Kill Bill: Vol 3 - Viva La Sovereignty!

In almost as swift a blow as the five point-palm exploding heart technique used in Kill Bill, the American people have triumphed over the vote-buying Democrats and the profit-at-any-cost Big Business Republicans.

The people have officially shut down the senate switchboard!!!! They couldn't take it any longer.

The Immigration Deal is officially dead!!!! Viva Los Estados Unidos.

I'll sum up the story for all those who can't stand the boredom and drudgery that I endure daily:

1. Word spreads of an immigration deal reached across the aisle involving Bush-McCain-Kennedy.

2. The original talking points on the bill pleased many people, but there were opponents on the fringes of both sides.

3. Soon, as more information got out, the problems began coagulating. Legal aliens, the border security crowd, strict constitutionalists, and regular Americans began making calls.

4. The calls were largely a result of rallying cries on talk radio.

5. Trent Lott, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry call for more fairness(read government intrusion) in radio.

6. The bill goes down...but the big dogs bring out their defibrillators of unconstitutionality to revive it.

7. The Congress looks like a house of mad hatters as they run around trying to buy votes and add more earmarks than a "page-a-day" self-help book.

8. Hundreds of thousands of individual voters call Washington (maybe they can make free long distance illegal too). The switchboard is overloaded and shut down.

9. Kill Bill: Vol 3 - Don't Tread On Me, BITCHES!!!

Now, why do so many people have a problem with Mexicans? They don't.

While the race pimps will always be there to tell you that you are a racist, most dissenters to this bill aren't of that persuasion.

Illegal immigrants do not do work that Americans won't do. They do work at wages that Americans will not work for. It was not more than a few decades ago when a financially smart construction worker of any race could make his way to the upper middle class. Now, you have to be a contractor who hires illegals to do the same. This is all peachy to the non-blue collar laborers, until the new working class wants to move up. Then what?

In all probability, there is no problem at all allowing hard workers to help us build our nation. Allowing in only the best is the whole point of legal immigration; it is simply the allowance of undocumented, untraceable, people which frightens people. In all actuality, those who have in the past been the most racist(Religious Conservatives and some groups of Southerners), have little problem with hard working, largely-devout Hispanics.

And...the coup-de-gras, Talk Radio. I posted about this a few days ago if you want to check it out - READ ME. The drumbeat for the "Fairness Doctrine" has become less faint than I had described previously. Brought on largely by this immigration bill, the power of the people flexed it's muscle(by that I mean phone curls and finger motor skills exercises). BRAVO AMERICANS!!!

This reminds me of a quote from a book I quote often - 1984:

"If there was hope, it lies with the Proles."

Proles is Orwell's slang term for the proletariat, a largely ignorant, and mostly free group of people that make up nearly the entire populace. He refers to the fact that if the politically apathetic masses ever chose to rose up, it would be a quick coup de etat.

Anyway, SPEAK YOUR MIND, CALL YOUR SENATORS, AND DON'T LISTEN TO ANYONE OVER 30 (I'm 23).

Live Free or Die,

Marc

One more thing: Although the "Fairness Doctrine" is the ultimate in Bull Shit, I wonder if all the liberal private media will be spade (Only conservatism can be neutered). Maybe Limbaugh can sit on Keith Olberman's Show, probably not. Us ignorami can't understand the complexities of the issues, nor can we understand how a little progressive is the new center.

Like pink is the new blue...for trannies...

Supreme Court Trades Robes for Vestments. Deny Jesus Being a Pothead.

Three Supreme Court decisions today reveal the court's bias towards aiding Christian causes.

It is unfortunate that fiscal conservatives must often defend their reasoning for voting Republican because of the actions of social conservatives. Today, the Supreme Court came to a few decisions on how much they can bastardize our Constitution. Apparently, anything the bible-thumpers want, the bible-thumpers get.

The three cases resolved issues unrelated to their initial causes and implications. It is perhaps only a coincidence that three decisions in a row today were issued within hours of each other on the side of the church.

