Bonzer Wolf Today™

Tuesday
Nov202012

Definition of Insanity: Democrat Super Majority in California

Democrats now have super majorities in both the state Assembly and Senate, meaning they can pass state tax increases without a single Republican vote. Voters got a head start on tax increases when they passed Gov. Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which raises the statewide sales tax as well as income taxes on upper incomes.

It’s the first time since 1933 that a single party has controlled two-thirds of both the California Senate and Assembly and the first time since 1883 the Democrats have had such majorities.

Yet an October Reason-Rupe poll saw that Prop. 30 was leading and asked likely voters across the state: “Suppose these tax increases in Prop. 30 are approved but do not end up eliminating California’s budget deficit, what would you like the legislature to do next?”  Nearly three out of four, 74%, said they’d want the state to cut spending to balance the budget. Just 15% said raise additional taxes to eliminate the deficit and 4 percent said borrow more money.

A 3/4 majority wants the state to cut spending and yet they vote for to fill the legislature with Democrat Super Majority, passing Bills that will be sent to Democrat Governor for signature?  This has to be the new definition of insanity.

If Democrats don’t tackle the real causes of the budget deficit – state spending, is there any chance lawmakers may find something most would never envision: California voters calling for Wisconsin-like budget and pension reforms?

As difficult as it may be to imagine, there is a chance that California sobers up after they hit rock bottom.  Earlier this year, just before Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election, which was prompted by organized labor’s fierce reaction to cuts to government workers, the Reason-Rupe poll asked Wisconsin voters: “For new government employees who have not been promised pension benefits, would you favor or oppose shifting them from guaranteed pensions to 401(k)-style accounts?”

In Wisconsin, 69 percent of voters said they’d like to shift new government workers to 401(k)s. A few weeks ago, Reason-Rupe asked the very same question of California voters and got the very same result: 69 percent said shift government workers to 401(k)s.

Change is the ONLY hope for California and the rest of U.S.

The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Monday
Nov192012

No Turkey For You!

According to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. companies are scaling back investment plans at the fastest pace since the Great Recession, signaling more trouble for the already failing economy. 

Half of the country’s 40 biggest publicly traded corporate spenders have already announced plans to curtail capital expenditures this year or next, according to reviews by The Wall Street Journal. 

At the same time exports are slowing or falling to critical markets like China and the Euro zone as the global economy continues to fall.  “The whole world is looking for stability and clarity from the United States,” David Seaton, chief executive of Fluor Corp., a large engineering and construction firm to The WSJ.  If uncertainty is not removed, he said, “people will sit on their war chests of cash and return it to shareholders.  You’ll have a retarded growth trajectory.”

Even if people or businesses and corporations have money, they will not be spending it due to the Obamanation. 

The Nanny State can print money but it can’t create jobs or wealth for anybody except government employees.  In fact, record deficit will result in record inflation, destroy jobs and actually bring in LESS revenue to the Treasury when it raises tax rates rather than lowering them.

We the people made this shit sandwich and we will be eating it for a minimum of two years.  Bon Appetite!

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner

Sunday
Nov182012

Liberal Fascist Democrats Are America's Racists 

Libertarians seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.  Libertarians believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Libertarians are the original LIBERALS.  Today’s liberals are the Progressives in the Democrat Party.  I call them liberal fascists for good reason.  Roger Griffin, author of The Nature of Fascism defines fascism as “a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a rebirth of populist ultra-nationalism.”  Roger Eatwell says that fascism’s essence is a “form of thought that preaches the need for social rebirth in order to forge a holistic National radical Third Way.”

THIS is the Democrat PartyFDR’s defenders openly admitted their admiration of fascism.  Rexford Guy Tugwell, an influential member of FDR’s brain trust, said of Italian Fascism, “It’s the cleanest neatest most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.” 

“We are trying out the economics of of Fascism without having suffered all its social or political ravages,” said the New Republic’s editor George Soule, an enthusiastic supporter of FDR

Both the Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt administrations were descendants of the first fascist movement, the French Revolution.  Fascism is in the DNA of Democrats.

Libertarians on the other hand, defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In America, the case for statism is made by the Democrats in the terms of pragmatism and decency.  In other words, American Fascism must be nice and for your own good. American Progressivism is a kind of Christian socialism. Progressives have a history of being imperialists at home and abroad.  They were also the authors of Prohibition, the Palmer Raids, eugenics, loyalty oaths and state capitalism

Today’s liberal fascists eschews talk of Christianity.  Rather than talk in religious terms they use a secularized vocabulary of “hope and change” and construct spiritual philosophies like “politics of meaning”.  Progressives are racists who believe in the inherent numinousness of blacks and the permanence of white sin, which is their justification for white guilt. 

