Alcohol and Ammunition

The Militia Act of 1792

2012-01-17T08:51:00.000-05:00

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

Does anyone truly doubt that Amendment II to the U.S. Constitution establishes an individual right? Men were required to provide themselves with suitable arms under the Militia Act. The arms were not issued to the individuals, but purchased or otherwise acquired by each person. Common weapons that can be carried by a man in his hands, not artillery pieces.

You're so stupid. That was over 200 years ago.

The founders did not want a standing army. The militia - armed, free citizens defending their own property - were the first line of defense. When the muster was over, the militia would disband into individual citizens who returned - with their own arms - to their homes. Individual homes (and persons) were defended by the same weapons used to defend the Nation against invasion.

That's such an antiquated notion. Nobody is going to invade us today, and we have police and military people to defend us!

What about our border with Mexico? We are under perpetual invasion through our southern border. 911 takes time. The military takes even longer. And police have NO DUTY to protect you, only to respond to a crime in progress. A "crime in progress" could be you at the bad end of a stickup, or worse, a shooting like the recent events in Arizona.

2011-06-08T15:21:00.003-04:00

If You Build It, They Will Come: "The Crossings" Homeless Shelter in Charlottesville, VA

2011-05-13T13:12:00.001-04:00

The City of Charlottesville, and its ding-dong Mayor Dave Norris, have never met a wasteful “infrastructure” spending project that they did not like. To wit: “The Crossings,” a high-rise homeless shelter, to be built on land that the city council re-zoned, purchased for $1.55 million, and then transferred ownership of, to a shell corporation of a “non-profit” homeless advocacy group. “Virginia Supportive Housing,” the parent of the shell corporation, calls the $1.55 million a “loan” from the city.

According to The Hook, the poor poor pitiful poor homeless people who will infest the shelter will pay 30% of their income, or $50, per month, whichever is greater. The city and the non-profit plan to have half of the 60 units reserved for the homeless, with the remainder to be rented out to suckers willing to shell out $500 each to live in a 360 square foot studio in a soon-to-be tenement.

What will happen to the $1.55 million that the city “loaned” to the non-profit group? Since they don’t make profits, how will the money be generated to repay the loan? What if no one besides the homeless wants to live in a homeless shelter, and no units are rented at full price? Will the city bring in even more homeless people to occupy the building? What will the maintenance of the building cost? If public housing and “section 8” housing are any indication of future results, the shelter will be a big loser, with the taxpayers left holding the bag for the foolishness of government. What else is new?

“It’s about doing things smarter,” says Mayor Dave Norris, who may be borderline retarded.

The impetus of this boondoggle reportedly comes from a 2006 New Yorker article in which a dummy journalist “relates the tale of a lovable-yet-hopeless Reno, Nevada, drunk named Murray Barr. Over a decade, Barr ran up a million-dollar tab in public services including frequent emergency room visits and repeated arrests and incarcerations for public intoxication." Sounds like a guy I would want living across the hall from my apartment.

"It would probably have been cheaper," the author concludes, "to give him a full-time nurse and his own apartment."

The article in the Hook continues by making the preposterous claim that the shelter will be a net savings for the city and the local indigent hospital, UVA HealthSystem:

Norris says that UVA hospital spends about $11,000 per year on each of the 20 most habitual emergency room users. And Charlottesville planning director Jim Tolbert says there's one Charlottesville man who has been arrested over 700 times.

Yes, what a fantastic idea! Everyone should get free housing, free healthcare, free food, free everything! We would all be so much better off!

Of course, this is a stupid idea. It reminds me of the courtroom scene in The Fountainhead, when Howard Roark is put on trial for blowing up a building he designed, which was to become a low-rent housing project

"The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.

The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.

…To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.

The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.

Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.

…Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.

…

…As poles of good and evil, [man] was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism – the sacrifice of self to others. This tied men irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal – under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.

…

Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.

…

Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.

…

Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation, or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.

Barack Hussein Obama: Pussy or President?

2011-05-10T11:54:00.001-04:00

Over at American Thinker, Robert Morrison has written a good piece contrasting President Obama against Winston Churchill, and their respective personal reactions to war and the use of force. President Obama comes off as a small man concerned with keeping his own hide intact, while the great Sir Winston demonstrated confidence and manly firmness.

...[C]ontrast Churchill's reaction to coming to power in those sternest of days with the president's reaction to his own finest hour. At a time when the whole world should applaud his order for the killing of Osama bin Laden, President Obama spoils the effect of this splendid victory in the war on terror by going on Sixty Minutes and emoting about how nervous he was. "It was the longest 40 minutes of my life," he confessed.
Mr. President, with all due respect, pipe down! Don't spill your guts on national TV. In leading us against the terrorists, it's your job to spill their guts. And, by the way, you should show the photograph of bin Laden...If the reason you sent in the SEALs was to prove to the world we had Al Qaeda's number one killer, the photo confirming all that should have been released at the same time.
...

Rush Limbaugh took issue with the photo you did release. He said it made you look like a little boy in the Situation Room with the big boys. He has a point there.

And then there are the times when President Obama was called upon to throw out the first pitch at a couple of baseball games. Wearing his "mom pants," Obama threw one ball in the dirt, and at another game, he lobbed the ball past the catcher. To say that he throws like a girl gives a disservice to the fairer sex. Although he portrays himself as athletic, the evidence does not bear this out.

President Obama had a golden opportunity to present himself as a strong leader of a strong nation. Instead, he demonstrates his pussy nature. Little more can be expected from someone with a defective personality and severe narcissistic tendencies.

Please understand. I do not hate President Obama. Life is too short to be consumed by hate for another human being. I hate what he has done, and continues to do, to our great nation. He should never have been elected dog catcher, let alone President.of the United States. He does not have the temperament necessary for the job, nor does he have the skills of leadership to make himself effective. Being a community rabble rouser does not qualify one for the highest executive office in the world. Hell, I have more executive experience than the President did before his inauguration. He shows little promise of "growing into the job," save to cement his own, and his party's, power in the fashion of Marxism.

Oopsie! There's that word again. I should stop using that word. Maybe I could say "socialist," or "commie," or "red." How about calling Obama an "Alinskyite?" It does not matter. They are all cut from the same cloth. What is important is to remember the parable of the scorpion and the frog:

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hello Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride across the river on your back?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you won't try to kill me?" asked the frog.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"All right, then. How do I know you won't just wait till we get to the other side and kill me there?" said the frog.

"Ah," said the scorpion, "Because, you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from his own back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and danced a little jig on the sinking frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both drowned in the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

The frog is the producers of this country, who bear the load of others as well as their own. The scorpion is the Statist, the welfare recipient, the looters and moochers who ride on the backs of others, controlling them and eventually killing them because destruction is their nature.

President Obama is a scorpion.

South Carolina Debate and Self-Preservation

2011-05-06T11:10:00.001-04:00

Many have said that Herman Cain won last night's debate in South Carolina. Many critics of any candidate other than Ron Paul have attempted to diminish Herman Cain by calling him "pro Federal Reserve," and insist that Ron Paul's idea to audit the Federal Reserve will be some kind of panacea to our economic malaise. This is a silly argument, and does not demonstrate much consideration of the facts which led to out poor economic state.

As Mr. Cain has stated, we have bigger problems than the Federal Reserve. What is to be accomplished by an audit? Is not spending money, the exclusive authority of the House of Representatives, the real problem? I am no fan of the Federal Reserve, but if we spend every red cent coming into our government, and then borrow and spend more money, how is the Federal Reserve to blame?

I like Ron Paul's adherence to our Constitution. But his foreign policy based on his interpretation of our Constitution and the writings of our founders is bizarre. To say, in effect, that the islamo-fascist terror attacks against us were somehow our fault for being Americans is akin to blaming a woman for her own rape because she dresses provocatively. Mr. Paul's policy of non-intervention is isolationism, period. If any use of our military force outside of our borders is unconstitutional, then what is the purpose of our military? Is not one of the stated purposes of the Constitution "to provide for the common defence"? In an address to congress, President George Washington said, "Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." In a later address, Washington went further: "There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." Self-preservation, not unlimited war, was the goal of the founders. This is reflected in Washington's remarks, and the writings and statements of many of his contemporaries.

Ron Paul, and his champions "Mike" and "the Southern Avenger," like to deride and insult conservatives or libertarians who believe in a strong foreign policy by calling them "neoconservatives." This is a thinly veiled anti-Semitic remark, and it is disgusting. Because our only ally in the middle east is Israel, they see any intervention by our military in the region as a prop in support of Israel. But they forget that there are people, and nations, in the world who wish us ill and make efforts to carry those wishes out. I would recommend the book The Threatening Storm, by Kenneth Pollack, to any reader who thinks that Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq war "from before the beginning" was an honorable position.

Speaking of honorable, is calling yourself "the Southern Avenger" a good idea? Really? Just what are you avenging? What kind of neo-Confederate neo-secessionist loon would use that title? Do you have a big stack of Confederate money that your great-great-granddaddy saved, and you hope to cash in? Or do you think you are better and smarter than the rest of us dumb Yankees? Maybe you want to bring back to prominence the social club that Nathan Bedford Forrest started? You are an outlier, sir, the fringe of the fringe.

Beer Geek meets Garrett Oliver

2011-05-05T10:33:00.001-04:00

How does the Beer Geek know about Devil's Backbone Ein Kolsch?

UBL Dead, Mutual Masturbation Begins in Earnest.

2011-05-02T12:59:00.000-04:00

Thanks and praise to our military, in particular our special operators. They are the best at what they do.

Please do not misunderstand. UBL's death is a blessing to the civilized world. But as Harvey Keitel said in Reservoir Dogs, "Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet."

UBL was a bad man, but he was only one man. There are plenty of other islamo-fascist terrorist assholes ready to take his place in the islamo-fascist terrorist asshole power structure, not to mention the hordes willing to aid and abet the perpetration of further atrocities against the Great Satan and the rest of the Western world.

President Obama deserves some credit for giving the green light on the mission. But the mission was only a continuation of the larger mission begun by his predecessor, which then-State Senator, and later Senator, and even later President Obama actively worked against. One must ask oneself, if President Bush had authorized this action and had achieved the same result during his time in office, would the reaction by the media be the same?

Dear reader, you know the answer. Bush would have been called the usual names, accused of the usual "cowboy" attitude, and at least a handful of congress critters would begin impeachment proceedings against him. He would have been accused of assassination, undeclared warfare, and anything else his opponents could get to stick to the wall. You know I am right. This is not sour grapes. This is logical, critical, rational analysis.

UBL is reaping the whirlwind, and I am pleased. I hope he was wrapped in a pigskin before he was tossed overboard in his "burial at sea." But there will be more to fill the void he has left behind.

"...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."

2011-04-29T10:54:00.001-04:00

From Hemmoreuters, via Yahoo! news: Inflation increases, economy slows. In a related story at Yahoo! finance, here are 9 areas where inflation is affecting consumers the most:

1. Beef
In a revised forecast Monday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said consumers will see higher price tags on ground beef and steak, projecting 6% to 7% increases year over year. That's up from a previous forecast of just 4.5% to 5.5% inflation for beef prices. Beef prices have surged in the last several months as supplies shrink, exports boom and grain costs soar.

2. Pork
Don't think you can just switch from cow to pig to avoid this trend — pork could see retail price increases of as much as 7.5% over 2010 levels according to the USDA.

3. Grains
Even going vegetarian is more expensive than it was a year ago. Corn prices have doubled, from $3.49 a bushel in July to well over $7.70 currently. Wheat prices have rolled back a bit in recent weeks, but topped 2008 highs in February to set a new record and remain very high currently.

4. Gasoline
The average U.S. price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped about 12 cents over the last two weeks to $3.88, with the highest average price for gas tallying $4.27 in Tucson, Ariz. This is with oil at $112 a barrel — if crude prices reach 2008 peak levels of $145, four bucks for gas may seem cheap.

5. Copper
The price of copper at the end of 2008 was just $1.30 per pound. Currently, copper is trading around $4.30 after setting a record of $4.60 in February. Unlike gold and silver, which are largely used in luxury goods or as investments, copper is used in a wide range of household items — from electrical wiring to air conditioners to water pipes.

6. Diapers
Consumer-products company Procter & Gamble PG (NYSE: PG - News) said this week that list prices for Pampers are up 7% on average over last year, with even Pampers wipes up 3%. To be clear, that's not a retail price hike, just a cost increase to stores. Retailers will decide how much of those price increases to pass along to shoppers. Kimberly-Clark KMB (NYSE: KMB - News), maker of Huggies, said Monday it plans to raise prices for similar reasons — rising costs for the petroleum products and paper pulp that go into the diapers. It will be the third such announcement for Kimberly-Clark since the middle of March.

7. Paper towels and toilet paper
If you don't have infants, you're not off the hook. P&G also said that Charmin toilet paper and Bounty paper towels are both listing for 5% more now with retailers and distributors than they were a year ago. KMB's diaper price update will also be accompanied by a boost for its flagship Kleenex tissues.

8. Shipping surcharges
Freight shipper United Parcel Service UPS (NYSE: UPS - News) will be hiking its fuel surcharges from 7.5% to 8.5% as of May 2 for ground freight and from 13% to 15% for air freight. That really hurts small businesses. If you are a storekeeper simply trying to keep your shelves stocked, you have no choice but to pay more and endure smaller margins — or hike prices yourself and add to this inflationary mess.

9. Wages
Perhaps the most insidious factor of our current inflationary spiral is the fact that while all these other items are costing more, household purchasing power is shrinking because wages and salaries aren't keeping up. While the consumer price index rose 2.7% in March to clock the fastest 12-month pace since December 2009, a staggering 18.3% of personal income is now made up of food stamps while wages account for just 50.5%. That's the lowest since the government started keeping records in 1929.

In addition to copper, all metals, especially gold and silver, are at or near record high prices. Our government has already debased our paper money, and all of the metal value in our coins except one: the nickel. Since 1866, the nickel has been made from a nickel and copper alloy, at 75% and 25% respectively. That means the melt value of the nickel today is around $o.o72, 40% or so above face value. Compare this to the Sacagawea "dollar," made of god-knows-what metal, which has a melt value of $0.073, or only 7.3% of face value. How long will the nickel continue to be minted in this state? With the production and shipping cost of each nickel at almost ten cents each, my guess is not long at all.

Herman Cain for President

2011-04-26T11:07:00.000-04:00

Beer Geek

2011-04-25T13:22:00.003-04:00

Despite its title, this is not a "Beer Blog."

Octuple IPA at 15% Alcohol and 700 IBUs! What would a stonger version be like?

And what the hell is a quintuple double trouble BFK mother fucker lickin plucker trecha boochie boochie bingo bongo mambo ricky ricardo vaillarto petite brand holy freaking potato juice single lane butt plug belgian sour with a triple axel and a splash of lime?

Can We Try This in the United States Congress?

2011-04-25T13:19:00.001-04:00

Mark Levin played the following clip last night, from about two years ago. Imagine, if you will, sometime in the near future, the Republican nominee using these words to confront Dear Leader Chairman Maobama. Is there any question who would win? Any doubt at all that Mr. Obama would be handed his hat, and his ass as well?

Silver and Gold

2011-04-21T08:49:00.001-04:00

The price of gold will likely close above $1500 today. It has been breaking record highs every couple of days recently. Silver is almost $46 an ounce right now, just a few dollars short of its all-time high from 1980, when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market.

What does this say about our fiat currency Federal Reserve Notes? They are federal notes, all right. But there is no "reserve" except for more federal notes. Increasing the number of "dollars" in circulation serves only to dilute the value of existing dollars, the very definition of inflation.

I am encouraged by the potential minting of State coins in gold and silver, especially in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Dear reader, before you say "Your stupid," consider Article I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. It reads, in part, "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."

Paper money is a joke without gold or silver to back it up. History is littered with examples of the failure of fiat currency.

