Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Freedom Has No Ties To Racism And Fear

This is a blog in which the central theme is freedom.  True, the majority of posts deal with the taxation of earned income which, to me, is more a liberty issue than a government revenue issue.  But, considering that broader, central theme of freedom, have you ever wondered why this blog is not filled with links to, and articles from, so-called "freedom" websites?  Have you ever visited some of those websites?

Once in a while, I'll come across a link to an article from some "Libertarian" or "free-thinking" or "freedom" website, and I'll click to read the article.  Sometimes the article in and of itself is good and worthwhile (IMO), but then I start looking around at the rest of the site.  And what do I see?

I see an underlying racism.  I see fear.  I see extremism.  I see paranoia.  And I see a lot of commercial interests trying to make a buck off of that fear.

Truth to tell, none of those things have anything to do with freedom (ding!  ding!  ding!  ding!  ding!).  If one is really interested in freedom, one cannot be interested in holding to racist ideas.  Fear and paranoia have nothing to do with freedom.  And extremism binds one to a very narrow outlook on just about everything.  A narrow mind is not free.

Fear and paranoia should not be a substitute for vigilance.  Extremism should not replace reason.  Racism should not be mistaken for true brotherhood.

So, having read such-and-so article on said "freedom" website, I move on as if I'd never been there.

And that is why this blog has no links to other freedom loving websites, and no advertisements from manufacturers of backyard bomb shelters.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

Have You Heard Of The Robin Hood Tax?

[from  http://www.robinhoodtax.org]

The big idea

Simply put, the big idea behind the Robin Hood Tax is to generate hundreds of billions of dollars. That money could provide funding for jobs to kickstart the economy and get America back on its feet. It could help save the social safety net here and around the world.  And it will come from fairer taxation of the financial sector.

This small tax of less than ½ of 1% on Wall Street transactions can generate hundreds of billions of dollars each year in the US alone.

Enough to protect American schools, housing, local governments and hospitals. Enough to pay for lifesaving AIDS medicines. Enough to support people and communities around the world – and deal with the climate challenges we're facing.

It won't affect ordinary Americans, their personal savings, or every day consumer activity, such as ATMs or debit cards. It's easy to enforce and tough to evade. 

This is a tax on Wall Street, which created the greatest economic crisis in our nation, and globally, since the Great Depression. The same people who have returned to record profits and bonuses while ordinary Americans, the 99%, continue to pay the price of their crisis.

So it's time for justice for ordinary families and businesses. For American families faced with a choice between buying food or paying the heating bill.

The Robin Hood Tax is just. The banks can afford it. The systems are in place to collect it. It won't affect ordinary members of the public, their bank accounts or their savings. It's fair, it's timely, and it's possible.

It's not a tax on the people, but a tax for the people.

California Defends Freedom


Jerry Brown Signs California Ban On Indefinite Detentions

The Huffington Post  |  By Posted:   |  Updated: 10/02/2013 9:00 pm EDT

Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a statewide ban on indefinite detentions into law Tuesday, prohibiting compliance with provisions of federal law. 

After receiving overwhelming bipartisan support in the California State Assembly, Brown approved AB 351, in effect banning any state assistance with federal enforcement of "indefinite detention" of vaguely defined "enemy combatants," including American citizens, without due process, as outlined in the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

Among other points of legal controversy, President Barack Obama’s signing of the NDAA has sparked particular legal backlash over its provisions on indefinite detention, contained in section 1021. AB 351 now prohibits any future “local entities from knowingly using state funds ... to engage in any activity that aids an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention of any person within California for purposes of implementing Sections 1021.”

A number of states have raised legal challenges against the NDAA, claiming that aspects of the law violate First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights. According to PolicyMic, section 1021 has also been denounced internationally, with opposition from the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The ACLU also views the NDAA’s scope of indefinite detentions as “particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield."

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, state Rep. Tim Donnelly (R-San Bernardino), author of AB 351, said, “Indefinite detention, by its very definition, means we are throwing away the basic foundations of our Constitution.” Donnelly also claimed AB 351 "will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”

Although Alaska and Virginia have passed similar legislation, California’s AB 351 goes further in using the restriction of state funds to accomplish a broader prevention of indefinite detention. The state's successful passage of the more aggressive ban on assistance with federal indefinite detentions -- built on bipartisan support -- may indicate a better chance of success for other states launching legal battles against controversial NDAA measures.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Freedom From Millionaires

Here's an idea to kick around: income limits.

Going forward, anyone running for political office cannot have earned more than $75,000 in a single year, and most of that money must have come from working a job (as opposed to gifts or inves
tment income).  While in office, no one will make more than $75,000 a year.  If an individual makes a penny more in a year while in office, they will be removed from office the day it is proven, with no pension.  If someone has left office on good terms and is receiving a legitimate pension, that pension will cease if it is found that extra income had been gained while in office.


Because it would be unfair to force people to cancel what investments they may have when entering a political campaign and for the duration of their time in office, whatever investment income they might receive while in office would be deducted from their pay as an office holder.  Yearly income while in office, from whatever source derived, will never exceed $75,000.  Gifts in any form are strictly forbidden.

If we want to stop having our lives run by millionaires, we need to stop putting them in office.


And think about it: though it is not in writing, in practical terms we already have income limits in place, and those limits serve to exclude the commoners from ever becoming decision makers.  Political offices are filled with members of "the Club," and they only want to work with fellow members.  

If we want to continue having this country run by people who can only think and act like millionaires, whose primary interests are those of themselves and other millionaires, then the solution is easy - change nothing.