Sunday, April 30, 2006

Nuestro Himno

A new "Spanish version of our national anthem" is in the news, and the song has made a lot of controversy [you can hear the song for yourself here]. The pro-immigrant side says the immigrants who haven't learned the English language will have the opportunity to learn about America: the American country, the American people, the American flag, and the American tradition. The anti-immigrant side says the "Star-Spangled Banner" should be sung in English, and when our national anthem is sung in a different language, it is insulting to all Americans. Both sides are missing the point.

First of all, it's called "Nuestro Himno" - translated in English, "Our Anthem", and it is no big deal. A Spanish version of "Star-Spangled Banner" is a misnomer. "Our Anthem" and "Star-Spangled Banner" are two separate entities. Even the lyrics of the two are different. They are talking about the same idea, but there is a difference between the two. "God Bless America" is not America's national anthem. "America the Beautiful" is not America's national anthem. "I'm Proud to be an American" is not America's national anthem. But the anthem plus all three of these have the same meaning. Two different love songs which have the same concepts are two different songs.

Musically, they are closer. I guess they have the same key; however, the "Star-Spangled Banner" is sung in many different keys (to acquire different voices). The chord progressions are similar, but there are differences between the two. The melodies are more different than the chord progressions. To an average listener, if you didn't tell him/her that song is the Spanish national anthem, that listener could not tell. Even if you translate the song to English, the average listener couldn't connect the two. The only way that listener could connect the dots is the wording of the title (i.e., "Our Anthem").

But, most of all, it is a song; that's it. It is like burning the American flag. The flag is nothing more than red, white, and blue nylon or cloth, like the British flag, the Confederate flag, the state flags, or even the "diver-down" flag. The anthem is nothing more than a song; words on music, like a rock song, a country song, or even a opera opus. The meaning behind the flag, or behind the song; that is what matters. I believe the meaning behind the song (or flag) is freedom/liberty. If you want to burn the flag, or sing the anthem in Spanish, if you don't violate anyone else's right (e.g., the flag is your property), you have the freedom to do it. I will sing it in English, but that's me (i.e., that's the only language I know!). If you don't know me by now, I have a passion about liberty. America means liberty in the 18-19th century. America strayed off towards tyranny in the 20th century, and especially the 21st century. That is why I don't get passionate when the flag is waving, or the crowd starts singing the anthem. But what I feel passionate about is to turn this country around towards the direction of liberty, again. Let's bring it back towards freedom, like the times of the Founders. And, if all else fails, I will abandon my country for something freer. Like I said, I have the desire to live in a free society. And one step in the right direction is to let individuals sing the anthem in any language they want.

Friday, April 28, 2006

A different path

Let me share a treasurable advise by Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, which you wouldn't want to miss.

An article in yesterday's New York Times about Vietnam holds a valuable lesson about U.S. foreign policy and the U.S. government's related policy of trying to isolate the American people from the rest of the world.

Vietnam, as everyone knows, is ruled by a non-democratic socialist/communist regime. That means that the citizenry of Vietnam are not free.

The interventionist philosophy [of the 21st century American mindset] would go something like this: "We got to liberate the Vietnamese from tyranny, just as we have done for the Iraqi people. This decision belongs to our president--the "decider"--not to the people of Vietnam. We love the Vietnamese people and are concerned about their well-being. Attack and invade. Any American who opposes us is a communist sympathizer."

Tens of thousands of Vietnamese people would be killed and maimed in the process, just as in Iraq. Moreover, Vietnam insurgents, who be called "terrorists", would battle to oust the U.S. occupiers from their land, which would result in many more deaths and injuries.

In other words, the entire interventionist operation would be another deadly disaster, just as the Iraq intervention has been.

More important, the U.S. government has no more right to invade Vietnam for purposes of "liberation" than it did invading Iraq. The decision on whether to continue suffering under communist tyranny or to initiate a violent revolution rightfully belongs to the Vietnamese people, just as it did with the Iraqi people, and, for that matter, just as it did with the people of East Germany and Eastern Europe.

So, is there anything Americans can do to help the Vietnamese people?


First, rein in the U.S. Empire--dismantle and disfang it to ensure that it lacks the power and the ability to invade and occupy foreign countries.

