Monday, April 19, 2010

The Difference Between a Tea Partier and a Socialist

Washington Post columnist Robert J. McCartney went to the Washington Tea Party expecting racism and violence. Not only did he find neither, he found that he agreed with some things (not a lot) the Tea Partiers had to say, and disagreed with their solutions.

The first comment is typical:

I part ways with the tea party on how to solve the problem. They want only to slash government. I'd be willing to raise taxes as part of the deal.

Even John Maynard Keynes, arguably the economist most influential to American economists and most damaging to the prosperity of the United States, said that you do not raise taxes during a recession.

The second one is disgusting:
Some participants had far-out views. I heard proposals to repeal the progressive income tax, abolish the Federal Reserve Board and privatize the U.S. Postal Service.

Basically, he wants the solution without getting rid of the problem. Keep the Fed. Keep the U.S. Postal Service publicly funded. Keep the progressive income tax.

That's what he calls "progress."

You can read the rest of his article here.

Oh, and while your here check out the Hayek/Keynes rap. "Fear the Boom and Bust"

Saturday, April 17, 2010

E-mails can be funny sometimes

As the title says, e-mails can be funny sometimes. How true this is the world may never know. I think I'd give Obama more time before I create a picture like this. (A more accurate artist might have had some of that poo hurled back up top.)

(P.S. Why have my last two blogs referenced poo?)

Deep Doo-Doo

I don't remember where I found this picture, but I do remember the shock value of it.

As shocking as it may seem, human created problems have human created solutions. José Piñera has offered solutions to our mess.

Kill Bill (Part One): Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act

This video shows a business owner's diminishing incentive to hire workers all because of the health care bill. One minute and twenty seconds explains it all.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Lessons from the 2010 Census

So my university just gave every student a Census form. These are my thoughts about what I read on the form. Believe me, the form says a lot more than "check here, dash there, gimme yo' address."

(There are two articles dealing with this topic that I linked to this blog that I really would like for you to read. If you are short on time, find the last two sets of words in blue.)

Yes, I just scanned parts of my form. No, you can not have my social security. (Hint: It doesn't ask for it.)

I absolutely agree with the first two sentences. But what about the third and fourth? I mean, what kind of citizen wouldn't want to give all their personal information in order to appropriate money to "the elderly, children, roads, and other local needs."

First thought: Hey wait, did they say local?

Don't you think local private organizations know their neighborhoods enough already to provide for its services, and don't need some government bureaucrat to dole out other people's money to them. How slavish--no, how servile!-- are we that we have to ask our government for money to help the elderly in our communities? Our children? Our roads even? Look at the psychological dependence to government provisions that is being cultivated here.

And what low view do we have of the rich in our communities that we simply just don't ask and write them letters to help us out? I would rather wear out the rich with my numerous letters, than ask some state representative to take from everyone else to give to a few. (On a side note, this also sets precedent for the government to control even more of our money. "If they ask us for this," they reason, "we can do such and such with their money." Am I on to something here? Maybe I am wrong.)

Remember the parable of the Unjust Judge. Although the immediate context is dealing with prayer, I think the concept of perseverance is very helpful in this instance. The idea that if we keep on praying, and we keep on asking for our needs, and then acting on them seems to be a solid one to me. Remember what the unjust judge said: 'Even though I don't fear God or care about men, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!'"

Second Thought: What can't a private business (or Church) do that the government can't do slower and less efficiently? In fact, James, the brother of our Lord, has the antidote to this dilemma: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

Notice the context, James, a Jewish-Christian, is talking to a community of Christians, an illegal group/religion up until the third century (so there is no Christians asking the government for squat), which implies that he or she is engaging in private charity. There was no providing for the needs for the Christians or Christian activity.

"So what" you say? "We have evolved since then?" Maybe, but just because Christianity is no longer illegal doesn't give Christians the right to ask the government for money.

"But I wasn't thinking about asking on behalf of my church, I was thinking on asking on behalf of all people?" Unfortunately, "all people" don't need "government money." Only specific people would need money. That would mean that the general welfare clause that you trying to appeal to wouldn't work. Speaking of "government money", like I've mentioned in previous blogs, the government can't create wealth, it can only transfer wealth already in the economy (think about it, they can only get money through taxation or inflation; if I am missing something let me know, but last time I checked, they don't sell products and therefore don't generate wealth). Why put a bureaucrat between you and those elderly and children you so care about? Why not cut out the middle man and keep it between you, the donor, and the people you want to help?

Third thought: Faith and no works often equals justification for socialism. Take James again: What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

So when people, or other Christians, see that Christians are living by the creed and not by the deed, doesn't it make the justification for socialism swing more in their favor? "But what you Christians doing to help the poor?" they may ask. You and your church better have deeds to answer with. The temptation to ask the state for your money, if you won't give charitably, seems to be at an all time high at this point.

Fourth thought: It just isn't the government's job to take care of roads, children, elderly, and local needs. Small limited government and private charity works. When people are in need, we have telethons now, hope for Haiti donation campaigns, and private charity rushes to local needs. Whereas the government (think Katrina) can do so little when the going gets tough. Do you think that's a bad comparison?

What is this United States Code, Title 13 (Sections 9, 141, 193, 214, and 221) and Title 44 (Section 2108)?

What is the true purpose of the Census, ya know, according to the original intent? Chuck Baldwin, the 2008 Presidential Candidate of the Constitution Party, wrote an article on May 19, 2010 discussing this very topic. Check it out here: The Census is for Counting, not Prying.

But if you don't read the article here are some key excerpts.
In the original Census of 1790, the information requested was simply the number of persons in each household and the name of the head of each family. That’s it. Accordingly, when I filled out my Census form earlier this week, the only information I provided was my name (as the head of my household) and the number of people living in my home. The rest of it I left blank.

