Do you know that the divorce rate is through the roof.   Marriage and elections are very similar. The candidates woo us into thinking one thing and convince us to walk, in your case, run into our polling place and vote. Then a few years pass and we get an understanding as to how things will actually be then we look around and think this sucks, time to go. The American people want a divorce, and in 2010 we filed the paperwork.

In 2012 we sign the papers.

Because marriage is a risky endeavor. You could end up with a Ms. Fluke, or seen from the other perspective, a Mr. Blagoiavich. In some cases husbands and wives suffer through it for the benefit of the children. They try to make arrangements like old Newt baby did, or they just go completely bonkers and leave because one can only take a lying sack of no good excrement and they just want out.

That would be your category and the American people.

Why? Well, Mr. Obama, for three years now we’ve watched all you have done and reconciled it with what you have said. Further, we feel the economic pain on our economy and we are wondering when, and if, it will stop. We’ve watched you take every opportunity not to cobble a fractured society together, but drive it apart; if it would further your political goals. We’ve watched in horror as “Obamacare” has gone from a nightmare in some ones head, to the Supreme Court where it now resides. We’ve seen Libya. We’ve seen Egypt. We’ve seen all of it and more.

We want no part of it. We want the next “Trayvon Martin” not to happen because he is to busy becoming the next doctor, engineer, or entrepreneur. Never ceases to amaze me how any child can rise to meet a challenge or sink to meet societies subterranean expectations.

One would think we have had enough of children killing children. I guess liberals have more innocent blood to spill in order to obtain their political objectives.

Where have I seen that before?  oh yeah, That’s right.

Terrorists!

Wiki: In the Western world, between the late 18th century and the present, the bourgeoisie are a social class “characterized by their ownership of capital, and their related culture“.  Therefore, a member of the bourgeoisie is a bourgeois and a capitalist; in Marxist philosophy, and in contemporary academic and sociological theory, the term bourgeoisie also denotes “the ruling class” of a capitalist society.

And, yet, every time I see the word used in print, or hear the word spoken on the air by a neo-Marxist or an “anarchist” which is a term I will dissect for you another time, it is being used to attack the people who use words like “free enterprise.”

Returning to Wiki we read: Free market capitalism consists of a free-price system where supply and demand are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by the government. Productive enterprises are privately owned, and the role of the state is limited to protecting property rights.

Now, the real conflict in that particular notion always comes when we begin discussing such things as medical care, housing, and education as rights, or arguing over the difference between a “Social Safety Net” and a “Social Welfare State.”  Those who have decided that the wealthy and the middle class are morally and ethically obligated to turn over any item, land, or amount of money deemed by the state to be “excess” to provide for the “poor” also fail to define the term excess.

In modern usage, “Bourgeois” is used to describe a person belonging to the middle class, whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.  The irony of this is that the people who originated the phrase WERE the middle class.  They were the also the lower middle class and the poor, who were actually downtrodden to the point of starvation.

The only people today that find that find the word “Bourgeois” to be useful as some kind of an insult to the people that they perceive as a threat to their existence, are those who have decided that wearing the fictional representation of a failed European domestic terrorist and squatting in a tent while you demand that the government support you, is the way to battle what they call “Bourgeois”.

The fact is, that what they are actually battling is the very system that creates the means whereby the things they demand that the government provide for them, are provided.  They are attacking the business owners and the bankers.  They are attacking the corporations and the small businesses that have what they deem to be “too much.”

The problem is that the middle class has become the enemy of the government as well.  The American public’s dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

And, yet, the “Occupy Movement” still keeps screaming that all of their woes are the fault of the upper middle class and the “evil rich,” when what they really mean is that they want a limit set on what it is possible to acquire and the –if necessary-forceful removal of anything deemed to be in excess of that limit, with the goal of redistribution.

They keep using the word “Bourgeois” to try to guilt people who believe in free market Capitalism.  They never fail to couple the word with other words like “Racist,” “Bigot,” or “Radical” to describe anyone opposed to the policies of this president that have brought about 11% unemployment.

Research from multiple sources, including the Internal Revenue Service and The Congressional Budget Office, reveals that 49.5% of Americans pay absolutely no taxes. Thus, raising the level of taxes paid by “the wealthy” would never be enough to correct revenue deficits. What must be changed is spending.

If the alternately tossed about plan of some kind of a national flat tax was implemented, then all of the “poor people” who find themselves currently not paying any taxes at all, would suddenly be forced to pay taxes.  This will create a further riot over the separation of classes.

And therein lies what this whole thing is actually about.  The expansion of this middle class not only provides competition for labor and resources, but also enormous potential for global consumer markets.  Yet, somehow, the focus of the government is not on raising people out of poverty and expanding the middle class tax-paying populace, but providing welfare programs from cradle to grave, keeping a majority of the populace dependent on their programs.

Both government leaders and occupiers seem to be aiming for total civil unrest.  More and more the Occupiers keep comparing themselves to civil rights leaders and to the leaders of the French Revolution.  More and more, the dialogues are turning to violence.  Police officers keep getting attacked, old ladies get thrown down stairs, people in wheel chairs are kept from their jobs, and thousands of tons of trash and bodily waste are being left in public places, to be cleaned up by lower middle class sanitation workers that had nothing to do with the perceived “Bourgeois” in the first damn place.

The real problem with the “Bourgeoisie” of the last few decades in this country, is that they never really existed as defined by the current government or the current crop of protesters.  The “Bourgeois”  as defined by them, are a figment of the imaginations of those wanting to reconstruct our society.  The middle class business owner that believes in Capitalism is not the real enemy.  Bloated government that fuels the hatred of class separation, while promoting policies that expand the gap between the middle class and the wealthy that support them–that is the real enemy.

