Open Borders

William Christensen 4/28/08 (13)
Now I will discuss the reason that the Government can only let a certain amount of people in to the country each year, and what causes all the bad things about illegal immigration. I will look a the answers to, "Why can't we have open borders?" "Why can't we let everyone in?" The reason, the answer, is HealthCare, MediCare, public education, social security, etc. Any government agency giving people "benefits" or any thing free. Now the real question, the hard one to answer: "Why?"

Human Nature
Human nature is to be lazy. Everyone would rather have fun than work. Most people realize that in order to have fun, or even live, they have to work. The more they work, the more they get, the more they can do what they want. This translates into a simple sentence: Human nature is to work as little as possible for as much gain as possible.

Welfare
The modern definition of welfare: a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed (according to the 2007 Merriam Webster dictionary). In other words, the government giving free stuff to people who don't have as much. Where do they get the money? The money is taken from the people with more money, and given to people who don't have as much. This is the very definition of socialism.

America used to have open borders
For a person to live in America, there were a few requirements. The main requirement was that the applicant was able to show that they had enough money to provide for themselves for a little while. If they did not have enough money, they could get someone to sponsor them. For example, Peter wants to come over to America. He does not have enough money to provide for himself. So his brother, who already lives in America, will sponsor him. His brother says that he will be responsible for Peter, until Peter has enough to make his way in the world. There was no limit to how many people could come in.

The reason we can't have open borders
America can't have open borders because of human nature and welfare. If we had open borders, just about anyone would come over, and just lie around while the government gave them money for being poor. This is money they took from people for being rich. No one has any incentive to work. If we did not have welfare, we would be able to have open borders. Anyone who comes knows that as soon as their money is gone, or their sponsorship is over, they have to be doing something to live. So they get a job, allowing them to be able to sponsor others. In their job, if they work hard, they get more.

Which sounds better?
Socialism: We have to have closed borders, and we reward the lazy while punishing the rich.
Capitalism: We can have open borders, and the harder someone works, the better their ideas, the more they get.
When the government starts taking care of people, we get socialism. When people take care of themselves, we get capitalism. Start taking responsibility today. America depends on it.

Should the 2008 Olympics Be Held in Beijing, China?

Matthew L. 4-22-08 (14)

There have been a great many protests against the 2008 summer Olympics which is supposed to be carried out in Beijing, China. These are caused by many issues, a few which I will address in this paper.

One of the largest issues in question is China's disrespect for human rights. Because of the Olympics, they have made laws kicking people out of Beijing who do not have residency permits, people who are vagrants, people with mental illness, and beggars. This type of thing does not seem uncommon in this communistic country.

Even worse, they are also destroying citizen's homes to make way for tourists. The number of homes destroyed depends on who you talk to. Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions says 1.5 million fell to the dust. Beijing's Olympic Organizing Committee has a little bit different opinion saying 6,037 were cleared. People who's homes were destroyed would often protest (as you probably would), the result being a few years in jail. Do we want to support this type of thing?

Another problem includes Beijing's health issues. Among these are air pollution, which is not only bad for tourists, but could affect the athletes' abilities. On another note, we are lucky China is installing "seat toilets" because other countries don't like holes in the ground for a restroom (gross). Even China's drinking water and food is in question. This all doesn't sound too good to me.

Yet another issue comes from Tibet, who has been fighting for their freedom from China for many years. Seeing the Olympics as a chance to get help from the world, Tibet has protested the Olympics bitterly, even attempting to stop the torch. Should we support China when they support and do stuff like this?

Some think we shouldn't. A few politicians announced that they would not be attending the opening ceremony because of some of the aforementioned issues. President Bush didn't seem to be against supporting China when he said: "I view the Olympics as a sporting event." (as quoted in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia). But isn't it just a little bit more than that?

I believe that China should never have been able to host the Olympics in the first place and I will not support it now. Obviously the Olympics can not be stopped now and will not. However, before making your own opinion, please consider that Hillary Clinton thought that George Bush should boycott the Olympics, therefore she is against supporting Beijing. What could this mean?

Man Made Global Warming

William Christensen 4/17/08 (13)

What is it?

The global warming theory goes like this; When heat from the sun comes to earth, it warms us and escapes.

When man puts more carbon dioxide into the air, it traps the heat in the atmosphere and causes the temperature to go up.

This is known as the greenhouse effect.

How could it hurt us?

If the temperature were to rise 3-4 degrees in the polar regions, the ice caps would melt, destroying polar bear=s habitat, and causing the sea level 10-12 feet. This would submerge a large percentage of the coasts to be consumed. It would also cause more hurricanes. The extra heat would also destroy a large portion of the crops to die. It could easily kill millions of people.

Is it the theory true?

