Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Budget and Economy!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres 

This is an easy one!

First, we start by repealing 16th Amendment effectively abolishing the income tax and property tax. After that, we force the government to live within their means just as we as citizens must live within ours in order to survive. Once we do that, we start paying down the deficit IMMEDIATELY, and stop borrowing from places like China.

After all, the people, not the government, are supposed to run the economy- so, we should fight for more power given to the private sector, not less. Besides, there is no way to control spending when the Federal Reserve creates money by printing it out of thin air to pay our debts off. As a result, we need to abolish the Federal Reserve, too.

In fact, I would go so far as to say we should stop all non-essential aid to EVERY country we currently prop up, as well. Sure, the American people are a naturally giving people, but we need to allow ourselves a small amount of selfishness in this day and age if for no other reason than out of necessity. Frankly, let them get their own collective houses in order, just as we must.

Similarly, hard choices must be made here or we won't survive as the prosperous nation we once were, either. We all have those things we want the government to not cut, but cuts must be made all the way across the board no matter what your pet issue may be. That includes government worker's salaries, Medicare and Medicaid, welfare benefits, veteran's benefits, the the military industrial complex, the public school system- EVERYTHING!

We also need to end as many regulations as possible in order for businesses to do their business without the government taking their share right off the top. And we need competition to get it done. No more "no-complete clauses" with the United States Post Office for instance. Let those of us who know how to run a business show the Feds a thing or two, and let the rest fail.

The truth is, the government is like a drunken sailor on shore leave, they spend way too much even though they have very little to actually give, and when they come home they wonder why they need even more assistance by the government. Our government simply taxes us more and more every day thinking that will somehow regulate our economy magically. But all that accomplishes is anger and resentment by the people when their hard earned money is taken from them and wasted by a clumsy and inept government that can’t run itself as a proper business anyway.

In short, we need to restore our nation by returning to the TRUE conservative tenant of “less government via fiscal responsibility” and force those who govern us- both republican AND democrat- to be personally held responsible for our debt should it ever grow beyond what is acceptable to us as a people. In the end, we can’t legislate economic fairness in a true republic; so the only answer is to make our existing government as small as possible while continuing to still function with the barest of essentials. Then, we allow the private sector to do their thing, and fix the rest!

Having said all of that, the very first step is for the American people to realize that they have a true say with their vote, and that they need to use that vote to make a statement. The two-party system simply isn't working anymore, and we need to kick EVERY big government crony out of Washington on both sides of the isle that isn't a true fiscal conservative. In doing that, we stand every chance of not falling into the trap that so many other nations have fallen into over the years. But this can only be accomplished if we follow the right signs that lead the way out of the darkness.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Obamacare!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres 

Thomas Sowell recently said, "It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow now think that we can afford to pay for those same doctors, hospitals, and medication as well as a government bureaucracy to administer it all." Consider that for just one moment if you support federally-enforced government healthcare.

 In fact, once we are finished high fiving each other like we all just won the lottery; we need to deliberate over a few very important points about what Obamacare really means to each and every one of us. Thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States of America the government now has complete authority to tax, not based on income, but on behavior, the entire American people- and not just the top 1%. To put that into a more liberal context: that means that if you are openly pro-abortion because you believe it is your body, therefore your choice, you can’t in good conscience also support a government-mandated healthcare that forces you to give up that same liberty of self-ownership when considering your own private healthcare, right? 

But more than that, it is integral to realize that Obamacare is now considered a tax on every American citizen. We need to fully understand what this means. Simply put, it is now unlawful for you NOT to buy federally-run health insurance, and if you do not the government will use the Internal Revenue Services to forcibly take away your refund, increase your fees, add penalties or even see that you serve jail time.

But that’s okay, at least healthcare is “free” now!

I am frankly beside myself at how some people who claim they can’t pay for insurance today will suddenly have the resources tomorrow after 21 tax increases take place resulting from a health care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. In fact, of those increases, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year. Isn’t this is a clear violation of the president’s own personal pledge to avoid tax hikes on low and middle-income taxpayers? Bottom line: this could well turn out to be the single largest tax in American history.

Are we still high fiving now?