The three cases are(All 5-4 decisions split along party lines):

1. Anti-abortion fanatics get campaign finance reform deballified.

2. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" - Not free speech

3. Taxpayers cannot challenge W.'s "Faith-Based Initiative".

Like many conservatives, I was not particularly a fan of the campaign finance reform legislation, but that is a different story. Why must it be decided because of religious groups? Was no one else making a case against the legislation? An issue like this is too important to muddle with religion. Surely, a similar position could be reached without crucifying the Constitution.

Now, on to "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

While there is no problem in the minds' of the Supreme Court justices with burning flags or holding signs comparing our political leaders to despots and demons, they find highschoolers speaking out to be spine-chilling. Today, the Supremes also decided that it was OK to harshly reprimand a student for displaying a banner which read "BONG HITS 4 JESUS".

Perhaps, the court is trying to stifle outbursts from minds not yet fully indoctrinated.

Perhaps, they actually thought their decision did not violate the 1st Amendment.

Most likely, their savior was insulted, and this petty action was in their mind a "Get Out of Hell Free Card"

Also today, it was decided for us, that in fact we are not allowed to have a problem with faith-based initiatives. Nope. In the third 5-4 decision of the day, Roberts-Alito & Co. repayed Bush with the ultimate suck off. He's allowed to give money to religious social programs, and us common folk aren't allowed to challenge it.

Really funny guys; I'm guessing I'll wake up tomorrow to headlines of the Court's insistence that a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary be placed in the National Archives immediately.

Why must the Republican Party be run by religion. The constitution clearly has references to the Bible; the laws and rights bestowed upon this nation are largely derived from biblical teachings. Can't that be enough. Can't they fight for the causes of liberty and justice, and just allow people to offend them sometimes, if that's what it takes. They should follow their own advice and "turn the other cheek".

And anyway, until they find Jesus' body and carbon date its contents, no one will know if Jesus ever danced with Mary Jane. So, case not closed...

Live Free or Die,

Marc

Talk Radio About to be Neutered

In the distance, one can hear the faint drumbeat of the upcoming revival of the "Fairness Doctrine". It will be hailed by First Amendment haters as "leveling the playing field" and "reviving the hate filled airwaves", but it is quite more dystopian and utopian.

Talk radio has in the past couple of years grown exponentially. For a while, there was even a progressive station, Air America, and throughout that time, no one mentioned equal time amendments. It's failure was brought on for reasons which in hindsight appears obvious. People just don't want to listen to Bush hate and progressive falsehoods on their way to work.

Well, as the old saying doesn't go, "If you can't beat 'em, socialize them."

In what way is allowing the market to function properly unfair? The same way it's unfair that the length of innings in baseball is based on performance, not time. In what way is free speech aided by government intrusion? How can alternate views be forced onto private broadcasts and call it fair? Those pushing for the change, progressives, attempt to evade media constantly, as evidenced by the Democratic Parties refusal to participate in a debate on Fox News and their persistent refusal to be seen and heard on any media that takes calls.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage would love to bring on as many Democratic senators as would join them. That won't happen. Even though it would be a perfect chance to spout Democratic views, they know their arguments can't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. Instead, they will just make the medium unmarketable using their unmarketable progressive broadcasters.

My argument on this hinges on the fact that, unlike the ignorant masses, I realize that there are more than two sides to every issue. Who will be the arbiter of all views? Which expert will decide if something is on the left or the right? Does business news count as political speech, and if so, will there be a communist to chime in from time to time? Will there be Muslim prayer brakes five times a day during the sermons on Sunday?

I can see it now, Howard and Oprah in the Morning; or perhaps the The Falwell-Khomeini Drive Time Happy Hour. Should be interesting.

Live Free or Die,

Marc

Global Cooling? Global Warming? Mother Nature? The Sun? The Big Bad Wolf?

It appears that the Earth may be in fact entering a relatively cold period shortly, a recent study shows. The article describes an experiment that seems in most ways unbiased, but I am still unconvinced on this issue. The media is about at saturation with the warming side of the argument, but occasionally you will see an hour long expose on the possibility of it being a ruse.

Aside from what may or may not happening on our planet, how hysteric has the argument over it become. Every issue gets adopted by the two party system and immediately there are exactly two sides to an issue. If you talk to a Democrat and even dare to question any part of the 'climate change' theory (1.It is getting hotter quick 2. It's because of CO2 3. It will be devastating 4. We are the predominant cause 5. We can change the climate back), you're looked at as though you have horns.

