First off, I am competely against the bill and the idea of universal health care. There is no such thing as a good bill that is thousand pages long and there is no such thing as a well run government system. Those are both fairytales.

It is entirely ineffective that those on the side of the bill resort to name calling in the form of the Bush Administration’s tactic of calling critics unpatriotic and the Obama Administration’s tactic of calling critics racists. Both are unproductive and not what a debate is about.

As expected, those who want the bill passed don’t want a debate; they just pay lip service to the idea. The real debate is not whether we should have reform or not. No one disagrees that the current system is imperfect and needs to be reformed. However, reform is a vague term.

There is no guarantee that any old reform will make things better. Things aren’t so bad that there is no way the government can make it worse. We aren’t at rock bottom.

The real debate should be what kind of reform we should have. The only way we can have an intelligent debate on is if we understand what the problems are and not how to solve the symtoms.

The problem is not that we have an estimated 45 million uninsured people in the United States. Having health insurance and having health care is not the same thing. For whatever reasons, we have become conditioned to believing that the two terms are interchangeable. It is how the media talks about it and it is how the politicians talk about it.

The underlying problem with health insurance is that we are insuring every medical procedure under the sun. It doesn’t matter if its a check up, a cold, cancer, or broken bones. The system insures it all. This is not the case in any other insurance industry. No one buys car insurance to cover oil changes and tune-ups. We don’t buy house insurance for carpet stains.

Insurance is to insure us from large, catastrophic events. If you break a bone, you could use insurance. If you want to insure against getting cancer, you should get insurance. If you have a cold, you should not be using insurance.

The only thing that happens when we insure everything is we increase costs with paperwork and allow doctors to charge the absolute maximum price because the consumer doesn’t pay for it out of pocket. When was the last time you went to the doctor and cared how much your visit cost? You only cared about the deductible because it comes directly out of your pocket at the time of the visit.

When you don’t know the price and don’t care what the price is, there is no reason for you to shop around for the best value. The system itself perpetuates higher prices indefinitely with no end in sight. Even while technological improvements should be reducing the price of medicine, costs are still increasing.

This doesn’t make any sense.

In every other field, technology brings prices down. How can it be that technology increases prices in medicine? How can streamlining the process cause prices to increase? If it weren’t for technological advances, prices would be even higher!

Now, why is it that health insurance companies don’t operate more like auto and home insurance companies? It is certainly not because the consumer is demanding that health care operate this way. Once upon a time, people did go visit doctors and knew what they were paying per visit.

Insurance didn’t always cover everything under the sun. The culprit is the government. They have created an environment where it is better for the insurance companies to cover everything. They have made it so that it is more expensive for individuals to buy insuranace and given companies tax breaks for providing employees with insurance. So, if you lose or switch your job, you lose your insurance. What sense does that make?

If there was no cost benefit for getting our health insurance from our jobs, we wouldn’t do it that way! It isn’t more convenient and doesn’t provide us with more freedom.

They have disallowed us from buying insurance across State lines. If an insurance company two States over offers a better plan for you and they are willing to serve you, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? I’m not saying it will be cheaper or better but, why don’t we have the option? The only ones who knows what’s best for us, is us.

It is economic law that competition drives down prices and creates greater value for consumers. Politically creating monopolies for local insurance companies do not benefit us.

While a group of people have decided to boycott Whole Foods‘ for John Mackey’s OpEd in the WSJ, he brings up very good points as to what the real health care debate should be. Not all of his recommendations may be right. His system at Whole Foods might not work everywhere–which should tell you that any national system would also fail–but, at least he is presenting real debate points.

Instead of just towing party lines.

There is no doubt we need health care reform. I don’t believe we need Obama’s reform. I would go as far as to say that it will make things worse. Until we are willing to have a real debate on the issue, we will never have reform that doesn’t need to be forced down the throats of Americans.

Image via Wikipedia

Honestly, I don’t know much about Chuck Norris outside of the Chuck Norrisisms and the movies that I’ve seen. It was a very pleasant surprise when I found this. Chuck Norris writes an intelligent piece advocating the abolition of the Federal Reserve or at least the passing of HR 1207–Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill.

Last week, the Senate blocked the bill even before it was introduced on the floor under “procedural grounds”. What the hell is that?

