Don't confuse me with the facts

The Unconstitutionality of the New Health Care BS.

2010-03-25T22:51:00.004-04:00

The states and the federal government are battling over the Constitutionality of the recently passed health care reform. I'd argue that the states are correct. The federal government has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to FORCE individuals to purchase anything, save health insurance. Try not purchasing health insurance under the new bill...you will be fined and if you don't pay, men with guns will come to your front door. The government has no right to tell what I can buy (i.e. health care) or what I can't buy (i.e. firearms). I just wish these stupid bastards would stop interfering with our daily lives and let us get on with it!

I am reminded of the saying, "Ignore your rights and they will go away."

Once again, Reason magazine hits the nail on the head...

Don't buy it: The crazy constitutional logic of the individual insurance mandate.

And the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is.......

2009-10-09T19:29:00.004-04:00

Apparently, screwing up the American economy, running a huge deficit and a troop surge in Afghanistan gets you into the league of Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter.....

While we're at it, let's give Obama every other award (for doing nothing) that we can think of!!

Government is the problem??

2009-08-09T09:06:00.003-04:00

From Reason.org's out of control policy blog.....

Health Care Reforms Ignore Fact Government is the Problem

A report released this week by Arthur Laffer and several associates spotlights a crucial problem with current health-care reform plans: the divert more resources into unproductive government activity.

All the reforms currently debated in Washington assume that the government can spend health care dollars as efficiently and even more efficiently than the private sector. This is simply contrary to empirical evidence that shows that public spending is less productive than private spending.
Laffer et al show empirically what happens when the "wedge"--the difference between public and private spending--widens and gives government the upper hand. More specifically, they find:

Specifically, the planned $1 trillion increase in federal government health subsidies over 10 years based on President Obama’s principles will have the following consequences:
• Overall, total federal government expenditures will be 5.6 percent higher than otherwise by 2019, adding $285.6 billion to the federal deficit in 2019.
• An increase in national health care expenditures by an additional 8.9 percent by 2019.
• An increase in medical price inflation by 5.2 percent above what it would have been otherwise by 2019.
• A reduction in U.S. economic growth in 2019 compared to the baseline scenario by 4.9 percent for the nation as a whole.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation has provided a convenient fact sheet summarizing the main findings of the report.

The Government could be the problem?? Who would have thunk it!

The Freedom Movement in Iran

2009-06-20T10:23:00.004-04:00

Blog is now green in support of the freedom movement in Iran....

Basij Militia Allegedly Use Axes, Daggers to Attack Iranian Protesters

In the face of government backed violence, the freedom movement continues....

Are you a terrorist?

2009-04-15T20:17:00.002-04:00

Are you a terrorist? After you submit your taxes take this test.

Are You a Terrorist? It's easy to find out!

Government payouts for those who suffer, or may suffer, from global warming?

2009-04-11T08:28:00.004-04:00

Government has gone completely crazy.

Climate bill could trigger lawsuit landslide: Allows action from those 'expected to suffer'

Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This is pure insanity. How could Bill Kovacs be a lobbyist? Isn't this a "lobbyist free administration?"

Interestingly, I thought that the scientific community came to a consensus about the reality of global warning? Were we mislead by the media? Global Warming Petition Project.

Stop Spending Our Future......

2009-04-10T18:14:00.008-04:00

More good stuff from Reason magazine and Stop Spending Our Future.

The statistics in this video are absolutely AMAZING.

I fear for my children's futures.

Its almost tax time!

2009-04-10T14:27:00.005-04:00

We work, on average, 103 days per year to pay our taxes.

My favorite book, Atlas Shrugged, contains 645,000 words. One of my least favorite documents, the federal tax code, contains 3,700,000 words. Sounds like its time for a flat tax or the FairTax.

California Wants to Ban Your Big Screen TV

2009-04-09T22:51:00.001-04:00

California "nanny-state" update:

They are coming for your television. The Orange County Register reports the California Energy Commission is considering banning the sale of big-screen TV sets that don't meet new, higher energy efficiency standards. The proposed regulations will make many big-screen sets illegal. By 2011, the commission wants all large-screen TVs to use 33 percent less power. By 2013, sets must consume 49 percent less power. The bureaucrats say the regulations will reduce global warming and save consumers $18 to $30 a year.

If the law was enacted today, the Consumer Electronics Association says about 25 percent of TVs would be non-compliant, most of those being sets with screens of 40-inches or more. Considering that most manufacturers already work to meet voluntary Energy Star standards, it is questionable how much more state agencies can demand from manufacturers without forcing them to pass on these added costs to consumers, which means more expensive TVs.

There is also a huge question about how such a law would be enforced. Many California consumers would simply choose to purchase non-compliant TVs on the Internet, or drive to stores in nearby Nevada, Arizona or Oregon. As a result, local California-based retailers, who provide jobs and income to state residents, stand to lose the most from the ban.

The bailouts cause a spike in sales of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged

2009-03-15T09:37:00.004-04:00

Sales of “Atlas Shrugged” Soar in the Face of Economic Crisis

Washington, D.C., February 23, 2009--Sales of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” have almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008. This continues a strong trend after bookstore sales reached an all-time annual high in 2008 of about 200,000 copies sold.
“Americans are flocking to buy and read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day” said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Americans are rightfully concerned about the economic crisis and government’s increasing intervention and attempts to control the economy. Ayn Rand understood and identified the deeper causes of the crisis we’re facing, and she offered, in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ a principled and practical solution consistent with American values."

The book was written in 1957. Rand could even see the trends back then.

John Stossel get its right on gun control

2009-03-15T09:32:00.002-04:00

John Stossel's website.

Gun control makes people defenseless

2009-03-13T21:46:00.006-04:00

South Africa has some of the strictest gun control in the world.......

South African men are 'raping women to cure them of being lesbians'

Lesbians living in South Africa are being raped by men who believe it will 'cure' them of their sexual orientation, a report has revealed.
Women are reporting a rising tide of brutal homophobic attacks and murders and the widespread use of 'corrective' rape as a form of punishment.
The extent of the brutality became clear when Eudy Simelane, former star of South Africa's national female football squad, became one of the victims last April.
Simelane, one of the first women to live openly as a lesbian and an equality rights campaigner, was gang-raped and beaten before being stabbed to death 25 times in the face, chest and legs.

...now imagine if these women could defend themselves with a firearm.

Here's a group that would likely agree: Pink Pistols

Charlie Rangel, Jason Mattera and minding your Goddamned business...

2009-03-11T00:48:00.005-04:00

In this youtube video Charlie Rangel is questioned about his waste of taxpayer money.

Does Rangel deny any of the accusations? No, instead he responds with, "Why don't you mind your Goddamned business!" Charlie, I have some news for you, what the government does with OUR tax money IS our business.

Hey Rangel, you sound awfully guilty you giant dumbass. You didn't even have the "decency" to deny doing anything wrong.

The Patriotic Resistance

2009-02-23T09:01:00.001-05:00

A website worth checking out:

The Patriotic Resistance

Stimulus watch

2009-02-14T06:31:00.001-05:00

This site seems worth visiting......

Stimulus Watch

StimulusWatch.org was built to help the new administration keep its pledge to invest stimulus money smartly, and to hold public officials to account for the taxpayer money they spend. We do this by allowing you, citizens around the country with local knowledge about the proposed "shovel-ready" projects in your city, to find, discuss and rate those projects. These projects are not part of the stimulus bill. They are candidates for funding by federal grant programs once the bill passes.

Financial obligations of the US federal government exceed world GDP

2009-02-14T06:23:00.003-05:00

Federal obligations exceed world GDP: Does $65.5 trillion terrify anyone yet?

As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligation embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account.

The real 2008 federal budget deficit was $5.1 trillion, not the $455 billion previously reported by the Congressional Budget Office, according to the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" as released by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Unreal......

Death to the Fairness Doctrine

2009-02-12T20:35:00.004-05:00

There's nothing fair about it.

Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine'

Congress has more important things to worry about. Leave the private sector alone! Let radio stations broadcast what makes them money, damn it!

David Olofson update

2009-02-07T09:19:00.004-05:00

Our freedoms are under blatant attack.....

The NRA has been reluctant to back Olofson. Gun Owners of America and JPFO are backing Olofson with GOA financially supporting Olofson's legal defense. I may cancel my NRA membership and send more money to GOA and JPFO.

The Financial Crisis, Bailout, and Stimulus Coverage

2009-02-03T19:52:00.003-05:00

I have a subscription to Reason magazine. For the most part, I agree with their heavily libertarian viewpoints. Reason has a number of op-eds, blogs, videos, etc regarding the current economic crisis, how we can get out of it and how we got here in the first place. Its certainly worth a look.

Reason's Financial Crisis, Bailout, and Stimulus Coverage.

Racist, bigots and Obama

2009-01-18T06:49:00.008-05:00

I know, I know, the phrase "racist morons" is redundant. The Klan and other racist, hateful asshats are all spooled up about Obama becoming their (and our) president.

White supremacists under the scanner ahead of Obama swearing-in

"Washington, Jan 17 (ANI): White supremacists across the United States are closely being watched by hate crimes experts and law enforcement officials as Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in as the first Black president of the United States next week.

So far, there is no known organized effort to express opposition to Obama's rise to the presidency — other than a call by the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan for its members to wear black armbands and fly the US flag upside down on Inauguration Day and Obamas first full day in office, the Daily News reported.

The level of vitriol, I expect, will go up a bit more around inauguration time, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino.

There is concern about White supremacist groups during the inauguration, said Joe Persichini, the assistant FBI director who is helping to oversee security during the inauguration.

The inauguration of the nations first minority president increases any potential threat, particularly stemming from individuals on the extremist fringe of the white supremacist movement, said a recent intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.

