No Social Security for Baby-Boomers

In the blog post, Our View on retirement income: Afraid Social Security won't be there for you? It will by Carls Bright Corner, I believe him to be incorrect and uninformed.

For the first time in nearly 30 years, the system will pay out more benefits than it receives in payroll taxes both this year and next. The only way to fix this problem would be one of three reasons or a combination:

• Social Security contributions will go up.

• Social Security payments will go down.

• Retirement age will be increased.

So why is Social Security in the red? Well one would be that people are living longer, meaning more people to pay out to. Another reason, and perhaps the main reason is the way the government handles our money once it reaches Social Security hands. Once you spend your hard earned money on Social Security, the government takes it and spends it. A few examples would be:

• Debt reduction
• Welfare
• Military
• Government salaries
  

Did you know that when Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy for a male in the United States was 62? That's why the payouts started at age 65. Also, most of the eligible recipients were males most didn't live long enough to collect a single payment. The ones that did only lasted a few years on average. So in contrast, the reasons it was started by the Reagan administration weren't completely truthful, and now that it's broke, our generation may never see it.

The Federal Reserve is NOT Federal and is NOT a Reserve

The Federal Reserve Act was passed at 11:45 p.m. on Christmas Eve in 1913 by congress. Congress is solely granted the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;” by Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. The fact that the congress handed this power to the fed without a Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional, wrong and offensive.

The FED is the central bank of the United States. The problem is that it is private and for profit just like any other bank. They control the currency and credit for our nation and they seek to make profits off the backs of the American taxpayers. What is worst is that they are secretive. They have NEVER BEEN AUDITED. Their books are sealed and they refuse to let even Congress know what they are doing or where they direct the American people’s money. The value is not based on a hard commodity like gold, nor is it backed up by silver. Instead the "money" in circulation is printed out of thin air and is essentially backed up by your future work. The dollars in circulation are really notes of debt, they are borrowed by the federal government from the private FED against your future earnings just like you would get a mortgage for example.The "money" which is all borrowed from the FED must be paid back with interest which is impossible because they print and digitally issue far more currency then we could actually pay back when viewed against our GDP.

I really recommend anyone interested in learning more about the FED read the book "End the FED" by Ron Paul. I am reading it now and it really paints a clear and simple picture of what the FED is, how it work and why we need to replace it.

"Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95f its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve System." - Ron Paul

This inflation is a hidden tax, much larger then the rest of the taxes combined.

Yes We're Still At WAR

Dealing with the question, Are we still at war? I say yes, our nation declared war on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom. I have first hand account of this information, and it only lasted 4 months and since then it has been a "peace keeping" mission. I mostly hear about how many soldiers and marines have died since the start of the war, but what many people don't know is that during the actual extent of the war, when then rules of engagement were what they should be, there were very, very few deaths. Even more so when compared to taliban forces. Since the end of the "war" at around the first 4 months, the rules of engagements were changed to comply with "peace keeping" operations under the Genieva Convention. That is where the problem lies. The war wasn't finished, and our nations premature declaration of a win is what has led to the loss of so many American lives. If we were still invested in an actual "war", our American death toll would be much less. Road side bombs weren't even heard of during the actual war, which is the number 1 killer in both Afghanistan and Iraq, because we had them on the run. Now specifically Afghanistan, yes we gave munitions to (most important are the stinger missles), which they used to defeat the Russian air attacks, and ultimately gave them the upper hand in the war. Then we just left, and gave no aid to the innocent people in Afghanistan, and that is why we're at war with a disgruntled nation today. Which is also why we can't pull out of a war prematurely again. The 2000 American lives that we've lost may sound great today, but in no way compares to the number of American lives (more then likely on our own soil) we will lose in the future, if we don't successfully change their government. Our pulling out now will only show our weakness, and give them strength, strength to attack again. This is one war that has to be won first, and with leaders like Obama, that doesn't seem likely.

Who Made Them Boss- A Look at our Judicial System

I believe our government is in need of a few checks, and this is my case for secession:

For as long as any of us can remember, the Supreme Court has been the final decision on everything. As a minor anarchist, I ask, why?

The power which is given to the Supreme Court is defined in Article 3 of the Constitution. It does not specify how many Supreme Court Justices there should be. It doesn’t say they need to have a big building to meet in. They could meet in Chief Justice Robert’s basement.

Article 3, section 2 states, in part, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority”.

The problem with the court comes when the court acts in an unconstitutional manner. When they step out of their role as judges and legislate from the bench. When the Supreme Court refuses to decide when the federal government has stepped over the line, they are giving sanction to that action.

The Federal government has used the 14^th amendment and the necessary and proper clause to justify the taking over of anything they want. Our own Congress has stated that there are no limits to its powers. The Supreme Court will not stand for the Constitution against the Federal government, since it is part of that government.

When the court found that a local government could take one persons property and give it to another, for the purpose of developing it, thereby raising the amount of taxes collectible on it, they stepped on our rights as property owners.

When a government has the power to tell you what type of toilet you can have, how much water your shower can flow, we have to say get out of my bathroom.

What do we do when the court refuses to uphold the Constitution? The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government to certain areas. The 10^th amendment states; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What options are left to us?

We have examples of Presidents refusing to abide by the decision of the Court.

We find that President Andrew Jackson dealt with the court by ignoring it, at least on one occasion. The case is Worcester v. Georgia. In that case the court decided that the State of Georgia could not force the Cherokee to move since it was the Cherokee Nation. As such, they were a distinct community with self-government within nation of the United States, and only the Federal Government had jurisdiction. In reaction to this President Jackson stated "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." In effect he proved that the court had no power to enforce its rulings.

