remove these options from the ballot in NC, hopefully beginning in 2012. Presently, I’m preparing a petition to begin circulation.

…………..

Does anyone know what statute/bill allowed straight-party ticket voting in NC? The http://www.ncga.state.nc.us search function isn’t narrowing my search and is very difficult to navigate. Does anyone know how to a get ballot referendum started and how to obtain widespread circulation of the petition to get the necessary signatures to get it ‘approved’? Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

…………….

My ideal is to first enact http://www.termlimits.org on every politician at every level of GovCo, national/state/local. All restrictive ballot access laws would be abolished and thrown out, as they were created by the two-party system monopoly in the first place to cement their power. Big Media would then be required to allow all front-runners of each major party in each election equal opportunity on the airwaves, as this is something that rarely happens nowadays during televised debates, etc. The Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Republican Party, Green Party, Democrat Party, and any others you can imagine that garner the most votes, would be granted fair access to both the ballot box and the mainstream news cycle, like the two major political parties currently enjoy.

……………..

Now about the supposed majority support for a public option in these so called health care ‘reform’(sic) bills.

Let’s consider the following things (things Obama supporters would rather not think about):

A) The United States is $12 trillion in debt.
B) The dollar has never been weaker – there is talk from other countries of replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
C) The United States’ biggest creditors – including China – are expressing enormous concern that we are not serious about paying our debt back, making them less likely to support our currency and deficits.
D) It is well known fact that Medicare and Social Security are going to be broke in a few years and that our current entitlement system (without this new health care plan) will almost surely bankrupt our nation.
E) Federal government’s unfunded liability to Medicare: $73 TRILLION
F) Unfunded liability for prescription drug benefit: $18 TRILLION
G) Unfunded liability for Social Security: $14 TRILLION
H) Unfunded liability for government-run health care (if passed): ????
I) US national debt: $12 TRILLION

Now, with these facts in mind (yes, facts, not opinions), how could anyone support adding an additional multi-trillion dollar entitlement program? Do we not understand the severe ramifications of such a move? Do we not see that we cannot print and borrow money forever?

Bookmark and Share This Entry

Why are all the major cities in America mostly Democrat, while the suburbs (and outlying countryside) Conservative?

I was asked this today and I have a very simple answer…..

Because the more people you have, especially in a smaller confined area like a city, the greater the chance of oligarchic collectivism. This puts government more in control, which makes political connections matter more for/than actually getting things done. Decentralizing the population leads to less government control, which means people doing things for themselves and cooperating with neighbors to make things happen rather than sitting back & waiting for some government agency or official to ‘help’. Democrats want government control of most everything, Republicans less so, Libertarians least so. “Major cities” are full of self-aggrandizing big-government advocates who gain power by handing out government goodies (welfare, free health care, free food, etc, etc) to the leeches they call their constituents, at the expense of the taxpayers unfortunate enough to live, work or run businesses within their jurisdiction. Conservatives, for the most part, choose to escape the burden of taxation without representation.

Bookmark and Share This Entry

Whenever I speak of forcible resistance against “government,” some people respond with things like, “How can you be for violence?” And almost everyone who says that is both delusional and hypocritical.

I admit, compared to almost everyone else, my political views are very extreme. For example, I don’t advocate that anyone ever be forced to fund something that they don’t want to fund. I don’t support robbery, even when the stolen loot is to be used for something supposedly noble or beneficial. No Democrat or Republican can honestly say that. Though they differ on how the politicians should spend the loot, every single one of them advocates that I be robbed, under threat of violence, to pay for things that I don’t want. And, of course, they also advocate that you be robbed to pay for things that you don’t want.

I don’t. Ain’t I extreme?

The trouble is, even though every Republican and Democrat advocates the initiation of violence against millions of people who haven’t harmed anyone, the way people see reality is so warped by the “authority” myth that they can’t see that what they advocate is coercion. They think that calling it “law” or “taxation” somehow makes it legitimate and disqualifies it as violence. And yet they know that anyone who doesn’t pay the federal Mafia’s extortion fees will be punished, with either extra robbery or imprisonment (or death if they continue to resist). It’s not that they are unaware of the violence behind all “laws”; it’s that they think it automatically righteous when “government” does it, and so they don’t call it violence.

The most bizarre example is the people who say, “I abhor violence, so I’m for gun control.” Oh, really? And how, exactly, will this “gun control” be imposed? By friendly suggestion? By rational argument? By a group hug? Or by men with guns forcibly disarming the general public? “Gun control” is violence. Even worse, it is the initiation of violence against people whose only sin is having the ability to defend themselves. And using violence against someone merely because that person possessed the means to protect himself is violent, evil, hypocritical and insane.