We keep hearing President Obama talk about “Corporate Jet Owners” and the Occupiers talk about “The Evil Rich Bankers.”  Neither of them wants to discuss the fact that both of “Occupiers” and members of the established government, are actually perpetuating the very kind of class-based societal upheaval that leads to situations where more people drop out of society entirely, as the government keeps right on deficit spending.  The policies of this president are the problem.

And destroying Capitalism and redistributing wealth is not the answer.  The answer is a halt to the extensive levels of deficit spending and the demand that we all become dependent on government.  We must restore faith in the system, hope for the future, and the desire of every American to become self-sufficient.  And there are too few voices calling out for that.

There is also an invalid argument regarding “The sanctity of marriage.”  But, it is not invalid for the reason that the left thinks it is.  The left has developed a clever little internet meme concerning the religious objection to gay marriage and it goes like something like the following, except that they leave out key pieces of information.  I will put what they usually leave out back in and put it in bold.

Sanctity:

1 : holiness of life and character : godliness

2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability

bplural: sacred objects, obligations, or rights

Sacred:

1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>

2 a : worthy of religious veneration : holy

b : entitled to reverence and respect

3: of or relating to religion: not secular or profane <sacred music>

Then they site The First Amendment that reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

An amazingly large chunk of the total Amendment is utterly ignored in the expression of this internet meme.  As is nearly half of the overall definition of the two words they use as a hammer to bash the fingers of the religious.  Let’s break a little bit of it down for them, shall we?

The first clause in the First Amendment—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”—is generally referred to as the establishment clause. It is the establishment clause that grants “separation of church and state,” preventing—for example—a government-funded Church of the United States from coming into being.

The second clause in the First Amendment—“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”—protects freedom of religion. Religious persecution was for all practical purposes universal during the 18th century, and in the already religiously diverse United States there was immense pressure to guarantee that the U.S. government would not require uniformity of belief.

There are multiple sources by which to verify the validity of the above statement.  But, for a thumbnail sketch, go to: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/firstamendment/tp/First-Amendment.htm

Now, as to the underlying attempted argument of this internet meme, let’s go all the way back to the first source of thorns in the side of the gay community…Jesus. Jesus is asked about the Mosaic laws with regard to divorce, and divorce cannot exist without marriage.

So, it does predate the Church, as is evidenced by historical texts.  Cultures were performing some kind of bonding ceremony long before the churches ever established themselves.

Now, let’s take a historical step back further.  Marriage developed in different ways in different cultures before those cultures were able to interact with each other.  It would, in that sense, be impossible to pinpoint a single origin of marriage.

Many of the traditions of marriage have Pagan religious origins.  For instance, the wedding feast, veils, candles, and flower bouquets.   The ceremony of joining two people as one, has always been seen as a special and, yes, “sacred” thing.

However, in the early Churches marriages were conducted by the state. The couple could then ask for a blessing of the church if they so desired. This was because the Church had no legal standing. Following the Edict of Milan in the 4th century the Church acquired the same legal standing as other religions and could then perform marriages.

The first, marriage licenses originated in England in the 1500s and were originally a shortcut that simplified the marriage formality, as well as a revenue source for the church. The license required a statement that the couple knew of no reason why their wedding should not take place.

Although it is true that the church recognized the right of a couple to declare themselves married under the “common law,” a marriage within the church guaranteed that their relationship and the legitimacy of their children could not be questioned.

For weddings and other services of everyday life, the Book of Common Prayer codified existing traditions. It required that “banns” be read for three Sundays before the wedding in the couple’s home parish. This advance notice allowed the community to state any reasons why a wedding should not take place. The actual wedding service also included an opportunity for objections to be stated.

Prior to the 1500s, church licenses for marriages were essentially dispensations that could be purchased to override any objection that might be made to the marriage.  The institution of legally recognized marriage began, in the sense we understand it, with religious institutions.

The problem of marriage today is not with the churches, it is with the fact that the government is involved at all.  The rules of civil marriage—the license that the State grants you to marry—must be determined with respect to the federal and state Constitutions, not particular religious claims, no matter how fervently held.

The fundamental right to marry actually includes even gay and lesbian citizens, in that the Supreme Court has said that the right to marry is fundamental for all citizens. It does not, however, establish a federally recognized religion, for a private entity or even a state to choose against recognizing gay marriage.  That is where the 10^th and 13^th Amendments come in.

Polygamous marriages have been illegal since 1878 when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that one of the basic tenets of Western civilization was the marriage of one man to one woman.  This law, contrary to the opinion of some, was not written to limit the gender of spouses.  It was written to limit the number of spouses and was enacted specifically as a control measure of the government against polygamy of Mormons.  It had to be agreed that the Mormon settlers of Utah would uniformly and openly denounce the practice of polygamy before Utah could become a state.

In 1967 the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia struck down Virginia’s law against whites marrying African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Hispanics despite the fact that it was overwhelmingly popular and its champions invoked Biblical authority for its legitimacy. The Court found that Equal Protection and the Due Process right to marry are supreme in America; they control and displace discriminatory state marriage laws, even ones based on religious ideas that majorities passionately endorse.

And the constitutional principles are clear. First, Due Process protects the fundamental right of all consenting adults to marry. This is a right so sweeping that it covers even people who marry single partners multiple times or want to get married publicly, on television.   see Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), and convicted prisoners, see Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), including murderers on death row, many of whom have married people they have met by mail.

In 1996, the Congress of the United States passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This act defines the word marriage as a “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” In addition, in response to the possibility that some states would recognize a same sex relationship as a marriage while others would not, DOMA determines that other states do not have to “give effect to” or recognize “a right or claim arising from” such unions which may be legal in other states.