No. The theory is not true. Man does not cause global warming. There are pages and pages and pages of reasons why it is false. Here are a few:

Carbon dioxide is a gas produced by all living things. You create it. Volcanoes emits carbon dioxide. Animals emits carbon dioxide. Bacteria emits carbon dioxide. Dying vegetation emits carbon dioxide. The ocean emits carbon dioxide Of all the carbon dioxide created, man creates less than 10%

About 800 years ago, during the medieval era, it was a lot warmer than it is now. It was warm enough that in the south of England they had vineyards. The polar bears are still with us today, so obviously they survived that warm spell.

In an ice core survey, the ice is drilled into. Then scientists look at the atmosphere trapped inside the ice. They can tell what the atmosphere was like, and if it was hot or cold. Ice core surveys have shown that carbon dioxide is directly related to the temperature. But, it has the wrong relation

The carbon dioxide in the air FOLLOWS the temperature. If the global warming theory was true than the temperature would follow the carbon dioxide. The reason there is more carbon dioxide in the air when it is warmer has to do with the ocean. When the ocean is heated, it releases more carbon dioxide in to the air. When it cools, it takes carbon dioxide in.

Predictions About America’s Path

William Christensen 4/17/08 (13)
When Woodrow Wilson was president, he spread the idea that America was a democracy. Why would he want America to think it was a democracy? That is something to think about. Today, China is a communist country. It is not a very good place to live. The government owns every thing. In his book AThe Law@ Frederic Bastie says, AIf you control a man=s substance, you control his will.@ Before China could become a communist country, it had to go through two government changes. The first change was to democracy.

Democracy: The masses rule, the stronger come out on top. If one person had five hundred dollars, and the whole state voted to redistribute equally among everyone, would it be right? No. Now lets define anarchy.
Anarchy: every man for himself, strongest rule. If one person had five hundred dollars, and the whole state just came and took it, would it be right?

Both the governments sound similar, but with democracy the government can sway the masses. Then, the next change of government for China was to socialism.

Socialism: the government, generally through taxes, takes and redistributes. They also make laws about where and how you can do certain things, like with your businesses.

Socialism is basically the mid point of democracy collapsing into Communism. So through the idea of democracy the government draws the minds of the people towards the edge with ideas like AEquality@ ANo child left behind@ ANo more poverty@ “Health Care” “Tax Refunds” these are really mostly oxymorons. Enforced charity?! Say there was a group of 100 people, and one of them earned 500 dollars. Well the government sees this and says, AThis isn=t fair@ and they take the money and give everyone 5 dollars. That is the socialist idea of equality. Don=t let any one get ahead, so everyone is at the same level as the person in the rear. Finally, as people think they are about to reach total equality, they fall of the edge, the government controls every thing, and life is miserable. Now can you see what is going on in America to day? We are changing to a democracy. We may even be there, as many socialistic ideas are being put into place. Democracies always collapse into socialism. Socialism always changes to Communism.

I am not tying to be Mr. Doom and Gloom. I am simply pointing out what is happening today, and warn for the future. We have not strayed too far yet. We can still get back on track if we elect the right people.

A Free People

William Christensen 1/28/08 (13)

Liberty. What is liberty? By definition it is: Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government. In other words, It is having agency, the ability to choose what you want. How do we become free? What is required for the general population to be free? What if they make the wrong choices? Is it fair for someone to have more? In America, people losing their freedom to questions like these. I believe that there are three things that a people need to have in order to be free.

The first is KNOWLEDGE

If you want to be free, you must under stand what is required to be free. You must be educated to think. If you can’t think for your self, then you will not be able to make the right decisions. You will just go with the flow, and try to be like everyone else. There will be no thought of whether or not it is right or wrong. Someone else will make decisions for you. If you can=t make decisions on what to do with your stuff, then someone else will. If you can=t make decisions with your own life, then someone else will. The problem with this is that the person telling you what to do will hold their interests higher than yours. This means that any thing the tell you to do will probably be better for them than you. This brings us right into the second item:

PRIVATE PROPERTY

What is wrong with someone else telling you what to do with your stuff? Wouldn’t it be easier?

Yes it would be easier, but would it be better? It probably wouldn’t. If you worked had a candy bar, and you asked someone random off the street what you should do with it, they would probably tell you to give it to them. Most people will have their best interests served before yours. Now there is a chance that they will give you good advice. This leads to the third item:

VIRTUE AND RELIGION

If someone is virtuous then they will think of your best interests with the candy bar first. They will be fair, and let people keep the profits of their labor. They won=t steal. They won=t take your candy bar when you ask them what to do with it. Most religion teaches virtue. Most virtuous people are religious. If you are virtuous, you will not depend on others for support. You will work hard to support your self. You will also offer to help others with your profits. You will be more likely to get something you want, because you will be determined and will work for it. This is the fourth and final item:

DETERMINATION

If you want to be free, you have to fight for it. There will almost always be someone who will try to take that freedom from you. You have to set your eyes on the goal and focus on it. You will have to sacrifice. You will have to give up things now, only to have them many times greater when you reach that goal. This freedom you seek will not be easy to reach. You cannot sell it off for anything.

