A Clinton That Is Right?

Who knew that this day would come? Who could imagine that such a piece of Constitutionally CORRECT information would ever emerge from a politician's mouth, much less a Democrat.

What am I talking about you ask?

Well according to a News.Com.Au article, Hilary Clinton has gone on the record telling us all how bad anti-defamation legislation in regards to religion is. In fact, her exact quote said that freedom of speech and religion should be equally upheld.

Like I said, color me amazed.

Buy that digression aside, here's the quote from the news.com.au site:

"I strongly disagree. The United States will always ... stand against discrimination and persecution ... But an individual's ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others' freedom of speech," Clinton said.

"The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse," she added.

Imagine it, a politician actually interested in upholding Constitutional precepts.

Of course, I am left wondering if she got permission from the Exalted One before she spoke such specific terminology?

After all, it was only last month, that the UN Human Rights Council adopted a draft resolution submitted by Egypt and the United States which brought attention to "negative racial and religious stereotyping of religions and racial groups."

Basically, it was the United States endorsing anti-speech measures in order to stop criticism of religions based upon verifiable trends of that religion's population.

What that long sentence of dollar words means is thus: Egypt doesn't like people pointing out that Islam can't be a "religion of peace" if they refuse to condemn and try to stop suicide bombers, and the U.S. supported the concept.

Unfortunately, this is but a small step towards a more Constitutionally-correct government (opposing International "law" which erodes or outright attacks the fundamental concepts upon which our society is based), and I have no doubt that the thought of less legislation on the books attacking our freedoms left a bad taste in a host of Liberal's mouths.

In truth I'm not holding my breath hoping that Mrs. Clinton starts espousing such concepts as gun rights, small government and personal responsibility. After all, she has spent too many years as a big-government, Big-Brother advocate to see the proverbial light.

But any step is a good one...

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?

Wonder If Other Amendments Will Be Read...

I'm amazed. Flabbergasted. Utterly boondoggled. Insert other words/terms of amazed disbelief here.

Why you ask?

It's simple, a U.S. Senator has remembered that the Constitution and its associated Bill of Rights exist.

Apparently, David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division was in the the Senate's Judiciary Committee on 9/23 testifying on why the expiring portions of the Patriot Act need to be extended.

At which point Al Franken read Mr. Kris the Fourth Amendment, and asking specifically how the "roving wiretap" portion of the Patriot Act can be fulfilled while still providing American's the protection from said searches guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Color me amazed that Mr. Franken knows the Constitution.

Oh, wait, the Constitution was just a part of his incoming paperwork as a junior Senator; but at least he read it.

Now, of course, my question becomes, will Mr. Franken read the Constitution at other times that a law that is being brought before the Senate appears to be working against the text (or the intent of the Framers) of the Constitution?

Say, will he read the First Amendment when Congress talks about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine?"

Will he read the Second Amendment when Congress talks about yet another gun law?

Will he read Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 as well as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments when Congress tries to pass something utterly outside the bounds of what they are allowed to do according to the Constitution (you know, little things like welfare programs, the national Department of Education and potential government-run health care)?

Or, as is so often the case in such things, is the Constitution only important when it discusses and approves those issues with which Liberals are concerned?

I have no doubt that Mr. Franken will never again open his copy of the Constitution (unless he needs it to attack something with which he does not agree), but I can dream can't I?

And while I'm waiting and dreaming of a Constitutional government, I have an Amendment or 10 which I can read to my kids.

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...

Betraying Liberals

I just read an article on MSNBC which made me laugh and shake my head in alternating forms. Apparently, the Liberal customer base of Whole Foods is in an uproar over an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that the CEO (one John Mackey) of said company wrote concerning Health Care Reform.

In it he described his company's stance on Health Care. Basically, his company provides the following:

• A "High-Deductible" Health Insurance Plan (a $2,500 deductible)
  
• Company paid premiums
• $1,800 into a Health Savings Account (HSA) they call "Personal Wellness Accounts."
  

Frankly, I think that's an awesome set of health care benefits.

