Oh Noes! The Scary Claritan-D!

I'm annoyed. I mean, really, really annoyed. Mainly at the idiots that we call state Representatives and Senators. I'll include Governor Barbour in there just for good measure.

Why am I so annoyed? What has gotten my proverbial panties in a bunch you may ask?

Well, it's like this, both the Mississippi Senate and the Mississippi House has passed a bill designed to restrict psuedoephedrine sells to require a prescription. Which means that now to continue with my daily dosage of Clariton D I will need to spend additional money to go to the doctor's office and get a prescription.

This is insane for a number of reasons, among them, and just right off the top of my head:

1. Medicare Costs & Doctor Rationing
   
2. Lessens Quality of Life
3. Unintended Economic Consequencees

None of those things make me happy, and let's look at the reasons why...

Medicare costs & Doctor Rationing. Remember, this bill will require thousands of people to go visit the doctor. Everyone who takes Claritan-D on a daily basis will need to do so. Then anyone who is allergic to phenylephrine will need to visit the doctor whenever they get sick or get a stuffy nose due to the changing season. Medicare costs associated with all these additional doctor visits will skyrocket. The Medicare/Medicaid program here in Mississippi is already taxed to the breaking point. This bill will add thousands of visits to the system per year, and we already don't have the money in our tax coffers to pay for all of the entitlement services that the State provides.

Then there is also the fact that a doctor can only see so many patients in a given day. When a doctor gets innudated with demands to see him just so people can get another year's worth of Claritan-D, that means that that same doctor has less time to see people who are truly sick.

Quality of Life. The thing is that I need this particular drug for my quality of life. If I don't have it, I'm quickly reduced to a phlegm filled monstrosity that is constantly hacking, snuffling and ultimately I have to go to the doctor for a Z-Pack because the crud in my chest and nose has turned into pneumonia. After the Z-Pack does its thing, I'm okay for two weeks, and then we repeat the process. This is how I lived for the first 18 months that I lived in Mississippi. I had more Z-Packs and shots in the posterior to combat pneumonia infections in those 18 months, than in the entire 30 year span prior to moving.

That stopped once I got myself on a daily Claritan-D regiment.

This is what the government is basically saying that they want me to go back to. It's either that or take hours out of my day to wait around at the doctors office to get them to give me a prescription.

Which leads to the third point I made up there about...

Unintended Economic Consequences. This whole thing is an effort to combat a "meth problem," and truthfully, there are areas in this state that has one. In fact in Jackson in 2009, there were more arrests concerning meth, than any other drug.

The thing is that, this is not going to change one thing, and the reason for that is the Law of Scarcity. This law is based upon two propositions:

1. Man has unlimited or insatiable wants, and
2. Resources that are used to produce goods and services are limited.

I'm not going into some huge lecture on Supply and Demand, as frankly, economics is not my specialty. I took enough courses on it in college to be able to deal with it, and know the fundamentals, but I don't particularly like it. But the basics is that the more scarce a product is, the more and higher the cost to sell. Since the production costs will not necessarily change, that means that there will be a higher profit margin for those still willing to create this particular drug.

Anyways, I want you to think about scarcity.

Think about it and especially in relation to Prohibition (or The Noble Experiment). When the government tried to limit the creation and sale of alcohol, what happened? It went underground, and was still made and sold, but the selling involved bullets, a violent black market, racketeering, corrupted law officials, and of course, high profits. The Mafia made huge profits on liquor until Prohibition was ended, and cheap, legal access to it, stripped them of their profits in that particular venue.

During Prohibition, liquor was SCARCE, therefore it could be sold at a high price despite being cheap to make, therefore it was worthwhile for those willing to break laws to produce it, to produce it.

Which sounds amazingly like the illegal drug trade here in the States today.

But I digress, by making the a single ingredient in the production of meth even more scarce, you're creating an environment, where the creation of meth becomes even more economically viable for those willing to break the law to create it.

Also, consider that pseudoephedrine is technically not a REQUIRED ingredient to meth. It's used because it's a cheap alternative, with a chemical similarity to the "actual ingredient." Additionally, the ingredients that can be used, are wide and varied. It's the reason so many people have taken to make it, the formula can use a host of different items, so long as they are chemically similar, and compatible to the end result.

So, are all these other ingredients being tracked and required a doctor's notice to purchase? Why just the one that is most useful to our health? Iodine and salt are also ingredients, why aren't those schedule 1 narcotics? Should we need a note from a licensed painter in order to purchase paint thinner (again, a meth ingredient) or acetone?

We must always remember something, every time the government acts to create new restrictions on us:

Limits on our freedoms, only works on those unwilling to break the law in the first place.

It is the same fundamental reason that "gun control" and airport "security measures" will never work. They are based on the delusion concept that additional laws will keep someone from breaking the law.

And life just does not work that way.

How Young Is Too Young To Be Tasered?

The Taser is a small device, often called an "electroshock weapon." The fundamental concept is that it uses electrical current to disrupt voluntary control of muscles and in stimulation of the recipients sensory nerves. Such jolts of electricity results in sharp pain and involuntary contraction of muscle groups.

So basically, the Taser is a hand-held weapon designed to overstimulate muscles and cause pain.

Now, with that definition in mind, let me tell you a story. The Hero of our story is a sturdy man, tall and in-shape. His job is supposedly defined as dealing with the lowest of the low, and standing between the citizenry and danger--he is a goon in a state-issued costume police man. His name is Dustin Bradshaw.

While the villain of our piece is a ten year old, little girl.

Now, our story takes place on in Ozark Arkansas, and what occurs is that a woman calls the police because her little girl is screaming and crying and not following her mother's instructions. Basically, acting like my three-year old immediately prior to a spanking.

So, the Brave Officer Bradshaw arrives at the scene, and sees the girl who is visibly distraught over...well something. Who knows, it could be just because Mother Dearest told her to go to bed. But she's distraught and upset. So as Brave Officer Bradshaw arrives, Mother Dearest tells him that the young girl is not listening, and that Brave Officer Bradshaw needs to use his Taser on her.

After all, the proper punishment for unruly children is the swift introduction of large amounts of electricity which cause pain and muscle spasms--and possibly death.

So, Brave Officer Bradshaw picks her up and physically carries her to the living room, where he informs her that she's off to jail. After all, not listening to your mother, and throwing a temper-tantrum in your own place of residence is a criminal offense in Arkansas.

Well, as expected, the little girl did not want to go to jail--therefore she kicked and screamed, and had the gumption, gall and temerity to strike the blessed officer of the state!

So, he did as any reasonable Blessed Officer of the State would do, and Tasered her.

Does this make you upset? Does this even bother anyone?

Because I'm disgusted by it beyond belief, and if you for some reason don't think it's true... well, here's the relevant bits from the article at Arkansas Online:

The girl was on the floor of the house screaming and crying. She refused to follow her mother’s instructions and the mother told Bradshaw to use his Taser.

Bradshaw carried the girl to the living room and told her she was going to jail, according to the report.

“While she was violently kicking and verbally combative, [the girl] struck me with her legs and feet in the groin,” Bradshaw wrote in the report.

“The subject was actively resisting arrest at this time,” Bradshaw wrote. “I was having a difficult time placing the cuffs on her and administered a very, very brief drive stun to her back with my Taser. She immediately resisted and was placed in handcuffs.”

Yeah, he's a BIG man all right.

While you're pondering the insanity involved in the fact that this goon policeman is willing and happy to electrocute a 10 year old little girl, I want to point you to a little history from the state of Florida.

The date: January, 2005; the place: Palm Beach, Florida. Douglas Dycus was arrested and charged with felony child abuse and domestic battery for using a stun gun as a discipline device.

What is the difference? They are both electric devices designed to apply pain in measured and controlled jolts. Why is what Douglas Dycus did felony child abuse, while the exact same actions from the Brave Officer Bradshaw justifiable--despite the fact that the little girl being tortured and abused by Brave Officer Bradshaw being 4 years younger that Douglas Dycus' son?

The difference of course is that little piece of state issued jewelry which grants a mere citizen with the awesome abilities of one of the Elect!

Yes, that glorious piece of tin which means that all who the bearer surveys must adore them, and worship their numerous sacrifices to the greater good of their own elite brotherhood. It is that beautiful chunk of tin which allows them the ability to weld weapons of death, and randomly hurt people because... well they had the gall to disagree with whatever drivel the Elect emitted from their mouths.

See, that's the problem here. The Brave Officer Bradshaw was called to a house because a girl was having a temper tantrum, and instead of telling the mom that she should treat her child as a child, he attempted to arrest the girl.

At no point, are we given a reason for the Brave Officer Bradshaw to threaten this child with arrest. The only complaints filed were in conjunction with this event are related to when said 10 year old dared to defend herself against a grown man who was attempting to forcefully take her from her home.

Let us remember something, that seems to have been forgotten in our rush to affirm the Clowns of the State with powers above the mortal's keen:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

Yes, read that, and understand. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a citizen can resist arrest up to and including taking the arresting officer's life if such is necessary.

Think about this, an illegal arrest is nothing less than assault and battery (defined in State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260). as such, any person that is suffering under an illegal arrest has the same rights--and responsibilities--to protect their own persons as at any other time when repelling any other type of assault and battery.

What this officer did, was forcefully carry this young child away from her mother (read the article, he describes carrying her into the living room) and then telling her, that he's taking her to jail.

There was no crime, the only "domestic disturbance" was that the girl was not obeying her mother.

Yet, when this child attempted to protect herself from the equivalent of an assault and battery, she was electrocuted.

This is not what a police officer initially stood for!

What this is is an occupying military force which expects its orders to be instantly obeyed regardless of the legal status of said orders.

That is what our police forces have become, and worse, they are actively heading in that direction today.

And sadly, too many people, hyped up on the glories of CSI and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit believe that they don't have the rights which in truth they have--and among those is the right to resist an unlawful arrest.

Luckily, this 10 year old girl survived her electrocution.

Unfortunately, others have not always been so lucky.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to take these deadly weapons away from those all too willing to torture and kill our children.

Can Twitter Lead to Jail Time?

Imagine it, the date, September 24, 2009. The place, Philadelphia during the G20 Summit. You're sitting in a hotel room, with a off-the-shelf, police-band radio scanner, and a computer. What you're doing is as police actions come over the radio, you're transcribing them to Twitter.

The before you know it, you're under arrest, and the F.B.I. is at your house, taking your books, computers, and rifling through your dirty underwear. After all, larceny in the name of protecting the government is the primary job of the F.B.I.

This is exactly what happened to Elliot Madison (aged 41). He was sitting in a hotel room, transcribing police messages to Twitter when the self-same police arrived and took him to jail. While there they charged him with the following crimes:

• Hindering apprehension or prosecution
• Criminal use of a communication facility
• Possession of instruments of crime

Let's consider these things, and remember I'm not a lawyer. What I am is an intelligent, logical human, who expects things--especially laws--to be human readable without having a lawyer immediately on hand to explain every detail.

The Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution law is fairly straightforward. It details the fact that anyone actively helping people escape prosecution (hiding criminals, etc) is guilty of it. Specifically, this clause:

warns the other of impending discovery or apprehension, except that this paragraph does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with law; or

What's interesting in regards to this case, is that the Prosecution would have a hard time proving a) the intent of Mr. Madison in this regard and b) the people he was actively providing this information to was actively engaging in a crime. He was sending Twitter messages to people protesting the government--I find it highly odd that the Pennsylvania State Police automatically assume that people protesting governments are engaging in criminal behavior. After all, that has to be the assumption if Mr. Madison is providing t his information to warn them of impending discovery or apprehension in regards to criminal behavior.

The second law there, only comes into bearing if the first one is relevant--or again, if the Pennsylvania State Police believe that dissent with governing bodies is the same as criminal behavior. This law only has bearing if someone commits, causes or facilitates other criminal activity with the use of the "Communication Facility," which is defined by law as:

As used in this section, the term "communication facility" means a public or private instrumentality used or useful in the transmission of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part, including, but not limited to, telephone, wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems or the mail. (Dec. 21, 1998, P.L.1240, No.157, eff. 60 days)

Now, what interests me is the fact that by this definition--and the Pennsylvania State Police's assumptions of inherent criminal activity on the part of protesters--the dispatch officers and officers at the scene are facilitating the same "criminal" behavior as Mr. Madison by sending the same information he did over the radio (after all, he was just transcribing radio communications onto Twitter).

