This federal government, by the use of these tactics, have effectively voted to dissolve the people, and elect another.

I recently came across a Wikipedia page on voter turnout that contained the following rather stupid claim.

“[Voter turnout] causes a difficulty for rational choice theory, in that it seems that a rational individual should not vote. Studies using game theory, which takes into account the ability of voters to interact, have also found that the expected turnout for any large election should be zero.

The basic formula for determining whether someone will vote is

PB + D > C

Here, P is the probability that an individual’s vote will affect the outcome of an election, and B is the perceived benefit of that person’s favored political party or candidate being elected. D originally stood for democracy or civic duty, but today represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting. C is the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting. Since P is virtually zero in most elections, PB is also near zero, and D is thus the most important element in motivating people to vote. For a person to vote, these factors must outweigh C.”

Apparently, whatever genius thought up this equation didn’t notice that governments forcibly extract vast sums of money from the populace and then spend that money on favored groups. In America, B can reach into the trillions of dollars (plus little things like not being killed by terrorists or keeping one’s rights among other things). That means that the value of an individual vote would have to be pretty low to not be worth thousands of dollars in political leverage.

And of course, people don’t vote as individuals, they vote in a cooperative (usually coordinated) effort with millions of other voters attracted to given candidates. These “rational choice” geniuses might have noticed that their theories can’t explain any cooperative effort where an individual cannot accomplish anything alone…like moving a piano (okay, some people can do that alone, but it’s a lot harder). A few thousand (or million) people voting as a bloc can have a huge influence on an election (as an Asian, I get regular emails explaining this to me…the problem is that they come from an uber-left group determined to make the U.S. subservient to Communist China).

I don’t want anything to do with those Beijing #@(*er’s, and that includes their puppets in D.C. (my birthplace, incidentally).

I guess the point of all this is that…most people don’t know the half of how far things have actually gone. Most people don’t want to know. Heck, I don’t want to know, but I do. The people who have taken control of America’s government are not going to play nice with you. They won’t play fair. They are, in point of fact, not playing with you at all.

Yes, speak out. But understand that words are not enough unless you have the means to back them up. Gadsden (as Franklin explains) chose the rattlesnake as a symbol not merely for its rattle, but for its bite. Without the bite, the rattle is nothing.

With this, perhaps you’ll agree that I have rattled on long enough.

I hope that my initial compliments, to you Terry, and to Chiu, have not been somehow lost, because of my own feeble attempts, at humor.

This federal government is currently using bailout money to intimidate, and pay off private corporations.
It doesn’t not get much more serious the this guys.

In my opinion we can not win as individuals or even groups, the only entity I see that has the latent energy to roll back the unconstitutional federal mandates is a state, or better yet a coalition of states.

I challenge anyone to come up with a more realistic strategy than using the 10th Amendment, commerce clause, and nullification by the states. If you do accept my challenge, please come up with a realistic alternative. I have read to many schemes and opinions of “what ought to be done “, based on pure fantasy.