Tea Party Day

2011-04-15T10:00:00.000-04:00

Free to Choose

2011-04-12T09:51:00.004-04:00

Why is it a big deal to cut a few billion dollars when debt and deficit are in the trillions? Why is a government shutdown (in name only) a horrible tragedy? Why do the Republican leaders complain that they only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, when they are 100% in control of spending? Why does the Republican leadership pound its chest about fiscal responsibility, and then go along playing the same Washington games? How did a wuss crybaby like Boehner ever become Speaker of the House? Why does the President, making a bizarre live break-in to the 11 p.m. news, not address the nation from the Oval Office? The only way to end junky behavior, if the junky will not do it himself, is to cut him off from his junk. Our federal government needs an intervention. And that is what the Tea Party has been, regardless of the claims of the freakish left. The Tea Party wants to end the exponential growth of debt and deficit, and the inevitable taxes and government intrusion that will follow hard upon. It is not too late to put on the brakes. In their great book Free to Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman propose that a Constitutional Amendment is the best way to limit government and its spending. Here is the text of their amendment (any transcription errors are mine):

January 30, 1979 Washington, D.C.
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING Prepared by the Federal Amendment Drafting Committee W. C. Stubblebine, Chairman Convened by The National Tax Limitation Committee Wm. F Rickenbacker, Chairman; Lewis K. Uhler, President

Section 1. To protect the people against excessive governmental burdens and to promote sound fiscal and monetary policies, total outlays of the Government of the United States shall be limited.

(a) Total outlays in any fiscal year shall not increase by a percentage greater than the percentage increase in nominal gross national product in the last calendar year ending prior to the beginning of said fiscal year. Total outlays shall include budget and off-budget outlays, and include redemptions of the public debt and emergency outlays.

(b) If inflation for the last calendar year ending prior to the beginning of any fiscal year is more than three per cent, the permissible percentage increase in total outlays for that fiscal year shall be reduced by one-fourth of the excess of inflation over three per cent. Inflation shall be measured by the difference between the percentage increase in nominal gross national product and the percentage increase in real gross national product.

Section 2. When, for any fiscal year, total revenues received by the Government of the United States exceed total outlays, the surplus shall be used to reduce the public debt of the United States until such debt is eliminated.

Section 3. Following declaration of an emergency by the President, Congress may authorize, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, a specified amount of emergency outlays in excess of the limit for the current fiscal year.

Section 4. The limit on total outlays may be changed by a specified amount by a three-fourths vote of both Houses of Congress when approved by the Legislatures of a majority of the several States. The change shall become effective for the fiscal year following approval.

Section 5. For each of the first six fiscal years after the ratification of this article, total grants to States and local governments shall not be a smaller fraction of total outlays than in the three fiscal years prior to the ratification of this article. Thereafter, if grants are less than that fraction of total outlays, the limit on total outlays shall be decreased by an equivalent amount.

Section 6. The Government of the United States shall not require, directly or indirectly, that States or local governments engage in additional or expanded activities without compensation equal to the necessary additional costs.

Section 7. This article may be enforced by one or more members of the Congress in an action brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and by no other persons. The action shall name as defendant the Treasurer of the United States, who shall have authority over outlays by any unit or agency of the Government of the United States when required by a court order enforcing the provisions of this article. The order of the court shall not specify the particular outlays to be made or reduced. Changes in outlays necessary to comply with the order of the court shall be made no later than the end of the third full fiscal year following the court order.

Here are some others from their book:

Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of sellers of goods or labor to price their products or services

Bye bye, minimum wage laws. Labor unions would have a fit over that one.

No State shall make or impose any law which shall abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to follow any occupation or profession of his choice.

Or simply,

The right of the people to buy and sell legitimate goods and services at mutually acceptable terms shall not be infringed by Congress or any of the States.

Herman Cain for President

2011-04-07T08:55:00.005-04:00

From '93, smacking down Bill Clinton on the issue of nationalizing health care:

And more recently, channeling Paul Atreidies:

Happy 100th Birthday

2011-03-29T12:28:00.004-04:00

To the M1911, still the finest sidearm design ever.

I have many fond memories of the M1911, or in my case the M1911A1 with the curved mainspring housing and milled frame at the trigger. I prefer the straight mainspring housing because it fits my hand better than the curved, but I digress. Enlisted personnel are not typically issued sidearms, unless they are machine gunners (which I was, with the awesome M60) or assistant gunners, or in other situations where a rifle would be impractical. I was also on my battalion's pistol team, which I volunteered for to get range time.

The M1911 is probably the world's safest handgun. In order for it to fire, the chamber must be loaded, the frame safety must be in the downward position, the hammer must be cocked, the grip safety must be depressed, and the trigger must be pulled.

What is remarkable about the M1911 is that Browning designed it for cavalry troops ("Horses! What the f____ were you thinking?") Yes, horses. The design is so superior to any other handgun design that the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team currently uses it, as do many of the elite military units of the U.S. and the rest of the world. It has gone from the trenches of WWI, the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, the frozen Chosin, to the VC tunnels in Viet Nam. By 1985, it was being replaced by the inferior M9, also known as the Beretta 92. Ask yourself: In a rock-throwing contest, would you rather have a whole bunch of little rocks to throw all over the place, or would you rather have a few big rocks that you can throw reliably and accurately? The Army made a bad choice.

There are many manufacturers of M1911s, and some are made better than others. Kimber would be at the top of my list, but I would take my sloppy and poorly matched M1911 the Army issued me any day. I put many a round downrange with that pistol, and it never failed once.

In other words, I love the 1911.

Random Thoughts on Mr. Thompson's Speech

2011-03-29T09:45:00.006-04:00

What about Sudan? What about Ivory Coast? What about Cuba, for that matter? China? What about every other third-world excrement pit where the women (and more than a few men and children) are raped, or hacked to death with machetes? Are we now to be wholly subservient to the U.N., NATO, or some extra-Constitutional body or foreign government? What exactly is our foreign policy? Why did we not act even sooner if our policy at the time was that Qaddafi "must go"? Why did we not use targeted strikes to eliminate Qaddafi and his lieutenants? Why did Congress end the Viet Nam war by de-funding military operations instead of using the freshly minted War Powers Act, which they passed over Nixon's veto? (N.B.- the U.N. resolution number regarding the Lybia situation is 1973.) Why are the House Republicans not doing the same thing now? Why did the President's speech last so long? Why was he not speaking from the Oval Office?

I have my own answers for these questions. You, dear reader, may have your own as well. Some questions are easier to answer than others. But the only answers which follow a consistent, honest, and rational line of thought are those that reveal the President's desire to abandon the Constitution, fundamentally transform the United States, and reduce our prominence and importance in the world. This is his vision of our foreign policy for the bright shining future.

President Obama is a Marxist. His administration is Marxist. The politicians and media who support him are Marxist. Do you not believe this is true? The Communist Manifesto, wholly uninteresting to a sound mind, contains a section known as the "ten pillars of communism" See if you can't find the President, his administration, and his followers in these statements:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

Extra Credit:

1. Which ObamAdiministration official offered Chairman Mao as a favorite political philosopher?

2. Which ObamAdministration official self-identified as a "communist revolutionary?"

3. Which ObamAdministration official praised Britain's failed National Health?

4. What was the Kelo decision?

5. How many tax brackets do we have in the IRS code, and how are they structured?

6. What is the percentage of tax on estates in the U.S.?

7. How do we stop jobs from being "shipped overseas"?

8. What is the Federal Reserve? FHA? HUD? Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac?

9. What function is served by the FCC? What is Amtrak?

10. How many farmers work at the Department of Agriculture? Which automobile manufacturer is owned by the federal government? What is General Electric?

11. Who is the president of the AFL/CIO?

12. What are BioFuels?

13. True or False: Education would cease if the federal Department of Education was eliminated.

Extra Extra Credit:

Explain, in 500 words or less, why "spreading the wealth around" is better for everyone. Use evidence to support your arguments.

Good luck. This should be easy if you are intellectually honest.

The GOP, 2012, and Homeschooling

2011-03-25T11:33:00.004-04:00

I look forward to education becoming an issue with clear lines of division and distinction in the 2012 races.

Based on my college experience in education school (yes, I have a B.A.), I have long been of the opinion that public schools are little more than government indoctrination centers, where education takes a back seat to loose social morality and multicultural awareness. During my student teaching, I encountered social promotion of a 10th grader who had not yet learned how to read. The child clearly was not mentally retarded, and was like the other students in every way. It was believed his presence in the school was better for everyone than if he chose to drop out. Then there was the condom giveaways in "health" class, "Fall Harvest" instead of Thanksgiving, and "Kwaanza," a holiday invented by malcontents in the 1960's, instead of Christmas, or even "Holidays." Ritalin was widely prescribed to many children. All of this on top of tenure for shitty teachers. I was disgusted by the whole experience, and I vowed never to become a public school teacher. I also vowed to homeschool my children.

I am encouraged by the following article, presented in it entirety below. NB- While I understand religious reasons for homeschooling, religion is not a consideration in our choice to homeschool. That said, it is a mistake to assume homeschoolers are religious kooks. Or political kooks. We care about our children as individuals, and we place a high value on their individual minds.

From Yahoo:

By Kay Henderson Kay Henderson – Thu Mar 24, 3:35 pm ET
DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) – Three potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates expressed hostility toward the public school system at a home schooling rally on Wednesday in the early presidential caucus state of Iowa.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul told the crowd government wants "absolute control" of the "indoctrination" of children. Paul spoke along with Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Georgia businessman Herman Cain.

"The public school system now is a propaganda machine," Paul said, prompting applause from the crowd of hundreds of home schooling families. "They start with our kids even in kindergarten, teaching them about family values, sexual education, gun rights, environmentalism - and they condition them to believe in so much which is totally un-American."

Bachmann said home schooling is the "essence" of freedom and liberty. "It's about knowing our children better than the state knows our children," she said.

Bachmann, who home-schooled her five biological children, lamented that she and her husband had been unable to teach the 23 foster children who have lived in their home because Minnesota authorities said foster children could not be home-schooled.

"It is not up to a bureaucrat to decide what is best for your children," Bachmann said, drawing cheers from the crowd. "I am so tired of the establishment telling us that they know best. We know best."

Cain, former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza and another prospective Republican candidate, denounced government involvement in education at all levels.

"That's all we want is for government to get out of the way so we can educate ourselves and our children the old-fashioned way," Cain said.

Justin LaVan of the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators said it was encouraging to see potential presidential candidates talking about the home-schooling movement.

"More importantly, talking about our Creator - our rights that came from our Creator, acknowledging that and giving him the glory, folks," said LaVan, who served as master of ceremonies at the rally.

(Editing by Mary Wisniewski and Greg McCune)

Note: I wonder if in the above quote, Ron Paul actually said "gay rights" intead of "gun rights." Hmmm.

DRT

2011-03-23T12:48:00.004-04:00

A woman in Florida used her pink pistol to shoot and kill an intruder.

It is now possible that she will be facing charges for using excessive force because she fired more than one round. Florida has castle doctrine, so we shall see.

What is the minimum number of rounds needed to (probably) guarantee elimination of threat? 3: Two in the chest, one in the head. That said, the number of rounds fired is irrelevant as long as there is a perceived threat. Is not your life, and the lives of your loved ones, more important than any criminal intruder intending to harm you? I say it is. Give him the only destruction he has a right to seek: his own.

Hell No, We Won't Go...er...yeah...oops...Kill Them Until They are Dead!

2011-03-22T10:48:00.006-04:00

Here's President Obama, who was against the war from before the start of the beginning of the beginning of the start of the war:

And here's Vice President Biden:

And here is Biden voting for the $87 billion before he voted against it:

The recent attacks on Lybia show the hypocrisy enmeshed in the Statist left like cancer.

This is too rich. Nader is screaming "IMPEACH! WAR CRIMES! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!" Kucinich, formerly my congressman, is citing the U.S. Constitution on the issue, and he is correct! And Obama himself has said the President does not have the authority to do what he himself is doing!

I am of the opinion that there are more men that need killin' than there are horses that need stealin'. In other words, I am not a pansy about destroying the enemy. I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bungled as they were and continue to be today. Both wars were initiated on the belief that the United States was under an imminent threat based on what was thought to be credible intelligence about the threat. Perhaps President Bush lacked a formal "Declaration of War." At least he had the approval of Congress and UN resolution 1441.

Where is the threat today? To be sure, Quadaffi is a thug (Pan Am, Berlin disco, not to mention his internal activities), but is there actionable intel? Is the Colonel planning something the rest of us do not know about? No. All we know is that a so-called democracy movement has taken hold, and it has turned into an armed rebellion. We should stay out of civil wars, or so I seem to remember someone saying recently.

Is Chairman Maobama going to give back his Nobel Peace Prize? NB- President Obama was given the Peace Prize based on what the Nobel committee felt what he could do, not what they thought he would do.

President Obama has become everything the left hated about President Bush. And they have no option but to vote for his reelection in 2012.

Heh.

Robert Hurt, D-VA(5), a.k.a. Douchey McBag, Votes to Fund ObamaCare

2011-03-15T18:36:00.003-04:00

Mr. McBag voted with the feckless Republican majority to fund ObamaCare as part of the CR, the official name being H J Res 48. This included funding for ObamaCare, the unconstitutional health care law that the new Republican majority voted overwhelmingly to repeal.

Funding for ObamaCare is hidden in the ObamaCare law, and bypasses normal appropriations procedures. The house had the opportunity to begin killing the law. The "rules" argument against de-funding through the CR was excrement, to wit: From Ernest Istook's recent testimony, as quoted in the Washington times:

To de-fund Obamacare, it is insufficient simply to deny future funding. Until the full law can be repealed, at least the existing and advance appropriations need to be rescinded, just as the House last month voted to repeal billions of dollars from previous appropriations to 123 federal programs. An effort to restrict use of the funds appropriated within Obamacare was thwarted because the House did not waive the same point of order (House Rule XXI) as it waived to allow de-funding those 123 other programs. This was most unfortunate.

Mr. McBag would have done well to go against the House leadership, but he is now showing his RINO stripes. He voted for Boehner, a 20+ year veteran of big government republican party politics, to be Speaker. Real leadership was shown by Reps. Bachmann and King, not Boehner and Cantor. The Republican leadership in the House and their lackeys, are, for a lack of a better term, a bunch of gutless turds. They are not part of the Tea Party movement, but they reaped the benefits of the Tea Party voters that swept them into power.

Why would someone vote to repeal a law, and then vote to continue funding for that law? Why would someone run a campaign on a platform of fiscal responsibility, and then act in a fiscally irresponsible manner?

Bye-bye, Mr. Douchey McBag. May you follow in the footsteps of your predecessor, and become the second one-term congressman from Virginia since the 1800s. May you be primaried, and defeated. I will do my best to see that it is so.

Mike Stark is Either a Bourgeois Socialist, or a Useful Idiot.

2011-03-09T16:31:00.004-05:00

I have written about this fool before. He is obsesssed with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and likes to think he helped get Jim Melonhead Webb elected to the Senate over George Allen. I do not listen to Rush and Sean, but I know millions do every day. I have only heard him once on the program I listen to, the Wilkow Majority (sidebar). His argument was smashed into little pieces by the host, and he hung up crying like a little girl.

How many people read Mikey's blog, or care about what he has to say, or even know he exists? He and his blog probably have about five or six more readers than me. Which isn't saying much.

So Mikey, if you are reading this, did you study con law at UVA? I'm sure you did. Were your lectures devoted to case precedent, or the actual Constitution? Have you actually sat down and read the Constitution, Mikey? Have you read it for what it does say, or what you want it to say, or what your bearded Marxist professor told you it says?

Do you moderate the comments on your blog to exclude those that challenge, and defeat soundly, your assertions? Do you only allow those comments which stroke your ego and lick your boots?