And that last law is probably the most inherently unstable of the charges brought against Mr. Madison. The "authoritahs" are using the following clause to bring the charge (as the rest of the clauses refer to weapons and/or body armor):

Anything used for criminal purposes and possessed by the actor under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have.

The problem with that is that Mr. Madison was using the tools he had at his disposal in inherently legal--and (what seems to this non-lawyer as) an appropriately lawful--manners. He was listening to a police-band radio scanner, and transmitting the information he heard on it over Twitter.

Let us not forget that the Police, as "public servants," their communication is part of the Public Domain. That chatter can legally be listened to by anyone (though transmitting on the relevant bands is legally a no-no and morally really murky).

No, the way this reads is the following concepts are in play:

• (Yet another) Government Agency does not want people actively paying attention to what they are doing and/or saying about the people that they are supposedly serving
• The (Pennsylvania State) police inherently feel that protesting the government and/or any form of governing body is an inherently criminal act

Both concepts scare the tar outta me.

It saddens me that the government is scared of the populace. Actually, that tells me that the government is not effectively doing its job of serving the true needs of the constituency which they are there to serve.

Worse, is the thought that this police force (and the FBI for searching Mr. Madison home for "criminal materials") believe that dissent to the government is bad.

Of course, it's not that unexpected. Time and again, the government--and by that I mean everything from the smallest of podunk towns sheriff's all the way to the Supreme Court--are less interested in serving the true nature of our country as defined by the Constitution as they are by gathering more and more power unto themselves.

No, I firmly believe that what Mr. Madison was doing was morally and legally right. He--as a taxpayer and citizen of this country--is morally obligated to keep tabs upon the criminal governmental agencies out to fleece serve him. Additionally, he is within his right to post that information he has gathered onto any bulletin board service he so desires.

In the end, it is as too often the case these days: the Police attempting to force their will upon the populace via duress.

Can I Have The Health Care Bill Please?

I work a lot with documents. It's a really big part of that whole software engineering process. Things like specifications, data dictionaries, white papers, requirements, process improvement plans and the random other plan.

Some of these documents can be huge. I've seen a Systems Engineering Management Plan which took nearly 1,500 pages in MS Word before.

The thing is, that these documents, they're the key to what I'm building at any given moment. They describe functionality, interfaces, and other requirements for the software system. Without those documents....well I'm just floundering in the wind, building my "best guess" as to what the customer/client/boss wants.

In the past, I've discovered that my best guess in such situations are not always ideal. Actually, in such situations I've often built the wrong software; sure it does a task, but it's not the task that the customer wanted taken care of.

I could not imagine even attempting to do my job if the only thing I was given was the table of contents (ToC) and the Executive Summary.

No let me correct that and say that my job would be easier--and the client would get a better, more accurate for their needs, piece of software--without me getting any of these needed and necessary documents, as opposed to me getting just the ToC and the Executive Summary of these documents.

Why then... or maybe that should be HOW CAN... does our Congress think it can pass a bill when the only thing they are debating is effectively the ToC and the Executive Summary?

But that is effectively what is currently happening. The Chairman's Mark of the "America's Healthy Futures Act of 2009," henceforth called ObamaCare, is currently all that exists of the ObamaCare bill.

Basically, it's around 250 pages of descriptions on what our esteemed felons Congressmen believe should go in this law. Additionally, a Chairman's Mark, even if voted upon as good and valid, is not binding during the actual construction of the legislative language.

Think about that... Health Care is currently about 1/6^th of our GDP, and Congress wants us to think that they're looking out for us, when they're arguing about the content of a bill that has not been written, and is currently not scheduled to be written until the arguments are over.

This promises to be a massive disaster on the scale of (if not larger than) the TARP and any other big-government/nanny state legislation that's passed in the past 100 years.

What's worse is that they're playing dating games in order for the GAO to give it a better rating fiscally. The primary aspects of the bill won't start until JULY, 2013 (despite the fact that they're planning on raising taxes/funds beginning April, 2011) and the GAO ranks things based on a ten year plan. This evil thing doesn't even begin (except for stealing money from the citizenry) until a third of the way through the GAO's current reporting period.

No, this Chairman's Mark needs to go away, and if our esteemed leaders want to create a massive new socialist program, then they need to do so in the sunlight, and allow the populace to read the bill so we can tell them exactly where they can shove it.

And I'd like that chance before they pass a bill which would damage my ability to care for the health and welfare of my family.

I Got Your Back.... We Clear?

"That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back... We clear?"

Those were the words recorded by 911 operators as Anthony Arambula lay bloodied on the floor of his home, having been shot six times in the back.

"That's all right."

Such a simple phrase, one that I've repeated to my children many, many times over the past few years--whenever they've done something wrong. Whenever they've accidentally hit me. I've used it at work. I used it when I was at school. I've even used it at the restaurant a few days ago, after the waitresses ignored us for twenty minutes.

It's a shorthand for the person you're talking to, telling them that what they have done is not that bad of a thing.

And it was being used by the folks who shot Anthony Arambula in his own home.

Now, you may ask, what was Mr. Arambula doing? Who shot him in the back? What about the police?

The answer there is simple: Mr. Arambula had cornered someone breaking into his home, and had his gun trained on the burglar, as said burglar was in Mr. Arambula's son's room.

Apparently, the police heard the burglar breaking Mr. Arambula's window, and after having been told by Mr. Arambula's wife of his presence, and the burglar's presence, the police in question rushed into the house, and more or less shot the first person they came across.

And after this brilliant display of bravery and intelligence by the "Boys in Blue" they proceeded to a) describe how they were going to cover up the shooting, and blame it on Mr. Arambula, and then b) drag Mr. Arambula around by his leg and finally c) treated Mrs. Aramabula and the rest of the family as if they were the criminals here.

Were it not for the existence of those 911 tapes, the Police's description of events would remain uncontested and incontestable.

Mr. Arambula would have been blamed for the police randomly shooting him in the back.

And these are the so-called guardians of law and order in our society?

It makes me wonder--as it should you--how many times this has happened in the past, and the poor victim just unable to prove that the police willfully and maliciously shot him.

I'm disturbed by the sense of conceit which permeates the police forces in our society today. We're expected to kowtow to their every whim and demand, and they are more than willing to enforce those demands with force.

They have forgotten that they are neither above the law, nor are they the law. Rather they are just a group of people whose job it is to investigate purported breaks within said law.

Our police forces have become caught up in their own mystique--helped in this by the inane portrayals of the heroic cops on shows such as Law and Order. When in reality, most cops are closer to the ones depicted on The Shield: corrupt and/or power hunger.

After all, it takes a special type of person to be a cop.

The proverbial guard dog, to the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Of course, most of us forget, that the guard dog has much more in common with the wolf than with the sheep; and given half the chance will be just as quick to take advantage of an unwary sheep as the wolf is.

Government Mandates & You

I was perusing through THOMAS earlier and discovered an interesting proposed bill. Apparently, Congress, in its infinite wisdom has decided that not nearly enough people own cars. In fact, there are some thousands upon thousands of able-bodied adults who do not own a car. So, of course, they have decided that it was time to legislate such a situation.

It's an interesting bill, and has these as the primary focuses:

1. The creation of a regulatory marketplace. All new cars sold will be required by law to be sold through this marketplace. Inclusion in the market place means a bunch of hefty fees are added to the car manufacturers, as well as price caps and bottoms, and an array of "standard" features which are less the what is currently standard on most new cars
2. Any additional features--regardless of their pre-"marketplace" standardization--can only be added as an additional cost to the car
3. Cars that do not meet the price caps/bottoms or feature standards will not be allowed to be sold in the United States or its territories
   
4. Every able-bodied/able-minded adult must own a car
5. Depending on income, the government may buy the car for you
6. If the adult is an illegal alien, they will not be able to get the free car
7. People are not allowed to check to see if an adult is an illegal alien
   
8. The population can keep their current car, only if they
   
   1. Do not change the color of the car
   2. Do not change the car's battery
   3. Do not change the car's tires
      
   4. Do not perform any exterior or interior body work
   Performing any of these tasks requires you to purchase a new car
9. Each new car has a tax associated with it
10. There is a yearly fee, based on income and cost of the car, to own the car
11. Adults who do not own a car, must pay an annual fine
    
12. Failure to pay the fees/taxes/fines will lead to jail time
    

So, what do you think?

Does this sound like a fair law? Is it reasonable?

After all, those poor folks who don't have a car right this moment, why the government will buy them one! Imagine all the helpfulness that that could provide. Solid, reliable transportation for the masses.

Of course, all those folks who live in places like NYC--where it's unreasonable for them to own a vehicle--why they have to pay extra to offset the cost, or they could go to jail for failure to pay their taxes.

Can you imagine this? Can you imagine what this would do to our nation and economy?


If you've read this, and thought it perfectly reasonable. Replace the car with a bike. Or a house. Or a candy bar. If it still sounds reasonable, well, you're a hopeless socialist. Go on home.

For the rest of us, why does this sound unreasonable while doing the exact thing with Health Care sound reasonable?

Frankly, it doesn't. The description of the law, is more or less how that last Health Care bill was written. There were hefty fines and/or jail time if you did not buy the government health insurance. There was a single line detailing that no illegal aliens would receive benefits, while at the same time the law stated that no one would be able to check on the legal residence state of the individual in question. And of course, there was the fact that people would be able to keep their insurance--provided that they never needed it to change.

This is the change that Obama is trying to bring us. Pretty bitter medicine, eh?

Demeaning Institutions

You may or may not have heard about Representative Joe Wilson's little outburst during the recent Obama speech where he was hustling for yet more socialist attacks against our way of life Nationalized Health Care.

Basically, when Obama got to the part of his speech where he promised (and we all know what Obama's promises are worth) that Illegal Aliens (i.e. those who should not be on our soil anyways) would not receive any of his socialist kool-aid.

Wilson shouted out "You Lie" because the bill that Obama was hawking, while it did have a clause stating that those who were not supposed to be in the Nation were not to receive benefits (which is a first for the Democrats) there is nothing in the bill which enforces that clause.

And an unenforced clause is just pretty words to appease people.

But what gets me is that now those same Liberals who are up there, demanding that we expand government, balloon our debt (which is forced inflation or more simply, inflating the money supply to rob you of more wealth), and create yet another government program which the government does not Constitutionally have the right to create, are talking about how Wilson has "demeaned" the Congress and the institution of the President.

Funny how easily people forget that both Presidents Clinton and Bush (the Second) were routinely booed during their speeches, even the Constitutionally-required State of the Union.

But, that's not my point. My point is that we have this Congressional idiots up there, all up-in-arms over someone explicitly using his First Amendment rights to inform the President what he thinks, but so few of them seem to be up-in-arms on the attacks against our (the People's) rights.

Remember, the Constitution explicitly states that any right not expressly given the Government within the Constitution belongs to the People or the States.

By allowing Congress to create these socialist Big-Government programs, we're allowing Congress to over-step it's authorized, Constitutionally-defined bounds and we're throwing away our rights.

Sure, what Representative Wilson did probably wasn't the brightest, or most respectful, move to make. That said, we should be less worried over Mr. Wilson's outburst than we our at Pelosi's and companies attacks on our rights.




And for the record, notice that while I am against States creating these state-run health insurance programs, I do not decry them as un-Constitutional, as it would be within a State's rights to create such a program. Also note that I don't live in a state with one of these programs (those states with them, are already facing record deficits, rationed health care, and other abuses of their government run health care system), and I wouldn't want to live in one.

Why I Disagree With Today's Speech

I'm highly Conservative. Anyone that takes two seconds to peruse this site will quickly come to realize that. I wear my political affiliation on my sleeve for the world to see, and happily defend my positions against anyone who wishes to discuss things logically.

I of course, reserve the right to mock anyone who devolves into "It Feels Good, So That's Why" emotionalism.

So of course, when I read about the Department of Education's letter to every school in the nation, and how they provided curriculum materials to work in conjunction with Obama's speech today, I was concerned.

And then I actually read the contents of the letter and that concern quickly became anger and disgust.

Now, the Lefties would happily want everyone out there to believe that anyone who opposes Obama's speech today is a redneck, racist hick without a lick of common sense or brains. Just take a look at the political cartoons related to it.

The thing is, that it's not the speech that I have an issue with.

Frankly, that's a good object lesson in learning out to critically parse out BS from a politicians mouth. As an aside, what I usually hear when listening to a politician's (especially those with a centrist or leftist tilt) speech is thus:

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I'm Awesome. BLAH, BLAH. Vote for me, I'll give you stuff!

