tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-130365472024-02-08T06:03:19.566-06:00Rednex RantsRednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-43501873707163839882015-02-20T08:25:00.001-06:002015-10-30T17:22:44.059-05:00Security or Liberty<blockquote> <p>“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”  H.L. Mencken</p> <p>“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” – H.L. Mencken</p> </blockquote> <p>Both of these quotes were attributed to H.L. Mencken, a  well known journalist, satirist,  and scholar known as the “Sage of Baltimore” and  one of the most influential writers of the the first half of the twentieth century.  Most importantly, he was often noted as being largely libertarian with a noted distrust in representative democracy, a system that he believed was where “inferior men dominated their superiors”.   Now me, I’m a fan of our government, as designed by our founding fathers, but I’ll have to admit, Mencken may be on to something with that last line.  However, the two quotes above were attributed to Mencken in the early 1920’s.  One would have to wonder what he would say about American life today?   </p> <p>True to Mencken’s words, post 9-11, America was inudtaed  with the political class and the media tossing out accusations of impeding doom to warrant the creation of some new measure by government.  The rush to expand the surveillance state in the name of safety started to look more like a grand prix rally than responsible , valid government, but to what end?</p> <p>We’ve all experienced that walk of shame at the airport, feeling like a sorority girl after an all night frat party, after having gone thru the pat and tickle exercise at the hands of the TSA, but has it done any good?  It might surprise you to know that since it’s inception, the TSA has had over <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/tsa-agent-convicted-theft-stealing-bags-common-article-1.1170993">400 agents arrested for stealing</a> from the people they were designed to protect, but after <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17045-spot-ted-900-million-tsa-program-hasn-t-caught-one-terrorist">$900 million  and untold number of crotch grabs later, the number of arrested terrorists or foiled attempts to harm our country is zero.</a></p> <p>Additionally, via a fellow named Edward Snowden, we all learned that our government has basically relegated the 4th amendment to role of  a doormat by  recording and listening in every phone call, text, and email in order to “stop terrorism”.  One has to ask though, if the real goal was to stop terrorists, shouldn’t the focus be paid border security or due diligence in the Visa and immigration offices, rather than turn the spying on the American Citizen?  Ah, that would be the smart and logical choice but, unfortunately, smarts and logic aren’t exactly in vast supply around government circles.</p> <p>Lastly, we have the DHS, to help secure America from all those terrorists behind every tree awaiting to destroy us and coordinate our national defense.  However, I think someone forgot that we already had the National Security  Agency to do that, but I digress.  Anyways, with the a big budget and almost unlimited resources the Department of Homeland Security (<em>Am I the only one that gets a bit weirded out upon hearing the term “homeland” and subconsciously seeing goose stepping dome hats on the streets?) </em>has surely been able to provided significant advances in terms of security, yes?</p> <p>Well, according to a <a href="http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=49139e81-1dd7-4788-a3bb-d6e7d97dde04">141-page senate oversight panel report</a>, the DHS  U.S. Counterterrorism Centers have failed to provide any valuable information, instead providing uneven, untimely, shoddy intelligence that has been acknowledged as “predominately useless” bye DHS officials.  Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), goes on to state, </p> <blockquote> <p>It’s troubling that the very ‘fusion’ centers that were designed to share information in a post-9/11 world have become part of the problem. Instead of strengthening our counterterrorism efforts, they have too often wasted money and stepped on Americans’ civil liberties”</p> </blockquote> <p>In short, the agency that was commissioned as a reassurance of our fears of terrorism, has spent between $289M and $1.4B in public funds to support these centers that have provide no valuable return in that regard.  Combine this with the TSA, who falls under DHS authority, and we have a agency that is proving to be wholly impotent at it’s task, but cited for endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act violations.  Furthermore, when questioned by Congress regarding these failures, DHS resisted any oversight and opted out of providing requested documentation to congress on grounds of “sensitivity and confidentiality”.  </p> <p>In spite of these failures however, we watch as the DHS increasingly militarizes themselves and local police.  With reports of DHS buying <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/">1.6 million rounds of ammunition</a>, some which being hollow points (illegal under the Hauge Convention) and 2700 mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles, (again, images of goose stepping, stahlhelm wearing, foreigners fill my head),  shouldn’t we be concerned of a secretive agency, held up as a defender of our safety, having this much power?</p> <p>All of this comes down to a simple matter, safety cannot be bought, only temporarily rented.   Safety is fleeting and always being challenged by some new threat, however, liberty and freedom, once surrendered is difficult to reclaim.   The government, along with a complicent media, attempts to increase fear using the menacing hobgoblin of terrorism, both here and abroad.  The goal being to convince us that liberty and safety are a delicate balance, one that government should hold the exclusive power to maintain. However, this idea is the very anti-thesis of the principals upon which our nation were founded.   The principals are that individual freedom and liberty are supreme, and that the people only consent to government as a means to secure and protect those principals. </p> <p>We must remember, we, as a people, are inherently charged with our own safety.   While there are portions of our safety that we simply aren’t equipped to manage, we have provided government with limited authority to do so for us.   These things include border security, due diligence in the application and issuance of visas and green cards, and in the realms of foreign intelligence.  However, when we see that the government starts to shift it’s eye inward, towards the people, or fail to succeed in that authority then concern should be raised to the highest levels.  </p> <p>Should we let  “menacing hobgoblins” used by government to instill fear  influence us to a point that we willingly surrender our freedoms, we will find ourselves no longer worthy of the birthright provided to us by our founding fathers.  When the balance between safety and liberty are called into questions, liberty must always reign supreme.  For the simple truth is that liberty and safety can never be balanced, for they are never equals.  We are nation of free men, and as free men, we grant to government the power to protect our freedoms of life, liberty,  and pursuit of happiness.   It is this grant from the people that creates safety, so it cannot be possible for government to seek to take from us that which the grant enables. Should government to subjugate our rights in the name of safety, even in the name of the few, then liberty cannot exist and we are duty bound to resist. </p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-67180395449937773942015-02-20T08:21:00.001-06:002015-02-20T08:21:03.696-06:00The ATF’s Green Tip Hysteria<p>(originally written and posted on <a href="http://www.unapologeticallyamerican.com/the-atfs-green-tip-hysteria/">Unapologetically American</a>)</p> <p>In a <s>totally expected</s> unexpected move by the ATF, the agency in charge of all my favorite vices has filed a motion to reclassify <a href="http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf">common ammunition as armor piercing.</a>  Specifically, this reclassification would affect M855, or “Green Tip” ammo.  </p> <p>Citing safety of Law Enforcement Officers as the primary reasoning, the ATF contends that the introduction and sale of AR style handguns has now moved the M855 ammo into the statutory definition of armor piercing under the Gun Control Act of 1986 and out of the realm of “primarily intended for sporting purposes”.  Therefore, they are looking to “streamline” the ATF process for exempting ammunition and reverse the previous exemption for M855 made in 1986.</p> <p>Despite the fact that there is no limitation of the 2nd amendment to “sporting purposes only”, there are several other fallacies with this attempt by the ATF to effectively ban commonplace M855 ammo.  Each of them proving that these rules are enacted by federal bureaucrats and politicians who can’t tell the difference between a bolt carrier group and a trigger guard.  </p> <p>First and foremost, this reclassification attempt is premised on the fact that the ammo can now be used in handguns, thus alluding to the fallacy that such action makes the ammo more “dangerous”.   As an agency tasked with the regulation of all things firearm related, you would expect them to have a greater understanding of ballistics.  The fact is that rifle caliber ammo is inherently more powerful than pistol calibers and all will easily bypass the soft body armor worn by police.  The key differentiator here is velocity, not construction.  </p> <p>In a study done by  Small Arms Defense Journal titled <a href="http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093">“Barrel Length Studies in 5.56MM NATO Weapons”</a>, it was found that for the M855 to have a lethal wound channel, the projectile must have a velocity of ~2,500 ft/sec upon impact.  