Andy Griffith is Dead Wiki

Andy Griffith is Dead Wiki

A tv icon passed away today. TV legend, Andy Griffith, who played the iconic Sheriff Andy Taylor on the Andy Griffith show, was announced to be dead by a close friend, Bill Friday. After portraying the friendly sheriff of the small town of Mayberry for years, he became a household name as a man of morals and a role model for raising a family. Always demonstrating an ability to turn complicated situations into a lesson of how men ought to be, his strength and determination left an impression on the American audience that tuned in for every episode.

Andy Griffith is Dead

After the show ended, Andy Griffith found himself staring in Matlock and making guest appearances in other television shows as well. In addition to his acting career, he was a Grammy award winning gospel singer. Having demonstrated his ability to sing and play guitar on the Andy Griffith show for years, his musical talent was obvious.


Born on June 1, 1926 , there is now a statue of his character and his tv son – Opie – in Raleigh, North Carolina. He was also honored in 2005 by President George W. Bush, when he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Honor.

Andy Griffith Dead

Andy Griffith, dead at the age of 86, was the father of two children, and his death leaves behind as survivors the entire television audience that grew up and cherished his likeness on tv. He was found dead at his Roanoke Island home in North Carolina. The cause of death has yet to be determined, but at the age of 86, the cause is pretty much determined.


No word has been announced on his ceremony yet or whether it will be open to the public. With Andy Griffith’s large fan base and fan adoration, it is likely that some form of public service will be held in his honor.





Andy Griffith is Dead Wiki

Andy Griffith seen in the Andy Griffith Show with co-star Don Knotts


The Supreme Court’s History

supreme court cases

The Supreme Court is the highest polled branch of the Federal Government. Despite is marks, though it doesn’t take much to beat near 0% approval, its history is perhaps the most controversial. From the very beginning the life-term justices began usurping power and instantly began dismantling every line of the constitution.


In its history we have seen new powers been self -granted by the courts, full disregard for the law, inconsistencies and contradictions in their rulings, full on reversals of their opinions despite the law not changing, and an increasing list of morally and legally indefensible decisions.


By looking at the history of the Supreme Court and their rulings it is evident of the level of corrupt and disregard the judges have for the law. Their legal opinions have left the realm of any legal backing, and are based entirely on their personal opinions. The following excerpts from their long history will clearly demonstrate their inability to act in defense of the constitution, the country, humanity, or the oath they swear upon. Now begins the look into their history accompanied with commentary.


In one of the earliest cases, Johnson V M’Intosh (1823), the cours ruled unanimously that Native Americans have no property rights. In the same ruling, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that discovery is the determining factor in ownership, but specifically only for European discovery. Discovery is the criteria for ownership… if you are white. This is a classic decision that was contradictory, but it set the early tone for how the courts would be ruling til this very day.



One of the most recognized cases was Marburry v. Madison (1803). The U.S. Constitution clearly lays out the powers and limitations of all 3 branches of the government. While being specific on a wide range of issues, it never once states that the Supreme Court is able to declare a law unconstitutional. It was just within years that the court lied and made up a power that it has that is still used to this very day to take away liberties from the people. Judicial review and interpretation rights are nowhere to be found in their scope of powers.


The “commerce clause” is one of those misused terms that the government has used to steal money from its citizens, tax citizens into poverty, bail out their companies and friends, increase the costs of doing business and raise prices as they get rich at the expense of the public. The clause literally reads as, “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;” Commerce by definition is an interexchange of goods and services. So congress has the power to regulate trade between foreign nations, indian tribes and between states. This seems to be a complicated concept for lawmakers, justices and politicians, so let’s break down this simple 1 sentence line into easier to understand statements. Congress is legally allowed to regulate trade between states (states trading). Congress is legally allowed to regulate trade between nations (nations trading). Congress is allowed to regulate trade with Indian tribes (trades with Indians). It is LIMITED to regulating trade and trade only. “Quality” standards are illegal. Emission standards are illegal. Mandates to buy products are illegal. Limits on work hours are illegal. Discrimination laws for private (private property) companies are illegal. Bailouts are illegal. Limits on salary are illegal. Literally near 99% of all government regulations on businesses and individuals are illegal. The Commerce Clause does not say, “Congress can regulate trade and regulate the economy, an industry or a business. It specifically says only “[trade]”.