Second, end our government's isolationist policy by unleashing our private sector to interact with the people of the world. Liberate American businessmen, tourist, and cultural groups to travel into foreign countries, enabling them to inject freedom ideas into the marketplace of ideas.

This brings us back to the New York times article. When the Vietnamese people learned that Bill Gates was visiting their country, "hundreds climb trees and pushed through police lines to get a glimpse at him. He was the subject of the lead article in the next day's newspapers." Dang Doanh, an official in the Ministry of Planning, said, "It is a very clear sign of the new mood of society and the people. Everybody wants to be like Bill Gates."

This is what America should be all about. Not sanctions, embargoes (Cuba), fines, invasions, travel restrictions, wars of aggression, occupations, alliances, and empire, but rather economic liberty, free markets, and open interactions between the American people and the people of the world. This is the key to freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony.

Jacob Hornberger has got it exactly right! If we continue to take the path of intervention abroad and isolation at home, I can see the end of the road for our country. Instead, we should change course of non-intervention, free trade with everybody, and America, once again, will be friends around the world. America should take a different path, a path towards a free society.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Destroy FEMA...and that's it

The first paragraph of an ABC story about what the Senate will do about FEMA reads in full:

The nation's disaster response agency [FEMA] should be abolished and rebuilt from scratch to avoid a repeat of multiple government failures exposed by Hurricane Katrina, a Senate inquiry has concluded.

The Senate has it half-right.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

We can make this happen, because the TRUTH shall set us FREE!!

I will use an exception on this one. As a general rule, I don't promote anything financially unless I see it first. Aaron Russo's new movie, America...From Freedom To Fascism, didn't get to OKC, so I did not get to see it personally. However, I know people who did, and I read many articles from people who have seen it, and they sat in a packed house every time. Night after night after night, people give this movie a standing ovation. And, most notably, every one felt disturbed after they watched it, even if they think they are happy with the way our government had been operating before. If the film strikes a chord with the people across the spectrum, you made an incredible film. I could be wrong, but I think this movie, by itself, has the capability to turn more people around, and make this country a freer, more prosperous land like it once was, than anything else!

But, there is one problem. Russo has found a releasing company to release this movie, so the movie will be aired across the nation. But, he has no studio, and thus, no money for promoting, marketing, and advertising the movie. If we get the movie to all across the land, but the people don't see it, the movie fizzles out before it begun. That's where the people come in. This is the time, and the time is now. There isn't going to be a second chance to make a greater impact on the freedom philosophy than right now. There is an email by Franklin Sanders asking the people to give the money for the promotion, marking, and advertising the movie so the average citizen will be motivated to watch the film. If we get more and more people to at least see the movie, America will have the greatest chance to turn our country around for a free society again. Read Sanders' speech, and give accordingly.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

April Fool's!

April 15th, the REAL April Fool's Day!

Monday, April 10, 2006


There is mass immigration protests today all across the country. Today is named the "National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice". There are rallies in Concord, Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Atlanta, North Carolina, Dallas, Austin, Pittsburgh, Kansas, Philadelphia, Indiana, Kentucky, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, name it, there is a protest by immigrants (and freedom-loving Americans) in it. About a week ago, there was a protest in OKC, and it was huge! (I heard that there is a rally today in OKC as well) The next day, there was another protest, but by an anti-immigration group. The crowd was minuscule as compared to a day before. The immigrant population is growing by leaps and bounds as time goes by.

I have no problem with all of this. Remember, America is a "nation of immigrants". I am 1/16 Choctaw, so 15/16 of me descended from immigrants, and so is the vast majority of you. The greatest symbol freedom of all, the Statue of Liberty, has a poem by Emma Lazarus inscripted in its base. The poem is called, "The New Colossus". It reads, in part, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" In other words, the greatest symbol of freedom is a welcome to immigrants. God's Greatest Commandment is to "love God". God's Second-Greatest Commandment is to "love thy neighbor". In the Greatest Commandment, God means God; it's self-explanatory. In the Second-Greatest commandment, God means people in general as "thy neighbor", including immigrants. If to "love your neighbor" means to build a wall to keep people out, it is antithetical in every sense of the phrase.

