America is not a sick country, it's just gone stupid in the head.

It was just a matter of time. After the latest school shooting last week - this one done by a teenager who is more and more turning out to be someone suffering from serious mental problems -  the gun control parrots come out of the woodwork decrying the existence of firearms and blaming them for such insane tragedies as this.

Make no mistake; while there are some bleeding hearts out there who misguidedly think they really can create a perfect world, most of these gun control advocates are all about the control. The guns just happen to be the vehicle by which they're attempting to get more control. Control over you, over me and over everyone else...well, everyone else except those in power.

To this inane and predictable hysteria I want to point out 3 things; firstly, why do you think the founding fathers put the citizens' right to bear arms second only to their right to freedom of speech and religion? Because they knew that history was then - and is now - full of examples of how populations disarmed by their government were soon victimized, terrorized and oppressed by their own governments. Why? Because any such governments were now absolutely and completely empowered over their citizenry were doomed to the prophecy that "absolute power corrupts." And hence despotism and tyranny and oppression were soon to follow the disarming of the people.

My second point is that by "disarming" the people of its moral code which the liberal left has steadily been doing more and more ever since they got prayer banned in schools. First it was prayer, then it was ability to pass out bibles on campus, then it was banning manger scenes in the town square at Christmas, and the latest is there can't be even a tablet of the 10 Commandments depicted in a public building. (Never mind that the 10 Commandments come from the Pentateuch* which Christians, Jews and Muslims all recognize.)

You remember the 10 Commandments; the list of rules where you find God's rule that "Thou shalt not commit murder?"

But, to have our society admire and display its admiration of such viciously intolerant and hateful rules as the 10 Commandments will lead to just anarchy where we have innocent people killed just walking down the street, sleeping in their beds, working at their jobs or attending school.

Oh, wait....

And thirdly, I'd like to point out how our society has so coddled our youth by providing environments of evaluative criteria of "everyone gets a trophy," pass/fail grading systems, telling them they're great even when they suck at something** and telling them that the whole world - from school curriculum to  their preferred work hours - must adapt and revolve around them in about every way to "engage" or "reach" them just so they'll do their jobs and attempt to be responsible, productive citizens.

So what has all this come to? A larger and larger group of youth that seem to be so coddled and without moral guidance that the first time they encounter something tough that they can't get "adapted" to their "preferred path" of engagement or resolution, their first reaction is to grab a gun and blast up their schoolmates.

And so the anti-gun, pro-Statist ultra-control parrots come out of the word work to blame the gun. The latest is some idiot professor from New York University (are you surprised? Remember they voted for Hilary Clinton for Senator even though she didn't even live there.). Apparently Professor Nouriel Roubini says that America is a "sick, sick country."***

Mind you, the professor doesn't say so because of our skyrocketing divorce rate, the number of teen and unwed mothers that give birth out of wedlock in alarmingly increasing numbers every year, the increasing number of people on some form of government welfare despite our "war on poverty" that was declared by Lyndon Baines Johnson during his presidency in the mid-1960s.

No, this egghead says our country is sick because...wait for it...."a teenager is allowed to receive a rifle as a birthday gift."*** Well, I have got news for you, professor. I - and thousands of other young boys my age - received hunting rifles or shotguns for our birthdays from age 9 or on. And damned very few of us committed anything remotely resembling a crime with them. 

For that matter, there were even a few of them hanging from gun racks in pick up trucks in our high school parking lots yet never - and I mean never! - did any of our fellow students run to their trucks and grab them to settle an argument or fight on the schoolgrounds. Nor did any of us ever have to worry that anyone else would.

An why was that? I purport because 1) we'd been seasoned coming up that we each were not, repeat not the center of the universe and 2) were taught to suffer setbacks and even hard knocks and deal with them in ways that were healthy to a society taught that with the right to have that weapon came immense responsibility for its safe use. 3) We'd also been taught a moral code that emphasized to us that it was an offense to society worthy of our own imprisonment for life (if not our own execution) if we were to harm someone else with the irresponsible/criminal use of that firearm. (And yes; that included the instruction that life was precious and not something to be eliminated before birth, after a certain age to be considered  no longer "productive" or any other time beyond self-defense or war.) And,last but certainly not least, 4) we'd been taught the founding fathers respect for an armed society was born out of need for national defense from external or internal oppression and individual self-defense; things that the rest of the world had suffered and died by the millions for lack of such liberties.

It's pretty widely accepted fact that American "Wild West" of the 1800s had an armed-to-the-teeth society. Author W. Eugene Hollon, in his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, sheds some additional light onpoint with these astonishing facts:

In the Kansas frontier and cattle towns of Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, between 1870 to 1885, there was a grand total of only 45 total homicides in those 15 years. (A rate of approximately 1 homicide per 100,000 residents per year. Unfortunately, the statistic doesn't mention how many of those occurred using non-firearm weapons like knives and clubs.) 

In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870. How can this be in a society in which every cowboy carried a gun both handgun and long gun and every stagecoach carried a long gun or two?

Fast forward over a hundred years to 2007; taking a fast glance at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows the following regarding the strict gun control “paradises” of the eastern seaboard of the US:

DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 496 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 282 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
San Antonio - 122 Murders (9.3 per 100,000 residents)****

Thus, it doesn’t take a PhD in probability and statistics to see that were we to return to “wild west” levels of violent crime in these cities, it would be a huge improvement and reduction in crime for their residents.