But law enforcement has the appropriate resources to respond if needed, Persichini said. We have seen a lot of chatter. We have seen a lot of discussions, he said.
We have seen some information via the Internet. But those are discussions. We look at the vulnerabilities and whether or not the groups are taking action. You have freedom of speech, he added.

Anger, violence and interest in racist ideology did increase in the hours and days after Obama was elected president in November, hate groups experts said.

Three New York men were indicted on charges of conspiracy to interfere with voting rights — accused of targeting and attacking African-Americans in a brutal crime spree soon after Obama was declared the winner on November 4."

Guess what? Obama will be the American president for the next 4 years, perhaps even the next 8. Get used to it. Did I vote for Obama? No, I voted for Libertarian Bob Barr. Do I like many of Obama's ideas and political leanings? Certainly not. However, that is no reason for hatred and bigotry. Don't hate the man, but please feel free to vehemently disagree with his politics.

The increased security measures the government will employ during and after the inauguration (and for which we'll have to pay) could be used as another excuse for government to restrict our individual freedoms. Why? Because of threats from a bunch of stupid morons want to commit violence and assassinate someone because of skin color and ethnic background. Its amazing that in 2009 some people can still be so easily driven by hate.

When the complaints about the government infringing upon our freedoms and individual rights begin, I know where the loudest complaints will likely come from.

Death to all juice!! Wait....I mean the Jooos!! Psst, how do you spell Ju?

2008-12-31T14:23:00.003-05:00

On Sunday 28 December an anti-Israel hate fest took place in Manhattan. The following picture proves my theory that anyone who calls for the death of a whole race, regardless of the race, is a complete moron. And I apologize for insulting morons.

From Little Green Footballs: Death to All Juice: "A classic picture of numb-skulled hatred from the pro-Palestinian demonstration in Manhattan yesterday."

From Tammy Bruce: Death to the Joooooooooish Juice!: "Just above the word 'Juice' is 'Zionist' written in parenthesis. Just to make sure we know he's only against that Jewish Juice."

Hamas legalizes crucifixion (and amputation and blood revenge)

2008-12-31T11:41:00.006-05:00

Column One: The 'realist' fantasy:

"On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari'a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion."

PA Adopts Islamic Criminal Code:

"The criminal code adopted by the PA includes such punishments as lashes, amputation of thieves' hands, crucifixion, approval of blood revenge, and execution. According to the Arabic press, the law stipulates that only the victim of a crime can pardon opt to forgo the 'Koranic penalties'."

Hamas are nothing but a bunch of savages. I feel for the poor people in Gaza who have to live under the rule of these beasts. I'm sure life for those in Gaza was much more bearable under the "occupation."

Congress and its automatic pay raise

2008-12-30T07:20:00.004-05:00

The fact that Congress doesn't even seem to want to take up the issue of foregoing its annual automatic pay raise is impressive. Thankfully, there are a few in Congress who realize that all Americans should tighten their belts. Even those who have contributed to the current financial mess.

(All emphases below are mine).

Matheson again fights automatic pay hike

"Despite the country's economic meltdown, Congress is about to receive an automatic $4,700 pay raise on Thursday — a 2.8 percent increase over the current $169,300 salary for most members.

Rep. Jim Matheson says that is unconscionable, and he's vowing to renew his annual fight to stop such automatic raises. He says the bad economy might just help him win this year, and a government watchdog group is joining his battle to say the raise is a bad idea in such times.

'In a situation where there aren't many people in this country who are seeing their salaries go up, and in fact a lot of people are losing their jobs, the notion that Congress should be having an automatic pay raise without even a vote just doesn't pass the smell test,' Matheson said earlier this month.

Agreeing is Tom Schantz, president of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste — which also issued a call for Congress to stop its automatic pay raise.

'While thousands of Americans are facing layoffs and downsizing, Congress should be mortified to accept a raise,' Schantz said.

Worse, Schantz said Congress hasn't earned a raise because it allowed the deficit to balloon while Congress was 'plagued with corruptions allegations.' So, Schantz said, 'If congressional leaders believe that the taxpayers should give pay raises to this rogues' gallery of ineptitude and venality, they ought to step away from the spiked eggnog.'"

Congress doesn't deserve a raise? I concur.

I have to hand it to Matheson as he has been attempting to force a yearly vote on annual Congressional pay raises instead of leaving them as automatic, "Since Matheson entered Congress, he has attempted every year to force Congress to vote on whether to accept a raise rather than receive it automatically. He has always failed on procedural votes that would lead to such a straight up-or-down vote."

Jewish world domination is OVER...damn, we spoke too soon!!!

2008-12-28T21:25:00.011-05:00

[Sarcasm on]

At first I became worried. Can we really be loosing control of the world?! Are our plans for world domination really falling apart?!

The Avriani newspaper in Greece, after Obama's election, claimed that the "end of Jewish dominion" had arrived and that "everything changes in America which we hope it becomes more democratic and human."

Naturally I panicked and thought, "those sons-of-bitches are onto us!" My Jew brothers, sisters and I have been stopped in our tracks.

Thankfully, my fear abated after reading this morning's headline, from the same bunch of big dumb heads, at the same newspaper: "After the American Jews acquired once again the world's wealth and plunged the planet into an unprecedented financial crisis, they started rehearsing for WWIII."

Once again, we are in total control.

/Sarcasm off

I wonder when we'll see a headline about the Mossad knocking off Avriani's staff. Since we control the world, shutting down the Avriani should be mere child's play.

Anti-Semitism and the Madoff Scandal

2008-12-26T13:50:00.007-05:00

Bernard Madoff engineers a $50 billion Ponzi scheme and he happens to be Jewish. Of course all the Jew-hating scumbags of the world come out of their little dirt holes and pounce all over the "evils" of the Jews.

Madoff scam spurs online anti-Semitism:

"In the wake of what police believe to be a $50 billion Ponzi scheme engineered by Wall Street insider Bernard Madoff, a flood of anti-Semitic comments have deluged the internet, being posted on various mainstream and extremist websites, the Anti-Defamation League reported."

'Jews are always a convenient scapegoat in times of crisis, but the Madoff scandal and the fact that so many of the defrauded investors are Jewish has created a perfect storm for the anti-Semites,' Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said in a press release published by the organization on Friday. 'Nowadays, the first place Jew-haters will go is to the Internet, where they can give voice to their hateful ideas without fear of repercussions.'
'Blogging and social media sites are changing the way people communicate their reactions to events in the news and interact with each other,' Foxman continued. 'More people are online than ever before, and many more Web sites offer users the ability to comment immediately and anonymously. Those who harbor anti-Semitic beliefs feel most comfortable expressing themselves in cyberspace, where they can provoke a reaction from others or find like-minded individuals to affirm their beliefs.'"

Hey cowards and bigots, when you're done ranting about the Joooooooooos on the internet, please go back to reading your copies of the Protocols of the Elder's of Zion and Mein Kampf. Let me know if you need help with the big words.

Hamas scumbag blows up too soon

2008-12-23T21:38:00.006-05:00

A case of premature detonation, perhaps?

Hamas operative killed in Gaza 'work accident'

"Hamas on Tuesday announced that one of its gunmen had been killed in a "work accident" near the village of Khan Yunis in the central Gaza Strip.

Jasser Kadikh "was killed while carrying out a Jihad mission," Hamas's military wing said in a statement.
Hamas routinely puts out such euphemistic statements when operatives are killed while handling explosives."

Work accident, my backside! Another "poor" hamas scumbag dies in his quest to kill innocent Jewish and Israeli civilians. I won't be loosing any sleep over this tonight. Enjoy your virgins, bitch!

Jimmy Carter loves hezbollah

2008-12-23T21:05:00.004-05:00

Moonbat Jimmy Carter traveled to Lebanon recently to build his continuing case against the Zionist occupiers and Jews. From his own website:

Paris, Lebanon, and Syria Trip Report by Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter: Dec. 5-16, 2008

"Neither Hezbollah nor the Lebanese Armed Forces have any anti-aircraft weapons for defense."

Not only does Hezbollah scum have and use anti-aircraft weapons, despite Carter's claim, they were using them in populated civilian areas. I guess that's not a big deal to Mr. Carter. Human shields are justified in the face of Israeli occupation as is the purposeful targeting of Israeli civilians. Dead Jews are okay in his eyes but God forbid the Jooooooooooos try to defend themselves.

War in Lebanon: Hezbollah Truck Carrying Anti-Aircraft Gun

Jimmy, you are a bigot. Just admit it and move on, you asshat.

Chris Matthews loves Barack Obama

2008-12-23T20:13:00.005-05:00

I detect no bias here, whatsoever. Chris Matthews is incredibly fair. LOL.

Chris Matthews says, "He [Obama] speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics." A politician, running for president, speaking about America, in a way that has nothing to do with politics? What a bunch of crap.

Chris gets a "thrill going up his leg." Like when you meet a horny dog for the first time?

How did the financial crisis happen?

2008-12-20T11:30:00.008-05:00

From the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, What got us here?:

"Despite politicians' best efforts to blame the roots of the financial crisis on missteps by the private sector, the true culprit is the U.S. government itself. It was the government's policies that first created the housing bubble and then allowed, and even encouraged, the removal of equity from homes and capital from the banking system--both of which would have provided a cushion against a meltdown when the bubble burst."

Paul Wallison discusses the current financial crisis in a video from reason.tv

"At Reason's 40th anniversary event, held in Hollywood on November 14 and 15, the American Enterprise Institute's Peter Wallison analyzed the roots of the current market meltdown and explained how government policies directly caused or massively exacerbated the housing bubble and the subsequent bust at the center of things."

Paul Wallison on the roots of the Financial Crisis

Watch the video here.

This video is rather long (25 minutes) but Wallison does an excellent job in detailing how we got to the financial crisis with which we are dealing with today. It is WELL worth watching.

