D.C. Whistleblower

His name is Eric Ciaramella.

The Fascists are demonstrating what happens when people dissent.  The censor.  I will not be censored.

What if the First Amendment was handled like the Second?

(subtitled I Have a Nightmare)


The Founding Fathers never intended people to be able to communicate with the speed and wide-ranging impact we have today.  In their day, the most dangerous free-speech tool around was the printing press.  It was dirty, hard work to print pamphlets, which then had to be distributed by a human being. 

Today, it is possible for one person, typing in comfort, to reach literally millions of people. 

If the Founders had known the power that one person could have with a few simple motions of fingers on a keyboard, they would have built more government control into the Constitution.

A 13-year-old schoolgirl killed herself after the mother of a former friend pretended to be someone else, gained the girl's confidence, and then turned the conversation hostile. 

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&page=1

There is the classic example from Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919) where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. used the example: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

There is the example of of the George Zimmerman case where NBC news falsely edited a 911 tape to make it appear that Mr. Zimmerman was a racist, when in fact he was answering a direct question from the 911 operator.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbc-news-admits-error-in-editing-george-zimmermans-911-call-apologizes/

In 2004, the Boston Globe published fake porn pics that claimed to depict U.S. Soldiers raping Iraqi women.  "Other news sources exposed the photos as fakes a week before the Boston Globe published them, and critics alleged that a simple Google search would've shown as much."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/10-biggest-journalism-sca_n_893357.html#slide=305522

Also in 2004, Dan Rather alleged that George W Bush "failed to fulfill his service to the National Guard, relying on documents that were revealed to be forged."

Jayson Blair - "27 year old Jayson Blair was an emerging force at the New York Times in 2003 when it was discovered that he had plagiarized and fabricated facts in at least 36 articles for the paper.

"A 1992 Dateline NBC segment showed a General Motors truck exploding after a low-speed crash with another car.  GM later sued the network when the explosion was revealed to have been staged with remote-controlled devices, and NBC News President Michael Gartner was forced to resign."

And, according to "the largest accuracy study of U.S. papers" published in 2007, "just over 59 percent of articles contained some type of error, according to sources."



Therefore, I propose some sensible limits on our First Amendment freedoms to protect society, move our nation forward and, most importantly, protect our children.



There should be restrictions on who can speak and publish (communicate).  There are some people who should just never be allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights.  They are dangerous people and cannot be trusted with that level of power.  The mentally ill and those who have committed felonies fall into this category.  Just imagine the number of children a felon could influence if allowed access to communication tools! 

There should be a database created that tracks every communication.  Each communication should have a unique number so that, as communication flows, it can be tracked. 

All forms of mass communication (such as Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail) should be reserved for government officials, the "rightful authorities", and perhaps a select few people (such as publishers and printers and newspapers) who go through the rigorous process to obtain a Federal Speech License (FSL).  The FSL process will be long, costly, and revokable at any time.  The average citizen cannot be trusted with the ability to mass communicate.  Think about the carnage that could ensue if that were allowed.

Communication should be limited to 10 sentences.  We are well aware that there are many forms of communication available now that allow 30 sentences, or even 100 sentences.  If common people were allowed that much ability to communicate all at one time, without even switching communication devices, just think of the impact.

People should not be allowed to purchase communication tools too frequently.  Why does someone need to purchase communication tools 2-3 times in a week?  No one needs to.  Therefore, people should only be able to purchase communication tools once a week.  If they want to purchase communication tools again the following week, then they can. 

There should be a "cooling off period" between the time someone wants to communicate and when the communication actually happens.  People can be hot heads and dangerous and should not be allowed to communicate when angry. 

Background checks should be performed before anyone is allowed to communicate.  Sure, there will be a few false-positives and, because of that, some people will have to wait to communicate until the discrepancy can be cleared up, but it is a small burden to protect the children and keep our nation safe.

While communication forms (such as books and newspapers) are legal to carry openly in public, it is frowned upon and may cause others to be uncomfortable.  If you wish to take communication out in public secretly, special training will be required.  Cost will be $100-$150 for the training class, you will be registered with the government, have a background check performed on you, and be required to present your government issued license to law enforcement immediately upon contact with them.  Failure to warn police officers immediately upon contact may result in your loss of your concealed communication carry permit.

All forms of communication, when sold, must be sold with a communications lock.  This will ensure that the communication does not open accidentally and that children, if left home alone and curious, will not come upon a form of communication, read it, and be injured by it.