However, some "anti-immigration" advocates differ with me. They list reasons why they oppose people doing a sinister thing as "crossing the border" (oh my gosh!) to make life better for themselves. I will list reasons one at a time:

They will pollute our culture. Oh really? What culture do you mean? The French and Cajun
culture in New Orleans? The Cuban culture in Miami? The New England culture in Boston? The southern culture in Atlanta? The cowboy culture in Dallas? The outdoor culture in Cheyenne? The grunge culture in Seattle? The Mexican culture in El Paso? The gambling culture in Las Vegas? The surf culture in Los Angeles? And don't forget the many Chinatowns and Little Italys within the major cities. What culture is it? The "American culture" is a culture of freedom, where you may go where you will be the happiest.

Immigrants will take jobs away from us. That is not exactly correct. Immigrants displace American workers in the short run, but Americans will benefit by hiring for an ever-expanding, better-paying job because of an influx of immigrants. In the long run, American will benefit by immigrant workers. Besides, this is not to mention the immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do. By the way, the jobs belong to the owners, not the workers. If the owner wants to give the job to the immigrant worker instead of the American worker, that's the owner's choice. The labor belongs to the workers. If the worker wants to work for an immigrant company instead of the American company, that's the worker's choice. The owners have to compete for the worker with the better, higher-paying jobs. The workers have to compete for the owner with harder, smarter, more efficient work. That is called free enterprise and supply-and-demand.

Immigrants are lazy and, once inside, they will go on welfare. I hate to tell you, but the opposite is happening. The immigrants are the hardest-working people in the world. You take an American getting an unemployment check, and an immigrant new to crossing the border trying to find work, I will take the immigrant every of the week and twice on Sunday! But, if the slight chance that immigrants are milking off the government dole, then repeal the welfare state, as well as the taxes that will pay for it, for immigrants and Americans. But, if the Americans are hopelessly addicted on welfare, at least immigrants are not.

If we let the borders be open, immigrants can encroach upon my property. That is a different subject entirely. For example, Jacob Hornberger, as a child, lived in Laredo, TX; a border town across the Rio Grande and Mexico. Hornberger's family themselves lived on a farm on the banks of the river. If an immigrant crossed the river and trespassed on the Hornberger's farm, that is a crime, and the Hornberger's family will have a right to defend themselves against the intruder. But, the family can also say if the immigrant only wanted some help, the family could offer help. On their property, this is the family's decision, and their decision alone. Private property has nothing to do with crossing the border. It's apples and oranges.

Immigrants will bring in drugs. Lots of people bring drugs in the country, Americans and immigrants alike. Not the harshest police-state would ever alter that fact. Why don't we legalize all drugs and let drug users and drug traffickers be. We will be safer by far. There is no better example of an immoral, destructive, and failed government program than the war on drugs. Don't let the failed government program be used to justify another.

There will be too many people if immigrants have open borders. I have one question: how many people is "too many"? Who decides the ideal number? I know the answer: let the market decide. If jobs are lacking, then the immigrants will move a place with jobs. If jobs are plenty, then the immigrants will stay. Just like Americans do.

If we let immigrants cross our borders freely, then terrorist will enter our country. The facts is this: the terrorists can enter our country to attack us, even if we built a Berlin Wall around the USA. The only permanent solution for our country against terrorists is to bring our troops home, discharge them, and dismantle the empire. And, if the chance of terrorist attack are nil, we will have free trade with anybody who can. Remember, if we don't have goods crossing the border, soldiers will. If we follow the interventionist paradigm like before, there is a continuous chance that the terrorist will continue to attack our country, no matter how many roadblocks we lay.

Well, I guess "legal" immigration is okay, but "illegal" is "illegal"; they broke the law. So disobey and change or repeal the law. Slavery was legal, until the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Voting by women was illegal, until the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Federal income tax is illegal today to most people, but the IRS still collects it, and the people still pay it. As the laws stands now, some immigrants are illegal, but the same immigrants committed a victimless crime, so it is a bad law. The Framers said to ignore bad laws. Thomas Jefferson (a lawyer) once said, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." If you are tried in court for breaking bad laws , there is an organization called The Fully Informed Jury. Jefferson also said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution." They use jury nullification (a perfectly legal option) to nullify bad laws. They teach juries that it is the right, as well as the duty, to not only judge the facts, but also the law, the moral intent of the accused, and the justice of the laws, as taught by Lysander Spooner and the rest of the honorable attorneys.