But, anyways, in Mr. Mackey's op-ed he wrote how he thinks that the government has no place in offering "public-option" health care plans, and that it would be better off, if Health Care reform involved:

• Lower legal issues for creation/adoption of High-Deductible/HSA combinations
• Equalize tax issues between Employer Provided and Individually Purchased Health Insurance (employer provide is 100% tax-deductible, individually purchased is not)
• Repel state laws preventing across-state-lines insurance competition
• Repel government mandates on required coverage options
• Tort reform
• Make Health-Care costs more transparent, so that a consumer can purchase health care based on valid decision making processes
• Enact Medicare reform
• Make tax-deductible donations to (non-government run) funds who assist those unable to afford health insurance & are not covered by current "government options."

Frankly, I found the piece well-thought out, well-considered, logical and in general something that I would support if it was what was considered "Health-Care reform." It provides avenues for lowered health care costs, while at the same time keeping the power of our health care decisions out of the government's hands. Additionally, it allows the MARKET to work the way that it is supposed to.

But, of course that means that the Liberals are utterly, and hopelessly against it.

They hate the fact that it's not a government-run plan.

They can't stand the thought of personal responsibility in any facet of the people's lives, so of course they're against it.

What these liberals don't seem to understand is that the federal government does not have the Constitutional power to create health care.

It is so far outside of the limits on power which the framers of our government placed on the federal government that it is almost laughable.

But horrifyingly scary that so many are so accepting of this intrusive power-grab.

In my opinion, the Liberals have not been betrayed. If anything, they should be wondering why Walmart is so accepting of a government-run health care plan, while their food provider of choice is against it.

Here's a reason: it's economics. The labor unions have spent years and millions in advertising in getting Walmart to lower its insurance premiums and expand coverage. These are costs that Walmart either has to absorb in its profit margin or raise prices to cover. And as the one of the largest employers in the world--that's a lot of money going out. So, from their POV, a government plan would be great. I have no doubt that their private insurance would disappear the day after a government plan was introduced.

For some reason, I don't see Whole Foods being quite so quick to trade away the rights of its employee base in order to raise its profit margin a half-point.

Of course these are LOGICAL arguments, and falter in the face of the overwhelming "proof" which is the emotionalism by which most Liberals make their political decisions.

After all, who needs logic, when a feel-good that someone else has to pay for works just as well.?

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.

Bumper Stickers

Well, as I was driving to work, I found myself reading those silly bumper stickers folks have on their cars.

And then mocking them. So, I thought I would share my amusement with the world.


What this is saying is that "I stop whatever it is that I'm doing whenever PEACE breaks out." Therefore, it's only logical that to make this person a productive member of society, then he, or she, expects constant warfare throughout the land.

This one has always amused me. Yes, it was $1.46 when Bush took office, but hey, that war was all about the getting the gas for America!

The difference is one is a language, and the other is skin color. You'd think even a liberal driver would realize such a simple thing.

Ah... simplistic, vague, and utterly meaningless! Much like everything that comes out of a Liberal's mouth
But His kingdom is Heaven, here on earth--He expects us to work for a living.

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.

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.

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.

Ms. USA -- but only if you have an approved list of beliefs

The interwebs are in an state of shock. Gay, gossipist and all-around freak, Perez Hilton, is all sorts of a titter, and calling someone who calmly, and succinctly spoke her beliefs a "bitch."

The 21-year old Miss California is even now getting death threats and what not.

In case you have no clue what I'm talking about, during the Miss USA contest the other day, Perez Hilton (one of the judges) asked Miss California what she thought of gay marriages. Miss California, whose actual name is Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

She wasn't ranting. She wasn't being mean. She responded with her beliefs, her familial and religious point-of-view on the topic being given.

A response which ultimately cost her the crown of Miss USA.

And created a firestorm of hate, and death threats and name calling from the lunatic left. Which, sadly to say, is a large cross-section of all of the left.

Of course, as is often the case, these things just get more, and more inane. In the related story, Fox News reports that

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement. "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

...

I have to admit that I'm truly and utterly confused by Mr. Lewis' statement. In the same breath, he says that he is hurt and saddened by Miss Prejean's comments, then he also states that religions should be able to create whichever marriage unions that they see fit. Then he continues his rather insane talking point on how government shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone, and concludes the statement with how religion has no politics in the Miss California family.

So why exactly did she lose the crown? If politics and religious beliefs had no bearing on the decisions, why did she lose. And why is Perez Hilton ranting and raving against her?