No. What disturbs me was the curriculum that went alongside of it. The curriculum that was sent to every principal in the country from the Department of Education (remember this fact, it will become more important in a moment).

For the K-6 students (this is elementary kids folks) the concepts were things like writing down how they could help the president. Or answering questions on why the president is good, or why what he's saying is right, or why we should listen to him (and other elected officials).

Now, I firmly believe we should listen to elected officials, after all, that's how we know they're lying to us, but I'm less interested in listening to elected officials in the unquestioning obedience point of view.

But not only is the concepts espoused in their rather insane letter annoying, but if you want to get technical it's kind of against the law (not that that has any bearing on what the Obama Administration does, as one can read about here).

Specifically, it's 20 U.S.C. § 3403, and the important aspect of that statute involved comes into play with these sections:

(3) parents have the primary responsibility for the education
of their children, and States, localities, and private
institutions have the primary responsibility for supporting that
parental role;

(4) in our Federal system, the primary public responsibility
for education is reserved respectively to the States and the
local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States;

The thing is that that FEDERAL statute (the one which created the department in question) denies the Department of Education (which Constitutionally shouldn't exist, as it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that Congress can create a Department of Education) any authority, right or responsibility to provide any curriculum or anything that can be "passed down" to the state.

Think about this. These are the folks who we've elected to be our leaders, and all we've gotten is broken lies, insane socialist theories and broken laws.

Of course, it is a Leftist in office so one should not be THAT surprised.

Oh wait, I can't say that can I, after all, any criticism or implications that the Chosen One isn't doing his job of protecting the Constitution might be considered racism...

Obama Wants You To Report On Your Neighbors!

I've just read a disturbing blog entry on the White House's blog. It's an article on their proposed government take-over of the Health Care Industry, and anyone who has read any of my previous articles here, knows my take on government programs.

I think it's evil, and a massive waste of taxpayer money, and 100% un-Constitutional.

But, that's not at issue here. What's at issue here, is this content:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Yes, that is our government, asking you to turn in those people who dissent with their socialist programs.

Yes, that is our government--telling you that it's okay to believe in Big Government, despite the fact that time and again, it has been shown that Big Government is hopelessly against the individual.

This terrifies me.

After all, it's a VERY short trip from a request for individuals to snitch on dissent to requiring people to report dissent, to it being blatantly illegal.

Isn't this the type of stuff that those liberal Hypocrites just spent the past 8 years decrying about the Bush Administration? And now they want a free pass on performing the same actions?

It's like that--quite funny--image of Obama as the Joker. When the Liberal press drew Bush as the Joker, it was high political satire. But now that it's the Chosen One's image, it's racist and evviiillll.

I'm sorry you silly Liberals, but you can't have it both ways.

What do you mean "Read The Bill?"

I'm utterly, and truly amazed.

Flabbergasted.

Astounded even.

I'm utterly and hopeless amused and ashamed by something I just read. What you may ask? Why the simple fact that the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer (D-MD) recently told a reporter:

If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes

Worse, he viewed the entire concept as one big joke.

While LAUGHING about the whole thing, this was his response:

I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill

He's up there, the MAJORITY LEADER for the House of Representatives, and basically telling the nation, "well, hell, I don't read the bill, just that brief overview from when they started the legislative process. I don't really care about what's in it, so long as the right keywords are in the summary."

And this is one of the guys who's a supposed leader of the House.

I can see me, telling my boss, "well, you know, I didn't bother reading the actual requirements, or what the user wanted when I was building that software. I just kind of went with what I thought the document should say."

That'd be a quick trip to the unemployment line for yours truly.

Why on earth wouldn't a Representative or Senator WANT to read the Bill? Isn't it supposed to be their entire purpose in Washington in order to represent the PEOPLE in our Federal Government.

Our government is out of control. Our Representatives and Senators are passing who knows what (not even they know all of the laws which they pass) and We The People are suffering for it.

There's no one alive who knew the what the entirety of the over 1,500 page bill behind the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was. It had not been released in its final form to the populace via THOMAS before it was voted on and passed through the House. What we did know was that it equaled to trillions in new taxes within the next 5 years all to supposedly make a less than .02 percent decrease in ambient temperatures possible over the next 50 years.

Think on that, trillions in new taxes that everyone gets to pay, all over some junk science that may or may not have an effectively undetectable difference on the global temperature. Yeah, that's good government there....

The same applies to the over 1,000 page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--worse, because of the stupidity found within that law, additional laws had to be created to make changes to it. Which wouldn't have been needed if they had provided the populace time to review the document, and if they, our elected representatives, had taken the time to review the document.

But of course that's working under the impression that our Representatives and Senators actually care about our nation.

Because frankly, from where I'm sitting, all they are concerned about is keeping their power in Washington.


The Read The Bill pledge is a good START for our nation to get itself back on track. But we need more changes.

I believe that we need the following changes to how Congress/our Federal Government operates:

1. Make Senators appointed from State Legislatures again. The entire Constitutional purpose of the Senate was to give the STATES a voice in the Federal government; it was not supposed to be another representative branch of the populace.
2. Make each bill be required to show which portion of the Constitution allows Congress to enact it
3. Have each law read into the public record prior to a vote, with the following conditions:
1. Each Representative/Senator must be there for the entire reading
2. The entire reading must be performed at one time
3. Any Representative/Senator who leaves during the reading is not allowed to vote on the law
4. All laws twilight based upon the majority that voted for said law
   
1. With a simple majority (50%+1 vote or greater) the law would twilight in 2 years
2. With a moderate majority (65% or greater) the law would twilight in 3 years
3. With a super majority(75% or greater) the law would twilight in 5 years
4. Laws could be written to twilight earlier, but not later
   

I Lied Last Night

In the post yesterday evening I told something of a fib. Mainly that I didn’t know what the Liberals were thinking when they claimed that the Cap-And-Trade bill was a good idea.

The sad thing is that I know exactly what they’re thinking, and exactly how they’re duping large numbers of people into believing in it, and more or less all of their messages and programs and attacks against the economy.

They’re trying to make things “easy” for everybody. They’re trying to make the government into this massive big-brother which watches all, knows all, and decides what is best for all.

Freedom be damned, because it’s not about freedom. Sure, on things they like, they’re willing to turn a blind eye. They’ll find all sorts of new “rights” in the Constitution, and in the process will “get out government out of the bedroom.”

But the important things? Our livelihoods. Our ability to keep the money which we work hard to earn? No, they want control of that.

They want you to look at all these good ideas they have. All these plans and programs which look great on paper, but have faltered and screwed up, and turned out like the old Soviet Union time and again.

How long will it be before we have our own Tiananmen Square massacre because some college students got uppity enough to demand freedom?

The Liberal/Progressive out there wants you to judge him or her based upon the goodness of their idea. Not the potential end result, or the end result of other programs like it in the world.

They offer free health care, and don’t mention that it will end up just like Medicare.

They wave this magical wand to lower the world’s temperature by less than a tenth of a degree over the next fifty years, but tell you to not pay attention to the massive costs in raised energy prices and loss of jobs.

They talk about wealth redistribution, and evening the playing field, forgetting the fact that most Congressmen make more money than most of their constituents.

They talk about the horrors of the common citizen owning guns, but fail to report that time and again it has been proven that the more access the general populace has to weapons, the less violent a city is (compare crime statistics of Chicago with its draconian gun control laws and basically all of Florida with its rather open definition of the Castle Doctrine).

Conservatives/Libertarians/Constitutionalists just cannot go up against that. Are offer of smaller government, less intrusive government falters when we don’t offer the pretty shiny penny to go along with it.

Forget that our concept means that you get to keep dollars that you earn.

You see, the Progressives have realized a simple truth. They can keep power by offering people money. What do they care where that money comes from, from their point of view, it’s the governments.

Whereas a Conservative sees it as the populace’s money which the government has sucked from the economy and those able to build true wealth.

There’s a fundamental disconnect with a Conservative’s message in this day and age. Conservatives believe that a person must make it on their own. They have to stand up and try and succeed. They have to have the knowledge to make informed and good decisions, and that they have the right and responsibility to do so.

And that’s not easy to take.

Especially if you’ve lived off the government for years upon years of your life.

But there it is, and fundamentally that’s the choice the between progressives and conservatives. Do you want government controlled (tyranny) and easy, or freedom and hard.

For me, that choice will always be an easy one; for no matter the hardships, I choose my freedom.

A Sad, Sad Day

Well, Thursday evening was, at the “Cap-And-Trade” bill was passed in the House.  What is saddest is that there were 8 so-called Conservatives (at least they get a little “R” next to their name) who voted FOR this bill.

Those Republican Representatives are:

• Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
• Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
• Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
• Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
• LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
• McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
• Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
• Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

Now, one may wonder why it is that I despise this particularly bill. After all, the Democrats promise us that it’s ever-so-important in regards to the environment.

What the Dims don’t want you to know, is that this bill will be responsible for raising that cost of energy by thousands of dollars.  And that price tag is even before you factor in the jobs that will be lost, and the 1.6 Trillion dollar price tag attached.

In effect this is a massive tax on every person in this country.

But of course the Liberals don’t want THAT to be the sound bite. They tell everyone that the Businesses pick up the bill. That the “Cap and Trade” in question here are just fines and fees levied against businesses.

But that belays the most obvious thing that any business owner will tell you:

 Businesses do not pay taxes.

It’s simple. They don’t. They never have, and they never will. Anything that comes their way that is labeled as a tax or a fee or a fine, is merely passed onto the consumer. It’s part of the price that you pay for any good or service.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant. Or both.

But it gets better, those folks who know these things—and I’m including the greenies here –state that this bill will influence the environment by less than 1/10th of a degree in 50 years.

Yes, our “fair” leaders have seen fit to saddle us with massive debt, a program which encourages the wasteful spending of states such as California, and passes that burden onto more fiscally conservative states (such as Indiana) and one which seems to be designed to drive businesses overseas.

They will be driven to counties which produce more “greenhouse” gases than we do, and by driving our businesses to them, they will see no real reason to stop producing the gasses which get an environmentalist’s panties into such a bunch.

In fact, this is what the Heritage Foundation has defined as the end result of this bill if it manages to pass the Senate:

• Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;
• Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and
• Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.

By 2035 the bill will:

• Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
• Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
• Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
• Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
• Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; and
• Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation

Why anyone thought this was a good idea is beyond me, but I guess that’s why I’m a Conservative.

"We the people are coming."

Republishing this letter from The Smallest Minority, just because it rocks.

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Respect Mah Authoritah!

There's been a lot of recent media attention revolving around the 72-year-old Grandmother in Texas who was tasered by a cop who pulled her over for a routine speeding ticket.

Early on, she got on the media and claimed that the cop lied about her being verbally abusive. Frankly, I believed her--this due to the fact that it seemed more reasonable to me that a cop tasered this woman for jollies than she was verbally abusive.

Well, the police released the video, showing exactly what happened in all it's glory.

And yes, the woman was a bit verbally abusive towards the officer.

But does that give him the right to taser her? Would your opinion be different if he had hit her with his fists or his nightstick? What if he had shot her with his gun?

Frankly, I see no difference between a taser, a gun or a nightstick. All are weapons, and all can, and do, kill.

Now, yes, this woman was speeding, and Texas law does require you to sign a reckless driving summons. So, yes, this woman was in violation of the law by refusing the ticket.

At which point, the officer should have taken her and placed her in the back of the squad car as he was doing.

Which if you've watched the video, it is on this being escorted to the squad car that the woman said she would go ahead and sign the ticket. It is this point, at which this government-mandated goon should have allowed the woman to sign the ticket and go about her merry way.

Instead, he proceeds to push her against the back of her truck, and when she attempts to return to her vehicle, he blocks her, pushes her again, tosses down his ticket book, and then tasers her as she turns away from him.

Yes, this big man, tasered a grandmother who had her back turned to him. Big man there. Oh wait, I'd better not say that, don't want him to come taser me.

But you know what, none of that matters. Sure, the woman was being argumentative, and wasn't the most responsive to the officer's demands. But so what? That's not a reason to taser her.

And as is usually the case, it gets better! The officer in question has been praised by his direct superior, because the officer in question did everything by the book. He treated this woman just the way that the Officers of the Law are expected to treat any one who dares to not immediately bow down in obeisance to said Officers of the Law.

As if wearing a state-approved costume automatically grants you the wisdom and right to be above the citizens who pay your salary.

Most of the people who are approving of this cop's actions are doing so because the lady didn't listen to what the cop said, and worse, because she had the audacity to argue with him.

Maybe if more folks argued with the Powers That Be, we would have less Powers That Be.

