Big Dogs House

Leave Me Alone!

Oct 14, 2010 Opinion, Political

So, I’m watching the US and world economy going down the drain. I’m seeing the globalization of America, and seeing real hard times coming. So, I’d like to prepare myself and at the same time, do what the enviro-lefties want, and reduce, reuse, and recycle. Here’s my plan:

I want to obtain some land, maybe in Montana. I’d like to build a home (think log-cabin), and then farm the land to feed myself. I might also do some work as a carpenter, and perhaps trade with some other folk in the area, maybe some vegetables for meat or furniture for animals. I won’t require anything of anyone. I won’t use force to make people do anything for me or provide me with anything. I will help people when I can, but not if they don’t want my help.

Only one problem with my plan — it will not be possible, because it would break dozens, if not hundreds of laws. I’d have to pay taxes on the purchase of the land. I’d be required to pay annual taxes simply for living on the land. I may run afoul of various federal laws if I happened to plant vegetables in “federally protected” lands. I would get in trouble if I defended my life against a wolf that was intent on killing me. I would be required to pay taxes on voluntary transactions between myself and other willing people. I would be evicted from my home by force if I didn’t receive the correct government permits before building, and would jailed or killed if I attempted to live in a house that did not meet arbitrary government standards. I would have my family taken from me, should I attempt to allow my children to help me labor on the land, or if I were to allow others to employ them to learn a useful skill. If I were to go to the bathroom without getting permits and following government regulations for connections to various government systems, I would also be jailed or killed.

In other words, in this country, once the land of the free, it is now a large number of serious crimes to simply attempt to live free. Oh, how I yearn for freedom.

Tags: freedom, government regulation

Government “By The People”

Oct 4, 2010 Opinion, Political

So, are there any of you good readers who honestly believe that the government today in America is a government “By the People and For the People?” If so, can you explain the various department of Parks and Recreations?

For example, I can go to nearly any town in America and find some kind of “Parks and Recreation” department. And, as part of that department, I can find facilities that range from parks to ball fields to swimming pools. And in nearly all of those places, I can find signs and notifications that I must pay to use these facilities — and if I do not, I can be jailed or killed.

As an aside — please note that any and all government laws, regulations, and ordinances are backed with the threat of jailing or death. Yes, from the parking ticket to violent crimes, if any government order is disobeyed, you may be killed for it. For example, if I post a sign in my yard that is against a city ordinance, I may be killed (it has happened). If I trespass on a parks and recreation field and the police are called, I may be shot and killed. So feel free to argue this point, but you will be wrong — ALL government directives are backed with the threat of death, whether you want to admit it or not. If you don’t believe me, feel free to disobey a policeman when he orders you to do, well, anything.

But wait — that facility of the department of parks and recreation was built with my money — since I am one of the minority who actually pay income, property, sales, and every other tax imaginable. So I paid for the facility, yet I cannot use it. Therefore, I must not own it. If that’s the case, then who DOES own it? The obvious answer is that the parks and recreation department owns it. That means that this is not a government “By the People,” because there’s some other layer in there separate from “The People.”

I know, many will claim things like, “Oh, but the fees go to pay for the operation of the facility,” or “The fees don’t even cover paying the salaries of the people working there.” But that’s my point. There exists today a level of government that is not part of “The People.”

Am I suggesting that there should be no “Parks and Recreation” department? Well, if the organization is going to exist outside of “The People,” then yes, it should not exist. If some government department is going to build and operate any facility with my tax dollars, then they should do so — and then I should have complete and total access to the facility without any additional charges. They could demand proof of my residency, or evidence I pay taxes, but they should not charge me more to use it. If they cannot do that, they should not use my tax money to build something that I cannot use, and in fact, will be jailed or killed if I do use it (in violation of their orders, of course).

Of course, if we had a free society, this would not be an issue. And those who would claim that nothing would get built unless the parks & rec exists simply are living in a land of fear and denial.

Oh, how I yearn for freedom.

Tags: freedom, parks and rec, taxes

Congress and TV Volume

Sep 30, 2010 Political

So, the “big” news out of Washington is that Congress passed a law to regulate the volume on TV commercials. I know, many of you good readers are screaming, “Yeah,” and jumping around. I know the volume has really annoyed me when it suddenly blasts out of the TV when a commercial starts. However, can anyone tell me how the heck Congress is authorized to regulate annoyances?

What a damn load of you-know-what. This is yet another of the numerous, continuing examples of how horrible and useless government truly has become. And yes, yet again, a Congressional action results in the crushing of capitalism, innovation, and the American Dream.

This new “law” has put lots of people out of work. No, I’m serious. Did you know that people have invented and created devices that will allow you to regulate your TV volume? Did you know various manufacturers have been working on solving this problem? Did you know that there were people working on solving this problem through the use of external boxes, speakers, decibel detection devices, auto-volume controls, and Blue-Ray boxes? But hey, all you people coming up with inventive solutions that would have allowed people to work and earn a living, just stop it because government says so. This is what I mean when I say that today’s government is actively destroying freedom at every turn. And they honestly don’t care because the people who voted for this honestly think it will get them votes. Sadly, it probably will.

