Welcome to 2014

I expect nothing better out of 2014.

  • As long as the government wants to oppress us, and slap smiley face stickers on it
  • As long as the Fed Reserve keeps deflating the value of the dollar, and contracting the credit
  • As long as people are stupid enough to vote the government to steal from us, to overpay themselves, to finance companies that should fail, to pay for wars that we shouldn’t be in, to force us to buy products that we don’t want or pay a fine if we don’t
  • As long as we send people to die on foreign land, while lying to the public, and getting away with it
  • As long as the government keeps violating the US Constitution, and the people do not stand up against it
  • As long as the people keep having a short memory, and believe that we don’t have a police state

I do not expect 2014 to be anything more than the same old shit as the previous years. More laws, more death, more taxes, more Privacy violations, more unemployment, more sheep who keep forgetting that this government is fully corrupt. more more more.

What do I believe is better? Abolish the Federal Government. Though I don’t believe that will happen, then strip it down to the original constitution, up to, but not including the 1913 amendments. Repeal the 1913 amendments, and replace them with a simple amendment, that is:

Any state, by simple majority popular vote, may peaceably succeed from the union. And at that time, all federally owned public lands, shall be turned over to the state, for purposes of public auction where the resulting funds are distributed to the state.

The federal debt and assets would be distributed to the residents of the succeeding state at equal proportion based on gross population. At such time, if the debt is greater than the assets, then the individuals of the newly succeeded state will be responsible for payment of said debt over a timespan of 10 years. During those 10 years, all interest and penalties will be suspended. At the end of those 10 years, interest will be calculated at 2% and fully accrued for those 10 years, and continue to accrue for every year until paid off. No distribution of debt will take into accountability of age, race, gender, or income. Debtors who pass away prior to paying off the debt will owe off of their assets, and remainder will be inherited by their heirs. If there are no heirs, then the state will inherit the remainder of the debt.

Upon exiting of the union, each state must assume the first ten amendments, as they are written on the federal constitution, into each state’s constitution. The rights of the people shall not be infringed upon.

However, as we have military bases in other countries, these states shall decide as to whether they wish to continue to have these bases operate in their state or not, and negotiate and receive payment for the lease of the land, if they keep the bases open.

Since military bases are on federal land, it would be possible, under my suggestion for the amendment above, that they land that the military base is on, could become the property of a private individual, or corporation. If that did happen, then the allowance for the military to operate in the state is a state issue, but the negotiations for the operation of the land would be a contract with the land owner.

What would stop the state from buying the land, and leasing it back to the military itself? Assets. The state would still have to fork over the money prior to assumption. That is, it would have to be able to place the funds fully into private escrow prior to receiving the funds back into the general funds. That means that states that are highly in debit would have to get a backer for the loan, and the state would owe even more after receiving the title for the land.

This wouldn’t affect TX much, but states like IL and CA, it could bankrupt them.

That is great for the Federal issue, but how about the state issue?

CA vs TX: CA is losing businesses to TX, because CA is hyper prohibitive and hyper taxative (new word, and it rhymes with laxative, since CA is so full of shit.). Once the people have broken free of the shackles of the Federal Government, that will provide a financial breathing space of about 7% (that may be a really old calculation, so don’t hold me to it.). At which time, the people of CA need to unburden themselves of the state government. Repeal nearly all regulatory, or most regulator laws. Same with taxation, and social programs.

CA used to have amazing roads, which were built by individuals, now there is only the state stopping them from doing that again.

Most of the state’s infrastructure for power, water, etc, were all private. Where they are public owned, they are expensive. Where they are private, some of the highest expenses are in the taxation.

 If you are going to have a state licensing organization, then it must be limited to the use of public lands and services, and the immediate risk of life in the direct hands of others. To be more specific:

  1. Drivers Lic.
    1. As long as you are driving a roads that are paid for by everyone, then you must be able to follow the common laws of the roads.
  2. Medical Lic – for pharmaceuticals, and surgical issues.
    1. More specifically: You want to perform surgery, become a doctor.
    2. You want to write prescriptions: become a doctor.
    3. Basically, do no harm. Make sure that your instructions are clear. Make sure that those working with you work by the same guidance. The guidance itself does not need to be part of the licensing. That should be agreed upon prior to any contractual affiliation. 
  3. Use of the courts for the purpose of working legal cases before a judge.
    1. This is mostly to make sure that you understand the process of the court.
    2. This should be limited to making sure that you can represent the client in making sure that all processes are fulfilled for paperwork and statements.
    3. This should not be used to create an atmosphere of exclusiveness.
    4. As long as the courts are paid for by public funds, and employed by the populous, then the lawyer should understand the common laws of the court.
  4. Law enforcement, and the use of force for the purpose of serving and protecting the populous.
    1. Publicly paid officers should be required a testing and licensing to be able to represent the state in the duties of serving and protecting the populous.
      1. Making sure that they are at the right location, and apprehending the right person.
      2. Prohibitive rules for the use of lethal weapons. Shooting a pet, because they may be a threat should be prohibited. Shooting a resident for defending their home or property, prior to clearly identifying yourself as an officer, should be prohibitive.
      3. Entering private property without a search warrant, and without probable cause, must be prohibited.
        1. Probable cause must be publicly, clearly defined, so that the public knows exactly what it legal.
      4. Failing to uphold individual rights should be an automatic stripping of the officers licensing, and removal from position regardless of the reasons.
    2. Privately paid officers should be required the same licensing, however they should also include the licensing and rules of their employer.
      1. Since this already include the protection of personal rights, then this can only be used to limit the officers even further.
  5. Private businesses.
    1. This is a very limited license for businesses that are not being ran under the owners full name, or businesses that are being ran as a franchise. That is the owner must provide the following, and no more restraint than that:
      1. Who is the owner(s)
      2. Who is providing the liability insurance
      3. How one may contact the business during business hours.
      4. What does the business do
    2. There should be no restrictions on the issuance of this license.
    3. There should be no requirements of proof that the business is needed.
    4. There should be no limitations as to where or when the business is placed, or when it is in operations, with exception of the limitations placed on the business by the property management.
      1. The state, or local government should never be considered property management for the purposes of providing these limitations, unless the land is public land.
  6. There shall be no other limitation or constraint on the people.

If we were to follow these 6 major points, can you imagine how much California would surpass the rest of the USA in growth?

None of this would work in CA, unless we passed one more constitutional amendment:

All property is the direct ownership of the person who legally acquired it, and may not be removed from their ownership unless they agree upon such terms of an equitable exchange. No property may be forcibly removed from its owner. No owner may be forcibly remove from their property.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.