Truth be told, we don’t have to wait to see all of this come to pass. Obamacare has already caused up to 20 million Americans to lose their health-insurance policies today. And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health-care-reform law will destroy over 800,000 jobs in the future. On top of that, an analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation from November 2009 shows that in 2016, three-quarters of the tax imposed by the individual mandate will fall on those making less than $120,000 of income for a family of four or $59,000 for an individual. Families of four making $72,000 or less and individuals making $35,400 or less will bear nearly half of the mandate tax.

We simply can’t let something this wrong stand. After all, just because a couple of clearly uninformed folks on the Supreme Court declare something to be “constitutional” does not necessarily make it so. It is as Senator Rand Paul said shortly after the ruling, “While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.”

Lest we forget there’s no doubt this law will also have appalling consequences for younger generations. It will force our youth to purchase health insurance just as they are getting on their feet and begin paying down their college debts, or face major taxation. Truth be told, this is a major win for big, “money-grubbing” insurance companies only, not for the poor and downtrodden. I hope that sits well with supporters of Obamacare.

As a result, I frankly don’t know how a government who forces its people into heavy taxation is truly a compassionate one. I believe that lending a hand to the impoverished is the right thing to do as an individual. However, having our government force us to assist those same people in need is nothing short of “self-righteous bullying” as Penn Jillette put it. To further paraphrase the same quote I posted last time from that great mountain of a man- Sure, people the country over need to be fed, sheltered and even medicated, and if we are decent Americans we will do our humanly best to help everyone we possibly can, but we get no moral credit by forcing others to follow suit, especially at the barrel of a proverbial gun.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Property Taxes!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres 

North Dakota is considering a measure that abolishes property taxes entirely as of this week. Good for you, North Dakota! I never understood property taxation anyway. It comes off as unconstitutional on just about every level to me, and is really nothing short of a tyrannical feudal system for all intents and purposes. 

 

Well, okay, we obviously don’t live under a feudal regime, however property taxation seems to presuppose a type of feudal hierarchy no matter how you slice it anyway. Sure, if it were a true feudal regime it would be a more distributive state-run system, and we obviously do not live in one of those, but because of exactly that this renders property taxes even more patently absurd to my mind. 

The bottom line is this: I loathe the very idea property taxes. In fact, the more I consider it, I probably abhor the idea even more than mere income or sales taxes. There is simply something much more sinister about them than meets the eye. After all, income tax, no matter how intrusive and redundant they seem, intimates that only a certain percentage of one's income is owed to the government for the “maintenance of public goods”. Property taxation, however, says something vastly more insidious. 

Property taxes by definition, regardless of its use or where it’s directed, is a claim by the state of COMPLETE ownership of your land. And if you are found to be in default of paying property tax at all, the state can then seize that property even if you have already bought and paid for that land in full. 

What you really have is a system where we pay a fee to a type of tyrannical landlord while we, the lowly voters, are permitted to live on that land only if we pay them to do so. Hmmmmmm…. maybe it is more like a feudal system than even I care to believe! 

Either way, make no mistake about it, if the state can confiscate your already paid-for property when you become tax delinquent, then you truly do not own that land in the first place. The state does. How every property owner in America cannot be up in arms because of this is beyond me. 

Not to mention, property taxes seem unconstitutional because it does not allow us to live in a truly free land where we are secure in the liberty to own said personal property. I am no constitutional scholar, but I do realize that the government is treading on hallowed ground both figuratively and perhaps even literally, if they are allowed to infringe on our property rights as designated by the United States Constitution. 

The Fifth Amendment says in part that we are not to be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Yet, how many of us have at least heard instances where American citizens have lost their property, home or land because they have failed to pay property taxes? It occurs throughout the entire country on a near daily basis. This seems not only immoral and unethical in my mind, but nothing shy of criminal and in violation of one’s own civil rights. 

 
Consider this: nearly every sale of property occurs without any due process at all. That is to say, there has been no court hearing, no judgment, nor adjudication of facts and no consideration given for the actual laws regarding any taxation in the first place. But doesn’t the Fifth Amendment say that we are not to “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”? 

This simply shouldn’t be allowed to stand, and North Dakota is right to consider abolishing this tax altogether. Still, having said all of that I do realize that cutting property taxes will not only be difficult there (let alone in virtually every other state), but almost impossible because it is the dominant tax assessed by cities, counties and school districts. But, for that very reason, we should endeavor to eliminate this tax let alone any and every other department and agency that have outlived their usefulness, and create a smaller, fiscally less demanding government that will permit its citizens to function more freely in a market more conducive to growth and prosperity. 