This falls in line with the Bill of Rights, in that it recognizes the ability of the states to decide what they will and will not recognize.  Now, here we come to an interesting catch.  The Federal Government has seen to it that churches are usually 501c3 IRS tax exempt organizations and do fall under the control and regulation of government, insofar as they wish to maintain their status as churches.

Effective July 1, 2000, the state of Vermont enacted a law, the first in the country, permitting same sex couples to be parties to a “civil union.” These unions, though not technically marriages, give same sex couples all the “benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law … as are granted to spouses in a marriage.” This law also allows parties who reside outside Vermont to enter the state to achieve a civil union. However, in accordance with DOMA, other states are not required to recognize these unions.

Further, legally recognized marriage requires both the partners to have sufficient mental capacity to understand the sanctity of the union, meaning that they must understand the judge’s or other marriage official’s statements during the marriage ceremony. This mental capacity will be deemed sufficient or not by the official. The couple also needs at least one witness to certify the ceremony in most states.

Some states require blood testing for venereal disease.  Some states require a waiting period just like when you buy a gun.  Age of consent also varies by state.  Some states recognize gay unions and some do not. Some states have adopted domestic partnership laws, while others have not. There are about ten states that currently legally recognize domestic partnerships. Laws change quickly and the number of states that legally recognize same sex relationships in any form fluctuates.

The real problem concerning the constitutional argument back and forth on gay marriage is not the churches at all.  It is not the fact that religious people want to have the sanctity of their expression of a union to be legally recognized as sacred.  In fact, most people aren’t even pushing for that.

The real problem is that the government is involved in marriage in the first place.  They are also involved in the regulations that hospitals, insurance agencies, and other various businesses are using concerning whether or not they recognize a gay union.  The regulations of insurance companies, for instance, originated in the administrative bureaucracies of the country and not in the hospitals or insurance company themselves.

It is also interesting to note that whether you are gay or straight, your level of taxation changes when you are married, when you have children in the home, or when you file jointly.  How is that fair to single people?

The Federal Government also controls how, when, and by what method you can dissolve a marriage, regardless of your sexual orientation.  You have to divorce according to the laws of each state, which find their origin in the Federal regulation.  So, the government gets you coming and going, whether you are gay, straight, or leaving one to be the other.

http://usmarriagelaws.com is an abundant source of information on the topic of marriage laws.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/usmarlaws.htm also breaks it down state by state.

http://www.enotes.com/family-law-reference/marriage-marriage-age is a good general info source.

A good breakdown of the laws of the fifty states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico can be found at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

Some good, in depth history, (insofar as it can be trusted to be accurate), can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

++++++++++++++++

Added note:

So, even in the wake of the new decision, the misconception persists that Proposition 8 “Banned all gay marriages.”  It, in fact, did not.  It banned gay marriages from taking place in that state.  It DID NOT ban ALL gay marriage.  There were still 8 other states you could go to for that.  And, the misconception also persists that this is NOT a state’s rights issue, when in fact, IT IS!

++++++++++++++++

U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts regular gas will average $3.45 this year.

Rising energy costs, poor weather conditions, commodity prices and the lousy value of the U.S. dollar mean food is expected to increase 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent from 2011, according to the Consumer Price Index.

The Consumer Price Index, which measures prices of consumer goods, for all-food items in 2012 is expected to increase 2.5 to 3.5 percent above 2011 levels, with grocery store prices increasing 3 to 4 percent and restaurant prices increasing 2 to 3 percent, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture forecast.

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture figures, the number of people on the food stamp rolls has been growing to record levels for 18 straight months. Nearly $5.5 billion in aid went out to beneficiaries in May alone. The number of May recipients marked a 19 percent increase from a year ago.

And the actual unemployment numbers consist of the following math:

In the survey week in December first-time applications for jobless claims benefits had declined to 368,000 from 396,000 in the same week a month earlier. But that is just jobless claims.  It means fewer people have filed new claims.  It does not mean that the already unemployed found new jobs.

In January jobless claims stood at 355,000 in the survey week (though much higher at 402,000 and 379,000 in the surrounding weeks).

Meanwhile, the 4-week moving average stood at 374,000 at the end of December and as of 27 January at 375,800, basically unchanged.

One underlying data point in some very good unemployment numbers is the number of people who have fallen out of the workforce. The unemployment rate fell not just because people are getting jobs, but because people are giving up. The actual unemployment rate is much higher.

According to BLS, it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month.

So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million.

Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7%

To adjust for this and make things look a tad rosier, the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

While consensus looks for a gain of 13,000 down from 23,000 in December the Employment index of the ISM report was roughly unchanged at 54.3 vs. 54.8. The index, however, has vastly overstated the number of net new jobs in the manufacturing in the current recovery.

The net change in government workers was only -12,000 in December and the 6-month moving average stands at -13,000 from -33,700 half a year ago,  while 364,000 new service jobs were added in 4Q’11.

As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing.

The number of planned layoffs at U.S. firms surged in January to its highest level in four months. Employers announced 53,486 planned job cuts last month, up 28 percent from 41,785 in December, according to the report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.  Retail companies cut 12,426 jobs, the largest amount for the sector in two years.

Financial firms eliminated 7,611 jobs, while the government sector saw only a relatively small amount of cuts at 3,021, up slightly from December’s 2,183 cuts and well off the monthly average of 15,255 in 2011, the report said.

So, despite the happy face our president is putting on it, we have a serious problem and it isn’t getting a hell of a lot better.  While he keeps claiming that he has saved or created jobs, we who are paying for food and gas, searching for jobs, and trying to get by, see a very different picture.

You will note that these are continued job cuts and not “modest growth” as is the new catchphrase.  You will also note that these aren’t just figures pulled out of a hat to create Republican propaganda to discredit Obama….as is the usual charge.

