Who Wants Utopia?

"You need to stop thinking you can create a utopian society." "You live in a utopian fantasy world." "The utopia you want will never exist; get with reality." As a libertarian, (people familiar with me know I prefer to call myself an anarcho-capitalist or Rothbardian, but we'll use libertarian), I hear those phrases all the time. Apparently, a society where others leave each other alone; defend themselves from aggression; act voluntarily; and believe stealing, bodily harm, and fraud are wrong, is a perfection that is ridiculously impossible. Yet, I've never claimed such a society to be utopian. I realize people will still do dumb and hurtful things. When you get right down to it, you can see who is trying to create the perfect society.

Liberals, progressives, Democrats, whatever you want to call them, are the ones who claim if we just pass enough laws, violence, poverty, disease, destruction from natural disasters, racism, and urban decay will cease to exist. Human action? Free thinking individuals? We can totally plan and control that.

Conservative, right-wingers, Republicans, whatever you want to call them, are the ones who claim if we just pass enough laws, drugs, sin, immoral behavior, porn, premarital sex, and abortions will evaporate while religion and businesses will forever boom. Human action? Free thinking individuals? We can totally plan and control that.

Right and left claim if we just fight every nation on earth, peace and national security will forever flourish. Customs we don't understand? Religions we don't know of? Who cares? Other countries thinking we need to stay out of their affairs? Why? Blowback? No such thing exists.

No, I don't claim I can create a utopian society. Unlike the left, right, and center, I don't claim to predict, control, or plan free thinking individuals. No, I just want to be left to do as I please, without harming another soul, but defend myself if somebody attempts to harm me. I thought that was freedom?

Rob Faust and James Millman Give Thanks...

 

Happy Thanksgiving bearders and beardettes! Because today is a day to give thanks for what we have, we thought we would share with everyone what we are thankful for!

We are thankful for:

• a president who has united our country - not divided it,
• a bi-partisan Congress that works together for the betterment of all of us,
• civil rights leaders Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for being outspoken opponents of gangs targeting women and Jews when playing "knockout,"
• the NSA for keeping tabs on us,
• Senator Harry Reid for bringing House bills up for vote in the Senate,
• Speaker Boehner for his willingness to get emotional and cry,
• the IRS for targeting President Obama's political opponents,
• AG Eric Holder for giving Mexican drug cartels guns...and wanting to limit our ability to legally obtain them,
• President Obama for keeping promises,
• HealthCare.gov for being user friendly,
• Spike Lee for Tweeting the correct address of George Zimmerman,
• a lower unemployment rate for African Americans since Obama took office,
• everyone being able to keep their health insurance and low deductibles,
• for ObamaCare not adding a dime to our deficit,
• the closing of Gitmo,
• Peace in Egypt since the overthrow of President Mubarak, (the people just adore Morsi),
• the thought of a nuclear Iran,
• the defense of our Bill of Rights and Constitution by our elected officials,
• unbiased and thorough coverage of all the scandals surrounding the White House - especially by MSNBC,
• Republicans blaming third party candidates for their losses instead of piss poor campaign management,
• Jay Carney,
• Uncrustables and Goobers,
• Ohio and Texas,
• Mayor Bloomberg for helping us make smart diet decisions, and
• President Obama's teleprompter.

Hot damn, we sure have a lot to be thankful for! In all seriousness though, we are thankful for our family and friends and for all of you, our fellow bearders and beard supporting beardettes! From all of us at Beards of Fury, have a HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Why the Commerce Clause Doesn’t Legalize Obamacare

 

What's causing the president's low approval ratings? It's probably his failure of Obamacare thus far. The website doesn't work. Half of it isn't built yet. People who like their health insurance lost it even though he repeatedly claimed you could keep it. Now, you may say, "That's right. Sergio. That's why he should've never tried to have government control health care; the government doesn't do anything right, and this proves it."