When did you stop beating your wife? When did you stop doing drugs? Oops. Those are your questions.

Tell me truly, Mike Stark. Are you a Bourgeois Socialist, or a Useful Idiot?

Intruder Alert

2011-03-09T13:53:00.003-05:00

CNN reports that an intruder called 911 because he was afraid the homeowner may have a gun.

Heh.

Bertram Scudder

2011-03-04T09:35:00.004-05:00

Why is it so easy to pick apart a Nobel Economics Prize winning "journalist" like Paul Krugman? In his latest piece, "How to Kill a Recovery," Mr. Krugman's first mistake is to assume that there is an economic recovery in the first place. The timing of the article is suspicious as well, following hard upon the news of a "reduced" unemployment rate. Here's the meat, if you will, of Krugman's stupid article:

So we’ve gone through years of high unemployment and inadequate growth. Despite the pain, however, American families have gradually improved their financial position. And in the past few months there have been signs of an emerging virtuous circle. As families have repaired their finances, they have increased their spending; as consumer demand has started to revive, businesses have become more willing to invest; and all this has led to an expanding economy, which further improves families’ financial situation.

But it’s still a fragile process, especially given the effects of rising oil and food prices. These price rises have little to do with U.S. policy; they’re mainly because of growing demand from China and other emerging markets, on one side, and disruption of supply from political turmoil and terrible weather on the other. But they’re a hit to purchasing power at an especially awkward time. And things will be much worse if the Federal Reserve and other central banks mistakenly respond to higher headline inflation by raising interest rates.

The clear and present danger to recovery, however, comes from politics — specifically, the demand from House Republicans that the government immediately slash spending on infant nutrition, disease control, clean water and more. Quite aside from their negative long-run consequences, these cuts would lead, directly and indirectly, to the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs — and this could short-circuit the virtuous circle of rising incomes and improving finances. [emphasis mine]

Spending is up because things are more expensive. Things are more expensive as a result of our destructive policies, such as an increase in the minimum wage, higher energy prices, biofuels, more regulation of industry, more regulation on small businesses, an uncertain tax future, corporate and individual welfare, not to mention the effects of ObamaCare implementation.

This administration is thumbing its nose at the Constitution and the rule of law, to wit: Non-enforcement of DOMA, and the rejection of Judge Vinson's ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Lawlessness begets lawlessness.

Speaking of unconstitutional, spending, as the President famously said, "one dime" on things such as "infant nutrition, disease control, clean water and more" is wholly unconstitutional. I refer the reader to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. There is a reason why Congress's powers are limited, as we are now witnessing.

Yes, Mr. Krugman, those cuts would lead to the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Government jobs, that is. And that would be a good thing. Think about what you do during the day, and see if there is anything into which federal government does not exert its influence. You cannot even flush your toilet without them saying how much water you can use.

Random Economic Thoughts

2011-03-02T08:44:00.005-05:00

Our national debt continues to skyrocket. If you are feeling at all suicidal, don't click on the link. I will not be responsible for your death.

Banks are using bailout money to buy T-bills.

The commercial real estate market is near collapse.

The fake phony fraud Deceptecons voted yesterday to make cuts of a few billion dollars, then they had the balls to publicly pat themselves on the back about it. All but a handful of Republicans voted for this fraud. If the spending is not cut by about $750,000,000,000 in the next few weeks, we will have to raise the debt limit yet again.

In an unrelated story, gold closed at an all-time record high of over $1430 an ounce; silver closed at almost $35 an ounce.

I remember well overhearing some friends discussing gold and silver. My friends were amused by their parents' gold and silver buying, which at the time was at $800 and $10 an ounce, respectively. As is often said, who is laughing now?

Useful Idiots, the Statist Agenda, and the Defense of Liberty

2011-03-01T09:37:00.007-05:00

For those who found my most recent post offensive, I apologize for not making my point clearly enough.

Most Americans have had enough of the ever-increasing domination of their lives by tyrannical authoritarian government. The Statist's answer to problems created by government is: more government. The answer to failed systems is: more systems. The answer to failed bureaucracies is: more bureaucracies. The answer to failed regulations is: more regulations. The answer to failed pubic education is: more spending on public education. This is the root and stalk of the Tea Party protests.

Who gets a free pension in this world? Public sector union employees. The government cannot staple two pieces of paper together without taking the fruit of someone's labor to pay for it - the labor of a person working in the private sector who has a freeloader riding on their back. Labor unions represent less than 10% of the private sector, but more than 50% of the public, or government, sector. Untaxed money is confiscated from the union membership as "dues" and given to candidates who are friendly to the unions, 90% of which are Democrats. This is illegal according to the IRS rules, and yet it is done every day by these criminal front groups. In the case of the Wisconsin teacher's union, an NEA affiliate, the health insurance given to the teachers comes from a subsidiary corporation of the Wisconsin teacher's union. The Democrat party, labor unions, and the federal government have a simbiotic relationship as locusts which devour private property, liberty and the civil society.

Taken to its logical end, the Statist's agenda will result in a police state similar to the Soviet Union. I would recommend that anyone who believes labor unions, "free" pensions, "free" health care, "free" whatever, read We the Living by Ayn Rand.

In case you think that the "get a little bloody" comments were an isolated incident, I submit for your consideration this, this, this:

this:

and this:

This last one is funny, in a way. Leave it to one of these fools to threaten sodomy on someone, then call them a "faggot."

Time to Get a Little Bloody

2011-02-24T09:38:00.004-05:00

via Mark Levin via the Right Scoop

Congressman Michael Capuano, D-MA, is using violent rhetoric and HateSpeech to instruct his union thug supporters to "get out in the streets and get a little bloody." This is the left's agenda laid bare:

We're for the ballot until we have power. Then we're for the guns. Right, Mike? It's OK for us to use violence to achieve our goals because we're better than the other guys. Right, Mikey?

Let's suppose for a minute or two that the thug left wants to settle the score Bill-the-Butcher style. You bring what you have in your houses, and we bring what we have in our houses. Who will win, Mikey? Wanna get into a street fight, Mikey? Or as the President famously said, are you gonna bring a knife to a gun fight? Want some? Come get some.

You people on the left make me sick. You either believe in this horrible crap, thinking you are somehow going to be "on the inside" of power or privilege, or you are the useful idiots of thugs like Mikey Capuano, Rahm Emmanuel, and President Obama. There is no excuse for this garbage.

Capuano later said that he regretted his choice of words. He said nothing of the sentiment behind them.

The Virtue of Selfishness

2011-02-23T12:12:00.001-05:00

We Wants It

2011-02-17T16:21:00.000-05:00

Wesley Mouch

2011-02-17T12:27:00.003-05:00

AKA Barneys Frank piles curses and damnation on the heads of House Republicans for cutting the budget for Wall Street regulators:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and other Democrats lodged the complaints during a committee hearing intended to explore the impact of new derivatives rules enacted by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

Frank and other Democrats said the proposed cuts would hurt financial watchdogs like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

"We are about to debate the budget from my Republican colleagues that will provide such inadequate funding for the SEC and the CFTC as to make all this academic," said Frank, the ranking minority member of the panel. "Agencies that are not well-funded are not going to do a good job."

The debate came as the House was preparing to consider a spending bill that would cut $61 billion in government spending, including cuts to both agencies.

Frank added that he planned to introduce an amendment on the House floor boosting the SEC's budget. His amendment would free up $131 million more for the SEC by pulling funds from various other sources, including the Internal Revenue Service.

"Cutting them even more...will make it impossible for them to implement Dodd-Frank and be responsible regulators," warned Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.).

The highlighted text above is the key. De-fund, de-fund, de-fund. Then de-fund some more.

Atlas Shrugged, Part I - The Movie

2011-02-16T13:44:00.001-05:00

Hume and Little "r" Republicanism

2011-02-16T09:46:00.001-05:00

Our federal government is a Hobbesian Leviathan, gobbling up power and amalgamating all things into itself. Think of the Trapper Keeper episode of South Park: everything in its path is consumed, and its size is ever-increasing.

Donald W. Livingston, writing at Anamnesis Journal, says Hume's thoughts on human scale and republican tradition need to be examined if Leviathan, and political absolutism, is to be defeated. Here is a sampling from the article:

One instrument of exploitation that especially worried Hume was the invention of public credit or the policy of mortgaging future revenues. This device had a number of pernicious effects. First, “national debts cause a mighty confluence of people and riches to the capital, by the great sums, levied in the provinces to pay the interest” and “by the advantages in trade ... which they give the merchants in the capital above the rest of the kingdom.” Second, a state with mortgaged revenues would have to create new ones; these would fall on consumption leading to “vexation and ruin of the poor.” They would next fall on the proprietors of land, making life more difficult for their tenants. Third, with the collapse of the landed gentry and nobility, a traditional order rooted in land and place would collapse in favor of rule by a new rootless class of stockjobbers and paper money men. “These men,” Hume writes, having “no connections with the state...can enjoy their revenue in any part of the globe in which they chuse to reside, who will naturally bury themselves in the capital or great cities, and who will sink into the lethargy of a stupid and pampered luxury, without spirit, ambition, or enjoyment. Adieu to all ideas of nobility, gentry, and family.” Hume’s criticism of public credit mirrors exactly Jefferson’s criticism of the public debt system proposed by Alexander Hamilton... [A] pure Hobbesian state would emerge with a centralized authority ruling directly over an aggregate of millions of individuals. In this condition, “every man in authority derives his influence from the commission alone of the sovereign.” And “the whole income of every individual in the state must lie entirely at the mercy of the sovereign.” Hume thinks this form of despotism intimated in eighteenth century centralized states, if realized, would be “a degree of despotism, which no oriental monarchy has ever yet attained.” What Hume considered despotism is viewed as normal today. A European monarch in Hume’s day could not order military conscription nor impose an income tax, which would have been viewed as a form of forced labor.

...

Even if we reject Rousseau’s demand for direct political participation as extravagant, entertaining a larger sphere for republican life, as Hume did, the ratio of population to representation should still be measured by the human scale if it is to be called republican....consider the United States, which styles itself a republic. There are only 435 representatives in the House of Representatives, ruling over some 309 million people. This yields a ratio of around one representative for every seven hundred ten thousand people. A regime with this ratio cannot be considered a republic, not even a large Humean republic. What is true of the out-of-scale ratio of representatives to people in Britain and the United States is true of most large regimes in the world that style themselves republics. But if they are not in any meaningful sense republics, what are they? An answer was suggested by Tocqueville, who viewed the emerging European “republics” as in reality extensions of absolute monarchy. The French Revolution produced the first modern large scale republic ruling in the name of the people and declaring itself, in Hobbesian fashion, to be “one and indivisible.” The Revolution pretended to effect a total change of French political society, and was thought by many to have done so. Tocqueville, however, argued that the Revolution had fundamentally changed nothing.10 What he meant by this counter-intuitive claim was this. What was wrong with monarchy was not a hereditary executive, but the creation of a centralized bureaucratic administration with a would-be monopoly on coercion over individuals in a territory. The Revolution did not devolve power back to smaller, human scale units in France, but greatly expanded central power beyond anything eighteenth century monarchs could have imagined.

...

[I]n large modern republics, the people are said to be sovereign, but their participation too is largely ceremonial and consists typically of choosing periodically between two candidates selected by national political parties of vast scale over which there is little popular control. Hobbes was the first to clearly understand the character of a modern European state. He theorized it as an artificial corporation, what he called an “artificial man.” Government as a public corporation differs from a business corporation in that it possesses a monopoly on coercion in a territory. Its subjects are compelled to buy shares in the corporation through taxes, but cannot trade them, i.e., they cannot secede from the corporation.

...

[Hume believed that] the source of degeneracy in republics is the inevitable tendency to abuse public credit...[The effect of this abuse is the] hollowing out the economy of the provinces and, consequently, driving people as well as financial and political power to the center, where a few hundred people—through finance capitalism structured on public debt—would determine the economic prospects of millions.

...

The Hobbesian state was said to be one and indivisible, so downsizing it through secession was...ruled out a priori. But that is no longer believable, given the relatively peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union and other modern states thought to be “indivisible”...Theoretically and practically, there is no reason why more small states, even on the scale of the Aristotelean polis, cannot exist today. Indeed, technological innovations and global trade make small states more feasible than in the past. And even large states such as Britain, France, and the United States could be reformed, with an eye to a human scale ratio of representation to population, by reconstituting a “national” legislature into the joint voice of several regional or provincial legislatures in accord with Hume’s model of an extensive republic.

The massive ObamaBudget is all the evidence one needs. Our bloated federal government will not stop, and will consume anything and everything in its path. The abuse of power by this administration and its imposition of debt is stunning. Yes, previous administrations abused power and increased the national debt. That is not part of the current debate. President Obama, his minions, and his useful idiots do not care one damn bit about you, the individual. Power is what they want. Just like the Terminator, they do not feel remorse, fear, or pain. And they absolutely will not stop - ever - until you are dead.

What should be done? To paraphrase Hicks from the movie Aliens, "I say we take off, and nuke the site - politically - from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Post-Constitution America, Day 14

2011-02-14T10:19:00.005-05:00

Where is the appeal from the Obama administration? And why are the Attorneys General of the several States suing the federal government not pushing their advantage? ObamaCare is unconstitutional, yet the administration is silently implementing its plans.

Here is the relevant portion from Judge Vinson's opinion, and his conclusion:

(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief
enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456
U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy
[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)
(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the
federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the
Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the
declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on
Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.
2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.
1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers
are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .
since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared
by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.
Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is
not necessary.

CONCLUSION
The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by
everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements
that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way
that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how
laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act,
Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again,
this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the
Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded
the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is
not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth
of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.*(* On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do. Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that "if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” See Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html. In fact, he pointed
to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts --- which was imposed under the
state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have --- and opined
that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before.
See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington
Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10 (quoting Senator Obama as saying: "In some cases,
there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can't afford
[health insurance], so now they're worse off than they were . . . They don't have
health insurance, and they're paying a fine . . .”).

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the
entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I
am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is
virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it
is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.” As Judge Luttig wrote for an en banc Fourth Circuit in
striking down the “Violence Against Women Act” (before the case was appealed
and the Supreme Court did the same):

No less for judges than for politicians is the temptation to
affirm any statute so decorously titled. We live in a time
when the lines between law and politics have been
purposefully blurred to serve the ends of the latter. And,
when we, as courts, have not participated in this most
perniciously machiavellian of enterprises ourselves, we
have acquiesced in it by others, allowing opinions of law
to be dismissed as but pronouncements of personal
agreement or disagreement. The judicial decision making
contemplated by the Constitution, however, unlike at
least the politics of the moment, emphatically is not a
function of labels. If it were, the Supreme Court assuredly
would not have struck down the “Gun-Free School Zones
Act,” the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” the “Civil
Rights Act of 1871,” or the “Civil Rights Act of 1875.”
And if it ever becomes such, we will have ceased to be a
society of law, and all the codification of freedom in the
world will be to little avail.
Brzonkala, supra, 169 F.3d at 889.

In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case
is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the
Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a
Constitutional amendment) can expand that.
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby
GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second
Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count
IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each
DENIED.
In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title
Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 150 Filed 01/31/11, 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.

DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2011.
/s/ Roger Vinson
ROGER VINSON
Senior United States District Judge

In other words, there is no severability of the individual mandated from the act. The whole act is therefore unconstitutional.

Statists love the courts, except when the courts don't love them back.

Thomas Friedman, OK, and Charlie Rose: Egypt

2011-02-14T09:14:00.003-05:00

I do not typically watch Charlie Rose, the exception being his recent series on the brain. And I find Thomas Friedman repellent, OK? By chance I stumbled upon the two of them Thursday night.