No, I cannot think of any legitimate reason that this woman should have been tasered. She had no weapons, and was not physically violent. She was merely argumentative, and unwilling to a) sign a summons and b) place herself into the back of a car driven by a man that she did not know, and was attempting to physically restrain her.

God forbid that there's someone who's not instantly deferential to the "Boys in blue."

Why so hard to contact a Representative?

You know, in this day and age of instant communication, I find it odd that our elected Representatives in Washington still see the need to enforce filters on their email between us and them.

Oh sure, you can go to the House website, and enter in all sorts of information and then click the SEND button. But that's just a hassle.

What's worse, is that when you do do so, and you finally get a response (weeks later mind you) then you're are out of luck if you try to RESPOND.

Your representative begins an email dialogue with you, but as in most things where Washington is concerned, it's all one way. You try to respond to the email you just got, and you get the following error message:

550 550 5.7.1 Unable to deliver to (state 14)

I find it odd. Now, what brought this on you might ask? Well, I recently contacted my Representative (Gregg Harper) through that hard-to-use form on the House website, and provided him my view on H.R. 1256--which I see as a fairly straightforward power grab by our Congress.

He responded, told me that he voted in the AFFIRMATIVE for a list of "feel-good" reasons, mostly involving minors and "research."

Then he ended his email with this line:

Again, I appreciate you sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

So you can see why I'd be annoyed that I could NOT immediately contact him with my response and thoughts. It's annoying. It actually makes me think that they make that form hard to use just so that they will be bothered as little as possible by their constituents. They certainly don't want a dialog on their decisions.

But, since I'm fed up with the online form at House.Gov, I've decided to place my response here on my website. This is the email that I attempted to send by way of further dialog on Mr. Harper's decision to support H.R. 1256:

Mr. Harper,

Sadly, I don't remember (nor can I find) the part of the Constitution which grants the government--or Congress specifically--the powers as outlined by this bill. Could you please provide me an annotated copy of the proposed legislation detailing the relevant articles (or amendments) of the Constitution which allows Congress to infringe upon these rights of the states and citizenry?

Another concern is the fact that this is nothing but a sin tax to be levied against those individuals who chose to partake of cigarette. After all, any fee which is imposed upon a business (and this bill imposes a fee upon businesses) are inherently passed onto consumers in the way of higher prices.

Then I have to wonder on the wisdom of raising the minimum legal age at which an individual can purchase tobacco products (which routine--and expensive--studies to determine the feasibility of such are a part of this bill). It is currently 18 in most states, the age at which an individual reaches their majority--and can thus enter into contracts, join the military and vote. Why then is this not also an appropriate age at which they can make the decision to smoke or not?

Additionally, State Laws already prohibit the sale and marketing of tobacco product to minors. Why exactly do we need another level of bureaucracy and legislation--at a Federal Level-- to reiterate this point? If the minors in question decide to break the state laws in regards to the purchase of tobacco products, how is having another way to fine the business people who are duped by these teens to purchase tobacco products a good and relevant thing? How is the cost of enforcement of this law going to help anything, especially in the current climate of financial insecurity in which we find ourselves.

Maybe later I'll find the time and energy to actually wade through the House website and send this through their arcane "Contact Us" form.

And maybe one day, they'll actually be concerned enough about what their constituents think that our elected Representatives would welcome a dialog from their constituents.

But I'm not holding my breath for that....

Obama: Ignore The Man Behind The Curtain....

Sometimes, I really do have to wonder what the Democrats/Lefties are smoking up there in their little world-outside of Reality.

The White House has published a new report that claims that to "fix" the economy requires a revamping of our health care system. Their justification? The fact that Health Care, which currently accounts for ~18% of our GDP is estimated to grow to be around 30-34% of our GDP in THIRTY years. Yes, thirty, 3-0.

What, the report is not telling you is that the taxes to pay for the another expansion of Government abilities and capabilities, would crush our economy with 5.

Let's look at the two biggest tax items which are in the works to "pay" for health care by Government Mandate. The first is the "beverage" tax. What this is, is a tax on any drink you drink. Everything from sweet tea, to coke to beer to wine falls under the purview of this tax, dedicated to drive a majority of the food/dining industry out of business.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

The next tax is the VAT, or the Value Added Tax. This works similar to a National Sales Tax, except it is on EVERY transaction (while sales taxes are typically applied only to transactions where no resale is involved). And while this does have potential, they're talking about adding it to the top of our already complex Income Tax system. This will ensure that our already weakened retail industry falters further.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

And that's just the issues involved on the TAX side of things that health care reform will cause. Then there's also the simple fact that health care as we know it will cease to exist. After all, once Bureaucrats get in charge of making health decisions for you what you want, or think you need, will be irrelevant.

We'll see more cases, like the recent one where someone is being forced to undergo chemotherapy at a Judge's orders, despite the fact that he does not want to.

In every area of our lives that bureaucrats exist, we see petty tyrants doing things to harm the very people who they are supposed to be helping.

• In California, the "Land Use" bureaucrats tried to force a couple who were holding a Bible study with a few friends (~15) in their home to get an major use permit
• Some Veterans are turned away from VA hospitals because clerks are unable to fill out the DD214 forms correctly
• The Dutch have a plan to force "Unfit Mothers" to take contraception, and if you get pregnant while on the contraceptives, they will take your child\

Here in the U.S., Liberals love looking at our neighbors to the East and seeing all these grand, and wonderful plans they have in action. They see the social systems in place in France, Britain, Germany and Sweden, and they salivate and say "This is good."

But they never stop and actually LOOK at these things. They don't pay attention to the fact that Britain, France and Germany are all limiting access to health care. They're rationing doctors and medicines and diagnostic treatments.

In 1996, Michael D. Tanner wrote an article entitled "A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine" for the CATO Institute. In it he explains how Medicare fails. How the properties of a very elementary rule forces programs like this to fail.

That rule: If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it.

This is a simple truism. I have free cell phone minutes to my wife, therefore I call her routinely just to chat and hear her voice. Before "family plans" and free mobile-to-mobile minutes, I would only call to provide relevant information--things I needed for her to know.

These problems, the access issues, the poor service, the general... crappiness of medicare, are proof that the government should not be involved in health care for the people. The fact that they can't even get Veteran health care right--and there's a lot less of them, than on either Medicare or private insurance--is proof that they should not be doing this.

But above and beyond that, this is something outside of the bounds of what our Founding Fathers expected us to do with this country. They would be appalled at the thought that we have invested so much power into the hands of so few.

Need proof, then we but have to look to the words of one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, who in the Federalist No. 45 wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

and during a speech at the Virginia constitutional convention in December of 1829 said:

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.

Our Government was not designed to hold this power, and it should not, for it puts too much power over ourselves, our bodies and our health, into the hands of just a few bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats whose sole purpose will be the gaining of more power and prestige for themselves.

A scary thought, where the health of my family is concerned.

2 School Shootings!

In the past few days there have been 2 shootings involving colleges. The first I want to talk about happened yesterday (5/6/09) on the campus of Wesleyan University, and involved a man walking into the college bookstore there, and shooting a poor girl dead.

Yes, this man, walked through those magical, pixie-powered force fields called "no-gun zones" and managed to hold a gun as it spontaneously spat out a projectile towards a young lady, identified as Johanna Justin-Jinich of Timnath, Colorado, who was merely working at her job.

And if you missed any of the sarcasm which filled that sentence, you need to go back to high school.

It was a sad thing. It is. But unsurprisingly, there are news articles all over the place (here's Fox News' rendition). In fact it is a story produced by the Associated Press. I'd be surprised if everyone hasn't heard of this particular story by dinner time tomorrow.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the AP shouldn't have reported on this. It is a news worthy event, a young girl lost her life to what amounts to a wild animal.

But I said there were two shootings.

The second story, once again involved a college student. This time though (and this happened on 5/4/09), their were two gunmen. The basics is that a group of students were having a birthday party for someone in an apartment, when two men (and I use that term only in the sense that they are human males) burst into the home waving guns about. They then segregated the men and women, and one of them began to count the bullets they had with them.

Based upon the conversation between the two criminals, their intention was to kill all the men, and then rape and kill the women.

Anyways, the college student in question, one Tom Jones, grabbed a gun from his bookbag, and protected himself, and the others--and in the process ridding the world of one more useless drain on society, sadly his aim was a bit off, as he failed to rid the world of both of the drains in question.

This story managed to get some local news coverage, but that was it. It did not appear on Fox News, and the Associated Press had nothing on it at all.

Now, what's the difference between the two stories?

It's simple, in the first, the person doing the shooting was entirely the evil one. He went into the bookstore and just killed the poor girl. In the second, the one doing all the shooting was a hero. He protected himself and others--not just his friends that he was with that night, but all the other potential victim of the useless twit who wanted to rape and kill them all.

Frankly, they are both news worthy events. They're both describing attacks, but one had a "happy ending" with the innocent still alive, and worse, still alive due to the presence of a gun! The other story showed a gun entirely in an evil light--and because the victim was in a state-mandated shooting gallery gun free zone, there was no one there who was willing and/or able to protect her.

Personally, if I were Johanna's parent, I'd be screaming that these nonsensical gun-free zones be done away with. After all, if there had been someone there with a CCP and a gun, Johanna could possibly still be alive today.

On the other hand, Charles Bailey, one of the 10 people saved by Tom Jones, at least knows that he owes his life to a gun. Maybe next time, he'll be the one willing to risk himself to save those around him.

Now for some blatant emotionalism!

I despise emotionalism. I hate it in church. I hate it at work. And above all things, I hate it in my politicians. To me, there is nothing more cowardly, and despicable than a politician who takes someones tragedy, and then tries to create an unconstitutional law in order to score political favor-points off of it.

What am I talking about? Why the recent Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act which was introduced into the House by Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK.

Well, there's a nice list of those despicable, cowardly politicians I was talking about.

Of course, now you're probably wondering just what it is about this law which has earned it, and its writer, such harsh and severe descriptions? Well, frankly, what this law is trying to do is make me a felon. The thing is that the way I wrote this blog post alone, is enough to get me sentenced to no less than 2 years in a federal penitentiary according to this law. Here's the meat and potatoes of this law:

`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `communication' means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

`(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.

What this translates into is that anyone who tries to coerce someone through aggressive words (which the entire point of this blog is to coerce folks to my line of reasoning, and I'm not above using aggressive and severe words to do so) can be charged and sentenced under this proposed law.

My only guess is that list of despicable, cowardly politicians above just did not get that whole First Amendment thing.

I also have to question if they truly understood their Oath of Office where they swore to protect and uphold the Constitution. Of course being politicians, I guess they figured that they were above such petty things as the Law of the Land.

I'm sorry that Megan Meier lacked the moral fortitude, and the thick skin generated by traditional play yard play, that she felt the need to kill herself for what someone wrote on the internet. Yet that is no excuse for what these despicable, and cowardly politicians are trying to do in her name.

Crazy Killing Machine Buyers...

ABC has an article up on its website currently about the EVVVILLL gun shows, and how they are such dangerous, evil things, that need to end.

I'm sickened by it. Truly. The Liberal, anti-Constitution bias in the article causes literal pain for me. They carry on about the evilness of gun shows, and even go to classify a LEGAL way to purchase a product a "loophole."

Basically, the entire article is an emotional call, made by one of the legally-mandated sitting ducks students of the Virgina Tech massacre's brother on just how bad guns are. Forget the fact that if someone had been armed that morning in that particular building that it would not be remembered as the largest massacre by a sole gunman. He waxes inanely about wanting to "protect" other people, and how he's trying to do so by showing how easy it is to get guns.

And I'm still trying to figure out, just how not letting additional guns be purchased legally will stop someone willing to murder others? I mean think about it, if someone is willing and wanting to take the extreme step of killing someone, do you think that creating magical legal barriers will stop them from doing it with a gun?

If you do, I have a very nice bridge I'd like to sell you.

Personally, I have long thought it the height of insanity to create these nice shooting galleries where those willing to carry out massacres can go, safe in the knowledge that folks whom are actually concerned about carrying out the law will not be carrying their guns.

Yet, that's not the worse thing about the article. I can say this, because ABC allows comments. Which of course, provided me this particular gem of utter tripe and stupidity by someone named "truth_2_power":

only crazy people would support the ability to buy killing machines this easily... the world has changed and the laws need to as well

I'm going to take a look at the second part of that stupidity first. "The world has changed, and the laws need to as well." From a certain point of view, he's right. The world has changed, and the laws do need to. We need to open up, and make it easier for the populace to own guns.