Any velocity below that simply drills a 1/4” hole thru the target, resulting in a frequently non-lethal wound unless a vital structure is impacted.   This was further confirmed by the group over at Ballistics by the Inch that showed significant loss of energy by .223/5.56 calibers, with <a href="http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html">almost a 1,000 ft/sec drop</a> from 18” to 6” barrels.  By referencing it’s use in handguns, the ATF ignores the fact that the M855 is less lethal in the firearms that they claim justify its “reclassification” showing that this is nothing more than an attempt to restrict by fiat. </p> <p>Secondly, this reclassification is based on the “characteristics” of the firearm used to fire the ammo, nothing more.  In summary, the ability to ban ammunition as “armor piercing” is based its ability to be used in the following criteria:  </p> <blockquote> <p>“Any firearm not deemed a “single shot handgun”, meaning a break-open or bolt action handgun that accepts only a single cartridge manually and does not accept or use a magazine or ammunition feeding device.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Consider that definition carefully.  Does anyone else see the slippery slope of exclusion and scope creep here?  Admittedly, the ATF is only claiming this definition for ammo bans to “rifle” calibers, but considering the sale of rifles utilizing “pistol calibers” such as the Hi-Point 9MM carbine, how long till the ATF decides to reclassify all ammo as “rifle caliber” since it “may be used” in both a rifle and handgun.  After all, the agency is justifying this move on the failure of Congress to specifically define terms in the Law Enforcement Protection Act, in which they included the terms “may be used” rather than the more specific terms of the Gun Control Act that stated “designed for use”.  Already, this would impact not only the M855 round, but also .224, .308, .430 and .458 bullets because each of these “may” be used in handguns fitting the above definition.  Using this “logic”, the ATF could simply attempt to reclassify all ammunition at their whim, because hey, “We are the government and we just make stuff up as we go along”.</p> <p>Additionally, the realistic effect of this ban would have the exact opposite impact that the ATF is proposing.  Their stated purpose is to improve the safety of law enforcement officers and to do this, they suggest taking a less combat effective ammo out of circulation, but leave a more combat effective ammo in place.  It should be noted that the M855 (SS109) ammunition has be criticized by combat troops due to its tendency to create pinpoint wound tracks that effectively leave the enemy “combat ready” despite multiple hits.  In comparison, the FMJ ammunition has the ability to “mushroom” creating a much larger, substantially more grievous, wound.  It is this difference that led to the adoption of the MK318 & MK 262 ammunition by our combat forces. </p> <p>The ATF also states the overwhelming requests for “armor piercing” exemptions as an added need for this change, however, this rise of exemption requests is a direct result of Government <s>interference </s>regulation.  The Military’s anti-lead movement combined with EPA attempts to <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/epa-ammunition-ban-blocked-by-federal-court">ban lead ammunition</a> <em>(thankfully blocked by a federal court) </em>and EPA actions that closed the <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/28/end-of-an-era-last-u-s-lead-smelter-to-close-in-december/">last primary lead smelter</a> in the US,  have resulted in ammunition manufacturers attempting to preempt impending regulations by creating more steel and copper based bullets.  Yet, the definition of “armor piercing” states that a projectile is considered as such if it meets the following:</p> <blockquote> <p><i>(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or </i></p> <p><i>(ii) A full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile</i>.</p> </blockquote> <p>So, the government is moving to ban the use of lead, but constructing a bullet that “may” be used in a handgun of any other reasonable substance would fall under the statutory definition of yet another ban?  Seems kind of like a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario, until some illustrious manufacturer finds a way to construct a bullet from pure fairy dust or marshmallow crème.  While I will never underestimate the ingenuity of the American entrepreneur, I’m not holding my breath for that to become reality anytime soon. </p> <p>The final fallacy is that the M855 round doesn’t even meet the legal definition of “armor piercing”.  As stated above, the bullet used is not constructed entirely of any of the substances stated.  The M855/SS109 bullets are in fact a lead core with a steel tip.  In reading the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921">18 USC Sec. 921 (a) (17)</a> code, the M855 bullet falls outside of this definition, but that matters little to the ATF.  Instead, using intelligence only capable of federal bureaucrats, they chose to narrowly view the legal definition to the “may be used in the handgun” portion of the code and ignore all other defining language within.  Again, “We are the government, we do what we want” mentality take hold here.   </p> <p>Since it doesn’t fit the definition, the only conclusion is that the government is using the premise of “scary looking” to justify the exclusion of “green tip” ammo as an end run to gun control.  Any bets on how long it takes the ATF to open a new position of “Ammunition Inspection Application Specialist” who’s only duty is to walk into ammo plants with a supply of nail polish to paint bullet tips green to justify further exclusion? </p> <p>Remember, this ban is only proposed at this point.  For all the reasons above, and considering the slippery slope of the measure, all citizens should voice their opinion on this apparent overreach by the ATF.  Below you will find the address and contact information for the proposal’s open comment period.  You have until March 16th to make your opinions known.  I suggest we bombard them with such! <br />Comments can be made via the ATF’s website at <a href="mailto:APAComments@atf.gov">APAComments@atf.gov</a> or faxed to 202-648-9741.  Additionally, you can mail comments to the following address.  Feel free to do all three. </p> <blockquote> <p><i>ATTN: AP Ammo Comments </i></p> <p><i>Denise Brown </i></p> <p><i>Mailstop 6N-02 </i></p> <p><i>Office of Regulatory Affairs </i></p> <p><i>Enforcement Programs and Services </i></p> <p><i>ATF </i></p> <p><i>99 New York Avenue, NE </i></p> <p><i>Washington, DC 20226</i></p></blockquote> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-11791718811828870552015-01-12T11:17:00.001-06:002015-01-12T11:28:36.475-06:00Myth of the “War of Ideas”<p>Recently on Facebook, I read an <a href="http://ivn.us/2015/01/09/win-war-ideas/">article</a> that portrayed the idea of the “minority of radical islamists” and basically lambasted the US for fighting a “war of ideas” with violence.    In short, this article is more of the same modern liberal ideas that all the troubles in the world are that of the US and that we should limit our responses due to the myth that radical islamists  are a minority.  I wish to counter this article point by point. </p> <blockquote> <p>Judging from the comments on my most recent <a href="http://ivn.us/2015/01/08/lets-give-terrorists-holy-war-want/?utm_source=ivn&utm_medium=featured&utm_content=title&utm_campaign=opt-beta-v-1-1">post</a>, a non-trivial number of IVN Facebook followers believe that the United States should lead the way in eradicating Islam from the earth—preferably with nuclear weapons. Whatever the merits of such a proposal may be, let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s just not going to happen. We are not going to commit the crimes of 200 Hitler's and incinerate a fourth of the world’s population in a single afternoon. Practical considerations and (one would hope) moral qualms will get in the way.</p> </blockquote> <p>I do not know Michael Austin and I do not know what his followers are saying.  He provides no proof or evidence to his claim that a “non-trivial” number of his followers wish nuclear war upon the Muslim population, but I will assume for a minute that he is speaking the truth and not expounding the responses in an effort to make his ideological point. </p> <p>With that assumption, I would be among the first to say that, while the idea of bombing those who kill our brothers and sisters till they glow and then shooting them in the dark has a non-rational elegance, it is not something that I, or others like me, wish for.  As we are a people that inherently believe in freedom, and as such, we believe that freedom should extend to everyone.  Annihilation of a people is simply not something that we seek, nor is it something we practice.  You need only to look at the world wars, or really any conflict we’ve been involved in to see that this is not true.  We use violence to the point of stopping violence against ourselves, and once solved, we have rebuilt the nations we warred against.  </p> <blockquote> <p>Barring such a cataclysmic response, we must acknowledge that the “War on Terror” is a war of ideas that cannot be won with military force. Wars of ideas are won with persuasion. This does not mean (as it is often reduced to in political discourse) that we should persuade the terrorists to stop bombing us. That’s just silly. Radical Islamicists constitute a small percentage of the Islamic world, and they are trying to convince the rest of that world to adopt their ideas. It is the billion or so Muslims who are not terrorists that we have to win over. To do this, we must persuade them that we have better ideas than radical Islamicism.