If you talk to a Republican, saying that you think that global warming is a possibility gets the same reaction as comparing Ronald Reagan to Joseph Stalin. It's insane. Can't people sit down and discuss the many different complicated facets of each argument.

Scientists can't even agree...yes, that is true. I know that there is a 'consensus' on the issue, but I'd have to disagree. Every day I read articles from prominent scientists, pundits, and journalists coming from both sides. There are new studies, hypotheses, debates, etc.. Were there a consensus, it wouldn't matter anyway, because unless science has changed since I was in third grade, theories are not facts. The Law of Conservation of Matter turned out to be simply a false theory when the atom was split.

They have no clue what the hell is going on. Did your weatherman know what was going to happen today? It's always a percent chance of rain, highs and lows, and now they want to tell me what's going to happen in 40 years? Hmmmm... I'll take my chances.

For Now.

Try to save energy, don't waste, but don't spend your money to buy the latest enviro-gadget. Global Warming is marketed more than Valentine's Day at Hallmark, and because of the economic interests involved, I can't believe anyone.

Call me a cynic, but I believe that while the globe may be warming, and while we may be causing it, as long as thousands of researchers are getting jobs and a whole lot of research money from interest groups I can't be a zealot either way. Believe me, I'd like to be, but wasting energy and not attempting to reduce emissions saves money, and coming up with apocalyptic results to research increases grants.

Incentives. Incentives. Incentives. They run the world, not human compassion.

Live Free or Die,

Marc

Goverment Mandates Compassion, Calls Defense and Infrastructure Discretionary!

How many times have you been told that "our imperial hegemonic President tyrannically wastes more than a third of the nation's tax money on the unjust, overreaching Iraq War"?






This is a great example of how statistics and micro-managed diction can throw off an entire national mindset and reframe spending arguments based on political fiction.


First, lets examine the Federal Revenue breakdown. The chart to the right breaks it down visually, but it divides it on their terms. Now examine the real difference in these not so different pie slices. Who pays Individual Income Tax? WORKERS. Who pays Payroll Tax? WORKERS and the employers who give them jobs. The employers also pay Corporate Income Taxes.


Employer and Corporate Taxes are really only shadow taxes on other taxpayers, in the way that any money that they pay to the federales, they cannot pay to employees and stockholders. They could also pass it on to the customer, because they undoubtedly haven't paid their share yet.


The government would have us believe that corporations have feelings just like you and me. That they can pay taxes, and that they can feel the "fair share" being taken from them, by force if necessary. In addition, every corporation's personality fits the evil robber baron archetype especially in the minds of progressives*.


Hopefully, I've shed some new understanding on the real gouging that you take every year. Because of the fact that only people make money, I'm going to reiterate a statistic that I produced a few days ago. I'll admit I'm adding .02 trillion to the budget and subtracting a few illegal immigrants, but its about $3,000,000,000,000 per year spread across 300,000,000 people. So, give or take, its about $10,000 a year per person.

Now, the spending side...

The chart to the left is an accurate breakdown of

the way that your hard-earned dollars are spread around the country.


I won't be spending much time on the chart because it would be boring. So, were going to split it a little different using another heuristic: discretionary and mandatory spending.


Mandatory spending accounts for approximately %67 of the yearly spending. So, what's mandated? Defense? Nope. FBI? Nope. Coast Guard? Highways? Foreign Aid? NO, NO, NO!




So, what is it spent on? Entitlements.




These include entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare, Veterans' Benefits, and Welfare.

I certainly consider infrastructure and national security to be somewhat mandatory, but call me stupid.


So, next time you want to go home early and be with your family, or when you cut the big check in April, remember that $0.23 cents of each of those dollars goes to people who don't work(Unemployment, Welfare, and Medicaid add to %23). Also remember that $0.21 cents of each dollar will be paid into a well-intentioned system on the verge of collapse: Social Security.

When I think of mandatory and discretionary monies of my own, any money I give to bums is certainly not in my mandatory column. Guarding my assets is not in my discretionary column, so whats up?