The truth of the matter is that the leaders in the Senate do not want the Federal Reserve audited. It is their “cash cow” so to speak. The Federal Reserve doesn’t make money the way the rest of us do, they make money by literally “making” it with paper and printing presses. This is good for the politicians who want their programs funded, bad for the rest of us.

Norris quotes Henry Ford on the banking and monetary system–controlled by the Fed–of the United States:

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

I believe that the nation would be in revolution if we all knew the reality of the Federal Reserve and how they manipulate our monetary system. So let’s inform the people!

I was going to go to bed and perhaps have an early rise in the morning but, I decided to surf Facebook and found myself tagged to a note on someone’s thoughts about capitalism. I had debated this person on the topic of Obama’s economic policies in the recent past. What was obvious from the debate is that I am in support of Liberty and freedom and he is in support of central planning and big government.

It is certainly not rare to have big government supporters in the State or city of New York. Since Obama has become President, I have become more and more a fish out of water when it comes to political debates. Where everyone was against Bush’s idiotic policies, no one dares criticize the Messiah’s idiotic policies. The scariest thing is that they don’t see the similarities.

I consider myself a student of Mises and have learned a great deal from economists, philosophers, and statesman–not statists–who are knowledgeable of his work. While Mises has long ago refuted Marx, it has not stopped the boneheaded Marxian ideas from spreading.

So, while every centrally planned form of government has failed since Marx and before Marx, we are still debating whether a free society is the best one to live in. It was Einstein who defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. In that sense, all Marxists are insane–and so are their policies.

My motivation to write this instead of sleep was from a Facebook note. This note came about because of a quote I posted by Henry Hazlitt:

“The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are.”

The author of the Facebook note was outraged. Before I had read this note, I did not know the author was a Marxist. I knew he supported big government and believed it to be a good idea to steal from one group to give to another–in this case it was stealing from the poor to give to the rich or what is known as bailouts.

That is the great irony of all centrally planned societies. They promise prosperity for all and that no man shall be better off than another. In practice, it is true, the masses are all equal–equally poor–and the elite few running the show live like royalty.

“The average person becomes wealthy in the United States through one of a limited amount of things. The most common: Luck. People with the set of skills necessary to profit in the system are actually a dime a dozen. The only difference is that some of them were at the right time and place. I think there’s a book out that recently addressed the subject in great detail, actually.”

I will not disagree that it has become more difficult to make it in the United States. The government has gotten bigger and people have become less free. The only result of that is a lower standard of living for everyone. The problem is not freedom–the only way one can blame freedom that is to ignore all of history.

Of course, when people criticize systems and name them the United States, they are really talking about free markets. Sadly, the free market has been on life support for a long time now in the United States and all the criticisms of how this system is not working is really a criticism of how big government doesn’t work.

In an actual free market, hard work and savings is what makes people wealthy. Creating products and services that benefit the masses is how one is rewarded. There is always luck but, to credit all good things to luck is underestimating yourself and giving yourself a free pass when you fail.

The culture of laziness and not taking responsibility for oneself seems to be greatest draw to Marx. We want to feel that we are “safe” at the expense of being free. We don’t want to do any real work, we just want to complain about how hard we are working and how the “man” is keeping us down!

The book that the above quote refers to is Fooled by Randomness. I have not read the book but, I am aware of it. From what I understand, the book talks about economic success in stocks and financials as being random. Anyone who actually understands economics would know that there is nothing “random” about what happens.

When governments create bubbles, everyone is going to look smart. When the bubble pops, all those previously “smart” people are going to look real dumb. The reasoning is that they weren’t that smart–it was just too hard to fail in the bubble. It isn’t random. The “business cycle” isn’t random–it is created by government and it is predictable.

The better title for that book would be Fooled by Ignorance and Misinformation.

“[W]e have every right to hate the wealthy man- he has no right to that wealth.”

Any free person would find that appalling. Apparently people have a “right” to a house and a “right” to health care but, a person who works hard and saves has no “right” to his own money! Classically Orwellian and also classically Marx.

Those who believe one has no right to his money–his property–but, believes in a right to own a home or a right to health care has zero understanding of Liberty at best. I recently wrote a large piece about Liberty and so I won’t repeat it but, do read it.

“Freedom is not a thought that is readily adaptable to the masses.”

That is even more appalling to free people. It is certainly not unexpected for a Marxist to want to enslave everyone. That is the only way the Marxian utopia can be founded: by force.