Should we be enthusiastic and hope for the best?  Sure.  But let’s also be realistic.  The Obama administration keeps referring to a still gushing amputation as a brand new limb and it just isn’t so.

Sources:  Reuters, CNN, MSNBC, Fox Business Report, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Consumer Price Index.

Not a peep about yet another green company going into the crapper.  Not a peep about the still unwritten budget and the unfettered pork barrel spending of our taxes.  A complete blackout of the evidence that global warming has been an ass load of panic over nothing.  Not a peep about the very real prospect of an Israel-Iran war.

On a side note: Israel should attack Iran over their nuclear program. Iran has threatened them with complete genocide multiple times. But that is a topic for another thread.

And, no, the media doesn’t want to discuss anything having to do with Israel. Or the Middle East in general right now. President pants on fire is trying to get re-elected and we have Conservative candidates to trash, American Idol season starting up, and Super Commercial Sunday to keep everyone busy on while more tax money goes into the abyss.

I had someone tell me that Obama is in the “catbird seat” and that he and the media are just busy laughing at all of the mudslinging of the Conservative candidates.

However, truth be told, Obama is busy laughing at all of the dumb asses across America who are more concerned with the bullshit being flung by candidates, than they are about

• $4.00 a gallon gas,
• $4.00 a gallon milk,
• green companies going into the toilet and taking our money with them,
• the fact that there is still no budget for his presidency,
• the fact that his justice department is personally responsible for guns killing our border patrol,
• the fact that he has just signed indefinite detention and suspension of habeas corpus,
• that the real unemployment numbers are at 10%,
• that Obamacare has already caused the closure of multiple clinics and more unemployment,
• that our president is more concerned with suing states trying to enforce federal law than doing anything about 12 million illegals and porous borders,
• that our president is blatantly anti-Israel and openly trying to appease the Muslim Brotherhood,
• that Iran has a genocidal maniac equal to Hitler as a leader, and that our withdrawal from the Middle East has caused only chaos,
• that more people are on food stamps than ever in our history

….and so is the media.

Yeah, he is actually in the cat-that-ate-the-bird seat. He got all of the same mooks to vote for him the first time as will vote for him again. The media knows that too. That is why they are happy to distract us with inane bullshit. And that is why most people will just eat it with a spoon and thank them for it.

From now on, when you tell me that I am vulgar for eating meat, I am going to refer to you as a carno-phobic vegicist.

When you tell me my coffee is too strong, I will refer to you as a bean-o-phobic beveragist.

When you try to tell me I hate poor people because I oppose welfare mentality, you are a money-phobic povertyist.

If you refuse to vote for someone because of their religion or the fact that they are religious, you are a god-o-phobic, heathenist.

When you tell people who oppose abortion that they hate women, you are an infant-o-phobic deathicist.

When you tell me that I didn’t vote for someone because of the color of their skin, or that I only voted for someone because of the color of their skin, you are a caucasian-o-phobic, skinicist.

When you tell me that I am imposing gender roles, by letting my 6-year-old son play with guns or my 4-year-old daughter play with dolls, you are a gender-phobic androgynist.

When you call me a redneck or worse because of my exercise of my right to bear arms, you are a gun-o-phobic crimeist.

When you claim that the rich aren’t paying their “fair share” after paying no taxes yourself, you are a wealth-o-phobic taxist.

When you tell me that homeschooling should be controlled, but that state enforced education is a good idea, you are an edu-phobic, schoolist.

When you call me names for not agreeing with your global warming agenda, you are a human-o-phobic greenist.

If you tell me that believing in border security is due to hating immigrants, you are a legal-phobic invasionist.

When you tell me that I am foolish for trying to hold a job, raise a family, and live a normal life instead of caving in to conspiracy theories and dropping out of society to wear a mask and squat in a tent, you are a realityphobic loserist.

And I will be using these openly, in debate or conversation, to demonstrate the absurdity of the over use of these two suffixes.  Perhaps, if I use these kinds of phrases long enough, then they will become as common and as meaningless as the terms racist, homophobic, etc.

Maybe I can even start a political movement and have legislation drawn up to circumvent, hinder, or control the freedoms of others, that I don’t believe they should have, because I view them as “unfair.”

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

— Ronald Reagan

We often see signs, banners, and photos with the phrase “ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE” featured prominently.  Usually, it is in the hand or over the head of some protester of this kind or that, dutifully marching for his or her cause.  But, frequently, I am forced to wonder if the person displaying the phrase understands the full meaning of the phrase or what goes with it.

My original line of thought on this was posted on my political blog.  I got a great deal of feedback and flack, which has helped me to clarify and expound on my position.  The original post:

Yes, POWER TO THE PEOPLE…

…But only so long as the people are worthy to hold the power.  For when the people give in to anarchy and violence toward one another, they are no longer worthy of the power they demand.

And when the power they seek is the power to force others to comply with their demands, however small or seemingly insignificant those demands may seem, they stop being worthy of any power at all.

The power of the people must remain the power of the just.  It must be the power to rule over the self as one sees fit and to allow others to do the same.  The minute the goal becomes the rule of the one or the few over the sovereignty and the will of the masses, power is no longer a just goal.

If the people are to be worthy of the power they demand, then they must first decide that they will wield that power in a just, lawful, and positive manner.  There must be a realization that certain rules of order and codes of conduct must exist in order for the power of the people to be sustained.

And it is not the abolition of an established societal order, that should be the underlying goal of those who would march to the phrase “Power to the people.”  It must be understood that in order for the people to have power, they must first create that system of order to which they would entrust the institution and preservation of the power of the people.

If the ultimate goal is to return to the ideal of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then by all means, march, picket, chant, rally, and assemble.  But, if your ultimate goal is to cause disorder, to disrupt the lives of others, or to destroy the ability of others to live as they see fit, then you are not worthy of the power you demand.