That having been said, I say to professor Roubini and all other such opportunists who want to treat the symptoms of the roots of social decay and rot by seizing all the control they can by eliminating the power of self-defense and responsible gun ownership from the law-abiding citizenry, it ain't the gun or its availability that's the problem. It's the infatuation with a out-of-control soft-tyranny and the misguided belief in a utopia made possible by more and more control in the hands of government wrapped around the throats of individual citizens as their Constitutionally- provided liberties are wrenched from them. 

And it's people like Professor Roubini that are systematically choking the life from our once-great country. 


*The Pentateuch is the collection of the first five books of the Old Testament.Wikipedia (26 October, 2014)
**Millenials, Retrieved 27 October, 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
***Ro, S. (24 October, 2014) Business Insider, Roubini: America is a sick, sick, country. Retrieved 27 October, 2014 from http://www.businessinsider.com/roubini-america-is-a-sick-sick-country-2014-10
****csmkersh, (25 Nov, 2009)  comment made in the forum Death Toll in the Old West from firearms vs the unarmed East posted on Gun Rights Media in Support of All Civil Rights, Retrieved 27 October, 2014 from http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?414309-Death-Toll-in-the-Old-West-from-firearms-vs-the-unarmed-East

Rattlesnake Logic

Received this from a good friend who is former 101 Airborne.

Some more Texas logic!

As long as we insist on maintaining the "moral high ground" we will NEVER win the war on terrorism! We're in a conflict in which we absolutely INSIST in playing by the rules against a maniacal group who have NO rules!   

So it’s time to apply Rattlesnake Logic....   

After the Boston bombing the news media spent days and weeks trying to determine why these men did what they did. They want to know what America did(?) to make these brothers so angry with us. They want to know why these men were not arrested before they did something so terrible. The media is in a tizzy about this new era of homegrown radicals and about why   and how they can live among us and still hate us.   

A friend of mine from Texas explained it all to me: “Here in west Texas, I have rattlesnakes on my place, living among us. I have killed a rattlesnake on the front porch. I have killed a rattlesnake on the back   porch. I have killed rattlesnakes in the barn, in the shop and on the driveway.

In fact, I kill every rattlesnake I encounter. I kill rattlesnakes because I know a rattlesnake will bite me and inject me with poison. I don’t stop to wonder WHY a rattlesnake will bite me; I know it WILL bite me because it's a rattlesnake and that's what rattlesnakes do. I don’t try to reason with a rattlesnake or have a "meaningful dialogue" with it…I just kill it.

I don’t try to get to know the rattlesnake better so I can find a way to live with the rattlesnakes and convince them not to bite me. I just kill them.

I don’t quiz a rattlesnake to see if I can find out where the other snakes are, because (a) it won’t tell me and (b) I already know they live on my place. So, I just kill the rattlesnake and move on to the next one.

I don’t look for ways I might be able to change the rattlesnake to a   non-poisonous rat snake...I just kill it.

Oh, and on occasion, I accidentally kill a rat snake because I thought it was a rattlesnake at the time.

Also, I know for every rattlesnake I kill, two more are lurking out there in the brush. In my lifetime I will never be able to rid my place of rattlesnakes. Do I fear them? Not really. Do I respect what they can do to me and my family? Yes!! And because of that respect, I give them the fair justice they deserve....I kill them... 

As a country, we should start giving more thought to the fact that these jihadists' are telling the world their goal is to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. They have just posted two graphic videos on the internet showing them beheading Americans. They are serious. They are exactly like rattlesnakes. It is high time for us to start acting accordingly! 

I love this country. It's the damn government I'm afraid of!   Look who's new in the White House!   Arif Alikhan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S.   Department of Homeland Security   Mohammed Elibiary, Homeland Security Adviser Rashad Hussain, Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference(OIC) Salam al-Marayati, Obama Adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs   Council and is its current executive director   Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama's Sharia Czar from the Islamic Society of North   America Eboo Patel, Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.   

This is flat-out scary!   The foxes are now officially living in the hen house... Now ask me why I am very concerned! Do you feel OK with this? How can this happen, and when will we wake up? We are quiet while our country is being drastically changed!

When you take away guns, only outlaws will have guns.

I was talking with someone from New Jersey this week. He mentioned that he'd recently been to my state a few years ago. He said that during his visit, he'd had to go into a public school for some reason. He was struck by the (as he described it) huge decals on the door depicting a handgun with a big red circle and a slash  overlaid.

Our state has a law allowing [law-abiding] citizens to carry concealed handguns. In our state, we officially know those signs as "no guns allowed in here" signs.

The Jersey guy was NOT very impressed with our state for having to put such a sign on a public school and all but ridiculed our state as being something right out of the wild west. I told him I'm not very damned impressed that our culture has so flushed the social contract down the toilet that we even feel the need to be armed in public. And, I mentioned that in our state, we scoff at those signs and such legal restrictions and we know them unofficially as "lots of captive and unarmed victims-to-be in here" signs.