"Congress has the power to regulate commerce. It says so in the Constitution. So it's legit. Stop complaining; it'll work." Why is it that people who say this leave out the whole statement about regulating commerce? Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states, foreign nations, and Indian tribes. So, to all the people who believe that congress can force you to buy something under the commerce clause, would you tell France to buy health insurance from American companies, or American vehicles? Would you threaten to sue them under the commerce clause if they didn't? Of course not because it's not what "regulate" under the commerce clause means.

Yes, "regulate" means "control." But here's the thing people, words have many definitions, and you must see how that word is used in a sentence to know what definition is being used. "Regulate" also means "to make uniform." "Similar" is probably a better definition.

Why did the founding fathers want to make commerce "similar" with the states? Well, during the days of the Articles of Confederation, the federal government did not have the power to create tariffs; that was up to the individual states. And the states were setting different tariffs for different states. But the founders were all about free trade, and wanted goods to flow between all of the states. So when they decided to scrap the Articles and make a new constitution, they decided only the federal government can set tariffs among the states. And the tariff was, and is, zero dollars allowing the free flow of goods.

As you can see, the commerce clause has nothing to do with the government forcing people to buy health care, or anything for that matter; it was meant to encourage trade among the states. However, in this day and age, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper liberals and conservatives use to wipe their asses after they shit out their agendas.

Is Democracy the Answer?

 

Do you believe in freedom? Do you believe in liberty? Do you believe those are American principles? Do you believe the founding fathers wanted freedom? I believe you do believe in freedom and liberty and that's what America oozes and that's what the founders sought to give Americans. If you truly believe in those things, then stop talking about the greatness of democracy. Stop claiming America needs to spread democracy. Democracy isn't freedom; it's tyranny with a fancy name to make it look like freedom exists under democracy.

Seriously, do a search for the United States Constitution. Bring up the text. Now do a search of the document and tell me how many times the word "democracy" appears in the damn thing. I'll wait. Done? That's right, the word "democracy" doesn't appear once in the writing. What does appear in the screed? A republican form of governments. What is a republican form of government? A government that keeps the majority in check and protects the rights of the minority. You know, what freedom really means.

So, if a republic keeps the rights, liberties, and freedoms present for all, what is a democracy? I didn't graduate from Harvard University, but I did graduate from the University of Memphis which is the Harvard of Memphis, and even I know a democracy is majority rules; the rights of the minority are not safeguarded. If the majority says it is so, then it is so, others be damned what they want.

Even the founding fathers knew this. Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself," said John Adams. Benjamin Franklin claimed, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

So you see, if you truly love freedom, liberty, and rights, by looking to our founding fathers and the document they created, and knowing what democracy means, you understand why they created a republic. "I see, mi querido príncipe. We must go back to our republican roots for freedom to exist once more! Democracy isn't the answer for freedom, republicanism is the answer!" Not quite. Murray Rothbard has the answer. Read his work; I don't want to do everything for you.

Barack Hussein Obama II – The Real “Teflon Don”

I remember when I was younger hearing about the mobster, John Gotti, "NY Post" headlines of "I Forgotti," and how nothing seemed stick to him. Also, having hailed from Rhode Island, a state where corrupt politics is "politics as usual," I am pretty use to officials being brought up on RICO and other charges. After a while though, John Gotti was found guilty, and he went to jail. And in my home state, Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci, a staple in RI politics who seemed to be impervious to anything, hell he even made a comeback after assaulting a man with a cigarette, (lit), back in the mid-eighties, still went to jail. Gotti and Cianci as it turns out, did not wear suits made out of Teflon. There is someone though I think who does though, President Obama, and while I am not saying he has does anything that is "jail worthy," he has done some shady shit, and he is just lucky enough people out there drink his Kool-Aid.