We will encourage doctors to find out from child patients how many forms of communication parents have in the home and record that.  A parent with too many forms of communication in the home may be viewed as a danger to the children or the community.

There are some places where communication just doesn't belong.  These will be referred to as "communication free zones".  This would be places such as movie theaters, bars, and other places where large groups of people gather.  Imagine the mayhem if some communication was used in a large gathering of people!  How many people could be impacted by a single person's communication?  What would the horrific result be?  It would be a disaster!

All paper will be heavily taxed.  While paper is not communication itself, it is still an accessory to communication and, therefore, should be taxed to help government pay for all of the care and clean up that needs to happen when someone, somehow manages to pull off a "mass communication" in spite of the good and sensible laws we have put in place. 

There will also be limits placed upon the number of pieces of paper someone can buy during a specified period.



Back to reality:

The facts at the beginning of this communication on the impact of poor communication (or downright lying) are all true.  These all happened.

The thoughts presented after that are based on current or past gun regulation, either at the federal or state level. 

Clearly, we believe the regulations suggested to control communication are ridiculous.  But, do we believe the pen is mightier than the sword?  If so, shouldn't we regulate communication MORE than the weapons?

We cannot allow our inalienable rights to be violated by a power-hungry government.



Afterthought:

You know what's scary?  As I read this, I think of my brief experience in China.  Many of these things are actually this way in China. 

When we think of Communist China we think of draconian crackdowns, where dissent is squashed, religion is highly regulated, and family sizes are controlled.  We think of oppression.  We think of a lone man standing in front of a column of tanks.

When you do a Google Image search for Tienanmen Square, you see the image repeated of the man standing in front of a column of tanks.  I can tell you for reports and from personal experience, that when you do the same search in China, you don't see a single result of a man standing in front of a column of tanks.  You see pictures of a nicely decorated square, pretty flowers and flags.  Facebook also cannot be accessed over there, and the "Great Firewall of China" still restricts communication of the Chinese people.  Google G-mail has been repeatedly hacked by China so that China can monitor/spy on the communication of its dissidents. 


Call to action:

Get involved.  Do something that reaffirms the accurate beliefs of the Founding Fathers. 

Contact your representatives.
Join the NRA.
Vote when able for those who value freedom.
Use your first amendment right and communicate with others.
Get involved in a local gun club.
Whatever you do, just don't be silent.

Aloha.

November 6, 2012

Tomorrow (November 6, 2012) our nation will once again go to the polls and cast votes for electors to eventually elect the President of the United States.  This particular election cycle has seen what I believe is an unprecedented level of bias in most of the "old media" types in favor of President Obama.  I have seen at least one independent study that has indicated that is a true statement.

Today CNN released a poll that showed Obama up by 1 (O - 49, R - 48).  By this account, the election will be really close.  Unfortunately for CNN, I took a statistics class and understand that polls/statistics can be made to say anything if done poorly. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

Nationally, polls (well done polls) indicate that 33.3% of us identify as Democrat, 39.1% identify as Republican.  This gives Republicans a +5.8. 

For comparison, in November of 2010 (the landslide election for Republicans), 34.7% identified as Dem, 36.0% identified as Rep.  This was a +1.3.

In November of 2008 (an election Obama won 52.9% to 45.7%), 41.4% identified as Dem, 33.8% identified as Rep.  That was a -7.6. 

I share these numbers because the CNN poll is weighted in favor of the Democrats by 11.  What that means is that CNN is assuming that while Democrats only had a 7.6% advantage in 2008, they anticipate Democrats will have an 11% advantage this time around...in spite of reliable numbers that indicate that they will not have a 7.6% or 11% advantage, but will be at a 5.8% disadvantage. 

Or, stated differently, if I went to the Democratic National Convention and asked only those people attending wearing Obama t-shirts, his poll numbers would look pretty good too.

Or, using the numbers I presented with this:

2008 - D +7.6 - Obama win
2010 - R +1.3 - highest loss of a party in midterm since 1938 - big Republican win
2012 - R +5.8 - CNN says Obama ahead by 1. 

Additionally, CNN indicates in that same poll that Romney is ahead with independents by 24 points.  (59 R, 35 O).  

So, in the last 4 years there has been a 13.4% shift from D +7.6 to R +5.8 and Romney is up with Independents by 24%.  If these numbers are anywhere close to accurate (and based on historical perspective, I believe they are) it should be a huge Romney win.

However, I have no doubt that until the numbers are officially reported, the old media people will do what they can to convince us that Obama is ahead and should win.