Today's headlines read; "2 dead, including student gunman, in shooting at Wash. state high school."*

This latest incident of senseless violence just goes to prove the axiom that the power of the gun is absolute...when it's used against someone without one. Need I say more?

 

*Unk. (24 Oct, 2014) FoxNews.com, 2 dead, including student gunman, in shooting at Wash. state high school, retrieved 24 October, 2014 from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/24/police-respond-to-shooting-at-washington-state-high-school/

The Dept of Homeland Security is now the panty police?

What the hell? Is this some kind of a joke? The headlines read "Homeland Security confiscates Royals underwear in Kansas City." That's right; apparently now being the panty police falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security.

"Peregrine Honig says she just wanted to help celebrate the hometown team when she designed Lucky Royals boyshorts.

"The panties, with “Take the Crown” and “KC” across the bottom, were set to be sold in Honig’s Birdies Panties shop Tuesday. But Homeland Security agents visited the Crossroads store and confiscated the few dozen pairs of underwear, printed in Kansas City by Lindquist Press.

'They came in and there were two guys' Honig said. 'I asked one of them what size he needed and he showed me a badge and took me outside. They told me they were from Homeland Security and we were violating copyright laws.'

"She thought that since the underwear featured her hand-drawn design that she was safe. But the officers explained that by connecting the 'K' and the 'C,' she infringed on major league baseball copyright. (The officials involved could not be immediately reached for comment.)

"They placed the underwear in an official Homeland Security bag and had Honig sign a statement saying she wouldn’t use the logo.

"'We just thought it was something funny we could do,' Honig says of the panties. 'But it was so scary.'

"Danielle Meister, Honig’s shop partner, says it was like something out of the movies, with the badges and all. But on the bright side, the officers were nice. She says you could tell 'they felt like they were kicking a puppy.'

"We might not be able to wear Lucky Royals boyshorts from Birdies, but you can still buy a pair of crown-inspired pasties if you’re feisty.birdiespanties.com."*

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/state/article3222737.html#storylink=cpy

Really? Seriously? The Dept of Homeland Security is now empowered to enforce not only the criminal laws related to immigration, border security and terrorism, but now they also have the power to enforce civil law like copyright violations? 


*Osterheldt, J. (22 October, 2014) Homeland Security confiscates Royals underwear in Kansas City, The Kansas City Star, retrieved 23 October, 2014 from http://www.kansas.com/news/state/article3222737.html

Thoughts on Independence Day, the Liberty Bell and Judeo-Christian Colonial America

When the subject of religion comes up these days, Conservatives and most others educated in the law, Constitution and American and European history point out the Judeo-Christian heritage of the Founding Fathers. At the same time, those amongst the secular progressive (SP) crowd use phrases like “separation of church and state” and claim the Fathers to be “deists” and not actual members of any Christian denomination or sect of Judaism.

Did you know the phrase “separation of church and state” cannot be found in the Constitution OR the Bill of Rights? Such concept and/or wording appeared in some of the private writings of the Founding Fathers and an occasional colonial state statute. The only thing in the Constitution even remotely brushing the concept is found in the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." What this means that the new federal government could not compel anyone to join any state-sponsored (or otherwise) religion such as their former Kings had done re the Church of England.

This Independence Day holiday, I think it indicative of the religious orientations of the American Colonies from which the Founding Fathers emerged, in that in 1752 the famous Liberty Bell was cast and inscribed around its top are the words “PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND UNTO ALL THE INHABITANTS THEREOF…. BY ORDER OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE PROVINCE OF PENSYLVANIA FOR THE STATE HOUSE IN PHILAD.** [Philad. being an abbreviation for Philadelphia.]

This inscription is rather telling that the Colonies were made up of God-fearing people of a Judeo-Christian orientation. This is because that inscription comes from… the Old Testament – aka the Hebrew Bible - Leviticus 25:10 to be exact. Obviously these religious documents, common to both Christians and Jews alike, and the principles they convey to the world – so denied, vilified and discounted by those in today’s political left – were, in reality, important enough to the people in the American Colonies that they chose to cast into it a passage from Judeo-Christian Scripture to help embody the point of individual liberty and how precious it is.  

Food for thought this Independence Day….

*Liberty Bell photograph from Tony the Misfit at http://flickr.com/photos/22714323@N06/2432720887. It was reviewed on 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC) by FlickreviewR, who found it to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0, which is compatible with the Commons. It is, however, not the same license as specified on upload, which was the cc-by-sa-2.0, and it is unknown whether that license ever was valid.

**Wikipedia, (2 July 2012) Liberty Bell, Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Bell

Lyin' and denyin'.... God help us.

For the second time this week, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has endorsed abuses of federal power. First it was in their ruling – in effect - against any kind of state sovereignty in Arizona v. U.S. And yesterday it was a defacto endorsement of abuses of federal power against individuals in its ruling on the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare” aka forced socialized medicine).

The majority of the issue about the Affordable Care Act of 2010, as it’s officially known, is whether or not the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the legal power to mandate that every citizen buy health insurance. This begs the question; has it ever been required in the legal history of our country for private citizens to be forced by the federal government to buy any product either directly from the government or from a private enterprise? The answer is no. There is no precedence for such an “individual mandate.” One would think this kind of history would make the Court’s decision a “no brainer.”