If your motives are based on a genuine desire to live as a free and sovereign individual, then more power to you.  But if your motives are based purely on jealousy, envy, hatred, and some distorted sense of what is “fair,” then it is time for you to reassess your motives.

If you are simply angry that others have what you do not, or that some are rich and you are not, or that some have power and you do not, then no amount of violence, hatred, vandalism, or debauchery in the name of freedom is ever going to work.  You will only become the enemy of society and the enemy of those who have what you jealously seek.

And, if that is all you want, then you do not deserve power.

Freedom is always conditional.  The very existence and maintenance of freedom is contingent upon its use.  If your freedom is used to oppress others into accepting your view of freedom, then you have crossed the line from free and sovereign individual to tyrant.

If a society is to be a free, (in the grand, general sense), society, then it must be filled with individuals that understand the value of right action.  Wrong action is fairly universally accepted as the basics: No murder, No rape, No theft of others belongings, No intentional harm of others, etc.  Freedom that is used to intentionally go outside the bounds of what is generally universally accepted, is freedom abused.

If you use your freedom to promote, preserve and defend the same freedom of others, then you have chosen, (IMHO), the proper use of freedom.

Freedom is always conditional on its use.  This, naturally sticks in the craw of many a reader.  I was challenged in the notion thusly:

Look, I’m still confused, do we get to have power to the people or is it just power to the people Pendark gives the all clear? Do we have to change the motto to Power to the Pendark People because while I like alliteration I just don’t think it’s as catchy.

philosophy-of-praxis

I responded with:

What you seem to misunderstand is not that I am advocating that only specific people are to have power.  Quite the opposite.  The phrase, “Power to the people,” is an oft misused phrase.  It is usually used by the very people most seeking to remove freedom or power from others.

I have no direct ability to grant you power or remove you of it.  But, if the actions of a collective, however small, are actions whose purpose is to circumvent, hinder, or control the rights, freedoms, or liberties of others, then those actions are no longer just.

Just use of power and of freedom, require that we recognize that all people are to be granted the same power and freedom.  That does not mean that the right of a person to possess the fruits of his labor is to be removed and the fruits of that labor redistributed to the messes.  (Which is, by the way, the exact intent behind the actions of some of the people gathering and shouting the aforementioned phrase.

Some of the people using the aforementioned phrase, have taken it upon themselves to act on the assumption that they have somehow been oppressed or removed of rights simply because one person or set of people has in their possession a quantity of this or that, (usually money and belongings), that they do not possess.

The goal of many a person using the phrase “Power to the people,” is to remove the power and property of some in the name of “fairness.”  And that is where I draw a line.

This raised several objections, which I addressed individually here and on my blog.

>Freedom cannot be used to oppress others into accepting ones own view of freedom.

It can when the freedom to act, is used in a manner that manifests itself in actions that are oppressive and force change that was based on the opinion, view, or goals of the original actor.

Attempting to point out and belittle my position he said:

>Creates a number of posts to impress upon people ones own view of freedom.

Only in the free exchange of ideas can anyone decide what it is they will and will not accept, believe, or express.  To impress an idea on others via the exchange of the idea, in no way circumvents, hinders, or controls the right and freedom of another to reject that idea.

I have never held up a gun and said to you or anyone, believe this or I’ll kil you.”  I have never held out shackles and said, “Believe this or I’ll imprison you.”  What I have said repeatedly in my writing, is that you are free to accept or reject any idea I present.  these are just my ideas, my opinions, my thoughts.  Take it or leave it.

>Makes claims of the universality of ones own views of freedom.

Incorrect.  What I did was suggest that certain ideas of what is just are universally accepted by most people.  Which is, in fact the case.  A clearer word might be “Axiom.”

1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim.

2. An established rule, principle, or law.

3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

I was told:

Freedom can only exist if it is recognised to be free of conditions.  If freedom is not free of conditions then why do we call it freedom?

We have many of these axioms or stated principles that are used throughout the world as the basis of laws, codes, and constitutions.  For instance, it is generally accepted as unjust, immoral, and illegal for me to come into your home, rape your wife, kill your children, and steal your belongings.  I am, of course, free to do so, but not without consequence.

You are then free to kill me as recompense for my acts, assuming I am not first apprehended and/or killed by an officer of the law.  Of course, you killing me is also subject to certain determination of justifiable or unjustifiable nature in a court of law.  We are subject to the law of the land, if we wish to maintain that level of freedom that fits the following dictionary definition.

FREEDOM: the quality or state of being free:

as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action The absence of restraint exists within the confines of what is accepted as lawful.

Once those confines have been breached, then there is a prescribed penalty according to the law of the land.   Thus, freedom, in this sense is contingent upon adherence to the law of the land insofar as we are not forced to do so unjustly or that law is not unfairly restrictive or oppressive to us or others.

b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence

Independence is a relative term.  You can be completely independent of any law, restriction, or system, only if you choose to move yourself to a place outside the reach of that law, restriction, or system.

c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>

It must be determined by concensus what is and is not onerous and on whom it is onerous, before the one on whom it is onerous can be released.

d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>

e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>

We are demonstrating that portion of the definition amply.

f : improper familiarity

A frequently observed custom online, where people can hide behind a screen name and speak whatever insults they choose to others.

g: boldness of conception or execution A portion of the definition I try to demonstrate daily.

h: unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

Unrestricted use of anything must be granted by the one in possession or control of the thing one wishes to have the unrestricted use of.  Or, that thing must be taken from the one originally in possession of it.  Which, in turn, removes the other of the privilege or “right” of its use. Thus, we see that “freedom” is indeed contingent on several factors.  Primarily, on the use thereof.

i : a political right

Taken in any of these contexts, it must be recognized that freedom is contingent on use.  Which leads to the side debate that was occurring in conjunction with this debate.