Of course, that's not what he's meaning. This fine, upstanding, member of the easily-victimized-by-criminals brigade wants everyone to be as helpless as he himself is. Forget the fact that places with concealed carry have less crime. Forget the fact that the police are more likely to use their weapons in an illegal manner than the non-police. Truth_2_Power wants everyone to be as unprotected, and victimizable as he himself is. He insanely believes that making it harder for people who are good upstanding citizens to procure guns will stop people who have no respect for the laws already.

And no matter how you cut it, that's just not true.

Now, let's look at the brilliance of the first part of his statement: only crazy people would support the ability to buy killing machines this easily.

I went to Bass Pro Shops the other day. While there, I purchased a number of machines whose sole purpose was to kill. That's it. That's what they are designed to do. I bought two-dozen of them. It took me minutes, fifteen at the most. My identification wasn't checked. I didn't have to fill out any paperwork. Yet, I was in and out with those killing machines with a "thanks, come again."

What machine was this? Fishing hooks. Which killing machine is not the point. The point is that truth_2_power thinks that just because something can be utilized to hurt someone, then no one, but those magically blessed by the State (or those willing to break the law), should have it.

Any day of the week, you can go into nearly any store and purchase something with which to kill:

• Lowe's -- good night, that's a cornucopia of mayhem--chunks of wood, power tools, saws, axes
• Target -- walk through the sporting goods section, see all those baseball bats and golf clubs?
• Any gas station sells me the needed ingredients for a molotov cocktail
• Pharmacys & grocery stores are slower in their killing machines, as they sell poisons

What truth_2_power seems unable to comprehend is that there are people out there who are willing to kill, steal, and rape. They have no problems with this, and are happiest when they know that their victims do not have the means with which to protect themselves.

And don't even think of saying the word "police." The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly stated (Castle Rock v. Gonzales--June 27, 2005) that individuals have no inherent right to police protection. And this isn't the first time. That particular judgment was based upon a long history of case law. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

And in some states, this concept is embedded in actual state law. For example, California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 state (in part): "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

Yet, truth_2_power, and his liberal, anti-Constitution brethren, wish us to believe otherwise. He wants us to happily become the sheep which the police, the government and the criminals fleece.

The only way to truly protect ourselves from those who wish to do us harm is to do it ourselves. We, are the only people capable, and concerned enough to do so. Go out, buy a gun, and get a concealed carry permit. It works, even the police agree.

The Taxman Cometh

And apparently he's bringing friends.

In an, at least to me, un-amazing move, numerous state, county and even city governments are dreaming up hundreds of ways in which to tax you their constituent.

Here in Mississippi there is talk of both a new cigarette tax, and a new healthcare tax, all in an effort to keep from having to raise the taxes on automobiles.

And Mississippi is not alone in these things. States and municipalities across the nation are taxing everything from tobacco products to strip clubs. And this is even before the trillions in new taxes which Obama's budget promises to crush us with.

The new law of the land seems to be "if it exists, then it can be taxed."

Every tax that's being proposed, has the sole effect of hurting a business, investor or the population in general (don't believe me? check that budget again, there's a cap-and-trade tax which will raise electric rates).

Yet our elected officials seem oblivious to the simple fact that rather than raising taxes, why don't we cut out the pointless, duplicated and un-needed government programs.

Do we need a Federal Department of Education, when traditionally, education is a LOCAL matter, and we elect superintendents on a per-county basis? No!

Do we need huge swatches of income taken from people, under duress and threat of imprisonment, and have that money be given to other people in wealth redistribution schemes? No!

Do we need a special police force dedicated to alcohol, tobacco and firearms? No!

Do we need state police forces, when each county has a sheriff's office, and most towns a police department? No!

Our governments are big, lumbering bureaucracies in this day and age. This is a bad thing. It is an evil thing, and as such needs to go away.

Now, I'm not encouraging anarchy, but I am encouraging a small, streamlined government presence, with a focus on personal liberty.

After all, that's what the Constitution promises us.

Here, There Be Slavery

Ah, the sweet joys of Freedom. America is a bountiful land, where laws which force our children into mandatory "service" programs, removing their ability to speak out against potential legislation and their ability to practice their religion would never pass.

...

Oh wait, that was BEFORE the Obama Administration. Apparently, I've been dreaming about the standards which our Founding Fathers placed into our Constitution. After all, H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act managed to get passed.

Now, despite the wonderful wording, this act has NOTHING to do with volunteers. Volunteers still have their rights, and volunteers are not forced to perform a service in order to gather the needed high-school credits to graduate or to get financial aid for college.

This is what Rahm Emanuel describes as the Obama Administration's "vision" for this plan:

We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.

"Universal civilian service" is not volunteerism, it's a draft. Yet because this is not for the military, and worse, it's enforced across the board, the Liberal Left is not up in arms over it. Because it's for organizations approved by the Left they're quiet and inattentive.

But if the scope and vile of the act itself is not enough to turn one's stomach, then one can just look forward to the amendments. Here's my personal favorite:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
…

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Yes, you read that correctly. An individual who "volunteers" for this mandatory, universal service (i.e. this enforced slavery at the hands of the State) must give up their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

And people wonder why I get so irked when they claim that the Bill of Rights "gives" us our rights instead of the more accurate description that the Bill of Rights enumerates certain of our God-given rights as a reminder to the State.

This is a firm step that the government believes that it can legislate itself out of the Bill of Rights.

Sadly, both of the Senators for Mississippi (Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker) voted YES for this act. Even worse, 3 out of 4 Mississippi Representatives voted Yes for this bill (Travis Childers, Bennie Thompson, and Gene Taylor). That means out of all of Mississippi representation to Congress, only Gregg Harper stood up for personal rights, and against this monstrosity of a draft into indentured servitude of our children.

The purpose of this bill is to create a body of individuals who place their full faith in the Government and do not question their orders. Additionally, it is to be structured as a paramilitary system, for "civil defense" that is as "well-funded as the real military."

Compare this concept with how the Encyclipedia Britanica describes the values of a Fascist dictatorship:

Fascists favoured military values such as courage, unquestioning obedience to authority, discipline, and physical strength. They also adapted the outward trappings of military organizations, such as paramilitary uniforms and Roman salutes.

This is what our nation is becoming. This is the horror that our Congressmen have voted to force onto us. This is the change that Obama promised.

And people wonder why I voted for Ron Paul.



To see how your state fared, look here for the House, and here for the Senate.

Taking Your Business, By Duress

I'm aghast. Utterly, and truly, mind-numbed beyond belief. I have now read something which utterly scares me.

Odd how that seems to happen with more and more frequency these days, eh?

So, what has gotten my proverbial panties in a bunch (does "this time" need to be added?)?

Well, it's Treasury Secretary Geithner, who happens to be Obama's lapdog employee in matters relating to finances and the economy. What's happened is that on Tuesday he went before Congress and "requested" the ability to seize non-bank financial firms (as an aside, the non-political FDIC can seize banks). This power he would then exercise via consultation with the Fed and the President.

So basically, what this guy wants is the ability to nationalize any organization that strikes his fancy.

And how exactly is this not socialism?

Amusingly, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has apparently jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon and started questioning him on just what part of the Constitution allowed for this, and other actions that have been taken since March of 2008, to occur.

Of course, he was only able to point at Congress since no one in the White House is quite certain just what the Constitution says. After all, they had quite a bit of fun rewriting/interpreting the second and fourth amendments (as an aside, as of today (3/25) that bad wording is still up at WhiteHouse.gov site).

This is why our nation is failing. This is why we need major reforms of our laws. This is why we need to go back to our roots and shrink this over-bloated monstrosity which we call a Federal Government.

When the government begins to take the stance that it is all right for it to randomly, and unilateraly take private possessions then you know something is amiss. You know that our freedoms and our liberty are once again curtailed and will suffer.

Additionally, wasn't one of Obama's "promises" to do away with the whole lobby construct? How exactly would this help that? What this does is forces non-bank financial corporations to PUSH money at those they beleive will be in power in order to buy good will so that their business won't be seized by government fiat.

Don't believe me? Then how about this, we know that Chris Dodd is the Senator responsible for ensuring that those $160 Million in bonuses (out of the $107,000 Million in federal "bailout" funds) at AIG were allowed legally. Guess who got the most campaign contributions from AIG?

Here's a hint, it wasn't Ron Paul. Heck, it wasn't even Barney Frank this time.

This is the environment which the Obama administration is creating. Strong-arm tactics designed to force companies to do the will of the administration -- or risk your entire company being TAKEN from you.

Finally, once the government has this power in the hands of the Treasury Secretary what is stopping them from putting it into the hands of the Energy Secretary or the Commerce Secretary? It's a very small step from the government grabbing "non-bank financial companies" to the government grabbing "companies."

We've seen it in Public Domain seizures. Traditionally, properties were only grabbed in Public Domain for roads or schools or other government needs. Today, thanks to the Courts, Public Domain is utilized to seize property so that it can be given to private investors.

Now, imagine this scenario. Say, someone owns and runs a small non-bank financial firm. Now, imagine that AIG has been trying to purchase this firm, but offering a pittance as opposed to a true valuation of the company's worth. Since we know that AIG can buy Senator Dodd in the matter of bonuses, it's not a small step to seem them buying a Secrertary and having this small firm seized, and then given over to AIG, much the same way that Public Domain works today.

Now imagine that being the case for any business anywhere.

With this power, the government will utterly own every aspect of our lives. Everything we have or do, will be at the whims of the government. We will be slaves to this massive monstrosity which is Federal Socialism. Consider the following:

• We rent our land from the government (since we're forced under duress to pay property taxes or be evicted from said land) despite any type of ownership claims
• The government can claim said land, and give it to any organization as they see fit via Public Domain
• The government can seize your finances or non-land property on the suspicision of drug activity thanks to the "War on Drugs" (unless you happen to be a current or former Congressman)
  
• The government seizes your income (and the more you make, the more they take) to redistribute it as the government sees fit
  
• If this new power is given to the Administration, the government can seize any business, and all businesses will run at the whim of the government rather than market forces
  

This is the "Land of the Free" which our forefathers shed their blood and tears for. This is the land which our forefathers threw tea into Boston harbor for.

If only it still was.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

Expanding Thought Crimes Since '09

It has been 6 days since The One was elected and already politics is an utter, and rather unsurprising mess. Three, interrelated things, jump out at me to begin with though.

The first is the highly racist inauguration prayer by Rev. Joseph Lowery, in which it was claimed that my views just are not "right" merely because I am white. Of course, our esteemed proponent for tolerance, virtue, change and hope (i.e. the President) responded to this, at least what I viewed as a, direct attack against my race with merely a smile.

This from the man who no longer wishes to divide us!

Still hopeful?

But, as in most things government, it just gets BETTER!

The second thing that has been brought to light is that one Robert Reich, the 22^nd Secretary of Labor and an Obama adviser, has gone before Congress stating that "professionals and white, male construction workers" are not the focus of the upcoming "stimulus" package which Obama is putting together.

Additionally, he states that those companies that do use funds from the stimulus package must hire those people either unwilling or unable to effectively work, therefore they are considered long-term unemployed, minorities or women.

Forget the concept of hiring the best person for a job, no, it's more important that someone of the "right" skin tone has the position; and as evidenced by the Reverend Lowery's prayer we all know that "white" isn't right.

It seems to never fail, the more the government gives, the happier people are to take. Why Liberals believe this is good for people, the government or the economy is beyond me. Our nation was founded on the back of those willing to work, and to work hard; that drive, that sense of doing has gone--and government funded stimulus packages are not going to recover it. It has to come from outside the public realm. It has to come from the private, as people generate new ways to devise and move income. It cannot come from the government stealing my money to give to others; additionally, I should not be forced to subsidize others for the same reasons.


Finally, while viewing the new, and "improved" WhiteHouse.gov (I still so want to go to WhiteHouse.com), I find this lovely tidbit of tantalizing stupidity:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.

What this means is that your INTENT in doing, pretty much anything, will garner you much, much worse punishments than what you actually do or did.

This criminalizing of intent scares me to no ends. We've already established that the government doesn't want any type of speech out there that could make one scared of government precepts (read this rant).

Thoughtcrimes, facecrimes, hatecrimes. These are all just tools used by our Government in an effort to force us to do its will, as opposed to the government doing the will of the people as it is supposed to.

Here is the quote of the day:

racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric

I have to admit something, this statement left me flabbergasted. I mean utterly, and totally unable to come up with a reasonable, coherent thought for at least three minutes. This comes from a recent OP/ED piece in the New York Times by Paul Krugman, a Nobel-prize winning economist.

