Saturday, December 29, 2018
Taking some time off
Well kiddies, Pimpernel is taking some time off. A week or two unless something really worth discussing happens. Hope you have a great New Year.
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Beef Bourguignon
Beef Bourguignon is what I am making for Christmas. Instead of chuck roast, I am using New York steak. I was going to get a dinner from Denny's but thought, what the heck, I have the ingredients and thyme. Pun intended. Hope you enjoy your dinner as well.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
What if we had a military draft that only applied to the children of the wealthy.
Some wealthy moron in England recently said that if you made under $50,000 a year you shouldn't be allowed to vote. There are people in this country that feel the same way, remember the billionaire who said that your vote should be based on your income a few years back. How bout this, we should have a military draft; but, if you make under $100,000 a year neither you nor your children can be drafted. What if only the children of the wealthy were drafted? Bet we would be in fewer wars, what do you think?
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Monday, December 10, 2018
What Are France and the Yellow Jackets About
Paris is burning. Paris and France as a whole are facing protests across the nation, some have resulted in violent behavior; but, most have been completely peaceful. The protestors are primarily people who live outside of the major cities, working class people and farmers who have seen their lifestyle collapse and their jobs replaced by migrants. Many live outside the cities and drive in for work. Macron and the French government decided to reduce the taxes on the wealthy and increase the gas tax, while also reducing benefits for its citizens. The increase in the gas tax was a "carbon tax", it was claimed to be needed to offset carbon emissions. Apparently France thought the working class should be the ones to bear the burden for climate change and not the wealthy who benefit from industry.
Let me ask a question. Who benefits from increasing greenhouse gasses? Does the working class benefit from it? I think not, not in the west, they lost their jobs in manufacturing and those jobs went to India, Mexico and China where greenhouse gasses have been increasing far beyond those of the west where they are actually reducing. Does shipping manufacturing to countries that do not have environmental controls increase or decrease CO2? Who benefits? Not workers in the west, they lost their jobs. Apple benefits, the biggest multi-nationals benefits; but, not workers in the west, yet, they are expected to pay for it. That is what the French Yellow Jackets are complaining about, not paying more for gas alone. How do we know this, well, France agreed to implement the tax and the riots continue.
The Paris Climate Accord did not ask countries to pay or tax based on CO2 emissions. The Paris Climate Accord had countries agree to reduce emissions based on their highest year and neither India, Mexico or China have agreed that this year is their highest year, they all plan on increasing their emissions for 30 years and then hitting their peak. Apparently, the west is to reduce their emissions to make up for transferring manufacturing to these countries which use coal burning plants.
Let me ask a question. Who benefits from increasing greenhouse gasses? Does the working class benefit from it? I think not, not in the west, they lost their jobs in manufacturing and those jobs went to India, Mexico and China where greenhouse gasses have been increasing far beyond those of the west where they are actually reducing. Does shipping manufacturing to countries that do not have environmental controls increase or decrease CO2? Who benefits? Not workers in the west, they lost their jobs. Apple benefits, the biggest multi-nationals benefits; but, not workers in the west, yet, they are expected to pay for it. That is what the French Yellow Jackets are complaining about, not paying more for gas alone. How do we know this, well, France agreed to implement the tax and the riots continue.
The Paris Climate Accord did not ask countries to pay or tax based on CO2 emissions. The Paris Climate Accord had countries agree to reduce emissions based on their highest year and neither India, Mexico or China have agreed that this year is their highest year, they all plan on increasing their emissions for 30 years and then hitting their peak. Apparently, the west is to reduce their emissions to make up for transferring manufacturing to these countries which use coal burning plants.
Sunday, December 9, 2018
What could we do if we were the largest military budget by only 10% more?
The United States has the largest military budget in the world. In fact, Well, we would easily have $400 billion dollars to spend on our citizens. We could easily pay for healthcare for all and pay down our national debt while still having the strongest military in the world.
Thursday, December 6, 2018
What are we free to speak about?
