Find the Light

Election 2016

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 04:02:00 +0000

Look, I get it. Donald Trump is a giant A*****e and terrible human being. I think many, if not most of his policies are unhelpful at best and downright blockheaded at worst. I've sworn up and down I'd never vote for him, and in fact I have voted third party or write-in for the last three presidential elections. But tonight I decided I'm going to vote for him, and here's why you should too (though if you want to stay home and sit out the whole disgusting mess, I don't blame you). I'm talking to you, Hillary supporters. I'm talking to you, Johnson supporters. And of course I'm talking to you, undecided voter. I'm not talking to you, Stein supporters, or those of you writing in Bernie, because who am I kidding, you won't be swayed by me... but you might find what I have to say interesting nonetheless.

Hillary is just PLAIN NOT QUALIFIED to be president. She wants us to think Trump with nuclear codes is scary... how scary is it when a presidential candidate wants to restart the cold war?? Trump catches flack for saying nice things about Putin, but guess what, that is how you thaw relations and gain allies! You want a president who's going to watch Wall Street when she's bought and paid for by Wall Street?! You want a president who's going to stand up for LGBT rights when she only started supporting them when she figured out it would win her votes? You like her stance on college tuition? You do recall she only adopted that recently when she figured out it was winning Bernie votes, right? Or the thousand other times she's flip-flopped that youtube and google will happily inform you of? The only thing Hillary stands up for is herself. Getting herself richer and getting herself elected. She won't fight for you or what you believe in, only for what gets her ahead. But forget all that, it doesn't matter.

Hillary is a TREASONOUS CRIMINAL. You've heard that before, but believe the FBI cleared her? Ask yourself this question: If Donald Trump was guilty of anything that sounded like treason, would you brush it off so easily? If Donald Trump was being accused of what Hillary is being accused of, and had all the Wikileaks documents as supporting evidence, is there one shred of doubt in your mind that Obama would have allowed the FBI to hang him out to dry???? How about that section of US code that says "Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys... any record... filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, [and]
Whoever, having the custody of any such record... willfully and unlawfully... falsifies, or destroys the same... shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

The number one job of the POTUS is keeping Americans safe, and there should be no doubt that Hillary isn't able to do that.

In the year of two historically disliked candidates, this should have been the year for Libertarians, the third largest US party, to make a historically strong showing. But they picked a pot-smoking moron with questionable libertarian principles because he was a popular two-term governor with some name recognition. That pretty well shoots "voting on principle" for the LP candidate right out the window, which is a huge mistake, just ask Rand Paul. Remember how he tried to be "pragmatic" instead of "principled" and lost all his father's supporters? Yeah, take note for next time LP. I was going to vote for Gary Johnson anyway, because he'd at least probably accomplish some tax reduction and slow expenditure growth and he's not a priviliged a*****e like Trump. And then I heard Johnson parroting the liberal media line of how terrible it is that Trump didn't vow to accept the election results no matter what.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Johnson. There are not one, but TWO examples of likely stolen/rigged/improperly recounted elections in your lifetime. You, as someone running for a party that ostensibly stands for freedom, of all people, should know this! You UNDERMINE FREEDOM by pretending that rigged elections don't happen and that everything is "free and fair" when it clearly isn't always that way!!

So why Trump, despite his obvious shortcomings? Because he has the establishment quaking in their boots, both D's and R's. Sure, he comes off brash and hotheaded, but that's his style... He LITERALLY wrote the book on negotiation. THAT'S HOW HE NEGOTIATES. Big ask, tone down, agree to a deal that's still to his liking. That's what he's offering to America, to renegotiate everything in our favor, and the establishment is shitting their pants because of it. Government approval is in the gutter and has been for years people! Isn't this what you want, a break from the status quo?! "Oh but he said those terrible things, and all these women are accusing him of groping them" You say? BFD. Did you listen to that whole tape and really stop to think about what was said? Trump shouldn't have tried to get it on with a married woman, but he admits to failure. He also says women let him do things because he's a star. A man who recognizes women let him do things other men couldn't, and who admits to failure in a private conversation boasting of his sexual conquests is not the talk of a man who forces himself on women. If is the talk of a man who, while however crude, respects the boundary when a woman says NO. I think the groping allegations will therefore be proven false (one or two have already been found to have Clinton ties), but even if not, I'm sure you let Bill Clinton's very similar transgressions slide 20 years ago. Oh, you didn't, you consistent person you? Well, he's running for leader of the country, not pope, and OH YEAH, AT LEAST HE DIDN'T JEOPORDIZE AMERICAN SECURITY ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. (Do I really need to remind you? yeah? okay: e-mail server, Benghazi, etc.)

In closing, as Trump mentioned at the last debate, Clinton PAID TO START VIOLENCE AT TRUMP RALLIES. Someone could have gotten seriously hurt or killed from that stunt which was just to sabatoge his campain. Have I mentioned Clinton serves no one but herself?! Did I just mention that Clinton doesn't give a crap about you and will gladly let/cause people to get injured/killed to serve herself??? She should not be within 1000 miles of the White House much less leading the country!!