Congress gives itself a raise, part 2

2008-12-19T15:33:00.008-05:00

While we are all struggling economically, Congress decides its worthy of a pay raise. What crap.

CCAGW OPPOSES CONGRESSIONAL PAY RAISE

'The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today urged lawmakers to make their first order of business when they reconvene in the nation’s capitol in January to introduce legislation to freeze congressional salaries at current rates. All Members of Congress are slated to get an automatic pay raise in January, 2009 unless they vote to block it. Each rank and file member of Congress is poised to see another $4,700 in his or her paycheck over the next year, an increase of 2.8 percent over their current $169,300 annual salary.

“Members of Congress don’t deserve one additional dime of taxpayer money in 2009,” said CCAGW President Tom Schatz. “While thousands of Americans are facing layoffs and downsizing, Congress should be mortified to accept a raise. They failed to pass most of their appropriations bills, the deficit is on pace to reach an unprecedented $1 trillion, and the national debt stands at $10 trillion. In addition, this Congress has been ethically challenged, plagued with corruption allegations, convictions, and sex scandals.”

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) probably rues the day she so blithely promised that Democrats would ‘lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.’ Instead, there has been a relentless degradation of the ethics rules. While Congress has sat in judgment of everyone from oil company executives and financial services industry executives to domestic automaker CEOs, it has failed spectacularly to police itself.”

In a sad continuation of the unprincipled character of the 109th Congress, the 110th has also been riddled with examples of malfeasance. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) faces years in jail for his conviction on seven counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts he received from 1999 to 2006. Alaska Rep. Don Young (R) reportedly has spent $1 million on defense attorneys related to a federal investigation into allegations of bribery. There are two investigations underway of House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) over alleged tax improprieties. Former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) has been indicted and is awaiting trial on alleged bribery charges. The Senate Ethics Committee is looking at both Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) over sweetheart mortgage deals they may have received from Countrywide Financial. Rep. Vito Fosella (R-N.Y.) was convicted of drunk driving. And there have been a number of inappropriate sexual peccadillos surrounding Sens. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and David Vitter (R-La.), and Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.).

“If Congressional leaders believe that the taxpayers should gives pay raises to this rogue’s gallery of ineptitude and venality, they ought to step away from the spiked egg nog,” concluded Schatz.'

Congress gives itself a raise

2008-12-19T15:20:00.004-05:00

Your tax money is already paying for the billions in industry bailouts and now you have to shell out another $2.5 million for Congressional pay raises.

With economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise

Its a good thing that Congress doesn't get paid based on performance.

Government control of industry

2008-12-13T21:51:00.005-05:00

The late Milton Friedman once said, "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."

I wonder what's in store for the Sahara that is the banking industry, the auto industry, the television networks.........

Are business bailouts nationalization?

2008-12-11T21:53:00.005-05:00

Yes. Ron Paul gets it right in his arguments about the bailouts. We are on the road to nationalization of American industry and UNlimited government.

The money that is being used to bailout these industries is YOUR money. Our government is out of control.

Happy Repeal Day!!

2008-12-05T17:56:00.004-05:00

05 December is repeal day. On this day in 1933 the 21st Amendment to the US constitution was ratified which repealed the 18th amendment and thus prohibition in the United States.

So celebrate..have a beer. Things are only going to get worse.

Thanksgiving thoughts: socialism and property rights

2008-11-27T13:22:00.006-05:00

I am a big fan of the Reason Foundation. On Reason's "out-of-control" weblog is an article entitled, "The First Thanksgivings: A Lesson in Socialism and Private Property Rights."

The reason article led me to a column written by Benjamin Powell at the Independent Institute about the Pilgrim's initial attempt at a communal economic system, how it went wrong and how it was fixed.

The Pilgrims’ Real Thanksgiving Lesson. From the article:

"In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.

Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.

This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.

We are direct beneficiaries of the economics lesson the pilgrims learned in 1623. Today we have a much better developed and well-defined set of property rights. Our economic system offers incentives for us—in the form of prices and profits—to coordinate our individual behavior for the mutual benefit of all; even those we may not personally know.

It is customary in many families to give thanks to the hands that prepared this feast during the Thanksgiving dinner blessing. Perhaps we should also be thankful for the millions of other hands that helped get the dinner to the table: the grocer who sold us the turkey, the truck driver who delivered it to the store, and the farmer who raised it all contributed to our Thanksgiving dinner because our economic system rewards them. That’s the real lesson of Thanksgiving. The economic incentives provided by private competitive markets where people are left free to make their own choices make bountiful feasts possible."

The Pilgrims, way back in the 1620's, realized that the way to prosperity for society is individual rights, freedoms and responsibility instead of redistribution of wealth, collectivism and being your brother's keeper. Let's not repeat the mistake the Pilgrims made, again.

Do government bailouts violate the Constitution?

2008-11-25T19:18:00.007-05:00

Judge Andrew Napolitano seems to think so.

Treasury Secretary Paulson argued for the $700 billion bank bailout in order to acquire damaged mortgage assets. He initially claimed that the acquisition of these damaged assets would help to remedy the credit crunch. Paulson apparently had a change of heart and instead did something completely different with the bailout money - bought stock in banks that were operating in the black.

Not only does Napolitano take issue with the Constitutionality of the bailout itself, he also takes issue with the Constitutionality of Congress essentially delegating, to Paulson, the power of determining how to spend the bailout money.

The Bitter Fruit of an Unconstitutional Bailout

"Bailouts violate the Equal Protection doctrine because the Congress can’t fairly pick and choose who to bail out and who to let expire; they violate the General Welfare Clause because they benefit only a small group and not the general public; they violate the Due Process Clause because they interfere with contracts already entered into; and they turn the public treasury into a public trough. Worse still, Congress lacks the power to let someone else decide how to spend the peoples’ money. In effect, the Congress delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury some of the power the Constitution has delegated to the Congress: The power to decide when, how, for whose benefit, and in what amounts taxpayer dollars should be spent.

This delegation of power to the secretary directly violates a basic principle of constitutional law: Delegated powers cannot be delegated away. The Constitution delegates to the Congress the power to write all federal laws specifically related to spending, to the president the power to enforce those laws (and he must spend as the Congress ordains), and to the courts the power to interpret the laws (and they usually stay away from issues of spending).

Congress can’t cede power to the executive branch because Congress and the president are powerless to change the delicate balance among the three branches of government which the Constitution created.

The secretary of the treasury can spend all the peoples’ money he can get his hands on. He can buy all the stock he wants in all the solvent banks that don’t need it and don’t want government investments and the strings that come with them. He can bail out and try to manage all the corporations his advisers recommend whose executives made millions but lost billions. But he is exercising power unconstitutionally given to him by the Congress, procured with only ten hours of debate and hearings, and the very premise of which he unilaterally rejected afterwards."

Just wait until the TV networks come begging for bailout money. And we wonder why our economy and country are in the shitter.

One bailout after another.....

2008-11-23T22:32:00.007-05:00

Plan begins to emerge to rescue Citigroup

"U.S. government regulators were nearing approval of a radical plan to stabilize Citigroup on Sunday in which the government would soak up tens of billions of dollars in losses at the struggling bank, according to people briefed on the discussions.

The plan, which emerged after a harrowing week in the financial markets, would mark the government's third effort in as many months to contain the deepening economic crisis. While the negotiations were in flux on Sunday night, the proposal, if applied to other banks, could set the precedent for other multibillion-dollar financial rescues."

Please allow me to provide my own personal interpretations of the bold and italicized sentences above.

1) "the government would soak up tens of billions of dollars in losses at the struggling bank."

My interpretation: our government will misuse more of YOUR tax money to pay for more corporate losses.

2) "the proposal, if applied to other banks, could set the precedent for other multibillion-dollar financial rescues."

My interpretation: don't think that our government is going to stop screwing us in the backside anytime soon.

Many who advocate for these business bailouts balk at the idea of cutting corporate taxes. The claim is that reducing corporate tax rates is corporate "welfare." I'm not so sure there is a difference. For a bailout, the government redistributes back to the corporations taxes which have already been collected. Why not just take less money from corporations (and the citizens) in the first place?

A very dangerous precedent is being set. Businesses will not be competitive or run a tight ship and competition may decrease (and prices will go up) when companies know that they can run to the government for financial help. We will be paying for this, among other government misuses of our tax dollars, for a long time.

Veterans day

2008-11-11T08:50:00.004-05:00

Thank you to each and every veteran who has served, who is serving and will serve.

A history of Veterans Day.

Another bailout?

2008-11-08T16:52:00.004-05:00

This story is just plain aggravating.

GM Warns on Liquidity; Talks With Chrysler May Be Off: "Despite massive restructuring efforts, General Motors (GM: 4.36, -0.44, -9.16%) warned Friday its liquidity next year will fall 'significantly short' of what’s needed to operate its business and that it needs more help from the government. GM also hinted it’s no longer pursuing merger talks with Detroit neighbor Chrysler................GM, Ford and Chrysler have already received approval for $25 billion in low interest loans from the government."

Here we go again!

Diatha D. Harris in her classroom

2008-11-07T17:19:00.010-05:00

Fifth-grade teacher Diatha D. Harris says that for president "I can support whomever I want to support as long as I don't brow beat another person for the candidate that they supported."

Maybe she meant no brow beating unless its in her fifth grade classroom.

Yes, you heard correctly. Ms. Harris said, "John, oh no, John McCain. Oh Jesus, John McCain."

And yes, Ms. Harris did refer to the Iraq war as "a senseless war" followed by the statement that John McCain "is saying that our troops could stay in Iraq for another 100 years if they need to. That means your daddy could stay in the military for another 100 years."

I would have loved if the student actually did the math and exclaimed, "sweet my dad is going to live until he's 140!" I hope that Ms. Harris is not a fifth grade math teacher.