Of course, I know the reason. It's fundamentally simple.

The average, run-of-the-mill Liberal cannot succinctly and intelligently argue their beliefs. This is a fundamental truth to the liberal agenda. It's the reason that rather than discussing the politics behind the TEA Parties over the past few weeks, the liberals out there just hurl insults and mockery. It's the reason that when the gay-left lost the Prop8 vote last November they ranted and raved, and beat up little old women. It's the reason that liberals are trying so hard to get translate conservative concepts into Hate laws. It's the reason that those preachers of Tolerance, cannot tolerate any concept that doesn't fit squarely into their little round holes of political concepts.

Their entire belief structure is built upon pipe-dreams, and lollipops. Everything from charity-under-duress welfare to the magical barriers called "no-gun zones." Liberals react with their emotions and plan what new law they can enact to a) provide them more power, and b) make-believe that something bad won't happen.

Personally, I'm proud of Miss California. I'm heartened to see someone get up in front of, what is effectively a hostile crowd, and unequivocally stand for her beliefs. Regardless of the fact that it cost her the Miss USA crown, and regardless of the name-calling and death threats from the left.

It doesn't matter who walked away with that crown. I believe that Ms. Prejean is a better display of what an American is--someone who stands for their beliefs, regardless of the repercussions--than any of those leftists who react to the beliefs, values and ideals of others with hatred and a general lack of real tolerance.

Continuing the Fine Tradition of Home Grown Terrorism

Since my government has decided, once again, that I am an extremist, and/or a "radicalized" home-grown terrorist, I figured I should do everything in my power to ensure that I maintain that particular label.

The primary aspect of that is to ensure that I talk about what I view as the demonization of Constitutionalists, and the Constitution in general. I also must talk about how taxes and government are bad for you--because let's face it they are.

Here's the list of articles that have caught my fancy over the past few hours or so, and are things which I think everyone should get around to reading.

• Pro Libertate: Revenge of the "Waco Gene"
• Michelle Malkin: You Might Be a "Radicalized Right-Wing Extremist" If...
• Walter E. Williams: Democracy and Majority Rule
• Robert A. Wicks: Anarchy and Chaos
• The Raw Story: Cybersecurity Act would give President power to "shut down" internet

I'm heartened to notice in those articles that I'm not alone in fearing and decrying the government annexation of more and more of our rights. From what we are allowed to do with our property to what we're allowed to do with ourselves.

Let us remember and remind ourselves of just what and how we are supposed to be as a country.

Above all, let us remember that those heroes of our nation, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Locke, would all be considered violent, radicalized, home-grown terrorists in this statist nation which we now found ourselves within.

This is not a nation that Jefferson or Locke would be proud of. This is not the nation that Washington fought and bled for.

And I will say that as often, and as loudly as needed. After all, we still have the First Amendment.

At least for a little while longer.

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.

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.

The New Legal

What is the definition of a criminal? When does someone become a part of a criminal conspiracy? These are important questions, and we need the answers today--because some of our lawmakers are flouting the edges.

For the record, a criminal is someone who commits a crime, or has been legally convicted of committing a crime.

The second part of the question, is even easier to understand. According to law, a criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to engage in a course of conduct which is itself a criminal offense.

Now, let's play a role-playing game. Say, you own two houses, and being the good steward of your property, you put up one of those houses as a rental unit. After all, you can't live in two houses, and by making the second a rental unit, you gain income, provide housing for someone, and ensure that the house does not become run down and/or decrepit.

Now, imagine said renter decides that they don't want to pay. They just want to live in your house, free of charge, while you pay the mortgage. What does one do?

Well, you evict the renter of course. Toss them out, and get a new renter. It's a standard procedure, and one should not feel bad about it. I mean, you had a contract that clearly stated that you allowed them to stay within your property for a certain sum of cash on a monthly basis. And that contract clearly had provisions for what happens when one does not pay.

Now, what would you do, if a City Commissioner told every person who decides to not pay their rent, that they should, "stay in their homes. That if anyone is being evicted, then don't leave."

And what if a "community service" organization then made plans to ignore eviction notices, and to forcefully keep an individual within the property.

At what point, do you worry that maybe, just maybe, this dead-beat renter who refuses to pay his agreed upon rental amount, intends to just keep your second house.

