California's Proposition 8

Now, isn't this surprising--leftists acting like the perpetual children they are when they don't get their way.

Just in case you've not heard, after California decided (for a SECOND time by democratic vote) that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, there were protests and marches. This of course included the usual arrests and vandalism (the protesters were seen banging on doors, walls and climbing on cars--all of which can be construed as vandalism because they damage property).

Of course what gets me, is that the protesters were carrying signs which read:

We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry

Color me confused, but I could have sworn that every one HAD the freedom to marry. They just couldn't marry someone of the same sex. The same way someone can't just marry a dog or a telephone pole.

Of course you still have Mayor Newsom out there jumping up and down trying to get the definition overturned as lawyers for the city of LA, San Fransisco and the ACLU jumped into action. But I do have the question: When are we going to stop allowing our politicians to actively try and thwart the will of the people?

Let's face it, I don't agree with who was elected President (and for the record, if McCain had gotten it, I'd still not agree with it), but you don't see me out there saying we need to do away with the voting system, and that we need to ignore the will of the populace.

But, I'm not a Liberal, so I can't do that in good conscience.

I can't use the courts to create laws for me, because I believe that the courts shouldn't be doing that. I can't use the courts to create laws for me, because I firmly believe that it is a gross misappropriation of power on the courts part, when they granted themselves that ability. After all, the Constitution I read stated that Congress is the folks who writes the laws.

But again, I'm not a Liberal so there are just things that I can't do in good conscience.

Alas, what's a soul to do?

President-elect Obama

While it's not quite "official" yet (the president's not elected until the electoral college meets on Dec. 18, 2008) Senator McCain has called and told his opponent that he is not going to actually run for president. Of course that still leaves Obama up against 5 0r 6 other folks (Baldwin, Barr, Nader, etc) but hey, since the Media doesn't talk about them they don't exist.

Anyways, current estimates put Obama at receiving ~344 electoral votes, an overwhelming majority in this cycle (McCain is listed at receiving ~168).

That's a nearly 3:1 spread. Why?

I don't care how fluent he is, it can't be that Obama is just that good of a speaker. So what can it be? His highly liberal, socialist, and anti-gun policies just don't create the kind of turnout that we're seeing.

In my opinion, it's just the simple fact that McCain isn't a conservative. He's a moderate with liberal leanings, the same as President Bush--and let's face it, if you're going to vote for a liberal, just go on and vote for one. I firmly believe that there are three types of voters out there for Obama:

1. True Liberals who believe in his socialist, anti-gun, etc leanings (a majority of his voters)
   
2. Folks who voted for him, just because of his race
   
3. Folks who were scared of McCain being in office
   

I can understand number 3, after all, when I was some stupid young kid back in the 2000 election, I voted George Bush because I was scared of having Gore in the White Hourse. That was the first, and last, time which I wasted my vote, when I gave it away to someone, not because I believed in their message, but because I didn't want their opponent to take the office.

Now, I'm going to make a statement, it's probably going to bother a lot of folks, and I'm sure it will create all sorts of interesting issues for me, but I'm going to do it anyways.

The Republican Party has one more (Presidential) election to stay relative to the Conservative voter

And by that I mean that in 2012, I don't see how the Republican Party can maintain the illusion of being a conservative party if it provides us with Presidential candidates along the same lines as John McCain or Fred Thompson from this cycle.

So, what is the Republican party needing to do to ensure that it stays relevant? Truthfully, at this point it has two options.

The first, and the one it has been taking since Bush Sr, is to shift left. The problem with this is that the further left the Republicans go, the crazier the Democrats (who are left of the Republicans) get. If this process continues, I urge everyone to stop being Republican and take a good long look at some of the other options out there, specifically the Constitution Party (actually go take a good look at it regardless).

The second option, and one I personally endorse, is to take a hard turn back to the right. Get back to what it means to be conservative: small government, fiscal responsibilities, slowing down growth of social welfare projects, turning the government back to its Constitutional mandates.

Now, I guess it's time to sit back, see how the Republicans react to this fiasco of an election cycle (for them at least) and to hope and pray that Obama doesn't send us further away from a Constitutional government.

Odd, but I think that's the first time I've ever actually hoped that a politician doesn't keep his campaign promises.