See the election of Obama as POTUS in both 2008 and 2012 for details.

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Under the U.S. Constitution, no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Saturday
Nov172012

Texas CHL Holders May Lock Gun in Vehicle on Company Parking Lot

In the days leading up to the election, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion about an employer’s ability to ban Texans with a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) from leaving a gun locked in their private vehicle in a company parking lot.  Attorney General Abbott has consistently supported Second Amendment civil rights and an individual’s right to self protection in Texas.

The opinion, requested by Texas State Senator Robert Deuell (R-Greenville) said that Section 30.06 of the Texas penal code, which allows employers to post notices on building entrances restricting handguns or other firearms being carried on the premises, does not supersede the state law that protects CHL holders.

Unfortunately, the opinion also states that Texas law currently does not specifically provide the employee whose rights have been violated, with a remedy against an adverse action taken against them. The opinion states that employees may seek relief by suing under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

An employer’s ability to prohibit non-licensed employees from locking a firearm in their vehicle as provided for by the Texas penal code Section 46.02 , was not addressed in the opinion. This provision allows a law abiding person to carry a concealed firearm in their car if they are not gang members and they are not traveling for an unlawful purpose.

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

Friday
Nov162012

Senate to vote on the Federal Land Seizure Act Today

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), who is “F” rated by Gun Owners of America — is pushing a “hunting” bill that authorizes the Obama administration almost unlimited power to seize private lands for “environmental” purposes.
 
Anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled Tester’s bill for a vote, and it will probably take place today.

It is imperative that gun owners contact their Senators and ask them to OPPOSE S. 3525.  Click here to tell them that the modest conservation gains allowed in the bill are totally offset by giving unelected bureaucrats the authority to steal land from hunters and private property owners.
 
When the “wetlands” provisions of the Clean Water Act were originally enacted, no one could have foreseen that a landowner would go to prison for applying clean dirt to a junkyard adjacent to a sewer, which was determined to be “wetlands.”  But environmentalists have been brilliant in taking seemingly innocuous programs and massively expanding them through fraudulent interpretations or tiny loopholes.
 
S. 3525 has “sweeteners.” It allows archery bows to be transported through national parks under very limited circumstances, although Obama could do this by administrative fiat.  It also allows, but does not mandate, Pittman-Robertson funds to be used for target ranges. But none of these small discretionary provisions offset the potential damage this does to the rights of individual landowners.
 
THE ISSUE OF LOST OPPORTUNITY:  If this is the Democrats’ sop to gun owners, it may make it a lot more difficult to secure national concealed carry reciprocity or to stop anti-gun measures and treaties.
THE CENTRAL PROBLEM WITH S. 3525

The central problem with the bill is that it allows seizure of private lands for “aquatic habitats” [Sections 201(8) and 204 (d) (2)]. The definition of this term is limitless and includes seizure of lands in order to “protec[t] the quality and quantity of water sources” and to “serv[e] as a buffer protecting the aquatic environment.” [Section 201 (2)]
 
Thus, a factory that “pollutes” can be seized to protect an “aquatic habitat.” The only real limit on seizure in Section 204 is the requirement that the government manage the seized property “in accordance with the purposes of this subtitle.”

The National Fish Habitat Board consists of 27 members. The initial members (Obama appointees) select the remaining members. Thus while the “commercial fishing industry” supposedly has a representative, you can bet that that fisherman is an Obama-supporter and will support his agenda.
 
The board then enters into “partnerships” with, inter alia, outside groups. And you can bet that every liberal environmental organization in the country will now be feeding at this pig sty. The outside groups recommend fish habitat programs and plans for seizing private lands.
 
Bottom line:  This will give immense powers to unelected bureaucrats — a clear violation of the Separation of Powers which our Founders implemented as a way of protecting our rights.
 
WHAT ABOUT SECTION 211 (e) (2)?
 
This supposedly requires the consent of landowners prior to having their lands seized. But, note the sneaky loophole: Section 211 (e) (2) applies only to property that is being seized with federal funds and, under Section 204 (e), half the funds need to come from non-federal sources.
 
So while this section is put forward as a “protection,” it actually doesn’t provide total immunity because the government can take a land owner’s property using non-federal funds — and there is no protection in the bill against that.

Click Here to Contact Your U.S. Senators