I'm thinking about doing the same.

The constitutional requirement for the Census is found in Article. I. Section. 2. Paragraph. 3...The purpose of the Census is that of counting the US population in order to apportion among the states the number of representatives in the US House of Representatives. That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It may be worth you time to read this article on what Constitutionalism is all about: You might be a Constitutionalist if...

Monday, April 12, 2010

Beware of Obamanomics

Hello fellow internet users. I found this document by accident. Honestly, I googled "Peter Schiff Community Reinvestment Act" and found this downloadable 14-page criticism of Obamanomics. The author of the document is Tom Woods, who is a brilliant historian and author of several books.

Tom Woods, a senior fellow at the Ludwig Von Mises group, also gave a few lectures that are available on the Mises Youtube Channel. A good place to start is with the lecture called "Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920" and then "Applying Economics to American History." The rest, then, is up to you.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

The End of the Internet

I received this in my e-mail. I thought it was kind of important for you to know what the government planned on doing back in 2009. Who knows, a bill like this may try to creep up again.

Oh, and I almost forgot. I received this from John Tate, the Campaign for Liberty President.

Sign this petition if you are for the cause.

Read on dear internet user!

Dear Patriot:

Please take your time and read this email carefully.

Because if a bill quietly sneaking its way through Congress passes, an email like this could be the last non-government message to ever hit your inbox.

In fact, someday you may even find yourself unable to log in to your email in the first place!

I know what you're thinking: Maybe this is just another Internet hoax.

I wish it was.

But Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this nightmare a reality. That's why Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009."

Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

You see, Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to "shut down" all private internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency" — a vague term that the President can define at his discretion.

And Rockefeller's bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants.

That's why this expansive new power grab should really be called "The Internet Takeover Bill."

As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised.

It's also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media.

And we've already seen the Obama Administration's reaction to any online speech they deem "fishy."

In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends' and neighbors' emails to help Barack Obama silence the "disinformation" about the Obamacare bills in Congress.

Well now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middle man.

If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly — by ordering a shutdown of the U.S. Internet.

That's right, under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shutdown from the Internet.

But that's not all.

Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed "cybersecurity professionals."

If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they're federally-licensed bureaucrats.

Well I know I like writing to you, and I hope you like hearing from me.

Or if not me, at least you probably like staying in touch with your family and friends, and having access to uncensored news and current events.

And that's why I hope you'll help Campaign for Liberty stop the Internet Takeover Bill by signing our Internet User's Mandate to Congress.

Today, legislation like this — built on the same statist principles as the infamous Patriot Act — must sneak through Congress quietly.

They know Americans are no longer willing to swallow this swill "for our own good."

And it's especially critical that Campaign for Liberty and other fellow R3volutionaries fight this power grab.

Can you imagine how easily those in power could fabricate an "emergency" on a big money bomb day for a strong liberty candidate threatening the establishment?

Or how about message boards vital to planning and freedom rallies and protests of socialized medicine?

With "right-wing extremists" freely and visibly exercising their 2nd Amendment rights at such events, no doubt the White House could declare "emergency" and shut down all online planning.

I don't want to see good politicians lose potential millions or demonstrations of liberty extinguished. I hope you don't either.

That's why I hope you'll sign your Internet User's Mandate and make a donation right now to Campaign for Liberty to make sure that never happens.

We're going to fight this bill hard, because it's clear that the Internet is the next frontier for liberty politics, and Campaign for Liberty is right on the forefront.

So please click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate to Congress in opposition to Barack Obama's Internet Takeover and Shutdown Bill.

And in addition to signing your mandate, please make a generous contribution of $100, $50 or $25 so we can fight this Internet takeover.

We need to fight to make sure Barack Obama doesn't disconnect your computer, shut down your favorite websites, or block all your emails.

And frankly with Audit the Fed, Cap and Tax and socialized healthcare debates, Campaign for Liberty is stretched pretty thin.

And unlike the government we don't print, borrow or take money by force (taxes). Our only revenue comes from voluntary contributions from liberty activists like you.

We need you to stay educated and active.

We've put too much time into building our pro-liberty online networks, websites and email lists. We simply cannot afford to give Barack Obama the power to dismantle all that at the drop of a hat.

So please, click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate and if you can make a contribution of $100, $50 or $25 or whatever you want to Campaign for Liberty to stop this power grab... defend our rights...

...and most importantly, to protect this movement.

I trust you'll join this fight to protect all the progress we've made.

In Liberty,

John Tate

Are you as Skeptical as I am?

I think I am going to make it my goal to update this post every time the President says the economy is getting ready to turn around, or it has turned around. You know, after you say the economy turns around twice, that equals a 360. Basically, the economy is staying in the same place (or getting worse, and the President is just trying to comfort us.)

View Video Here

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Collegian Writings

So, I am also a writer for The Collegian, La Salle University's student-run newspaper. Please check out my published articles online (you may have to type 'Goins' into the search bar). So far, they've only posted 6 articles, but I've written more than that. I plan to expound on some of the ideas presented in the articles later in this blog.

1. La Salle's Lessons and Laissez-Faire
2. Shroud of Turin Mystifies but provides no certainty
3. Hyperinflation an Under-Reported Story
4. Walter Williams a notable city native
5. Miller Shows Faults on both sides
6. Aching for the truth on health reform

I also encourage you to read the other columnists in the Commentary section and beyond.

WCF Chapter One "Of Holy Scripture" Sunday School (Sept.-Oct. 2021)

Our text for Sunday School (also "The Confession of Faith and Catechisms") Biblical Theology Bites What is "Biblical Theology...