Not only are the illegally giving themselves power, but in the event that they were to say their illegal act was indeed legal, that means it is legal! Common sense, but that is above the Supreme Court. They rule something is legal, they rule the exact same thing is illegal, then it is legal and then it is illegal again. The constitution did not change; they were lying one of the times.


In Gibbons v Ogden the court allowed the illegal regulation of the economy, though to be fair, they did rule correctly in that case. The regulation of the economy by New York was illegal, but instead of striking down the lie that allowed them to make the illegal decision, they used the lie to say the decision was illegal. Logical. This obscene decision would have been alright had they been consistent though. In 1895 the Supreme Court began reversing course and saying that the previous decisions that allowed the illegal regulation of the economy was no longer as “legal” as they said it was. For 40 years they stayed on the reverses course until the 1930’s when they changed their mind again. So it was illegal by the constitution to regulate the economy, but the courts ruled it was legal and expanded their regulations they said were legal, then they changed their mind and said that those regulations are not legal, then they changed their minds and said that they were legal once again. The law did not change during that time. The Commerce Clause did not change. The only thing that changed was the personal opinions of judges. Courts are legally required to rule based on the law, not their opinions. Illegal, Legal, Illegal, Legal. Consistency. Someone was lying when they kept changing their mind.


The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 (1825) is one of the best cases by the corrupt Supreme Court. In its opinion it was ruled that, “that possession on board of a vessel was evidence of property.” Sadly they were talking about humans, not a commodity. It is good to know that the Constitution in some imaginary invisible ink had an amendment that stated “forced boarding onto a ship is the equivalent of being property.” Oh wait it doesn’t.


In an interesting case that applies to the recent health care ruling, Paul v. Virginia ruled that the commerce clause does not apply to insurance. If the constitution supposedly says that (which is doesn’t), then why was the healthcare case even heard on the grounds that the individual mandates violated the commerce clause? It can’t violate the clause if insurance doesn’t apply… Though in fairness, the other immense list of price increasing regulations did violate the commerce clause. That is ok though, they won’t rule on that because regulation is illegal, I mean legal, I mean illegal, I mean legal, I mean whatever lie the courts wake up and say that morning.



Reynolds v United States ruled that polygamy is protected by the constitution and to this day people are still not allowed to be in consensual relationships as they choose. It was the 7th amendment that said marriage is a right as long as it’s limited to one person, right? No. Another lie and illegal ruling by the courts.


Pace v Alabama stated that bans on interracial marriage were constitutional. I guess “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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is not in the constitution. Oh, they lied again. But it ok they later reversed course and said It is now legal after they said it is illegal.


An almost silly if not for how utterly pathetic and corrupt it is, Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), ruled that regardless of the definition, a tomato is now a vegetable and not a fruit. By definition it is a fruit, but words mean whatever the court wants it to mean in their effort to fraud and strip away liberties from the population. Just like how a mandate to force someone to buy something is now called a “tax.” It’s not, but dictionaries and definitions can be disregarded at will by the honorable court.


Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915) was an embarrassing 9 to 0 vote ruling that freedom of speech does not apply to movies.   I forgot that the first amendment read as, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (unless it is applied to a new media format), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” They lied again and stole rights once again. Strangely enough and with the courts tradition of being consistent and ruling on personal beliefs instead of law, it was over turned in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson. The constitution was not amended to say “not it is legal to express speech in movies.” The only thing that changes was the justices and how they lied that day. In a similar ruling that still exists to this day, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) stated that freedom of speech does not exist in “clear and present danger.” Ironically, once again that phrase is nowhere to be found in the first amendment. The only thing to be found is the continued lies and hypocrisies of the Supreme Court as they continue to steal away rights.