President Obama was going to be the president who united our country, not divide it. Maybe it really was the other way around because when Harvard Professor and Obama friend, Henry L. Gates Jr., (an African American), was arrested for disorderly conduct after slamming his door on a white police officer who was responding to a possible break-in. President Obama said "the Cambridge Police acted stupidly..." This of course led to the "Beer Summit," and all was forgotten. Then there was the Hispanic male who shot an African American in self-defense, you know, the George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin incident. The case of course turned into a "white on black" race crime with celebrities basically calling for the head of Zimmerman, and Spike Lee even Tweeting an incorrect address for the Zims. President Obama could have used this time to sooth our divided country, but instead he said, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon." So much for helping thing out, but that's okay because nothing sticks to the president.
One thing that is good about the president is that he apparently reads the newspaper. Thank God, because without doing that, how else would he have heard about "Operation Fast and Furious," where we gave weapons to drug cartels, lost some and later an ATF officer was murdered, or the IRS targeting his political adversaries. Hell, Eric Holder even tried to claim he didn't know anything about "Fast and Furious." And yet, nothing stuck to Obama.

On 12 September 2012, our embassy in Libya was attacked, during which our ambassador and three other man were slaughtered. What did President Obama do? He went to bed and got up the next morning for a flight to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser. Later, during a debate with Gov. Romney, Obama had the audacity to say "The suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our UN ambassador, anybody on my team, would play politics or mislead when we lost four of our own, governor, is offensive." Well, there was the whole blaming of the event on an internet video that had almost no views prior to it getting blamed. And what has been done about the attackers? Nada, but still the shit just slid off Obama's suit.

How about the rest of Obama's foreign policy? On day one of his first term in office, he signed an order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay - almost five years later, it's still open. As a senator, Obama chastised President Bush for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but President Obama has since supported the overthrow of leaders in two countries, (how did that go for the Egyptians), and has basically turned his back on Israel in support of talks with Iran, a country filled with anti-Semites. But does anyone really care? No, well at least no one who works for MSNBC or has an Obama Phone.

We have the NSA spying on us and foreign dignitaries, the Justice Department going through AP emails and the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen, but still no one, including our president has been held responsible.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like you healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away from you, no matter what.” Those were words said by President Obama, and during his first term prior to Obama Care becoming law, after it was passed, during his reelection campaign, and basically right up to when over four million Americans lost their plans due to Obama Care, he continued to say a variation of that exact quote, time, and time again. And what about the one where he said he wouldn't sign a bill that added a dime to our deficit? How much is Obama Care costing us now? Still, the sheep "baaa" every time he says anything.

The latest scandal to popup is the possibility that the jobless rate numbers were altered in order to help President Obama right before the election in 2012. According to the NY Post, the 7.8% jobless rate, which was 8.1% prior, may not have been all that accurate. Yea, perhaps the NY Post isn't the best thing to depend on, but was the National Enquirer wrong when they reported presidential nominee, and former senator, John Edwards had a love child?

Now, Rep. Issa, (R-CA) has vowed to bring about a congressional hearing concerning the possibility that the jobless rate numbers were altered, but can we really expect anything out of it? Did anything happen after the same type of hearings were conducted on the Benghazi attack, Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the screw-up of the HealthCare.gov rollout, or anything else for that matter? Was anyone really held accountable? Fired? Imprisoned? No, they were not, because President Obama has a suit made of Teflon and those who grab on tight enough have that shit run off onto them too.

It's too bad, because if people really sat back and took a minute to analyze all that he has said, all that has been proven false, and his lack of taking responsibility for anything, maybe a light would turn on and people would wake up. The fact is, more African Americans are unemployed under Obama than Bush, people are being dropped from their health coverage like it's hot, and really nothing will be done about it.


 

How General is Your Welfare?

If you are fortunate to be just like me, which I doubt, you find yourself partaking in a few adult beverages at your favorite public house or saloon every now and then; for me, usually more now than then. It was at one of these fine establishments the other day I started some witty banter about the government's role in health insurance is not valid when another patron uttered this: "Health care is a right. Besides, under the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution, it's legal." The phase "general welfare" does appear in Article One, Section One. Yet it does not mean what this gentleman wants it to mean. No, the word "welfare" in the Constitution doesn't mean free goodies; it means well-being. All we need to do is turn to an eighteenth century dictionary; the first Constitution of the USA, and the man who wrote the Constitution to see this is true.