My 2012 Ford Fiesta Review

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:09:00 +0000

I've had my 2012 Ford Fiesta for 6 months today. I've spent 10,700 miles behind the wheel of my stripped-down, base-model, violet-gray colored version and driven it on just about every surface and every condition, save snow - so I'll have to update you later on that.

Here is an exhaustive list of everything I don't like about the car:

The LATCH system anchors are waaaay too far back in the seat cushions. It shouldn't take me 10 minutes to install a car seat, Ford. It takes about 60 seconds in our Bonneville.
That stupid traction control system kicks in way too early, even in "off" mode. Yes, I know, nothing you can do about it Ford. Thanks for the regs, Uncle Sam.
A bit more room for my right leg, please. Or move the gas pedal an inch to the left.
5th gear could be quite a bit higher. Yes, I might have to (yikes!) shift on the steepest interstate grades, but fuel economy would improve quite a bit (not that fuel economy is bad, mind you) - and I bought a manual because I LIKE shifting gears, not because I wanted to pretend it was an automatic once I got on the freeway.
A more accurate fuel gauge would be nice. Yeah, I'm really stretching here. Every car in existance has more fuel in the tank than indicated.

Here is an exhaustive list of all repairs and maintenance I've had to do on the car:

$42.95 synthetic-blend oil and filter change.
Yep, that's it. Ford says the car can go 10,000 miles between oil changes. I chickened out and did it at 7,500.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of everything I ~~like~~ LOVE about the car:

Outstanding gas milage. This car is EPA rated at 38 mpg highway, 29 city. Now, I do most of my driving on the interstate or state higways, but my worst-ever milage was 34 mpg, and that was during the break-in period. I've gotten between 40 and 43 mpg every tank now for at least 2 months. I don't drive it with an egg-under-the pedal mentality - I regularly bounce off the rev-limiter on freeway on-ramps, and I've driven it ~~over 100 mph~~ very fast on occasion. This is mpg performance that anybody not stuck in stop'n'go traffic should be able to achieve.
This car can corner extremely well, even if the electronic nannies do become annoying sometimes. So well that I was very surprised to bounce off the rev-limiter in second gear (which is, ahem, 55 mph) once when navigating a curvy section of road that most sane people drive at 25 miles per hour.
This car has lots of space for a car priced as a "sub-compact". It's actually practically identical in size to the "compact" cars of 15 years ago, except it's taller than they were, which means good things for trunk size and head room.
At the $13,995 sticker price, (and I bought it for $1,000 less than that) there are only 3 new cars in America that cost less. All of them are of inferior quality to the Fiesta in my opinion, and 1 of them is only a 2-seater. For that bargain-basement price, I still got air conditioning, power locks, power mirrors, and a AM/FM/Audio input stereo with surprisingly good definition and bass. Sound quality BMW owners would have been jealous of 15 or 20 years ago.
SoundScreen is printed on the windshield, and Ford isn't kidding. You roll that window all the way up, and forget shouting through the glass to someone standing next to the car. You may as well be screaming from opposite ends of the football stadium. This translates to a seriously quiet ride. At interstate speeds, wind noise is still just about nil.
That super cornering ability doesn't translate to a jittery, harsh ride. The suspension keeps the car firmly planted even over bad washboard, while providing you with a relatively smooth ride. It's not Lincoln Town Car plush, but you won't feel bounced around, either.
This car screams "solid" from the moment you shut the door. It shuts with an expensive and heavy sounding "thunk". No shake, rattle and roll from this car going down the road. It is just quiet, smooth, and sure-footed. The car isn't sports-car-quick, but the engine pulls smartly and evenly throughout its powerband - picture a big work truck with a big V8: you don't expect the truck to rocket out of the gate, but the engine isn't stressed getting you up to speed either.

To sum it up, this car is unbeatable in its class for nearly everyone. If you need large-wagon space in a compact and are willing to spend a bit more, get the Honda Fit. The Fiesta Hatch just isn't quite as versatile or as large. If you really, really, really, need to get into that micro-sized parking spot, or you can't parallel park to save your life (and you have to do it on a regular basis), buy the Smart ForTwo. Otherwise, the Fiesta offers the best combination of quality, price, fuel economy, fun, versatility, size and style you can get in a sub-compact.

It's All Coming Together...

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:44:00 +0000

So first FDR facilitated (or at least allowed) an attack on Pearl Harbor, then we screw with Iran and 50 years later we get blowback (if there wasn't more direct involvement), then I learn about the government's shadowy involvement in the underwear bomber case (http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/kinghorn2.1.1.html), and now I learn that the FBI at least knew of and didn't stop (and looks like helpfully facilitated) the Oklahoma City bombing! http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/trentadue1.1.1.html

Oh, let's throw in the Fast and Furious scandal too. It seems that our government has had a hand in every major terrorist attack in this country for the last century.

When are people going to wake up and demand that the FBI, CIA, BATFE, DHS, and all the rest be shut down permanently?

Really?! Did You Hear What You Just Said?

