CacheGOP Blog

The question was asked last night to one of the senate candidates if we were prepared as a people to pay higher taxes if we did not accept earmarks.

I commented after the candidate answered the question that if we stopped taking earmarks then we would have a major paradigm shift as a culture away from being dependent on the government for things. This would then cause people to take a lot more personal responsibility for themselves and then incredible things would start to happen. The burden of government would be greatly lessened in the state while at the same time federal control (which comes through these earmarks) would also lessen. This would drive free enterprise in the state and amazing things would happen.

But regardless of this or not. The bribery, for that is what it is, must end. Because if now is not to the time to end the bribery and corruption, when is? If we are not to be willing to say No More, then who will?

The title was taken from despair.com under the title of government.  But isn’t it interesting that government creates a lot of the very problems they claim to be trying to solve, especially when it is not a power given them in the Constitution?

Let us start with the Department of Energy.  When it was formed we were importing 34.8% of our oil.  The DOE was supposed to help us get over our addiction but just the opposite has happened.  I believe we now import 60%.  How much money was forcibly taken from the citizens as taxes for this “fix”?  Where is dealing with this in the Constitution?

Another issue is education.  The Department of Education was created to make sure our kids had a better education and help us “catch up” to the Soviets.  Before this it was a local community and state issue.  What has happened since?  I think we can all agree that standards have dropped in most areas and that schools are turning more into places of government subsidized daycare rather than institutions of learning.  Were we even behind the Soviets?  They launched Sputnik but some reports indicate that we had a similar capability at the time and that they had stolen the technology from the USA.  This is another one of those things that is not in the Constitution.

Another example is the Federal Reserve.  The fed was supposed to protect us from bank failures, inflation, and economic uncertainty.  Since its creation many banks have failed, many depressions / recessions have happened, and we have had over 2000% inflation.  That means that your dollar today has less purchasing power than a nickel did before the fed was created.  Oh yeah, the fed has helped create these things by artificially lowering/raising interest rates and injecting our money supply with new money, thereby making the old stuff worth less.  Congress is supposed to coin money anyway, not give that role to somebody else.

The last one I will touch on is campaign finance.  A friend and I asked one of our senators how much money they had received from Fannie Mae.  He said it was illegal for the corporation to give them money.  But the employees would donate to a PAC and then give that money to the senator.  So let me get this straight, the corporation giving money to the politician is bad but the corporation giving the money to an employee and then to a PAC and then to the politician is OK?  That sounds very much like money laundering doesn’t it?  So the government creates a problem by giving out money that the Constitution forbids them to (bailouts) which causes corporations to want a share and then try to influence the politician.  This then creates a market for influence and hence we have this problem, created by the government and also inadequately solved by them.  What if we just stuck to the Constitution?  Wouldn’t there be much less of a market for lobbyists?

I heard some very sad news the other day.  It was about the betrayal of our governor, Jon Huntsman Jr..  He released a statement saying that he was in support of civil unions which contradicted the understanding the constituents had when he ran for governor.

There are a few dangers with civil unions that many don’t realize.

First, what is to stop them from turning into marriage. Residents of CT were promised up and down that civil unions wouldn’t turn into marriage, I was one of them. And what happened? People sued saying they weren’t equal and won and now gay marriage is legal in CT.

Second, civil unions cheapen marriage. I was reading an article about how some couples are choosing civil unions over marriage because they are easier to get out of. So much for protecting the family.

Third, with legal status it opens up all types of lawsuits to say that they must be taught in schools to be ‘fair’. Of course there are many more but that would take an essay.

This is just a cheap political trick by Huntsman. He wants to go beyond Utah and enter national politics and is willing to do whatever it takes. First he runs saying that he supports an amendment which bans civil unions and then he says he was always for them. Sorry, I just can’t make sense of it without him being a liar. And that is what we don’t need, more lying politicians at a national level.  If this was something you have believed all along then say so all along.  If this was something you changed your mind about then say that.

When I was a kid I used to watch the show called Ducktales.  This is where I received my best lesson on inflation.  In one episode they travel to a country that has no money.  Launchpad leaves a bottle cap with somebody.  Soon everybody else becomes jealous and want some.  Scrooge then give the country a lot of them.  They soon start to use them as a currency.

They soon realize that they have now ruined this happy land and seek to destroy the market that they have created.  Soon they start to dumping huge amounts of bottle caps and prices rapidly go up.  Sound familiar?  Soon the bottle cap becomes completely worthless and they ask Scrooge to remove all the garbage.

How much money has the federal reserve, a group of private banks, created recently?

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/inflation-taxes-economy-blog/4442

This is a good story about the added money and it also has a video of Glenn Beck talking about it.  An important thing to consider is the multiplying effect of the bank reserve system we have.  If banks are required to only keep 10% of deposits then they can loan out the other 90%.  Remember though that that other 90% then gets redeposited and 90% of that, or 81% is then loaned out again.  This can happen over and over until you end up with 10X the money you started with.  So if the federal reserve adds 1trillion dollars of new money it is essentially adding 10 trillion through this multiplication effect of the bank reserve system.

Adding trillions of dollars of new money will not only destroy savings of individuals and give them automatic decreases in salary through inflation but it will also pave the way to introduce a regionalized currency like the Euro.  Politicians will tell us that it is the only way to save our economy.