Takao Ozawa v. United States is one of my favorite rulings in this court’s proud history. They ruled that Asians could not become citizens because they were an “unassimilable race.” This disgusting ruling doesn’t even merit a response.


United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar was a case where the courts ruled that apple cider vinegar is mislabeled when that vinegar is made from dried apples. It is so entirely absurd and nonsensical it doesn’t merit a response either beyond this, “Vinegar isn’t vinegar because we said so.” Excellent use of power.


Lum v. Rice was a simple case that determined equal protection under the law does not extend to American citizens that were too yellow skinned. The same “separate but equal” lie was given to African Americans as well. It strangely was another one of those cases that was ruled as legal, then illegal despite no changes to the constitution. Once again the justices were lying.


De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937) ruled that freedom of assembly and speech was legal for those who had different political opinions, but it was conveniently and magically illegal in 1951 in Dennis v. United States.


Valentine v. Chrestensen: Free speech is not protected by the first amendment that protects free speech. Consistency and lies once again.

Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) –   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof does not apply to Jehova’s Witnesses.” This was the best amendment ever passed. Oh wait, it is not real. They ruled that despite the law saying “congress shall make no law” somehow means that congress shall make a law and limit a religion’s exercise. In this specific instance among the numerous other instances of lying and taking away freedoms, they said someone can be forced to salute a flag. That’s certainly in the constitution…


Prince v. Massachusetts kept up the tradition of the courts hating Jehova’s Witnesses. If a mother or father is handing something out, their children cannot participate side by side with the family. Though idiotically enough, it was fine if they participated as long as the boy was over the age of 12 and the girl over the age of 18. Where does it say that in the constitution again?


Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944): Japanese-Americans are not citizens protected under the constitution. The espionage clause that strangely does not exist in the constitution was invoked saying rights don’t exist in the event of risk of espionage. It would be funny that a group of people could be so corrupt if it actually didn’t happen. Sadly it did and the courts said rounding up citizens and shipping them to camps is legal. Hmm… what other country was doing that at the same time? Good thing our soldiers were fighting to defend our freedom to be detained in a camp against our will.


Girouard v. United States             328 U.S. 61 (1946)            pacifism is not a reason to deny an immigrant citizenship. Overturned United States v. Schwimmer (1929). Another case of them lying. It is legal, wait no its not. Nothing changed but their lies.


One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) ruled that homosexuality is obscene and is not free speech in magazine form. I do recall the first amendment saying that… oh wait… it didn’t. The very next year they conveniently changed their mind once again and said it is free speech.


Let’s cut it off there. Just a small sample of our court’s corrupt and contradictory history filled full of lies. Obamacare is constitutional so we can rest easy at night knowing that it is as constitutional as blacks being property, yellow skinned people not being allowed to be citizens, freedom of speech not being free speech, word’s definitions are not defined by their definitions and a large list of other legal obscenities.


Something is either constitutional, or it is not constitutional. It does not change without an amendment. The courts have used their history to seize power, lie, rule on their opinions, push racist agendas onto the population, steal from the population and serve as the most corrupt branch of government. When a court rules something constitutional, it means absolutely nothing, as they have watered down the word to mean nothing through contradictions and lies. But at least we can say Obamacare has now joined the ranks of blacks being property if they are forced on a boat.














Healthcare Supreme Court Memes

supreme court meme



Economic Analysis:  Price is a function that is primarily made up of cost and demand. As demand goes up, prices go up. As costs go up, price goes up. The “individual mandate” requires the entire population to purchase a product, thus increasing demand. In addition, it applies a series of new regulations on companies such as requiring companies to lose money on patients that will excessively use their services, putting new standards on doctors, putting new standards on procedures and reporting… in addition to hundreds of other additional requirements. As you increase regulations on entities, there are direct and indirect costs associated with it, increasing the cost of doing business.

“Obamacare” as it has been coined does not address the issues that have caused healthcare costs to increase, but rather has and will continue directly adding to the problem. Prices have been rising through decades of regulatory expansion on the industry and through increasing the insurance pool and raising demand. Obamacare does not decrease demand nor decrease costs, btu in fact does the opposite.


