Obama administration works for modernising of american Railways! Why the Heck is moron GOP against? (753)

Because we got ultra right winged bosos on power in this country all way back from 2001 unfortunatily... not my choice I guarantee you

Coal-Power?

There are still people out there absolutely dangerous and planning attacks agaisnt America you see? What can get done? interpol is also american police and internatioanl cooporation of police forces so what is wrong with this any way?

Can secret police kind of making ice cream bars and asking terrorist nicely to come there and consuming a free icecream and then talking a bout thier plans and organisations and secret money and foreign supporters and stuff?

Security is important for America and the most important is defending people from this evil terrorism and mass crime and stuff like that. Secret security forces have been there for years and years and they are doing a great job taking care of the country.

Life is going on calm gnerally and bad guys are being caught once in a while and therats are taken a way... I am not sure this is some thing bad what so ever and beleive it is neccesary

Why the Middle Class Entitlement State is Malevolent
1 June 2011 Michael Hurd

When government itself becomes the thief, who's on your side then?

Dr. Hurd: I liked your column the other day about how Americans feel entitled to middle-class welfare benefits such as Medicare. But I think you miss one point. I AM entitled!

You see, the government has been taking money from me for 25 years and telling me I will: Get unemployment if I need it; Have social security and health care when I retire; And get food stamps if I must eat. I am entitled to these. They took my money and in exchange told me I am getting a service. Personally, I don't want their service. I want my money and for them to stop taking it, but they have taken it and they do owe me! I wonder if I can try and get some food stamps while working a full time job....hmmmm at least try and get something for my money.

Dr. Hurd replies: Nobody can argue with what you're saying. But remember: Government says you're entitled to these things to be paid for BY the people who pay taxes at the time you receive the benefits.

The Medicare and Social Security "trust funds" are nothing more than myths, given the by now utter bankruptcy not just of these programs, but of the entire American government. People getting paid Medicare and Social Security today are provided those benefits by those currently working. Actually, one correction: By those working many decades or even centuries from now, since all things government-related are financed by trillions of dollars of government debt. Theoretical "money" pays for welfare state benefits, not actual money.

In a normal purchase, you choose to buy something with money you have already earned. Or, you choose to buy something with money you buy from a third party -- a bank or lending institution -- who loans you the money (1) with full consent of what you're using it for; and (2) with written agreement as to when you'll pay it back.

None of this is operative in the "exchange" between government and citizen. Under government programs, the more money you make, the more you pay in taxes. The longer you work, and the less disruption in your work over the span of your career, the less you will receive from the government and the more you will pay into a system for those unable/unwilling to work. If you go through your whole life never receiving food stamps, you'll pay more into that system of food stamps than somebody who draws those benefits for part, or even all, of his adult life.

Cont.

Cont.

Medicare and Social Security are a little different. It's true that you are promised those benefits no matter what, once reaching a certain age.

That promise is considered as absolute as the requirement to pay for those programs, for others, while you're still young or middle-aged and working. Medicare and Social Security are not, strictly speaking, wealth transfers, other than the extent to which some people start drawing them early (due to applying for disability). Of course, for those unfortunate enough to turn retirement age when -- not if, but when -- those programs go completely bankrupt, Medicare and Social Security will have, to them, represented huge wealth transfers. They will have spent their whole adult lives paying payroll/FICA taxes for benefits enjoyed by others, but that they will never receive themselves.

Unemployment insurance is absolutely a wealth transfer, from those who pay taxes and will never use those benefits, to those who, at least for part of their careers, cannot or will not work, and do receive those benefits. This didn't used to matter quite so much as it does now.

Government tends to renew and expand unemployment benefits during periods of recession and economic downturn. The latest economic numbers show that the real estate and jobs markets are still in a major recession, for going on five years now. If this recession becomes long-term bordering on permanent, so too will the unemployment benefits transferred to those not working from those who still are.

And none of this involves choice, not on anybody's part. These programs exist not in a private marketplace, where people choose to purchase unemployment, health and retirement insurance just as they might voluntarily choose to purchase flood, fire or travel insurance. These programs are entitlements. They're available whether you pay for them or not, and those who work are forced to pay for them, whether they want the coverage or not.

I know what you're saying. You're saying, "I paid for all this, and I pay for it every day of my working life. So I'm owed it, if I want it and need it." True enough. This justifies you claiming the benefits for which you paid, but it's no guarantee the government will be able to provide them -- not if our system of currency financed by debt collapses in unforeseen ways, and not if our economy continues to fail to grow, or even falters further in the years to come due to Obama's anti-private sector policies.

However, your claim does not justify the existence of the system in the first place. Government never had the right, to begin with, to initiate force against its citizens and require them to take part in a government-run insurance system. Particularly a set of programs that have become THE primary expense and function of the federal government, programs neither required nor permitted by the Constitution.

Cont.

cont.

Yes, in a moral sense you are justified in getting back any money you were forced to pay into that system. But you and I both know that you're unlikely to ever see it, not if you continue working, and not if you're retiring 20 years down the pike at which time Social Security and Medicare (as we know them) will surely be long gone.

It's kind of like getting back stolen property from thieves. Except with thieves, you at least have a chance of getting your property back, assuming the government is just about prosecuting thieves.

When government itself becomes the thief, who's on your side then?

And you are maniacally obsessed by some ultra right wing ideas

Dilligaf

Exactly JV... America... lack of patience, plenty of demands

Duty calls! May the force be with you all

Montana Stands Up Against Federal Government Tyranny

There is something about living in the wide open spaces of Montana which seems to lead men to understand the true nature of freedom more easily than those individuals who live in the crowded urban jungles of our Eastern seaboard.

The folks in Montana may have created a real problem for themselves this time. The state of Montana has signed an act into law which is purely constitutional, and by being so flies in the face of eighty years of tyrannical behavior by the federal government. As Voltaire wrote in 1764, “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” The good people of Montana may soon discover how true that still is.

The Bill in question is the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. This act explicitly exempts the territory of the State of Montana from the federal governments abusive misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, reads:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

Since Roosevelt’s threat to take over the Supreme Court in 1936 forced the justices into acquiescing to his unconstitutional demands, the states and the people have slowly lost freedom to the expanding powers of the federal government.


Cont.

Cont.

Section Four of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act begins:

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act draws on Constitutional authority to make these statements:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Cont.

cont.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

This bill has been passed into law and goes into effect on 1 October. After that date, the citizens of the state of Montana will legally have rights which were guaranteed to them under the United States Constitution and later stolen from them by the federal government.

In 1928, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote “The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the Right to be let alone; the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.” That’s all the citizens of Montana are asking for — the right to live free from the tyrannical actions of an overreaching and power-mad federal government.

Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson predicted this failure of our nation as early as 1821, when he wrote “When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

That’s the situation we are in today. It’s unconstitutional and it may be unstoppable — short of violent revolution.