Would you care at all? Or would you use the Sheriff's office to enforce the law, and remain in control of the property you own?

I know what I would do.

Now, I used houses there, but in truth, the concept can be applied to any property. You have a car that you rent out, or maybe a TV or a computer. The thing is that one person is in blatant violation of the agreement, and intends to take your property for their own.

It is theft. Pure and simple, and without any other possible interpretation.

If you agree, keep reading. If you don't, I feel sorry for you that you believe it is okay that someone can take what does not belong to them by force.

Now, what would you say, if I told you that that little role-playing, was 100% real?

What would you say, if I told you that a Congressman is encouraging the American population to break the law, and in effect attempt to steal homes?

Because, guess what, it's real.

Representative Marcy Kaptur, on the floor of the House, said this:

What I am telling people right now is, stay in your homes. If the American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed, don't leave, because I will tell you what. If you had a smart lawyer like those banks up there on Wall Street can get, they would take you into court and they couldn't find the mortgage. They couldn't find the mortgage.
So why should any American citizen be kicked out of their homes in this cold weather? In Ohio it is going to be 10 or 20 below zero. Don't leave your home.

Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don't have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can't find the paper up there on Wall Street.

So I say to the American people, you be squatters in your own homes. Don't you leave. In Ohio and Michigan and Indiana and Illinois and all these other places our people are being treated like chattel, and this Congress is stymied. We have the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and our committees are muzzled. Power is given to one chairman or one person.

...

So I say to the American people, stay in your homes. You have earned them. And don't you get out until you get a really good lawyer who can find your mortgage up there on Wall Street. Because, you know what? They won't be able to find it, and therefore they can't prove you should be evicted.

Think about it. Sure, it's a sad thing that all these folks are facing foreclosure, but whose fault is it? Who signed the loan--which is a legally binding contract? And it's not like they couldn't declare bankruptcy.

But instead, we have this Congressman who is encouraging the populace to break the law, and ignore the legal rights of the mortgage holder. Because let's not forget the simple fact that a person does NOT own their house until all the liens are satisfied--the lien holders do.

No amount of claiming that American's have a "right" to home ownership, or a "right" to not face foreclosure, does not mean that those rights actually exist.

That said, Home Ownership is a right, and along side that right is a responsibility to actually pay for the home.

Otherwise, you're just stealing.

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.

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?

A Lesson On Human Nature

More fun from my coworkers!

I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl the other day. I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied,"I want to be President!" Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were standing there. So then I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

She replied, "I'd give houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow - what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50 Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house."

Since she is only 6, she thought that over for a few seconds. While her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked,"Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Her folks still aren't talking to me.

Though humorous, I could easily see this story taking place. After all, when socialist concepts are explained succinctly enough that a six-year old can understand them, they are often revealed for the utter stupidity and tripe which are at their heart. Liberalism and Socialism are only acceptable when they're crouched in fancy terms, big words, which always equate to someone getting someone else's money.

But you can't call that robbery--after all, it's "Legal."

Oh Noes! Not Orson Scot Card!!

I had originally considered posting this on my SF blog, No Krakana, yet the more I wrote, the more I realized that it would fit better here. So, on with the show.

io9 has directed my attention to an interesting discussion that's been popping up around the SF/F genre blogs. Mainly, that Card has won the Margaret A. Edwards award, which is defined as thus:

The Margaret A. Edwards Award, established in 1988, honors an author, as well as a specific body of his or her work, that have been popular over a period of time. The annual award is administered by YALSA and sponsored by School Library Journal magazine. It recognizes an author's work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world.

Anyhow, they brought into specific focus, Card's two complementary novels Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. Truth be told, these are two wonderful stories, with great overtones dealing with human nature, civilization, and just how a child transforms into an adult.

Yet, what's brought up the most hassles are some of Card's other writings, specifically his thoughts and opinions on homosexual marriage.

One can imagine the joys of the SF Feminist blog and (amusingly enough) the School Library Journal, and one can't forget the diatribes over in the comments for the article on io9. Overall, they've been along the lines of "well, he's evil incarnate for saying the things he does in his non-fiction essays, but you know, we'll just sweep it under the rugs."