Oh, how I yearn for freedom.

Tags: Congress, freedom, tv volume

$3,800 Fine If You Don’t Get Health Insurance

Sep 9, 2009 Political

The newest version of the health care takeover bill making its way around has a provision to fine families up to $3,800 for not obtaining health insurance. The geniuses working on this plan figure that they can solve the problem of people not being able to afford health insurance by fining them. This is like a bank charging you $35 for an overdraft check. They fine you what they know you don’t have. For those who can afford it and choose not to get it, power to them.

There are plenty of things wrong with this whole idea. The first is the idea that you can be forced to buy health insurance.

The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage.

Auto insurance is only mandatory if you decide to get a vehicle. If you do not want to pay for car insurance you have the option to not get a car. In other words, you have the freedom to choose whether or not you want to incur this expense. Health insurance is quite different because you have no choice in the matter. You can opt out of car insurance by not driving. The only way to opt out of health insurance is to stop living. While that might make the government happy, it will not be good for you. While we are on the comparison to auto insurance perhaps we could make health insurance like auto insurance in that you have to pay for routine check ups. You have car insurance but it does not cover new tires and oil changes. When you go to the doctor you should have to pay for the routine stuff. That would lower the cost of premiums.

I also note that even with the mandatory requirement for auto insurance (if you have a car) there are still plenty of people driving around without insurance. A huge number of them are ILLEGAL aliens and they have a lot of accidents. Perhaps if they wanted to charge fines for not having insurance they could do it in the auto insurance arena. That would be much more productive.

Another issue here deals with our basic freedoms. We have the freedom to choose (just ask any pro abortion zealot) and should have that freedom when it comes to health insurance. You have every right NOT to buy insurance. My only thing in that regard is, if you get hurt then you pay the bill out of pocket or over time but you have to pay it. If you don’t then they get to come take your stuff to satisfy the bill. I really don’t care if you lose all your worldly possessions because you decided not to get health insurance but I will fight to my death defending your right to take that decision.

The last thing here is the heavy handed approach the government is taking. What it is basically saying is; “Either you will do exactly what we want and buy something that we say you have to have or we will heavily fine you.”

I have stated many times that this is about control. The health care bill is not about health and it is not about care, it is about government control over your life. They will make a rule that you have to buy insurance or you will be fined. Later on they can say that if you don’t have a certain kind of insurance you will be fined. Then they can change some other rule under the threat of a fine.

What next? Will they fine you if your Body Mass Index (BMI) is too high? Will they fine you if your cholesterol is elevated? Will they decide that every American must join a gym and attend three times a week or be fined?

Where does it end?

Can someone explain why we allow the government to do this? Why do they have a say in how we live our lives? Why are so many willing to let them have near total control over their lives?

I would also like to know how it is that a woman cannot be denied an abortion. States keep working on anti abortion laws but liberals are against all that. They are even against parental notification. It is not the role of government, they say, to impose these things on women thus denying them their right to choose. So what gives government the right to choose for the rest of us? What gives it the right to take decisions on our behalf and to force us to do things we might not want to.

Where is our right to choose?

We need to defeat this health care bill completely. They need to start from scratch and keep it simple by fixing what is broken and leaving the rest alone.

They also need to stop attempting to violate our rights by fining us for choosing how we live our lives and what we do and do not buy.

Vote them all out in 2010. We must end the redundancy of incumbency.

Tags: 3800, fines, freedom, health care, Obama, rights

Liberals Looking For Control

Sep 6, 2009 Political

The country is looking at the upcoming flu season with worry about the H1N1 (swine) flu and what an outbreak might mean. Will it be as bad as the 1918 Pandemic that killed millions? Will it fizzle out? Will the vaccine that is being rushed trough cause as many problems as the flu?

There are many questions and the government is trying to determine the best course of action.

In Massachusetts that course of action includes a violation of the rights of the people who live in that state. The Legislature is considering a bill that would give government unchecked power to violate citizen’s rights based on a public health emergency as determined by the politicians in charge. Some of the troubling items the state is considering include:

• to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
• to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;
• to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;
• to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
• to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;
• to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
• to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;
• to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth;

[emphasis in original] World Net Daily

It is not difficult to see that some of these measures violate Constitutionally protected rights. Another issue is what constitutes an emergency? With a law written in such a fashion, the government of Massachusetts could declare an emergency in order to control the population. A public health emergency could be declared to prevent people from assembling for an anti government health care rally.

There are certainly contingencies that need to be in place but no law should take away Constitutionally protected rights. If this is going to happen then they should declare martial law and be done with it.

This proposed law is a chilling reminder of what an unchecked government can do. Massachusetts is a liberal state so where are all the liberals who supposedly oppose violation of their rights? Where is the ACLU?

Imagine how this would have played out if a state with a conservative legislature and Republican governor had proposed the same kind of law.

Elections have consequences and Massachusetts has elected a liberal majority that will do whatever it can to control people.

That is not freedom.

Tags: constitution, freedom, liberals, martial law, Massachusetts, rights