</p> </blockquote> <p>I understand the point that he is trying to make here, but it is a false point.  Every war is based upon a “war of ideas”.  The idea that Nazi’s were a superior race destined to rule the world, that communism is a better political/fiscal system that free markets/democracy, that countries have a right to invade others based on a difference of opinion, etc.  All of these were “wars of ideas”.  The turning point in these wars is when one side attempts to use force of violence to promote their held ideas upon another.   When that happens, the “war of ideas” moves beyond that of simple speeches and conveyance of beliefs to that of physical action. </p> <p>Also, let us be done with this myth of a “small percentage of the Islamic world” that is radical.  Terrorists, which is what the author is referring to, is but a small percentage of those that are considered radical.  Terrorists receive their funding, support, and abilities from those that are equally radical even if they do not strap a bomb to their chest.  Those that take to the streets, in every nation, to celebrate and support the killing of innocents are no less radical than those that did the killing.  Those that support Shariah law are no less radical.  Ben Shapiro addresses this myth in his Reality Check segment “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg">The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority”.</a>  While I do not agree with all of his figures that he uses to justify radical, the facts are clear that a majority of Muslims adhere to the tenants of the radical Islamist.  To claim otherwise is a blatant falsehood or requires a large suspension of belief. </p> <blockquote> <p>This means is that we are involved in an ideological contest with radical political Islam. We have to try to understand what this means. The big idea that we bring to the contest is the set of beliefs about human liberty, individual rights, and fundamental equality that we group together and call “the Enlightenment.” It is, I believe, a very good idea, but that does not mean it is guaranteed to win. We still have to present the case. There are a lot of ways to do this, none of which involve bombing stuff.</p> </blockquote> <p>For the most part, I agree.  We need to present the ideas of freedom and liberty to others and argue the merits in political ways.  However, when the other side resorts to acts of terrorism and/or war to counter political speeches, when the use of force is used to subjugate people to a belief, specifically when that use of violence is used to silence our “ideas”, then we are duty bound to subvert that violence and protect our own by any means necessary.  As is the general practice of our system of government, we first attempt to do so with embargos and other political means, but when that is unsuccessful in the protection of our, and other freedom loving people, then we must meet force with force.   </p> <blockquote> <p>It does involve, however, living by our ideas, even when doing so is hard. One of the persistent problems of the Enlightenment has been the tendency of its most vocal advocates to try to keep it in the family. This is how we got the unfathomable hypocrisy of a group of slave owners coming together to create a nation dedicated to the “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal” (women, not so much).</p> </blockquote> <p>This is simply an ignorant statement that is devoid of actual knowledge of our founding.  Yes, there were those in our founding that believed in slavery, but it was not a commonly held belief by our founders.  In order to create a nation, compromises were required.  Compromises that were repugnant but necessary to the creation of a country and done so under the belief that the people would grow a conscience with regards to the practice. </p> <p>I do not wish to devolve this into an article about slavery, but it must be mentioned to counter a intellectually dishonest statement by the author aimed to create a bias.  First and foremost, the practice of slavery existed long before our revolution.  It was common place practice that our founders were born into and one that, even though they owned slaves, our founders publicly disagreed with.  Quote upon quote could be issued that proved that our founding fathers disagreed with the practice, and the simple fact that they protested the practice publicly, was incredibly radical for their time.  However, they knew that the public conscience would not change in their lifetime, so compromises were made to ensure the birth of a nation.  Compromises written to lead the people in a direction of abolition.  Any statements to the contrary are ideological drivel meant to distort and bias the reader to the contrary. </p> <blockquote> <p>We are guilty of a similar hypocrisy when we abandon our Constitutional protections of due process in order to engage in torture, or when we conduct war with drone missions that rack up high rates of “<a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/">collateral damage</a>” (dead and injured people who have nothing to do with terrorism) without putting a single American life at risk. Actions like these send a fairly easy-to-understand set of messages to the very audience we are supposed to be trying to persuade. It tells them that our big idea is compatible with the theory that our lives are more important than theirs.</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, a valid emotional point is being made here, but facts are being left out.  First is the definition of torture.  The cutting off of heads is not the same as pouring water over someone’s face to simulate drowning.   Playing loud music to disrupt sleep is not the same as physical beatings and breaking of bones.  The “torture” that the author speaks of is drastically different that that used against us, but for the sake of argument, I will concede the point. </p> <p>However, where the author loses the argument is in the case of due process for those that fight against us.  Like it or not, it is still a physical war.  As such, due process is generally not offered to enemy combatants.  It is impossible to try, convict, and issue judgment against those that are firing upon us.  There is no time or ability for this on the battle field.  This has been accepted in all wars, from the Great Wars on.  To try and claim lack of due process during a time of war is naive and illegitimate.  Again, it is an effort by the author to create an ideological point by complete suspension of common sense.  As to the collateral damage, anyone with military experience knows that our military does everything in it’s power to limit collateral damage, but in short, shit happens.  Our weapons are designed with pinpoint accuracy, but when the enemy sets itself up in hospitals and similar civilian establishments, it is by their doing that civilians are put at risk, not ours.  Additionally, compare that to the actions of those who engage in this “war of ideas”.  They target civilians, non-combatants, and innocents in an attempt to create “terror”. These are acts of cowards that must be met.  To not do so, to allow such acts and not counter them, is nothing more than a recipe for extinction.  You are unable to promote your “ideas” when your population is decimated by violence with no response. </p> <blockquote> <p>As Professor <a href="http://vimeo.com/116243848">Jacob Levy</a> pointed out after the bombings, there is a related (but by no means as glaring) hypocrisy in the French <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering">law</a> banning face coverings, which was primarily aimed at Muslims. “What this ends up saying, Levy argues, is “‘you have to accept that editorial cartoons blaspheming Mohammad will be published. But if you wish to express your religious identity in public by women covering their faces, that is too offensive to French civic identity. . . and so we will prohibit that act of expression.” This pretty much keeps with the theme: “we have the right not to be offended, but you don’t.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, we see a deliberate act of intellectual dishonesty.  First and foremost, the entire article is about the American view of Islam, with constant references to our constitution and views, but then portrays a law in France as if it were an American view.  We (America) cannot be responsible, nor held liable, for the laws of another state.  To intend that we are guilty because of what another country does is simply pandering at best.  Secondly, it ignores the purpose and the letter of the law as passed.  The law does not specifically target Muslims, but instead targets head coverings of all religions, including Christian veils, Sikh turbans, etc.  Instead, it was progressed as a security measure in that hides the identity of a person which presents a security risk to the public and law enforcement, not because it “offended people” as the author disingenuously attempts to persuade the reader.  <br /> <br />Regardless, it has no consequence to the article.  America has no such ban and I would oppose if it was suggested.  We are a country of religious freedom, and agree with the religion or not, I will stand by those that wish do so.  If the author has issue with what the French are doing, then take that up with the French, do not attempt to use subversive attempts to correlate the actions of a foreign government with our own. </p> <p>Additionally, if the author wishes to take this tactic, why not go into the tenants of Islam that are arguably more cruel than the banning of head coverings?  Why not preach against the practice of honor killings that a majority of Muslims see as appropriate?  Why not argue that Islam should change it’s policy on the murdering of homosexuals for being immoral?  Genital mutilation, suppression of religious rights, etc?  