And such lunacy is the direct result of the belief in “authority.” If, for example, a burglar broke into someone’s house, and the homeowner pulled out a knife and threatened to attack the crook if he didn’t leave, how would most people judge that? Most would obviously see the invader as the bad guy, and the guy trying to chase him away as the good guy. But if the burglar happens to be called a “tax collector,” and tries to forcibly rob someone, and his intended victim resists, nearly everyone would loudly condemn the victim of the extortion as being a nasty, “violent” criminal.

That is why, when I say that using force to defend against those who initiate violence–even when that violence is called “law” or “taxes,” and even when the attackers call themselves “government” or “law-enforcement”–most people view me as the violent one. This is because almost everyone truly believes that when you make an actual crime (trespassing, robbery, extortion, assault, kidnapping, murder, etc.) “legal,” it ceases to be a crime. They further believe that resisting a crime, when the crime has been “legalized,” is a horrible thing to do.

Almost everyone in this country advocates constant, widespread violence, but they are too deluded to know it. Often the violence is fairly hidden, because the mere threat of authoritarian retaliation (for not paying “taxes,” for building something without a “permit,” for possessing an “illegal” weapon or an “illegal” substance, and so on) is often enough to coerce compliance. In those cases, statists can pretend that people obey “voluntarily,” though that makes about as much sense as saying that someone “voluntarily” gave his car to a carjacker, in order to avoid being shot. But even when the government violence is overt and bloody, as with the “war on drugs,” or foreign wars, or even some traffic stops these days, statists are still unable to see that what they are advocating is BRUTAL, BLOODY VIOLENCE. Worse yet, when I suggest that it would be justified to use whatever force it takes to stop such aggressive force, the statists see me as the “violent” one.

To illustrate this hypocrisy, I like to make the following offer, to anyone and everyone who considers himself peaceful and civilized: “I will never initiate violence against you myself, nor advocate that anyone else do so.” When I ask if someone will do the same for me, he always says “yes.” And almost no one who says that means it, as a simple follow-up question easily illustrates: “So you don’t advocate that I be forced, via ‘taxes,’ to fund anything that I don’t want to fund?” That’s when they start to backpedal, make excuses, start to use vague euphemisms about one’s “fair share,” and so on. “Okay, so you won’t promise to refrain from advocating the initiation of violence against me. That’s good to know.”

Here is a very simple principle that almost everyone understands:

“Don’t ever start a fight, but if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.” And yet, because of the cult belief in “government,” that simple rule sometimes turns completely upside down: “It’s okay to start a fight with everyone in the country (via ‘taxes’ and other ‘laws’), and okay to violently crush anyone who tries to defend himself against your attack.” Well, if such lunacy is considered to be an acceptable, civilized, mainstream attitude–which it is in this country, and throughout most of the world—then I’m happy to be “extreme.”

http://www.larkenrose.com

Bookmark and Share This Entry

$69 Billion: The amount of new disposable income President Bush’s tax cuts provided to American households in 2002.

35-40 Percent: The average portion of their earnings Americans pay out each year in taxes.

$1,040: The average tax increase if President Bush’s tax cuts expire.

104 Million: The number of Americans who will be hit with tax increases if President Bush’s tax cuts expire.

$350 Billion: The amount of tax relief already promised to the American people that Ted Kennedy alone wants to revoke. Instead of going back to taxpayers, this money will be poured into new Big Government spending sprees such as government-run medicine and new welfare handouts. Hillary Clinton and others are also pushing to defeat President Bush’s new proposed tax cuts.

25 Percent: The number of small businesses — one out of every four — that will be forced out of business if the Death Tax is reinstated. Remember: The Death Tax is the leading cause of the termination of successful small businesses in America.

$1,928: The tax hike faced by a family of four making $46,756 if President Bush’s cuts in income tax rates are not made permanent.

43 Percent: The percentage of married couples affected by the Marriage Penalty before it was reduced by President Bush. These families will be hit hard once again if the Marriage Penalty is reinstated.

$1,480: The average penalty in 2000 for couples punished by the Marriage Penalty.

13 Million: The number of American seniors who will see their taxes reduced by an average of $920 if President Bush’s tax cuts are made permanent

Bookmark and Share This Entry

First let us postulate that computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.

If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite – just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

Bookmark and Share This Entry