Yes, you read that right, a Nobel winner is up there associating small government with racism.

Why? Because he hates the GOP, and by extension Conservatives; and everybody knows that the GOP is all sorts of evvvilll, and those pesky conservatives, what with their self-reliance and people should work for what they get attitudes are always trying to hold the Black Man Down!

I teach my boys that regardless of how many times he tells a lie, or a falsehood, or just claims that his name is Rex Racer that it just doesn't change the truth of things.

Let us be clear for a moment, the failures of the Bush Administration, the failures of the GOP, and racism have absolutely nothing to do with the concepts of Small Government.

Nothing.

Well, actually, let me rephrase that, the failure of the Bush Administration and the GOP have everything to do with Small Government--because they both the Bush Administration and the GOP ran screaming from the concept.

No Child Left Behind, The Patriot Act, and a host of other things which expanded the powers and abilities of the government are all to be laid at the doorstep of the Bush Administration and the GOP. Those are not the acts of a group of individuals who believe in small government.

Now, Krugman's article is an attack on Bush and the GOP (surprise!), as such, he goes about pointing out everything that has gone wrong in the past 20 years, and figuring out a way to lay blame on the Conservatives. For example, there's this quote:

after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”

And he makes horrible pronouncements on how "contempt for expertise" was a contempt for government in general. Still not sure on how the two connect, but that's irrelevant; especially in light of this: Obama's intel picks short on direct experience.

Now, does Obama have a contempt for expertise or a contempt for government? While I can't say for the former (as he lacks expertise as well) the latter he definitely loves as all of his erstwhile plans include provisions for more, and more government.

And this is where Krugman's major concept in his article falters. Everything he states, hinges on this whole concept that small government is BAD! Also, he tries to build the case in such a way that it makes it seem like the concept of small government is a Reagon construct.

As he is talking about this contempt of experience, he binds it to contempt of government and Reagan by utilizing this quote:

“Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.”

The message that Krugman is trying to state here is clear:

• Big Goverment = Good & Experience; Small Government = Bad & Inexperienced
• Big Government = No Racism; Small Government = Racism
• Democrats/Liberals = Big Government; GOP/Conservatives = Small Government
• Big Government Looks out for you; Small Goverment, you look out for yourself
  

While that last line is true, sadly, he spins the entire concept so that while reading the article, the first is also logically true. Which no matter how you cut it, I see as a logical fallacy, if not outright lie.

I touched earlier on his tying of the GOP and the Small Government concepts, and I touched on his fallacy of Big Government = Experienced people, as his own wonderboy Obama did the exact same thing in regards to picking people without experience.

Now, for the last binding arguement in his article, and that relates that Small Government is a new thing, created by Reagon as a part of Reagonomics.

And to counter-act that, I have a single name, just off the top of my head: Thomas Paine. That name, even without resorting to Google or Wikipedia to find the other philosphits, and economists who believed in Small Government, kills that whole small government as a Reagon construct thing.

What is sad, is that Krugman, as a Nobel-winning economist, should, and does, KNOW this.

But, let's talk about Paine. This is the man that said:

That government is best which governs least.

Now, let's be clear here, Paine espoused a number of beliefs which I cannot agree with. He was a Diest, and argued against Christianity, yet he was also the main proponent of the American Revolution, and it was his pamphlet Common Sense, which in effect led to the Revolution.

Small Government is a concept that was embedded into our very national identities by our Founding Fathers.

And it is one which Liberals have consistently and happily thrown away at every chance they have gotten.

And yes, I consider Bush and Company Liberals because they do NOT act like Conservatives: fiscally, socially or philosophically.

Surprise! The Government Wants to Destroy More Businesses

Last year (late 2007-early 2008) there were a number of product recalls on toys made in China due to the presence of lead. Now, I'm not going to go into the health issues regarding items with lead and pthalates because let's face it, those are well documented.

No, what has me flipping out is the government's response which is of course via a consumer protection act.

What this thing does, is demand that every item (clothes, toys, etc) that is marketed to children 12 years old and younger must be tested for lead and pthalates. Additionally, this is such a widely inclusive law that it applies to thrift stores, donations to thrift stores, new sales, consignment shops and even yard sales.

So consider just what is going to happen here, because truthfully, this things are already happening:

• Thrift Stores will no longer sell children's items, or at least won't for many months--a long enough time that they can, and will, go bankrupt
• eBay, and other auction sites, will stop accepting auctions on children's items as the cost of verifying the legality of an item's sale status would be prohibitive
• Individuals could be fined and/or arrested for holding a yard sale
• Hand-made, and other small, mostly family-owned, children article manufacturers will go out of business
• Charitable organizations will be forced to only accept new toys, as the law covers donations and giveaways

And that's just the things that pop into my head right away. Of those, I'm impacted greatly by at least two, as my church is the Salvation Army and they utilize a thrift store and do a lot of donation work, and there are a number of family friends of my parents who are in the business of creating hand-made objects, some of them aimed at children.

And all this because Clinton-era rules which relaxed trade restrictions with Communist China. Because, one thing we learned is that all the lead-tainted items came from China.

So, how do I think this law needs to be fixed? It's actually simple, and needs to involve these following parts:

• Remove testing requirements on items that cannot actually be tainted with lead
• Make it be based on manufacturing date after 2/10 rather than a sales date of 2/10
• Make items wholly made in America exempt from the testing requirements
• Make the testing rules more stringent on items coming from known sources of contaminants. I.e. stricter testing for Chinese manufactured items as opposed to say Mexican manufactured items, until the Mexican ones start showing up with lead in their more random tests

Of course this implies that the Congress would be interested in not running a number of small businesses out of business, or that they see value in thrift stores and consignment shops. Of course, we all know that Congress, especially a Democratically controlled Congress, has no true concern over small business or anyone that is not on welfare.

But hey, I'd love to be proved wrong.

Knife Ban--but at police discretion

One and a half inch. That's not a lot of length. In fact it's somewhat pathetically small.

I can admit, the pocket knife that I carry on a daily basis has a 1.5 inch blade. But that's a personal choice, and it wasn't that long ago that I carried a 4 inch blade on a belt holster every day.

Why am I bringing this up? It's because Worcester, Pennsylvania wants to infringe upon its citizens rights and attempt to strip them of the wonderful tool which is a knife. In fact the city council will be having a hearing on it tonight (11/6/08).

BUT it gets better!

It gets better because the imbeciles who want to be Big Brother to the citizens of Worcester actually told us their thoughts on the matter. Let's take a gander at what Council District 3 Councilor Paul P Clancy, Jr. had to say on this:

We have a zero tolerance for these weapons in our schools and now we need to extend it out into the community. This is an ordinance the council needs to pass. It will make it a safer community for all.

Yes, the same lunacy which is Zero Tolerance is shifting out of our schools and into the general populace.

Here's a not so secret, secret: I don't believe in Zero Tolerance policies. If I had my way, I would remove funding from every school district that imposed them until such time as they were rescinded.

But that's me, I believe that we should raise our kids to be mature, capable adults, so what do I know.

Digression aside, I hate Zero Tolerance policies, but let's take a look at this from a fundamental point of view. They want to make it illegal for anyone to have a blade over 1.5 inches in their possession. There's no clauses, no riders, it's just that simple.

My first concern would be for fishermen. My tackle box has a knife with a seven inch blade used for cleaning fish, and another with a smaller blade used for cutting line and other misc. tasks. If this law passed, I could no longer carry my tackle box.

Oh, but the morons writing this law thought of that. After all, District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr. has assured the city councilors that said law would be targeted primarily at the after-hours bars and nightclubs where all these knifings have been occurring.

So, why wouldn't they write that into the law?

Why not put a simple rider, stating that you can't have a knife over x inches on your possession while at a nightclub or bar? Oh, that's right, because these things are all happening AFTER the bars and nightclubs close at folk's personal properties.

So, not only can you not have a knife while fishing, but you can't have it at your house, because someone might stab one of your guests with it. So much for cooking.

Unfortunately, that's not the stupidest part of D.A. Early's statement. Early claims that the police would be able to "target" the law. Which is insane, as that means that someone could easily prove that the law wasn't being fairly enforced and either a) have it thrown out or b) sue the city government for racial discrimination and/or profiling (it'd be simple to prove that a cop didn't charge a white man for the law, but did a black man)--and the city would be lucky if it didn't end up being both.

All in all, kind of scary if you ask me, and if I were a citizen of Worcester, I would be up in arms over this latest example of zero tolerance nonsense and Orwellian government.

Newsgroups and N.Y. Attorney General

Before I begin this let me state unequivocally that I have no interest in child pornography, I don't search for it, I don't peruse it and I do not advocate it.

So, with that disclaimer out of the way, I have to say that what New York's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo , is doing is evil. Fox News has an article on Cuomo and his decision against Comcast news in that:

New York's attorney general notified Comcast Corp. on Monday that the state will take legal action if the company — the nation's second-largest Internet service provider — doesn't agree to eliminate access to child pornography.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo wants major Internet access providers to agree on steps to remove certain newsgroups that contain child pornography and purge their servers of Web sites that contain child porn.

I'm a bit flabbergasted at the sheer idiocy of the New York Attorney General's office. How exactly does he plan on Comcast (or any other ISP) on eliminating access to child pornography.

After all, the only sure-fired way is to eliminate internet access except to very specific websites. Which as we all know, Comcast wants, and encourages, but as a Net Neutrality advocate I can't agree with.

What this does is merely creates a precedent where Comcast and others are able to filter access to the internet based on the possibility that child pornography exists on that particular service.

Don't like BitTorrent? Hey, there's Child Porn, so we've gotta block it.

Don't like AIM? Hey! There's Child Porn, so we've gotta block it.

Don't like GOPHER? Guess what's out there? Child Porn! Gotta block it.

Don't like all those pesky Blogs on LiveJournal or WordPress? Hey look! Child Porn! Time to block it.

Amazon.com is hurting your business? Hey look! It sells Lolita! That's Child Porn masquerading as classic literature! And *gasp* even worse, they sell Pretty Baby! That's a movie! It lacks even that pesky classic literature tag! Ban them from the 'NET!

If this type of activity continues, and the ISPs become controllers of what their end users see or don't see, then the concepts which the internet were built upon are in fundamental danger. The thought that all traffic is the same, that every packet that passes through an ISP's hands should be as anonymous and as important as any other packet is in danger.

The Internet was hailed as a great tool of democracy and free speech.

These types of rules endanger that concept. They in effect struggle to turn this tool of free speech into something twisted and dangerous. These rules try to actively stifle free speech.

These rules try to actively control what you see and do.

Frankly, that's not a power that I want in Comcast's or any other ISPs hands.

And it's definitely not a power that I want in the government's hands.

The Power of our Government

The Federal Government of the United States is an odd beast. On one hand it actively protects consumers via programs such as the FDA which enforces standards on food and drugs, and then there are things such as the recent rulings against COMCAST for their deceptive practices in regards to internet traffic by the FCC.

Being the strict Constitutionalist that I am, I understand the Federal Government's mandate to regulate interstate commerce. Though I do believe that on occasion that particular mandate is stretched to nearly the breaking point in an effort to further socialist programs.

Then, there's the FTC. This particular alphabet department has the unenviable position of dealing with trade issues. Well, one would think that it's unenviable, except as in most government dealings, the FTC has found a way to extort moneys from the very constituents it is designed to protect (other examples of this are taxes and the spectacular failure called the "War on Drugs").

Anyways, S. M. Oliva has posted an article on the Mises Institute website detailing the latest in a long line of abuses by this particular alphabet. This article begins with this paragraph:

On April Fool's Day of this year, New Mexico resident Mark Hershiser received a letter from Erika Wodinsky, a San Francisco attorney, demanding Hershiser turn over all revenue from Native Essence Herb Company, a small business co-owned by Hershiser and his wife Marianne. The letter was not a joke or a mistake. It was a premeditated act of extortion by Ms. Wodinsky. She had never met or spoken with Hershiser; her staff discovered Native Essence through its modest website.

Which is as good a description of what the FTC does to small-businesses as anything else I've read.

I grew up in a small business, my parents owned one, and it would have devasted our entire existence. I can only imagine what it would do to the Hershiser's. Of course, they are doing something which most small business don't do when they receive these demands by the FTC to nationalize their business: they are fighting in the courts.

I am ecstatic to see a business standing up for itself like this. Despite my tendency to not do the whole herbal thing, I am tempted to purchase something from them just because the FTC thinks I shouldn't.