SEMANTIC TRICKS AND DICTION!





So, watch your wallet, and tell people who think your not compassionate, that "The government doles out my compassionary funds for me. Don't you pay taxes?" That Simple.





Live Free or Die,


Marc





*I use the term progressive instead of liberal, because I still view liberalism by its classical meaning. The liberals of today hardly promote liberty; if anything they should call themselves "redistributionists".

Sir Rushdie: Oh, What a Knight; Late September Back in '88

After authoring numerous acclaimed literary works and displaying a distinct penchant for speaking out against human rights abuses, Salman Rushdie has certainly established himself as a fit recipient of knighthood.

Although not the most acclaimed of his works, The Satanic Verses has perhaps brought most of author Salman Rushdie's notoriety. Upon release in September of 1988 it created quite a ruckus over in Iran. Almost immediately, their Ayatollah Khomeini felt it wise to issue a fatwa, or religious mandate, against Rushdie, stating that any good Muslim should actively seek his death.

Though under constant watch by bodyguards for years, the seriousness of the threat has seemingly worn off. The threat of Iran to civilization still looms though, and interestingly enough it was the controversy over Sir Rushdie that catalyzed the severing of official ties between Britain and Iran many years ago.

Since the fatwa, Rushdie has emerged as a sort of Western pop icon, with editorial appearances on both Real Time with Bill Maher and the Colbert Report, and playing himself on-screen in Seinfeld and The Bridgette Jones Diary.

Perhaps Rushdie's most impressive quality is his unwavering insistence that all people should be free. He has spoken out against the Muslim tradition of forcing women to wear Islamic veils, or niqab, repeatedly, and he also publicly opposes The Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 in England.

As a purveyor of individual freedom and human rights, Rushdie has remained relevant through his articulate speech and eloquence. Certainly, his knighthood will only serve to increase his prominence in the forefront of the battle for liberty, and that, in my view, is heartening.

Congratulations Salman, keep up the good work.

Live Free or Die,

Marc

------------------------------------->

Is this your idea of freedom of speech?

------------------------------------->

Unconventional Thompson

Does Fred Dalton Thompson have the perfect plan to tromp his rivals this primary? From the old to the young, even before his official declaration, he has produced a tremendous grassroots campaign worth noting.

What is it about Fred Thompson that has generated such an immense following without even an official declaration for a presidential run?

He cuts the shit, and gets to the point.

He confidently and articulately responds to questions pointedly, and in a measured tone (traits that don't quite befall our current commander in chief). He doesn't sound like he is towing a party line constantly, but that he might really mean what he is saying.

This is not to say that he won't have problems. First of all, he has a lifelong reputation of laziness following behind him. Even with his possible display of sloth, one of seven deadly sins, he seems to have the Christian vote. This can surely be a blessing and a curse. Too many references to God and spirituality may remind voters of the current administration. This is somewhat of a third rail for the candidates, who see Bush as a boon to their party's chance of an election win.

Another arena where Thompson has been successful is in the "net roots". Just look at the professional appeal of these independent supporter sites.

-Draft Fred Thompson

-Fred 08

-Thompson Rally

-Grassroots Voter

And then there's the official site ImWithFred.com, and clicking that link will show you its sleekness. It's not filled with ambiguous positions and talking points like the sites' of other candidates. Positions or some official texts would be nice, but it will surely be there soon. In the mean time he and his team have created a clean, respectable campaign outpost.

Finally, he seems like he might actually be capable of unscripted wit. I don't know what to make of it. Here is a video in response to Michael Moore's request that he join him for a debate on health care(the cigar is an affront to Moore's assertion that Thompson displays hypocrisy by berating him on his recent trip to Cuba while openly lighting up the Cubans).

If, but it seems to be more of a when, Thompson enters the race, it seems like it's his to lose. Some of the most recent polls have him leading the Republican primary race. With his candor and charisma, it may seem normal for a candidate of his type to take an early lead, but I repeat, he hasn't even said he's running yet. Whatever it is about him, he's got the support of millions of Americans, most of whom only knew his face a month ago.

It's going to be a fun year. Come back for more!

Live Free or Die,

Marc Bacon