Diatha, you were brow beating that poor student. Most fifth graders are not mature enough to understand politics, let alone discuss the "senselessness" of a military conflict. Of course, we can't believe everything we see since "it (the video) has been doctored, they didn’t show anything about Obama.”

They didn't show anything about Obama? Do you mean to say that the video was doctored to purposely exclude where you brow beat Obama supporters, too (I doubt it)? These kids are in fifth grade. They're not old enough to understand politics, discuss reasons for going to war or ponder why people die in wars. Try teaching them some spelling or reading (but not math). Then maybe some day they'll be able to discuss politics and be part of the political process in America.

Chuck Schumer and the fairness doctrine

2008-11-05T18:52:00.005-05:00

Schumer's words from the interview: "Do you think that we should allow people to put pornography on the air, absolutely not, particularly on television and radio?"

The very same people who don't want the fairness doctrine, want the FCC to limit pornography on the air.......but you can't say that government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you're allowed to intervene in another, that's not consistent."

No, Chuckie, pornography is not appropriate for commercial TV or radio. But the government has no place regulating the discussion of politics and political views, even if they are not yours. Its one hell of a logic leap to say that commercial talk radio, which is devoid of nudity and sex, is similar to pornography.

Here's why Schumer has a bug up his rear-end. Conservatives have traditionally done well in talk radio. Schumer wants to stiffle political discussion and debate (not pornography) because much of the programming is at direct odds with Schumer's liberal politics. When is Schumer going to call for the application of the fairness doctrine to cable TV news? CNN, CNNHN, MSNBC - all liberal. That unequal distribution of viewpoints on cable TV news apparently isn't "pornographic" to Schumer. Now that's not consistent.

Radio and TV stations play what makes them money. Its called the free market. Leave it alone.

Here's to the death of the fairness doctrine!

The two-party political monopoly in American politics

2008-11-05T11:05:00.006-05:00

Yesterday, I voted Libertarian for president. I could not bring myself to vote for either the republican or democratic candidates since neither of them come close to my personal views. After the votes were tallied, 98.4% of the vote went to either McCain or Obama. I think that it would do a lot of good for our country if a strong third party could emerge. But less that 2% of the total popular vote went to presidential candidates from third parties.

Radley Balko has written an excellent opinion piece, which is posted both on foxnews.com and on his own website, about the monopoly that the Democrats and Republicans have on our voting system.

Here are some excerpts:

"Bob Barr has no chance of winning the election. But regardless of what you may think of his politics, or that of third-party candidates like Ralph Nader or Chuck Baldwin, this system is rigged. The two major parties have effectively cemented their grip on power by creating laws that make it virtually impossible for upstarts to compete with them. They have effectively done with campaign laws what federal business regulations tend to do in the private sector — protect the behemoth, entrenched dinosaurs that dominate the industry by making it too expensive and difficult for anyone to challenge them.

Consider these two figures: Congress' approval rating right now is a dismal 19 percent. Clearly, we aren't happy with the people who are governing us. Yet 90-95 percent of the incumbents running for re-election to Congress will be victorious on election night. Many will run unopposed. Between gerrymandering their districts to ensure a friendly electorate, campaign finance legislation, debate rules that effectively bar third-party participants, onerous ballot access rules, and the privileges of office, the Democrats and Republicans have ensured that the vast majority of the country will chose only between one of two candidates this year — candidates who, when it comes right down to it, really aren't all that different.

The system we have now selects for the sorts of people who want to make a career of politics. If, in order to successfully run for high office, you have to spend years culling favors and working your way up through one of the two major parties, the winners in this game are going to be the party loyalists and power-hungry climbers who couldn't hack it in the private sector — frankly, the last personality type we want governing."

Peggy Joseph: "If I help him, he'll help me."

2008-11-05T06:47:00.002-05:00

I wonder if Peggy's gas tank was full this morning or will she have to wait until 21 Jan 2009?

And for the record, I voted for Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party yesterday. Politics as usual is not my thing.

Presidential stances on the second amendment

2008-11-03T16:31:00.003-05:00

Barack Obama's stances on the second amendment here, here, here and here.

John McCain's take on the second amendment here and here.

Bob Barr's opinion here.

Tomorrow's election

2008-11-03T09:41:00.002-05:00

If you're voting for Obama tomorrow or if you're still undecided, please think about the bull.

Five reasons to vote against Obama

2008-11-02T09:16:00.007-05:00

I came across this article in the Boston Herald written by columnist and talk show host Howie Carr. Despite the article's title, there appears to be six reasons listed in the article (not to mention the many reasons that were left out - after all, a columnist's space is limited). Getting this particular list down to a mere 5 or 6 was probably incredibly difficult.

Five reasons to vote against Obama:

"Five reasons to vote against Obama? Only five? I could give you 50, no problem.

1. He wants to tax working Americans back to the Stone Age. He lies when he says he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You know it’s nonsense because they can’t keep their numbers straight from hour to hour. Obama claims everyone making under $250,000 is safe, or is it $200,000 (the infomercial) or $150,000 (Joe Biden)? On Friday, Gov. Bill Richardson cut it to $120,000. Oh what a tangled web we weave. The fact is, the wealth-spreaders have vowed to do away with the Bush tax cuts. So everybody who pays any income taxes is going to take a hit. Plus, the friends of ACORN also plan to get rid of the cap on Social Security withholding taxes. That means everyone who makes over $102,700 will be slaughtered. I don’t have room to talk about capital gains.

2. The federal courts. In that famous 2001 Chicago radio interview, Obama wistfully talked about the need for the Supreme Court to break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. You know, those pesky constraints that make us a nation of laws, not governed by the whims of the Friends of Obama, or Jeremiah Wright. You think Breyer and Ginsburg are beyond the pale? Obama’s crowd thinks they’re too conservative.

3. Teach the Obama-worshipping bumkisser media a lesson. Have they ever been more in the tank for anyone? They’re all worried about the Patriot Act and terrorists’ rights at Gitmo, but they had no problems printing flat-out lies about Sarah Palin. More recently, they took handouts from Obama thugs in Ohio on Joe the Plumber’s tax liens, divorce problems, child-support payments etc. - worse violations of privacy rights than anything that’s happened under the Patriot Act. But who cares - Joe the Plumber is just a typical white person.

4. The character of Barack Obama. You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much. He lectures you that your kids will have to learn Spanish - your kids, not his. He’s always railing about economic justice, but his illegal-alien aunt lives in poverty in Southie. Hey Barack, I thought charity began at home. Like John Kerry and Joe Biden, he doesn’t believe in donating to charity. Obama is a classic liberal hypocrite: He’ll give anybody the shirt off your back, not his.

5. Michelle Obama. Another pampered semi-literate Ivy Leaguer who still considers herself a victim, even with her $360,000-a-year job as diversity coordinator at a Chicago hospital. Can you stand four years of this harridan lecturing you on your greed?

6. All the other stuff I don’t have much room for. Where the heck was Barack Obama really born? Don’t forget his pal Bill Ayers dedication of his 1974 book 'Prairie Fire' to, among others, Sirhan Sirhan. (Are you listening, Teddy and Caroline?) If Obama loses, Gwen Ifill’s book tanks. The return of the Fairness Doctrine to censor free speech. Joe Biden, a heartbeat away. And the No. 1 reason of all to vote against Barack Obama: If he loses it will drive the moonbats absolutely bonkers."

Is this the "change" we want?

2008-11-02T09:05:00.004-05:00

We are in the 11th hour in the decision for our next president and either we have our heads up our asses or we're all like moths following the bright and shiny light in the Obama/Biden moth trap.

Exactly how does the Obama/Biden camp define rich? Exactly how would an Obama administration change our already onerous and ridiculous tax code?

Obama's tax-cut threshold shrinking? Confusion abounds as voters hear $250,000, $200,000, now $150,000

Originally, Obama said everyone making less than $250,000 will not see a tax increase.

Then Obama said that everyone making $200,000 wouldn't see a tax increase. Then Joe Biden said it was $150,000 but Gov. Richardson said it would actually be a $120,000.

Then there is the famous claim that "95 percent of working Americans" will receive a tax break. However, 95% of Americans would only include those making less than $153,542 per year (which essentially supports Biden's claim).

Nevermind the continual flip-flopping between "tax cut" and "no tax increase."

So exactly where would an Obama administration draw the line? The election has yet to happen and the taxation message out of the Obama/Biden camp has changed more often then there are days remaining until the election. Is this the type of change we want - continually changing positions on the issues? Perhaps next the limit for a tax increase will be near the poverty level so EVERYONE sees a tax increase. Again, I ask, "is this really the 'change' we want??"

A civilian national security force?

2008-11-01T19:52:00.005-04:00

A civilian national security force to help defend and secure the homeland? Cool, he must be talking about the second amendment! Sweet. Oh, wait, how will we defend the homeland if the government takes away our guns? I guess we should all start sharpening our sticks. Of course when someone uses a stick to commit a murder, sharp sticks will be outlawed.

The government is big....and its only going to get bigger.

Barack Obama on Concealed Carry

2008-11-01T07:25:00.002-04:00

Under Obama/Biden, you would likely lose the individual right to personal protection.

From nraila.org: Barack Obama and Concealed Carry:

A compelling argument against a vote for Obama

2008-10-31T11:19:00.009-04:00

I am not much of a fan of John McCain. However, there is no way that I could ever vote for Obama. Here is a good summary of why Obama and other liberals are not worthy of my vote.

Sure, things in America are not so great and McCain may or may not continue many of Bush's policies. Obama's mantra is "change we can believe in." But change is not always good. Sure, I believe in the changes an Obama administration would bring, I just don't like them.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

2008-10-25T20:47:00.004-04:00

Spread the wealth!

An admission that Obama wants to use the power of the federal government to forcefully steal more of your money.

How dare you question me....I am Joe Biden. Don't you know how important I am?!?!