On a more personal level, if a good chunk of my property taxes go to the local school district I live in, why should I have to pay when I have no children who attend unless I choose to pay? For that matter, why should I have to support any public paid-for entity through my taxes in which I may not agree? Abortion funding, the military industrial complex, the death penalty, public school systems, and so on. The list could be endless in regard to what we as American individuals consider morally repugnant. 

Yet, at its core, Penn Jillette put it best in regard to that very thing, “People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.”

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Mandatory Spay/ Neuter Laws!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

The idea of a mandatory spay/neuter pet law is a supremely poor idea in my mind. In fact, mandating much of anything makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. After all, enjoying true freedom, without absolute control of one's own property (as long as we do no harm to others), is not possible in this country. Our United States Constitution is clear on that.



If we as a Nation by virtue of our very liberties advocate individual freedom and consistently oppose the initiation of coercion by anyone upon an individual or their property for any reason, then we need to uphold those things that we even disagree with. Besides, as Voltaire said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” I personally believe in spay/ neuter programs 100% as the most effective means to lessen the surplus pet population and help keep animals in their homes. I advocate for spay/neuter every chance I get, but I recognize that initiating legislation that forces individuals to care for their animals a certain way is never the answer.

As a person who supports the rational principle of the individual human rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness of every American, I simply can’t abide by this sort of law. I feel that each individual has the right to keep what he earns for himself and his family, and this includes the right to use, trade, sell, give away, or dispose of his property as he sees fit as long as none of these actions are abusive. And whether we like it or not, our pets are considered property in this country currently.

Besides: the basic, proper function of lawful government is limited to protecting these rights of the peaceful individual from criminals and foreign aggression, and in not violating these rights itself. For if government is allowed to go beyond this legitimate function and itself initiates force in violation of the rights of peaceful citizens, it contradicts the only rational justification for its own existence by acting criminally itself.

Having said all of that, although spaying and neutering our pets helps control dog and cat populations and generally helps them live longer lives and to be better companions to their owners- mandatory approaches nearly always contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and have many other unintended consequences as yet unnoticed. Therefore, I do not personally support mandatory spay/neuter laws or any other type of legislation that is punitive to otherwise law abiding pet owners no matter how often I tell people that spaying or neutering their pets is the best way to go.



But don’t just take my word for it. There are many areas that have tried to enact varying degrees of this type of legislation to disastrous results across the country. The City of Los Angeles in 2000 for instance developed a ”spay or pay” ordinance which immediately led to a decline in licensing compliance, and the animal control budget after passage of the law rose 269% from $6.7 million to $18 million. Fort Worth, TX was even forced to end its mandatory spay/neuter program after there was a reduction in rabies vaccinations which lead to an increase in rabies in the city. Then, in San Mateo California a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was enacted and dog deaths in the areas governed by the ordinance increased 126% and cat deaths increased by 86%. Not surprisingly those numbers decreased in parts of the county not governed by ordinances similar to these ones. And the list goes on, and on, and on, and on.

Even Best Friends Animal Society as an organization takes issue with the implementation of mandatory spay/ neuter laws for the most part. Judah Battista, the Director of Animal Care at Best Friends Animal Society said that a “better alternative to a mandatory spay-neuter ordinance would be to take the resources that would be devoted to enforcement and the subsequent housing of unaltered pets and using it to fund low-cost spay-neuter programs.” While Best Friends co-founder and the organization’s chief executive officer Gregory Castle said, “If your mandate insists people get their animals fixed, but doesn’t make any provision to help them do it, it doesn’t make any sense.”

The bottom line is if you don't have the finances to spay or neuter your household pet, then under mandatory spay/neuter pet laws you would have to surrender your pet to high kill shelters. And here in Kanab, Best Friends (while being a no-kill shelter) can take only so many of the community’s unwanted and abandoned pets. That is why I support ONLY voluntary, affordable spay/neuter programs for owned pets, Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs for feral cats and maybe even sterilization of shelter animals and certain individual, owned animals based on their or their owners’ behavior (such as animals repeatedly caught at-large).