All of these are far more invasive than the banning of covering your face, yet not a mention of this is made in the article?  Where is your condemnation of “brute force” in these tactics?</p> <blockquote> <p>These sorts of double standards are simply not good ways to persuade the millions of Muslims who are not terrorists that the values of the Enlightenment are superior to the values of radical Islam. The message that it communicates is that the “big idea” of Western Civilization—the Enlightenment—is not capable of handling hard questions. When things really get tough, we have to ditch this idea and go with brute force instead.</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, it was not us that decided to go to brute force.  What the author is suggesting here is not comparison of ideas but the capitulation to the ideas of one over the other.  While you may think that the French banning head coverings is egregious and demonstrably cruel, I imagine that the homosexual living in the area would have a higher concern for their life.  That the Christian in the Muslim world would consider being stoned for their beliefs as much more harming.  That those subjugated to Shariah Law fear in a greater amount of fear than those forced to identify themselves by removal of a head covering.  Lastly, what of the innocents that are placed in harms way by having terrorists base operations within their midst?  Seems that scale of atrocity is a problem for this author, or maybe, it’s just that none of the above meets his ideological, progressive stance, so it is just ignored?</p> <blockquote> <p>This is why nearly everything thing that radical Islamicists have done since 2001 has been designed to goad Western nations into abandoning the core values of the Enlightenment. They want us to be brutal, to devalue human life, and to deny human rights. They are trying to convince us that we have to be barbaric in order to defeat the barbarians (a role that they are only too happy to play). And if we do this–if we take the bait and become the thing we are fighting against–we must concede the point that barbarism is a better idea than Enlightenment.</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, to allow the wholesale murder of our people, to allow the targeting of civilians, to do nothing to counter the acts of terror created by these animals is nothing more than a move to extinction of our society.  Turning the other cheek is a noble, and commendable, action, but when the other cheek is also struck, action must be taken.  If you aim to kill, maim, or otherwise harm another, then those actions must be met with overwhelming response.   To do nothing but counter violence with words destines you to defeat and threatens your existences.  However, maybe that is what the author ultimately wants.</p> <blockquote> <p>And conceding the other guy’s main point is not a good way to win a contest of ideas.</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed, but then again, neither is allowing undeterred violence. </p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-88374966703083155882015-01-09T15:31:00.001-06:002015-01-09T15:31:21.321-06:00New York mandates the city go green! (but not really)<p>Today we see where a progressive, left wing government once again misses the mark and resorts to harmful, top down heavy handedness rather than support free market opportunities.   In this instance, <a href="http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nyc-will-begin-banning-restaurant-plastic-foam-in-july/ar-AA7VGkg?ocid=ansnewsap11"><font color="#0000ff">it’s a decree by the New York City government banning polystyrene food containers from the city.</font></a><font color="#0000ff"> </font></p> <p>First, DeBlasio’s administration is incorrect in stating that polystyrene is not recyclable.  This is just a blatant lie and falsehood being spread to justify their big government actions.  Los Angeles and roughly 65 other US cites currently  have polystyrene recycling programs in operation today.  Businesses such a <a href="http://www.recycle-styrofoam.com/"><font color="#0000ff">StyroMelt</font></a><font color="#0000ff">, </font><a href="http://styrorecycle.com/"><font color="#0000ff">StyroRecycle</font></a><font color="#0000ff">, </font><a href="http://www.foamfacts.com/recycling/"><font color="#0000ff">Dart Container’s Care program,</font></a> and others that provide polystyrene recycling services/products to both industry and cities where desired.  In fact, the Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers <em>(wait, there is an Alliance for something that supposedly can't be done??)</em> states that in 2006 alone, over<font color="#0000ff"> </font><a href="http://www.earth911.com/home/family/recycling-mysteries-styrofoam/"><font color="#0000ff">56 million pounds of EPS (expanded polystyrene) were recycled</font></a>, emphasizing that this is an astonishing number due to the fact that EPS is 98% air. </p> <p>Mike Levy, Senior Director for the American Chemistry Council's Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group <a href="http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2015/01/new-york-city-bans-not-recyclable-single-use-styrofoam-products.html"><font color="#0000ff">states</font></a> that "there are nearly 140 companies that process or use the plastic material [EPS] in the US and Canada." and that "A US maker of foam foodservice packaging even offered to help New York expand it's recycling program to include the foam packaging by providing a guaranteed market for the material." All of this was being offered at no cost to the city!  Again, how is that even possible for something that know it all DeBlasio says isn't even possible to recycle?  </p> <p>The unintended consequences of this action?  It will most likely INCREASE the amount of trash going to the landfill each year, rather than decrease it according to the <a href="http://plasticfoodservicefacts.com/Pages/Fiscal-Economic-Impacts-of-a-Ban-on-Plastic-Foam-Foodservice-and-Drink-Containers-in-New-York-City.pdf"><font color="#0000ff">Fiscal & Economic Impacts of a Ban on Plastic Foam Foodservice and Drink Containers in New York City</font></a> produced by the MB Public Affairs Research Center. </p> <p>This is due to the fact that alternatives to foam packaging are less desirable in that many of these alternatives have a plastic or wax coating to prevent leakage/collapse of the products while in use.  Well, according to the city's own Department of Sanitation, food contaminated materials with a "heavy wax or plastic coating" are not accepted by the city for recycling.  Read that again.  DeBlasio's administration decides to ban EPS due to it being "un-recyclable" (which is false) and will force city businesses to use alternatives that are not accepted as recyclable by the city??  The progressive thought process sure is hard to follow! </p> <p>Additionally, the<font color="#0000ff"> </font><a href="http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2013/03/study-new-york-polystyrene-ban-to-cost-100-million.html"><font color="#0000ff">economic impact of this ban was estimated be ~$100M a year</font></a>.  With the cities agencies already spending nearly $12M/year on EPS products, making the switch to the lowest cost alternatives will raise that by an additional $11M/year.  Restaurants in the five boroughs would see an increase of $57M in operating expenses.  In short, for roughly every $1.00 spent today, consumers and businesses would need to spend a minimum of $1.84 on alternatives. So, the cost of eating out for New Yorkers is going to more than double as a result of this decision. </p> <p>No, rather than instituting free market, cost savings, true environmentally friendly solutions, New York's political betters decided to go the route of restricting people's freedom and choice by instituting a ban. Forget the fact that New York is home to four EPS packaging companies, employing ~1,600 people over 9 facilities and providing over $47M in payroll taxes and over $2.3M in state taxes.  Never mind the offers of like companies that were willing to assist in free-market solutions that would save the city and estimated $100M per year, rather than actually serving to expand the amount of material that goes to the landfill each year. Forget the fact that by supporting proposed recycling solutions, you provide an opportunity for new business markets which could lead to jobs and increased tax revenue.  All of this be damned, let's use the power of government to subjugate the people to what the politicians feel is best, because clearly, the people are too ignorant to decide themselves.  </p> <p>What's that saying?  The problem with common sense is that you have to deal with so many people that lack it.  Thanks Mayor DeBlasio, you and yours prove that adage perfectly! </p> <p>Rednex </p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-60754727249550893322013-05-24T13:57:00.001-05:002013-05-24T13:58:07.536-05:00IRS: Obama’s downfall?<p>There has been a lot of news of late with regard the the IRS using it’s authority to intimidate and delay conservative political groups during the 2012 political election cycle.  Setting aside the fact that there were accusations made, requests for enquiry, and multiple reports of this happening, the mass media simply labeled this as “right wing paranoia” up until this same media found that the Obama administration was violating their first amendment right of free press.  Once this was done, the IRS scandal picked up full steam and investigations were called, with many stating that this scandal (among many others) would be the downfall of the Obama Presidency.  It is this last statement that I want to address.  Will the fact that the IRS, under Obama, used it’s political might to silence opposition be final thread to unravel Obama’s presidency? </p> <p>Make no mistake, this scandal has wide reaching implications and is a severe breech of trust of government authority that should result in jobs being lost and prison terms, but should it land on Obama’s shoulders alone?  