While there have been state mandates (e.g., Kansas law requires motorists to buy adequate liability insurance) but such has been federally deemed as the states’ sovereignty to do so or not. Thus, one would think that such a heavy-handed approach by the federal government would be an abuse of power at the expense of individual liberty. (However, the SCOTUS showed its utter contempt for state sovereignty earlier this week.)

I’ve heard it said that lawyers cynically describe a criminal case as an exercise in “lyin’ and denyin’” what with all the lies, excuses and trickeries defendants and their lawyers do in attempt to mount  the “best defense possible under the law.” Through lies, excuses and trickeries, the former-lawyers now justices of the US Supreme Court who voted to uphold the this week lied and denied all over the map as they upheld the Obamacare individual mandate by claiming it was valid under the federal government’s taxing powers as granted in the Constitution. This supposedly because of the fine (let’s call a spade a spade) imposed on individuals who do not buy the mandated insurance. The court thinks of that as a “tax.”

A financial criminal penalty is now a “tax?” Really? Seriously? “Mr. Defendant, the court has found you guilty of violating Law XYZ. You are hereby sentence to 30 days in jail and to paying a $1,000 tax. And by the way, the IRS thanks you for your business.”

And yet, the Court in its own ruling on this issue says “A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.” So…is it a tax or not? I’m getting confused here.

Apparently so is Obama. While in its “reasoning” the SCOTUS ignores the outright express contradiction in Obama’s upholding the individual mandate as a tax in his own public defense of his pet legislation. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News in 2009, President Obama adamantly denied that the individual mandate was a tax. "I absolutely reject that notion," the President said.*

Most confusingly, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, held while the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” it is valid as an exercise of the taxing power granted the federal government by the Constitution.

So…not only must we ask is it a tax…or not? We must also ask, Mr. Chief Justice, is the individual mandate by the federal government to require its subjects (the Court has more than demonstrated its opinion this week that we’re no longer citizens granted rights by any Constitution) to purchase a product Constitutionally allowed or not? Apparently the answer from Roberts’ and his Court is yes, no, maybe.

Well done, Justices. A marvelous example of the “lyin’ and denyin” and in fine lawyer fashion.

Roberts in his opinion asserts that if the public doesn’t like the laws that Congress has the right to pass, we should not re-elect them to the Legislative or the Executive branches of the federal government.  But, he claims the SCOTUS is not there to do the voter’s job. While I agree with that in philosophy, personally I disagree with Roberts’ endorsement of the Court’s endorsement of this abuse of federal power. In my humble opinion, he’s hiding behind that excuse at least in part by siding with the majority in this issue.

And this endorsement and the “lyin’ and denyin” involved in this confusing ruling sets a very dangerous precedent. First of all, it empowers the federal government to force commerce. I don’t remember reading that anywhere in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 – the “Commerce Clause” – only allows the federal government to regulate commerce, not mandate that it happens and between whom it happens.** Seems to me that when the mafia forced people to buy their products (illegal booze, “protection”, etc) that was legally held to be extortion.

I can't help but wonder how these same SCOTUS justices would react if the next conservative president in office made a similar individual mandate...er...tax...for every person in America to purchase a gun?

Secondly, this ruling seems to turn the IRS into a national police force who forces the will of the government to impose commerce and thirdly, which products the people are forced to buy. What’s next? “Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. America. This is your president speaking. The coffers of Government Motors – what you may remember as formerly General Motors or GM – are down a little. We’ve determined this to be because nobody is buying our hybrid minicars like the Chevy Volt. Thus, I have directed Congress and the SCOTUS to require every man, woman and child in my kingdom to purchase a new Chevy Volt from their local dealership by close of business this Friday. Don’t make me send my SEALs and IRS agents out there to enforce this individual mandate.”

I’m no lawyer, but I do know that the SCOTUS this week has thrown its lot in with some very dangerous agendas. Consequently, these are some very dark days for our country, its Constitution and our way of life.

* Wolverton II, J. (2012, June 28). mandate is permissible tax the New American, Retrieved from http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11899-supreme-court-rewrites-obamacare-rules-individual-mandate-is-permissible-tax

**U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 8, Retrieved from http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

The death of the Constitutional representative republic

Today America completely lost its representative republic form of government. Oh, there was no official proclamation, no signing of any official document like the Constitution or Declaration of Independence that had – until today – established the law of the land to be anything but a nobility or imperial form of government. But thru the incoherent and appalling decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Arizona’s immigration law, it’s obvious that the days of “for the people and by the people”* are history.

Arizona recently passed a law that said [and therefore did] nothing more than enforce federal law by saying that if the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement divisions would not or were to busy to enforce current federal law prohibiting illegal immigration, then Arizona law enforcement officials were to do it for them. Mind you, the Arizona law did not attempt to supercede or eliminate any federal powers. Rather it said, if the feds won’t enforce their own laws, we’ll make state laws that say the same thing and we can enforce. Yet somehow the liberal and the wishy washy wings of the U.S. Supreme Court somehow think that such state law contradicts federal law. An opinion dissenting justice Antonin  Scalia calls “mindboggling.”**

I think we’re all in agreement that the legislative branch of the federal government seems to have become more and more a professional political body made up of well-to-do Mr. and Mrs. Smiths that go to Washington but never return to the real world. That is because they don’t have to. They all have become quite the fatcats sponging off the public increasing their wealth while in office and making laws that the rest of us have to live [dare I say suffer?] under and by which they do not have to comply with –  Obamacare being the most glaring example thereof.