2008-10-25T20:09:00.005-04:00

Barbara West of Florida's WFTV grilled Joe Biden about a potential Obama administration's marxist leanings. She even quoted Karl Marx ("from each according to his ability, to each according his need") and asked how Obama is not a Marxist if he intends to "spread the wealth."
Biden asks if the question is a joke. Personally, I find nothing funny about Obama's Marxism.

I'm mesmerized by Biden's last comment. When asked what he would say to people who are concerned that Obama wants to turn America into a socialist country, such as Sweden, Biden said, "I don't know anyone who thinks that except the far right wing of the Republican party." Hey Biden, you big jabroni, you must not know any Libertarians. I am no where near the "far right wing of the Republican party" and Obama's marxist leanings scare me.

Barack Obama and Guns

2008-10-25T14:12:00.003-04:00

Some pickings from the internet on Obama and guns.....

Barack Obama Supports Gun Rights (NOT!)

Revenge of the Bitter Gun Owners

The Obama Nightmare

Obama’s Anti Gun Rights Record and He Must Not Be Elected.

www.GunBaNObama .com

Presidential economic policies......

2008-10-18T10:40:00.005-04:00

McCain has come to the great realization (finally) that something isn't quite right with Obama's taxation policy.

McCain suggests Obama tax policies are socialist: "Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it."

Shuffling wealth? Sounds to me like "redistribution of wealth." A phrase which absolutely nauseates me.

I am not endorsing McCain's economic policies, although, McCain's economic policies would be less detrimental to America than Obama's.

If we really want fairness in the tax code we need to institute the flat tax or the FairTax. This whole "redistribution of wealth" concept and the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is merely Marxist BS.

The Barack Obama Test

2008-10-15T21:02:00.002-04:00

How much does Barack Obama speak for you? Find out:

Out of the 48 or so question in the test, I agreed with Vladimir Lenin, er...I mean Barack Obama on just 2 questions.

The Zionists will loose their clout!

2008-10-15T16:49:00.004-04:00

If Obama is elected president, Jesse Jackson claims that, "'Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades' will lose a great deal of their clout."

Remember that J.J. is the man who said, "Barack's been talking down to black people.... I want to cut his nuts off" and of course called Jews "Hymies" and NYC "Hymietown."

I'm glad that we "Zionists" (a.k.a. Jews) are loosing control of America. Running America from my living room is a bit tiring.

Don't steal, the government hates competition

2008-10-05T22:03:00.005-04:00

One of my favorite slogans from the desk of one of my most admired politicians.....

Felons voting for felons

2008-10-04T12:47:00.007-04:00

There is a push in some areas of the country to get ex-felons to the polls this November. I don't have much of a problem with voting laws which allow people, convicted of certain felonies, to regain their voting rights after their debt to society has been paid in full. But I do have a problem with someone mounting an effort to help someone, in this case ex-felons, under the guise of actually giving a damn about the people that they claim to want to help. There is often something more sinister behind it all.

Push to register felons to vote could aid Obama

Here are a few interesting excerpts:

"RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Undaunted by the heat, James Bailey spent his late-summer afternoons walking Virginia's bleakest neighborhoods on the hunt for ex-cons — each a potential voter who might cast the decisive ballot in this hotly contested state........
Nationally, there are roughly 4 million released felons whose convictions have cost them the right to vote at least temporarily, if not permanently. To return to the ballot box, felons must negotiate suffrage laws that vary from state to state, in many cases working with election officials who can be both unfamiliar with the law and hostile to former convicts seeking to register......
Such challenges (getting felons to attempt to get their voting rights restored) matter little to Bailey and others trying to return former criminals to voter rolls, an effort they consider crucial in light of the results of the past two presidential elections: A shift of a few hundred votes in Florida in 2000 would have changed the outcome of the presidential race, and the results in 2004 came down to a margin of 119,000 votes in Ohio.
The nonprofit groups and individual activists making the push on felons' behalf agree the effort is broader this year than in previous elections, even if they aren't necessarily making a coordinated push. They expect that effort to benefit Barack Obama more than John McCain, given that the population of former felons is disproportionately black."

Interesting.......so this effort is not about helping people who have committed crimes, paid their debt to society and would like to return to and contribute to society......its about getting Obama elected.

There's more.....

"Kenneth Glasgow served 14 years on robbery and drug charges in Alabama. Now a pastor, Glasgow launched a voter registration drive inside the prisons in Alabama, where state law allows voting by felons convicted of lesser crimes such as possession of small amounts of drugs, battery or attempted burglary — even while still serving a sentence.
'It's not a black-white thing,' Glasgow said. 'It's that people will see Republicans standing against having people's rights restored while the Democrats aren't.'"

Only Republicans, and not Democrats, stand against restoration of people's rights? Democrats are not standing against people's rights? Really??!! How about my right to privacy, my right to self-defense and gun ownership or my right to keep more of the money that I earn?

Both parties are guilty of expanding government and eroding our individual rights. But to claim to care about ex-felon's voting rights when its really about the "outcome of the last 2 presidential elections" is disingenuous. To claim that a major political party is not working against individual rights when, in fact, that same party has routinely worked to erode the individual rights of law abiding citizens is ridiculous.

I miss the free market economy.....and Ron Paul...

2008-10-04T10:58:00.002-04:00

Senate Passes $700B Financial Bailout

2008-10-01T21:09:00.010-04:00

The Senate has passed a $700 billion financial bailout. Any idea where the government will get all of this money? It will come out of your pocket. Right after you cough up the money to pay off our ridiculous deficit.

Alcee Hastings is a dumbass

2008-09-28T16:23:00.009-04:00

Alcee Hastings: "If Sarah Palin isn't enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

Ok, I'm thinking it through..............nope, Alcee, you're still stupid. How can Hastings seriously equate being a gun owner and a hunter to being a racist?? Since I'm a gun owner AND a Jew I must hate myself.

Not only is Hastings a dumbass but check out his past. "Hastings, a former federal judge, was impeached and removed from the bench in 1989 for perjury and corruption. Elected to Congress in 1992, he supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries until she conceded the race."

More about Hastings' illustrious past: Rep. Hastings Says Palin “Don’t Care” About Jews, Blacks: "Hastings has the dubious honor of being one of only six federal judges to be removed from office through impeachment for perjury and conspiracy to obtain a bribe. The judge turned politician was embroiled in a 1983 scandal involving the solicitation of a $150,000 bribe in return for favorable treatment for defendants in a racketeering case before him. Hastings repeatedly lied under oath at his criminal trial and forged letters in an effort to get acquitted. In 1988 the Democratic-run House voted overwhelmingly (413-3) to impeach Hastings who had been appointed to the federal bench in the Southern District of Florida by Jimmy Carter. The Democratic-run Senate subsequently removed Hastings from the bench. He has represented south Florida’s 23rd District in the House since 1993."

Hastings was elected to Congress after he was impeached and removed from the federal bench? For Pete's sake, this guy is a felon and people still voted him into Congress. Maybe Congress IS the opposite of progress.

Someone has an opinion on Obama.........

2008-09-27T13:48:00.006-04:00

A picture sent to me this morning by a friend and coworker......

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Obama and McCain

2008-09-25T00:00:00.007-04:00

Not that I agree with a bailout of any private corporations by our federal government with our tax dollars, but at least McCain wants to do what he is getting paid to do - work in Congress.

McCain Suspends Campaign to Help With Bailout: "John McCain will suspend his presidential campaign Thursday and has asked to postpone his debate Friday with Barack Obama so the two senators can return to Washington to help negotiate a Wall Street bailout, an approach that Obama promptly rejected."

So John McCain has decided to see if he can help, as a member of Congress, with our current financial situation. He wants to go back to Congress to do the job he has, not the job he wants.

Obama disagrees with McCain essentially saying (in my interpretation), "screw Congress and the financial crisis, I want to be the next president, let's debate!" BHO said: "Such disruptive measures were unnecessary." BHO thinks that if McCain delays the debate to do the job for which McCain (and Obama) are being paid, that's "disruptive."

More Obama: "There are times for politics and there are times to rise above them, do what is right for the country. This is one of those times." Hey you big dummy, Congressional votes are part of politics, voting on bills and issues is part of what is right for the country and its your current occupation. Staying on the campaign trail and missing a large majority of Congressional votes is not right for the country. Members of Congress should get paid according to the number of times that they vote "yes" or "no" on issues. Showing up and voting "present" shouldn't count.

The prefix "Con-" is the opposite of the prefix "Pro-" which makes Congress the opposite of progress. Obama examplifies this idea.

I'm gonna go drink a couple more beers. This election is depressing. I'd vote for Bob Barr if it wasn't the equivalent of voting against McCain and for the next Vladimir Lenin.

You can put lipstick on a marxist.....

2008-09-10T21:06:00.005-04:00

...but he's still a Marxist.

No matter how much "lipstick" the media puts on Obama, he's still a marxist.

Has freedom become a political orphan?

2008-09-09T22:26:00.010-04:00

Steve Chapman has written a superb editorial at chicagotribune.com about the lack of individuality and freedom and the rise of collectivism in America. He specifically sites the lack of any mention of the idea of freedom in the recent republican and democratic conventions.

The article is so good that I have reposted the article in its entirety.

"'We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom. —Barry Goldwater, accepting the 1964 Republican presidential nomination'

This year's Republican National Convention had a different theme for each day. Monday was 'Serving a Cause Greater than Self.' Tuesday was 'Service,' Wednesday was 'Reform' and Thursday was 'Peace.'

So what was missing? Only what used to be held up as the central ideal of the party. The heirs of Goldwater couldn't spare a day for freedom.

Neither could the Democrats. Their daily topics this year were 'One Nation,' 'Renewing America's Promise' and 'Securing America's Future.' The party proclaimed 'an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.' Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much.