John The Farmer

One of my co-workers sent this to me. Not sure where it came from, but I did find it highly amusing.

John was in the fertilized egg business.

He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced. This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing.

Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed Old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all!

When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.

To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring.

He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges. The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making.

Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.


Vote carefully this year, the bells are not always audible.

Why I'm still voting for Ron Paul

As most of the folks out there who know who Ron Paul is are aware, he has stopped actively campaigning to be our next president. That said, my intention is to still write his name in on my ballot come November.

Now, when people find out I'm doing this, their first immediate response is why? They say it like I'm insane, or worse, I'm throwing away my vote.

Which I've always found an odd turn of a phrase. How can I throw away my vote, if I'm voting for the individual who I want to see in the office in question? Would it not be throwing away my vote if I chose to throw it at someone who I didn't really agree with, but had the appropriate animal logo attached to their name?

Have we as a nation become so juvenile that we're merely voting for which picture we like better? The Jackass or the Elephant?

I have never voted someone based on "electability." When I voted for George W. Bush the first term, it was because I thought he was the best candidate. After the fiasco of things like No Child Left Behind, and the Drug Benefits that have passed while he has been in office, I now know better. Consequently, when it was time for him to be reelected, I went with a different choice. I voted for Peroutka.

Today, I am still looking for a better choice. Neither of the "prime" candidates that are all the buzz words in the news are worth while. They both take stances which I view as obscenely anti-Constitutional. It was from this point of view that I found Ron Paul.

When I read his message, and his voting record, I knew that I had found a candidate that I could stand behind. So I did. I told people about him. I sent folks to his website. I used his name in signatures on various forums.

Today? Today I'll do the same thing. This November? I'll do the same thing I had planned on doing since I first read up on Ron Paul. I will vote for him--and as always, I encourage everyone else that stumbles on this little rant of mine to vote for him as well.

Above, I referenced the fact that people ask "why" as being the first, and primary response. Which implies that there is a secondary response. This secondary response is the question: Why not just choose the lesser of two evils?

First off, let us remember that whenever you choose evil, you are making an immoral choice. If you knowingly choose evil, then that makes you evil. There can be no other option in that case.

Frankly, whenever I see someone say to make the choice between the lessor of two evils, my mind automatically translates that into:

If TOLD to not choose good, then you should choose evil.

Gives things a slightly different spin, eh?

No, I am not going to choose between two evil options. Not when there is an option which I consider a good choice still on the table.

So, that brings us to the ultimate question here, which of course is again, why? Why would I do this? Why do I think and will ultimately act this way?

The answer to that question is simple: I do so because I must live with myself, and the decisions I make.

If I know that I chose what I believe is best for the country, my family, and myself, then I have a clear conscience. If I knowingly choose something that I firmly believe is not in the best interest of this country and my family, then how exactly can I live with myself?

And in the end, I do it for my wife.

When I married my wife, in return for her promise of fidelity and obedience, I promised to always chose to do what was best for her, and our family. That is the responsibility and price that I must pay for the right to be the head of my household.

While I know that in this day and age such thinking is seen as outdated (I can hear some folks gasping as they realized that my wife actually uttered that she would obey me in her wedding vows!) it works for us. It has worked for us for 8 years, 5 months, and an odd number of days. Additionally, it will continue to work for us for as long as we both uphold our respective promises.

So now--ask me again how can I "waste" my vote by writing in Ron Paul for President.

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!"

Republican Frustration

There's an YAHOO/AP poll flickering around the MSM today, decrying just how frustrated and out-of-sorts Republicans and Independents are concerning the 2008 elections. All this while the Democrats are happy-go-lucky, and oozing joy at their candidates. All of this is happening, while a majority of everyone thinks that this election is very important and matters even more than usual.

Of course, I have to agree with that; after all, the top two Democratic candidates are both eager and ready to implement huge social health initiatives.

Additionally, I can see why Republicans are concerned and frustrated by their choices. After all, if a Republican isn't paying close attention, they have these options to choose from:

• Guilani
• Thompson
• Romney
• McCain

These are the four folks who routinely pop up on polls and other odds and ends. Of course these polls then have links to "more information" where you can find that there are additional candidates such as:

• Huckabee
• Paul

And quite often, it's just Paul who is hiding on the far side of a poll's jump, if he even appears.