And the past four years, in this “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” it has become nauseatingly obvious that the executive branch of the federal government has lost any sense of reality or touch with the people. Rather Barack Hussein Obama has demonstrated more every day that he views himself an imperialist head of state and completely above the law if he so chooses to be. That is to say, he does not behave as if the law of the land affects him in any way, least of all binding or restricting him. Creating umpteen unchecked czars, utilizing a record number of recess appointments and most recently invoking executive privilege regarding the conspiracy between His Excellency and his Reichfuhrer attorney general to cover up their massive armament of Mexican druglords through Fast and Furious.

And today’s ruling in Arizona vs. United States today, the USSC completely nullified the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A part of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.***

By whoring themselves out to political correctness and corruption to pander votes, with today’s ruling the five justices in the affirmative told the states to hell with what isn’t expressly granted to us, we’re taking it anyway states rights be damned and the Bill of Rights too. With this ruling those five justices more concerned with political correctness than legality and constitutional law sent this country reeling into the depths of a second world soft tyranny at best by proving that not only is the executive and legislative branches completely corrupt and impotent at policing themselves, but now we lost our 3^rd and last hope in the check and balance system – the courts.

The federal appellate level of the courts demonstrated the past 20 years that it had whored itself over to the dark side. The congress and presidency has been conquered and sold us – WE THE PEOPLE – out to it too. That has all been frightening enough. But now today… our last hope… the last bastion of checks and balances in the land of the used-to-be-free and former home of the brave threw their lot in with the rest of the new Empire. 

This position was further cemented by policy implemented by former Arizona governor now current  Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano who – just to ensure the supremacy of the all-powerful federal government - stripped Arizona police agencies of authority to arrest illegal immigrants mere hours after this “mindboggling” Supreme Court ruling.**** In this appalling USSC decision and even more galling ruling by DHS, our own government has rendered us no longer a constitutional, representative republic and placed us squarely in the land of empire, elitism and have made us a second world dictatorship at best ruled by a politburo-like body unconcerned with the law if it gets unpopular or inconvenient.

God help us all.

*Wikipedia (24 June, 2012) Gettysburg Address, Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address

**Shear, M. (25 June, 2012) Scalia Cites Obama Immigration Policy in Dissent on Arizona Law, The Caucus, Retrieved from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/scalia-cites-obama-immigration-policy-in-dissent-on-arizona-law/

***Wikipedia (15 June, 2012) Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

****Newsmax (25 June, 2012) Homeland Security Strips 5 Ariz. Police Agencies of Immigration Powers, Retrieved from http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ArizonaImmigration-Reaction/2012/06/25/id/443444

 

Gee, why isn't this considered a 'racial' slur?

Chris Rock's "Zebra" president and "ignore his whiteness"

"Thursday morning, comedian Chris Rock said that his recurring zebra character in the animated Madagascar series of movies is 'in honor of our zebra President [Barack Obama].'"

"NBC’s Today Show host Ann Curry asked Rock the important question regarding his role as Marty the zebra: 'If you could be any animal in the animal kingdom, Chris, what would it be?'

“'I wanted to be the lion, you know, king of the jungle and all that,' he replied, 'but that didn’t work out. Snake is always good. You know, scare people. But I’ll take the zebra.'

“'In honor of our zebra President. Black and white, white and black. … I love our President, but he’s black and white. He appeals to all. And that’s what I am going for,' the comedian said.

"Curry wondered aloud how the President might react to such an analogy. Rock laughed and replied, 'I don’t know. … We ignore the President’s whiteness, but it’s there. It’s there.'”

Gee, not that such comments would be racial slurs or anything. I guess in these times so corrupted with political-correctness, everything just depends on who is saying it. I can imagine the uproar if a white person - particularly a Republican or Conservative, comedian or not - were to say such stupid things.

Why not a female or ethnic minority president? But, if they want my vote.....

"Clinton hopes to see female US president."* I'm a Conservative and have no problem with a female OR a minority POTUS. What I have a problem with is caustic radical females like Geraldine Ferraro or Hilary Clinton being president. And, I have a problem with anti-American radical liberals like Barack Hussein Obama being president. What I'd like to see - male or female, black, white, brown, whatever - as POTUS** is someone who's idea of govt is not divisive class envy, worship of socialism and other failed economic models and someone who both professes to love and demonstrates by action their love of the American principles of individual liberty, the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the American form of govt but with the limited powers originally envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

What I will never want is a president - male or female, black, white, brown, whatever - that envisions the govt providing everything cradle-to-grave for the citizens and shows no respect or love for the American principles of individual liberty, the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the American form of govt but with the limited powers originally envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Because the govt able to give its citizens anything and everything they want is also a big enough and powerful enough bureaucracy to take it all away and subjugate its citizens into bondage and dependency.

*Lee, M. (2012, May 07). Clinton hopes to see female us president. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-hopes-see-female-us-president-052528250.html
**President of the United States

Tax Day 2012 - What are we today?