Forty-four years after Goldwater's declaration, it's clear that collectivism, not individualism, is the reigning creed of Republicans as well as Democrats. Individuals are not valuable and precious in their own right but as a means for those in power to achieve their grand ambitions.

You will scour the presidential nominees' acceptance speeches in vain for any hint that your life is rightfully your own, to be lived in accordance with your beliefs and desires and no one else's. The Founding Fathers set out to protect 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' but Barack Obama has a different idea.

The 'essence of America's promise,' he declared in Denver, is 'individual responsibility and mutual responsibility'—rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights. The 'promise of America,' he said, is 'the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.'

In reality, that fundamental belief is what you might call the promise of socialism. What has set this country apart since its inception is not the notion of obligations but the notion of rights.

'All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself,' wrote the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. 'The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals.'

That idea got lost somewhere between Thomas Jefferson and John McCain. What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: 'We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law . . . We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities.'

Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom? That without it, personal responsibility becomes hollow and service is servitude?

Apparently it would. Republicans are big on promoting freedom abroad, but in this country, the term encompasses a lot of things they don't like—the right to a 'homosexual lifestyle,' the right to protest the Iraq war, the right to privacy, the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and more. Conservatives who once thought Americans had too little freedom now sometimes think they have too much.

Liberals, on the other hand, are wary of embracing freedom precisely because of its historic importance to the right. They fear it means curbing the power of a government whose reach they want to expand.

While they value many personal liberties, they have no great attachment to forms of freedom that involve buying, selling, trading and accumulating. Those, after all, can involve selfishness, and Democrats, like Republicans, don't want to protect selfishness.

But freedom isn't freedom without the right to pursue what you value—money or knowledge, pleasure or sacrifice, God or atheism, community or misanthropic solitude—rather than what others think you should value. It includes the right to go to hell, and the right to tell others to do the same.

The latter is a valuable prerogative that we have not yet lost. After watching the conventions, if you have the urge to use it on either of the two major parties, feel free. If he were alive, Barry Goldwater might join you."

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. He blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman and his e-mail address is schapman@tribune.com

Did the framers of the Bill of Rights consider personal protection?

2008-09-06T18:26:00.011-04:00

Maybe they did.

One of the arguments against an individual's right to bear arms is that the second amendment needs to be interpreted in the context of the time in which it was written. Anti-gunners claim that the Bill of Rights was written with the idea of maintaining a militia against foreign forces (i.e. the British during the American Revolution) and not with giving individuals the right to own firearms for personal defense.

Anti-gunners also argue that we (people who favor gun rights) cannot claim that the second amendment could be about individual rights or personal protection since we could never really know what the people who wrote the Bill of Rights were thinking at the time.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson disagreed when he borrowed a quote from the 1700's criminologist Cesare Beccaria: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms .... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

So people were thinking of personal defense against criminals well before modern times. Fascinating......

Some Pro-Gun Quotes....

2008-09-01T10:59:00.003-04:00

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms .... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens .... from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved." - Aristotle

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy)

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Unknown

Michael Moore, Don Fowler and Hurricane Gustav

2008-08-30T17:16:00.028-04:00

Michael Moore isn't the only one who considers the timing of an impending natural disaster relative to the Republican National Convention evidence of divine intervention and proof that God exists.

We now have former National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler getting in line behind Michael Moore (not that there is much room behind Moore):

These people claim to be concerned for the average working American, especially those who were affected by hurricane Katrina and are now evacuating from hurricane Gustav. I HAVE to call bullshit!! Anyone who thinks about gaining political points during a potential natural disaster only cares about one thing. And its not the average American.

Zero experience

2008-08-29T19:01:00.007-04:00

John McCain has chosen the very popular first-term Governor, Sarah Palin, as his running mate for the 2008 election.

Obama's campaign immediately came out and claimed that Palin has zero experience in some areas: "'Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,' Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement." Does that mean that the Democrats have put someone with zero experience even closer to the presidency?

Maybe I am just one of those bitter people who cling to their guns too much for Mr. Clean and Articulate's liking.

Obama on guns

2008-08-20T21:16:00.004-04:00

From Neal Boortz and Nealz Nuze: Obama on guns: "Just how does The Chosen One feel about the 2nd Amendment? After the Supreme Court ruled on the DC gun ban Obama was somewhat trapped. His previous position in favor of the ban was inoperative, so he had to come up with a new position. So ... what would that be? The Big BO's position on guns is that nobody in this country should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon unless they are retired law enforcement officers or members of the U.S. military. We could phrase this another way: Nobody can carry a concealed weapon unless they work for the government as a member of the U.S. military or civilian law enforcement, or used to work for the government as a police officer. This is Obama, folks. Privileges for government and those who work for government ... but for the common man, not so much.

Ahhhhh .... But he's so suave, so debonair, and he speaks so well! It doesn't really matter what he says, but he sure says it good!"

I could not have said it better myself.....

Obama criticizes Clarence Thomas' experience

2008-08-20T20:55:00.006-04:00

A friend and fellow blogger posted about the following video where BHO claimed that if he was president at the time, he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS. BHO almost said that Clarence Thomas was a bad choice at the time because of inexperience. Now that's the pot calling the kettle....oh nevermind, I was about to be politically incorrect.

Interestingly, having less that 200 days in the US Congress is enough experience to be the president of the United States.

The "fairness" doctrine

2008-08-14T20:04:00.013-04:00

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content : "There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and 'government dictating content policy.'

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks. "

A huge concern among conservatives? What about anyone who despises the idea of the government dictating what we listen to (and watch and read online)? How about anyone who thinks that the UNfairness doctrine interferes with the freemarket and unfairly dictates what radio stations (non-government entities) broadcast?

Whose fault is it that the radio stations broadcast what earns money? Radio stations are businesses built to make a profit (Oooooh, "evil" profits). Since liberals failed at talk radio they want to make things "fair" by using the power of the government to "even the playing field." Is Congress going to start dictating that rap stations give equal air time to classical and country music....just for the sake of "fairness?" What a bunch of complete and total oppressive government crap.

Comrades, everyone be quiet and let's all be good citizens!

Obama the Rock Star

2008-08-12T20:14:00.007-04:00

While I am no fan of John McCain, I have serious concerns about Barack Obama and what Obama wants to do as president. When I ask people specifics about why they're voting for Obama, I get answers such as, "he's very eloquent" and he's "for change." Fine...but what type of changes? Most Obama supporters that I've spoken with don't seem to be able to name any specifics about the Obama platform other than his "immediate" withdrawal from Iraq (which is really a 16-18 month redeployment - significantly longer than "immediate"). Perhaps I am asking the wrong people, such as those in this McCain campaign video.

Ok, ok, Obama does have very soft eyes.

Jon Voight is correct on an Obama presidency

2008-08-11T20:28:00.008-04:00

Mr. Voight recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times and, in my opinion, Voight has a big set of nads. Knowing that he would upset the liberal apple cart that is Hollywood, Mr. Voight sees Obama for exactly what Mr. Change really is, a socialist.

While I do not agree with everything that Mr. Voight writes, Mr. Voight's overall premise that Mr. Change is a socialist is, in my humble opinion, right on.

VOIGHT: My concerns for America Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people: "We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero. This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way (emphasis mine)."

Hollywood will likely boycott Mr. Voight and he will certainly have trouble finding work. I give him a ton of credit for taking a very unpopular stance among his socialist peers. Kudos Mr. Voight.

Civilian casualties not condemned because of non-involvement of "the Joooooooos"

2008-08-10T07:49:00.008-04:00

From Foxnews.com: South Ossetia Situation a 'Humanitarian Catastrophe:

"The Russian planes appeared to target a military base on the outskirts of Gori which sustained hits, but they also struck living quarters nearby.

Georgia, a staunch U.S. ally, launched a major offensive Friday to retake control over South Ossetia. Russia, which has close ties to the region and has peacekeepers there, responded by sending in armed convoys.

About 1,500 people have been killed and the death toll continued to rise, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told journalists Saturday. The figure could not be independently confirmed, but people who fled the fighting said hundreds of civilians had probably died.

Witnesses said that most of the provincial capital, Tskhinvali, was in ruins and bodies were everywhere. Television footage showed burned out Georgian tanks, and sporadic fighting continued overnight and into Saturday."

There are numerous pictures in the media documenting injured and dead civilians and burning buildings which are nowhere near the conflict zone.

I find it absolutely fascinating that moonbat left wing groups (ISM, the media, add your favorite pinko group here: _______) don't appear to be condemning these civilian casualties. Especially since you could argue that collateral damage of this nature could imply the civilian deaths were no accident. Or that the Russians were bring too "heavy-handed." I guess that civilian casualties in this conflict are not such an issue since the casualties were not inflicted by the "evil Jooooooooos."

How simple is this really?

2008-08-08T17:48:00.004-04:00

How simple is this? To me, extremely simple......

From Neal Boortz's website: HOW SIMPLE IS THIS REALLY?

"So ... you're a Barack Obama supporter. You can hardly wait until that magical moment when you can walk into a voting booth and cast your vote for him. Fine. Whatever works for you, right? But can you stop for just a moment and tell me if this really is going to work for you?

Let's talk about your job. Who do you work for. Are you part of that 70% of Americans who work for a small business? If you're newly hired, is your new job part of the 80% of all new jobs that have been created in the private sector by small businessmen? If so, your boss .. the man you work for; the person who signs your paychecks .. that is the very person that is right in the crosshairs for your candidate's proposals for tax increases.

So, before you cast that vote ... know what is at stake. Know that Obama wants to raise taxes – and raise them substantially – on the man or woman you work for. Are you absolutely certain this is not going to have any adverse affect on your job? Tell you what ... why don't you ask him?

Something to think about."

Ayn Rand quote of the day

2008-08-08T17:45:00.001-04:00

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

Obama's emergency rebate checks; we're the government and we're here to help

2008-08-01T21:38:00.007-04:00

Obama proposes $1,000 emergency rebate checks. "ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to Republican rival John McCain's call for more offshore drilling in coastal states like Florida."