Why does this matter? Because Paul is the only candidate out there who is running on a small government/Constitution-based platform. He's the only candidate out there who is actually running a campaign that makes sense to me as a Constitutionalist. Here's some of the things that Paul is for:

• Lower taxes
• Stopping illegal immigration
• Ending NAFTA-like trade agreements
• Stopping personal data collection by the government
• Pro-life
• Property rights
• Ending Unconstitutional Federal interference in the Education of our children

And that's just a small sampling. So it's no wonder that the MSM despises and ignores him. It's no wonder that if most Republicans polled don't know he's out there (or worse, are still in the "I need to vote for a front-runner to keep so-n-so out of office" mindset) that they're frustrated. My suggestion, vote for what you believe. If we all did that, rather than trying to vote to keep someone out of office, then maybe our country would be a better place.

And have Ron Paul in the oval office.

Clinton's Las Vegas Trip

The main-stream media is abuzz. The holy grail has been found! Yes, I'm talking about Mrs. Clinton hiding out there in the dessert. It's almost been obscene, as ever since last Thursday story after story of her supposed triumphant debate has flickered across myRSS Reader.

It would be sickening, if not so scary.

Yet, not even the reports that the MSM planted questions for her at the debate could work me up enough to write a rant. At least until I stumbled across MSNBC's latest rave review of her campaign.

HRC: TCB in Vegas. A Conversion Story

A less than surprising (in light of MSNBC's admitted shift Left) endorsement of the Clinton campaign, which starts off with these sentences:

She came, she saw--and she conquered.

After a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," the 2008 presidential election can start to seem like, well, sound and fury, signifying nothing (to coin a phrase). Which is exactly what I expected to find Saturday morning when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association (SMWIA) in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Now, this is a MSNBC "blog" so it's perfectly reasonable that its author has a pronounced bias, but since it is on a MSM website, one still expects... well journalistic integrity? That post just reeks of "Hey, look at me! I'm an HRC fanboi!" Now I can admit to be a Ron Paulite, and I know that my Constitionalistic leanings influence my writings, and that I'll have a tendency to support anyone who pushes a platform which I like. But, I never claimed to be a news site. This here is a place for me to rant and rave about things without driving my beloved wife batty.

Slightly different venue.

All that aside, that's not what caused me to frown and think up a rant. Rather it was this quote (as Mrs. Clinton discussed the Thursday night debate):

I loved the debate because we finally got into some real issues. For example, my health care plan covers every American. Sen. Obama's doesn't.

In effect, she's bragging about socialism; big government.

It still boggles the mind that anyone would willingly take a handout from the government through the welfare and other social programs, which FDR (the guy that put the initial systems into place) said would destroy this country if they weren't revoked.

I can admit, I hate social welfare programs. They are evil things, and in effect are enforced charity. It is the government, taking money from me to give to someone it deems worthy by some arcane stricture. A modern-day Robin Hood if you will. While Robin Hood is often classified as a folk hero, let us not forget that he was fighting against the high taxes and social ills which big government impose upon us. If eitherObama or Clinton manage to make it into office, this is the future we have to look forward to. Yet another attack against the capitalistic, small-government dream which our Founding Fathers held dear.

Presidential candidates should not be bragging about expanding the Federal government's powers. Frankly, I'm of the mind that attempts to expand Federal powers beyond that which are specifically enumerated in the Constitution should be considered treason. Especially, if that Presidential candidate was already an office holder in the Federal government which forced them to take an oath of office to protect said Constitution (such as bothObama and Clinton did when they became Senators). Let's look at that shall we?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Makes sense. It means that they promised to SUPPORT and DEFEND the Constitution. So, tell me again, how does a Federal Welfare System (or Education System for that matter) support the Constitution? There is no article, section or clause which grants the Federal government that particular right or ability, and as we all should know by now, any right not specifically given the Federal government is reserved for the States and the citizenry.

Just one of the many, many reasons why I'm voting for Ron Paul.

It's nearing Election Time again.

I don't know why, but I seem to have the most rant-like things to say during election years. Especially Presidential election years. Maybe it's because I tend to despise both candidates equally, and in the end vote for the lesser of two evils.