“Taxation without representation is tyranny” according to the founding fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence and launched a country. To them, as Colonists of the British Empire, being taxed at ever-higher amounts and without a voice in the British government was unconscionable and intolerable.

Fast forward to 2012. Though we have elected representatives in our country’s government, how much do those in Congress really “represent” us? Most of them are millionaires and have been for decades of congressional reps. Considering that the Obama Administration has appointed numerous czars that report to nobody other than Obama. All in congress and the White House are now apparently above the law in that Obamacare will not apply to those who forced it on the rest of us. Most will never return to a “real” job and have to sweat out making a living from it and avoiding a layoff.  

So….As we file our returns and prepare to call it a night this Tax Day, perhaps we need to ask; Are we "represented" adequately anymore? Is our country’s government still the idea the founding fathers’ envisioned? Or has it become what they truly feared and did their best to protect us from with the Constitution?

Where IS the EQUAL justice?

I received this via email. Author unknown, but it brings up some very good points;

"After reading the headlines this week about the US soldier who shot up Afghanistan civilians, I couldn't help noticing an irony.  There is all the clamor to try this guy quickly and execute him, never mind his having suffered a traumatic brain injury.*  Yet that Major Hasan,** who shot up Fort Hood while screaming "Allah akbar", still hasn't stood trial, and they are still debating whether he was insane, even with the clear evidence regarding his motive: slay as many infidels as possible.     

"So we have a guy in a war zone who cracks, and he must be executed immediately.  But this Muslim psychiatrist who was stateside in a nice safe office all day murders 13, wounds 29 of our own and his fellow troops, and they try to argue the poor doctor suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome, from listening to real soldiers who had actual battle experience.

"Two and a half years later, they still haven't tried the murderous sucker. Yet there's an outcry to immediately try this other poor troop who'd been  quickly and execute him."

"Always do the right thing. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."

Mark Twain

*Reichmann, D. (2012, Marc 23). Robert bales charged in afghan shooting rampage. The News Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/03/22/2078328/bales-to-be-charged-with-murder.html

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/03/22/2078328/bales-to-be-charged-with-murder.html#storylink=cpy

**Wikipedia. (2012, Marc 24). Nidal malik hasan. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan

Religious freedom only goes one way apparently....

Feds say Arapaho can kill bald eagles

Dateline Cheyenne, Wyo. - Though it's no longer on the endangered species list, federal law still prohibits the killing of our national bird, the bald eagle, in almost all cases. Yet, apparently citing the recognition of religious freedoms, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has granted a permit to an American Indian tribe so it can kill two bald eagles for religious purposes. Heaven forbid, the tribal members' religious freedom should be violated, right?

Yet this same federal government wants to ignore this same concept of religious freedom and force Catholic hospitals and other faith-based organizations offering health care services and/or insurance to offer contraceptives and abortion services even though such things go against their religious principles and the tenants of their faith to do. Yet the federal government and its puppets in the media are all about allowing for that!

Excuse me, but this is hypocrisy at its most blatant and subjective application of the Constitutional freedom of religion as provided in the First Amendment.

Let the record show, I'm neither American Indian nor Catholic.However, I am a strong advocate of "fair and equal justice under the law." And to watch our government allow politically-correct groups special dispensation - even once - while at the very same time zealously and forcibly denying the same religious freedoms it claims to honor to Christian faith-based organizations like Catholic hospitals, is galling. Nay, it's frightening.

How to stretch your income...at the taxpayer expense.

Michigan public assistance benefit (aka food stamps) recipient Amanda Clayton won $1 million in the lottery. But claiming since she was only able to pocket $500,000 of it after taxes and - because she was unemployed and had bills on two houses to pay - she continued taking $200 per month in food stamps from the government. "It's just hard, you know," she told a TV station. "I'm struggling."*

Really? Seriously?

"In a move little noticed outside of the business pages, General Motors last week bought more than $400 million in shares of PSA Peugeot Citroen – a 7 percent stake in the company. Because [thanks to the federal government's bailout of General Motors] U.S. taxpayers still own roughly one-quarter of GM, they now own a piece of Peugeot."**

Really? Seriously?

Gee. I wonder how much more I'd be able to afford to buy if I had a large chunk of my wealth being expanded by the federal government at taxpayer expense? I mean, hey! If I didn't have to spend my own money on stuff.... Or since I can't afford it on my household income but the feds would kick in a whole bunch over and above what we make....

This is what's wrong with our country today. We have widespread moral bankruptcy and corrupt value systems as are demonstrated in these two situations. It's like Tom Brokaw used to say, "The Fleecing of America" and an indication of just how low this country's sunk. 

*Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lottery-winner-amanda-clayton-banked-state-aide-banking-1-million-prize-article-1.1035347#ixzz1of7UbLxt

**Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/an-american-auto-bailout-for-france/

Civilian drone flights over the U. S. will be the beginning of the end of American liberty.

Pressure builds for civilian drone flights at home | AP Business News - The News Tribune

You knew it was only a matter of time. Once the unmanned aerial vehicle technology was proven on the battlefield for surveillance and attack for America's armed forces, it was only a matter of time before it would be used against American private citizens.