With that said, I have done this before and I think I did pretty well.  So, here goes again:

Tomorrow's headlines today:

Morning: 

President Obama finishes strong and goes to vote.

Romney counting on a miracle.  

Close race.

Down to the wire.

Voter intimidation in minority areas already reported.

Will Republicans ground game materialize?

Obama leads during early voting.

Early African American vote strong.



Evening:

Exit polls in East Coast States show Obama ahead.

Evening starting well for Obama. 

Voter intimidation in minority areas reported.

 Down to the wire.




Once the old media people start to realize the Romney significant win/landslide:

Whites show up at polls in record numbers.

Republican base turning out.

More voter intimidation in minority areas.

Dems expected to hold Senate.

Exit polls show country divided along racial lines.

Romney starting to pull away.

Can President Obama hold on?

Sandy costing President the election?



Wednesday morning:

Romney wins, but fails to convince African Americans.

Widespread voter intimidation in African American communities.

People failed to understand Obama message.

Dems hold Senate / No clear mandate for Romney / Obamacare will live

What does a Romney win mean for the nation (story will be filled with various, vague horrors)

What happened?

Shocking!



Long term:

Various accusations of African American intimidation due to historic low turn out (ignoring that about 50% of African Americans (again, depending upon poll) oppose gay marriage for example).

No mention of "do nothing" congress since Dems still control Senate.

Any government failure blamed on Republican President and House (ignoring Dem Senate). 

Various articles encouraging "compromise".  (Especially if Repubs win Senate). 




Have a good night and vote for values.  Make sure you vote.

Aloha.

Tomorrow's headlines today!

Tonight is the first Presidential debate of 2012.  I will not be watching.  I have learned all I need to about the candidates.  Unless Romney or Obama come out as Martians tonight, I won't be swayed in my decision.  (If that happens, I'm sure I'll hear about it before the election.)

However, in spite of not watching, and in spite of the debate being still in the future, I know the headlines we will see tomorrow.  Unfortunately, my power of prognostication are not perfect, so I can only tell you the general headlines you'll see tomorrow.  Below are the headlines for the mainstream media outlets:

"President Obama wins!"

"President Obama beats Romney!"

"President Obama comes out on top"

"President Obama wins the night"

"Romney fails to deliver"

"Romney stumbles"

"Romney fails to connect with viewers"

"Viewers unimpressed with Romney"

"Debate fails to shift viewers"

"Romney's problem with the 47%"

"Romney fails to deliver specifics on plans"

"Romney's problem with women"

"Fact check: Obama truthful, Romney lies"

"Romney's war on everyone"

"Romney fails to dent President Obama on foreign policy (economics, debt, jobs, etc.)"

George Stephanopopopolououous will declare the democrat the clear winner.

Someone will have a tingle run up their leg as they realize President Obama is the second coming of Christ.

Madonna will claim to be carrying President Obama's child as a result of spontaneous conception.  (Irony of "Madonna" not lost on me.)



A couple of days after the debate (Friday or Monday), we will read some polls indicating that Romney got a slight bounce in the polls.  A few days after that (Wed, Thur or Fri) we will see another poll come out indicating that the "bounce is gone, and, in fact, President Obama is now ahead of where he was before the debate". 

FoxNews headline "Where are the jobs, Mr. Obama?"

When it is all said and done, the debates don't really matter.  What matters is the clear choice between someone who believes in one economic and world view vs. someone who believes in different ones.  Those views are all apparent and have been for quite some time to anyone living on this planet. 

I will be choosing the economic and world views of freedom vs. control.

Aloha.

State of the Union: Why I won't be watching

Tomorrow night is the State of the Union address by President Obama.  As the title of this post states, I will not be watching.

It isn't because I can't find the time or because I believe that what he says will have no impact upon me. 

I won't be watching because I can't stand to watch one more speech reminding me how President Obama's motivations are nearly the opposite of my own.

One item I expect him to take credit for is an agreement between some states and the 5 largest mortgage lenders (outside of the Fannie and Freddie) that gives $20,000,000,000 to people who over-purchased.

"$17 billion would go toward reducing the principal that struggling homeowners owe on their mortgages."

"About $3 billion would to help homeowners refinance at 5.25 percent."

Let me cut to the chase.  The money does not magically come from thin air.  It also doesn't come from those "horrible" CEOs who have contracts per-arranged with  golden parachutes.  It comes from 401k plans.  (In other words, it comes from those of us who are trying to invest for our future retirement like good citizens.)  (Please see previous blog posts if this leap here is too much for you.)