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:49:00 +0000

To protect the innocent, I'll leave this young man's name anonymous. If he somehow ever finds his way to this blog, I'm sure he'll recognize himself, and I hope it is with embarrassment that he ever said these things.

Anon: "I'm probably in the minority, but I think taxes should be raised everywhere."

Me: "Anon, since you say you think taxes should be raised everywhere, I take it that you have an extreme faith in the government to use money wisely. As such, I expect to hear that you send an extra hefty check to the IRS every year as a donation to help the government out and reduce the burden on the rest of us... right?"

Anon: "I do have a little faith, but then again, my views might change when I get a real job. I am still in school, so I have not been faced with taxes like the rest of you."

Ah, yes. Please dispense more advice that you are not following yourself, at least not yet. Yes, Anon, your views might just change when YOU are the one sending Uncle Sam checks totaling thousands of dollars per year. Later, we get this:

Anon: "Unrestrained free market is not the answer. Neither is strict government control. Everyone focuses on the negative things the government does. We take for granted what it has done right and forget about it. I am not saying I fully support government. They have made many mistakes, but many of the advancements in technology, health and medicine, education, energy, etc. have been heavily supported by the government."

Me: "'Everyone focuses on the negative things the government does.'... that's because they do extremely little positive. Advancements in technology, medicine, education, and energy have all come about as a result of the free market. Take away government, and many of those fields would advance faster than they do. Take away free market, and we'd still be living in the middle ages. Just because the government gets involved at some point with regulations, subsides, or tax incentives does not mean they were responsible for the developments.

Me: "Actually, wait, I take back the one about education. Nearly everyone agrees that the state of education in this country has deteriorated badly over the past century, and we lag behind many other countries in educational standards and test scores. That one, yes, the government was responsible for that 'advancement.'"

Anon: "I don't have any facts to back up what I have said. I am sure I can find many if I do some research, but I am not interested at this moment in looking. It is idealistic to believe the free market created all these benefits. I said the government supported these advancements, usually through funding, not that they were responsible. Free market is an extreme. Extremes don't work. They never have. At least in the long run."

Oh yes, some more sage advice from the expounder who can't even bother to do the research necessary to back up his own position! I replied with:

Me: "Anon, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I think it's quite interesting that you dismiss my argument at face value without bothering to do any research to either 1) discover for yourself where the truth might lie, or 2) at the VERY least find a few facts to back up your own argument. The United States has enjoyed over 2 centuries of economic prosperity precisely because it has historically placed fewer restrictions on the free market than any other nation. We are poised to lose our status as the world's largest economy and are mired in an economic quagmire at just about the point in history when our government's size, and the number of regulations it imposes, has caught and surpassed most of the Western World. Meanwhile, China's star has been rising fast since the mid 1970's, which is precisely when it began loosening economic regulations. The free market is an extreme that doesn't work? Right."

I hope he sees the light.

A Little Daydream...

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:23:00 +0000

I still have a love for a certain old car my parents had when I was a child. You'd make fun of me if I just straight-up told you what it was, so why don't you hear me out first.

I got to thinking about this last weekend after I took my wife and son out on some class IV roads with my wife's 2005 Bonneville. Being a long, low-slung, 2WD car, it's not exactly made for this type of duty, though it was the middle of summer and dry, so we made out okay. Wouldn't it be nice if, in a few years, I wanted to go trail-riding with my family and some of my kids' friends, I had a vehicle suited to the purpose? Say, a vehicle that got a fair margin over 20 MPG highway, so it could be driven on a daily basis without single-handedly keeping Mobil in business? Obviously, I'd want 4WD or AWD for those muddy spots, and I'm not made of money, so how about a vehicle that cost a fair margin under $25 large new? Of course, 7 or 8 seat capacity for lots of little ones and their stuff. Now, I like to be in full control of my vehicle, so it's gotta have a manual transmission, too. We live in a very advanced age, and automobiles have been around for over a century, so surely, we've got something here in 2012 that can fit the bill, right? ....Right?

I headed over to the Cars.com vehicle recommender to find out:

Don't really care if it's a hatch, wagon, SUV, Minivan, Van, whatever. 7-8 passengers, check. 21 MPGs or better, check. Don't care what brand. Certainly less than $30,000. Manual, or heck, even an auto-clutch manual, as long as I can control the gears.

Oh yeah, gotta have 4 wheel drive:

Oh.

Now, what if I told you that this seemingly mythical vehicle could be bought 20 years ago? You could get a 7 seat wagon complete with 4 wheel drive and manual transmission with an economical 4 cylinder engine that returned 23 MPG highway out the door for less than $13,500 in 1991. In 2012 dollars, that's around $23,000. That car?

Today, the best I can do is settle for a Toyota Rav4 with the optional 3rd row bench, which, while getting slightly better milage (27 highway), will set you back an extra $3 grand up front. And ain't-no-way-no-how are you getting a manual transmission. Or, I could get a Mazda 5, which would cost less and gain me the manual transmission, but I'd have to give up the 7th seat and 4WD.

Sigh. Sometimes the future is in the past.