My response to you is no, it shouldn’t.    Was there a failure of leadership?  Absolutely and as this happened under the Obama administration, when it comes to brass tack, the buck stops with him.   However, this scandal goes far beyond party lines and the purview of one man and points to a much larger, more dangerous problem.</p> <p>Obama henchman David Axlerod stated it best in an interview with MSNBC when he said:</p> <blockquote> <p>“If you look at the inspector general’s report, some folks down in the bureaucracy, you know we have a large government, took it upon themselves to short hand these applications for tax exempt status, uh, in a way that was, as I said, idiotic and dangerous because of the political implications.  [sic]  Part of being president is there’s so much underneath you that you can’t know because government is so vast”</p> </blockquote> <p>Mr. Axlerod summed it better than I ever could.  Now while he was making these statements as a way to defend, or shield, Obama from the negative coverage, he outright stated something that I, and many like me, have been saying for a long time.  Government has simply grown too large, too powerful, to be effectively managed and policed for abuses of power and tyranny.  David, and other leftist apologists, attempt to pass the blame on this to lower level employees, ala Richard Nixon, but the truth still rings true, our government has simply outgrown our ability to control it and that is the real problem.</p> <p>This is not the first time that a wing of the government, specifically the IRS, has been used in a manner to intimidate opposition.  Most notably was Richard Nixon, in which this was used as one of his articles of impeachment, <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0517/Playing-the-IRS-card-Six-presidents-who-used-the-IRS-to-bash-political-foes/President-Calvin-Coolidge-R" target="_blank">but there are instances that the same has happened under the Coolidge, FDR, JFK, Clinton, and Bush administrations.</a>  The problem is that we have a large government agency that is made up of people, people of unprecedented power and reach.  As history shows, when power is granted, there is a risk of corruption by those that wield it. No, this is not an implication of party, but an implication on allowing the size of government to grow to such a level that it cannot be controlled.</p> <p>Consider this, why do you pay taxes?  It’s not necessarily because you have a desire or will to see better roads, improved infrastructure, or enacted social programs, it’s because you fear the consequences should you not.  You pay them out of fear.  You know that if you do not, armed guards can break down your door, confiscate your house and/or property, garnish your wages, even place you in prison for failure to give that to government for which it feels entitled.  It is not for country or a common good, it is driven by fear and fear alone.  So, the question I have to ask is, why did the people allowed the creation and continued existence of a government agency that controls them by fear?</p> <p>This was not the intention of our founding fathers.  They did not wage a revolution against the crown so that their future countrymen would live in fear of government, but so government would live in fear of the people.  Their intent is well known and documented in our constitution and that intent was to keep a necessary evil, a centralized government, constrained, restricted, and beholden to those that it serves.  However, we have allowed government to create an agency(s) that does not serve the people but serves itself and we did so with our consent.</p> <p>The IRS has unprecedented access and involvement into an area of our lives which allows for manipulation and control: personal finance.  The IRS knows how much we make, how much we save, where and how we invest, and how we spend our wages.  These are details that we do not share with our closest family members, yet we somehow find it prudent that thousands of government agents be allowed that level of access to our private lives.  It was an agency built on the very premise of depriving us of our natural rights to property and the fruits of our labor.  Within the creation of the income tax and the IRS, we do not willingly consent to payments to the federal government, we are forced to do so at the point of a spear and threat of violence.  Do you think I exaggerate?  When have you ever seen a letter stamped IRS that did not give you a feeling of dread?  When have you ever received a call from the IRS that did not immediately cause a upset feeling in your core and your mouth to go dry?  These are not the feelings of a consenting person , but of a fearful one.</p> <p>I am not saying that we should not fund government, we should.  There are 17 enumerated powers that are owned and are the responsibility of the federal government.  To exercise these powers, some level of funding is required, but there are many alternative ways to provide this that do not involve allowing government insight into the minutia of our lives.  There are vat, flat and fair, and consumption taxes that remove any need for the fed to know our financial details.  Each removes them from knowing what/how much we have and provides privacy, taxing only on what we consume or which reduces the tax code to the size of postcard, thus reducing the need for invasion into our most intimate financial details.  There are ways to remove the fear associated with the IRS by removing the level of information they are allowed to access.  When you remove this access, your remove the ability to coerce and intimidate thru the use of that information.</p> <p>No, the IRS scandal is not about party, it’s about the fact that we now have a federal leviathan that has grown beyond our control.  As the beast grows, the more it consumes, the more power that it has.  We cannot stop the abuses of the IRS by any other means than via reform.  Our only option is to defund and eliminate the office of the IRS and to reform our tax code.  Liberty is not achieved thru fear, it is achieved in the absence of fear.  As long as government has an agency with the power to invade, regulate, and confiscate our natural right of property, we can have no liberty. we can have no freedom.  Look beyond party, as that is just a symptom, look at the cause, a bloated federal ruling class with too much influence and control of our lives.  The answer, the only answer, to preventing future reoccurrences of tyranny and abuse is to restrain the size of government back to it’s original, constitutionally prescribe size.  Remember the next time you see an IRS letter or answer a call from them and your heart drops, free men should not live in fear of that which they should control.  If we ever wish to be free again, the abolishment of the IRS and the federal income tax is our first step.</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-85523757432509992872013-05-16T16:30:00.001-05:002013-05-16T16:30:37.089-05:00Purpose of Government<blockquote> <p>“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.” <br />― <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1673.Thomas_Jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a></p> </blockquote> <p>We, as citizens, have grown lazy.  We have forgotten our legacy and our duty as left to us by those brave, courageous men who fired the first shot for our freedom in 1775.  We have forgotten what it means to be free.</p> <p>With so many of the details and controversies surrounding politics assaulting our senses on a daily basis, it is easy to become numb and oblivious to the consequences of what it all means.  As a result, we have become apathetic, we have faltered, and we have allowed our birthright to liberty to start slipping between our fingers. </p> <p>On a daily basis we see our government declare a new war on some benign object from which it feels the need to protect the people.  Sodas cause obesity, we must ban sodas.  Salt causes high blood pressure, we must ban salt.  Guns are used by the evil and insane to take life, we must remove them from our society.  Lack of health insurance leads to people not utilizing services or seeking services for free, we must mandate all people have health insurance.   Drugs are deemed harmful, therefore we must dedicated resources, money, and life to their eradication.  With each of these, as government power and reach grew, our freedom shrank.</p> <p>As times evolved, we have allowed the government to develop new rights and privileges:  Right to sexual freedom, right to a cell phone, right to a job, right to retire in luxury, right from the consequences of our own choices, and the list goes on.  We see consistent measures taken to try our limit our freedoms, in the belief that we are simply to naive to understand the impact.  Drones fly above our skies, presidents spy on citizens and media, kill/enemy lists are created without oversight or due process, our wealth is confiscated to be used as government sees fit, not as we see fit, and other violations too numerous to list.   Again, with each of these, as the influence of government expanded, liberty contracted.</p> <p>In each of these circumstances, we listen to politicians dredge up the ghosts of our founding fathers and of our constitution to provide teeth to their arguments, to justify their over reach.  However, we have politicians that cannot tell the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence.  Politicians who are ignorant and blind to the purpose and provision of the articles contained within the Constitution.  Likewise, we have a state sponsored education system that fails, literally fail, to teach our young the foundation and meaning of this incredible document that serves as the law of our land.  