“Of course, you are free to stab yourself in the leg. The adrenalin would give you a high, even. What would you do when you started bleeding to death?”

Then you die. If you freely choose to kill yourself–you can do it. I can’t kill you and you can’t kill me but, you can kill you. i don’t recommend it but, it is your choice. Every choice has its consequences and it is our responsibility to deal with them. We have no right to forcibly spread the pain to other people. Other people are free to burden some of our pain if they choose to.

“In this society we have people lacking intelligence, wisdom, or even common sense, running around with the idea that they can do whatever they want with their capital because it is a ‘free’ country. They have no idea what that even means, the true beauty of that concept. Ignorance is indeed bliss.”

They can do whatever they want with the capital outside of hiring someone to kill someone else. Liberty is not a complicated idea–it is a natural one. The irony in stating the people don’t understand what it means to be free is that people understand even less about the effects of government legislation on their lives.

The choice here is to let people live peacefully in “ignorance” or allow one group to enslave another without the other knowing it or consenting to it. To criticize Liberty and then offer an alternative that is even worse is hardly a good argument.

“In considering this, I remembered why I loved Marxist writing. He recognized that in order for wealth to exist, someone must put in the effort needed to create it. This he called labour power. Marx was extremely naive, in that he assumed the human race would be able to put aside greed and selfishness and testosterone in order to assure each person would receive the appropriate result of his labour power. He assumed that we all cared for our fellow man.”

This quote contradicts itself before it is finished. Marx didn’t have all this economic understanding wrong, he just came to wrong conclusions with some of the right concepts. Wealth can only be created through production and savings–absolutely correct.

The author claims Marx is wrong in assuming men are good yet, believes that there should be a big government to regulate everyone else. The classic argument to this is: where do you find these angels? If men are greedy and selfish and you give men great power to regulate and tell others what to do, how are they not going to act in their best interest? If men are evil, the last thing we need is a big government.

History is witness to the fact that big governments only rape and pillage those it governs. Never has a big government done something in the best interest of its citizens over doing what is in the best interest of those in government. This being the greatest fallacy of Marx and all central planners.

“I believe in the America that John Locke and Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin believed in. I don’t believe in democracy, because they never believed in it and they were right not to. Seriously, does it make sense to any of you? A person with no college education and no background in politics has the same vote as a doctor, a lawyer, the President! Talk about unqualified for the job. I don’t believe in capitalism, but the free trade system has its uses.”

Everything above contradicts this last paragraph. This final paragraph is the case for Liberty and free markets. There is no system where you can avoid having someone unqualified to rule everyone else. The reality is that we are all unqualified to tell others what to do. We never know what is best for an individual–only they do.

Democracies are garbage and I, like Jefferson and Franklin, do not believe in rule by the majority. I am for Republics as our Founding Fathers were. So while our politicians keep trying to confuse us and tell us that we are a Democracy, we are not. Recite the Pledge of Allegiance and you will note that we pledge allegiance to the Republic. And no where in our founding documents is the word Democracy present.

Ultimately, that last paragraph is hopeful. Hopeful that Americans still understand freedom. It is just a matter of exposing the truth behind financial meltdowns like the one we are experiencing.

They want us to believe it is a “defect” of the free market when the reality is that this was a government creation. They want us to believe this is due to a lack of regulation when the government has never had a heavier arm in the market. They want us to believe that government can protect us from another collapse when they have engineered every major economic collapse since the Great Depression.

There is a reason why the depression in the 30′s is called “Great”. All other depressions didn’t last so long because the government never intervened. Depressions have gotten worse since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the rise of ever greater government–this is not a coincidence. If there is one thing we don’t need, it is more government.

From what I have gathered, Europeans treat guns as if they were nuclear weapons. While I do not disagree that guns can kill people and have been used to kill people, I do disagree that we should have laws against guns. There are many reasons for this line of thinking. The most important one being that owning a gun does not directly harm anyone and disallowing someone to own a gun is a violation of Liberty.

I refuse to take away any Liberty. I do not believe you can take away some Liberty so that some other Liberties can be protected. That is what the recent debate was about. I first head this argument after a few beers–perhaps some tequila as well–but, I still understood that owning a gun is not a violation of Liberty.

The credit for the argument that the act of owning a gun is a violation of Liberty–and that being why I should be against guns–goes to my German friend who is also teaching me German. Her argument is that guns have no purpose outside of killing. Because its only purpose is to kill, it is a violation of the Liberty.