So, the President will most likely get on national TV to talk to me (and a whole bunch of other responsible Americans) and tell us that he is taking from us to give to irresponsible people who over-purchased on their houses.

Or, stated differently, we're going to take the allowance of the good kid who saved and give it to the kid who blew his money on the cheap toy that broke.  And the reason is that the kid whose toy broke is sad.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether or not the President specifically announces this specific "great" agreement or 15 other ones.  He has announced so many initiatives with the same consequences (punish the good/responsible and reward the bad/irresponsible) that I am simply tired of hearing how doing the right thing is going to cost me and other responsible people even more money.

Aloha.

I sense much fear in you.

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.  I sense much fear in you."

There are many sources of fear.  However, it usually boils down to the fear of being able to influence a situation is such a way as to make it turn out favorably for ones self.  This could be true of losing a job (how am I going to support myself), being chased by a tiger (how am I going to survive), wetting pants in school (how am I going to live with the embarrassment) or failing a test (how am I going to explain the failure to my parents, how am I going to get into college, how will I live with the negative perceptions of my teacher and friends). 

If you really believed you could turn the situation around for yourself favorably, you wouldn't be afraid.  To use the above examples, if you had a new job lined up that paid more, if there was a cage around the tiger, if no one saw you, you were in the bathroom alone and you had a spare pair of pants to change into, or if you knew that the test wasn't going to be graded, or that you knew the questions ahead of time and knew the answers would you be afraid?

Fear comes from the belief that you don't have the ability to act in such a way as to make the situation acceptable. 

There is plenty in this world to be afraid of.  Unemployment is 9% nationally.  Underemployment is around 18.5%.  The national debt just surpassed 15 trillion dollars.  The price of gas is high.  Hole in the ozone layer/global cooling/global warming/global climate change is going to irradiate, melt or freeze the earth.  Big banks/oil/retailers/anyone are making a lot of money (which must mean they are big, powerful, evil people).  The costs of healthcare are increasing dramatically.  Nuclear waste might pollute something.  The plastic water bottle you used today won't ever decompose.  Racism didn't end with the election of the first African-American president.  Muslim extremists are going to blow up something else.  Iran is going to nuke anyone they can.  China is going to own the rest of the world.  Europe's debt crisis is going to make the rest of the world implode.  The zombie apocalypse is just around the corner.  The Mayans predicted the world's end in 2012. Playgrounds don't have 5" of shredded rubber tires under the swings.  Our kids aren't wrapped in bubble wrap.  Guns might shoot me.  Knives might cut me.  And on and on and on.

However, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.  I'll pick one example from the list above and illustrate.

If I am afraid that I might get shot by a gun, I would want to do everything I could to limit the number of guns around me.  So, I would be opposed to a "shall issue" concealed carry law.  I would view anyone who was for a "shall issue" concealed carry law as someone who was personally contributing to my potential danger.  I would view the "extreme" groups who supported the law as a group of people that cared more about their desire to have what they wanted, in spite of the danger posed to me.  If I thought a group of people were actively trying to expose me to more danger, I would hate them.  I would view their actions as a personal attack on my health and well-being.  That would cause me to actively seek to stop them.  If I had a strong belief that I would die as a result of their support of the law, I might even perform some extra-legal actions to try to stop them, with the reasoning that to save my life (and who knows how many other lives) extra-legal actions would be justified. 

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

The biggest problem with my example is that, statistically, it has been proven that, in that situation, people are safer with a "shall issue" concealed carry law.  And there lies the biggest problem.

Fear doesn't have to be based upon fact.

And now we get to the reason I wanted to talk about this quote and fear.  If you look at many of the important issues of our day, you typically get at least one side that is based upon fear. Unfortunately, many of these issues are being clouded by fear.

In the 70's it was environmental damage.  In the 80's it was the hole in the ozone layer.  In the 90's it was global warming.  In the 00's it was global climate change.  I can't wait to see what it morphs into in the 10's.  However, the major focus is on the fear that man's progress is somehow ruining the world.

The cost of healthcare is increasing dramatically.  It was easy to see this coming.  There was a clear imbalance between power and responsibility.  Companies began offering health insurance as a perk.  Insurance companies covered most services.  Government, over the years, mandated that even more things be covered (wellness, birth control, etc.)  The consumer had no financial incentive to make fiscally responsible choices regarding his healthcare.  Costs increased.  Eventually, a crisis point is reached.  The fear is that I will get sick (truly ill) and not be able to be made well.