The two of them were soooooo excited about the protests in Egypt that they barely took the time to wipe each other's chins. Here's a little context:

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: There’s a sense of ownership by a people who were
motivated to go down there by a profound sense of self, Charlie. A sense
that something -- the most precious thing had been stolen from them --
their dignity, OK, their ability to compete, the thrive, to shape their own
future. And that’s what they’re reclaiming.

When I walked out of the square, I was walking across that bridge out
there and a guy stopped me. He was from Saudi Arabia. He had his two boys
and his wife he said "I work in Saudi Arabia, I’m Egyptian. I came back.
I wanted to bring my two boys." They looked to be about eight years old.
He said "I want them to see this. I want it to be seared in their memory."

CHARLIE ROSE: Everybody knows this is a moment in history.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.

CHARLIE ROSE: You also talk to people they know they’re young. They
also know that they’re professional people. They’re middle-class people.
They’re rich people. Tell me about the people you met who have changed
Egypt. Whatever the outcome, as you have said, it will be before Egypt and
after Egypt.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: Yes. There’s a -- I feel privileged, Charlie, to be
here, OK, because if you’re not here you can’t understand it, I mean,
because it’s so unusual to see who’s in the square. Egypt’s in the square
-- Egypt of young men in jeans, women in veils and women in very modern
western clothes.

The above is from the beginning of the interview. I found myself wondering why these statements were heaped onto the Egyptian protests as lavish praise, but the Tea Party protests were depicted as violent, racist, and extreme. According to the logic of the President and his useful idiots, President Obama himself should step down. He is not viewed as legitimate by many people, regardless of the controversy over his birth certificate (which I view as a non-issue).

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, the most interesting thing I heard the vice
president say was the notion "I’m not sure Egypt and Egyptian culture is
ready for democracy. I’m not sure these people can manage their own
affairs. I’m not sure that they can take on the responsibility."

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: There’s only one name for that, Charlie. It’s
called the soft bigotry of low expectations, and that’s exactly what people
in that square so resent. Again, I talked to another guy today, and he
said -- this was a wealthy person who actually benefited from the status
quo but he wanted to be in the square because he wanted change. He
understood it was not stable.

The one thing he said that really struck me was he said "I was
embarrassed to tell people I was an Egyptian. Now after today I am not
embarrassed. I feel like I’m leading not only just the Arab world.
They’re like watching this in China."

This place has so much untapped potential. Egypt should have been the
Taiwan of the eastern Mediterranean in terms of economics -- Suez Canal,
big work force, right next to Europe. And yet they just drifted, and
because they drifted, the whole Arab world drifted, because this is the
center of gravity for the Arab world.

You change Egypt. If this has any kind of decent positive outcome --
and I pray it will and right now I don’t want to get ahead of it and we
shouldn’t -- but if it does it will have profound ramifications for this
region and beyond.

Instead of commenting like this about Egypt, why can't these two examine the United States, its President, and his administration in this fashion? The Statist likes to say that we are not ready (or smart enough) to handle the responsibility of our own affairs. As Friedman says, this is "the soft bigotry of low expectations." It is also the soft tyranny of government operating outside of constitutional restraint. That's exactly what the Tea Party protesters resent. This place has so much untapped potential. America should be the economic power we once were. But we are drifting. And because we are drifting, the whole free world is drifting with us, because we are the center of the free world.

Judicial Activism and the Tyranny of the Stupid

2011-02-03T09:29:00.006-05:00

This is your president, in flagrante delicto, violating the constitution yet again. From The White House blog on the recent ruling striking down ObamaCare as unconstitutional:

This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion...

Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent...[T]he judge declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the “individual responsibility” provision. This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law...

...severable or not, the White House is obliged to comply with the ruling until an appeal is decided in their favor...

...

We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts.

History and the facts are on our side. Similar legal challenges to major new laws -- including the Social Security Act

...sold to the public as an insurance benefit program with individual accounts, but sold to the Supreme Court as a tax on income to be placed in the general fund...

the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act

...both opposed and filibustered by the Democrat party...

-- were all filed and all failed. And contrary to what opponents argue the new law falls well within Congress’s power to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause,

...meant to make commerce regular, i.e., to operate efficiently, just like a well-regulated militia...

the Necessary and Proper Clause,

...which applies when making laws to carry out the enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8...

and the General Welfare Clause

...which is defined by the enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8...

Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong [!]. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us.

...define "us," please...

People who make an economic decision to forego [sic] health insurance do not opt out of the health care market. As Congress found, every year millions of people without insurance obtain health care

...what's wrong with paying cash?

they cannot pay for,

...illegal aliens?

shifting tens of billions of dollars in added cost onto those who have insurance

...true, but that's a problem for me and my insurance company...

and onto taxpayers [!]. There can be no doubt that this activity substantially affects interstate commerce, and Congress has the power to regulate it.

...persons who cannot pay are entitled to receive health care under current law, by the way...

The Affordable Care Act, through the individual responsibility requirement, will require everyone, if they can afford it, to carry some form of health insurance since everyone at some point in time participates in the health care system,

...wrong...

and incur costs that must be paid for. For the 83% of Americans who have coverage and who are already taking responsibility for their health care, their insurance premiums will decrease over time.

...wrong...

Many of those who are currently struggling to pay for insurance will get a new tax credit.

...yay!

Only those who are able to pay for health insurance will be responsible for obtaining it

...the rest will have it handed to them after the money is confiscated from a producer at the point of a gun...

Because most people would voluntarily purchase coverage as it becomes more affordable and the policy exempts those for whom purchase would cause a financial hardship [?], the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 1 percent of all Americans would pay a penalty for not having health insurance in 2016

...how about a law requiring everyone to own a gun, and participate in the well-regulated militia? Where's my free gun?

The Affordable Care Act also bans insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. However, unless every American is required to have insurance, it would be cost prohibitive to cover people with pre-existing conditions [?].

Here’s why: If insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone who applies for insurance – especially those who have health problems and are potentially more expensive to cover – then there is nothing stopping someone from waiting until they’re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies can’t say no.

...how will the government know if an individual has health insurance? Or if the individual can "afford" insurance or not? What is to stop someone from waiting until they are sick or injured if the fine is cheaper than insurance?

That would lead to double digit premiums increases – up to 20% – for everyone with insurance, and would significantly increase the cost health care spending nationwide

...liberal economics is a trip down the rabbit-hole...

We don’t let people wait until after they’ve been in a car accident to apply for auto insurance and get reimbursed, and we don’t want to do that with healthcare

...my point exactly. Rabbit-hole again...

If we’re going to outlaw discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the only way to keep people from gaming the system and raising costs on everyone else is to ensure that everyone takes responsibility for their own health insurance.

Two federal courts and more than 100 constitutional scholars agree with these arguments

...so? If they all agreed to take a collective leap off a cliff, should we all follow like lemmings?

And representatives from important organizations like the American Cancer Society Action Network, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Hospital Association and the American Nurses Association

...the ANA is a left-wing organization closely linked to the AFL/CIO and the purple shirt goons at the SEIU. I refer the reader to this post about the Minnesota Nurses Association, an ANA subsidiary, and a threatened strike...

have all filed amicus briefs in similar cases supporting the Administration’s position. Event President Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried

...a traitor to the conservative cause, to wit: Fried abandoned the McCain campaign to vote for Obama, and to make a "public erasure" of his support for John McCain because of the choice of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate...

has written, “the health care law’s enemies have no ally in the Constitution."

Fried also stated such gems as: "Do not call a policeman a motherfucker, no matter what you've learned in this course," "Carrying around a whiskey bottle is tough. You have to have it in a brown bag and look like a bum," and "The law is an ass." Nice...

In the end, we’re confident our arguments will carry the day and the health reform law will continue to make the health care system stronger for all of us. [emphasis mine]

Is it judicial activism to stand on the side of liberty? If we are not bound by the Constitution, what binds us to obey the laws of the Statist?

Life, Liberty, and Property, or Individual Rights and the Use of Defensive Force

2011-01-19T11:45:00.004-05:00

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [emphasis added]

Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

I believe Bastiat would tell you himself that these are not necessarily his own original ideas, but a true reflection by careful observation of the proper state of individual men in the world.

Do you still believe the collective right is superior to the individual right? That I do not have a right, save with permission from nine other humans who wear black robes, to own or posses the tools necessary to defend my life, the lives of my family and friends, and my own property? That those same black robed men have the right to disarm me simply by expressing their wish to do so? That I should be an unarmed and willing victim to whomever wishes to harm or rob me? That I should sacrifice myself to your greater good in order to make others feel safe?

Tell me truly. You may even comment anonymously. I promise not to make fun of you.

In Defense of Self Defense and the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Part II

2011-01-14T09:17:00.002-05:00

The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i. e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or common-wealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i. e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another. Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge [emphasis added].

John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, 1690.

In Defense of Self-Defense and the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

2011-01-13T08:56:00.004-05:00

Noted for the concept of the separation of powers, so highly regarded by our republic's founders that they based our Constitution on the idea, Montesquieu had this to say about self defense:

The life of governments is like that of man. The latter has a right to kill in case of natural defence: the former have a right to wage war for their own preservation.

In the case of natural defence I have a right to kill, because my life is in respect to me what the life of my antagonist is to him: in the same manner a state wages war because its preservation is like that of any other being.

With individuals the right of natural defence does not imply a necessity of attacking. Instead of attacking they need only have recourse to proper tribunals. They cannot therefore exercise this right of defence but in sudden cases, when immediate death would be the consequence of waiting for the assistance of the law [emphasis added].

Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, 1748 (Nugent, trans. 1750), Book X, 2.

Major Dick Winters, Commander, Company E, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Infantry (Airborne) Division, RIP

2011-01-12T10:26:00.003-05:00

It escaped my notice until today, but one of the greatest men ever to serve his country in battle died on 2 January. He was nearly 93.

Winters was immortalized by his heroic actions as depicted in the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers, based on the Stephen Ambrose book of the same name. If you have not seen the series, I most strenuously advise you to put it into your Netflix queue. It is that good. Winters, and several others, share their thoughts and memories in contemporary interviews to open each installment of the series. The last episode is comprised solely of these interviews, and requires some emotional endurance to watch.

Winters, and the men he commanded, would all say that the real heroes were the men who died. Winters and his men chose to fight, fought hard, fought well, and defeated an evil the world did not want to face. They were all heroes.

Lanccaster (PA) Online obituary.

Major Dick Winters's story at CMOH has his story, including paintings an photograps.

HBO's Band of Brothers

"No Free Man Shall Be Debarred the Use of Arms"

2011-01-12T09:39:00.002-05:00

Here is a quote which Thomas Jefferson copied into his Commonplace Book regarding gun control laws:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

Beccaria, Cesare: On Crimes and Punishments (1764, trans. Paolucci, 1963), p. 87-88, as quoted in Halbrook, Stephen P.: That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984), p. 35.

Gun Control and Political Ideology

2011-01-11T11:06:00.002-05:00

A few thoughts on the recent atrocities in Arizona:

Did gun control laws stop the shooter in Arizona? Or Virginia Tech? Or Fort Hood? Or any other place in the world where a defective/degenerate type decides to commit murder?

Are regular Americans who own guns responsible for the atrocities committed by a defective/degenerate type? Are the gun manufacturers? Or ammunition manufacturers? Or the retailer that sells firearms and ammunition if all the laws regarding sales of these products are followed?

Is a political ideology which recognizes the sanctity and sovereignty of the individual and his right to his own life responsible for a defective/degenerate who commits murder? Or is an ideology which seeks to debase and control the individual the more likely culprit? How long did it take for certain individuals representing the latter ideology to politicize murder?

Are we not allowed to be angry? Are we not allowed to call out evil when we see evil?

All emotions are acceptable, but certain actions must be restricted or prohibited. That is the nature of freedom in the civil society.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. May they find peace.

Two More Years

2010-12-27T10:34:00.001-05:00

Demand

2010-12-23T12:42:00.004-05:00

From Wikipedia :

In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay. The term demand signifies the ability or the willingness to buy a particular commodity at a given point of time [my emphasis].

The ability to pay is our current problem with demand. Prices generally are increasing due to inflation and increased energy prices, which are a de facto tax as a result of direct and indirect government intrusion in the market. We have a two-year extension of our current tax rates, which will be increased if the current administration has its way. We have an official unemployment rate which has been hovering just under ten percent for the past year and a half, despite the "best" efforts of the statists. Banks do not want to make loans. In other words, the financial future is clouded and uncertain in the best of best-case scenarios. What, then, happens to demand?

Negative expectations about future income may discourage present consumption.

Duh.

Robert Hurt, R-VA(5) Elect: Douchey McBag

2010-12-23T11:42:00.003-05:00

As I have noted before, Virginia's 5th district Congressman-elect is an establishment RINO douchebag. To wit: Hurt's recent e-mail to supporters. Does he want to repeal the mother of all welfare abortions which is ObamaCare? Reduce taxes? Reduce government intrusion into our lives generally? No. His primary objective, he states, is constituent services.

Hurt will assume a seat on the Financial Services committee, where he:

"...look[s] forward to representing the interests of Central and Southside Virginians on the Committee. The Committee will be addressing issues that will impact tax payers, businesses, financial institutions, and job creation in the 5th District. I am committed to supporting policies that will increase access to capital for small business and individuals, reduce the regulatory burden on Main Street banks, protect taxpayers by reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and lead to aggressive oversight of the Regulatory Reform bill. "

OK. Item-by-item:

The interests of one's constituents is not what the committee seat is intended to serve.

Government can only "create jobs" indirectly by getting out of the way.

Access to capital via loans or credits is not the problem. Access to one's own capital, i.e. earnings, is the problem.

Regulatory burden should be reduced for all businesses, not just for "Main Street" banks.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be eliminated, not "reformed."

One wonders what Hurt means by "aggressive oversight."

Although Hurt calls for "limited" government, his policies do not advocate this view. I will note again that Hurt did not mention the Constitution ONE TIME during the campaign except to express his support of Amendment II in a "sportsman's right" fashion.

He will prove to be a poor choice.

Declare the Pennies on Your Eyes

2010-12-08T10:11:00.002-05:00

'Cause I'm the taxman, and you're working for no one but me.

Fair Trade?

2010-12-07T09:07:00.004-05:00

A 2-year extension of the current tax rates for 13 more months of unemployment compensation?

If you build it, they will come.

Forget about the day of infamy. This is the Age of Infamy.

Tax Cuts for the Rich

2010-12-06T12:54:00.004-05:00

Who are the rich? Anyone who is part of the 53% of Americans actually PAYING taxes. So if you are not a parasite, you are going to be bled a little bit more to feed the parasites. You are just the host organism, and you have no say.

According to AP Radio News this morning, even lower-income Americans will see their taxes go up, including those who "don't owe any money to the federal government." Uh-huh.

Here is what the Wall Street Journal reports about the real-world implications of allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire:

'It is not a sensible way to run a country to have this magnitude of tax issues left to annual uncertainty," said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner earlier this month, and he's certainly right about that. But at the current moment the single biggest obstacle to more certainty is his boss, President Obama, who still refuses to compromise on the tax increase set to whack the economy in a mere 30 days.

...

Capital gains and dividend tax rates will climb to 20% and 39.6%, respectively, from 15%, and the top two income tax rates will climb to 38% and 41% (including deduction phaseouts), from 33% and 35%. The typical family with an income between $40,000 and $75,000 a year will pay as much as $2,000 more in 2011, as the 10% tax rate bracket and the $1,000 per child tax credit vanish.

This could have been resolved months ago, except that the White House and Congressional Democrats insist that some taxes must be raised. [my emphasis]

What happened to my taxes not going up a "single dime," as the President so famously stated, and those on the left so shamelessly (or perhaps ignorantly) defended? Taxes would only be increased on the rich, we were told. They can afford it because they have more. Sound familiar? Are you rich if you are a teacher and your spouse works part time? Are you rich if your spouse is a nurse, and you are a full time homemaker? Are you rich if you are a heavy equipment operator, and your spouse works for an auto insurance company? Are you rich if you are a retired widow living on your deceased husband's gutted pension? Are you rich if you are a retired small business owner living off of what you were able to save after your bookkeeper embezzled tens of thousands of dollars? Are you rich if you work third shift driving a forklift, and your spouse is a church secretary?