I do not know if gun technology is useful for anything else. I’m not that knowledgeable about guns. No one knows if gun technology can be useful in the future. I can accept that guns have no use other than killing–whether in defense or aggression. The part where her logic falls through the floor is claiming that ownership of a gun is violating Liberty.

Ownership is not a violation of Liberty. A gun by itself is not a violation of Liberty. Using a gun to kill someone is a violation of Liberty.

The only part of the equation that violates Liberty is the act of killing. It is conceivable that some people who own guns will commit murder. Legislating is not going to stop crime. Criminals are such because they break the law. How would putting laws in place affect them?

It will affect the law abiding citizens and make them less capable of defending themselves from the criminals.

My biggest concern is not the criminals with the guns. As bad as the criminals are, there is still one group that is worse: the government. One can call it paranoia but, the biggest violator of Liberty is the government. They also happen to be the ones with all the guns.

If there is only one reason necessary to support guns it would be for the citizens to protect themselves against the possibility of a tyrannical government.

More tyrants have come out of Europe than the United States. I don’t think it is that difficult to understand the dangers of a rogue State.

“. . . people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to “alter or abolish” that government.” – The American Declaration of Independence

In the most extreme case when government violates the Liberties of the people in a violent manner, it is up to the people to fight back against that government.  I do not believe sticks and stones are going to match up to government-grade firearms.

Guns are the people’s protection against government enslavement. Guns facilitate the well being of Liberty. They do not violate it.

The government never does anything right and paying 30% extra for “toxic” assets is completely in character. How can we possbily trust these idiots to man an “economic recovery” when they can’t even do this correctly?

However, Kellogs decided to drop Phelps. This is understandable considering their demographic. I am sure a majority of parents in America were appalled by his behavior. The irony is that smoking pot is an American pastime. It isn’t “officially” recognized as such and no one is going to compare it to baseball but, at least 42% of Americans have tried marijuana at some point in their lives.

What is even more absurd is the ban for three months from USA Swimming. The official line from USA Swimming was, “This is not a situation where any anti-doping rule was violated, but we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people”. No rules were violated but, a harsh punishment will be levied anyway because he disappointed “so many people”–way to give into vague peer pressure!

I am against the war on drugs and the destruction that it has caused. There is nothing more dangerous about smoking marijuana than there is smoking tobacco–cigarettes might even be worse. The government’s justification for this ridiculous war on drugs has no substance yet, they have been throwing taxpayer money into this sinkhole for decades.

The American populous has become so conditioned to believe that anything deemed “illegal” is bad. I don’t personally smoke marijuana but, I happen to know people who do. There is nothing wrong with them and they certainly are not wasting their lives away in a state of stupor. There are much worse synthetic drugs promoted by Big Pharma than naturally growing marijuana plants. Yet, we feel safer with those drugs because the FDA or the government has not deemed them “bad”.

Karen DeCoster does a great job of explaining the absurdity of all this at the LewRockwell Blog.

The question is, why do we need a law–and one by executive order of all things–to mandate that religious institutions provide social services to everyone. I’m pretty sure the churches are doing a lot of good helping the local community already without a need for mandates from Washington.

I used to live in a predominantly black neighborhood in Brooklyn and the local church gave to everyone who would line up to get it. Preferred faith, color of skin, nationality, etc. played no part. The church helped people because it wanted to.

The common theme amongst all pieces of legislation is that they make things more difficult than it used to be. It is more likely that this executive order–which is not allowed by the Constitution–will make things worse.

I am a member of no religion but, I support the social services the churches provide. They are doing it based on their own free will and that is good. No one likes being told what to do and no body knows what “strings” are attached to this executive order. Why could this not be presented in the Congress and voted on?

This “change” and new respect for the Constitution is starting to look a lot more like the old way.

It is important to remember that government has no money. The only way for government to pay for anything is to take it from citizens through taxes or inflation. Knowing that, the only way for the government to pay for the bailouts and stimulus packages is to take money from one group and give it to another. It is no more useful than taking blood from the left arm to give it to the right arm.

In the case of bailouts, money is taken from productive members of society and then given to nonproductive members of society.