As such, we have allowed the birth of low-information voters, those that know nothing outside of what they are told by the media and an ignorant ruling class.  Voters who are swindled, misdirected, and lied to every single day, abrogating freedom for handouts and made up rights, allowing their votes to be purchased by the highest bidder.  It’s time we remember our history, remember why we were provided with the Constitution, and what is the true purpose of government.</p> <p>Our founding fathers sacrificed life, wealth, and comfort to provide our country with an opportunity to pursue happiness absent of tyranny.  They fought and won the right of the people to <strong>self-govern</strong>.  The key here, self-govern, as they did not wish to trade the tyranny of the crown for tyranny of another.  No, they sought to isolate the people, both then and now, from having to go thru the same trials as they did.  As such, they create the representative democracy that gave birth to the American Experiment.  An experiment based on the premise that people were granted certain inalienable rights as derived by their creator, but recognizing that human imperfection exists and that it has a tendency to abuse power if granted.  </p> <p>Begrudgingly, they created a central government with just enough power to protect our nation and serve as mediator between states, but they constrained those powers thru a purposely worded Constitution.  They sought to balance, and separate, the powers of central government through a carefully constructed system of checks and balances.  To all other things, they left the power of rule to the states and ultimately, to the people.  Within this power, they provided a mechanism to amend the constitution, to allow the people the right to delegate power back to the government as they saw fit.  </p> <p>While it was with good intent, is this final attribute that has been used against us.  Under the guise of security and “rights”, we’ve allowed ourselves to delegate so much power back to the government, that we are no longer self-governed.  We now have a government that finds itself above the law.  We find ourselves once again under tyranny, not by the crown, but by bureaucracy.  We have a ruling class that deems itself not subjected to the laws that they create for us.  Tyrants that wish to impose restrictions, or outright denial, of rights that are guaranteed to us.  Per Thomas Jefferson’s warning above, we now have a government that rules in the interests of the governors, not the governed.</p> <p>It is time for us, the people, to realize that the Constitution was not established to grant government unlimited centralized power, but instead limit that power and reserve it to the people for themselves.  Rather than following this blueprint and restricting government, we have allowed what history has shown happens with all governments, and that is to permit the corruption of law and to allow the powerful few to rule the masses. </p> <p>It’s time for the people to remember, the purpose of government is to protect our rights, not to grant them.  We are a people endowed with natural rights, rights that preexist government, rights that can not be rightfully taken away by governments, nor must we seek permission to utilize them.</p> <p> <strong>They cannot silence our speech in an effort to dissent or speak our minds or prevent us from gathering to redress our grievances.  </strong></p> <p><strong>They cannot take our weapons.  </strong></p> <p><strong>They cannot confiscate and redistribute our private property.  </strong></p> <p><strong>They cannot break down our doors and search our homes.  </strong></p> <p><strong>They cannot murder, imprison, or use the force of government to intimidate us for our beliefs without due process before our peers.</strong></p> <p>Contrary to current events, the ability to violate these principals is not granted to government.  They are overreaches allowed by the people, overreaches that we, the people,  must bring to an end.  We cannot allow them to pervert and manipulate the language of the Constitution,  to subvert its meaning and intent,  in an effort to deprive of us of our liberty.  At some point, we must say enough, we must take back the power left to us by our founding fathers.  </p> <p>We are not slaves, we are not servants,  we are free men.  We are free men who determine our own course of government.  Liberty is our natural right and should government become abusive, we have duty to abolish or reform that government to bring it back to the core, basic principals prescribed by the people’s Constitution.  Now is that time.</p> <p>The Constitution is not there to limit the power of the American People, but the power of government.  The Constitution does not grant government power, it grants US power.   The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people, not provide for them.</p> <p>Government only exists because we allow it to exist and it’s high time that we, the people, remember that and take back that power that belongs to us, to take back the liberty that is ours by birthright.  </p> <blockquote> <p>“The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” <br />― <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1244.Mark_Twain">Mark Twain</a></p></blockquote> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-5081431240420302902013-05-13T11:33:00.001-05:002013-05-13T11:33:03.620-05:00Why Do You Hate the Liberal Left?<p></p> <p>People often ask me, "Nicky, why do you hate leftists/liberals so much?"</p> <p>I don't hate leftists, I fear them. Theirs is an ideology based on fantasy and false perceptions. Their methods have historically been proven as unsustainable and dangerous to any country that attempts to exercise them, yet they push them forward despite this truth. </p> <p>I fear them because those that lead them have been able to infect both academia and the media and use both as a way to misinform, indoctrinate, and manipulate our young and the uneducated into believing that they portray a cause for "social justice and equality" despite using class and racial warfare to meet their goals.</p> <p>I fear them because they have been allowed to rewrite history with the help of the media and to brand themselves as the "party of racial equality" while attempting to erase all accounts of supporting the KKK, racial segregation, promotion of abortion for social engineering, etc. Ironically, they use the calls of racist, homophobe, and other pejoratives to silence anyone that dares to disagree with them while ignoring the fact that their policies harm those they claim to stand for the most. <br /> <br />I fear them because they do not believe in the core principals that made this country great. They despise the concept of private property opting for a principal of confiscation for the general good. They believe in the promotion of made up rights while seeking to limit or eradicate natural rights as prescribed in our constitution. They provide a concept that big government can solve all problems even though a majority of those problems are directly tied to the actions and breadth of big government.</p> <p>I fear them because the promote a concept of having a ruling class, where those that make the rules do not have to play by them. They force us to buy/participate in programs to which they do not subscribe, or are subject, to themselves. They believe that they are above the law, seeking to bypass our historical, lawful proceedings and system of checks and balances. They place themselves above those that they rule and seek to carve out special, protected classes, while stealing rights and property from those that they consider their enemies.</p> <p>I fear them because they see themselves as above scrutiny and push forward with economically harmful policies under a false perception of science.  They refuse to listen to dissenting scientific opinion in relation to climate change and label those that disagree as “climate deniers who want America to have dirtier water and air”.   In their minds, they are almost god like, with the ability to control the weather with the simple passing of laws when in truth, they are capable of nothing more than using emotional responses to these charges to expand the power of government and intrude further into into the lives of American citizens.   </p> <p>I fear them because they seek to cripple our energy industry and raise prices on the staples of electricity and gasoline, claiming it is for our own good and safety, despite controversies and proof of manipulated and cherry picked or falsified data.  I fear them because they seek to deny America the possibility of energy independence, and thus harm our national security, by not allowing common sense proposals such as Keystone Pipeline and hydraulic fracking to continue even though their own agencies have deemed them safe.  Instead, they would rather beholden us to energy dependence on unfriendly nations, never seeing the irony of an even greater potential environmental risk results in the shipment of fuels across our oceans.</p> <p>No, I do not hate the left. I fear that they are going to be successful in "transforming" this country by praying on a lazy, uninformed, complacent citizenship. I fear them because their ideology is dangerous, harmful, and toxic to freedom and the very foundational concepts that allow America to become the greatest nation the world has ever know. </p> <p>No, I do not hate the left, but I will fight them, despite my claims to let them burn in the fires of their own making. The future of our country depends on it and I am not yet willing to see it die by suicide at their hands.