First, the expression "welfare" as defined in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified, meant "Happiness; success; prosperity," all according to Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language" (published 1755). Now, I understand it's 2013, so let's see what an updated dictionary says. According to "The Free Dictionary," the first definition of "welfare" is "Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. Prosperity." The second meaning, added later to usage of the English language is "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government to people in need." The second meaning, what we would define as "welfare," didn't exist at the time of ratification. "Welfare" then means especially as ratified, "well-being."

Also, if you paid attention in history class, (and you had about 13 chances to do so), the first Constitution of the USA was the Articles of Confederation. "Welfare" was lifted from Article III and placed in the new Constitution. What did Article III say? This: The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." If you notice, the article talks about protecting your well-being, just like Article One, Section One of the Constitution, ("The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...").

Now, let's see how the true definition fits in with Article III: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general well-being, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever, [emphasis added]." How about the twisted definition? "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general governmental aid, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever, [emphasis added]." It looks like the first one makes sense.

Finally, when opponents of the new Constitution were worried that the expression "general welfare" was going to get mangled and Congress would take it to mean what we now know welfare to be, (go figure, Patrick Henry was right), James Madison, the guy who wrote the fucking Constitution, put their worries aside in Federalist 41: "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." What did he mean? He meant, "I wrote an introduction stating that we can collect and spend money, and then listed exactly what we can spend the money on." Alas, healthcare isn't in the list. Oh, he even alluded to the Articles of Confederation when addressing the "welfare" worriers: "The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are 'their common defense, security or their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.'" What's he saying to those who oppose the phrase "general welfare?" Hey, motherfuckers, it meant 'well-being' two days ago, and it still means 'well-being!'"

As you can see, the term "general welfare," legally speaking, means "prosperity," or "well-being." You know, like that recent NFL player, worried about concussions, quit football, saying, "I need to worry about my welfare." He didn't mean government assistance. Therefore, healthcare as government assistance is not constitutionally valid. Should we see people receive healthcare? Yes, but there are better ways, and you have no Constitutional authority to do so.

Voting Stright Ticket - Lazier Than Uncrustables

 

One of the recurring themes here at Beards of Fury, (BoF), is our belief that the two party system that we have does not work. Rob Faust popped the BoF cherry against the two party system with his column "Two Parties, Zero Sense," in which he pointed out votes cannot be stolen by third party candidates. I do find it funny though that the same people who are against third party candidates in the Republican party are also some of the biggest Tea Bag, er, Tea Party supporters out there. What is the Tea Party but a third party within one of the main parties? And how has that experiment gone so far? Isn't it hard to get someone elected when they have to start off their ads with "I am not a witch?" Sergio Leonard, in his piece, "My Problem with Democrats and Republicans," pointed out quite clearly that Republicans and Democrats are not really in favor or against policies per se, they are for themselves, and against their opponents, therefore, their agreeing or opposing a policy just depends on who holds the power in Washington, DC at the moment and not their conscious. Finally, our newest member of the BoF writing staff, Dave Deshawn Gosling, asked why people care about what Miley Cyrus is doing, and not so much about what our leaders are in "Apathy Kills, But I Don't Care," and are therefore content with whatever happens on Election Day. My beef with the two party system is will all of the aforementioned type of mindless zombies, and probably more so the biggest simpletons of them all in my humble opinion - the straight party ticket voter.

 At the top of our ballots, we have an option to vote for all the candidates of a particular party or "straight ticket." It's easy, you fill in that selection and voila! You're done, and, you're an idiot.

I think one of the reasons people have such a hard time supporting third party candidates is because those that despise third parties don't like individual politicians, they only like their party. All that matters to a straight ticket voter is what comes at the end of a politicians name signifying their party affiliation, whether it's a (D) or an (R). When people have the attitude of "Anyone but..." the name following the "but" wins.

Voting the "straight ticket" option to me just proves someone has not taken the time to get to learn all they can about who is running. I have particular issues that are near and dear to me. Before going to vote I research the candidates and see who best fits what I believe in, and who I think will be the best person overall for the state I reside in and our country as a whole. Sometimes, the candidate I vote for may not be the individual who is all for what I am, but to me they are still the best candidate for the job. These candidates are normally people who vote with what they think is right, and not how their party leaders tell them to vote.