In order to be free, you must have all of these things. They all depend on each other. You cannot get a good education unless you are determined to have one. You cannot have private property without being able to think for your self. You cannot have religion and virtue if you don’t decide what to do with your life. The problem with America is that they are losing sight of the goal. Religion is fading. Freedom is being traded for protection. To be a free people, we need to have all of these things.

Federal Government Regulated Market

William Christensen 4/11/08 (13)
There is one question that many people wonder everyday. Why are the prices so high? The answer is simple. The federal government is regulating the market.

What Regulation Does
For example, think about all those American Airline flights that got canceled(links below). Why did they get canceled? Because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made American Airline cancel them. Why? Because the FAA was afraid that if the wires were not bundled properly, they could spark, and start a fire. You may ask, “What is wrong with that? Isn’t the government just trying to protect us?” The problem is that the government is trying to protect us from capitalists, or the free market, “Taking Advantage”. So, what they do is place regulations on the market. Yes, This does help protect us, but it hurts the free market. This regulation has cost several large airlines a large amount of money, not to mention the airports. Aloha Airlines and ATA airlines filed bankruptcy because of it. Also, more than 100,000 passengers have been stranded at hotels far from home. Now the question, “Is it worth it?” The answer is a solid and resounding NO! There is a better way.

The Better Way
Now think of what would have happened if the FAA hadn’t have stepped in. The chances are that nothing at all would have happened. That isn’t very interesting, so lets have a worst-case scenario. One day two planes go down because of a wiring problem. Everyone on board dies. Everyone planning to take a plain ride learns about what type of planes crashed, what company they were with, ect. Then they make a decision of if they want to take the chance or not. The airline also decides if they want to fly these planes. The reason the plans went down is because they were not inspected well. The airline gets sued and goes out of business. All the other airlines learn from this and it never happens again. The Free market is the better way. We should let the people operate the market. They will know better if they want to take the risk than the government will. The government has monopolies on a lot of thing that the free market should have control of. Public schools and the postal service are big ones. If these were left to the free market, the quality would go up, and the price would go down.

See articles:
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/262153/18/
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/262241/18/
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/262279/18/

Polls

William Christensen 4/10/08 (13)
The headlines in our newspaper often say something like this: New Poll Shows That Utahans Approve of (insert something, usually bad). Then down below there will be a table that looks something like this:

Strongly Approve
30%
Somewhat Approve
25%
Somewhat Disapprove
25%
Strongly Disapprove
10%
Don’t Know
15%
This is a poll of 300 taken by Dave Jones &
Associates. It has a margin error of 7.5%

Most people read the poll, believe that 55% of Utahans somewhat or strongly approve of (insert something, usually bad). They may not even notice, but after reading stories and seeing polls all about how (something bad) is good, it affects the reader sub consciously.

Polls can be very misleading
Here are a few tips on how to decide if a poll is trustworthy or not.

How many people
Read the small print at the bottom of the poll! It tells you a lot of things about the poll. Look at the small print under the poll above. It starts out by saying: This is a poll of 300 Utahans. The news paper takes the liberty to say, because there is 55% that approve it in some way, that a New Poll Shows That Utahans Approve of (insert something, usually bad). The only thing this proves is that 165 people in Utah approve of (insert something, usually bad). And I would also like to know where these people were found. They could have been found in a rally for (insert something, usually bad). This common tactic used to skew polls. You decide if the amount of people polled is enough to say that on average all Utahans belive that way. For me, 300 is not nearly enough.

Biased polls
The second thing it says in the fine print: taken by Dave Jones & Associates. Lets say we know nothing about Dave Jones. So we go online and type in Dave Jones & Associates. Up pops a whole ton of information about him and his group. We find that his brother Jim Jones is a congressman, and his sister is married to the governor, and his wife is a lobbyist for (insert something, usually bad). We see that this guy probably has political bias. If a pollster has credentials like these, this is when I decide if the people were probably chosen over a wide area, and are a wide range of race, color, ect.

Margin error
What Wikipedia says: "All polls based on samples are subject to sampling error which reflects the effects of chance in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The margin of error does not reflect other sources of error, such as measurement error. A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% margin of error means that 95% of the time the procedure used would give an estimate within 3% of the percentage to be estimated. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people. In practice pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get 500 complete responses it may be necessary to make thousands of phone calls.)" Lets see what we can do to the poll with an error of 7.5 %:

Strongly Approve
22.5%
Somewhat Approve
17.5%
Somewhat Disapprove
32.5%
Strongly Disapprove
17.5%
Don’t Know
15%

Totally changes the meaning of the poll, doesn’t it? Plus, the margin error does not include any others errors they may have made.