A flagging economy, massive unemployment, and now a tax increase. Remember: YOU VOTED FOR THIS. You knew what you were doing, how wrong it was, and what would be the result. You chose to ignore the evidence, and suspend the rational thinking of your own brain. In short,

Brother, you asked for it!

S. 510, and the Phantom "Tester Amendment"

2010-11-30T13:37:00.003-05:00

S. 510 (the FDA Food Unsafety and Modern Statism Act) has passed. Should the bill be reconciled with a House version and signed into law, the federal government will for all intents and purposes own your body. With the pending tax rate increase, they will own more of your life as well. Body and Soul, we will be enslaved to our betters: The ruling class, and those they choose to favor. Otherwise known as the Politics of Pull. The would-be Attilas and their toadies.

Virginia's two Senators, Mark "The Fraud" Warner and Jim "Melonhead" Webb both voted for statism. Staffers in their offices cite the inclusion of the "Tester Amendment" as a crucial factor in the decision to vote in favor of the bill. The amendment supposedly limits "harsh" regulation for smaller food producers, and limits the full regulatory force to larger firms as established in an anti-terrorism law from 2002.

However, thomas, gov track, and senate.gov do not have any reference to the "Tester Amendment." When I called back to clarify, Senator Webb's office told me to look under amendment 4697. Strange, but amendment 4697 is a Coburn amendment to prohibit earmarks and limited tax benefits.

Calling back again to Webb's office, I was told that the text of the amendment was not available, and someone would call me back.

To be continued...

Meet the Depressed

2010-11-29T12:27:00.005-05:00

David Gregory is a sad replacement for the late Tim Russert. That "Meet the Press" is still on the air is nothing short of amazing, given that it is now just another outlet regurgitating the tired pablum of the left.

Given all that, Meet the Depressed can have some fun moments. During the roundtable this past Sunday, the miserable E.J. Dionne pulled his chin out of his belt to call the extension of the Bush tax cuts "tax cut for the rich." I will not re-hash my usual Econ 101 diatribe, which anyone with two economic-oriented brain cells to rub together can comprehend, except to say: Have you ever been employed by a poor person?

During the next roundtable topic, Dionne pulled his chin out of his belt to lament the President's low poll numbers. He then asked rhetorically, how can the President resurrect his poll numbers, unemployment, and the economy at the same time? The answer, which fellow panelist Ed Gillespie should have been shoving up Dionne's ass, is: Duh. Tax cuts, stupid!

The last bit was the most amusing, and rather revealing of the desperation and ineptitude of the left. During the close, all of the panelists get to spout off on their own. Dionne chose to attack the Tea Party with his blunt little tool: Poor, poor establishment Republicans are being force-marched by the Tea Party and other "extremist" groups carrying BAYONETS. Yeah.

I could stand it no longer. I shouted at the TV (yes, I am stoopid too. The people on the Magic Box can't hear me!), "You people are so stupid! How did you get on television?"

Bad Guys

2010-11-28T19:06:00.003-05:00

Michelle Malikin lines up the latest man-caused disaster suspects who like to yell "Allahu akbar."

Surprise, suprise! They are all violent jihadist muslims!

To Smallholder: Have You Read...

2010-11-23T11:25:00.002-05:00

...this?

It's S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

I would like to know your opinion of the this bill, especially the parts which would regulate small family farms, farm stands, and farmer's markets. I know you opposed the national animal ID system, and have supported the local food movement. This bill would be destructive, in my opinion, to the new breed of small farmers. Not to mention the rest of it.

Jerry-Rigging, or This title does not make me a racist because I am German.

2010-11-23T10:21:00.002-05:00

The Polymathschloss (hey, more German) is an irrational assemblage of additions to an original house built in 1900. At 1300 square feet or so, it is rather small by today's standards. During the many renovations, repairs, upgrades, etc, I have discovered no less than 7 separate additions to the original 200 square feet. Some additions are better than others. Some of the engineering problems one encounters when adding onto a house have been solved, shall we say, creatively.

The bathroom, which used to be a slab patio on the side of the house, had a problem. The floor was getting squishy, making a sound like jelly squeezed through a plastic bag when it was walked on. Since I had replaced most of the old work in the bathroom, I was confident the presumed leak was coming from the supply line for the toilet. This was the only area I was not able to reach during the renovation. However, in addition to checking the toilet supply line, I checked the rest of what could be leaking in the bathroom. No leak.

The only other area in the house with water is the kitchen. I pulled up some of the flooring in the room between the kitchen and the bath. This is a frame floor over an inaccessible crawl space. Sticking my head down in the hole, I could see a distinct wet area by the wall next to the kitchen.

The kitchen drain has been giving me fits for years. It occasionally would stop up, usually before company would arrive either for dinner or a visit, and would require re-opening. I guess it had been re-opened one too many times, and had become weak just uphill of the area that would clog.

Digging down about 4 feet outside of the house where the kitchen drain passes through the wall, I found the steel pipe drain going to an elbow, then into another piece of steel pipe going at a 45-degree angle under the house. I intended to replace the old drain which passes under the house, and install a new drain which would go around the house. I decided to cut into the steel and temporarily install a new PVC cleanout. At least I would be able to get at the clogged area directly with an auger, slow the leak, and buy some time to dig out the path for the new drain.

Here is the creative part: The original drain was outside of the house at the time it was installed. A new addition was later built on the back of the house, directly on top of the drain. Not a good idea, but it might have held out if it was installed well in the first place. Which it was not. When I cut into the steel with the recip saw, the first cut went right through. On the second cut, the pipe going down into the ground under the house began to wobble. I reached down, and pulled out a 2-foot piece of rotten, rusted steel. Digging further, I found that the angled piece had been put into the open end of a 4" ceramic drain tile, which continued under the house.

So, a new drain, with plenty of cleanouts, is now nearing completion. This is just the latest example of the fun we have had with this house. As my late stepdad told me when we decided to move here, "You don't buy a property like this for the house." He was right. We have nearly 18 acres of mostly wooded, rough terrain. We have plenty of space for shooting guns and gardening. The house has been a work in progress since the day it was built.

Avoid the Obama Tax Increase

2010-11-17T12:31:00.003-05:00

The "lame duck" congress needs to listen to history, and make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Everyone who pays taxes received a tax reduction from the Bush tax cuts. It is worth remembering that only 53% of income earners actually pay taxes. The other 47% either have no tax liability, or are net tax recipients. Tax credits DO NOT equal tax cuts. Tax "credits" are conditional, and many of these are "refundable."

As I said in November 2008, then-President-elect Obama could turn around the then-"inherited" economy by eliminating corporate and capital gains taxes, because only individuals pay taxes in the first place. If that had been done, the effect of eliminating the Bush tax cuts would have been minimal at best. As it stands, the lowest income bracket will have a tax increase of 50%.

Increasing taxes, fewer jobs, inflation, increasing cost of goods and transportation , expensive energy, increasing bureaucracy, increasing welfare state, and less freedom. Not to mention the subversion and perversion of the Constitution. What's not to love?

Federalism, or Why I Love Governor McDonnell

2010-11-10T07:57:00.004-05:00

I am so pleased and inspired to read in American Spectator that our Governor here in the great Commonwealth of Virginia has a firm belief in the principle of Federalism. Beginning with taxes, Governor McDonnell wants to reverse the harmful influence of our national, no longer federal, government:

The Virginian believes congressional Republicans should push immediately to tell people that Republicans want to put people back to work by passing legislation to continue all of the Bush-era tax cuts, further reduce capital gains taxes, and push other specific plans to create jobs. Then, McDonnell believes, there would be a foundation for a longer-term reassessment of how the federal government burdens the states.

That's right. Governor McDonnell is a tenther. Does that make him a closet racist?

McDonnell believes that the depth and breadth of the state-level victories should bring another element to the national spending debate. "It really is time for an honest and robust discussion about federalism," he said. "What does the Tenth Amendment really mean? Part of the reason you've got this long-term deficit is you keep legislating in areas that you shouldn't be in."

McDonnell is a firm federalist: "Stick to what the federal government is supposed to do. Do that well -- fund it well -- but then stay out of areas that are traditionally reserved for the states. Let us manage those areas." He added, "That's the discussion we need to have over the next couple of years. Does the Tenth Amendment still mean anything? If so, govern within your bounds at the federal level."

In other words, end the Ponzi schemes of Medicare and Medicaid. These mandated programs amount to 20% of the budgets of most states. End Social Security, and let individuals decide how to invest for their own retirement. End highway funds. End SCHIP. End Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. End financial aid for students. End the enslavement of unrestrained debt, deficit spending, and looming inflation. I could go on, but in other words, end everything not enumerated in Article I, Section 8. States don't need to ask permission, they have all the permission they need in the 10th Amendment.

To put it simply, I quote John Galt in Atlas Shrugged: "Get the hell out of my way!"

Jim "Melonhead" Webb, the Phony Pragmatic Moderate Centrist (Who Needs a Dummy Cord for His Weapon At All Times)

2010-11-09T13:01:00.002-05:00

Jim Webb, D-VA, is up for re-election in 2012. He laments the factional nature of the Democrat party. In an article about him at Real Clear Politics, Webb is portrayed as a "Reagan Democrat." Keep in mind Webb voted down the line for the ObamAgenda when you read the following:

"I've been warning them," Webb says, sighing, resting his chin on his hand. "I've been having discussions with our leadership ever since I've been up here. I decided to run as a Democrat because I happen to strongly believe in Jacksonian democracy. There needs to be one party that very clearly represents the interests of working people ... I'm very concerned about the transactional nature of the Democratic Party. Its evolved too strongly into interest groups rather than representing working people, including small business people."

Here is Mark Levin from his show last night, on the subject of Melonhead:

Hoppe's #9...

2010-11-08T23:05:00.002-05:00

...is also an air freshener.

Election Day, or, I Have Been Waiting for This Day for TWO LONG YEARS.

2010-11-02T05:16:00.000-04:00

I am off to work as an election official at my local precinct polling place.

Here is a comment I made to a friend about another friend's decision to support then-Senator Obama's presidential candidacy in 2008:

He maintains that Obama is a moderate, based on what is written in Obama's book. I have pointed out Obama's Marxist bent, to no avail. I personally think Obama is a dim bulb who has an extraordinary ability to deliver a prepared speech in a charismatic fashion. I despair for our children's future should he become president.

I urge everyone reading this to do the right thing today. Wake up and swallow the Founder's red pill. Your country needs you.

Capitalism is Boss

2010-11-01T11:57:00.002-04:00

via Naked Villainy

You are a
Social Liberal
(60% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(81% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Capitalist

Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid.com: Free Online Dating
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Confusion, the Tea Party, and the NRA

2010-10-26T10:20:00.006-04:00

Where to begin?

Yesterday, I learned that the National Rifle Association gave an A-rating to, and endorsed, my congressman, Tom Perriello, D, VA-5. Mr. Perriello is a stooge of the radical left, but managed to fill in the appropriate parts of his NRA questionnaire correctly. He also managed to stay away from any gun control legislation in his short congressional career. So the NRA endorsed him over his more conservative opponents. According to the person answering the phones at the NRA yesterday, the NRA maintains an "incumbent-friendly policy, as long as the incumbent supports second-Amendment issues." However, the NRA will not endorse a higher-rated challenger if the incumbent is "somebody who has worked with us." To wit: Sharron Angle is A-rated, Harry Ried is B-rated (but is one of those "somebody" people), but the NRA withholds their endorsement.

Unfortunately for the NRA, they are a single-issue organization. They are concerned solely with the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But the second amendment is only a part of the Constitution, not holy writ unto itself. If the Constitution goes away, the second amendment goes with it. The Constitution cannot be a buffet where we only pick out the things we like to eat. There are sixty or so incumbent Democrat candidates for Congress that the NRA has endorsed. If all of these candidates are re-elected, Nancy Pelosi will remain as Speaker. Endorsing a candidate who in every other way opposes the Constitution is not conducive to preserving the second amendment. The NRA should realize this, and revise their endorsement policy accordingly. As it stands, they are only adding to the confusion.

Confusion is not helpful to the cause of liberty. Independent candidate Jeff Clark, who was at first backed by the Tea Party, has not dropped out of the race as yet. He promised to do so if his poll numbers werre low. It is hard to be much lower in the polls than single digits, and yet Mr. Clark remains in the race only to be used by Congressman Perriello and the Democrat machine. I have been receiving slick 8x10 2-side color glossies detailing why Jeff Clark may be "too conservative" for Virginia's 5th, mailed from both the Virginia Democrat Party and the DCCC. Clark never had such great promotion of his conservative platform! It is clear that Clark is their siphon, and he is being used to lure dissatisfied conservatives away from the douchey RINO Robert Hurt. This is happening elsewhere, as U.S. sNooze and Whirled Report reports:

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.—Kenny Golden has some years on his opponents in the Second District race, and he isn't shy about reminding people. "Glenn's a nice young man, and Scott's a nice young man," Golden said of Rep. Glenn Nye, the Democratic incumbent, and Republican Scott Rigell, at a League of Women Voters debate this month. "But I've got the experience." A tall, folksy, retired Navy captain with a deep voice, Golden spent years in local politics as the Virginia Beach GOP chairman. But today he is running as an independent, with Tea Party-friendly promises to investigate the elimination of the Federal Reserve, repeal the income tax, slice the Department of Education in half, and push for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian, to be speaker of the House.

Golden is one of dozens of independent or third-party candidates across the country—many influenced by the Tea Party movement. Elsewhere in Virginia, Jeffrey Clark is taking on Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello. In Michigan, Glenn Wilson is campaigning for the House seat occupied by retiring Democrat Bart Stupak. In Colorado's Fourth District, an American Constitution Party candidate and an independent are targeting Democratic Rep. Betsy Markey's seat. And Constitution Party nominee David Ryon is running for Congress in the hotly contested Ohio 15th District.

Democrats embrace third-party participation in these races, seen as prime pickup opportunities for the Republicans, with hopes of siphoning votes from the GOP. "Third-party candidates in Ohio 15th have a history of drawing significant support," says Brad Bauman, spokesman for Ohio Democratic incumbent Mary Jo Kilroy. "We have every reasonable expectation to believe that this will happen this time."

I do not know how these other candidates are polling, but if their numbers (like Mr. Clark's) can be counted on two hands or less, they should do the voters a favor and drop out of the race. They will only harm the cause of liberty should they remain. Drop out now, and get going on the primary for 2012.

Aaron Lewis

2010-10-22T10:57:00.001-04:00

Paul Krugman: The Sky is Falling!

2010-10-22T09:44:00.004-04:00

Mr. Krugman's latest article, British Fashion Victims, misses the mark by a wide margin. He should really just stop writing and put his pacifier back in his mouth.

Mr. Krugman says that there may be a time for austerity in Britain, but the time is not now. Not when there are so many social programs that need to be given a chance to work. Unemployment is high, you know.

The operative word here should, however, be “eventually.” Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further unless it can be offset by a fall in interest rates. Right now, interest rates in Britain, as in America, are already very low, with little room to fall further. The sensible thing, then, is to devise a plan for putting the nation’s fiscal house in order, while waiting until a solid economic recovery is under way before wielding the ax.

What is going to get an economic recovery underway? More spending? More debt? Expanding the welfare state? More taxes? More regulations? The answer is right in front of his face, in his own article, and he still fails to see it.

Britain came to rely too much on profits from wheeling and dealing to drive its economy — and on financial-industry tax payments to pay for government programs.