My two favorite writings in the world are the Bible and the United States Constitution. By the way, my third favorite is Goethe's "Faust". The Constitution is an amazing document recognizing the right of the people to decide their future rather than an oligarchy. It was not universal enough, it did not allow slaves or women to vote. Those changes came later; but, they came by vote. These lines are debatable now; but, lets face it, we don't let everyone vote today either. 6 year old's cannot vote and neither can felons. By the way, non-citizens cannot vote either. The Constitution was not and will never be perfect, not the point. The purpose of the Constitution is to make sure that laws are not decided by the wealthy alone.
The founding fathers did not believe they needed to outline rights of people, they thought the framework for democracy would ensure that; but, the passage of time told them differently. They decided to amend the constitution, something it allowed for, and created the "Bill of Rights", the first ten amendments. So, what rights did they consider the most important to protect?
The first amendment states, "The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That was there number one priority. Why was the congress and not states prohibited from making a national religion? Well, the states would not have passed it otherwise. Remember, the Pilgrims came here to set up a required religion for their colony. States had tons of religious laws that lasted into the 1980s. Heck, New England still had "blue laws" in the late 70s listing the things you could not do on Sundays. I remember not be allowed to play music on Sundays until after the afternoon in New Hampshire. LOL. The first part of the amendment was offset by the second part, the freedom of speech. Congress was not allowed to prevent people saying what they wanted in different states. It did not stop states from limiting free speech. You can hate it; but, it is true.
You may wonder why the Constitution did not outlaw slavery. It's pretty simple, the southern states would not have joined the union and there would have been no United States. So, what was the second highest priority, the right of people to join state militia's and be armed. States wanted to know that they could protect themselves from other states and the nation. Remember, the Constitution came after the Articles of Confederation. After we became a nation under the Articles of Confederation, states put tariffs on one another.
The third amendment prevented the federal government from using the military to take over people's houses. The fourth amendment affected all states that people were free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That right applied to all citizens regardless of the state they lived in. The fifth amendment assured due process to all citizens regardless of the state they lived in. The sixth assured some basic rights in being charged with a crime. The seventh assured a basic right the right to a trial. The tenth helps explain the context for the first nine, it says that rights not specifically delegated to the federal government were kept by the states regarding creating legislation.
A quick not of interest. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery, the 14th Amendment did. Lincoln had no authority to end slavery, it required a Constitutional Amendment. The same amendment by accident or intent also ensured that the Bill of Rights applied to all citizens which meant states had to respect freedom of religion, speech, assembly and to own a gun if a member of a militia.
Still, the most important right was the right to hold and speak your beliefs. The European Union does not believe in the freedom of speech and has many "hate speech" laws prohibiting speech, including prohibiting condemning religious beliefs. Now the European Union is about to outlaw complaining about their immigration policies. Almost every government allows it's politicians and civil servants the freedom to investigate every issue; but, this same right will not be given to citizens of Europe.
The founding fathers did not believe they needed to outline rights of people, they thought the framework for democracy would ensure that; but, the passage of time told them differently. They decided to amend the constitution, something it allowed for, and created the "Bill of Rights", the first ten amendments. So, what rights did they consider the most important to protect?
The first amendment states, "The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That was there number one priority. Why was the congress and not states prohibited from making a national religion? Well, the states would not have passed it otherwise. Remember, the Pilgrims came here to set up a required religion for their colony. States had tons of religious laws that lasted into the 1980s. Heck, New England still had "blue laws" in the late 70s listing the things you could not do on Sundays. I remember not be allowed to play music on Sundays until after the afternoon in New Hampshire. LOL. The first part of the amendment was offset by the second part, the freedom of speech. Congress was not allowed to prevent people saying what they wanted in different states. It did not stop states from limiting free speech. You can hate it; but, it is true.
You may wonder why the Constitution did not outlaw slavery. It's pretty simple, the southern states would not have joined the union and there would have been no United States. So, what was the second highest priority, the right of people to join state militia's and be armed. States wanted to know that they could protect themselves from other states and the nation. Remember, the Constitution came after the Articles of Confederation. After we became a nation under the Articles of Confederation, states put tariffs on one another.