Lincoln even tried to have the Chief Justice Tandy arrested for sedition.

My research also finds that during reconstruction, in 1868, the Federal Government enacted a law forbidding the Supreme Court from holding the laws against the South as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court went along with it.

If we take the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, we have the option of nullification. At the time, the belief was that the states could decide if something was unconstitutional and refuse to allow that law to take effect. I have to believe that since they were written by Jefferson and Madison, they might have known what they were talking about.

Since some people disagree with the principle of nullification, we are left with the states suing the federal government for overstepping, but that still leaves it up to the court to rule against the fed.

The other option is for congress to pass a law allowing whatever the court has overturned. But if the law in question violates the Constitution, it would mean passing an amendment to the Constitution, which takes quite some time.

This is why it is so important to get good people on the court in the first place. It has long been the habit that conservative justices retire when a Republican is in office, just as liberal justices only retire when a Democrat is in office. This means that the only time there is a shift in the makeup of the court is when a justice dies in office. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court was supposed to be above politics; unfortunately we put people on the court, not Gods.

Not A Laughing Matter

In Heather Mac Donald's article,"Ignoring The Law", Judge Bolton argues that she nevertheless deems the possibility that legal aliens might be asked to establish their status in Arizona under SB 1070 a sufficiently large burden to create an unconstitutional conflict with federal immigration authority. Never mind that without SB 1070, Arizona officers already had the authority to make such inquiries.

I find it hilariously ignorant that there is even an issue with what Arizona has decided to do. The laws enacted by Arizona merely parallel already enacted national laws, Arizona has only decided to enforce them often. How is it possible that Judge Bolton would deem that hurting the feelings of legal immigrants is more important then ridding our country of illegal immigrants? Think about all the millions of dollars that are waisted annually supporting illegal immigrants benefits, though they deserve none. Hilary Clinton wanted to give them driver's licenses? Are you serious? I'm sorry but I do not enjoy paying for someone to live in my country, who does not pay taxes as well. This just further pushes our country into debt. To add to the "marvelous job our new Messiah" is doing, he shouldn't need to create such a blanket ban on asking legal aliens for proof of legal residency, it could have canceled the 1941 law requiring aliens to carry their certificate of alien registration. Such a requirement makes sense only on the assumption that legal aliens will upon occasion be asked to prove their legal status.

I find the solution to this problem easy, lets be fair and use the same laws as Mexico:


1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.

3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are
here.

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food
stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will
be deported.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least
equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners come here and buy land... Options will be restricted.
Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
naturally born into this country.

9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his
policies. These will lead to deportation.

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted
&, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All
assets will be taken from you.

TOO STRICT? Well this is Mexico's laws, if we follow these laws, we should be able to accommodate both legal and illegal people.
.

Support Arizona and the Constitution

According to Time Magazine lawsuits are being brought up by Mexico and other Latin American countries against Arizona for it's new laws against illegal immigrants. Arizona is enforcing FEDERAL immigration laws. How can a US judge even consider accepting any filing from a foreign country concerning US laws?

You know, that bothers me. Where does the money go that is paid for court costs and everything else during trial? Lawyers. So, if it costs hundreds of thousand or even millions to go to trial, as a state representative -shouldn't the trial cost nothing? You have your own lawyers, paid by the State. The courts are all on State or Federal payroll. Why should it costs a penny? Why can Mexico and every Latin American country sue a State of our union?

Decadence will do this to a people.

It also seems the wonderful world of car bombs has come to mexico (sarcasm). A cartel used one the other day in Cuidad Juarez killing three and wounding some others. Seems a phone call was made to get the police to go to the location then they detonated it. It is only a matter of time before one goes off on our side of the border.

Apparently, the story being dealt out from the corporate media is that these dastardly Mexican criminals are stealing extremely powerful explosive materials from manufacturing sites, with the added punch line being -that they are also being transported across border into Mexico. I found it especially sadistic in nature to also read that these style of "attacks" appeared to be copied out of the AL Quaeda training manuals. It's enough to raise awareness to the open border policy we currently have with Mexico, and suggest that we really needed to focus on legitimate security instead of wasting money and resources at policing our own people, turning our country into a massive police state.

But, I feel that all of this will fall on deaf ears.

The American People have become too detached from reality -they consume, watch television, and whine about politics as if they actually still have choices. The terrible reality is being carried out, with Arizona attempting to lead the charge to assault this act of war waged by Mexico, and all that is being done elsewhere is lawsuits permitted to be levied against Arizona by foreign Latin American countries. The rest of the states need to pony-up and enforce the same standard or else we will be looking at Arizona becoming an independent Latin country, complete with its own language, rampant crime rate, and drug lord cartel run legislature.

Enough is enough.

Somewhere between Mel Gibson and Lindsay Lohan we find REAL News

Somewhere between Mel Gibson's rants and Lindsay Lohan's fits we can find REAL news on the back pages. According to The Global Post, on July 1, 2010 Costa Rica Legislative Assembly voted 31-8 to allow U.S. military complete in-country access through the end of the year. The U.S. military entered boasting 46 Navy warships capable of carrying 200 helicopters and 10 Harrier fighter jets, along with 7000 Marines. Costa Rica had prided itself in being one of the first countries to abolish all military involvement, but now faced with humanitarian needs and a struggle with drug-traffickers, the country has allowed the United States Military to enter their borders and help with these matters. At what cost? The cost of two new military bases on the pacific coast. I believe the gain from U.S. forces is much greater then the sacrifice though. The U.S. will be spending over 7 million dollars to eradicate the drug trade, protect the people, and work towards a more harmonious situation, which in turn will lead to less drugs in the United States.