>Supports the use of force to prevent others from enacting their own personal view of freedom (within the confines of the Constitution!)

In the above referenced post, I was referring to this:

Occupy Wall Street clash with police in New Year’s Eve protest, officer stabbed

My comment on it was purposely harsh:

I have had my fill of these vermin.  They have freedom of speech and the right to assemble.  They do not have a right to attack people, deface property, vandalize things, and spread filth.

They are nothing more than self-imposed rejects of society, with delusions of grandeur.  I supported their right to speak out.  but they have proven unworthy of that right.  And now, I support any effort to stop this rabble from continuing to abuse our freedoms.  (Within the confines of the Constitution.)

I know that last parenthetical phrase was unnecessary for most of you, but the morons who support these people would have jumped in here and called me a nazi if I had left it out.

I was told:

Nahh, you’re still a Nazi, even if you hide behind the Constitution. Fuck off Nazi. This is no place for scumbags like you.

I responded with:

What an utterly open-minded and liberal thing to say. (Proving my point about the mindset.)

It got uglier:

No, dumbass, a Liberal would have agreed with you about the need for everyone to play nice and not offend or inconvenience everyone. Liberals and you are in lockstep on this, and you’re too naive to even realize it.  It’s also hilarious you couldn’t detect my sarcasm. I know you’re not a Nazi. You’re just another American white supremacist asshole. I was just yanking your chain because it’s pretty fucking weird you’d put an “inb4 Nazi” remark in your post. Suspiciously defensive, if you ask me. Maybe it’s your conscious screaming at you to stop being a giant dildo.

I presume the comment author meant conscience.  In which case the need for worry is unfounded, because, mine is just fine.   I was clear in my statement.  I will not redact or retract it.  And such comments only serve to emphasize my point.

The jackass that clearly doesn’t know a thing about me is perfectly free to demonstrate his ignorance.  I will not seek to circumvent, hinder, or control the right of that individual to express an utterly unfounded and ridiculous sentiment.

I will not seek to take the right of the individual to make suck ass comments like that away from him/her.  Neither do I choose to use my freedom of speech to continue the exchange.  You see, that is how freedom works.  Your freedom to abuse me ends with my retraction of consent to be abused.

In the case of the side topic that seems to have caused a good number of people a bit of distress, I will reiterate a specific point.

A self-evident or universally recognized truth, which has been an established rule, principle, or law of every country, is that it is wrong to commit an act of violence, where that act is unjustified.  I see nothing that justified the assult of an officer of the law, who is in the line of his duty, preventing you from doing damage to property, harm to others or yourself, or create a danger to others.

Your right to be an asshole ends when that right is used to be abusive, destructive, or unlawful.  If that is so bloody distasteful a notion to you, then please feel free to move to a place where no law exists and where there is nobody present to restrict your right to be an asshole.

What the people of the “Occupy movement” are doing is not productive.  It is not going to further the cause of freedom in any manner.  What they seek to do is restrict, circumvent, hinder, or control the right and freedom of others to be in possession of more than they are.

The perceived oppression they supposedly fight is the inconvenience of having to fight to achieve.  What they want is the freedom to “have” without the obligation of working to have.  What they seek is to do harm to businesses, corporations, and “the evil rich.”

And they are spurred on by politicians who must keep stirring the pot of racial and class warfare in order to maintain the power they have to control us through what we believe are freedoms.

Of course, in a free society, where the free exchange of ideas is granted, so long as those ideas are not inciting chaos, riot, or violence, we must expect that ideas we do not like will be expressed.

“The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: the Portuguese. The black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead.”

Che Guevara (via communismkills)

—————————————————————

Pendark’s two cents worth:

So, wait, the enforcer of Stalinist policy in his own country, who was personally responsible for killing or ordering killed thousands of his own countryfolk, was a racist?

Go figure.

I guess that is just one more reason our college professors and their students should revere him as a hero and a freedom fighter, huh?

———————————————————-

Also posted by (communismkills)

“I’d like to confess, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.” Che Guevara

—————————————————-

Pendark’s two cents worth:

Well, he was a natural at it.

After the revolution, Che took a cue from Stalin and had, by his own count, 2,500 of his officers executed. Che kidnapped them in the night, wives and children screaming in terror at the arrival of the death squads. Che taped their mouths to prevent them from speaking. Che buried the corpses in secret graves.

http://www.studlife.com/archives/Forum/2003/10/31/StopIdolizingCheGuevara/

———————

Also posted by (communismkills)

“In fact if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Neitzche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm.”  Che Guevara

———————————-

Pendark:

I suppose it is not surprising, then, that so many of the youth that idolize him today are also rampant and almost militant anti-Christians.

—————————————-

Also posted by (communismkills)

“A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.  We must create the pedagogy of The Wall.”  Che Guevara

———————————-

Pendark:

At best, socialists view people like Che, Mao, Lenin, as comrades who simply “made mistakes, and should have done things different”.  They will revere them, quote them, and wear their likeness as a statement of their hatred against the perceived oppression they suffer at the hands of evil corporations, evil land owners, and those evil anti-statist individualists.

It is viewed by them as evil that some of us out here believe that every person is given the same opportunity to excel and when they escel, they should have the right to the fruits of their labor.  Ask anyone out there “occupying” things right now and you will get some such rhetoric from them.  They believe that their ideal of “fairness” requires the forced removal of the fruits of labor and the spoils of consumerism possessed by the “wealthy” and the redistribution thereof to them.