Frankly, I'm amused by this whole thing. I can admit to being conservative (a night upon unforgivable sin in the world of the SF/F genre fandom) yet there have been liberals who have received lifetime achievements awards; though I despise Streisand's stance on gun control, that doesn't mean that I dislike her films or music.

But ultimately, that's an irrelevant point. Who cares if you can or can't separate the art from the artist.

Has Card not entertained, and taught a generation of children the joy of books? Do those books not teach us to try and see the other? Whether that other is the alien "buggers" or the bully who wishes to kill you?

As far as the Award is concerned, that is what matters.

Beyond that though, why the angst over his opinions? I don't agree with John Scalzi's politics but I absolutely adore his novels. I agree with Card's politics, and I absolutely adore his novels. Wow, imagine that, I love well-written novels that I find intriguing, regardless of the world views of the authors.

Fortunately though, the SF Feminist blog is more interested in actual discourse and discussion about Card's opinions and essays (including a well written dissection of one of Card's essays on the Mass. Supreme Court's fiat creating same-sex marriage in that state).

But that's not relevant to the discussion here, as it's a discourse on the existing articles rather than what we're talking about here.

What I find oddest is that all the comments that I've read have fallen on one of two sides of this divide. The first is that Card should have never gotten the award for being such an evil right-winger. The second is Card should have gotten the award because the two books in question are good, but he's still an evil right-winger.

And I do mean all, I've just spent the past three hours looking at every blog entry concerning this, and every comment on those blog posts. Maybe there will be additional thoughts from people on my side of the aisle now that io9 has pushed it out, but sadly I'm not counting on it.

I for one, am offering up a heartfelt "Congratulations, Mr. Card."

I don't think he's evil; I don't think he's ignorant or unlettered. I don't even think he's an "asshat" (sure the rant referenced in that article is nigh upon incoherent, but that doesn't mean he's evil, just that he has a hard time separating criticisms of his novel from criticisms of himself--an affliction which other authors have had many times).

In fact, I'm going on the record as stating that I believe the same way as Mr. Card regarding homosexual "marriages." I believe they are an attack, by liberal elites (socialists/communists), directed against the fundamental building blocks of Western civilization. Consider numbers, 25, 26, and 40 on this list of ways that Communists planned on destroying Western Civilization.

• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
  
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
  
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

In fact that the number of items on that list are completed, or nearly so, is disturbing.

But, I do want to know what is it about genre fandom which breeds liberalism?

Timeless Morality

Time magazine has a "Morality Quiz" up on their website at the moment. Oddly, they take their approach to Morality from an odd source. Consider this quote which is at the top of the article:

The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you. And human ego notwithstanding, it's a quality other species share.

I'm confused. I have NEVER heard of morality having anything at all to do with empathy. The encyclopedia gives three principle meanings to morality

1. morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.
2. an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions.
3. synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

The dictionary is simpler, it gives these as definitions:

1. concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
   
2. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
3. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
4. Virtuous conduct.
5. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Yeah, where exactly does empathy have anything to do with morality there? And just to be fair, let's look at the definition of empathy:

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another

Let's say this again, empathy has nothing to do with morality. Whether I understand what hurts you would feel the same to me is quite irrelevant to the moral decision to do something. Of course, using the simplified morality quiz provided by Time, one has to wonder if morality is anything above and beyond life or death situations. These are some of the scenarios they provided:

• Could you kill a baby to possibly save the life of a group of adults?
• Could you kill an injured man to possibly save the life of a group of adults?
• Could you save kill a man to definitely save a group of adults?
• Standing close enough to push that man forward, could you kill him to save a group of adults?
  

Then all the possible answers are "Kill them!" or not. There are no options for sacrificing ones self in order to save all the others. Apparently that part of morality just doesn't exist for Time. Understandable, since they are liberals, and sacrifice is an abstract concept to them, which can only be imposed upon others, not something that wells up from within.

Truthfully, I'm uncertain why this quiz annoyed me so much, yet it did. Maybe it's just my ornery nature. Or maybe, I'm just getting older, and less willing to flow with the annoyances of socialistic policies and ideals which try to subvert tried and true methodology and ideology.

So, here's the scenario:

An out of control trolley is heading down a track toward five unsuspecting people and will surely kill them all. You could throw a switch diverting it to a siding, but an equally unsuspecting man is standing with you on a bridge. Could you push him onto the track into the path of the train? Could you do that, killing one to save the other five?