Those with permanent head-in-the-sand disease used to rebut such a suggestion by saying there were FAA regulations against UAVs in domestic airspace and other civil legislation making such use impossible. Yet, according to the article linked above, "Congress has told the FAA that the agency must allow civilian and military drones to fly in civilian airspace by September 2015."*

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/02/26/2042351/pressure-builds-for-civilian-drone.html?storylink=fb#storylink=cpy

So, with the stroke of a pen, it looks like such prohibitions and protections were shown the door allowing the U.S. government to routinely and indiscriminately spy on multiple thousands of its own citizens at once. And as such tactics are ushered in, America's long-standing heritage and culture of individual freedom and liberty will be ushered out.

*Lowy, J. (2012, Febr 26). Pressure builds for civilian drone flights at home, Taken from http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/02/26/2042351/pressure-builds-for-civilian-drone.html?storylink=fb

"Mr. President, today we are all Republicans."

A few days ago was President's Day. A special on TV reminded me of....

Washington, DC; March 30, 1981.Then-president Ronald Reagan was very nearly shot to death as he left a Washington, DC hotel luncheon. The bullet had very nearly missed his heart and was lodged mere inches away and his lungs were filling up with blood.

As he was just about to be put under for surgery to remove the bullet and save his life, President Reagan lifted his oxygen mask, raised his head and addressed the surgical team,  "Please tell me you're all Republicans." The team's head surgeon, an outspoken liberal Democrat named Joseph Giordano, calmly said to him, "Mr. President, today we are all Republicans."

It takes a true leader to - when his own life hung by a thread - to joke and appear nonchalant so to try to keep everyone in his presence calm. Wouldn't it be nice if there was still that much leadership shown by the Chief Executive of the United States today? And it takes an equally classy person to give such a united, "we're behind you, Boss" response as Dr. Giordano assured the President. Wouldn't it be nice if there was still that much respect for the office of the President today?

The way to destroy a free and productive society: Politicize EVERYthing.

It wasn’t too many years ago that people really didn’t give much attention to politics until elections rolled around. And a few months after they were over, it was hard to remember who ran against the winner (and sometimes who the winner was, too) or what the major issues of that particular election were.

Have you noticed the new phenomenon that’s infecting our nation today? Nowadays everything – and I do mean every stinking thing – is political. For example;

“Oh, I’m sorry to hear you’ve been home sick with the flu.” WELL! If it weren’t for the greedy corporations trying to screw the workers by working them like slaves and not buying them health insurance -. OH! And health insurance? Well, if it weren’t for the greedy doctors and politicians (Republicans only, of course) trying to deny access to health care to keep their prices up so they and the greedy insurance companies could just get rich killing off the poor why; my god it’s a wonder they don’t just leave you to die in the streets when the ambulance comes anymore and blahblahblahblahblah.

“My, it sure is some lovely streak of weather we’ve been having lately.” WELL! Enjoy it while you can because those damned greedy corporations just keep on increasing their carbon footprints all they can (well, the ones favoring the GOP and anything conservative, I mean) - and what do they care? – which has caused this whole global warming thing and why, the human race won’t even exist in another 20 years because those greedy corporations and rich Republicans they all have in their hip pockets don’t give a damn if they kill all the rest of us off – along with the rain forests, ya know!” Blahblahblahblahblah.

“I’ve got great tickets for tonight’s [you pick the sport] game, and –“ WELL! Obviously you’re one of those racist pigs who like to insult Native Americans with mascots that look like cheesy toothy Native American warriors. And I think it’s insulting to Native Americans – and America stole this land from them, you know – but it’s just infuriating to see them depicted as violent savages in those insulting mascots and blahblahblahblahblah.”

See what I mean? You pick whatever part of American daily life and culture – healthcare, putting out the garbage, sports team mascots, religion, what foods you eat, going to college, getting a job, what kind of car you drive, the weather, potholes in the roads, your home mortgage, and on and on and on – and in the 21^st Century, it’s a political issue. 

This is the kind of crap that Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung built entire political systems and entire dysfunctional societal attitudes out of – resentment, depression, class warfare, “spread the wealth” and handout mentalities. Usually it’s liberals spending their lives pissed off about some kind of “injustice” and “inequality” somewhere in the world. And when the majority of people are still happy, well-fed and “hangin’ in there” they still ain’t happy. Instead they’re out there not spreading any wealth but damned sure spreading hate and discontent anywhere and everywhere they can – doctor’s offices, sporting events, or even mowing or watering your yard.

ENOUGH ALREADY! Here’s a great idea, America. Stop listening to all the whining about how bad things are – usually contrived way out of proportion compared to reality by the likes of these idiots like “Occupy Wall Street” and the “mainstream” media – and start realizing how good damned near most of us have it in this country (and have had it so good for a long time now.) Ask yourself; why do people from Canada come to America to get their healthcare if the Canadian system is supposed to be so superb? Why is it that in socialist economies like Britain where the govt taxes anything and everything possible to pay for their handout mentality systems that the creative types in those countries come to America to invent their devices, write their songs, perform their research and yes, invest their money or even retire? Why is it that everywhere in the world where Marxist, social democratic programs like Socialized Medicine, handout mentalities and so on are the rule, why is it that their costs of living are so preventatively high and those nations have failed to become leading producing nations of products or services?