——————————————-

Also posted by (communismkills)

“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary… These procedures are an unnecessary bourgeois detail.  This is a revolution.” Che Guevara

How ironic that our own historic and revolutionary president is due to sign a bill that has not only clearly illustrated this entire point to people actually researching the issue, but has produced one of the very few areas where I agree with Ron Paul 100%.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of “the homeland.” Ron Paul described the bill (soon to be signed into law by the President) as a “slip into tyranny,” one that will almost certainly accelerate “our descent into totalitarianism.”

What of the NDAA? Are there indeed provisions contained therein that so ferociously tear at the constitutional fabric of our Republic?

In a word — yes.

This liberty-extinguishing legislation converts America into a war zone and turns Americans into potential suspected terrorists, complete with the full roster of rights typically afforded to terrorists — none.

A key component of this reconciled bill mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Further, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021 described in the previous paragraph, subsequent clauses (Section 1022, for example) unlawfully give the President the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”

The universe of potential “covered persons” includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.

In his assessment of the danger inherent in such acts, Paul is in good company. This suspension of habeas corpus, a right central to Anglo-American freedom from despotism for over 500 years, was described by Alexander Hamilton as one of “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10379-ron-paul-calls-national-defense-authorization-act-qslip-into-tyrannyq

Also posted by (communismkills)

“Crazy with fury, I stain my rifle red while slaughtering an enemy that falls in my hands!  My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood.  With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl.”  Che Guevara

That same bestial howl can be heard from the bullhorns of the tent squatters in the streets and the gang bangers killing people for shoes.  they have decided that they are entitled to what the other guy has and they will take it at all costs.  We have evidence of violent speeches given at the Occupy rallies and those rallies being joined by the Communist Party of America.

Also posted by (communismkills)

People are claiming the Che Guevara quotes I’ve provided are “fake” and “made up by the American government to smear Che”…

But actually, they are all things Che himself either said (and was recorded) or written down.

Please read “Exposing the Real Che Guevara” by Humberto Fontova, it has the sources (all Che himself) of every quote I have listed.

It’s actually disgusting how far people will go to defend a murderer who happens to be a communist hero.

——————————————

Pendark’s two cents worth:

Yes, it is disgusting.

159 CUBANS EXECUTED BY CHE GUEVARA

This list was compiled by Dr. Armando Lago for his upcoming book THE HUMAN COST OF SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS. Each person has been documented by two or more independent sources including books and newspapers.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/che/che-executed.htm

———————————————-

A great article on the irony of the face of Che the communist firebrand becoming a capitalist clothing brand can be found at: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/che/brand.htm

———————————————-

As to his noble fight against tyranny and oppression, according to the work of one statistician, R.J. Rummel, who recorded that the Batista regime “killed 1000 of its citizens from 1952 to 1959, for an average rate of 143 per year,” while the Castro regime “killed 73000 of its citizens from 1959 to 1987, for an average rate of 2607 per year”.

According to his data, then, the Castro regime killed at an 18 times faster rate than even the despicable Batista had done, or at a 12.6 times higher proportional rate if you take population growth into account.

So, if we are to be honest with ourselves about the whole thing, we must conclude that anyone idolizing Che is idolizing the idea of creating a Socialist totalitarianism and a form of Marxist-Communism like that implemented by Stalin and enforced by Che Guevara.  This would not only require the complete removal of our constitutionally based form of government, but a violent civil war.  Anyone thinking that it wouldn’t is only kidding themselves.

Probably while wearing a Che shirt.

First, the US Supreme Court never granted natural person status to corporations in any decision rendered by the Court. The notion that a corporation is a natural person and is subject to the equal protection requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment is found in the headnote added to the decision by the then court reporter when the decision of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway.

In 1818, the United States Supreme Court heard the case Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), making the following statement in their decision:

“The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States.”

What this means, is that a corporation’s shareholders, investors, and owners are protected under the same laws that any other citizen of the United States of America can expect.  Why the left has decided that it is somehow “unfair” for a citizen of this country who has invested his money and his time in the building of a corporation, to be treated the same as any private citizen who invested their time and money in the building of a home, a family, or an endeavor of any kind, is beyond me.

The only answer I can find boils down to one simple word…ENVY.

The misnomer of Corporate Personhood is flung about by every candidate for office or entrenched office holder that wants to keep stirring the crap pot of class envy and hate for big business.  It is a complete lie.  Corporate personhood does not exist as such.  What does exist is a Corporate Veil.  Let’s discuss that a moment.

The concept of limited liability was invented in England in the 17th century, and prior to this period, people were scared to invest in companies because any partner in a general partnership could be held responsible for all the debts of the corporation.

Essentially, the lawsuit protection features of the corporation will be available only if the integrity of the corporation as a separate and distinct entity, apart from the individual, is respected by a court and by the Internal Revenue Service.

Alter ego is a legal theory that can apply to many defendants, and consequently, it can significantly expand the ability of a plaintiff’s attorney to reach individuals and entities otherwise protected by the corporate veil.

Closely related to the alter ego doctrine is the doctrine of joint enterprise liability or enterprise liability.  While piercing the corporate veil provides a mechanism for holding a shareholder (person or entity) liable for the debts of the corporation, joint enterprise liability provides a mechanism for holding a non-shareholder liable for the debts of a corporation.