Over-reliance on the financial industry largely explains why Britain, which came into the crisis with relatively low public debt, has seen its budget deficit soar to 11 percent of G.D.P. — slightly worse than the U.S. deficit. And there’s no question that Britain will eventually need to balance its books with spending cuts and tax increases.

The British government (and the U.S. government as well) should try not only spending cuts, but regulation cuts. As far as tax increases are concerned, where do tax increases end? How much of the labor of individuals can the government claim to own?

All wealth is held by individuals. It can only be confiscated by the government. A corporation is made up of individuals: Its governing body, stockholders, and employees, serving one primary function, which is to make money. A business, if it expects to survive, sees taxes and regulation compliance as costs of conducting business. These costs are passed on to the end consumer, which is the individual. Therefore, all taxes whatsoever are borne by the individual who pays those "hidden" taxes and costs in the final price of the good or service. Why is this so hard for someone such as Mr. Krugman to understand?

Want to solve the unemployment problem and the revenue problem at the same time? Eliminate corporate and capital gains taxes. Duh.

Attention Virginia Residents

2010-10-21T23:06:00.003-04:00

The Maximum Leader reminds us that Virginia has proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot this year. Click through and read his thoughtful and worthwhile analysis if you will be voting in the Old Dominion this November. Don't be lazy, educate yourself!

Breaking News, Clark will Drop Out (Maybe),Perriello/Hurt/Clark Debate Mess

2010-10-15T11:29:00.004-04:00

Independent candidate for Virginia's 5th Congressional district, Jeff Clark, has written a letter to the Jefferson Area Tea Party (sidebar) announcing his intent to drop out of the race against incumbent Democrat Tom Perriello and Republican nominee Robert Hurt. As reported at the Schilling Show blog:

I wanted to take a moment respond to a recent press release by Carole Thorpe of the Jefferson Area Tea Party. In the release, Mrs. Thorpe correctly characterizes conversations we had early on in my campaign. I did inform Mrs. Thorpe that it was not my intention to be only a spoiler and if that were the case I would drop out. However, that was before my participation was systematically limited by my Republican opponent.

Since our first conversation, many things have developed in our campaign. State Senator Hurt, in a blatant act of political snobbery and elitism, refused to participate in any debates or forums in which I was an invited participant. He held his breath and stomped his feet like a spoiled child until he got his way. Because of his actions, we have been excluded from the all-important televised debates coming up this month. Not only are Senator Hurt’s actions elitist, but also blatantly hypocritical. When challenged by his Republican Party primary opponent, Laurence Verga, to a one on one debate, Mr. Hurt refused releasing the following statement:

“Ignoring all the other candidates as Mr. Verga has done in this request is nothing more than a political stunt and is frankly insulting to the fine contributions each of the other candidates have brought to this campaign,”.

In 2006, the Republican Party encouraged and argued for an Independent candidate to be included in the debates and forums because that Independent had a “Green” designation beside his name and the Republican Party felt it would help their candidate.

Recently, we took our case of being excluded from the debates to the Rutherford Institute, a world renowned bipartisan civil liberties organization. The Rutherford institute listened to our plea and agreed this was an egregious manipulation of the 1st amendment. They see that this is not only happening here in the 5th district but across the country. This tactic is being used by both major political parties to systematically eliminate or limit Independent candidates from the American political process. The Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear:

“(C)andidate debates are of exceptional significance in the electoral process….Deliberation On the positions and qualifications of candidates is integral to our system of government, and the electoral speech may have its most profound and wide spread impact when it is disseminated through televised debates”

If I were to drop from the race now, it would end the case currently being handled by the Rutherford Institute and would without question allow this despicable practice to continue.

Understanding the importance and potential impact of the televised debates, I privately negotiated with intermediaries of the Hurt campaign to be included in one televised debate. I stated that if I were to be included in one televised debate – and if I did not poll at 25% or higher in any independent poll immediately following the debate – that I would drop out and put my support behind Hurt. I went so far as agreeing to set up a debate in mid to late September in an attempt to give his campaign plenty of time for one on one debates in October. Mrs Thorpe can confirm this because it was through the Jefferson Area Tea Party that we were trying to arrange the debate. I made this offer because I felt that if I were to be included in one televised debate that it would at least have given me the opportunity to compete and to speak to those undecided in the 5th district. I want to make this clear – setting a purposely high poll number, there is 99.9 % chance I would have been out of the race by October 1st and my name could have been removed from the ballot. It was because of Hurt’s refusal of my offer that I am still in the race and felt compelled to seek the help of the Rutherford Institute.

I respect the stance the Jefferson Area Tea Party has taken and how they, before anyone else, issued a statement saying all candidates should be included in the debates, while other Tea Party organizations in the area simple ignored or justified Hurt’s blatant manipulation or disregard for the 1st amendment. It is my sincere hope that Mrs. Thorpe understands based on the circumstances and events that have developed since or first conversation that I feel I cannot drop out of the race at this time. However, I will publicly extend the following offer to State Senator Hurt; if you allow me to participate in one televised debate and if I do not poll at 25% or higher immediately following that debate in an independent poll, I will drop out of the race and support you in your bid for Congress.

–
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Clark
Independent Candidate
Virginia’s 5th District

I have mixed feelings about Clark's idea. He could take some of the heat away from Hurt in the debate. And God knows, Hurt needs the help. In the debate on October 13, Perriello and Hurt were debating the merits of the new ObamaCare law. Perriello dropped his sheild, leaving Hurt an incredible opening to cleave Perriello's skull. I paraphrase:

PERRIELLO: Have you read the bill [sic]?

HURT: I read the rep...

(crosstalk)

PERRIELLO: You've read the Republican Talking Points, was that what you were about to say?

HURT: The bill I have read is the Republican bill that would repeal the Health Care bill [sic].

PERRIELLO: So you have not read the bill [sic]. Senator Hurt, you need to read these bills before you oppose them.

HURT: Uh...[says something like: it costs too much, mentions Speaker Pelosi and President Obama] .

Hurt's performance in the debate was weak at best. I hope he improves in the upcoming debates, but missing a golden opportunity like the one above demonstrates not only a lack of skill, but a lack of conservative values. That is what worries me. Clark does not have enough momentum to win at this point. Clark's threshold of 25% is too low, which will make him a siphon on Hurt's votes. But he may be able to pull Hurt to starboard as his own ship sinks.

Clark Can't Win in VA-5, Will give a "Perot" to Perriello

2010-10-12T10:36:00.006-04:00

We are stuck between the establishment RINO Robert Hurt (rock), and the Pelosi lap-dog Tom Perialla (hard place). Unfortunately, independent conservative candidate Jeff Clark cannot get enough support to be a serious contender, and may not be included in the scheduled televised debates. He should drop out, as he has promised the Jefferson Area Tea Party:

Last week, Mr. Clark informed me that he has yet to amass the financial and volunteer support he deems as necessary to win the election. I reminded him of his previous statement [to drop out of the race], and asked if he could foresee any substantial change in his circumstances within the short time remaining before the election. He stated that without the exposure and potential support he could gain from participating in the upcoming televised debates, he believes he has no chance of winning.

The Tea Party movement is supportive of the return of citizen legislators as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. It has been particularly gratifying for our organization to honor Mr. Clark's patriotism by extending him the same fair treatment and equal access to our events we give to major political party candidates.

But the JATP must also be even-handed in calling all candidates to account for what they say and do. As such, we are compelled to hold Mr. Clark accountable for the statement he made in June -- just as we held Congressman Perriello accountable for his voting record and issues surrounding the location of his local office, and State Senator Hurt for his refusal to participate in three-way candidate debates.

In the interest of accountability, we respectfully request that Mr. Clark issue a written statement confirming the facts as stated herein, and address his intentions should he fail in his bid for inclusion in the televised debates.

Carole Thorpe
Chairman
Jefferson Area Tea Party (JATP),
Charlottesville, VA

Hurt, in my opinion, is an establishment douchebag. He is a lawyer and a career politician. As a Virginia Delegate, he voted for then-Governor Mark Warner's Massive tax increase at a time when Virginia had a billion-dollar surplus. Hurt mentions the Constitution only in passing reference to his support of the second Amendment and protecting "sportsmen's rights." While he is viewed as a "tax cutter" by some, he has voted to increase the role of government. Interestingly, Hurt supported the interests of the Virginia AFL-CIO 100% in 2002, his first year as a delegate. His public statements are weak. He will not debate unless Clark is absent. It is clear he sees his campaign on a glide-path to victory, given the anti-Democrat mood of many likely voters.

I do not want Robert Hurt to be my representative to Congeress. I cannot support a losing candidate in Clark. And I will not support a record of tyranny in Perriello. It's another round of hold-your-nose, vote-for-the-lesser-of-two-weevils, I'll-need-a-shower-later elections. Here's hoping Clark drops out in time, and does not spoil the election in Perriello's favor. And maybe a better candidate in a republican primary.

Hurt may surprise me, but I doubt it. Two more years...

Drop out now, Mr.Clark. Don't be a Perot.

Where Are the Men of Ability?

2010-10-07T11:10:00.004-04:00

Would any CEO make such a statement as this today? The following is part of a letter, written in 1996, from Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers to a shareholder who crticized the lack of "women and members of racial minorities" on the Cypress Board of Directors:

Choosing a Board of Directors based on race and gender is a lousy way to run a company. Cypress will never do it. Furthermore, we will never be pressured into it, because bowing to well-meaning, special-interest groups is an immoral way to run a company, given all the people it would hurt. We simply cannot allow arbitrary rules to be forced on us by organizations that lack business expertise. I would rather be labeled as a person who is unkind to religious groups than as a coward who harms his employees and investors by mindlessly following high-sounding, but false, standards of right and wrong.

Cypress is run under a set of carefully considered moral principles, which rightly include making a profit as a primary objective. Second, there is a fundamental difference between your organization's right to vote its conscience and the use of coercion by the federal government to force arbitrary "corporate responsibilities" on America's businesses and shareholders.

Cypress stands for personal and economic freedom, for free minds and free markets, a position irrevocably in opposition to the immoral attempt by coercive utopians to mandate even more government control over America's economy. With regard to our shareholders who exercise their right to vote according to a social agenda, we suggest that they reconsider whether or not their strategy will do net good -- after all of the real costs are considered.

h/t iamjohngalt.com

Omen?

2010-10-06T10:49:00.000-04:00

Richard Cohen's Delusions of Paranoia

2010-10-05T10:54:00.003-04:00

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen should increase his lithium. Recently, he called conservative admiration of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "clearly the work of witches, wiccans and wackos."

Tim Graham at NewsBusters points out that Cohen Cohen now blames the Tea Party movement for the shooting of "peace protesters" at Kent State University in 1970:

The governor of Ohio, James Rhodes, demonized the war protesters. They were "worse than the Brownshirts and the communist element....We will use whatever force necessary to drive them out of Kent."

That was the language of that time. And now it is the language of our time. It is the language of Glenn Beck, who fetishizes about liberals and calls Barack Obama a racist. It is the language of rage that fuels too much of the Tea Party and is the sum total of gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino's campaign message in New York. It is all this talk about "taking back America" (from whom?) and this inchoate fury at immigrants and, of course, this raw anger at Muslims, stoked by politicians such as Newt Gingrich and Rick Lazio, the latter having lost the GOP primary to Paladino for, among other things, not being sufficiently angry. "I'm going to take them out," Paladino vowed at a Tea Party rally in Ithaca, N.Y.

Back in the Vietnam War era, the left also used ugly language and resorted to violence. But the right, as is its wont, stripped the antiwar movement of its citizenship. It turned dissent into treason, which, in a way, was the worst treason of all. It made dissidents into the storied "other" who had nothing in common with the rest of us. They were not opponents; they were the enemy: Fire!

Here's part of what Graham writes in response:

Cohen makes no attempt to acknowledge that part of the "anti-war" movement that waved flags of the Viet Cong and openly wished for America to lose the war, and openly wished America would be the victim of a communist revolution. How is that not "the worst treason of all"?

Now try to place a violent leftist movement like the Weather Underground into this equation. Didn't their willingness to kill cops (and in acts of terror like bombing a bathroom) innocent Americans put them in a low place? But Cohen can only single out "the right" -- millions of nonviolent people who are horrified by the thought of violent revolution, as opposed to democratic change.

This was a column that someone at the Post editorial page should have walked over to Cohen and said, "This is too reckless." But apparently, no one did.

Cohen has such a firm grip on reality that it occasionally squirts out through his fingers like jelly.

A few asides:

We want to take the country back from socialist morons such as yourself, Mr. Cohen.

The Tea Party movement, and conservatives in general, are sickened by the Party establishment, both Republican and Democrat. We are tired of the establishment Republicans choosing our candidates. They have been sabotaging conservatives who challenge, and often defeat, establishment candidates in primaries. Democrats are just as guilty -just ask Carl McCall.

Funny

2010-10-04T10:21:00.002-04:00

Found at grouchyoldcripple.com

"125,000 On the Low End..."

2010-10-04T09:39:00.002-04:00

... factoring in crabs and lice.

"I'm sorry, no. F___ you."

2010-09-22T11:02:00.004-04:00

The title above is a friend's reaction to the government's imposition on his choice of light bulb.

Peter Wilson at American Thinker writes today aboutcompact fluorescent light bulbs. My opinion? They suck beyond our capacity to measure sucking. Here is a list of complaints against the bulbs, which directly reflect my experiences with them:

•CFL manufacturers claim that a 13-watt CFL emits the same amount of light as a 60-watt incandescent, but it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world. I've been in CFL-lit hotel rooms where I need a flashlight to read my dog-eared copy of The Road to Serfdom.
•Warm-up time: it takes up to 5 minutes for a CFL to reach full strength, which may be related to the point above (why CFLs seem less bright). My friend has installed them in a hallway where illumination is needed only for the thirty seconds it takes to navigate the staircase. Not ideal when Grandma visits and can't see the skateboard on the stairs.
•Few CFLs last for their advertised lifetimes of five years or more. Many people report replacing them after one year, making those return on investment numbers a bit less rosy. Using them in ceiling fixtures, on dimmers or timers, and for less than fifteen minutes per use reduce their life.
•CFLs contain mercury and should be returned to a hazardous waste center for disposal. Studies assume a 25% recycling rate, with the rest going into landfills. (The Westinghouse website recommends recycling only when disposing of "a large quantity" of fluorescent tubes and doesn't mention how to dispose of their CFLs.) According to a 2008 Yale study, burning coal to supply electricity to incandescent bulbs emits more mercury per bulb than a CFL contains, but regions that rely on cleaner fuels like natural gas experience greater mercury contamination with the introduction of CFLs. Why would environmentalists advocate to bring a toxic product into every home?
•Cleaning up a broken CFL doesn't require a haz-mat team, but you have to take significant precautions to avoid mercury contamination of living areas.
•Manufacturing CFLs is labor-intensive. No CFLs are made with expensive U.S. labor; most are made in China, where hundreds of factory workers in CFL plants have been hospitalized for mercury poisoning. The last major light bulb factory in the U.S., a GE plant in Winchester, VA, closed earlier this month.
•CFLs require six times as much energy to manufacture as incandescent bulbs, not to mention -- if you're concerned about such things -- the carbon footprint of shipping them from China.
•CFLs appear to cause migraines and epileptic seizures in a small number of people. Other health risks are being studied.
•CFLs work poorly in cold temperatures -- as a wintertime front porch light, for example. In cold climates, the heat of incandescent bulbs is a useful -- if inefficient -- byproduct.
•CFLs degrade the quality of the electric current (so-called "dirty electricity" with uneven sine waves) on a circuit into which they are plugged, causing problems for other electronic devices and possible health hazards to humans.

Mr. Edison's invention is brilliant in its simplicity: It works well, it is easy to manufacture, and it is inexpensive. The light given by an incandescent bulb is pleasing and comfortable to the eye. What is needed is not a new kind of light bulb, but an inexpensive method to power it

Where's Waldo's Job?