No one will ever be completely satisfied with the final word of any political legislation, but if we adhere to our Nation’s founding document, and our own sound and rational minds we can always come up with solutions to problems no matter how great or how small they may seem.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Gun Control!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”



Plain and simple. To the point. No reason for debate, right? We win. You lose. Guns for everyone!

Sadly, it is never that easy when you are talking to people who want to take freedoms away rather than give even more to the people.

One rhetorical argument given by gun control advocates is that outlawing gun ownership will reduce crime. However, enforcing gun control requires criminal behavior on an even more massive scale: in order to disarm gun owners and regulate gun producers, the government themselves must commit crimes against the people by first violating the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. That is, the government must forcibly expropriate the property of gun owners against their will. Therefore, gun control cannot reduce crime when enforcing gun control is a crime in and of itself. So, the whole idea of gun control for reducing crime is patently absurd in my opinion.

In fact, gun control actually increases crime on other levels, too. Criminals are deterred by armed victims, but gun control disarms law-abiding citizens. After all, a criminal will always find a way to obtain a gun. In essence, unarmed citizens make easy victims- it’s that simple.

Also, an armed populace is a strong check against government gone awry. After all, Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government." Guns simply provide many more designations aside from protecting yourself from home invasion or for the purpose of hunting.



Besides, the gun control debate has long been plagued by systematic bias, emotionalism, and most of all- shocking ignorance. Take the right to self-ownership for example. It entails (in part) a right to own weapons that can be used in a purely defensive manner. Weapons that can be used only aggressively are incompatible with self-ownership. Hence, nuclear weapons (as many gun control rights advocates ridiculously say everyone will want to have if not kept in check) are illegitimate. But weapon ownership of any other kind for one’s own protection (even hypothetical protection from tyranny of Big Government) is perfectly justified here in America.

Another argument often cited by gun control advocates is that “guns kill people” therefore we should endeavor to eradicate every one of them from the hands of any and all Americans. There is so much wrong with that statement, I don’t know where to begin. I suppose the most obvious place to start would be to say, yes, guns indeed do kill people- if they are in the wrong hands. But, you could say the same thing about a hammer, a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a drinking straw or any other object that could be construed as a weapon. Should we ban all of those items, too? After all, a gun is impotent while it sits on a counter, unloaded. It only gains power when a bullet is added to the chamber and the trigger is pulled. In essence, the statement is misleading at best.

The bottom line is guns don’t kill people, people kill people…. that is to say, when individuals utilize them in an improper manner, of course.



So where does that leave us in the day's end about gun control here in America? In the clearest place imaginable if you ask me. Gun control is simply immoral, unnecessary, violates our rights as American citizens and just plain doesn’t work. Period!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: The Drug War!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

First of all, for the sake of complete disclosure, I have never done a recreational drug in my life. I don’t smoke, I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t even consume caffeine and I am a vegan. Therefore, I would be just fine on a personal level if all of these things I don’t engage in ceased to exist altogether. Still, it generally isn’t my right or especially the government’s right to dictate what we choose to do to ourselves no matter how harmful it may be, or what we decide to put into our own bodies.



Having said that, if your bad behaviors impede on my well being and welfare or the wellbeing and welfare of others around you, I feel that the government DOES have the right to at least impose restrictions and mandates to those that engage in drug use of any kind. In other words, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive while drinking because others can and often are injured and even killed. Nor should you be allowed to smoke cigarettes in any public setting around anyone else because second hand smoke is not only proven harmful, but it infringes on a person's right to self ownership when they aren't allowed to breath free away from another person's vices.

You should, however, be allowed to smoke in a private business if that business deems it appropriate, and you should be allowed to smoke in the privacy of your own home as long as children are not present. An adult, after all, can choose to leave such a setting, but a child is at the mercy of the person who has ultimate authority over them, and if that person is a smoker, the child is forced to be a party to that behavior.

Furthermore, reality dictates that for a multitude of scientific reasons and otherwise, alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking are far more addictive and deadlier than marijuana use for instance. Therefore, the hypocrisy and costliness of the drug war needs to be ended immediately; that, or ALL drugs should be banned entirely. And since the latter is highly unlikely given how lucrative the industry is these days, all drugs should be legal within the context of strict (realistic) rules, regulations and punishments put on them all, all the way across the board.