When you view situations in the future, examine whether one or many sides of the debate are acting out of fear.  Then, try to discern whether or not their fear is justified.  If it is not, run the other direction from their views.

For example, I have taken a look at the CCW, global warming, fear of the "rich", fear of losing a job/giving children a bad education and evil big oil arguments. 

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/global-warming.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/true-answer-in-battle-of-ideas.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/08/tax-rich.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/school-funding-in-michigan.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/evil-big-oil.html

In retrospect, it is amazing how many of the issues of our day are shaped by fear. 

Be good critical thinkers...and check your fear at the door. 

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

Aloha.

Tax us!

Tax us!

I have heard this from two different sources recently, so I wanted to talk about it.

What does it mean when someone says "Tax us!"?  And why don't they say "Tax me!"?

I believe words have significance and are very important.  This case is no exception.

If I were to go out and say "Tax me!" I should be laughed at.  If I want to give more money to the government, I could.  Now, I know that there was some discussion (and even a bill) about making sure it was law that wealthy people could give as much as they wanted to the federal government.  However, based upon the research I have done, (and this website from the federal government http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html ) anyone can give to the federal government anytime they want (and has been able to since 1843).

If I want to give money to the government, I can.  There is no reason to say "Tax me!" as that is like saying "Please force me to give you money, when I already want to give you money and you have specifically already set up a way for me to give you money if I want to."  Again, a laughable proposition.

So, why the "us" instead of the "me"?

There can be a couple of reasons why someone would use us instead of me.  One reason is that the person speaking is representing the group.  This is clearly as laughable as tax me.  If everyone in the group of "us" wanted to be taxed more, then everyone in the group could simply act as "me"s and donate more to the government.  So, clearly that is not the reason.

In this case, the reason they say "us" is because they are trying to group a bunch of people together.  What they are trying to say is "Tax all of my group".  What they are implying is "Tax all of my group...some of whom don't want to be taxed."  And, since desire to be taxed is implied in the request, it could be restated as "Tax all of those in my group who don't want to be taxed."

And that is the dirty little lie of "Tax us!"  It is not really a request to tax us.  It is a request to tax those in my group who don't want to be taxed.

Or, stated differently, "Please use the force of the government (aka the gun) to take money from some other people."  

So, whenever I hear someone say "Tax us!" I view that person as a thief who is not brave enough to perform the act of theft himself...or perhaps as an accessory to theft.  Overall, however, I realize that the person speaking is not trying to give of himself (which is what he wants you to think), but is trying to take from others.



The first time I heard this recently was when I heard of some millionaire in Washington D.C. to try to convince Congress to "Tax us!" (with the us being millionaires).

The second time I heard this was when FoxNews broke a story talking about a proposed "tax on Christmas trees".  I then heard the "local reaction" on WOOD-TV.  The idea was to tax Christmas tree sellers $0.15 per Christmas tree.  This money would go to Washington D.C. and then be used to generically promote Christmas trees.

Now, I don't remember where exactly in the Constitution the clause was for "promoting fresh cut Christmas trees", but when you find it, please let me know.  Besides that obvious problem, isn't a "Christmas" tree specific to a certain religion?  By promoting "Christmas" trees, isn't the government specifically promoting a religion?  I remember reading something somewhere about that not being a good thing.

The initial national story:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/

The initial WOOD-TV story:  http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/sw_mich/christmas-tree-fee-delay-upsets-growers

The important thing about the local story is that it makes the same argument as the "Tax us!" people.  In the local story you have a local tree grower upset because the government isn't going to tax everyone to pay for a marketing campaign.

So, I have to ask a question.  What would keep all those who wanted to (including the local tree grower in the story) from getting together, paying $0.15 per tree, hiring a marketing firm, and promoting fresh cut Christmas trees from doing so?  The answer is "absolutely nothing at all, except selfishness and a desire to control money/productivity they did not produce".  So, why don't they do it?  Because one grower doesn't want to pay for marketing that may benefit a competitor without the competitor also paying for it?  Or because some tree farms have as much business as they can handle and don't want to do marketing?  Or because some are small enough that they don't want to spend money on marketing?

Who knows exactly.  But what it comes down to is that one part of an industry wants to use the government (aka the gun) to impose a marketing campaign on the rest of the industry who doesn't want it.

Or, stated differently, "Please use the force of the government (aka the gun) to take money from some other people." 



So, whenever you hear someone say "Tax us!", make sure you remember that the person speaking is at heart a thief, not an altruist.

Aloha.