2010-09-22T10:05:00.007-04:00

"Who needs a job when the Government gives me free money?"

As reported in the New York Times,

The United States economy has lost more jobs than it has added since the recovery began over a year ago. Yes, you read that correctly.

The downturn officially ended, and the recovery officially began, in June 2009, according to an announcement Monday by the official arbiter of economic turning points.

If the recession ended in June 2009, where are the jobs? Lagging indicator, no doubt.

Here is the salient point from the article:

The declaration of the recession’s end confirms what many suspected: The 2007-9 recession [when both houses of congress were controlled by Democrats, including then-Senator Obama] was not only the longest post-World War II recession, but also the deepest, in terms of both job losses and at least one measure of output declines.

The announcement also implies that any contraction that might lie ahead would be a separate and distinct recession, and one that the Obama administration could not claim to have inherited... [emphasis mine].

Our economy still has some life left, despite Dear Leader's efforts to crush it underfoot [NB to Larry Summers: Dont' let the door hit you in the ass]. His claim of inheriting a poor economy was BS, and it will be entertaining to watch Chairman Maobama's stammering and stuttering divestment of executive responsibility should the economy "double-dip."

The ball is in your court, Mr. President.

Happy Constitution Day

2010-09-17T12:54:00.002-04:00

"A Republic, if you can keep it." -Benjamin Franklin

Barney Frank: "Whistle Blowing is Fun!"

2010-09-09T11:40:00.003-04:00

Thanks, pal.

Why should Cisco and Westcon not try to protect themselves from the federal government? The plan sounds like it was a good one: Pay some bribes to win contracts, and then overcharge to recoup the cost of the bribes.

The so-called "whistleblowers," Norman Rile and Neil Roberts, could each get at least $10 million for blowing. The whistle, that is. Not Barney. The abomination that is the recently passed Dodd-Frank law is what makes it all possible.

This administration and this majority in Congress hate U.S. industry. They hate American exceptional ism. They do not believe in free market capitalism. And they think the answer to everything is more regulations, more taxes, and more government. The problems of large government control cannot be solved by more government control.

From Daily Finance:

Even without settlements, those two whistleblowers have triggered the recovery of almost $200 million. Now that whistleblowing is taking off in the wake of the Dodd-Frank law -- one attorney has gotten more calls in the past three weeks than in the past three years, and says the claims appear real -- perhaps taxpayers will see a meaningful amount of their money returned. That's a kind of spending cut everyone can agree on. [emphasis mine]

Uh, no. Promising payment from extorted funds to people who rat out others is not a spending cut. This will never keep up with the growth of Leviathan anyhow.

The Greatest Battlefield Implement Ever Devised

2010-09-09T09:50:00.005-04:00

Behold the Wisdom of Dear Leader Chairman Maobama and His Ministers: The Obama administration is reversing a previous decision, and is forbidding the sale of M1 rifles from South Korea. The administration fears the antique rifles would be used in the commission of crimes. According to Fox News:

A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.

"The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.

...

"Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration's concerns are well-taken."

All wrong.

The M1 and the M1 carbine are both semi-auto. One pull, one round, just like any other firearm found in the U.S. (without FFL).

The M1 has a capacity of eight rounds, period. The M1 carbine uses a detachable mag, yes, but it is still semi-auto only.

Firearms used in the commission of crimes are almost exclusively handguns. It is somewhat inconvenient to carry a rifle in the waistband of one's baggy jeans.

The special status of the M1s from Korea would require the State department to supervise the sale, and all buyers would have to go through the NICS, at the very least. If they were sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, buyers would have to be members of local shooting organizations.

But the ObamAdministration is against the sale it previously authorized. And the gunphobics are cheering them on:

Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: "Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it's perfectly reasonable to do so."

Here's the moment of Catch-22 Zen:

Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department.

...

The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department.

Spreading the Wealth Around

2010-08-30T08:35:00.002-04:00

USA Today today reports that one person in six is on the government dole.

Disgraceful.

Beating Katrina

2010-08-29T20:28:00.004-04:00

Despite the media cavalcade of "Katrina: 5 Years Later," President Bush's response to the hurricane is viewed more favorably than President Obama's response the Gulf oil leak. Via American Thinker, Public Policy Polling stated the following in the results of a recent poll:

Louisianans’ severe disapproval of Obama overall, 35-61, mirrors their disdain for his efforts in the cleanup, 32-61. George W. Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, by contrast, is viewed barely negatively, 44-47; the response in June, 34-58, was more in line with Obama’s, 32-62. A full 54% now think Bush did a better job dealing with crisis than Obama, who gets the vote of only 33%. Considering the shift in the electorate, that is little if any change from the 50-35 divide in June. 24% of Democrats still prefer Bush’s response; the small set of independents go for him, 47-30, after favoring Obama, 41-37, two months ago.

Oopsie.

In his exclusive "live" 2-minute interview tonight with Brian Williams, President Obama referred to himself at least 7 times, according to my semi-accurate count. He also told Mr. Williams, while reassuring people that he is a Christian, that "I can't spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered to my forehead." When the President speaks in this fashion, off-prompter and off-point, he comes across as a douche.

I counted at least 29 self-references in the President's 20 minute speech this afternoon at Xavier University.

Perhaps his polling numbers would be better were he not such a narcissist.

"Thousands," "Tens of Thousands" Attend Restoring Honor Rally in D.C.

2010-08-29T10:28:00.005-04:00

Media estimates are, as usual, highly inaccurate and biased. The race-baiting poverty pimp Al Sharpton's pseudo-rally also attracted "thousands" according to one report I heard. The reality is probably closer to "hundreds" for the Not-so-Sharpton demonstration, and close to one million for the Restoring Honor rally:

NB: the crowd on the right side is just as large as the crowd on the left. The right side crowd was lucky enough to be in the shade of the many trees there.

Here is part of Nile Gardner's column in the UK Telegraph:

Boosted by the presence of charismatic former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the “Restoring Honor” event organised by talk show host Glenn Beck was a huge success, and a tremendous demonstration of the power of conservatism in America today. It was all the more remarkable for the fact that this was a distinctly non-party political rally which did not feature a single serving politician. The Republican Party itself had no involvement in the proceedings. It was an impressive display by a broader conservative movement that has gained tremendous momentum over the past 18 months. Although this was not a Tea Party rally, large numbers of Tea Party supporters took part, reflecting the rise of a rapidly growing movement spurred by widespread public disillusionment with the Big Government agenda of the Obama administration.

The large numbers who turned out defied an intensely hostile and negative media campaign that attacked the decision to hold the event on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” as a cynical political gimmick. They proved their critics spectacularly wrong. Significantly, Dr. King’s niece, Alveda King, spoke at the rally, which she described earlier as “a celebration of who we are as a nation and a chance to stop for a moment, reflect, reorganize, and re-energize. It’s a chance to think about character; both our character as a nation and our character as individuals.”

Yesterday’s Washington rally was in many ways an historic event, one that successfully honored the patriotism, sacrifice, and the principles that have made the United States the great nation it is. It was a symbol of the strength not only of conservatism but of democracy and freedom in America, and a powerful salute to the men and women of America’s military who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and the wider war against al-Qaeda.

"r" is for Republican

2010-08-28T10:00:00.008-04:00

From Mike Church, here is an action list to bring our republic back to the vision of the founders. Scary! Crazy! Unworkable! If you have this kind of reaction to these issues, ask yourself: what would the founders think of our present system? They would not recognize the government which they gave to us, let alone be able to describe what type of government we have.

1. Freeze all federal hiring, this includes funding requests from the executive branch to hire.

2. Repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and all it’s contingent COLA “mandates” no matter the agency or program they are applicable to.

3. Freeze under threat of rescinding funding any and all new regulations currently under review or consideration

4. Have an up or down vote on a Declaration of War with Iraq and with Afghanistan. if either fails then troop withdrawals must begin immediately.

5. Pass the Private Property Restoration Act which among other things shall forbid any federal magistrate from hearing any cases to restrict use of private property.

6. Repeal the AMT permanently by statute.

7. Repeal the capital gains tax.

8. Refuse to fund the Education Department and the Department of Energy, any programs, grants projects or construction begun under these agencies must cease. The EPA’s charter must be rewritten to make it clear that it only has jurisdiction over federal and or territorial waters and land. [The EPA can be eliminated by executive order, and should be.]

9. Repeal ObamaCare and all contingent legislation. Congress must then use legitimate Commerce Clause powers to “make commerce regular” and remove from the tax code all subsidies, all claims of tax credit, any and all restrictions federal law imposes on the sale or use of major medical health insurance. This must include federal recognition of PPO, HMO or other plans created to satisfy Congress.

10. Repeal the FICA and sunset the program by Jan 1, 2030. Establish a cutoff date for continued payment eligibility such as born on or before December 31, 1959.

11. Repeal the Patriot Act of 2001, 2005 and sunset the Department of Homeland Security on or before December 31, 2012.

12. Repeal all mandates, taxes and law pertaining to the SCHIP program.

13. Announce the return of U.S. Gold and Silver bullion coins as legal tender and order the treasury to begin the purchase of bullion with the intent of eliminating paper currency in favor of gold and silver coin and gold and silver coin backed notes.

14. Pass the Debt Consolidation and Repayment Act. This Act will require the sale of all lands currently “owned” by the U.S. government which do not house “needful buildings, docks, arsenals, forts and magazines”. This is not limited to “Parks” and “National forests”. All proceeds are to be solely applicable to the repayment of the U.S. Governments outstanding debts both domestic and foreign.

15. End the federal tax designations enacted and known as 501 (c), (g), 503, 527 e.g. “non-profits”.

16. Repeal the “Income tax withholding act” and enact an immediate and deduction free, flat income tax law, payable once per year by each citizen.

17. Repeal all corporate and business interest, income and profit taxation.

18. Heed the call of 38 states that shall call a convention to amend the Constitution under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Church admits that this is not an exhaustive list. I would add (as part of an Article V convention or on its own) the repeal of Amendment XVII, the direct election of Senators by the people.

Wake up and swallow the founder's red pill. Your country needs you.

Monopoly Money

2010-08-27T09:47:00.005-04:00

via Nile Gardner, this is what some wacky designers want our money to look like:

Of course, Barry would replace Washington on the single! Notice the fine outline of the ObamaLogo? Notice also the ObamaBlue color. Other note designs include an indian teepee ($5), the bill of rights ($10), and the hero of the left, FDR, on the C-note. The designer says the vertical format reflects the way we handle our money - our current horizontal design is seen sideways when one takes a fiat note out of one's wallet. With the new design, we can see Dear Leader's shining countenance in its proper orientation. Another ingenious feature of the new design is the size of each denomination. While the short side is the same as our present fiat money, each denomination has a different length. Like the old Disney World A-B-C-D-E tickets, the one is shortest, and the $100 the longest.

This design looks easy enough for anyone with a high quality color printer to counterfeit. Why should the Federal Reserve have all the fun?

To the Obama Voter

2010-08-26T13:05:00.002-04:00

via Mark Levin:

Brother, You Asked For It!

9/11 Victory Mosque, part II

2010-08-26T10:00:00.003-04:00

Anyone who read my post a few days ago about the "9/11 Victory Mosque" may have come to the conclusion that I am intolerant of and biased against Muslims and Islam. I will state for the record that I am intolerant of and biased against any person, group, nation, or religion which seeks to destroy our American way of life. Go ahead and issue your fatwas.

I do not advocate the government intervening in this issue. Those who oppose the 9-11 Victory Mosque, I am certain, feel the way I do. This is not a property rights issue. But since the subject has been brought up...

What about the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, which was destroyed on 9/11? It has not been rebuilt due to government red tape. And yet, this mosque has been fast-tracked for approval and construction. Maybe the Muslim population is under-served in New York City. Let's check Google Maps for "mosque new york city":

View Larger Map

Well, so much for Muslims being under served by mosques in NYC. I wonder how many churches and synagogues are in Riyadh...

The dummy Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said that we should not question where the financing for this mosque comes from, and that they have the "right" to build on this property. This is the same mayor who wants to regulate salt, fat, and tobacco in NYC, not to mention terrorize gun shop owners in VA with his goons.

So let's talk about tolerance. Christians and Jews are tolerant of other religions. Americans are tolerant of foreigners. But try to read the Bible or Torah on the street in a Muslim nation, and you would be lucky to only have it taken away from you. If you are a woman, try driving a car, or even walking down the same street in your western clothing - you would be lucky to escape with some spit in your face. Perhaps it would be acid instead. They require 4 male eyewitnesses for a rape conviction. They cut off hands of thieves, bury homosexual people up to their necks to stone them to death, and all sorts of other "tolerant" things. And don't forget that Cat Stevens (whatever the hell his post-Muslim-conversion name is) called for the beheading of Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses. Don't forget Daniel Pearl.

Here's some video of tolerance on display by pro-Mosque protesters. Pay close attention to the 3:55 mark:

The "Israeli national" finally caught after multiple stabbing attacks against black men in 3 states? An Arab, and a Muslim.

The man who stabbed and slashed a Muslim cabbie? A leftist "visual arts" major college student involved in a pro-mosque group! What?

Here is a page of audio clips where Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the effort to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York, reveals his radicalism. A highlight:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it."

Islam is an exclusive religion. Other religions are not tolerated in Muslim controlled areas and nations, and Sharia law is required by the Koran to be THE law wherever Muslims are in the majority. To my mind, the only difference between the Islamic terrorists and run-of-the-mill fundamental Muslims is the method used to achieve Sharia law.

In the name of tolerance, perhaps I should restate my position in more tolerant terms. Go build it somewhere else - you may want to keep Hell on the short list. This is why I oppose the Mosque at the WTC site:

The World Trade Center should be rebuilt. It would be especially nice to rebuild the site as close as possible to the original plan, with two towers. We should not be stuck with a hole in the ground for going on ten years.

On Hiatus

2010-08-18T16:04:00.001-04:00

Until further notice...

Proposed Site for 9-11 Victory Mosque

2010-08-15T23:06:00.003-04:00

The landing gear from the plane "piloted" by Atta actually fell into this building.

If constructed, this mosque will be a symbol of Islamic conquest of the Great Satan.

Go build it in hell, you flea-bitten bastard sons of whores

ObaMeltdown

2010-08-13T09:48:00.002-04:00

According to Nile Gardiner at the UK Telegraph, the Obama Presidency is in meltdown. Here is his top-ten list, if you don't have the inclination to click on the link:

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people.

2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership.

3. Obama fails to inspire.

4. The United States is drowning in debt.

5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat.

6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake.

7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive.

8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration.

9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security.

10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness.

While #4 is not the exclusive domain of President Obama, a fact he and his surrogates like to point out ad nauseum, this administration has doubled-tripled-quadrupled-down on the debt with their massive spending and entitlement increases.

The most damning, and at the same time revealing, point is number 10. Here is the author's expansion in full, and the closing:

Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

Brady Campaign Ejaculates in its Pantsuit

2010-08-10T09:03:00.005-04:00

Here is the statement released by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence upon the confirmation of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice:

“Elena Kagan is seen by many political figures on both sides of the aisle as a person of keen intellect and unvarnished integrity, who respects the law and precedent. By confirming her today, the U.S. Senate rejected the extremism of the National Rifle Association, which strongly opposed her. The NRA bosses not only argued against her confirmation, but also advertised against it, and indicated they would ‘score’ Senators on their votes.

“But even nine Senators rated 'A' by the NRA stood up to the gun lobby and voted to confirm her.

“With Ms. Kagan’s background as an advisor and legal counselor to former President Clinton, and her experience as the dean of Harvard Law School, the Supreme Court is welcoming a justice who will respect judicial precedent and one who recognizes that reasonable gun regulations can save lives.