Julia's Two Lives

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Fri, 11 May 2012 18:18:00 +0000

Under President Obama, Julia goes to the generously funded Head Start because her ill-informed (thanks to Obama's propaganda machine) parents apparently aren't aware that studies have shown that pre-schooled kids actually do WORSE academically and socially down the line.

Under Ron Paul, Julia's parents have no federally funded day-care, oops I mean preschool, to send her to, so they keep her home and give her love and support, hoping this will suffice. Surprise! This is just what Julia needed in her early years, and she goes on to become a very intelligent young lady.

Under President Obama, Julia's high school is part of some federal government program that wastes taxpayer money and ends up reducing standards in the long run, making her worse off and hurting her chances of success in either college or in a career.

Under Ron Paul, the federal government closes the department of education, allowing educational decisions to be made on a local level, reducing wasteful spending and allowing better feedback and higher educational standards for Julia.

Under President Obama, Julia is given generous taxpayer subsidies to go to college. While this may be good for her in the short run, in the long run, generous college subsidies have allowed colleges to dramatically raise costs far above the rate of inflation, meaning that Julia's out-of-pocket costs are about the same as what they would have been under a true free-market situation. In addition, Julia will end up paying tens of thousands (If not hundreds of thousands) of dollars in taxes over her lifetime to pay for this charade for younger generations.

Under Ron Paul, the federal government eventually eliminates college subsidies. Julia decides not to go to college right now because the outrageous college costs mean a poor return on investment: Her costs of loans and interest will exceed her lifetime earnings boost from a degree. Julia ends up going to college a few years later when college costs have dropped dramatically due to the intense competition for students that resulted when the government subsidies were removed. In addition, Julia is very grateful for the reduction in the federal tax rate that saves her a fortune over her lifetime.

Under President Obama, Julia undergoes surgery during college that is paid for by being allowed to stay on her parent's health plan. Perhaps she was unaware that health insurance for students is available through most colleges at very affordable rates - and that Obama had nothing to do with this.

Under Ron Paul, Julia is able to purchase her own health insurance package that covers exactly what she wants it to, and at a very affordable rate, thanks to the increased competition and options that became available when the health industry was de-regulated.

Under President Obama, Julia starts a career as a web designer. Julia knows that she is entitled to certain benefits and levels of pay because she is a woman. Her work ethic and quality of work deteriorate as a result.

Under Ron Paul, Julia starts a career as a web designer. Julia knows she is entitled to nothing, and as a result works hard and puts out a superior product, which enables her to command a high level of pay by shopping her skills around to different employers.

Under President Obama, Julia is thrilled that her college loan payments and interest rates are capped. Of course, if life throws her more curve-balls than she can handle, she still better make those payments because she can never ever discharge those loans through bankruptcy.

Under Ron Paul, Julia is thrilled that after waiting a few years after the subsidiies dried up, college costs came down so much that she only had to take out one very small loan that is very easy to pay.

Under President Obama, Julia's health insurance covers birth control and "preventive medicine". As a result, she makes unwise sexual choices and cares very little about the long-term health effects of her lifestyle choices, thinking that checkups and regular testing will keep her safe, or at the worst that any problem that comes up will be covered no matter what.

Under Ron Paul, Julia is thrilled that she has much more money in her pocket, since de-regulation and competition has greatly reduced both health care and insurance costs. She makes wise choices, knowing that if she has to visit the doctor, she will have significant out-of-pocket costs since she decided to go with a high-deductible health plan. However, her high-deductible policy is much cheaper than a full-coverage plan, and she saves money most years while still having the comfort of knowing that she won't go bankrupt even if something terrible happens.

Under President Obama, Julia decides to have a child. Her medical expenses are all covered, which sounds spectacular to her.

Under Ron Paul, Julia's medical expenses are not covered. She really doesn't care, however, since her employer was able to afford giving her a huge raise when health care and insurance costs plummeted after de-regulation. Even after paying for her pre-natal medical expenses, she has thousands of dollars left in the bank thanks to her huge raise.

Under President Obama, Julia's son starts kindegarten. Julia is glad that his school was given lots of taxpayer money and has state-of-the art facilities. She can't quite understand why she has the nagging feeling that educational standards at the school are lower than they were when she was in school, however.

Under Ron Paul, Julia is now so well off after her taxes and health care costs dropped, that she can afford to send him to a top-drawer private Montessori school, or cut back on her hours at work and become his homeschool mentor.

Under President Obama, Julia decides to start her own business. After months of slogging through paperwork and jumping through paperwork hoops, she gets a loan from the SBA. She is happy about the small business tax-cuts, but it still seems like an awful large check she sends to the government every year.

Under Ron Paul, taxes were slashed to the bone even before she started her business. She has much more in savings, and she figured out that it was a lot less hassle to get a loan through her local bank, especially now that the bank has fewer restrictions on it from the government.

Under President Obama, Julia now enrolls in Medicare, being unable to otherwise afford medical care thanks to the continued rapid rise in health care costs and the now-crushing taxes, which had to be raised dramatically to cover Medicare, Social Security, continued wars and the crushing interest on the ballooning federal debt.