Speaking about the Framers, Thomas Jefferson also said about immigration, "The natural right which all men have of relinquishing the country in which birth or other accident may have thrown them, and seeking subsistence and happiness wheresoever they may be able, and hope to find them." George Washington, the "father of our country", said, "I had always hope that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong." If you are a libertarian (i.e., you want to live in a free society), and you are a Christian, you have no choice but to cherish immigration.

Saturday, April 08, 2006


The definition of "insanity" is doing the same things over and over expecting a different result. Case in point, the USA attacked and invaded Iraq on account of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and Iraq was able to use them to destroy American cities (later, it was found that Iraq had no weapons).

So then, the federal officials said they invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein has close ties with Osama bin Laden and 9/11 (but on the contrary, Saddam despised Osama, and vise versa; Osama is an Islamic fanatic, while Saddam is purely secular).

So, the federal officials said they attacked Iraq because they want to spread "democracy" through the Middle East, and Iraq is the heart of the Middle East (it wound up that Iraq "democracy" is an Islamic theocracy, aligned with Iran, one of the countries that the president called his "axis of evil").

All the while, with enough attacks, Iraq will be a "sovereign" nation (according to the New York Times, President Bush now flatly rejects Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Iraqi lawfully elected Prime Minister; it was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on a specific candidate for prime minister--so much for sovereignty).

And what we have here is a massive debt, run-away spending, never-ending war, and eroding away of our rights (PATRIOT Act, REAL ID Act, "enemy combatants", Gonzales v. Raich, Kelo v. New London).

Now, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says it is time for Iran to end it's nuclear program...or else (i.e., or else we will invade your country).


Thursday, April 06, 2006

You want to do WHAT with my taxes?

Now, tax preparers who have your tax returns may sell it to whomever they choose, thanks in part to the proposed changes to the IRS's "privacy" regulations. Just like the department stores and your local mechanic, H&R Block or your local tax preparers will have your information, like your income, Social Security Number, driver's license number, employment history, etc., and they can share it with anybody, if the profit is good enough.

Now, from the regulations, they would have to give your consent. But, they can con you by saying it is for your own good. If they "share" your sensitive financial information, those people they share it with will know what products will be most helpful for you. How many times do you get a product in the mail and said, "Oh, that is exactly what I need!"?

Or you don't know what you're signing in the first place. They shuffle it in with all the rest of the tax forms, and you sign your life away when filling out your returns. Either way, they have you!

So, first of all, tell your tax preparer you should not be allowed to sell my information to anybody. There is a form by the National Consumer Law Center which specifies what should be done, and shouldn't be done to my tax information. The form simply states the tax preparers don't have my permission to disclose my information to others.

But, it is your tax preparers' choice whether or not they want to honor your wishes at tax time. I have a better idea. It will solve all the problems on this article, and it will give the power to you: 1) forbid to deduct taxes out of your paycheck, if you are employed [Subsection (n)], and 2) simply don't file.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Jill Carroll

American freelance journalist Jill Carroll was released unharmed by members of the Iraqi insurgency on March 30, 2006. She was kidnapped in Baghdad nearly three months earlier, on January 7. Within days of her release, a video of Carroll, made the night before her release, appeared. In this video, Carroll was slamming American forces and praising the Iraqi insurgents. She portrays the Americans as "occupiers" and the insurgents as "good people fighting an honorable fight".

However, on April 1st, after Carroll was safely back home, a statement released by Carroll through the Christian Science Monitor's website reversing what she said in the video. Carroll states the only reason why she made the video because she feared for her life. Carroll calls her captors "criminals, at best" and she is "deeply angry" at them.

Did you hear that, George W. Bush and the rest of other neo-conservative federal officials? People who use "torture" for "investigation" produce inaccurate results.

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Value of democracy

Here is a few words from Sheldon Richman (April 2) about the value of democracy:

Over in England Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been met with antiwar demonstrations at each stop. This prompted her to say, "To a certian extent, the protesters made my point, that democracy is the only system where people's voices can be heard and heard peacefully and then safely ignored."

Okay, I made that last part up. But I bet that's what she was thinking.