America’s Health Insurance Plans, the group that represents the healthcare industry, responded to the ruling by saying, ““major provisions, such as the premium tax, will have unintended consequences of raising costs and disrupting coverage unless they are addressed.”


The group continued to elaborate by citing the Urban Institute study that demonstrated how the increase in demand and the increase of costs will lead to higher prices. Single policyholders between 18 and 34 will see a $1,400 increase per year. Those between 35 and 44 can be expected to see a $800 increase per year. These additional price increases will go on top of the price increases that have already occurred as a result of the law’s passing.


Real healthcare reform would address the underlying cause of price increase and address regulatory cost increases and regulatory demand increases.


In addition to the direct impact on healthcare, the ruling illegally expands the power of the Federal Government by giving them a “loophole” to classify every mandate as a tax, regardless of whether it is or not. The Supreme Court’s history has been filled with instances of hypocrisy, admitting to their rulings not being based on law but rather political opinions, making decisions that are not only against the law but morally objectionable, and oftentimes at the expense of the liberty of the people.

obamacare supreme court meme



supreme court meme


How Much Money Did the Dark Knight Rises Make

How Much Money Did the Dark Knight Rises Make

Dark Knight Rises Box Office Sales

The Dark Knight was a large box office success when it debuted in 2008. Introducing the market to a drastically darker tone for their super hero movies that had seen a rising fan base in recent years, the film was pushed over the top upon the tragic end of its star, Heath Ledger’s life. Viral marketing, a devoted fan base, and a dark storyline drove it to a record setting $1 billion worth of revenue.


As the eleventh highest grossing film of all time (unadjusted for inflation), it is certain that The Dark Knight Rises will draw in another record shattering audience. Coming off the success of The Avengers, another comic book based movie, The Dark Knight Rises will be out to compete for sales.


The Dark Knight Rises box office numbers can be estimated to be around equal if not more than the Dark Knight. Bale, Oldman, Freeman, and Caine are making a return for the ending piece of the trilogy, liking spurring more moviegoers to the theater for its release, along with new actors such as Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway.

Taking place approximately 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, Batman is returning to Gotham to resume his fight for justice and to give the city and its people the hero that it needs.

 How Much Money Did the Dark Knight Rises Make

Everything required to be a box office hit is there for The Dark Knight Rises. It features an already popular movie franchise, is the final piece of a trilogy, is coming out after the already successful and similarly made movie – The Avengers, has an all-star cast of actors, producers and directors, and is wrapping up the dark tone that has captivated moviegoers.


We already know it will be a success, so the only question that will remain in the end is: How much money did the Dark Knight Rises make?


Economic Analysis: Even during the Great Depression the movie industry was fairly successful. In down times, people still seek temporary reliefs from reality and entertainment. The cinema has become a staple of the American and now the global economy, offering everyone action, suspense, a deep story, action, emotion and satisfaction. Generating billions of dollars a year in direct revenues, and offering much more in additional revenue from marketing, product lines and other promotions, the impact of  how much money did The Dark Knight Rises make will be felt globally as it becomes talked about and viewed by millions of people.


How Much Money Did the Dark Knight Rises Make

How Much Money Did the Dark Knight Rises Make?

Can Opportunity Cost Be Negative

can opportunity cost be negative

It was recently asked of me whether an opportunity cost could be negative. The consensus around me seemed to indicate that of course it could be, and even an accounting text book said so. So of course they have to be right. My initial thoughts were though, that an opportunity cost of course could not be negative. As a logical question though, it has to have a logical answer. So, can opportunity cost be negative?


An opportunity cost is defined as the foregone benefits from choosing one decision over another. The cliche, though classic, example is of a young adult deciding whether to study or to go party. If he parties, the opportunity cost is the benefits he would have obtained from instead studying. That would include the direct result of a higher grade, the money saved from not driving to the party and spending time driving, the health consequences of avoided had he not drank all that alcohol and so forth. Had the student instead chose to study over partying, the opportunity cost is the lost benefits that would have been gained had he chosen to study instead, such as : creating good memories, the time spent with friends, socializing, relaxing during a stressful exam period… and so on.