Under Ron Paul, Julia is now a well-off business owner, able to afford her own reasonably priced medical insurance.

Under President Obama, Julia's retirement got pushed back from 67 to 75 thanks to the government having to delay the full benefit age of social security several times due to decreasing revenue and increasing costs. After years of paying in, it seems like she's going to get a whole lot less than she paid - unless she can manage to live to 115.

Under Ron Paul, Julia has been semi-retired since her late forties, doing volunteer work when she wanted to and working when she felt like it. At 60, she sold her business and was able to comfortably retire on the proceeds of the sale, turning her attention to her grandchildren and a new line of volunteer work. Social Security, if it even still exists, seems like a pittance compared to her large annuity revenue stream.

What Dodd-Frank has Cost ME

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:34:00 +0000

What a terrible piece of legislation. It won't do anything to stop the crony capitalists who SHOULD have been taught a lesson by being allowed to go bankrupt. Instead, the government propped them up with taxpayer money, then passed this horrid piece of legislation to "prevent" a future occurance. Right. If you want to offset corporate greed, give them something to FEAR - that is, a loss of everything. All Dodd-Frank does is to make it MORE important for large corporations to cozy up to your elected officials and buy influence so that they can continue side-stepping the regulations.

Anyway, nearly 3 years ago, I thought it would be smart to play the Forex markets, which included spot silver and spot gold. I did very well for a few months, then got in deep on a silver position. Not having done sufficient research into fundamentals, I got scared and sold off my leveraged 300 ounces of silver at about $14.80 an ounce (having bought the 300 ounces at about $16.50 an ounce) for a loss of around $500. I closed my trading account and resolved not to trade Forex anymore until I had money I could afford to lose. Of course, silver is now trading at about $33 an ounce. Whoops.

In December, having done much more research into the fundamentals of silver and gold, and having $500 that I could afford to lose, I resolved to once again open a trading account on the first trading day in January. I planned to buy 10 ounces of gold at 50:1 margin - which would have cost me about $320 since gold was trading at right under $1,600 - and hold the position for at least the whole year. At most, I'd lose my $500 trading balance (since Forex.com does not allow you to lose more money than you have in your account) and at best, I could make $7,000 if gold hits the $2,300 level that many economists predict by year end. Only problem was, when I went to open my account, I found I could no longer buy gold at 50:1 margin. I could still buy currencies at 100:1 margin, but gold had to be bought outright at 1:1. Since I still don't have a good understanding of currency fundamentals, and I didn't have $1,600 to buy an ounce of spot gold, I didn't open the account. So WHY couldn't I trade gold on margin anymore? A quick Google search turned up the answer: Dodd-Frank outlawed trading precious metals on margin beginning in July of 2011.

So, with gold trading above $1720 today, Messrs. Dodd and Frank, together with the rest of congress and the president, have, to date, cheated me out of twelve hundred dollars. Thanks a lot.

Think Ron Paul is Dangerous? Here's Why His Plan to Balance the Budget is Necessary for Our Security!

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:02:00 +0000

I was reflecting today on a conversation I had with my employer at the time how I thought it was terrible that the national debt was more than 3 times the entire budget for the year 2008. He said it didn’t seem so bad, a person could easily carry a debt load 3 times their annual income, and they could have it paid off in a couple decades. True, but it was more like 4 times annual income when you took into account the budget deficit. So, how far have we come with a President who promised to slash the deficit? Let’s take a look:

2008:

$2,524,000,000,000    tax revenues
$2,982,000,000,000    total expenses
$458,000,000,000       new debt
$10,669,000,000,000   total debt year end

2011:

$2,303,000,000,000       tax revenues
$3,601,000,000,000       total expenses
$1,298,000,000,000       new debt
$15,243,000,000,000     total debt year end

Doesn’t look so good does it? But these are some awful big numbers, and they can be hard to interpret, so let’s make it look like a household budget by removing 8 zeros. I’ve also thrown in “bank approved” numbers based on the amount our bank told my wife and I we would qualify for if we applied for a mortgage. The bank would have approved us for a total debt load of about 3.2 times our annual income.

2008:

$25,240      household income
$29,820      total expenses
$4,580        on credit card
$106,690   total debt year end
$80,770      bank approved debt

2011:

$23,030     household income
$36,010     total expenses
$12,980    on credit card
$152,430 total debt year end
$73,700     bank approved debt

Yikes! We might have been okayish in 2008, but we’re in deep trouble now. Uncle Sam now has more than TWICE the amount of debt that a bank would allow for a regular borrower, and the picture is only growing worse by the day. Interest payments already amount to 20% of federal revenue.

At current rates, it will only be 47 more years until EVERY SINGLE PENNY of tax revenues go to paying interest on the debt. Every penny. Think about that. In less than 50 years, if we don’t change things, there will be zero money for defense, zero money for Social Security and Medicare, zero money for ANYTHING ELSE, every penny will go to paying the debt.