Pick one of these three options:

1. Yes, I could push them onto the tracks (65% on the quiz)
2. No, I could not push them onto the tracks (35% on the quiz)
3. I would jump on the tracks myself (the answer I would have chosen, if it were available)

See? That's how such a question should have been worded. But, maybe that's just me....

Breeding for Stupidity

I'm one of those folks, who firmly believe that if you raise a kid right, he'll go the right way (hey, it's a firm, Biblical principle). Overall, it worked for me. I'm happily capitalistic, pro-privacy, pro-life, a firm believer in small government, and a die-hard Constitutionalist. Additionally, I have a healthy disdain for the government, and anyone who takes the effort to attempt to tell me what the truth is, especially when they do so after repeatedly being caught in partisan lies (i.e. the MSM).

So, imagine my surprise, when I discovered an article on the Blogger News Network discussing those environmentalists who believe it's bad environmental policy to have children. The BNN article points on towards an article from the Daily Mail (an UK newspaper) entitled: Meet the Women Who Won't Have Babies... Because they're not eco friendly.

Frankly, I was dumbfounded at first. I have always found it hard to believe that there are folks out there who just don't want to have children. It truly does make my head hurt on occasion, as I ponder such things.

Yet for all the various reasons one could use to justify the decision to not have children, the concept of them being "not eco friendly" is just so off the wall, that in my ruminations I had never considered it.

I was flabbergasted; nigh upon shocked speechless.

And, as my wife would love to point out, it takes a lot to do that to me.

Of course, now that I've had a bit of time to consider things, and after reading the additional lunacy which is evident in the comments to said thread, I have to say that I applaud their decision. How could I not?

Especially, if you consider my view of things related to the rearing of children from the first paragraph.

Consider this, if all the nut job liberals stopped having kids, only the kids of us who believe in small government and the Constitution would be around.

Unfortunately, liberty through natural selection isn't fast enough for my taste, as there are enough socialists/liberals out there to make my life miserable today.

Need Help? Ask Big Brother!

Anyone that has talked to me about government welfare programs know my opinion about them. They're evil, and should be banned. Immediately. They have no place in our society, nor should they be allowed under the Constitution of our increasingly socialist country.

Or to put it into internet lingo: welfare = teh 3vil!!1!

Now, that that's firmly out of the way, imagine my surprise when I was coming back from lunch, and heard an advertisement on the radio. It talked about how when you need money, you know what the sound of help is - followed by the sounds of someone swiping a credit card through one of those scanners. They then go on about how welfare now has these handy-dandy debit-cards as opposed to the old fashioned stamps, and that you should call their 1-800 number because, hey, you to might qualify to live off of my taxes.

So, we have this evilness of welfare, and not only are they stealing my tax dollars to give to other people, but they're also using those tax dollars to advertise the program, so that they can justify giving more money away to people who did not earn it.

When did our government become this huge entity that felt it was okay to play Robin Hood? And then to waste money by advertising the programs?

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.

United Blogger's Union

TechCrunch brought me an interesting article via my RSS Feed entitled Is Blogging Ready For a Unionized Workforce.

I've always lived in a Right To Work state, where unions have to work doubly-hard to get you to join. Additionally, I've never actually worked at a job where a union had a hold of how things were run, at least for the jobs I was part of. I did work at United Artist Theatres my senior year of high school, and the projectionists had a union that he was a part of, but us peons down in concessions and the ushers weren't part of that union.

Also, I have never desired to be a part of a union. When I worked for Wal-Mart, there was a big push by various unions (mostly the grocery workers union) to get Wal-Mart employees organized. I just didn't see the point of the whole thing. I made a great wage when one considers the fact that I was (by this point) merely moving packages across a laser and smiling at customers. I had no complaints about the benefits package (health, dental, eye, 401K, stock options, etc). Basically, for all my whining about Wal-Mart at the time, it really wasn't that bad of a job to have. Maybe it's nostalgia or hindsight coloring my memories, but I don't think so.

Then to top it all off, I've read horror stories where people were forced to put up stickers on company vehicles for candidates that they did not support because the Union supported them (this was back during the '04 election, if memory serves it involved plumbers, Kerry and a plains state).