Who in the hell does Mr. Change think will end up paying the cost of a windfall profit tax on the "evil" oil companies? Here's the answer: the cost of the windfall profit tax will be passed onto the consumer. Get ready to pay even more for a gallon of gas all because of Mr. Change's "help." When the price of gasoline goes up even more and we use all of our emergency rebate money to pay for higher prices at the pump, what's next, government fixed gasoline prices?

How about we all get tax reductions of $1000 instead? We desperately need tax reform in this country (numerous countries have successfully implemented flat taxes) and, of course, the government could stop being so damn wasteful. Tax reform and a more fiscally responsible government....no that's a plan.

And that's not all, Obama also wants to increase the capital gains tax:

From Nealz Nuze: IS THIS THE TYPE OF CHANGE YOU WANT? "It seems that Wall Street is already reacting to the prospect of an Obama presidency; this according to some folks who know a lot more about Wall Street than I do. The reaction, by the way, is not positive. For some reason known but to God these investors don't particularly like the idea of higher capital gains taxes and increased taxes on the American investor class. Well ... that's change for you. I guess we're going to have to live with it. The price we pay for The Chosen One to be our next leader."

Increased capital gains taxes will hurt the average American just like the windfall profit tax. I wonder if Obama has a bumper sticker on his car that says, "Honk if you love taxes."

Obama is a Marxist. I am no fan of John McCain (or GW for that matter) but an Obama presidency would be bad for America. We all want change, but Obama in the oval office would be a change for the worst. I'd rather put of with 4 more years of the same crap than have America creep closer towards communism.

NOBAMA.com

nobamablog.blogspot.com

I Hate Eminent domain

2008-07-29T10:28:00.005-04:00

One of the abusive powers of government that I despise the most is eminent domain. Just writing the words makes my blood boil. Neal Boortz had a segment on his radio program this morning with Don Corace. Don Corace has written a book called "Government Pirates" which was published by Harper Collins and can also be found at amazon.com.

For anyone who enjoys property rights, I think this book may be a necessary read. I have just ordered my copy.

For more information on eminent domain and what can be done about it, visit the "Castle Coalition."

The time for liberty

2008-07-28T20:05:00.007-04:00

I will vote for Bob Barr unless a vote for Barr ends up being a vote for Obama.

Check out the cast of great Americans in this video: Dr. Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, Dr. Ron Paul, JFK and Ayn Rand......wow!

An Ayn Rand appearance followed by Ron Paul. Whew!

No more trans fats for you!!!

2008-07-26T14:54:00.003-04:00

At least not in California.

Schwarzenegger Terminates Trans Fat in Calif.: "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it official: California will be the first trans-fat free state in the nation. All-natural palm, rice and soybean oils will soon be king, and life in the Golden State will be forever altered. The California legislature pushed the bill through last week, and Schwarzenegger signed it into law Friday, July 25. The ban will require food providers to begin phasing out trans fat oils by July 1, 2009. Thereafter, noncompliance with the ban will result in fines of up to $1,000."

[sarcasm on]

That's so friggin' awesome that some governments are willing to protect us from ourselves by telling us what we can and can't eat. I'm so glad that they're making up our own minds for us. What a relief...this whole "personal responsibility" thing was starting to wear me out.

/sarcasm off

More pics of our "machine gun"

2008-07-26T09:25:00.009-04:00

Here are some more pictures of our Kel-Tec P-3AT .380 semi-automatic bottom loading "machine gun." Well, a machine gun according to the person who denied Dick Heller's gun permit.

Just so everyone knows how small machine guns have become (at least in the eyes of some in D.C.) I've taken these pictures of our "machine gun" next to some everyday household items for perspective.

DC rejects Dick Heller's Handgun Application

2008-07-25T20:10:00.008-04:00

From WUSA9.com, DC rejects handgun application: "Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit."

Check out WHY his application was denied.

"But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has (a) seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns."

How dumb. I didn't realize that I had 3 machine guns in my home. All of my three semi-autos LOAD FROM THE BOTTOM.

Let's take a page out of Benjamin9's book and go to Webster's dictionary to get the accepted definition of "machine gun." "Machine gun: a gun for sustained rapid fire that uses bullets; broadly : an automatic weapon."

Hmmmm, semi-automatic weapons can neither be fired in a "sustained rapid manner" nor are these weapons "automatic" (hence the name, SEMI-automatic, you big stupid D.C. morons!). If semi-automatic handguns are machine guns then could somebody please explain to me why in the hell only one bullet comes out when I pull the trigger?!?!

I bet that like my SEMI-automatic weapons, Dick Heller's SEMI-automatic handgun can not shoot in a sustained, rapid fire manner nor is it an "automatic" weapon. But according to a bunch of illogical idiotic morons in D.C. all of the weapons mentioned above are machine guns.

Look! My bottom loading Kel-Tec .380 machine gun!

Anti-gunners will even twist the English language in order to get rid of "evil" firearms.

DISTANTMIRROR21: WORDS OF LIBERTY

2008-07-23T21:56:00.002-04:00

Benjamin9 over at DISTANTMIRROR21 has posted an excellent analysis of the language of the second amendment and what the words that make up the second amendment really mean.

To give credit where credit is due, I have reposted Ben9's blog entry in its entirety and included links to the posting, lest I leave something out.

"The Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute violated the "Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.

Known as the "Father of American Scholarship and Education," Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be ac companied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.

"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "right" was "just claim; immunity; privilege."

"All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote. Thus, in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and individuals have "rights."

"Keep" was defined as "to hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; to have in custody for security or preservation." "Bear" was "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat." And "arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body." Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms"suggest a right to hand-held arms that a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."

"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." "Regulated" was defined as "subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.

What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state?"

"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite." "Security" was "protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind" and "free" as "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."

"State" was defined as "a political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire body politic.

During most of our history, an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.

It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right" would mean government power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include prohibition.

The founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy-to-understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.

Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.

Stephen P. Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at the Independent Institute (www.independent.org) in Oakland, Calif., is the author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."

This blog entry is a must read for anyone who feels compelled to set anti-gun commies straight about the constitutional protection of an individual's right to gun ownership.

DISTANTMIRROR21: WORDS OF LIBERTY

Angelina and Brad are gun owners?

2008-07-23T21:35:00.004-04:00

Apparently, yes. This may be old news but in a recent interview with the U.K. Daily Mail, Angelina Jolie said a number of interesting things about guns.

“I bought original, real guns of the type we used in ‘Tomb Raider’ for security. Brad and I are not against having a gun in the house, and we do have one.......Yes, I'd be able to use it if I had to. I could handle myself. I think there are certain combat skills that would come out....... If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them."

I concur 100%, but sadly, my guns are not as cool as the Tomb Raider variety.

There also seems to be an atypical recognition of there being good and evil in the world (atypical of Hollywood, anyway, save the 'evil' George Bush). From NewsMax.com: "Jolie is raising her children with an understanding, too, that the world contains good and evil." Jolie says, 'It's just not a reality in this day and age to say that I'm never going to let my kids watch a movie that has a gun in it. It's important to know that this exists.'"

I hope her kids are as accurate with a .45 as mine will be.

Will the United Nations be able to help?

2008-07-20T08:16:00.003-04:00

I highly doubt it.

There are tensions between Cambodia and Thailand over land. This piece of land contains the ancient Preah Vihear Hindu temple. Thai troops have apparently crossed into Cambodian territory and both sides have deployed thousands of troops.

Tensions High as Cambodia Claims Thailand Has Violated Territory in Temple Dispute: "Cambodia complained to the U.N. Security Council that Thai forces have violated its territory near a World Heritage Site temple, as more than 4,000 troops from the two sides were deployed in the border region Sunday."

If the UN manages to help settle this dispute I will be pleasantly surprised. But when I look at UN "successes" in Rwanda, the Sudan, and the middle east (Iran has certainly "slowed" their nuclear weapons program) excuse me for being skeptical.

Dick Heller is running for the U.S. House of Representatives

2008-07-19T20:49:00.008-04:00

Plaintiff In D.C. Gun Ban Case To Run For U.S. House Seat: "Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington's strict 32-year-old handgun ban, announced his candidacy on Thursday for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Heller, 66, is seeking the seat currently held by Eleanor Holmes Norton. He is gathering signatures to run on the ballot as a libertarian candidate.

Heller, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court."

In regards to the previous sentence, I know there are security guards who carry weapons at the capitol in order to protect the politicians, the court justices and everyone else who works at the capitol. How ironic that in D.C. only people who work on capitol hill can use force to protect themselves but not the people living there. Oh wait, that changed on 26 June 2008.

I still think that we should celebrate "Dick Anthony Heller Day" every 26 June.

Once again the Israelis give up too much and get too little

2008-07-16T19:57:00.005-04:00

After Israeli reservists return in coffins, VIPs embrace their families: "Israeli media indulged in maudlin reportage about the 'return of the sons' and the 'reuniting of the families.' But the shameful truth was otherwise. Israel had given in to a deal that surrendered a child-murderer to Hezbollah and received in return only the bodies of soldiers that Hezbollah itself was likely to have murdered in captivity. All of the solemn ceremonies could not quite conceal the humiliation."

Jubilant Arab leaders, including Abbas, welcome child-killer Kuntar as hero: "West Bank chieftain Mahmoud Abbas congratulated the family of Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar, freed on Wednesday with four Hezbollah fighters. Abbas welcomed the swap and congratulated the families of the 'liberated prisoners.' Kuntar has been imprisoned in Israel since 1979, after he carried out one of the grisliest attacks in Israeli history - killing a father in front of his 4-year-old daughter, and then killing the girl by crushing her skull with his rifle butt."