This is called rewarding poor performance. If no one is buying GM’s cars, that means GM is making cars that nobody wants. To bail them out is to force taxpayers to “buy” GM. This only reinforces their current behavior and they will continue to make cars that nobody wants. The result is the same as throwing money into a black hole–nothing will come out of it.

We hear politicians telling us how hard they are working to solve this financial crisis. More bailouts and stimulus packages and tax cuts need to be passed, immediately! They have already stolen trillions of dollars from us and no positives have come from it. No one cares how hard you are trying. We want to see results.

If these politicians really want to solve the financial crisis and keep the pain to a minimum, they would try something else. I propose repealing the 16th Amendment and the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service–most lovably known as the IRS. This would eliminate the income tax. The amount of extra real money available to the people will be a stimulus that no amount of government spending can emulate.

The usual resistance to this idea is the question of how government will function without taxes? First, we aren’t eliminating every tax; just the income tax. Second, the income tax has been around for less than a century–we managed to run this country for over a century without it. Thirdly, individual income tax will only amount to $1.25 trillion in 2008. Compared to all the bailout spending, this is a drop in the bucket! And it will actually do some good.

Without income tax revenue, the government will have to cut spending by–at least–an equal amount. If the government is just going to make up the difference by printing money, it will be no better.

If we give the people $1.25 trillion dollars to do with as they please, the economy will turn around so fast that the history books will not have to rename the Great Depression. What we don’t want is a repeat of the Great Depression where Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt spent the nation into oblivion and turned a recession into a 16 year depression.

Increased government spending is a tax increase no matter how you cut it. Whether the government borrows it and we have to pay it through taxes later or it prints the money and we find ourselves buying a loaf of bread for $5 at the supermarket.

The average American almost spends half the year working to pay taxes. Imagine if we were able to use that money to pay our mortgages, student loans, credit cards, etc. We would be able to dig ourselves out of debt quickly and then have the extra income to spend. However, we cannot simultaneously spend and have a mountain of debt. At some point, the debt will catch up to us and the party will have to end–happening right before our eyes.

The real magic of the removal of the income tax is not just the extra money Americans will have, it is the means by which that money was obtained. If it was just about the absolute number of dollars every citizen had, the government could just print each of us $1 million dollars and everything will be roses and lollipops.

There is little difference between giving everyone $1 million dollars and what all these bailouts and stimulus packages are doing. The common theme is that none of the money was derived by production and therefore does not add to our wealth but, subtracts from it.

The removal of the income tax would provide Americans with “stimulus” money that was derived from production–we had to work for it. This will have the opposite effect of money created out of thin air and we will truly be wealthier.

Few members of Congress are talking about ending the income tax and most of the talk about abolishing the IRS relate to the Fair Tax Act. Although the Fair Tax is better than the current system, we are just moving the burden of taxation from one group to another. The best solution is to abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing.

There are movements across the web to repeal the 16th Amendment, abolish the IRS, and the Federal Reserve System that is most responsible for the financial mess we find ourselves. You can check out the End the Fed website to find the latest on the movement.

The only means of economic relief the politicians can come up with are ones where they spend more and more money while real relief is to stop spending. It is time to tell our representatives in Washington that they need to change course–not just talking about “change” but, actually do it. Tell them to abolish the IRS and the income tax if they are really on the side of the people.

While I was looking through what other content producers on AC have written, I came across an article about helping the US economy recover. The article‘s title is How You Too Can Help the US Economy Get Better: Really, It’s Not that Difficult. The title alone was rather intriguing–mostly because of its length and use of mostly single syllable words. I’m a big fan of using as few and as low syllable words as possible when I am seriously editing my writing. There is something elegant about sentences being short, simple, and to the point.

The title didn’t give away the author’s prescription for saving the ailing US economy so I had to read the article. I consider myself a student of the Austrian School of Economics. I read articles on Mises.org and LewRockwell.com daily. I have a few books on the subject as well but, most of what I’ve learned have come from the articles, videos, and podcasts on Mises.org.

The author’s prescription to the illness is this: spend more. I had to laugh as the idea of spending the economy into prosperity is a misguided Keynesian pipe-dream. The mainstream media is also advocating that we should spend more and that a decrease in consumer spending is bad news.

It was recently reported the consumer borrowing dropped by $7.94 billion dollars in November. That was really good news as this means Americans are saving and paying down debt. The media reported it as bad news and a bad sign for the economy. The truth is, this is good for the economy.