So, ultimately, I have never liked unions. I understand the historical need for them, but I frown upon giving a portion of my money to a group that do not necessarily believe in the same things that I do (another reason to not like taxes!).

And that is something else to consider. When you're a Union-man, you're kind of expected to do what the union wants you to do.

Then consider that bloggers have often been, well, not that good at doing what they're expected to do.

So, I read that article, and followed the initial link on down to the original Wall Street Journal article, and discovered, well, it wasn't that suprising. Even, reading the headline about organized labor I knew which side of the aisle these people were on, but here's the text:

A loosely formed coalition of left-leaning bloggers are trying to band together to form a labor union they hope will help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining or even set professional standards.

So, surprise! it's the lefties at it again.

So, here they are, trying for health insurance (uhm, wouldn't blogging be considered basically freelance writing? Usually for free? Read that as self-employed contractor), conduct collective bargaining (I can only assume they mean for those blog co-opts, of which I'm not a part, and currently don't see myself joining one) and possibly set professional standards.

This last one kind of annoys me. Part of what I like about blogging is that ANYONE can do so. It's not hard to set up a Blogger site or a LiveJournal. Heck, I use Blogger as the CMS for my three primary blogs (this one, No Krakana and A Programmer's Dream) as well as the CMS for the main page of my family's website and my youngest son's site, and I'm working on converting my eldest boy's site to using it, but I must first convert his site's layout into a Blogger Template.

I'm not overly fond of some third party setting up standards (which can at times read just as easily as restrictions/regulations) about blogging.

I wouldn't even particularly like it if some group set up some arcane standards for my professional job as a Software Engineer that I had to live by in order to get work (we actually do have a set of Professional Ethics & Practices but for the most part they're common sense things, and it's not enforced, unless you join ACM or IEEE or some other computer society that makes you sign off on them).

Ultimately, I'm against this. Unilaterally and without exception. I don't see a need for this, nor the attraction. Additionally, I just view it as an effort for the Left to try and gain more control over Bloggers. Sure, that may mean I'm cynical, but you know, I'm fine with being cynical.

Free Speech, Democrat Style

While I would not personally hang a picture of a sitting President in my home or office, I would consider hanging a Presidential seal, or something similar. Of course not everyone shares my sensibilities. Case in point, a business owner in Lancaster County, PA has a photograph of Mr. Bush hanging in his stall. David Stoltzfus owns and operates the Upper Crust stand, when opening his business two years ago, he thought it would do well to display a picture of the sitting President. So he did, and it has been displayed there for two years now.

Of course, now that the Democrats have lost the election (okay, so it should be now that the Democrats were humiliated at the polls) a Democratic City Councilman is up in arms over the picture being displayed. Mr. Nelson Polite (the Councilman in question) went up to Mr. Stoltzfus on November 12 and asked the picture to be taken down. What were Polite’s reasons? Why since this was a public place, there should be no political paraphernalia, and since Mr. Bush did not carry Lancaster County, “it is like rubbing salt in a wound.” At least those are the ones he gave the reporter later on (click here for the newspaper article).

Let’s deal with that first reason to start off with. First, while yes the market may be a public place, Mr. Stoltzfus pays rent, as such he is able to display anything he deems fit. Secondly, our great nation allows us to have no lines on expressions of political speech. That is the essence of the First Amendment. If Mr. Stoltzfus wished to display a mock picture of Kerry and Little John in bed, that is Mr. Stoltzfus’ right as an American.

Of course, that is not the true issue that is affecting Polite. Polite is upset that Kerry lost. Now, in true Democratic fashion, he is trying to throw away anything that reminds him of his dashed hopes. So he’s trampling on the rights of a fellow citizen, Polite as a Liberal and a Democrat are only concerned about the rights of fellow citizens when such rights further liberal and socialist agendas. At any other time, rights are things to be stepped upon. Polite in his demands of city council to legislate free speech says “there should be rules.” Ah, the joys of being a Democrat, if you don’t like something, then you can legislate it to death.