And to the permanently ticked off, embittered and envious members of the “Blame America First” crowd, made up largely of liberals and Democrats, I say; stop spreading the discontent amongst the masses by trying to breed infighting and jealousy amongst the generations or occupations or income levels. Stop trying to enslave entire populations cradle-to-grave with handout programs that since the Great Depression have only grown in size and scope and budget yet produce an ever smaller of people that have actually “gotten on their own two feet” through such programs. I say instead, why don’t you try encouraging people to dig deep inside themselves to discover their own greatness, take advantage of the freedoms and liberties and opportunities that – despite your gloomy rhetoric to the contrary – still do exist in this nation. In other words, try to motivate the masses into becoming something rather than de-motivate them into becoming unproductive, embittered and envious little drones subjugated into a life of indentured servitude to a government handout program.

They gave Barak Hussein Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for doing God only knows what. Try coaching and encouraging people to peacefully, honorably and productively achieve on their own and that would be an effort truly worthy of world acclaim. And something that would really make a difference.

Hollywood political endorsements - a waste of press?

Why do some Hollywood actor types seem to feel they have the need, the right, the duty, the arrogance or what to endorse some political candidate for president? Who cares what they think? 

Despite their sometimes overinflated sense of self importance, they’re just actors. What, if anything, gives them anymore expertise about what makes a good president than, say a mailman or cocktail waitress? What makes an actor’s opinion about presidential candidates so much more newsworthy than that of the letter carrier or cocktail waitress?

Actors know how to memorize lines and dramatically convey concepts thru voice, body language and facial expression. Nothing more; nothing less. They’re just kids who act in school plays, really. Richer, mind you – and often with their own private jet to flutter around on, but just kids acting in school plays. So what makes the press think they’re barometers of a person’s political science, statesmanship and leadership?

Given the personal lives of some of these prima donnas from Tinseltown, I’m not sure some of them would really know good, quality behavior from bad. So, why does the press seem to think we need to look to them for counsel on who we should elect as president?

Why I think the GOP WANTS to lose the 2012 Presidential election.

Back during the 2008 presidential election, the GOP candidate was Arizona Senator John McCain. His opponent was a little-known former community activist from Chicago and a Senator from Illinois named Barak Hussein Obama. Obama was a less-than-one-term senator who had merely voted “present” on every issue he was present in the Senate to vote on. His only campaign speeches were so non-committal as to promise “hope,” “change you can believe in” and “yes, we can.” Not only did Obama have next to no record to campaign on, his very citizenship was – and still is – in question.

John McCain wasn’t a conservative. He wasn’t really a moderate either. In fact, an examination of his voting and speaking record shows that John McCain’s only cause in his entire political career has been John McCain.  

Fast forward to 2012; Barak Hussein Obama is up for re-election.

Obama’s four-year record as president shows him to stand AGAINST everything that America – to date – has stood on and for. He has bowed to foreign kings, went on a public apology tour condemning past U.S. behaviors around the world and demonstrated a complete disregard – nay, disrespect – for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. He has disregarded, some say, or violated say others, the Executive Powers Clause with his appointment of Czars, the hiring and firing of corporate CEOs from the Oval Office and skyrocketed the U.S. National Debt so far out of sight with his “stimulus” package that not only are we as a population so far in debt we have no hope of anything but national insolvency but also so do our grandchildren and their grandchildren.And when his "stimulus" plan failed miserably to prevent double-digit unemployment, he's told us to just consider high unemployment "the new norm."

Additionally he, along with his fellow Socialist cronies then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rammed socialized medicine down the throats of the American people very much against the will of the people. This was evidenced by the haste in which they passed it before the mid-term congressional elections claiming that “"[Congress has] to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it….”*[See above video clip.]

All this and yet to say nothing of the demonstratively elitist behaviors he has shown in the umpteen hugely expensive vacations he and his family have taken at taxpayer expense the past four years. 

With such a record, the 2012 election should be an election that is truly up to the GOP to win or lose.

But in the face of such a dismal record as President of the United States, who does it look like the GOP will run against Barak Hussein Obama and his abominable record as POTUS? So far, it looks like they’re going to be running former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney a “country club Republican” and a RINO** if there ever was one. His own state’s health care legislation known as “RomneyCare”*** since Romney sponsored its early form and signed the version modified by Massachusetts legislature into law while governor, looks like a smaller-sized version of ObamaCare. And his record otherwise shows him to be anything but a conservative. RINO masks candidates with such liberal tendencies by calling them “moderates.” Make no mistake; in this most-critical presidential election in 2012, there’s no difference between a moderate and a liberal.

And this moderate is what the GOP thinks will defeat such an obvious liberal as Barak Hussein Obama, another liberal just packaged in a GOP wrapping? Did they learn nothing from their loss against a candidate without much record to stand against?  Yet now that they’ve got an enormous record that just begs to be criticized by anything and everything American, this is what we get for a choice? Mitt Frickin’ Romney?

Tell me the GOP doesn’t really want to lose the election that is truly theirs to lose. And if the GOP can't beat Barak Hussein Obama and his abominable record, then who can they beat?

*Pelosi, N, Address to the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties, as quoted by Roff, P. March 9, 2010 in U.S. News Politics, Pelosi: Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What’s In It, Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

**Republican In Name Only

*** Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 of the Massachusetts General Court, An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care