Again, the Israelis mourn their losses and the terrorist scum celebrate the killers of innocent children. Moral equivalency my ass!

We'll miss you Tony...

2008-07-12T13:23:00.003-04:00

Foxnews.com: Tony Snow, Former White House Press Secretary and FOX news anchor, dies at 53.

Tony Snow died after a long bout with cancer at a very young age. Tony and his family are in our thoughts and prayers.

A new gun link

2008-07-12T04:30:00.003-04:00

I have just added a new and very interesting gun link to this page: OpenCarry.org.

I was pleasantly surprised at the number of states that allow open carry. Sadly, my home state is not among those on this list.

OpenCarry.org is definitely worth checking out.

Does the US Constitution protect individual gun ownership?

2008-07-06T07:11:00.010-04:00

In a word, abso-frickin'-lutely!

First of all, there is that pesky amendment #2 that gun haters dislike. Here is some of the language in the amendment that hopefully clears things up for gun-haters: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." For ease in understanding my interpretation of the second amendment and to clarify that I do not claim any special "rights" which allow me to ignore specific parts of the Constitution, I have highlighted the part which I consider the most important (and only I, I know that I cannot speak for anyone else or imply anything other than MY OWN OPINION). As for the first 13 words, in my opinion the "militia" part does not mitigate or limit the individual right of gun ownership as others have suggested (again this is only my humble, twisted and potentially arrogant opinion).

Second, the bill of rights is ALL about the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. Why would the part about guns be any different? This suggests that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that it is protected by more than solely the second amendment.

Third, various people have claimed (and I agree) that there is protection of individual privacy provided by the Constitution. Privacy Right Unlisted, but Perfectly Clear: "We do have a constitutional right to privacy. The right to speak as you wish, to pray as you wish, to be secure in your home against warrantless searches or seizures, are all based on the same underlying right to be left alone by government. The right to privacy, in fact, animates the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights included. The drafters of those documents felt no need to state what in their minds was already so obvious."

My point is thus, the second amendment along with the right to privacy held throughout the Constitution, in my opinion, provides us the right to own firearms. The paradox to me is that many who support the Constitutional right to privacy protects things like the right to an abortion, the right to free speech, gay marriage, etc. but not gun ownership. That seems a bit duplicitous to me. But what do I know?? Many would argue that I don't know much, I wonder if they have been talking with my wife?

New holiday

2008-06-28T12:15:00.004-04:00

The recent SCOTUS decision in the DC vs. Heller case is only the beginning in restoring our individual right to own firearms. There is much left to do.

But in the meantime, I call for proclaiming June "national firearm ownership month" and 26 June as "Dick Anthony Heller Day" - a perfect prelude to the Fourth of July.

Could we be on the way to the restoration of individual rights in America?

2008-06-28T11:48:00.005-04:00

God, I hope so. Once we get this whole 2nd amendment thing straightened out and we completely establish the individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms, next we should move onto the restoration of property rights and eliminate eminent domain.

One my favorite comics, Drew Carey, has some thoughts on eminent domain: "You know the great thing about America is once you own property - you own it," says Drew Carey in a new Reason.tv video examining eminent domain abuse. "You can do anything you want with that property. You can build a house on it, a business. You can plant flowers, grow daisies. Whatever you want to do with it, it's your property. You own it. And the only way somebody can take your property is if they steal it. Am I right? That's why the government invented eminent domain."

Think about it, the government has the power to uproot you from YOUR home and steal YOUR property for "the greater good." As Neal Boortz has said in the past, "The one thing government has which we (you or I or any corporation) DON'T have, is the ability to use deadly force to accomplish its goals."

There is hope for America....

2008-06-26T10:22:00.004-04:00

This is preliminary, but it looks as if our individual right to protect ourselves with firearms is alive and well. wOOt!!!

Foxnews.com: Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Court: A constitutional right to a gun: "Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed."

More bad logic for gun control

2008-06-22T09:05:00.007-04:00

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has come down in favor of Washington D.C.'s gun ban in the D.C. vs. Heller case.

The ADL then had this to say: according to a recent ADL press release: "This case is about allowing states to protect their citizens' lives, liberty and property by regulating the purchase and possession of firearms. Gun violence and the caching of dangerous weapons are commonplace among extremists. If states lose the right to regulate firearm ownership, it would help violent bigots in their efforts to create an America based on hate and intolerance. We urge the Supreme Court to ensure that states have the tools to counter these agents of hate. We are also deeply concerned about the possession and use of firearms by children. The Court must permit states to keep guns out of the hands of those who would bring violence to our schools. The regulation of firearms is a rational response to these twin evils and is consistent with the Second Amendment's call for a well-regulated militia."

While the ADL does a lot of good things, on this particular issue I must call "bullshit!"

Whatever happened to citizens being able to protect themselves?? Why does everyone want to rely on the government to take care of them?? People who are bent on killing due to bigotry (or any other reason) are not going to worry about breaking an additional law that regulates firearms. I thought that it was already illegal to use a firearm to commit a crime. We ARE NOT going to legislate the removal of firearms from these psychos who want to kill to "cleanse" our society of people like myself. Gun control DOES NOT DISARM THESE PEOPLE!!!!

All gun control does is disarm law-abiding responsible citizens like myself. When my family and I encounter these racist scum, or any other people who want to do harm, I'd prefer to be able to fight fire with fire by being armed.

Great News For Criminals

2008-06-11T15:18:00.002-04:00

An excellent article by one of my favorite political commentators and radio hosts, Tammy Bruce: Great News For Mass Murderers.

"Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has signed an executive order to ban guns on all property owned by the city.

After the roar of approval from psychotic murderers died down, Nickels explained the new ban was necessary after a shooting at the Folklife Festival wounded two people at the Seattle Center.

You know how that works–make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry guns making them even more vulnerable to the beasts who don’t care about laws, also known as “criminals.” I do hate to break it to the mayor, but shooting people is also banned, but criminals do it anyway.

After years of certain cities finding their violent crime rates on the increase after banning firearms, we now have proof that gun bans actually create more violence and subject law-abiding citizen to more risk. — Just ask the people of Washington, D.C., who know all too well how banning guns simply broadcasts a message to violent criminals where the most vulnerable population lives. Just this week, the “gun-free zone” of D.C. (on whose handgun ban we still await the Supreme Court’s decision) has been reduced to implementing road blocks into certain neighborhoods in an attempt to stop, er, gun violence.

After all, it’s just so much easier to invade a home, jack a car, or murder someone when you know your victim won’t be able to protect herself. Despite the history of gun bans putting more people in danger, and to say nothing of the unconstitutionality of that act, politicians still have the gall to exploit instances of bad guys ignoring existing laws (like those against shooting people) to pass laws banning the best self-protection method we have.

Make no mistake–just as climate alarmism has nothing to do with fear over a 2-3 degree increase in temperatures and is simply a manufactured excuse for government to tax and fee us to death–the acts of criminals continue to be used as a manipulative excuse to disarm the law-abiding public while keeping government officials immune from the law, and well protected."

The Armed Citizen

2008-06-08T09:43:00.002-04:00

One of my favorite sections of the monthly NRA publication "America's 1st Freedom" is the "Armed Citizen" pages. The accounts of average law abiding citizens protecting themselves and their families are also posted online.

For your reading pleasure: Armed Citizen

Man goes on killing spree (without a gun!)

2008-06-08T09:31:00.005-04:00

Foxnews.com: Man Plows Into Crowd, Goes On Stabbing Rampage; 7 Reported Dead

One person with a weapon, properly trained, could have prevented a lot of this. Of course, Japan has incredibly strict gun control laws. Maybe they should also ban trucks and knives, too?

I don't mean to make light of the killings. The killings are horrible but the reality is (in my mind, at least) that without Japan's strict laws which limit the right to protect yourself (i.e. strict gun control), the outcome could have been a lot different.

THANK YOU!!!

2008-05-26T07:16:00.011-04:00

Today, no politics or complaints about the government. Just a simple "thank you" to those who have served and died protecting our great country. And another "thank you" to all else who have served and who continue to serve our great nation. Thank you.

One Marine's View: Memorial Day

And please don't forget to observe the National Moment of Remembrance at 1500 local time.

More government regulation to "fix" things

2008-05-24T22:51:00.005-04:00

One of my favorite Congressional commies, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. is shooting off her mouth, without really understanding economics, and threatened the nationalization of the oil industry because she thinks that it will lead to lower gas prices. What a bunch of shit. How do people like Ms. Waters, who have very little understanding of economics but have control over our tax money, continue to be in power? Why do we keep voting for these dopes?

WorldNetDaily.com: Congresswoman threatens to nationalize oil industry:
Maxine Waters warns Shell president in House committee hearing. In a grilling of oil executives by a House panel yesterday, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., threatened to nationalize the industry if it didn't do something about the rising prices at the pump.

"Hofmeister replied: 'I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress (I am amazed, Congressional....inaction.....not my Congress!!), ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down.'"

"The Shell exec said paying $5 at the pump 'will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies (emphasis mine).'"

"Waters responded, in part, 'And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …...Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies."

"The oil executives responded, according to Fox News, by saying they've seen this before, in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela."

Way to go Maxine, nationalize the oil industry, I'm sure that will help things out and get prices low enough for your liking (or reelection). Of course, building more refineries and drilling in our own country and off-shore of Florida (25 miles from the coast where the curvature of the earth would prevent the spoiling of the view) might help. Increasing supply and/or lowering demand is the way to reduce gas prices. Not more over-reaching government regulation in what once was a free market economy.

I watched a large part of the hearings on C-SPAN. What a useless dog and pony show! Members of Congress, please stop wasting my friggin tax money (which pays your salaries) with these useless bullshit hearings. Spend your tax payer funded time doing something useful like closing the boarder, lower my tax burden, allowing for drilling offshore and in Alaska and stop trying to restrict my gun rights.