Of course, Polite’s propensity to trample the rights of others notwithstanding, Polite’s comments reveal a deeper issue where Liberals are concerned. That of course is the plight of the offended. On November 12, when Polite first approached Mr. Stoltzfus, he requested that the picture be taken down because it offended him and other city Democrats (ah, that old salt feels good in those wounds). What this translates from liberal speak as is “I don’t agree with what you are doing or saying, so you need to stop.” Whenever a Liberal claims offense for their selves or some other group, what they are saying is that what the speaker is saying they cannot agree with nor can they logically defend their position against it.

The “OFFENSE” label has become the bane of logical discourse, for anything can offend someone, but of course the only people that get to claim offense at the actions or speech of others are liberals and those groups (or more accurately those who vote liberal in those groups) that are classically defined as liberal. Groups that are conservative and members of liberal groups that vote conservative are not allowed to claim offense. Just look at how liberals treat Mrs. Rice and Justice Thomas. Liberals, rather than being proud of what these two minorities have accomplished routinely insult and denigrate them because they are conservative.

Of course the entire appeal of liberalism is that it makes you feel good. It is government through emotionalism, which I consider the worst thing since religion through emotionalism. Of course maybe if enough Liberals learn there is no Santa Claus, they will grow up and stop living by their emotions. Government and business should both be approached with common sense and logic. If Legislation makes you feel better about yourself, then there’s probably something wrong with it.

Why Liberals Hate God

In the aftermath of the 2004 elections, we have heard a lot about the ‘moral’ voters and the religious right. Throughout the entire thing, we get constant bombardment about how evil these two groups are. Think of it this way, those eleven states that denied same-sex marriages (and I still get irked at that particular oxymoron), the battles against the amendments were based upon protecting the ‘rights’ of homosexuals.

What does that have to do with liberals hating God?

Think of this, where do our rights come from?

Could they come from the individual? Does each individual person determine his own set of rights? No, that concept is utter drivel. Rapists have no intrinsic right to rape. Murders have no intrinsic right to murder. See my point? If rights are generated by the individual then anything anyone does is within their rights. That leads to anarchy and oh so many deprivations up to and including rape and murder (of course NAMBLA would probably love the ability to have a right to pedophilia).

So, they don’t come from the individual could they possibly come from the Government? This is the Liberal’s solution. They want everyone to think that rights are endowed upon the electorate by the government. The problem with this is that it is merely an extension of rights are from the individual. The government, especially ours, is merely an extension of some group of individuals. In a royalty that group is a certain family, in a dictatorship that group is whoever led the revolt, and in our society that group is the majority. Of course the major problem with this concept is that if the government gives us our rights, then the government is allowed to remove our rights

So, since rights do not come from the individual nor do they come from the government where do our rights come from?

For that, why don’t we see what our Founding Fathers had to say about the rights they determined that we have (this is from the Declaration of Independence):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

To far away in time, and let us not forget that Mr. Jefferson did not believe in a personal creator. He was a theistic humanist. He believed in God, he just did not believe that God concerned Himself with our welfare. So, let us look at something a little closer, how about President’s Kennedy 1961 inaugural address?

… the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

Think about what Mr. Kennedy is saying there. Our rights come, neither from man nor from the state, but they are given to us by God. Of course if our rights are from God, that means they are based upon God’s ideals of right and wrong; immutable and unchangeable. God ordained rights would convey with them responsibilities and certain actions that are right and certain actions that are wrong.

This is why Liberal’s hate God. They want our rights to be given us by the state, for if they are then our rights can be modified on the liberal’s whims. Change the definition of marriage today, change the laws concerning pedophilia tomorrow, all in the name of granting more and more diverse minorities all of their proclaimed rights.

Liberals love the concept of the right without responsibility (though how you can have one without the other confounds me). As such, they have increasing taught this inane and pointless concept of “Separation of Church and State” (a concept that has gained hold in the past 40 years). Through the use of Liberal judges, the ACLU, the MSM and a subtle manipulation of the teaching profession, the concept of God has slowly been dismissed from the public realm.

On everything from teaching that Thanksgiving is a civic holiday to the recent lawsuit by a history teacher because he was denied the use of the Declaration of Independence to teach American History.

We must strive to restore God to the public realm. Replace Him in our history books; teach once again that our Rights come from on high, not from man or man’s governments and restore the concept of religion and government that is actually framed in our Constitution.

Who knows, if we do this,maybe just maybe, we will not have to face any more nonsense about oxymoronic statements such as homosexual marriages.