Besides, we have spent nearly five hundred billion dollars on the War on Drugs since the 1970s, and no one in their right mind would say that this was anything short of a complete failure on nearly every single level. Indeed, failures of that magnitude must always be reevaluated gravely in any situation.



HOWEVER, if the sum total of your entire argument is just to end enforcement of all things harmful, that also is a failure of logic in and of itself in my world. After all, nearly 3,000 Americans died as a result of drunk driving in 2009 alone. Meanwhile, around 16,000 Americans are murdered each year, and 1.3 million American women, and 800,000 American men are assaulted by a significant other annually. Most of which are commited while under the influence of some sort of drug or another.

These grim figures have not yet resulted in a chorus of people demanding that drunk driving, murder, and domestic violence be legalized. Indeed, if anything, a spike in the incidence of a certain crime typically leads to demands for a crackdown, and ultimately stiffer penalties for the convicted. So why, then, do Drug War opponents like to point to that aforementioned "failure” of criminalized drug use as an argument for legalization of all drugs?

We simply need a new approach. Legalization on the whole is a poor option, and prohibition is as well. There has to be another way of looking at this issue with fresh eyes.

Perhaps we should start with decriminalizing drugs completely at the FEDERAL LEVEL only. The Feds should have no control over the states in this regard anyway- that’s why the Constitution’s there. In other words, if California wants to legalize medicinal marijuana, that should be allowed. If New York wants to hand out medical crack cocaine, all the power to them. Conversely, if Utah or Kansas want to ban all drugs of any kind- they should have that right as well without the federal government stepping in and stepping on their toes.



It’s not a perfect plan, but it’s a start- and frankly, it has to be better than the current path we’re on.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: GOP Environmentalist?

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

I've always been of the assumption that conservatives conserve. So, why are so many conservatives today not more conservationist-minded and therefore good stewards of the earth and her environment? After all, what is more conservative than producing less waste and responsibly disposing of said waste? It seems to me that purveyors of a wasteful and unnecessarily filthy earth would be the liberals of today, not the conservatives.



After all, a conservative strives to hold onto traditional attitudes and values about things in life, and as a result is cautious about most change. Similarly, if a conservationist wishes to protect the earth from harm or destruction- wouldn't it makes sense for conservatives to be the ones who want the environment to remain unharmed or unchanged by unneeded and unnecessary things that are indeed in our control? Not the few things out of our control, clearly, but those things we can affect in our own everyday lives?

Of course, as with everything, public perception changes the narrative and thus the reality of any one thing when it is distorted for personal or political gain. But I never personally understood popular conservative opinion when it came to the environment. Sure, some people go too far with their rhetoric and what they propose to do to fix the issue, but at the end of the day it is all the same for every one of us. In my mind this shouldn't even be a political or partisan issue since it effects us all the very same way.

Having said that, people that take it to the sometimes illogical extreme like some Global Warming alarmists of the day do tend to get under my skin, as well. I don't do well with the obvious hypocrisy of that level of person, or others who try to tell me that if I don't do exactly as they think I should the universe will implode. Like many Americans, if I am confronted with most ultimatums- especially ultimatums built from lies, half truths and fear mongering- I will generally go the other way even if I agree with what the end result may be. Still, it perplexes me at a fundemental level that it isn't ingrained into all conservatives to police themselves and their own back yards and communities thereby ensuring a safe and clean environment- not to mention a much more fiscally sound one!



In fact, the GOP's own online party platform in regard to Energy and the Environment states in part that we must:

•increase energy efficiency
•develop alternative fuels, particularly cellulosic ethanol, and vehicles that run on biofuels and electricity
•create permanent tax incentives for renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro- power.
•develop new technology to burn coal and liquefy it for use in power plants and vehicles that don't pollute.
•enact a "Climate Prize" for scientists who identify solutions to global warming

The platform even goes one step further by stating, "While the scope and longterm consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment." So, that being the case, why don't we see more republicans who tow the party line require more from themselves in regard to the earth and the environment?



In truth, we CAN— and we probably should— address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly. But truth be told, this is all about personal responsibility and intergrity, not the other. And if modern day republicans want to be seen in that much more positive light, they need to be consistant all the way across the board- not just in parts.