The third amendment prevented the federal government from using the military to take over people's houses. The fourth amendment affected all states that people were free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That right applied to all citizens regardless of the state they lived in. The fifth amendment assured due process to all citizens regardless of the state they lived in. The sixth assured some basic rights in being charged with a crime. The seventh assured a basic right the right to a trial. The tenth helps explain the context for the first nine, it says that rights not specifically delegated to the federal government were kept by the states regarding creating legislation.
A quick not of interest. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery, the 14th Amendment did. Lincoln had no authority to end slavery, it required a Constitutional Amendment. The same amendment by accident or intent also ensured that the Bill of Rights applied to all citizens which meant states had to respect freedom of religion, speech, assembly and to own a gun if a member of a militia.
Still, the most important right was the right to hold and speak your beliefs. The European Union does not believe in the freedom of speech and has many "hate speech" laws prohibiting speech, including prohibiting condemning religious beliefs. Now the European Union is about to outlaw complaining about their immigration policies. Almost every government allows it's politicians and civil servants the freedom to investigate every issue; but, this same right will not be given to citizens of Europe.
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly And Regular Migration.
United Nations - Global Compact for Safe, Orderly And Regular Migration.
Basically, this agreement calls for open borders for immigration. The link above is to the actual document to be signed and agreed to. Always use source documents dear readers. Of particular note is that there are 23 objectives listed, Item 17 says it intends to "Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perception of migration". Now, what does that mean you may ask. Well, it means that if you talk bad about your governments having an open border, you can be charged with a hate crime. It also means that if you do not live in one of the countries that accepts this policy that you could be removed from the internet.
The Express - UN migration: Criticizing migration could become criminal offense under new plan.
Fox - Nigel Farage on the free speech fight in Europe.
Remember very few places actually have free speech. Few countries have a first amendment like the United States and almost none act on it.
Another fascinating objective is item 22, which says, "Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits." While not being discussed much, this part is really scary. This little bit is insidious. It basically means that even if you move from a country to another, your country of origin will still be responsible for paying you benefits you earned in it, even if you were never fully vested.
This is not about migration, it is about the end of national sovereignty. I told two people that this was being approved in less than a week. The first person I told was a relative in China, he laughed, he thought I was joking. I second person I told is older than me and lives in the United States, he thought the world had gone mad. Both are right and wrong. This is simply about having an international workforce free to travel where the work is regardless of the effect of the communities that they move to. This is what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said she wanted open borders. There has been no public vote on this in any country that I know of, nor will there be. In fact, objective 17 makes it clear that the average person will not even be allowed to make a negative comment about it. Welcome to the world of the future where you have no say in what the rules are.
Basically, this agreement calls for open borders for immigration. The link above is to the actual document to be signed and agreed to. Always use source documents dear readers. Of particular note is that there are 23 objectives listed, Item 17 says it intends to "Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perception of migration". Now, what does that mean you may ask. Well, it means that if you talk bad about your governments having an open border, you can be charged with a hate crime. It also means that if you do not live in one of the countries that accepts this policy that you could be removed from the internet.
The Express - UN migration: Criticizing migration could become criminal offense under new plan.
Fox - Nigel Farage on the free speech fight in Europe.
Remember very few places actually have free speech. Few countries have a first amendment like the United States and almost none act on it.
Another fascinating objective is item 22, which says, "Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits." While not being discussed much, this part is really scary. This little bit is insidious. It basically means that even if you move from a country to another, your country of origin will still be responsible for paying you benefits you earned in it, even if you were never fully vested.
This is not about migration, it is about the end of national sovereignty. I told two people that this was being approved in less than a week. The first person I told was a relative in China, he laughed, he thought I was joking. I second person I told is older than me and lives in the United States, he thought the world had gone mad. Both are right and wrong. This is simply about having an international workforce free to travel where the work is regardless of the effect of the communities that they move to. This is what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said she wanted open borders. There has been no public vote on this in any country that I know of, nor will there be. In fact, objective 17 makes it clear that the average person will not even be allowed to make a negative comment about it. Welcome to the world of the future where you have no say in what the rules are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)