</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-74839896874167901052013-05-13T10:59:00.001-05:002013-05-13T10:59:46.174-05:00Using Force of Government to Silence Opposition<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-top-irs-officials-knew-in-2011-that-conservative-groups-were-targeted/2013/05/11/2619face-ba7b-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-top-irs-officials-knew-in-2011-that-conservative-groups-were-targeted/2013/05/11/2619face-ba7b-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html</a></p> <p>On the heels of the Benghazi controversy and cover-up, and make no mistake, it was a cover-up, we are now finding out that top IRS officials lied to congress and the public when they stated that "No conservative groups were targeted". </p> <p>This is one of many examples of top officials within this administration lying to the American People and their representatives.  However, in this case, we now have proof of government agencies being to target and harass political enemies thru the use of the tax code. This is a serious, serious charge! How can the American people, much less congress, trust an administration who consistently and constantly lies about their act ivies and policies. How can there be any hope of so called "bipartisanship" when one side of the equation cannot be trusted to be honest and forthright in any of their dealings? Further more, there is now information coming out of the investigation that IRS officials were illegally leaking donor information to key opposition leading up to the elections. Again, this is the use of the government to silence opposing voices and using the tax code to target any opposition to this administration.</p> <p>I know there are are many out there that will quickly become Obama apologists saying such things like "This is just another witch hunt. How can Obama keep an eye on all aspects of government? Yes there may have been bungling or inappropriate handling of this situation, but people make mistakes?" My question to you would be, at what point to you quit apologizing and see the trend of leadership inability, out right corruption, and malfeasance associated with Obama and this government? How many controversies does it take before you start to question the ability of this administration to govern, especially in the best interest of the people and not it's own. </p> <p>There is no doubt now, there is tyranny in this government. This can no longer be denied. Using the law, inappropriately and illegally, to target opposition (or enemies as Obama likes to say), is the definition of tyranny and we are now seeing that this administration is rampant with it.</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-9216079113260941932013-02-25T13:28:00.001-06:002013-02-25T13:28:38.078-06:00David Clarke JR, Milwaukee County Sheriff, warns of implications of current gun control policies<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5XzRUEczEo&feature=youtu.be">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5XzRUEczEo&feature=youtu.be</a></p> <p>This is not paranoid fantasy. The current direction of this Administration and liberal gun control advocates is a path that can not be backtracked. This is an essential, necessary, natural right that they are attempting to revoke, even though they have zero authority to do so. The discussions of mandatory buy backs, home inspections, and limitations are not "safety measures" but all out attacks against our freedoms and not just the 2nd amendment, but all rights.</p> <p>The simple fact that these edicts are even being openly discussed and proposed are proof positive that we have allowed our government far too much power over the citizen and the states. There are those on the left that are actively seeking to use these measures to provoke a violent response so that they can use the spear of federal power to assume complete control. As such, we are starting to see the lines be marked, states enacting laws of felony charges for any federal agents wishing to enforce these unconstitutional laws, sheriffs and police chiefs threatening arrest for the same, a massive up swell in citizen arms purchases, manufacturers refusing to deal/provide equipment to government entities based on biased laws, and on the other side, a federal government attempting stricter, more invasive laws and filing lawsuits against states. <br /></p> <p>This is not the 1994 Weapons Ban again, this is far more invasive. The 1994 Ban was an overreach, but it was limited. The new bans being proposed can be interpreted to ban essentially all firearms, including handguns and shotguns, not just so called "assault weapons". The new proposals are allowing for law enforcement to come into your homes to ensure "safe storage" without warrants or due process. They not grandfathering any previously owned personal property, making it necessary to surrender your property to the government or destroy what is legitimately yours. They are creating privileged classes of citizens, by allowing certain citizens (law enforcement both local, state, and federal) to own what every other citizen cannot. I'm a big supporter of law enforcement, but at the end of the day, they are a citizen just like us. Lastly, they are using grand gestures like "Universal Background Checks" to entice you to sign on to their power grab, but think about that. How can there be "universal" checks, unless it is known who owns what to ensure that if it changes hands, a background check was done? Even the term "universal" is a misnomer, as criminals will never submit, which are the real danger to society. <br /></p> <p>All of the above is registration, and history shows, registration always leads to confiscation. It further divides our society into those deemed "worthy" by government and those that are not. It is, by definition, tyranny. Our government is not looking out for the best interests of it's population, but instead are working in direct contradiction to our interests. They are are attempting to limit those naturals rights of ours that they did not bestow, therefore have no right to revoke or modify. <br />The last time something of this magnitude happened on our soil, it spurned the birth of our nation. The last time a government attempted such power over it people in North America, a revolution was sparked and America was born. Government has no concept of understanding history and its implications. My question to you, do the people?</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-25602620322164370572012-12-18T15:17:00.001-06:002012-12-18T15:24:23.851-06:00Sandy Hook and the Inevitable Cry for Gun Control<p>Let me start by saying that my heart goes out to the parents, children, and town people affected by this tragedy.  I am not a parent and I cannot fathom the heartbreak and pain that has been caused by this evil.  I know that recovery for many of those involved will never come, but I wish them a measure of peace within good time.</p> <p>While the investigation continues, I’m sure a great many details will come to light but the one thing that will never be known is “why”?   Fact is that evil does, and always will, exist in this world.  Trying to comprehend the mindset of evil is as fruitless as trying to count grains of sand at a beach.  Those that would commit such acts of violence are, by most definitions, lunatics and lunatics are incomprehensible.    Evil is not a mental condition, it just is.  There is no ability of good people to understand evil, all we can do is be ever vigilant in the recognizing and thwarting of evil.</p> <p>It is this desire to thwart evil that leads many people to knee-jerk, harmful actions which invariably result in unintended consequences.  Today we hear countless people, those with a political agenda and those without, rise in calls for action and demand safety.  As I’ve oft written about, we are once again <a href="http://rednexrants.blogspot.com/2011/03/citizens-or-servants-how-overton-window.html">witnessing a period of shifting in the Overton window.</a>  With images of slaughtered children and distraught parents, pushed by a ideologically driven liberal media, good people are being asked “what more should be done?”.  Those with purposes of ill-intent are, as Rahm Emanuel would say, not letting a crisis go to waste and using emotion to push the people into a conclusion that they most likely not arrive at otherwise; they are shifting the Overton window to the left.</p> <p>I could layer mountains and mountains of facts and studies concerning gun control laws and their unintended consequences into this post, but I won’t.  This information is readily available, both via the internet and history books, to any that choose to look and educate themselves.  My factual stance on the fallacy of gun control is well known and I do not feel the need to overload my readers with countless footnotes and links, however, if you wish to discuss this with me, feel free to reach out.  No, today, I’m just going to speak to 2nd amendment and it’s place in our society.</p> <p>First, let me clear, there should never be any legitimate debate on gun control.  Our right to bear arms is enshrined and protected by our constitution.  It is absolute and should be above such petty attempts to diminish our freedom, but it is a right that is under constant assault by the left.  For a clear understanding, it is important to read the 2nd amendment very carefully to dissect it’s meaning.   The 2nd amendment states:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>To me, the 2nd amendment is one of the most important additions to our constitution, second only to the first.  While many would disagree, it is my belief that the ordering of these amendments were done deliberately and with purpose.  Our first reaction and avenue for change should always be in the freedom of speech and the assembly of citizens to address grievances in a peaceful manner.  This a powerful advantage given to the American people and in most cases all that is required, but in extreme events, where our freedoms are jeopardized from either foreign or national power, the 2nd amendment affords us our only ability to preserve liberty.  That said, let us look at the dissection of the meaning and intent of the 2nd.