Like Collars?

I gave my older brother a dog collar and leash as a gag-gift on his wedding day. More accurately, I gave it to his new bride, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, it was an amusing gift, solely for the context.

I know a girl or two who wears collars or chokers on a common basis. There's even that girl that got denied access to the bus in England a year or so ago, because she was being lead around by a leash attached to her collar.

Sure, it's odd, but hey, some people just are.

Now, think of those two scenarios: a gag-gift giving to a pair of newlyweds and girls just doing it for shock value/fashion statements. I can see people wearing them.

Now imagine the government demanding that you wear a collar, which contains your personal information, and has the ability to give you a strong enough electrical zap to incapacitate your for several minutes.

Would that make you happy to be wearing a collar?

Well, that's exactly what the Department of Homeland Security wants to do to you if you decide to ride on an airplane. The Washington Times has an article up, describing a letter to a company which produces wristbands which can be used for tracking, data storage, and immobilization requesting a proposal so that the DHS can use the devices for security and interrogations. Said letter was written by one Paul S. Ruwaldt of the Science and Technology Directorate, office of Research and Development, of the Department of Homeland Security.

Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that an American citizen would willingly wish to impose such a device upon another one. Especially under the weight of law and without due process.

This is a gross violation of the intentions of our Bill of Rights. I never signed up for this, and I sure did not vote this Mr. Ruwaldt into an office. So not only is he trying to shackle us all with what amounts to electric dog collars, but he's not even an elected official whom we can recall for such vile behavior.

He's a beuarucrat.

So, basically, we, those law-abiding citizens he wishes to electrify into submission, are paying his salary through our taxes.

Great work Mr. Ruwaldt.

Frankly, I'm left reminded of the Pain Bands from that old Star Trek episode "Spock's Brain." You know the one where the pretty women stole Spock's brain, and were raiding the cavemen who lived on the surface for slaves. Then they controlled the slaves via these belts which both sent electric shocks through the slaves, incapacitating them for several minutes as well as containing information about which slave it was.

You know, I understand that we owe a whole lot of our technologies to Star Trek, but I don't think that Gene Rodennberry ever expected that particular one to actually make the jump from fantasy to reality.

So, again, I must say, "Great Work, Mr. Ruwaldt."

I'm left wondering when I'll get my pain band. After all, it's a very small step from forcing every person who gets onto a plan to have one to just forcing everyone to have one. And of course the Department of Homeland Security and Congress and other members of the ruling Police Elite won't need them.

They are Big Brother after all, and they care for your safety.

First Guns, Now...

I've long been a proponent of loosening our overly restrictive gun laws. Yes, that's right, I want more guns sold to more folks who obey those various laws already in place. I want to be able to carry my weapon anywhere with me, and not have to worry about silly little power-hungry bureaucrats trying to tell me that I cannot carry my gun.

The reasons for this are many, and diverse, not the least of which is the simple fact that I believe it's my right to be able to defend myself from anyone who wishes harm to me or mine.

Anyways, Britian went through the whole hassle of taking all of the guns away from their law-abiding citizens--and conversely, they managed to get a decent number away from the non-law-abiding citizens as well.

So, what did those criminals begin to do? Why use knives of course. After all, a knife is the next best thing to a gun; plus it's quieter! According to an AP report, 15 teenagers have been murdered in London this year, with 11 of those being stabbed to death.

Now, like any responsible, intellect group of people, Britain looked at this situation, and thought, "Hey, we can't stop criminals ourselves, let's make sure that our people can defend themselves."

And then I woke up.

No, what those intelligent, responsible pansys and appeasers in the British government decided was to try to convince the law-abiding citizens to not even carry their knives anymore.

Here's the relevant sentence of the AP report:

Britain's government has begun a campaign of graphic Internet advertisements aimed at warning young people about the dangers of carrying a knife.

Brilliant eh? The dangers of carrying a knife.

Let's be honest here, I carry a knife every day of my life. In the past year, I've not carried it on two distinct days--and both of those days were when I was visiting an airport to get on an airplane. If you reached into my left, front pocket right this second, you'd find it--at which time I'd have to hit you for sticking your hand into my pocket.

Digression aside, I've been doing this for years. In fact, long before it was a pocket knife, it was a six-inch, folding knife I carried on my belt. Quite useful for when I was out in the woods. The relevant thing though is that I carried it nearly every day.

And you know what? I've not once hurt myself or someone else with any of my knifes. I've used my pocket knife to cut things (including straws for my kids) and all sorts of other legitimate uses. Amazing how someone can carry a knife, or a gun, and not hurt someone with the thing.

My point is that a weapon is an inanimate object. No gun or knife ever killed anyone. Not one. It's a literal impossibility that one could do it (at least yet, I'm sure one day we'll have smart, autonomous weapons that will kill their creators). They can be the CAUSE of death; but so can keys, screwdrivers, automobiles, tree limbs, bricks, hands, rolls of quarters or even a rusty spoon.

What is Britain going to take away from its citizenry after all the knives are gone? Forks? Screwdrivers?

It's insane to think that just because a weapon is removed from the people, that the people won't figure out a way to kill one another. Like it or not, it's in our nature to be aggressive beings.

I don't see that changing, no matter how many weapons the government takes from our hands.

The Air Force wants your machine

In something of a frightening follow up to my last post, I stumbled across a HIGHLY interesting article on WIRED today. One entitled "Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All Computers.'"

Maybe because I just read Little Brother yesterday, but I'm horrified at the concept of this.

Basically, what they are wanting to do is build a BOTNET, which sits behind the scenes on your PC, until it is called forth to wreck havoc on the online world. For a more detailed description, I direct your attention to the Wikipedia.

While I can see allowing my CPU to be used for distributed processing by such organizations as SETI@Home, I cannot see myself allowing the United States government the same type of access to my machine.

First and foremost, once they do have access, what is to stop them from installing keyloggers, rootkits or other forms of malicious software?

Why do I worry over such things? Am I trying to hide something?

No. But THAT DOES NOT MATTER.

The machine belongs to me. It is mine, to do with as I please. My belongings can be neither searched nor seized without proper authority by a Judge. That's a Constitutional mandate; despite the fact that the so-called Patriot Act allows for sneak-n-peek searches.

The only bright point, if it can be called that, in this whole fiasco is that their goal is unattainable. The Air Force is wanting to spend $11 Million in an two-year study to determine the information necessary to accomplish this. Which is a joke, since within two years of the study being finished, all the findings and information collected will be essentially useless.

Now one can understand why at best, it's a very dim bright point.

I still find it hard to believe that the government of Jefferson, Washington and Franklin has stooped so low.

Fear in a book

It's not often that a book can scare me. It's not. Consider, I was reading Stephen King in the fourth grade.

I found his books mildly amusing.

Horror movies were a staple growing up. It's just not in me to be scared of the things most folks are. Oh, sure, I can be shocked or startled by sudden onslaught of sound and light, but scared? That's hard for me. I don't get that rush of adrenaline, that understated fear that I've felt in the past when I have been scared.

For the record, the last time I had felt that was when my first son was being born and the doctors discovered that he had had his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck three times.

Tonight, I finished a SF novel that scared me. It left me feeling paranoid and suffering under that intense fight-or-flight syndrome one gets when confronted by things that scare you.

Which book might that be?

Cory Doctorow's Little Brother.

This is a novel that combines technology with common, daily events, and then shove them out until you reach their ultimate conclusion. The fact that Big Brother is watching you. Using everything from wifi sniffing to Bayesian statistics, Mr. Doctorow spins a story about the DHS and its crackdown on the civil rights, all in the name of security, in the setting of San Fransisco.

What is sad, is that I can so see this happening.

Maybe it's because that I knew all the technology he discussed, and the small bits he created I could see how they are logical extensions of existing tech. Maybe it's because a large part of my job is sorting through datasets, and creating algorithms to help people do tasks. In fact one project I worked in the past on required that I track where every login came from, passing authentication information back and forth transparently to the user.

I must be afraid because I can see it happening today.

The closest I've ever come to this feeling before was after reading the novel Dark Rivers of the Heart (0-553-58289-5). That particular novel teaches much the same story, with a focus on how our Congress has taken a liking to writing laws which they are exempt from. For example the drug search and seizure laws, and of course the various perks they give themselves such as free tax filings (for more, see this fun Time article).

Regardless, read the book. Become scared with me.

And remember these two quotes:

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

That was from the Declaration of Independence. This one is from Ben Franklin:

He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will lose both and deserve neither.

Emotional Profiling

Seattle PI has an interesting article on the TSA entitled: Airport Profilers: They're Watching Your Expressions. Frankly this is yet another TSA program that just flat out scares me. It is giving a huge amount of power to individuals with no true way to verify their opinions. It's subjective and emotionalism, and scary to me.

Consider this quote:

But a central task is to recognize microfacial expressions -- a flash of feelings that in a fraction of a second reflects emotions such as fear, anger, surprise or contempt, said Carl Maccario, who helped start the program for TSA.

Basically, if you have a serious hate on concerning authority figures, guess what, if you fly, you make get a strip search.

Yet, if that wasn't scary enough, the fact that it's spreading should scare you. Additionally, one must question why such a program is spreading. After all, here's some statistics from it:

Since January 2006, behavior-detection officers have referred about 70,000 people for secondary screening, Maccario said. Of those, about 600 to 700 were arrested on a variety of charges, including possession of drugs, weapons violations and outstanding warrants.

One percent. Out of the 70,000 people inconvenienced by this emotionalism, less than 1% have been arrested. Additionally, those arrests were due to drug possession, weapons violations and outstanding warrants, which would have most likely been caught via normal operational security. So not only are the numbers on record a 1% success rate, but that is inflated by not removing those from the numbers who would most likely have been caught anyways.

In, parting, I'd like to leave you a passage from a classic work of literature.

It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.

-- 1984 by George Orwell

According to the House, I'm a terrorist now.

H.R. 1955 - PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS

With the passage of this particular bill from the House (by a 404 to 6 vote) that has now been referred to the Senate (Senate Bill 1959), I have been ever closer brought into line with being an evvvilll terrorist. Why do I say that? It's quite simple, the above bill has these definitions in it:

(2) Violent radicalization.— The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) Homegrown terrorism.— The term ‘homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(4) Ideologically based violence.—The term ‘ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

Pay close attention, and how they separate the use of force and violence. In other words, they are NOT the same thing according to this particular law. So, what does force mean if it isn't talking about something physical? Well, that's why we have dictionary.com, which provides us with a whole bunch of definitions. Yet it was these which attracted my attention first:

6. persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.
7. mental or moral strength: force of character.
13. any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
16. value; significance; meaning.
22. to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person: to force one's opinions on others.

Scary eh?

Still don't understand? Consider, the use of force is using something to convince someone of something. It is persuading someone of something, by its very definition. So, every time you win an argument, and persuade someone to your point of view, you've imposed your values upon said person by force.

Now, go re-read this law's definition for Ideologically based violence. I'll wait.

You with me again? Good.

Notice that part about the use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence? That just defined that any time someone writes for or against laws, politics, politicians, religions, or society in general, they are now, by House definition, a "homegrown terrorist."

Mike Adams has an article up on Newstarget that goes on to describe other ways which this law destroys things such as grassroots movements, and tells how you should get in touch with your Senator to express your disdain for this particular law.

Of particular interest in his article is this quote:

In terms of the upcoming election for U.S. President, there is only one candidate that actually believes in freedom: Ron Paul. He needs your support to win: www.RonPaul2008.com

All the other candidates are nothing more than tyrants of different political affiliations. Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly understands the fundamentals of freedom. That's why he's the only real choice for our next President. Can you imagine what Hillary Clinton would do with the police state powers that Bush has now created? That's the danger of all laws that centralize power in Washington: It's not necessarily what today's President will do with them, but what some future President will do with them.

All I have to say to that is "Hear! Hear!"

Do You Remember?

Tomorrow is the anniversary of September 11th. A day of infamy on a par with the attack against Pearl Harbor.

Throughout Myspace and other blogs, we have a plenty of folks espousing us to remember the Firemen and Police Officers and others who lost their lives on that day, just a few short years ago.

While I have no reservations in remembering those that lost their lives in that attack on our sovereignty, I fear that we, as a nation, have forgotten a more important lesson. Mainly, just what our government is supposed to be. Just what it was that our forefathers fought, bleed and died for.

Thomas Jefferson said this:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

That was his definition of good government. Doesn't sound like ours now does it?