Both of those situations provide utility to the student and thus provide a positive opportunity cost. For an opportunity cost to ever “be negative” a situation would have to exist where negative utility would exist. The literal definition of an opportunity cost though, is the benefits foregone, not the cost foregone. Therefore, if a benefit is not provided in all alternative options, an opportunity cost is not presented.


Let us though for the sake of the argument and further discussion assume that ‘negative benefits’ is allowable, and that the definition is not to be taken literally. Once again, can opportunity cost be negative? Consider the following economic facts. Conceptually, diminishing marginal utility can lead to negative utility when additional units are consumed past a certain point. In practical senses though and in reality, the nth unit that  provides negative utility is never considered. It is a staple of neoclassical economic thinking that all decision making entities act in their self-interest and are logical as to choose only decisions where benefits > costs. So when creating a table or in discussion we can say “conceptually the nth unit will lead to negative utility”, however in reality and for practical purposes that just isn’t so. When the nth unit is obtained that provided 0 utility, no additional  units are consumed. So in a literal sense, negative utility cannot be obtained via declining marginal utility.


can opportunity cost be negative

can opportunity cost be negative


Applying the same concept to opportunity cost explains the question of “can opportunity cost be negative?” As decision makers, any action that leads to negative utility is never considered. If it is not considered it cannot be foregone and thus cannot be measured as an opportunity cost. Therefore the answer is, opportunity cost cannot be negative.


Many individuals that analyze this question assume they can disregard definitions and the assumptions that make  up there very model in which the term opportunity cost is derived from. That is an inconsistent way of thinking however. It would be more appropriate to state however that while an opportunity cost appears to exist when measured/analyzed, but upon choosing one decision it is revealed that the outcome is negative utility. Perceived utility does not always  match the actual outcome due to information asymmetry and impacting variables that may deviate from the expected values. In that case though, it would no longer be presented as an opportunity cost and would better be referred to as simply a cost incurred.

 Opportunity Cost Cannot be Negative

In short though. An opportunity cost cannot be negative.


Leave your comments and opinions below.

Argument Against the Gold Standard

Alternate to the Gold Standard

Argument: Total currency in circulation should be in equilibrium to total value of goods, services and investments consumed and the net of exports in an economy. Therefore, there should be a “GDP Standard” for backing the currency.


Basic Argument: Just like with the gold standard, the currency is backed by real commodities in an economy instead of being backed through no object of wealth as is currently being done on a global level. Money should be tied to economic exchanges of measured value, and not tied to the “predictive” printing of a federal entity or speculators or other regulators trying to manipulate the flow of money into an economy for their own normative economic reasons.


Expansion upon the argument: In economics, utility is the representation of one’s preferences of goods, services and interactions. When faced with a decision on whether to go out to a party tonight or stay at home and study for a finals exam the next morning, what is the best decision to do? Obviously, not every person makes the same decision? Why is that? When decision making is done by an individual, they are weighing their perceived benefits against their perceived costs. When B (benefits) is greater than C (Costs) a transaction or interaction is deemed as in one’s self-interest. B > C  = Acting in a logical self-interest. The benefits in the above mentioned example would be the fun attributed to the party, the good memories created that night, the idea of living life to the fullest, and the interactions at the party between others that provide overall happiness… so on. The direct costs associated with going to the party include the price of gasoline to get to the party and the time it takes to get to the party where something else could have been done. Also related is the concept of the opportunity cost. An opportunity cost is what is given up to do one transaction. If the party is attended instead of studying, the opportunity cost is the benefits that would have been realized through studying. If studying is chosen over the party, the opportunity cost is the benefits that would have been realized partying. Through personally analyzing the benefits and the costs, one can determine based on the available information, which decision would benefit them the most.