Maybe people vote straight ticket without thinking because they are afraid they might like what is on the other side if they were to do some actual research before casting their vote. Rhode Island's Democrat General Treasurer, Gina Raimondo, has done a lot for pension reform. For those unfamiliar with Rhode Island, the state is the largest employer, so unions basically run it. Raimondo has shown a lot of courage standing up for what she believes, going against the grain of her own party, but a Republican straight ticket voter in RI would not know of her without doing research.
A person lazy enough to only vote for one party, time and time again, no matter what their candidates pledge, really should move to a country run by a dictator. At least then, they will be able to vote one way 24/7, unless they want to lose one of several body parts.

Deck the Halls With BoF Balls!

Apathy Kills, But I Don't Care

Let's talk about apathy for a moment, shall we? I know, I know, you do not give a fuck. Feel free to continue not giving a fuck while you hear me out. It is your right as an American, and you are not alone! Many people I talk to also do not give a fuck. They all seem to say similar things, "What difference can I make?" or, "Screw it, I don't know enough about it to care." After talking to them further, I find that they are quite capable of caring about how Miley did at the VMAs, why their fantasy football team sucks, or perhaps even about what dumb shit just got posted to YouTube.

What makes these things so easy to care about when so many more important issues are ignored? Perhaps it is because they are easily accessed and are presented with the audience's understanding in mind. After all, nobody would read a thousand page Twitter post, no matter how many retarded hashtags it has in it. Important legislation however, is not only difficult to understand in the first place, often times most people's access to it is framed by some sort of biased media. The 900 some page Affordable Care Act was so difficult to understand that most representatives voted for it without even reading it.

Could it be that this is done on purpose? What if I didn't want you to understand the tax code so that no matter what you did, you probably do not entirely comply with it? What if I never clearly state my opinion so that I can always backtrack on any position? This all creates an environment where the population of a country feels they have no ability to impact the decisions of the government. Once the environment sets in, apathy sets in. It you can't control it, why care about it?

Perhaps the two party system in Rob Faust's "Two Parties, Zero Sense" can cause apathy. If there are only two options and they both suck, why give a shit? People need to wake up and discover themselves, decide what their values are, and align themselves behind candidates who really support their position. Until that happens, eh, fuck it - never mind.

My Problem with Democrats and Republicans

Did you get a chance to read Rob's post on the two party system? If you did not, you should. I found it amazing. This probably does not surprise people. However, I want to take advantage of Rob's post, it fresh in our minds, and state, I too, have a huge problem with Democrats and Republicans. I am not just talking about politicians. I am talking about everybody who claims they are one or the other; this includes everyday people. What is my problem? All of these people have zero principles. How so?

Politicians are for what their party does when their guy is president and against what the other party does if their guy is not president, even if they were for the policy when their guy was president. Confusing? Here are some examples: Right now, Republicans are against Janet Yellen and her policy of printing money if she is the next Fed Chairwoman; they did not have a problem when George W. Bush nominated Ben Bernanke and he went on a money printing spree during W.'s terms. Dick Cheney, during W.'s presidency, said deficits do not matter; now deficits matter to Republicans because a Democrat occupies the White House. When W. was president, then Senator Barack Obama said deficits showed a lack of leadership, and Democrats agreed; now that he is president, Barry and the Democrats have no problems with deficits. Democrats were anti-war when W. was president; now they cannot find enough places to bomb the shit out of.

And for everyday people? You keep voting these non-principled assholes into office. Then you complain about the way the government turns out. "But what am I supposed to do, Sergio?" Show your displeasure by voting for a different candidate or not voting at all. Send a message you have principles. But that is the problem; as long as you keep voting for your guy, you are just showing you have no principles either. As long as you guy beats their guy - that is all that matters.

You see? Democrats and Republicans: no principles. "Just win baby!" That is the motto of both parties. Can you see my displeasure?