SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN FORGETS HIMSELF

mccain-pointing-apArticle by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

On 07 April 2013, on the CBS show, «Face the Nation,» Senator John McCain, retired Air Force pilot, veteran of the Vietnam conflict, prisoner of war of the same conflict, and former GOP presidential candidate, made a statement that I find utterly astounding coming from someone who is supposed to be a public servant.

In reference to the filibuster being conducted by Senators Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and others, over the latest and greatest 2nd Amendment revocation bill, he was quoted as saying «I don’t understand it.  The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.”

No, Senator McCain.  That is, most vehemently not the purpose of the United States Senate, and if you don’t understand just how deeply offensive your statement is to a concerned American voter such as myself, then it is most definitely time for you to retire.  Let me break this down for you, Barney style:

You, as a United States senator, are a public servant.  You are elected by the people in order to represent the people.  Now, first of all, all bills which limit, i.e., infringe, on our rights to bear arms and organize private militias violate the 2nd Amendment of a document referred to as «The Bill of Rights,» which is a part of the US Constitution — you know, that document which lays out the conclusive law of land, and which you swore an oath to uphold.  Furthermore, we the people, whom, as I have already mentioned, are the ones who put you in office, and whom you are answerable to, have repeatedly expressed that we do not desire the kinds of gun control measures you and your fellow aging, anti-constitutional establishmentarian gangsters have been trying to shove down our throats as of late — we rejected Senator Feinstein’s bill, which was unconstitutional, and we patently refused to abide by the UN Small Arms Treaty, which was, in every way, criminal.   We don’t want gun control — cease and desist from all further attempt to regulate, register, ban, confiscate, or otherwise infringe upon our right to carry guns.  This is not a polite suggestion; this is the mandate of the US Constitution, and the people of the United States.

You don’t decide what to do and then tell us where you stand.

We decide where we stand, and you carry it out.

Get that straight.

THE AGE OF ENTITLEMENT

douchebagsEditorial by Barbara Cornell.

Syndicated from Barbara Cornell’s personal blog.

Suppose you have a friend who who makes $45k a year who owes $50k in credit card debt — not mortgages, not car loans, not loans that build equity, just simple living-beyond-his-means consumer debt — and expects to owe $100k in credit card debt by the end of next year because of things he’s already bought but hasn’t received the bills for yet. Now this friend asks you, «Do you think I should buy season tickets to the Mets or should I install a third swimming pool at my 2nd beach house?»

What do you tell your friend?

The US Congress is that friend.

Our current federal debt ($14 trillion) exceeds our gross domestic product (approx $13 trillion) and the federal debt is expected to double in the next few years*

congressTranslation: The federal government could confiscate 100% of everything everyone in the entire country produces this year and still not pay off what we owe on what we’ve already spent, and we’ve already made agreements to double this problem before we have any opportunity to «counsel» (with our votes) the people in government who are currently in office.

Taxation has no hope of fixing anything (unless you and everybody you know is prepared to work for the next two years without pay to bail out the country). So, discussions of whether we should tax the rich people more or corporations more, or whether we should have tax credits for production or tax credits for working poor are pointless. The time when we had any choice of what we should pay for and what we should not has come and gone. Soon we will not be able to borrow enough to meet basic human needs (clean water, police protection, defense of our national borders, sewage pumped somewhere besides the middle of the streets).

48tGY1It no longer matters which project you believe deserves to be paid for by the US taxpayer.

The Age of Entitlement must end.

That isn’t a political imperative. That is a simple, emotionless statement of fact.

Let me put it another way:

The Age of Entitlement will end.

Whether you believe that it should or not, whether you believe that it ever existed or not, whether you think it’s fair to use the term or not, it will end.

The only choice we have now is whether we can prevent this nation from becoming the next third world.

____________________

*For skeptics: depends on whom you talk to. The White House official budget publicity release says both that the budgets over the next 3 years will incur deficits of over $6 trillion and that they will reduce the debt by $1.1 trillion. I’m not sure whom they think they’re fooling with their double talk. However, estimates that include expected reduction in the amount that social security will contribute to the federal budget place the deficits much higher even than their worst-case admissions.

MONEY-POWER

Money and power are inherently related.  This is common knowledge.  What is not common knowledge is the reason why this is the case.  And the reason this is the case is quite simple.

Power is the ability to exert influence over how others choose to expend their time, effort, and resources.

Money is an accepted, demarcated representation of time, effort, and resources.

Ergo, money and power relate to one another on a directly proportional basis.  An amount of money is a strong indicator of power, as well as being a source for the same.

An indicator: because, under normal circumstances, money is acquired by being able to constructively guide (or influence) human action.

A source: because it amounts to a direct means of accomplishing the same.

An insidious implication: when money stolen (or redistributed, which amounts to the same thing; subject of a future post), what is actually occuring is not merely theft, but also enslavement; because you are taking by force that which legitimately represents the time, effort, and resources of other people.

Contrast this to trade, which amounts to an agreement of equivalency; i.e., an agreement that a certain amount of time and effort on the part of one party, is equivalent in value to a different amount of time and effort on the part of another.

Tangential conclusion: people say that Capitalism is injust, and distributes income inequitably.

The former is not true; because the system in its strict sense, allows only for such economic relationships which each party (legitimately) in question is willing to voluntarilly agree to.

The latter is a partial truth: not everyone is «equal» in a capitalist system.  This is, for the most part, a function of the fact that not all people are equal.  Some are smarter.  Some are harder working.  Some have unique talents.  Some people seem to think this is unfair.  Such an attitude is not merely petty and resentful, but also counterconstructive.  These people should be thankful that these people are so much smarter, hard-working, talented, and wealthy than them, because this enables them to create a world that is much more pleasant to live in for everyone; they are able to do this because they understand how to allocate themselves and their resources.  If the socialists had their way, these people would be severely handicapped and we’d all suffer for it.

Caveat to the tangential conclusion: we do not live in a Capitalist society.  We live in a Fascist society.  If you do not understand the distinction (and many do not), then don’t worry; I will clarify it in a future post.