Luckily, this election cycle there's actually a candidate whom I like on the ballot: Ron Paul.

But that's neither here nor there. I live in Mississippi these days, and yesterday was an Election Day here. So, the Clarion Ledger is here to provide the results of this election (11/06/2007) which caused me to be fifteen minutes or so late to work.

What saddens me the most about those election results are all those "Noncontested Elections." I mean what is up with that? Couldn't they drag someone up who would have been happy to run for that particular office? I mean couldn't the Democrats find someone on Welfare to run for State Senate District 14? It would have served two purposes, given the voters an actual choice, and possibly gotten someone off the welfare roles. Similar annoyances apply to the Republicans and State Senate District 13. And a whole bunch of other elections as well.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Edwards: Taxing you just because he wants to

Presidential hopeful, John "Little John" Edwards - you know, the joke that was on the other John's ballot a few years back - has stated that he wants to raise the taxes on the wealthy (this is according to an AP story).

Now, I don't consider myself wealthy. I make a decent (okay, I make a great) wage, but that's offset by the outflow of money I have going on. A car note, my own stupidity in regards to credit as a youngster, and that massive blob of student loans I still have hanging over my head. Well, just because I don't consider myself wealthy doesn't mean that I'm not considered that for the purposes of tax hikes.

What these morons who always want to raise taxes never seem to want to tell you is that these tax hikes against the wealthy begin somewhere in the area of $35K per year. Basically, if you're not living off the government coffers, you're considered wealthy.

Which I guess I can see since they've taken such great pains to ensure that people no longer own land and must give the first three or four months worth of their salary to the government.

It's this concept that they need to tax us all into bankruptcy-in order to pay for more entitlement programs (yeah, I want MY money going to the lazy whelp who refuses to get a job and just keeps cranking out more an more kids)-that keeps me from ever voting Democrat. I can honestly admit that a lot of what Mr. Bush is doing/has done in office scares and sickens me. After all, I'm a firm believer in small government.

But back to Little John, let's look at what he has to say in this quote:

"It's just the truth," Edwards said during a news conference following his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. "It's the only way to fund the things that need to be done."

That makes my blood boil.

Rather than raise taxes, let's kill some of the pointless government programs out there. We don't need a Federal level Department of Education. We don't need government grants to those too lazy to work. In my household we have a simple rule, if we can't afford it, we don't need it. For the first few years of my marriage, we were very, very tight on funds. Yes, me and the Mrs. both worked full-time jobs, but we still had a lot of bills (again, that stupidity thing with the credit cards) - and those jobs weren't the best thing in the world.

Now, I would have loved to have been able to eat steak or lobsters every night. Or have gone out to dinner three, four times a week. But we didn't. We couldn't afford such things. So what did we do? We ate a lot of Gwatney brand hot-dogs and macaroni and cheese and Ramen noodles. Then after I got my next raise and the wifey got a better paying job, what did we do? We moved up to Hamburger Helper. Or more accurately, the generic Wal-Mart brand of Hamburger Helper. Even today, I know that we can't afford to have steak every night, so we still cook a lot with ground beef. Yes, the other stuff going into the meat is a lot more and better, but I'm able to feed my family of four for less than $100 a week. Heck, for less than $80 a week.

I mean, one week we had five nights where we ate a dish based on ground meat. I spent $8 on those 5 pounds of meat - the minimum that I would have spent on a roast or a cut of steak. And that's the point - rather than whining about how I can't fund things at the amount of money I'm making now, I modify my buying habits so that what I buy matches how much I make. Amazing how that works, eh?

Sure, I guess I could whine and complain to the government about how I'm not able to provide steak to my kids every night, and the Leftists out there would say, "Well you know, the government owes you that. Why don't you sit back and let Uncle Sam take care of you."

But you know what, I don't think I could live with myself if I did that.

I know I couldn't look my son in the eye and tell him that he needs to work hard at everything he does. I know I couldn't look my son in the eye and tell him that he needs to be a man and support himself and his family, that HE is responsible for such things.

No new taxes (or better yet, the dismantling of the Income Tax and replacement of it by a National Sales Tax). Smaller government. These are the things that I want to see happen in the government. Unfortunately, neither of the two "big" parties seem to want either of those things. It makes me very interested in the Constitution Party: