To Whom It May Concern, Particularly the Governor of Arizona:
Apparently I wasn't clear enough in my first post. So I will explain in a little more detail.
I have the right to do whatever I want with my property and my opinion. Period. Whatever I want. Only God can control me, my property, and my opinion. Period. Not the government, not a special interest group, not even my own family. Period.
If you assault my property or my opinion, I will defend it. I will yield to no one but God. Period. If you manage to make a better case, I will consider your opinion, and perhaps I'll change my mind. I have the right to make my own case or defend my own property, and perhaps I might change your opinion too, if you so desire.
If you take away my right to defend myself, my property, or my opinion, you are in the line of fire. Period.
So let me issue an ultimatum to anyone too stupid to take anything out of the first three statements. You may disagree with me, or you may agree with me; I don't care. You want an argument? You got an argument. But if you prevent me from defending my opinion or my property, and you are not God or God-inspired, you are a personal enemy of mine. Yes, it will be personal, since these are my personal opinions and property you're raping. I will hold you responsible for anything I've lost, and I will personally see to it that you pay in full.
Yes, that is quite a statement, and yes, it will be difficult to enforce. Perhaps it's just that I'm bitter, or that my freedom is just too important. I will defend it to the end. God and the individual reign supreme in politics. Period.
Signed,
Trygve Plaustrum
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
Winter Olympics
Well, the Winter Olympics are over. Of course, I rooted for Estonia, Sweden, the USA, and, for good measure, Kazakhstan. Russia's attempt for a Winter Olympics was amusing at best, but I have more flexibility as of late, so I could watch the Olympic stats more closely.
I was surprised at the showing of Kazakhstan and Belarus. It's interesting to see those ex-Soviet nations pull off a good show. Estonia, alas, did not do so well, but Sweden did quite good.
The Olympics are a good show. They reek of both nationalism and globalism, but it's fun to have a peaceful rivalry with nations both large and small.
Anyway, that's all I have to say for now. Tere hommikust.
I was surprised at the showing of Kazakhstan and Belarus. It's interesting to see those ex-Soviet nations pull off a good show. Estonia, alas, did not do so well, but Sweden did quite good.
The Olympics are a good show. They reek of both nationalism and globalism, but it's fun to have a peaceful rivalry with nations both large and small.
Anyway, that's all I have to say for now. Tere hommikust.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Half of Devastating: Yes, Boesler, It Is a Threat. And It's Coming for Us.
Well, I've seen a devastating graphed comparison between the stock markets of 1929 and 2014. I've seen two articles from business professionals arguing for and against the accuracy of the chart. Here are the articles I used, for any of you who want to check facts quickly.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/scary-1929-market-chart-gains-traction-2014-02-11 (For)
http://www.businessinsider.com/1929-stock-market-crash-chart-is-garbage-2014-2 (Against)
The Market Watch believes that this will be a devastating depression. The Business Insider claims that the Market Watch is crazy. It won't be a mere 44% drop in the stock market. It will only be a mere 24% drop.
Let's pause and think about that. TWENTY-FOUR PERCENT. That's enormous. It will have huge repercussions if even the moderate estimates of BI are correct. If I'm correct...
In my personal belief, we are screwed. This will be of Great Depression proportions with slightly awkward twists. There are several factors that make this depression devastating that I would like to point out:
1. Poor soil for the economy. We've lost 11th place in the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom to Estonia (MU ISAMAA!), and the current administration has done very little to improve the growth of profitable businesses. Before the Great Depression, the government wasn't half as large and wasn't half as obstructive, so of course business would skyrocket in comparison to today's business. The loss in both scenarios, however, may just be about the same.
2. Globalism. I hear on radio broadcastings that China is eating more than it can chew, financially. If China's market blows up before ours, America's market will likely fall in a matter of hours, and vice versa. Any nation dependent on China for cheap goods or America for capital will crumble as well. Thus, since we feature a globalist economy, our loss will mean loss for the entire world like never before.
3. A Slippery Slope. Yes, that is the name of a fallacy that I might be using, but, given the example of the Great Depression, is not far off. Sure, the stock market might drop a "mere" quarter, but 44% wasn't the end for the stock market of the Great Depression. It fell again, and again, and again, until there was little left of the stock market. It would be foolish to assume that the quarter-drop will be all. (Check http://www.amateur-investors.com/Chart_History_of_Stock_Market.htm for confirmation. I used it.)
4. Psychological Implications. This is by far the most important one. As of right now, citizens of the United States are living their comfortable lives, oblivious to the economic cliff just on the horizon. We believe we are invulnerable to harm, to (unusual) economic hardships, and to tyranny. There is a feeling of complacency with the United States government and resistance to business like never before. This upcoming depression will shatter our illusion of invulnerability, and we will be exposed to the worst economic hardships in over sixty years. We will march to the government, demanding our jobs, our money, our stability, and our invulnerability back.
The government will only need to point a single finger at the large American corporations, the most devastated victims of the economic downturn. "There are your jobs! There is your money! See how invincible they are! Bring them down to size!" And, just like the Jews in Nazi Germany, the rich will be the perfect scapegoat while the government seizes power and takes the reins as it tries to wrestle with the rampant economy. Everyone except you and me will run like blind sheep at the rich, eager for their money and furious at the fact that the rich can't pay them.
I mean, it happened during the Great Depression. Few fingers were pointed at the rich, but the government (particularly the executive branch) expanded in power to the point where it could no longer be considered a mere representative of the people. With the class warfare today, it will be the one-two punch for liberalism and statism.
So sure, Mr. Boesler, it may just be a minor dent in the invincible economy. You just better hope and pray that there are no major consequences. Heck, we better all hope and pray.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/scary-1929-market-chart-gains-traction-2014-02-11 (For)
http://www.businessinsider.com/1929-stock-market-crash-chart-is-garbage-2014-2 (Against)
The Market Watch believes that this will be a devastating depression. The Business Insider claims that the Market Watch is crazy. It won't be a mere 44% drop in the stock market. It will only be a mere 24% drop.
Let's pause and think about that. TWENTY-FOUR PERCENT. That's enormous. It will have huge repercussions if even the moderate estimates of BI are correct. If I'm correct...
In my personal belief, we are screwed. This will be of Great Depression proportions with slightly awkward twists. There are several factors that make this depression devastating that I would like to point out:
1. Poor soil for the economy. We've lost 11th place in the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom to Estonia (MU ISAMAA!), and the current administration has done very little to improve the growth of profitable businesses. Before the Great Depression, the government wasn't half as large and wasn't half as obstructive, so of course business would skyrocket in comparison to today's business. The loss in both scenarios, however, may just be about the same.
2. Globalism. I hear on radio broadcastings that China is eating more than it can chew, financially. If China's market blows up before ours, America's market will likely fall in a matter of hours, and vice versa. Any nation dependent on China for cheap goods or America for capital will crumble as well. Thus, since we feature a globalist economy, our loss will mean loss for the entire world like never before.
3. A Slippery Slope. Yes, that is the name of a fallacy that I might be using, but, given the example of the Great Depression, is not far off. Sure, the stock market might drop a "mere" quarter, but 44% wasn't the end for the stock market of the Great Depression. It fell again, and again, and again, until there was little left of the stock market. It would be foolish to assume that the quarter-drop will be all. (Check http://www.amateur-investors.com/Chart_History_of_Stock_Market.htm for confirmation. I used it.)
4. Psychological Implications. This is by far the most important one. As of right now, citizens of the United States are living their comfortable lives, oblivious to the economic cliff just on the horizon. We believe we are invulnerable to harm, to (unusual) economic hardships, and to tyranny. There is a feeling of complacency with the United States government and resistance to business like never before. This upcoming depression will shatter our illusion of invulnerability, and we will be exposed to the worst economic hardships in over sixty years. We will march to the government, demanding our jobs, our money, our stability, and our invulnerability back.
The government will only need to point a single finger at the large American corporations, the most devastated victims of the economic downturn. "There are your jobs! There is your money! See how invincible they are! Bring them down to size!" And, just like the Jews in Nazi Germany, the rich will be the perfect scapegoat while the government seizes power and takes the reins as it tries to wrestle with the rampant economy. Everyone except you and me will run like blind sheep at the rich, eager for their money and furious at the fact that the rich can't pay them.
I mean, it happened during the Great Depression. Few fingers were pointed at the rich, but the government (particularly the executive branch) expanded in power to the point where it could no longer be considered a mere representative of the people. With the class warfare today, it will be the one-two punch for liberalism and statism.
So sure, Mr. Boesler, it may just be a minor dent in the invincible economy. You just better hope and pray that there are no major consequences. Heck, we better all hope and pray.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
SOTU and O'Reilly Interview Afterthoughts
Salvete.
Seriously, who watched the State of the Union speech? Who? Ten percent of the population groaned at Obama's grab for power, ten percent cheered him on, and eighty percent decided to stay pat and not care about the fall of democracy. Today, since I'm that late to respond, I'm going to reflect on both the State of the Union speech and the O'Reilly interview.
The SOTU speech was the beginning of the end. It was an ultimatum from the president: I will get my way, or I will use action to get my way. Now, the left states that the Republican conservatives are complaining over nothing, showing how relatively few executive orders and vetoes Obama has placed in government. They are technically right, but a basic analysis of the facts should show the true meaning.
For one, Obama has had no need to use the veto or the executive order. He has control over his party's legislative faction, so a Senate majority and an united faction in the House of Representatives (against the fractured Republican faction in the House) is more than enough to get what he wants. However, by the 2014 legislative elections, a strong wave of conservatism will sweep through the legislative branch. Obama knows this, and he knows that he will have to directly combat this new group if he wants to stay in power. Thus, he issues this ultimatum.
For another, the veto and the executive order have never been smiled upon by any president or any generation. No president up until now has wanted to boldly state their intent to veto certain legislation; it's political suicide, and they respected the American people enough to use orders and vetoes for only minor things without brazenly and flatly stating their intentions well beforehand. Worse yet, Obama's side of the aisle applauded, and most of America shrugged its shoulders. This was the transfer of power from the legislative to the executive branch, and, when considering that the judicial branch is appointed by the president, the rise of the president as the dominant man in American politics.
I see one solution for this debacle: destruct the executive branch. The power of the United States government has been funneled into the executive branch, so a brave president would only need to eliminate the power of the executive branch to eliminate all excess power from the United States government.
The president further displayed his confidence in the O'Reilly interview. I believe O'Reilly did an amazing job; he was both courteous, respectful, and inquisitive. When the president would not tell him the truth, he moved on to a different subject. That said, FOX News and/or other fact-checking sites should be able to easily counter the president's claims. For example, the president stated that there is not a single trace of corruption in the Internal Revenue Service. This should be extremely easy to disprove. For another example, President Obama highlights the risks that Ambassador Stevens took in Libya. In that case, Stevens should have negotiated at the American embassy. And yes, there was proof that there was help nearby.
So, with the president flexing his muscles and the people giving way, it seems that the conservatives might just lose this political war. You can count on me, though, to fight this war to the bitter end.
Seriously, who watched the State of the Union speech? Who? Ten percent of the population groaned at Obama's grab for power, ten percent cheered him on, and eighty percent decided to stay pat and not care about the fall of democracy. Today, since I'm that late to respond, I'm going to reflect on both the State of the Union speech and the O'Reilly interview.
The SOTU speech was the beginning of the end. It was an ultimatum from the president: I will get my way, or I will use action to get my way. Now, the left states that the Republican conservatives are complaining over nothing, showing how relatively few executive orders and vetoes Obama has placed in government. They are technically right, but a basic analysis of the facts should show the true meaning.
For one, Obama has had no need to use the veto or the executive order. He has control over his party's legislative faction, so a Senate majority and an united faction in the House of Representatives (against the fractured Republican faction in the House) is more than enough to get what he wants. However, by the 2014 legislative elections, a strong wave of conservatism will sweep through the legislative branch. Obama knows this, and he knows that he will have to directly combat this new group if he wants to stay in power. Thus, he issues this ultimatum.
For another, the veto and the executive order have never been smiled upon by any president or any generation. No president up until now has wanted to boldly state their intent to veto certain legislation; it's political suicide, and they respected the American people enough to use orders and vetoes for only minor things without brazenly and flatly stating their intentions well beforehand. Worse yet, Obama's side of the aisle applauded, and most of America shrugged its shoulders. This was the transfer of power from the legislative to the executive branch, and, when considering that the judicial branch is appointed by the president, the rise of the president as the dominant man in American politics.
I see one solution for this debacle: destruct the executive branch. The power of the United States government has been funneled into the executive branch, so a brave president would only need to eliminate the power of the executive branch to eliminate all excess power from the United States government.
The president further displayed his confidence in the O'Reilly interview. I believe O'Reilly did an amazing job; he was both courteous, respectful, and inquisitive. When the president would not tell him the truth, he moved on to a different subject. That said, FOX News and/or other fact-checking sites should be able to easily counter the president's claims. For example, the president stated that there is not a single trace of corruption in the Internal Revenue Service. This should be extremely easy to disprove. For another example, President Obama highlights the risks that Ambassador Stevens took in Libya. In that case, Stevens should have negotiated at the American embassy. And yes, there was proof that there was help nearby.
So, with the president flexing his muscles and the people giving way, it seems that the conservatives might just lose this political war. You can count on me, though, to fight this war to the bitter end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)