For many years politicians from both parties have tried to push this country into a regionalized government similar to the European Union, with started from trade agreements.  This has been done through our own ‘free trade’ agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA which are more about regionalized government than free trade.  Fortunately many patriotic Americans have been able to at least delay these plans.  The plans continue to move forward to chip away at our sovreignty as a nation and replace our God-given Constitution with a regionalized athiestic beurocracy.

While looking at the DrudgeReport I noticed an ad for Obama.  It was how much money I would save through his tax plan.  I thought to myself, “Is this guy trying to buy my vote?”.  What isn’t mentioned is what it is going to cost me.

There is only really two types of government, rule by law, and rule by oligarchy.  Take most of the systems, monarchy, communism, dictatorship.  They are all rule by a few over the masses.  Even democracy turns into an oligarchy soon enough.  Most people do not take the time to learn about proper government or even the rules setup for our government.  The masses are easily swayed by the mass media.  Only a limited government which is kept in these limits will not turn into an oligarchy.

The Constitution was setup to be a covenant between the people and the government.  The government is a creation of the people for a specific purpose.  That purpose is clearly defined in the Constitution but scheming men have taken our government far beyond those bounds.  The powers of government have slowly been extended to take away more states’ rights and individual freedoms.

What is the effect of all of this?  Instead of power being in the hands of many it has been concentrated into the hands of the few.  Wealth is increasingly being concentrated into the hands of the few.  Is this starting to look like a monarchy?

I would like to examine a few governmental policies and explain how this is happening.  Let us look at welfare and illegal immigration.  Say I have a job working at a local store.  The pay is meager and and I cannot make ends meet.  My choices are to ask for a raise, get a better job, or live off of the taxpayers.  What do most people choose?  The easiest, live off of the tax payers.  That along with illegal immigration provides cheap labor.  Cheap labor means that the companies have more profit and most of that money ends up in the hands of the rich.  Who ends up paying for it welfare and the costs of illegal immigration?  The middle class of course.  The wealthy are prety good at avoiding taxes.  Warren Buffet once bragged he payed a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Of course we can also look at the bailouts.  How much of this money is going to undeserved bonuses for the wealthy?  I don’t mind them getting bonuses if the company wants to give it to them but I do mind it when my tax dollars are used to pay bonuses or bailout any company for that matter.

These are both examples of government being used to take money from one group to give to another.  We don’t have to look far for more examples.  Just look at Proposition 1.  How can this possibly benefit a few?  I attended the county council meeting where they decided if it should be on the ballot and one of the major proponents ended up being a consultant for the Trust for Public Lands.  That group gets 10% of the money raised in order to manage the easements purchased.  Of course she was very reluctant to admit to this conflict of interest.  I later heard radio advertisements and received mailers.  I wondered who was paying for these.  It turns out that one of the major donors to the cause was the Trust for Public Lands.  Of course they had a financial motive to have this thing passed.  Another major donor was an individual who had benefited from previous easements.  I wonder if he was trying to get more.

There are plenty of people who think they can spend your money better than you can.  Instead of forcing people to pay for your projects let them individually decide if it is worth paying for or not.

A really interesting thing to listen to is Glenn Beck about socialism and communism.  I suggest you listen to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTDmGt1

Many people underestimate the serious threat which gay marriage is to our society.  Fortunately I was able to live in CT while the state legislature was trying to force civil unions on the people.  I was able to be educated about what was really going on  and what the potential ramifications were.  I will list a couple.

Gay marriage will be taught in schools.  As we have seen in Massachusetts gay marriage will be taught as the norm in public schools.  Others will decide what is appropriate for your kids to learn and not you. In Massachusetts a group called GLSEN was allowed to hand out very graphic how-to books to junior high kids. Sex surveys were given to elementary kids.

You may be sued if you oppose it.  We have seen in Canada that groups have been sued for ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals by not providing services for gay weddings.  This has happened to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, and a card manufacturer.  A doctor in California was sued for not helping a lesbian couple have a baby even though the doctor did it on religious beliefs and referred them to another doctor.  A photographer was fined in New Mexico for refusing to take pictures at a homosexual commitment ceremony.

People who oppose it will be discriminated against.  There have been efforts in California to prevent judges who belong to any group that finds homosexual acts immoral to rule on any case involving homosexuals.  Of course the reverse would not apply.  As we as a society continue to accept homosexuality as being OK those who oppose it will be treated much like racists are today.  It will likely become much like the GDR where it was OK to be a member of a religion but it meant that you would never get ahead in your career.

It is a threat to religious organizations.  A Canadian Ministry was fined for firing an employee who had committed homosexual acts even after the employee had signed an agreement saying she would abstain from immoral acts.  An adoption agency in Massachusetts was shutdown after refusing to adopt to homosexual couples.  It wouldn’t be surprising to see churches lose their tax exempt status for preaching that homosexual acts are wrong.

What should we do?  Of course this is just one perspective and there are many other reasons why this is a bad thing.  Go and educate yourself why this is bad and what threats there are.  Be involved.  Some people use covert methods to get their way.  There was a late USU president who tried to get USU to recognize gay marriages.  The only reason that I found out was that I was involved.

Watch out for hate crimes, a.k.a thought crimes. What they do is give extra protection to certain classes. Instead of punishing people for what they actually do they are punished for who they commit the crime against. Why should a homosexual get more protection than another? How long until it is just a crime to have a standard which others don’t like?

Now, I am not saying we should treat people who have homosexual feelings poorly. They need to be loved and respected just like anybody else.  Most are not part of this sinister plot but are only pawns.