Continue reading “Argument Against the Gold Standard” »

Impact of the Recession on America- Federal Reserve: American’s Net Worth Drastically Lower

Impact of the Recession on America

Last month’s job report showed a troubling sign for the economy. Unemployment rose after months of stagnant “improvement” that accompanied record high numbers of Americans no longer counted in the unemployment statistic as the record number of Americans excluded from the labor force has continued to rise. Over the past 3 years unemployment has risen in America and now there are more worrisome economic signs that impact the lives of the everyday population.

 Impact of the Recession on America

The American family’s net worth has decreased to the lowest level in two decades. One of the driving forces in this drastic decrease in net worth for Americans is the severe cut in value of their homes, which have fallen by near 40% on average.

Continue reading “Impact of the Recession on America- Federal Reserve: American’s Net Worth Drastically Lower” »

How to Cite Regulations

how to cite regulations


–          The IRS’s and Treasury’s interpretation of the code

–          Issued in the form of TD’s – Treasury Decisions

–          Known as Proposed Regulations during hearings process

–          Known as regulations once approved


Two forms of regulations

–          General Regulations

  • Issued under authority granted to the IRS to interpret the code

–          Legislative Regulations

  • IRS directed by congress to essentially make a law and specify requirements of a tax provision

Temporary Regulations

–          Response to change in tax law or interpretation

–          Must be replaced with regulation within 3 years

Effective date of regulations

–          Upon being filed with the Federal Register

–          Retroactive when:

  • Regulation filed with 18 months of the date of the enactment of the provision
  • Regulation designed to prevent tax abuse
  • Regulation corrects a defect in prior regulation
  • Relates to Treasury Dpt policies
  • By congressional directive
  • Commissioner elects so

Continue reading “How to Cite Regulations” »

Wisconsin Recall Election

walker wins recall

After just a year and a half after Governor Scott Walker defeated his opponent Tom Barret by 6 points in Wisconsin’s election, angry activists managed to collect enough signatures to force a recall election and a rematch between the two. The recall election, a tool meant to remove leaders who have violated their duties as leaders, and not a tool for removing leaders you disagree with politically that won a fair election, is being misused in the state to punish Walker after he and state congressional leaders took it upon the state to curb excessive powers from public unions.


These public unions have decades of history of protecting inefficient workers, poorly reviewed workers, of increasing costs, making it hard if not impossible to balance the budget as they demand excessive wages and benefits that most of the nation’s employees do not see, and their refusal to compromise. After seeing the damaging impact of these unions and the collective bargaining rights, Governor Scott and the state passed a law to limit the union’s collective bargaining abilities for public (government ran) unions. This measure would effectively allow public officials to drastically cut the budget as they save money through curtailing the union’s excessive and wasteful programs that incentive inefficient management.

Walker Wins Recallwalker wins recall

While never having an impact of private companies and their associated unions, the powers came out yelling. Seeking to return things to the way they were, after unsuccessfully trying to violate state congressional rules to hold up the process, they gathered near 900,000 signatures to force a recall election.


No governor has ever won their recall election in the United States’ history, but his reelection effort is being backed by large donors and small donors alike who are seeking justice in the political system, who find the intentional misuse of the recall system as inappropriate, and those who are concerned after seeing the government caused economic problems at the federal level and global level such as Greece that was caused by similar excessive budget deficits caused by public unions and irresponsible decision making .

Walker Recall Wiki

In an election that has divided many in the state, its national implications have already been discussed among pundits and leaders. Obama who supports such inefficient government practices has come out against Walker. He won the state in 2008, but instantly saw the state turn in 2010 in a backlash to his policies. In an election that is expected to be close, every state will matter and the results of tonight could be an indicator of what is to come in November.


Other states passed similar proposals that was signed in by Governor Walker including Ohio, but after a heavily funded campaign of lies it was defeated in November of 2011 on the issues ballot.


Governor Walker is projected to win his recall election.

Income Tax Penalties

Income Tax Penalties

Civil penalty brings monetary fines

Criminal penalty can be both and possibility for prison

Failure to file 5% for every month from 04-15 through 08-01

Failure to pay – failing to pay the tax. Extensions to file do not mean extension to pay.

½ percent per month

Interest rate on over and under payment is 3%

Continue reading “Income Tax Penalties” »