Think I’m being pessimistic? Social Security and Medicare payments, already more than 50% of federal revenues, are projected to skyrocket, thus adding to the deficit FASTER. Interest rates will spike drastically long before we get close to this theoretical borrowing limit since the closer to the absolute theoretical limit, the higher the interest rate that will have to be offered to entice lenders. Throw in sluggish economic performance resulting from government borrowing crowding out private sector investment, and you have a recipe for declining tax revenues as well. Look at it that way, and I think it’s OPTIMISTIC to say that I’ll make it to being a grandfather (my son is less than a year old) before the U. S. government officially defaults on its debt, with all the terrifying implications. You’ll find dozens of economists predicting that we’ll see a default within the DECADE.

Still think Ron Paul is dangerous?! Dangerous is ANY POLITICIAN UNWILLING to make the drastic cuts necessary to balance the budget. A large, technologically advanced military will only keep us safe for as long as we can afford to pay the soldiers.

Bin Laden is Dead, but Let Me Ask You This...

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Tue, 03 May 2011 19:59:00 +0000

In the past 10 years, who has killed more people, Bin Laden, or the American government? I think you know the answer.

Explain This One:

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:13:00 +0000

To those who would say we can't allow guns for self-defense on airplanes due to the risk of depressurizing the cabin, this occured at 34,000 feet (otherwise known as full cruising height):

...and there were no serious injuries. The one death in 1988 from depressurizing that is mentioned in the article was from a poor stewardess being sucked out of the plane, not because of the loss of pressure.

April Fools!

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:45:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - The Libertarian Party congratulates Congress for passing a budget that makes serious cuts in federal government spending, including the following:

1.Eliminating Department of Education programs, saving taxpayers more than $40 billion each year.

2.Getting rid of farm subsidies, saving over $20 billion each year.

3.Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other overseas deployments, saving over $100 billion annually.

4.Eliminating programs and subsidies in the Department of Transportation, saving about $80 billion annually.

5.Terminating federal housing subsidies, saving about $45 billion each year.

6.Giving overpaid federal employees a 10% cut in compensation, saving $30 billion annually.

7.Throwing out federal energy subsidies, saving $20 billion annually.

8.Reducing and reforming Medicare and Medicaid, saving about $100 billion a year for the next ten years.

9.Ending the federal War on Drugs, saving $15 billion annually.

10.Phasing out mandatory Social Security, and reducing the rate of benefit growth to save $40 billion a year by 2020.

"April Fool's!" cried Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict. "Congress hasn't done any of those things. Congress is causing the federal government to keep growing rapidly. And don't be fooled by the recent hype about Republican proposals for 'cuts.' Those 'cuts' are so small and so peripheral, that even if they pass, they won't have any effect on the fiscal catastrophe facing our children and grandchildren. Republicans and Democrats continue to link arms and keep our federal government huge and growing."

Benedict continued, "We got that list of items from a Cato Institute advertisement that ran in several major news outlets today. Of course, we wish Congress would cut all those things, but we know Republicans and Democrats won't do it."

Now He's O-bomb-a

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:27:00 +0000

In 2008, it was those pansy anti-war liberals and the (yikes!) Arabs who wanted Obama to win. Now, after keeping us in Iraq and escalating the war in Afghanistan, he's decided to start raining explosives on Libya. Back then, his anti-war stance was the only thing I liked about him. Now, the Arab world has a more unfavorable opinion of the America than they did in the final year of the Bush administration! After ObamaCare, the CARD act (boy was I excited to see my interest rates go up and credit limits go down in the time between it was passed and when it came into effect), failing to raise taxes on the rich while increasing the deficit, failing to get the military out of 2 quagmires, and starting what hopefully doesn't become a third, I have to wonder, is he just trying to gain as many enemies as he possibly can in 4 years?

On This Day in History

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:27:00 +0000

- 1985: My better half was born! Celebrating tonight at the Oasis!

Am I Missing Something?...

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:40:00 +0000

...or did B. Hussein O. not promise to get us on a path OUT of Iraq and Afganistan? Yet now, here we are in 2011 with military spending higher than ANY year of the King George administration (!), and O thinks the Republican proposal to increase military spending "only" 1-2% isn't nearly enough! Seriously?!

You Might be Crazy, but You're Not Wrong

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:56:00 +0000

Did you know that the Pentagon once listed [Aspartame] in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress? Or that the FDA unanimously rejected it in 1980, only approving it after the wheels were greased by some shady dealings, including some ramrodding by Donald Rumsfeld himself?

If that doesn't carry enough weight by itself, Cracked.com has several more government conspiracies for you, all of which contain credible sources.

Ben Franklin Wasn't Kidding

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:11:00 +0000

When he said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I'd add that they end up without either as well.

So why the hell do we have full-body scanners in airports?! Do I need to point out that last year, 33,963 people died in traffic collisions, with a fatality rate of 1.16 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled - the lowest rate on record! Meanwhile, from 1990 through the end of 2009, only 4,735 people died in commercial airline crashes*, INCLUDING the people who died in the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11/01! That means in 2009 alone, 7 times more people died in car crashes than died from airline crashes in the previous 20 years combined!