“The Brady Campaign was proud to endorse Elena Kagan and support her confirmation against the determined opposition of the NRA. We look forward to her service on our nation's highest court.”

Here are some important corrections to this statement:

Kagan's intellect and integrity are questionable at best. To wit: Citizens United, in which she demonstrated her ignorance of the Supreme Court's role, and the banning of military recruiters at Harvard, while at the same time establishing a Sharia Law studies center, during a time of war with islamo-fascist terrorists.
"...who respects law and precedent." See Senator Coburn's questioning during confirmation hearing about fruits and vegetables. Kagan could not answer that Federal power is limited by the Constitution.
The Senate did not reject extremism, they endorsed it. They know Kagan will be a reliable rubber stamp for the ObamAgenda.
"...nine Senators rated "A" by the NRA...voted to confirm her." Like Jim "Melonhead" Webb, A-NRA, who has also voted for every other ObamAgenda item. Webb was recently heard asking if anyone had seen his pistol.
Heller and McDonald are now precedent. Stare decisis, beotches!
Reasonable gun regulations DO save lives. See Amendment II.
Add the prefix "dis" in front of the word "service."

Psychostasy

2010-08-06T22:21:00.001-04:00

November is coming...

An Open Letter to Robert Hurt, Republican Hopeful in VA-5

2010-07-28T09:41:00.003-04:00

Dear Mr. Hurt,

Congratulations on your nomination by the Republican party to run against the Democrat incumbent congressman Tom Perriello. His record thus far has demonstrated his abandonment (or perhaps absence) of morality, reality, and constitutional restraint.

I have one question which will determine whether or not you deserve to occupy the seat you intend to fill: What assurance can you give the the persons of Virginia's 5th district that your election will mean a return to a small government limited in its scope and influence by the terms set forth in the Constitution? I refer here to the original meaning and intent of the Constitution as written, debated, and ratified; specifically Article 1, Section 8.

You have voted to increase funding for K-12 government education. You voted for Governor Warner's $1.4 billion tax increase, after spending a surplus of $900 million. In your latest public policy statement, you claim government spending is out of control, which is true. You claim that you will bring jobs and leadership to the district, and get debt and deficits under control. You claim that these policies will enable us to keep more of our hard-earned money in our pockets rather than send it to Washington. But if the size and scope of the federal government is not reduced, how will this be accomplished? Inflation? Surely, we will be keeping more of our money in our pockets, but those paper dollars will be worth less.

You fail to mention the Constitution anywhere on your campaign web site, yet you make the claim that "[c]onservative leaders are speaking out and endorsing Robert because they know that they can count on him to be a reliably conservative voice for the people of Virginia in Congress." Do you even know what the term "conservative" means?

You call for a line-item veto, but without a Constitutional Amendment, this would be in violation of the Constitution (I,7).

You want to end Virginia's estate tax. Good. If you attempt this at the federal level, we once again have a constitutional issue.

You want to create incentives for small businesses. Why not say you want to cut corporate and capital gains taxes?

You want to expand reciprocity for concealed carry. Again, something which cannot be done at the federal level, McDonald notwithstanding.

You have made the following statement: "As a member of the House of Delegates and the Virginia State Senate, I have consistently opposed tax increases and spending proposals that did not put the people first." (emphasis mine) Who are "the people" and how are they "put first?" Would you vote for a tax increase on a small percentage of people earning higher incomes because the "rich" are not "the people," and they can afford it anyway? Would you vote for a spending increase in social welfare programs because it would "put the people first?"

To be perfectly candid, Mr. Hurt, you sound like just another big-government RINO. We do not need another Kirk, Castle, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Brown, or Goode. It will not be a hard-sell to defeat the inept Tom Perriello. But it will be a hollow victory for America and the persons of Virginia's 5th district if you cannot pledge to be bound by the Constitution, and to follow conservative principles.

Bumper

2010-07-20T10:01:00.002-04:00

For whatever reason, YouTube videos will not display as the top item, but will display later when something else is posted. ???

These Are the People Dear Leader Chairman Maobama Has Chosen to Dominate You, UPDATE 7/21

2010-07-20T09:40:00.007-04:00

This is what is great about the internet. It is also why the statists want to control the internet - so this type of exposure of reality to a candid world can be avoided, or at least limited. This story broke yesterday on Brietbart's BigGovernment.com , and this despicable bigot statist had resigned as of 8 pm yesterday:

Here she advises her audience to seek federal employment at the Department of Agriculture because, as she says, "You've heard of a lot of layoffs. Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job? That's all I need to say.":

Candor is so refreshing.

UPDATE: Ms. Sherrod says she was told by the White House to "pull over to the side of the road" to tender her resignation. Could the White House mean this in the old Soviet way of "saving paperwork?"

Because I Can

2010-07-19T11:24:00.000-04:00

What's Next?

2010-07-16T09:51:00.002-04:00

Over at American Thinker, Jeffrey Folks says the Future of the News is state control. Why not? We have state control of nearly every other aspect of our lives, including life itself. Traditional media are failing, and the FTC and FCC have determined the cause to be, as usual, not enough money. Mr. Folks contends it is not fairness or any other altruistic sentiment which concerns the Obama regime. The intent is to silence opposition and its expression through conservative media:

Nowhere in its extensive discussion does the FTC consider the possibility that old-line media are failing because they are simply out of touch with the American people. The mainstream television news outlets are clinging to a liberal ideology that is as irrelevant as Lyndon Baines Johnson, but they refuse to change. Who wants to hear Brian Williams's endless reports on "Making a Difference" when those reports routinely bash capitalism in favor of community organizing? Who wants to listen to more of the media's underhanded propaganda pieces carefully timed to support "progressive" legislation like Obamacare and cap and trade? Who wants to watch their biased exposés taking on religious leaders, big business, and the American military?

The FTC seems to believe that serious news reporting cannot exist without government subsidies. Why is it that Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have flourished while traditional networks and the New York Times have fallen off a cliff? Fox News and the Journal are doing just fine -- as are thousands of conservative websites and radio stations -- without government intervention. Government's contention that news reporting is in decline is simply preposterous: Americans are more engaged and better-informed than ever before. Perhaps that is what worries Obama's regulators.

Mr. Folks goes on to compare the attempt at state control of media to Hitler's rise to power. He carefully explains that while while the ObamAdministration, and Obama himself, are not being compared to the whole of Hitler's record, the control itself is Hitlerian.

A crucial aspect of Hitler's rise to power was control of the media. During the run-up to the March 5, 1933 elections -- the last truly legitimate elections to be held until after the war -- Goebbels employed every means of propaganda to ensure Hitler's success. Mass meetings, prominently reported in the print media and dramatically broadcast on radio, were planned for maximum impact. As Fest writes: "The country was inundated with appeals, slogans, parades, displays of banners" (Fest 409). Goebbels also employed his own party newspaper -- Der Angriff ["The Attack"] -- to full effect.

I am not suggesting that Barack Obama is Adolf Hitler. I am suggesting that like Hitler -- and like Castro, Chávez, and many other radicals with grandiose ambitions -- Obama intends to exert control over the media to secure his own political power. Obama is out of touch with the public, yet determined to impose his brand of socialism on the country. To succeed in this evil and undemocratic program, he must silence his opponents. And to silence his opponents, he must control the media. Thus the process now underway at the FTC and FCC.

Freedom's last stand is under full attack from this jackass, President Obama, and his evil cabal. Are you more concerned with your I-Phone, Twitter updates, the screen resolution of your new T.V.,People Magazine, and Entertainment Weekly, or are you going to wake up and do something about it?

In a related story, I would like to thank my Senators, Jim "Melonhead" Webb and Mark "Moron" Warner for voting in favor of the ObamAdministration's financial reform legislation. NB to Robert Hurt: Should you be elected Congressman for Virginia's 5th district, you should sponsor a bill to repeal all laws passed by the current congress.

Free Lunch

2010-07-15T09:59:00.004-04:00

The Wall Street Journal reports that the ObamAdministration will release today a list of health care services which shall soon be "free" to the consumer. The "free" services include

[c]ancer screenings, including mammograms and colonoscopies, as well as obesity prevention services, immunizations, blood pressure screenings and tobacco cessation services are among those that will be available to consumers without a copayment or other direct costs for consumers on new health plans after Sept. 23.

NB - "Other direct costs" does not have the same definition as "free."

The article goes on to say that the list of "free" services will be debated by the industry over what is, and is not, included. The author neglects, however, to state (or perhaps even realize) that nothing is ever truly "free." This is an affliction which is most commonly found amongst liberals, democrats, progressives, socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists - otherwise known as "statists." Someone will have to pay for the "free" services, which will mean either higher taxes, increased borrowing, or inflation. Maybe even all three. We will, the author's statements suggest, argue about what we get on our "free" pizza. Unfortunately, at this point we can't afford even garlic bread.

"The biggest beneficiaries will be those who previously had sparse policies with high copays for such services. " Let me rephrase this statement: "The biggest beneficiaries will be those who will have zero tax liability. The rest of us will get soaked." If you don't believe me, ask Dear Leader's new minister-without-portfolio (or hearing) unconfirmed-and-recess-appointed head of CMS Dr. Donald Berwick. He says it's all about redistribution of wealth:

The welfare state will collapse under its own weight. And Adam Smith's Invisible Hand will bitch-slap the Democrats in November.

Racism

2010-07-08T10:58:00.002-04:00

Racism is disgusting. Left-wing statists have a near-monopoly on this issue. To wit, this low-life excuse for a human who was protected by the Obama Justice Department:

Lukewarm About McDonald

2010-06-29T11:30:00.003-04:00

I am generally pleased with the spirit of yesterday's ruling on McDonald, but I am unsure of the implications i.e. a federal court deciding a state or local issue. That being said, the text of the 14th Amendment does say that states may not make laws which contradict specific rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and so this case was rightly decided.

I find it hard to be excited about the ruling for no other reason but that many people will choose to own firearms regardless of what any court or law may decree. Of course, criminals will disregard laws simply because they are, by definition, criminals. No penalty will persuade these people from possessing firearms.

There is another, still larger, group of people who will choose to posses firearms, legally or illegally. These people are otherwise law-abiding citizens who, despite what their government orders, value life and its righteous defense. They are made into outlaws by their government because they refuse to submit their sovereignty of their own lives and the lives of their families. They do not, I say again do not, wish to initiate the use of force against anyone. They want to be left alone to live their lives. But when someone else initiates the use of force against them, it is their right and duty to respond in defense with like (and hopefully superior) force. The offender is given the only destruction he has a right to seek - his own.

Most Americans simply do not buy into the gun control argument any longer, regardless of laws. Firearms are used by citizens more than two million times per year to stop criminals. In the large majority of cases, just the presentation of the firearm is enough.

Amnesty: What If?

2010-06-29T09:20:00.000-04:00

What if 12 to 20 million Americans carried firearms in prohibited areas?

What if 12 to 20 million Americans refused to pay income taxes?

What if 12 to 20 million Americans sent a large portion of their income to a foreign country?

What if 12 to 20 million Americans had no identification, or worse, used stolen identification?

What if 12 to 20 million Americans did not pay their medical bills?

I could go on...

Hell in Mourning...

2010-06-28T12:40:00.002-04:00

...at the passing of Robert "Sheets" Byrd. He can no longer act as Satan's agent in the Senate. At least he can put those brutal West Virginia winters behind him.

He will be missed by those who loved him most: His fraternity brothers at Kappa Kappa Kappa, rope manufacturers, textile mills which specialize in white sheets, kerosene distributors, and the idiots in the media who like to recall the story of his "dog-eared copy of the Constitution," which he kept in the breast pocket of his suit (right next to his black heart).

"He knew how to spread the graft around."

Obama on Kagan: "Brilliant," "Knowledgeable," "Effective."

2010-06-28T11:32:00.007-04:00

Sure. Whatever. I'm a dummy in rural Virginia. I say she will rubber stamp the ObamAgenda without batting an eye, a task which requires no thought or intelligence. Blind obedience, rather than blind justice.

If you are so inclined, you may read my previous posts on the Kagan nomination here, here, and here.

Elana Kagan is Abe Fortas in drag, politically speaking. Physically, she has more in common with Kevin James:

Where's Jeff?

2010-06-21T20:56:00.003-04:00

Robert Hurt, the Republican nominee in Virginia's 5th congressional district, said he would debate the Democrat incumbent Tom Perriello and Jeff Clark, an independent. Hurt is now having second thoughts. From the Charlottesville Daily Progress:

According to a transcript of an audio recording of the interview conducted June 12, The Daily Progress asked Hurt if he is “going to be willing to debate Jeff Clark and Tom Perriello?” Hurt replied: “We need to work out all of the details, but debates are a very, very important part of elections and obviously we want to make ourselves available to all of the citizens who will be judging us and we’re committed to doing that but obviously we have the details to work out. We haven’t talked with the Perriello campaign — I don’t think — about what they’re interested in.”

The Daily Progress, again, asked: “But would you be willing to?” Hurt replied: “Absolutely.”

On Wednesday, Perriello’s campaign cited The Progress story and said Perriello agrees with his GOP challenger that Clark should be allowed to participate in the upcoming debates.

Hurt is widely regarded as the "establishment republican" candidate, winning the nomination over several hopefuls, some of whom billed themselves as constitutional conservatives. Jeff Clark, the independent, announced before the primary his intent to run as an independent conservative should Hurt win the Republican nomination.

Hurt voted for then-Governor (now U.S. Senator) Warner's $1,400,000,000 tax increase.

In this case, I agree with Congressman Perriello. If Clark is a legally qualified candidate, he should be included in the debate.

What About Missouri?

2010-06-21T11:04:00.002-04:00

A great piece at American Thinker by Timothy Birdnow asks the revealing question: "Why sue Arizona and not Missouri? " Missouri has recently enacted anti-illegal alien laws which are similar to those controversial and racist laws in Arizona. Why does Arizona get the discredit (read abuse) from the Obama administration?

Here is a rundown of Missouri's laws:

English is the Official Language.
No sanctuary for illegal aliens.
No state benefits for illegal aliens.
Proof of citizenship or resident status require for state benefits or driver's license.
No bail for those believed to be illegal aliens.
Transport of illegal aliens into Missouri is prohibited.
Law enforcement officers shall inquire citizenship status of those arrested for other crimes.
Businesses are prohibited from employing illegal aliens.
No in-state tuition aid for illegal aliens.

The author contends that Missouri is not a "portal" like Arizona, and the Obama administration is not concerned with protecting rights, as it claims, but with keeping the "portal" open to the locust swarm of illegal aliens crossing into our country on a daily basis. All in the name of votes:

So, why should the Arizona law be unpalatable when Missouri's was never worth challenging? The Department of Homeland Security estimated Arizona's illegal population at 560,000 in 2008, while the Pew Hispanic Center estimates between 400 and 450 thousand back in 2005. Pew's 2005 estimates for Missouri were between 35 and 65, so Arizona's illegal population is larger than Missouri's by about a factor of ten. 560,000 potentially new Democratic Party Voters and union members!
...
So, last year a quarter of a million people came in through Arizona. Where did they go? Everywhere, and that is why the Obama Administration is desperate to prevent Arizona's law from working.

One leg of Obama's plan to Democratic political hegemony, to a new New Deal, rests on opening the nation wide. What happened in Missouri is small potatoes, because the important thing is to get these people here, not to protect their rights. Unhappy illegals can leave Missouri for Illinois and prosper. PEW's estimate for Illinois in 2005 was anywhere between 375-425 thousand illegals - ten times the number in Missouri - and that before the new laws were enacted. The worry is not about civil rights, but about keeping the flood of invading peoples coming.

Transforming America, one illegal alien at a time. Like everything this fool president and his cabal of evil do and have done, this is designed for one purpose: the cementing of power by creating chaos to necessitate further government expansion and control.

Nero

2010-06-08T09:43:00.001-04:00

From Canada Free Press.