Polls can be very useful
I am not saying that all polls are bad, just that we should be very careful before we believe in what one has to say.

Illegal Immigration

William Christensen 4/10/08 (13)
Today the country is faced with a problem. The problem is known as many things, such as illegal immigrants, immigrants, migrant workers, illegal aliens, ect. The problem lies in the fact that we cannot decide together what to do about them. Are they good? Are they bad? If they are good, what should we do? If they are bad what should we do? Should we put up a wall? Or tear down the fence?

Why people may think it is good.
Helps the immigrants live better lives
It is assumed the main reason immigrants who come over to America is to better their lives. By coming over here they can get better jobs, live in better houses, and get rewarded for their hard work. They are mostly hard-working honest people. In America, they can decide who runs the government, where they work (and consequently, how much they get paid), where they live, what car they own, and many many more things. They have so much more freedom here. A better chance for their families. They are trying to live the American Dream. The dream of prosperity. The ability to pursue happiness in whatever way they want.

Why people may think it is bad
Illegal immigration is Illegal
It is called illegal immigration. Please note the word illegal. Crossing the border with out permission from the U.S. Government is against the law. That means that Illegal immigrants broke the law. They are law-breakers.

Other immigrants cannot come in legally
What about all those other people that are trying to come into America? Don’t they have a right to live the American Dream? They have just as much a right to come to America as anyone else. But the Illegal immigrants make it harder for anyone else to come in. The government can only let a certain amount of people in each year (see Open Borders). Would we rather let law-breakers or others who aren’t law-breakers in?

Many immigrants who come here illegally are fleeing law in another country
Some illegal immigrants come here because they are in trouble in their own country. Do we really want these people in out country? Studies have shown that as the amount of illegals in a city has gone up, the crime rate has also gone up.

My opinion
I agree with everything said above. However, the law should be enforced to protect the U.S. citizens. I think a twelve-foot high wall with barbed wire on top should be built on the border. This should have a patrol of soldiers on top. But there will be a gate in the middle of the wall. A big gate that will let every person who can legally enter, in.

The Federal Reserve System

William Christensen 2/29/08 (13)
The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913, by an act of congress. It was created to protect the people. By not allowing huge banks to go under, and allowing for the money supply to be manipulated, it helps the economy grow unchecked. It has the power to create money, and the power to remove money from the system. The way it creates money is deceptive, and hard to follow. In his book, The Creature from Jeykll Island, Edward Griffen says,

“First, the Fed takes all the government bonds which the public does not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for them. There is no money to back up this check. These fiat dollars are created on the spot for that purpose. By calling those bonds "reserves," the Fed then uses them as the base for creating nine (9) additional dollars for every dollar created for the bonds themselves. The money created for the bonds is spent by the government, whereas the money created on top of those bonds is the source of all the bank loans made to the nation's businesses and individuals. The result of this process is the same as creating money on a printing press, but the illusion is based on an accounting trick rather than a printing trick.”

This is how the Federal Reserve System operates.

Reasons for Abolishing the Federal Reserve System
I believe that the Federal Reserve System should be abolished because of the following four things:

Not federal or reserve
The so called “Federal Reserve System” has the wrong name. In reality, the Federal Reserve System is not federal. The government has no control over it. It is a banking cartel. A cartel is when a group of representatives from competing companies meet. Their goal is to work together so that everyone can make a better profit. The banking cartel wanted to get the government to back them. The way the did it was by creating the Federal Reserve System. They were able to get this through congress by saying that it would protect the people. The Federal Reserve System is not a reserve either. They have almost no money, except for what the government owes them

Made to protect the banks
In reality, the Federal Reserve System was created to protect huge banks from going under. When a large bank is about to bankrupt, they go to the government with a sob story. They say that if the bank fails, the economy, and maybe even the world economy, will go into a recession. Then the government pays all the bank's debts, and the business goes on like normal. All the money they are getting from the government might help the few people who have invested in the bank, but in reality the inflation caused by the creation of money hurts a lot more than it benefits. I believe that if the bank were to fail, the economy might have a recession. However, it would never happen again, because all the other banks would learn their lesson.

Too much power
The Federal Reserve System has the power to put our economy into a boom or a bust. They can send us into a depression. For a private company to have that much power over our economy is not good. This effect is hard to explain in one paragraph. If you want to learn about it, read The Creature From Jekyll Island.

If you want to know more, you should read The Creature from Jekyll Island, by Edward Griffin, and What Ever Happened to Penny Candy? by Richard J. Maybury.