Well, if you're going to strip search (via x-ray), pat down, and metal-detect every passenger going onto an airplane, why not do the same to everybody getting into a car? It would certainly cut down on the number of drunk driving deaths and cut drug smuggling to nil! Would you consider THAT an invasion of privacy?

Okay, so your argument is that airlines have a higher rate of deaths per mile traveled? True, including the 9/11/01 events, the rate for commercial airlines is 3.39 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, nearly 3 times the current rate for motor vehicles. However, if you exclude deaths on the ground (but still include those who died aboard the 4 planes) on 9/11/01, the rate for air travel suddently drops to 1.44 deaths per million miles traveled for the 20 year average - less than the 20 year average for motor vehicles (which was 2.08 deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 1990 and didn't drop below 1.4 until the mid 2000's)

Still, even taking the higher number, consider the train: according to the Federal Railroad Administration, there were 106.24 deaths per 100 million rail miles traveled in 2009! Not only is this rate more than 30 times the rate of deaths per air mile traveled, but in absolute numbers, about 3 times as many people die in rail accidents as in commercial air travel crashes every year!

So, more people die each year on average in automobile and rail collisions than die as a result of airline crashes, yet only the airlines are subjected to these draconian measures? This tells me that something other than concern for the loss of civilian life is behind this scheme. At the very least, it would be a whole lot cheaper in economic terms (and probably in direct cost to the government as well) to put an air marshall on every flight than it is to force every passenger to arrive early to go through "security" measures, pay rent-a-cops to patrol the gates, and buy extremely expensive radioactive scanners, metal detectors, etc., etc.

At best, allowing and encouraging civilians to carry their own sidearms onto airplanes would have prevented the vast majority of deaths that occurred on 9/11/01, (which, incidentally, is more than half of all airline crash deaths in the past 20 years) while preserving our liberties, privacy, and pocketbooks! Imagine that! Preserving freedom would have bought you that safety you wanted!

*This includes scheduled and non-scheduled section 121 flights (standard commercial airliner), as well as scheduled section 135 flights (connecting or commuter flights with smaller aircraft), but does NOT include non-scheduled section 135 flights (air-taxi) or general aviation flights. Source: National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB does not include the 2727 people who died on the ground on 9/11/01 in their figures.

Did You Know?

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:56:00 +0000

That the 200 Million gallons of oil spilled after the deepwater horizon disaster is an amount so large that it takes the entire U.S. nearly - oh... um... whats that? less than 6 HOURS to burn?

This is Hilarious

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:18:00 +0000

Oh, how those cold-hearted Republicans leave "Main Street" out in the cold while cozying up to the corporate fat-cats. That's why, when we elected a Democratic house, senate, and president 2 years ago, things have been looking up for the poor and downtrodden... oh wait, no. Actually, the uneducated, jobless, and low-income Americans are worse off while the investors and corporations are better off. Not that a Republican administration would have had better results, of course. Thisadpaidforbythewhyyoushouldvotelibertariancommittee(yourstruly)andnotauthorizedbyanycandidateorcandidate'scommittee.

License Plate of the Year

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:02:00 +0000

EZ2BGRN

Seen on a 2 seat, rear drive, tire-smoking, 10 cylinder, negative MPG, but lime green colored, Dodge Viper. Just one of TWENTY-THREE Vipers seen in the Woodsville, NH elementary school parking lot on Sunday, October 17th, 2010.

Why is This Even News?

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:45:00 +0000

Social security recipients are getting no raise this year! Oh, no!! Our seniors are going to die in poverty! At least, that's what the headline writers want you to think. Oh, wait. They aren't getting a raise because inflation hasn't gone up... and they got the biggest raise in a quarter century in 2009, due to the high energy prices in '08 - which promptly free fell and left them with a tidy sum. So let me get this straight, people are complaining about no raise, even though they recently got - and kept! - a huge raise right before energy costs dropped through the floor and erased the need for the large size of the raise... and inflation has been practically nil since then.

Quasi-Libertarianism in Action:

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:55:00 +0000

Gene Cranick of rural Obion County in Tennesee had the opportunity to pay $75 per year for fire department coverage from the nearby city of South Fulton. He was mailed a letter every year at renewal time, and even got a follow-up phone call when he didn't send in his $75 by the due date. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong" he says. Now he and many others are upset that the FD let his house burn to the ground. He even says he offered to pay the full costs of putting out the fire if the FD would come out, but was told it was too late.

One commenter says "I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?" (They'd responded to the scene to prevent the fire from spreading to his fee-paying neighbor's house)

To which I'd respond: How is a verbal agreement to pay while your house is burning "a reasonable expectation to be compensated"? Who WOULDN'T say they were going to pay while watching their house burn?! If Mr. Cranick could afford to pay the thousands it would have cost to save his house, why couldn't he come up with a measly $75 per year? If, on the other hand, he really thought it was a voluntary donation every year, (which is what one would assume from his statement - that is, if he isn't lying) why does the FD have a moral obligation to save his house when the guy is obviously not very generous himself?