What's more, I've been reading a blog lately entitled Pro Liberate, and his latest article is a discourse on Power versus Authority. The author of that blog quite often discusses abuses of police power from across the nation.

Sadly, in this post-9/11 world of ours, he has way to many examples.

On these days when we should be thinking about those who have lost their lives via those "peace-loving" Muslims, instead we are given instances of police brutality and an officer of the law informing someone he pulled over rather randomly that he would perjure himself in order to arrest the car driver.

This is our world today. We live in a country that has forgotten its fundamentals. A country that ignores the backbone upon which our very lives and ideals were built. Woodrow Wilson said this about liberty:

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.

Yet today, resistance is a quick fire way to end up arrested. At best.

At worst, you'll be raided by a paramilitary force, complete with automatic weapons, tear gas, and hoping for a chance to zap you with 50,000 volts of electricity. All for the non-violent offense of dissent. Complete with the possibility that your loved ones could end up shot, even if they are unresisting and naked. But, hey, it's the police, their word is without blemish in a court of law, and worth more than the word of the citizen.

How's that for innocent until proven guilty?

So, while it is a good and just thing to remember those that died in the September Eleventh attacks against our nation. We should also try to think of a way that we can restore our freedoms. We need to think of a way that we can live without the fear of a SWAT attack against our homes because we happen to be dissenters with certain laws.

So, while we should remember our dead, we should also try and remember how to be free.

What's your name? 4Real!

Okay. First off, the article of the day: NZ parents may lose battle to keep baby '4real'

So, the basics are, there's this couple in New Zealand who wants to name their munchkin 4Real when it gets here. Why? Because they had some odd epiphany that they were pregnant, and it was, according to them, some type of "for real" moment.

Stupidity of that statement aside, the problem comes in that the New Zealand has some type of government agency which polices what parents name their children.

Let me start off with saying that I think it's incredibly stupid that someone would want to name their kid 4real. I also wouldn't name my child Apple, Pilot Inspektor or any of the other insane things parents tend to think up these days.

If the kid in question wishes to take an internet handle of 4real when he's older, that's fine. That's the internet. To stick this innocent child with what is effectively an internet handle as his name, for his entire life, well, that's just sick.

Of course, the concept of a government agency telling you what to name your child is even sicker, in my opinion at least.

What right does the government have to tell these parents that they must name their children something specific.

To me, it is just more socialist, big-government evil, which seems to infect the entire world these days. If these parents want to call their children anything, it should be allowed them. They're (supposedly) adults. It's not like they're hurting anyone (future name-calling from the kid's peers aside). Why on earth, would the government have any interest in stepping in and saying something here.

Which is why I love the fact that we have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to protect us here in the States from such abuses of power in the hands of the Federal government.

That said, Federal Judges, don't necessarily see it that way.

John Edwards wants to drive your company out of business...

Sometimes, I have to seriously wonder what on earth liberals are thinking. Why are fundamental concepts such as the fact that governments shouldn't be paying for certain things so hard for them to understand?

The latest lunacy, comes from a Fox News story posted yesterday (July 29, 07):

CANTERBURY, N.H. — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says negotiating with insurers and pharmaceutical companies is not the best way to overhaul the health care system.

senator said Sunday.Those groups will not give up their power voluntarily, the former North Carolina

"I've been fighting these people my whole life and have beaten them my whole life," said Edwards, a former trial lawyer. "I think the time to talk to them is after you've beaten them."

Edwards has proposed requiring employers to provide insurance or contribute to the coverage of every worker. The government would pay for insurance for lower income people and subsidize what other families pay.

He also would cap the amount insurance companies can charge for profit or overhead at 15 percent and would pay for the $90 to $120 billion a year plan by repealing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year.

"How long are we going to let insurance companies and drug companies run this country?" he said.

So, his idea is to FORCE small businesses to pay for health insurance, and then for government to pick up the slack.

Which translates into: he wants those people who have good jobs that provide insurance and a decent wage, to pay for those folks who for whatever reason don't.

Ah, socialism. How often you're found on the lips of a liberal.

Frankly, I don't want any of my money to HAVE to go to other people, filtered through government coffers or not. If I volunteer my money, and send a check off to whichever charity that's one thing. For the government to take money from my paycheck for the express purpose of giving it to someone else is the height of evil.

It is theft no matter how you look at it. This Robin Hood syndrome which liberals seem to be inflicted with needs to be gone. Leave my money alone.

If I want to help someone, I'll help them. It's not up to John Edwards to decide who gets my charity.

Searching for SWAT

It's three in the morning. You are soundly asleep in your bed, lost to the world and happily dreaming. Tucked in beside you is your significant other, and just down the hall are your 2.5 kids.

Then a flash grenade comes sailing through your window as at the same time your door breaks down, while several armored men, toting assault rifles come pouring through the now broken entry way.

If you're lucky, they don't shoot you.

If you're lucky, the flash grenade doesn't land on a bed, or other flammable object, burning down your house.

If you're lucky, you're not kicked or beaten enough to send you to the hospital.

Sound like a bad dream or maybe the plot to a movie? Could it be a scene from the latest episode of Law & Order? What it is is a short description of what happens during a SWAT raid.

Where once, the SWAT team was used for special circumstances, such things as hostage situations or serving warrants against known felons with a history of extreme violence, more and more they are being used to serve every warrant. The police are breaking into homes to serve search warrants at the early morning, and too often not finding anything, or worse –killing those they do find.

Over the past few weeks, I've come across more and more stories dealing with SWAT teams being used against non-violent criminals, or worse going into the wrong houses to serve the search warrants.

Occasionally these things don't meet with problems.

But what we're seeing more and more of are innocent people - you know those folks that the police are supposed to be serving and protecting – being hit, shot and having their homes destroyed. In fact, just a few days ago, the SWAT team raided the home of Salvador Celaya, a 73 year old suffering from Alzheimer's. He is one of the lucky ones in that he, his 69 year old wife, nor his daughter or her child were shot or injured in some other way during the course of the raid. But he does suffer as the flash grenade they tossed into his bedroom window burned down his house, causing $150,000 in damages (Source).

Just another report in the growing list of problems that widespread use of SWAT teams has caused. Take this small sampling from Florida for the years 2004, 2005 & 2006:

SWAT Team Raids Student Film Crew.
March 20, 2006—FL

A SWAT team in Fernandina Beach, Florida storms a post office building after a bar patron reports a hostage situation. The SWAT team draws its guns and points them at the door of the building. Inside, a high school class is filming a movie. They had sought and gained permission from the local postmaster to shoot the film. The students are ordered to the ground at gunpoint by the raiding officers before they realize their mistake.

Source:
"SWAT Team Called to High School Film Shoot," North Country Gazette, March 26, 2006.

Anthony Diotaiuto.
August 5, 2005—FL

23-year-old Anthony Diotaiuto is shot ten times by police in Sunrise, Florida on a paramilitary drug raid of his home. Diotaiuto was suspected of dealing small amounts of marijuana. Police found about two ounces in his home.

Police say Diotaiuto confronted them with a gun, though his body was found in a closet in his bedroom. Police said the fact that Diotaiuto had a licensed firearm gave them cause to believe he might be dangerous, and necessitated the use of a SWAT team. Diotaiuto had one prior conviction for marijuana possession as a minor, but otherwise had no criminal record, and no history of violent behavior.

Police also say they knocked and announced themselves before entering, though neighbors say they never heard an announcement.

Diotaiuto's family is now suing for the release of police records relating to the raid.

Sources:
Janette Neuwahl, "Relatives, friends criticize death of man in Sunrise police raid," Miami Herald, August 10, 2005.
Brian Haas, "Relatives of Slain Man Hire Lawyer," Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, August 11, 2005, p. B1.
Michael Mayo, "An Ounce of Pot, 10 Bullets, and One Failed Drug War," Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, August 16, 2005, p. B1.

Michael Meluzzi.

July 8, 2005—FL

In July 2005, a Sarasota, Florida SWAT team conducts a drug raid on a home where several children are playing in the front yard.

The SWAT team descends from a van, deploys flashbang grenades, then swarms the home. 44-year-old Michael Meluzzi, who had a criminal record, begins to flee as he sees the armed agents exit the van. Police chase Meluzzi down and fire a Taser gun at him, partially hitting him.

According to Officer Alan Devaney, Meluzzi then reached into his waistband, leading Devaney to believe he was armed. Devaney opened fire, killing Meluzzi.

Police would find no weapon on or near Meluzzi's body.

Sources:
"Suspect is stunned, then fatally shot, " Associated Press, July 11, 2005.
Latisha R. Gray, "Fatal drug raid raises questions; Residents ask why a SWAT team came in with children present," Sarasota Herald-Tribune, July 31, 2005, p. BS1.

Jarrell Walker.
April 12, 2005—FL

After deploying a flashbang grenade and entering the home of 19-year-old Jarrell Walker, police shoot Walker twice in the back, killing him. Walker is lying prone on the ground when he is shot.

The officer who shot Walker was wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a ballistics shield. The officer has been involved in four shootings in his seven-year career, says he thought Walker was reaching for a gun. Walker was unarmed, though police did find a gun on the other side of the room. They also found a substantial amount of drugs in Walker's home.

Walker was shot dead in front of his three-year-old son, also home at the time of the raid.

The shooting was only the latest of several questionable use-of-force incidents involving area police. On the same day the FBI announced it would investigate the Walker shooting, Pinellas County Sheriff Jim Coats said he would review his department's deadly force policy. Remarkably, Coats' changes to that policy, announced in October 2005, broadened the number of situations in which his deputies could use deadly force.

Source:
Steven Thompson, "Pinellas Sheriff Revises Deadly Force Policy," Tampa Tribune, October 19, 2005.
Graham Brink, "Deputy Mayor Responds to Critic," St. Petersburg Times, May 26, 2005.
Alex Leary, "'Exciteable' Tag Haunts Deputy,'" St. Petersburg Times, May 6, 2005.

When are we going to wake up and realize that there's a problem with the wide spread use of SWAT teams and tactics. As our police become more militarized and we, the normal citizen, becomes more prone to the abuses which the use of paramilitary tactics lead to, some of the essential and fundamental concepts that our country was founded upon are falling under the iron jack boot of our own government.

If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.

Especially when it's a search warrant being executed based upon information from a confidential informant concerning drug purchases.

I think it is high time that the citizens stand up and demand a return to sanity on the part of SWAT tactics. Remember, when the SWAT team goes in, they firmly believe that it is a life-or-death situation. Humans hopped up on that much adrenaline and then armed to the teeth begs for abuses and escalation of situations which lead to the death of those without the kelvar armor.

No Smoking. It's the Law

Which is stronger in you? Your desire to not have people smoke, or your desire for personal freedom? There's a law on this November's ballot about baning smoking from all businesses. This scares me. This scares me very badly.

I don't like smoking. I think it's a nasty habit. That said, I think if someone wants to partake of this habit, it's their right as an American citizen. If they want their business to cater to smokers. It's their right as an American citizen.

Yet this law denies that right. It is saying that the Government knows what is better for you, and your business than you do.

Not only that, but how many steps is it from No Smoking in businesses to No Smoking in Apartment Complexes? Then how many steps is it from Apartments, to everyone's homes. What I wonder is, after they banish cigarettes from everyone and everywhere, what are they going to hit next? Sodas? Candy? Milk? Video Games? Once we ban 1 item from our life. The next one to go is just that much easier. Ben Franklin said "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom nor security." The freedom that we are deciding on is the freedom of being able to choose to do as we want with our business, homes, and self, as opposed to a little security from the potential threat of cigarettes.

So, do we deserve freedom? Or do we throw away our security.

Taking security a bit to far

There's a new product on the market. It's about the size of a wristwatch, with builtin cellular and gps technology. That's right your very own tracking device is now for sale. Or more specifically, the tracking device for your child is now on sale. For only about $500 and $30/month, you to can own one of these fine products. The first in a downward slide into the government knowing exactly where any of us are at any given time.

I do not like these.

What this does is teaches our children that it is ok for someone to keep track of them at all times. It teaches our children that Big Brother (if you don't know what I mean, go read Orsen Well's 1984) is good for them. This scares me to no end. I am a firm believer that government should never be trusted. I am a firm believer that I can take care of my family and myself better than the government. I am a firm believer that I know what is good for me, moreso than the government. Now liberals the world over are probably flipping over these statements, because they believe the government should do all those things for us. This little device is just another step in a series to destroy our privacy, and let the government know all that there is to know about you and me.

Scary, huh?