Following are some of the factors that courts evaluate when determining whether to pierce the corporate veil:

• Whether the funds of the shareholders and corporation have been kept separate or commingled
• Whether the corporation follows corporate formalities (maintaining minutes, observing bylaws, electing directors)
• Inadequate capitalization making the corporation a mere shell, conduit or instrumentality of the shareholders
• Non-functioning directors
• Whether shareholders are withdrawing funds or assets from the corporation for personal use without justification or documentation
• Adequacy of insurance to protect third parties
• Did the corporation comply with the law
• Was the corporation properly licensed for its intended activity
• Did the corporation issue stock to the shareholders
• Whether the corporation conducts all of its business in the corporate name
• Did the corporation engage in transactions with shareholders that were not at arm’s length
• Have the shareholders placed any of the corporate assets on their personal financial statements given to third parties
• Was the corporation used as an instrumentality or agent of the shareholders
• Would there be an inequitable result if the corporate veil is used as a defense

But rarely, if ever, do we hear a politician or a commentator discuss that side of it.  For some damned reason, nobody wants to discuss the B-side of the 45 in this conversation.  I use the dated reference on purpose.  You see, the laws that both protect and regulate corporations are not only as numerous as the songs that have been pressed to wax in the last 50 years, it is impossible to name them all.

For starters, a corporation or an LLC is a legal entity that exists separately from its shareholders. It may, therefore, contract or otherwise incur obligations apart from a shareholder.   This is a protection whereby an individual owner or investor may have his personal assets protected in the event of a lawsuit against the corporation itself.  If this was somehow an illegal measure then certainly courts and legislators would never allow it to occur.

In some circumstances, however, courts will ignore the corporate identity and hold the individual shareholders liable for the debts and obligations of that corporation by applying a legal theory that is commonly referred to as the “alter ego doctrine.”

Under this theory, if a party has been damaged by the acts of a corporation,  they can seek to prove that the corporation entity is the “alter ego” of one or more individuals, the court may hold the individuals themselves personally responsible for the injurious conduct.

The Stone v. Frederick Hobby Associates II, LLC, 2001 Conn. Super Docket No.#CV00181620S The court found that the “instrumentality and identity rules” could be applied, under the facts of the case, to “pierce the corporate veil” of an LLC and hold the individual members personally liable.

In the case of Cohen v. Williams, 294 Ala. 417, 318 So.2d 279, the sole stockholder did not keep corporate minutes: the court held that such a circumstance justified a disregard of the corporate entity.

In the case of DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc, Appellee W. Ray Flemming Fruit Company and No.75-1653, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit May 13, 1976; it was shown that no one except Flemming ever got paid by the corporation. Flemming kept withdrawing whatever money the corporation had for his personal use. The corporation basically had no capital of its own. Given all this, plus Flemming’s personal assurance to the plaintiff creditor, the appellate court has no problem upholding the district court’s findings of fact.

Qugen, Inc. v. Chawla et al. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 2, 2011), In this case the trial court found no evidence that the owners stripped company assets, undercapitalized the company or formed it to defraud creditors. The Ace credit card was used for business, not personal, expenses. The trial court refused to pierce the corporate veil and was upheld on appeal.

Part of the reason for the decision was the ample evidence that the company and its holders were in full compliance of the codes and laws concerning corporations in which the owner must operate the company and its affairs separately from his/her own. He must demonstrate that he is not paying personal expenses with company funds or diverting company assets to personal use. He must maintain a separate bank account for the business. He must prove through strict and complete records that there has been adequately capitalizing of the business. And he must maintain signing documents correctly in the company’s name.

This is by no means “Personhood.”  There is no law that binds an individual person to the kinds of measures that must be taken by a corporation owner of any size, except perhaps those regulating the military and the police.  Just as when you become a police officer or a soldier, you become subject to a higher and more complex set of laws and regulations concerning your conduct, as well as being subject to the same laws as any civilian; so does the corporate owner.  There is no unfair or unreasonable release of these people from the laws of the land as is asserted by the occupy crowd and those drumming up class envy. There is, however, a protection of the rights and personal assets of the individual.  And therein lies the rub for the “Occupy” crowd.

Next, while most people who incorporate believe they have no personal liability for the debts of the corporation, this is not always true. Cases occur all the time, in which some private citizen is seeking to hold the shareholders of a corporate entity personally liable for damages real or perceived.  Since the shareholder will almost always be named as a defendant in the lawsuit, even if he is ultimately successful, the attorney’s fees and the costs of defense can be financially ruinous for the individual.

And when you talk to the people that are currently out screaming about “Corporate Personhood,” that seems to be the underlying theme of their arguments every time.  They want to make the “evil rich” suffer.  They have some mythical vision of “fairness” that includes the destruction of the wealth of those that have worked to build it, followed by the redistribution of that wealth to them in some form.  And that is where they have the whole thing wrong.  What they want resembles no such thing as fairness.

What they really want is to “stick it to” the “evil rich.”  In most cases, that means trying to halt the building of a job creating business that just happens to have a large corporate name on the front, by using such excuses as the environment, the appearance of a neighborhood, or the crime rate of their town.  What they really want is to halt capitalism and progress.

For those that want to study the issue, an excellent scholarly work entitled: The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and the U.S. Corporate Veil Doctrines has been linked by clicking the title itself.

“Corporate Personhood is an absolute myth.  It is told and re-told by the people who seek to destroy capitalism, reduce everyone to poverty, and create a socialist anarchy where they get free drugs, free healthcare, welfare for no work, and their children ride unicorns over the rainbow to get their free education.

The same people called 9-11 an “inside job” and now call terrorism “man-made disaster.”  And they will keep attempting to alter the language to program the masses into believing they are right.  It began with calling welfare a “safety net,” inserting the word “entitled,” and coupling that with the word “fairness,” to describe what is clearly an agenda of destruction of the right of private property and private ownership of asset.

It has progressed into the drone-like repetition of the words “corporate jets,” “millionaires and billionaires,” and “”corporate personhood,” to describe the elements of wealth and to paint a picture of some dark and sinister enemy of the people worthy of complete destruction.

If we continue to allow ourselves to head down this path, then one day, Socialism and anarchy will have been completely removed of their bitter reality when our grandchildren simply call it “life in America.”