Okay, so you trot out the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated, not as they have treated you in the past. So, I'm on that fire department, and now I've got a choice: take money from thousands of taxpayers and fee-payers in order to save one man some money, or let that one man suffer the monetary consequenses of his actions so I don't drive up everyone else's costs. I'd let his house burn too. Besides, the guy also had the opportunity to buy house/property insurance, which would cover his losses even if I let it burn to the ground. (The articles I've found don't discuss this issue so he might not have done that either.) This doesn't even take into account the possibility that hundreds more rural residents might decide to free-load on the taxpaying city dwellers if the FD had gone ahead and saved Mr. Cranick's house.

The only way I'd say that the FD had any obligation to do anything would be if human lives were at stake. Human life always takes precedence over monetary loss, even if it means taking that money from others. However, that was not the case in this instance. Mr. Cranick had the chance to protect himself, and he chose to take the risk of not signing up. He has no one to blame but himself, and no one should try to place blame on the FD or anyone else. End of story.

Incidentally, a true free-market FD probably would have put out the fire and charged him. Why? Because they'd sue for the money if he couldn't pay up. A government agency, as this FD was, doesn't want the hassle of suing.

5 Ways to Revitalize the Republic

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:18:00 +0000

Michael Moore, that lovable (depending on whom you ask) buffoon (also depending on who you ask) has come out with 5 ways the Democrats can avoid catastrophe at the polls this November. In response, I've drafted 5 better positions they can take that, while they may not guarantee instant success this election, will certainly be successes for "we the people":

1) Instead of blaming who got us in this mess, get us the heck out of it! You don't like the wars, but why don't you call on O-bum-a to call the troops home?! It’s been nearly 2 years and we've still got the same (if not more) resources and troops assigned to killing islamics from the middle east, who - surprise! - hate us even more.

2) Instead of indicting the scape-goat offenders (Wall Street), why don't you tell the people which congress-critters voted for the Fannie-Freddie debacle that put millions of Americans into homes they couldn't afford (which, other than the wars, is what really caused the mess). Then, we'll all know which bums to throw out (there'll be as many Dems as Repubs in that line-up).

3) Announce a moratorium on all unconstitutional legislation. And yes, telling banks they can't foreclose on non-paying home-dwellers would be unconstitutional. The paperwork mess we currently have is no reason for a market-wide blanket moratorium. Just enforce the laws already on the books.

4) Who’s hiring? Everyone is!! That is, if you cut government taxes (and spending!) down to oh, I don’t know, a tenth of what is currently is. That will free up TRILLIONS of dollars for the much more efficient private sector to allocate, creating the fastest economic recovery in history.

5) How about declaring that no Democrat will accept any further Wall Street funds for THIS election cycle, and furthermore, the Wall Street money already in their coffers will be returned 100%. Not only will this be much more appealing to the voters than a flimsy promise to do something in the future, but we won’t be assaulted with all of your mud-slinging ads for the next month.

While these are all pie-in-the-sky-not-going-to-happen ideas, that doesn’t make them any different than YOUR ideas Mr. Moore. Oh, wait, they ARE different, because all my ideas can be accomplished without bending, twisting, distorting, or ignoring the constitution.

Did You Know...

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:12:00 +0000

That World War I just ended?
Germany sold treasury bonds in the 1920's and early '30's to pay for its reparations debt agreed to (well... they didn't have much choice did they?) at the Treaty of Versailles. These bonds were promptly defaulted on by the Nazis, then payment was further delayed by the division between East and West Germany after WW II. In 1995, Germany began making intest payments on the remaining outstanding bonds, finally making the last $94 Million installment yesterday. Of course, the original $63 Billion (in US dollars) settlement was revised down to $33 Billion, (still worth over $400 Billion in today's currency) and then the interest owed was revised down several times. And it STILL took massive currency devaluation that exacerbated the Great Depression, another World War, and almost a century to pay it off. I hope the world has learned its lesson about the (lack of) intelligence of forcing a weary, war-tattered, loosing country to pay huge sums of money to the winners.

In Which I Hereby Predict the Headline for November 3rd, 2010

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:22:00 +0000

The headline will be "VOTERS ARE IDIOTS" with a sub-head of "DESPITE STRONG DISLIKE OF BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, VOTERS FAILED TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE AND INSTEAD RE-ELECTED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS" Don't believe me? Well, read this article and then tell me what 3rd party candidates are currently polling at. VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2ND!

And Now, From the NO KIDDING, REALLY?! Department...

noreply@blogger.com (E. Z. Sjolander. For Freedom and Justice I Stand.) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:01:00 +0000

The government has now admitted that health care spending under the "reform" bill will be higher than if the bill hadn't been passed. "Oh, but just by a little bit, you see, and we get all those other people insured." It hasn't even taken effect yet and they're admitting this? You can bet your best-loved possession they'll keep revising the numbers up bit-by-bit till (maybe) they are telling the truth... They know full well that a full up-front disclosure would have quashed chances of the bill passing - or else have risked a real revolution in so doing (not just the one that's expected at the polls this fall).