The idea that we can have a sustainable economy by spending like drunken sailors is wishful thinking. The reason for our economic problems is because we were spending too much. The average savings rate was effectively below zero when debt was calculated. It is not possible to have growth without capital and capital can only be obtained through savings. Printing money through various stimulus packages or bailouts is only going to make the problem worse.

All of the businesses or business investments–also known as risks–that are not able to stay afloat should be allowed to disappear. If consumers–you and me–are not willing to spend money on an item then maybe we don’t need it. The idea that everyone is doing stop spending money is absurd. We still need to buy food, clothes, groceries, and other necessities.

Money will be spent. It is just a matter of whether or not businesses are selling things of value. We are no longer going to waste money on things we don’t need or don’t value enough to trade money for. By not saving, and spending as the author of the AC article suggests, we are only going to dig ourselves into a deeper hole. The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

Economics tells us that the sooner we can free up capital being used in non-productive areas, the quicker it can be used by more productive and creative people to create products and industries that never existed before. The way to do this is not by spending money with companies who are not offering things we find valuable. That is only going to reinforce the false idea that we value what they are selling.

There is no good reason to just randomly spend money on things in the name of “improving the economy”. I have often joked with friends that I or they are propping up the US economy when we go on a spending spree–this was when things weren’t as bad.

The most atrocious part of the AC article was about investing. The author suggests we put money into the stock market because the panic and fear as caused everyone to leave and therefore stocks are undervalued. This may or may not be the case but, there is no clear or even half-vague indication that the stock market has hit a bottom. The Austrian theory of the business cycle will tell you that we far from a bottom with all the recent government intervention.

With the amount of inflation that we will be experiencing, the safest “investment” to make is in commodities–look up Jim Rogers for his interviews on the topic. If there is one thing that the US economy and the world economy is going to be short on, it will be things of real value like agriculture and metals.

If you really want to make an investment, invest in your future by paying down your loans–student loans, car loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc. The stock market is not the best place for just anyone to jump in right now.

The author points out that what goes down must come up eventually. That may be true but, it is the time it takes for the market to come back up that is the problem. It could take years or decades. What are the opportunity costs of that?

The real means of helping the US economy recover is to stop spending and start saving and paying down debt. If the secret to global prosperity was to simply spend every dollar we made, poverty would have been eliminated a long time ago.

My position on this is easy. Israel is the aggressor and should remove its military forces from Gaza immediately. There is not a dime’s worth of valid justification for what they have done. It is ridiculous to say that it is okay to kill a few hundred people in an attempt to eliminate a handful of terrorists. Gaza is not a nation; they have no army or navy. There is no means of defense against the bullying force of Israel. The people of Gaza are in fact fish in a barrel–there is no where for them to go and they are innocent.

Israel has now bombed a UN school. Does no one else find this rather insane? The UN is even reporting that there were no militants in the school! So, seriously, what the hell? You can’t just say there was gunfire coming from the direction where a school is and then bomb it knowing that there are innocent children inside.

The world is protesting against Israel’s actions. Opposition is heating up throughout Latin America. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is receiving protests from the German people against her support of Israel. The Canadians are in protest. And my hometown of NY had a 25,000-strong protest against Israel’s murderous actions. This is not death by forest fires or famine or drought or anything else natural. This is a completely preventable disaster: stop dropping bombs.

To justify Israel’s actions is about as logical as blaming a bystander who gets killed in a sudden gun fight. The fault is not of the bystander but, of the morons who are shooting at each other. Except in this case, one side has firecrackers while the other has bazookas.

Washington D.C. is–to no surprise–defending Israel. And why wouldn’t they? Where do you think Israel got the bombs from? Without the United States government providing Israel with the greatest firepower in the region, this kind of destruction would not even be possible. Israel would have to think twice before launching a completely one-sided attack.

When an individual with a bomb strapped to his body kills 30 people. We call him a terrorist. When a government drops a bomb and kills 30 people, we have the audacity to say it was just or understandable or okay. After all, this is what happens in war! That kind of logic is asinine. Governments are not above the law. Israel is a terrorist. Are we going to see Israel on the no-fly list now?

Israel: get out of Gaza now. If you want to prevent the “rockets” from entering, borrow one our missile defense systems. If you already have one–which I’m pretty sure you do–you might want to press the “on” button. Stop killing the innocent.