</p> <p><strong> Inherent Right</strong></p> <p>The right to bear arms is not something granted to us by our founders via this amendment, but rather it is a protection of an inherent right already present.  It does not state that congress “bestows, grants, or gives” the right to the people, but instead states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.  That simple statement acknowledges that this was a right already present, but one that our founders felt necessary to define as protected.  </p> <p><strong>Protection extended to the People, not the State</strong></p> <p>The purpose of our constitution was to define the explicit realms of authority for the federal government, conceding all non-specified authority to the states or the people.  However, the 2nd amendment does not call out the states, but rather “the right of the people” or the individual.   In this manner, the right to bear arms is a right held by the people alone, not subject to any diminishing control.  It is an individual right, which by proxy, conveys to a collective right of the “people”.  This notion of an individual right was communicated and upheld by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia Vs Heller.</p> <p><strong>Statement of Purpose</strong></p> <p><a href="http://rednexrants.blogspot.com/2010/01/second-amendment-and-meaning-of-militia.html">“A well regulated militia”</a> has been subject to many debates, with the leftist most often stating that the right only extends to those actively engaged in an “organized militia”, such as the National Guard.  However, this is not what the amendment reads.  In this statement “necessary to the security of a free state” states a purpose for a militia, and conveys the reasoning for right to bear arms to not be infringed.  </p> <blockquote> <p>NOTE: Our founders explicitly called out opposition to quartering of implied “standing armies” in the 3rd amendment and could possibly provide an argument against the National Guard as the only proper existence of a “militia”, but that is not my point here.  I include this note only as a frame of reference.</p> </blockquote> <p>Based on quotes and statements by the founding fathers during ratification, and upheld by the Heller case, the premise of a “militia” included all “able bodied men” available for conscript.  A militia was to be comprised of the people, which as the “purpose statement” within the amendment conveyed, was necessary to prevent the usurpation of the people by a despotic state.</p> <blockquote> <p>As an aside,  many modern day gun proponents use sport shooting and hunting as a statement of purpose to defend the 2nd amendment.  Let me be clear, the 2nd amendment has nothing, zero, zilch to do with the protection of arms in sport.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment was solely included as a protection of the inherent right of self defense.  The founders were most concerned with the ability of the citizens to protect themselves, and if necessary, revoke the ability to abuse rights by a overly powerful government.  Therefore, they enshrined the primary purpose of arms as ‘being necessary to the security of a free state”.  However, with the recognition of the right to arms for self defense, and a guarantee that an individuals rights to arms shall not be infringed, then other uses of arms (sport, hunt, etc) are thereby accommodated by subordination.  My only reason for calling this out is that we, as a free people, should never use the excuse of sport as a reason to defend the 2nd amendment.  It waters down the intent and purpose and allows for restrictions on that right.  No, the primary purpose of arms is for self defense, plain and simple.  It was the intent of the founders and should be the defining factor today.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Inclusion of arms</strong></p> <p>Another argument is that the 2nd amendment was never intended to include modern day firearms, but only the arms available at writing.  This is an empty argument.  One need only to  look back upon the historical  statements and quotes of the founders to see that our right to bear arms had, as a primary purpose, the ability of self defense of life and property (freedom) from the tyranny of a despotic state.  At the time of ratification, citizens were armed with muskets, same as the military.  In order to prevent the abuse of government, the citizen must have access to comparable arms of those they wish to protect themselves against.  Already we have a disconnect, as civilians do not commonly own automatic arms, such as machine guns, etc, but we do have availability of comparable arms for the purpose of defense.  Any restriction on this intent is, in essence, a restriction on self defense.  If we were allowed the use of a single shot musket only, then it does not deny our right to “bear arms” from a leftist viewpoint, however, how could the population defend itself against advanced weaponry of a state intent on tyranny.  No, the measure here is not on “what arms were available at the time of writing”, but the comparison of arms against those thought to be the greatest threat to a free people.  In the founders mind, that threat could come from foreign, or internal, powers, and it was their belief that the armed citizen was the best deterrent to invasion.  As proof of intent, Tench Coxe wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1788, while states were considering ratification the following:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p><i>Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are <b>the birth-right of an American</b>...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the <b>federal or state governments</b> but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, <b>in the hands of the people</b>.</i></p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>It seems clear that the intent was to ensure that people had in their possession the tools necessary for self defense.  As stated above, the idea was that “their swords, and every other terrible implement of the the solider, are the birth-right of an American”.  It is no secret that the founders considered a centralized government a distrusted, but necessary evil, ever capable of tyranny.  In that vein, they provided to us, via the 2nd amendment, protection of the inherent right of self defense thru the use of arms.</p> <p><strong>Summary</strong></p> <p>All of this said, I am constantly amazed at the willingness of the American to willingly concede their rights to government.  Emotion plays such a large part in political process today that we must remain vigilant to ensure that preservation of all our rights thru logic and common sense.  If you chose not to own a gun, that is your prerogative, but failure to exercise a right should not demand abolition of such. </p> <p>We must recognize that those that wish to strip us of our rights do not wish to subject themselves to the same.  Mayor Bloomberg decries the use of arms and wishes to restrict all gun ownership, while he consistently surrounds himself with armed guards.  Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, preaches that he only wishes to make America safer thru the confiscation of arms, while also protecting himself with armed guards and failing to see that Chicago, a city with a high level of gun control, is a cesspool of violent crime and activity.  </p> <p>Gun free zones are nothing more than advertisements of locations where criminals can act unimpeded.  Gun control does nothing more than make the citizens slaves to the armed (government).  The cries we hear today in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.  Gun control does nothing to improve the safety of a community, but does everything to ensure that a populace of victims exists. </p> <p>We must remember that the 2nd amendment did not bestow upon us the right to bear arms for self defense.  This is a natural law that existed before governments and is simply an acknowledgement and protection of that right.  As it is is a natural right preexisting government, it is a right that government cannot rightfully take away.  We must not let tragedy and emotion allow the government to attempt to strip us of our natural rights.  Evil exists and it always will.  You cannot legislate or wish evil away, you can only seek to protect yourself from it.   To take away the primary tools of self defense, you allow evil to have unprecedented control and impact  over our lives.  To relinquish self defense, to relinquish your arms, you invite more evil into our lives with no guard against it.   I ask you to look to history to see the effects of abolishment of self defense by arms and see the destruction is has caused.   We cannot allow emotion to override logic, we must defend our rights to arms, just as arms allow us to defend our rights.  They are, and forever will be, linked.</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-59955205104855208412012-11-30T16:48:00.001-06:002012-11-30T16:48:25.654-06:00The “Fiscal Cliff” Myth<p>We’ve been hearing many reports of the “fiscal cliff” being batted around in the media lately.  Currently, we are seeing negotiations between both parties to try and avoid this “cliff”, however, just how real is this impending disaster that we are constantly being reminded about?</p> <p>Well, before I start explaining the why all the talk is more myth than fact, let me first explain what the cliff references.  Also called “Taxmaggedon”, it is simply a perfect storm of expiring tax cuts, dissolution of benefits, and newly enacted tax increases all happening within a very short time frame.  Below, I lay out the timeline of the fiscal cliff in common speak as referenced by the <a href="http://bipartisanpolicy.org/fiscalcliff">Bipartisan Policy Center</a>:</p> <p><strong>Week of December 21st</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Expected that the Fed will hit it’s legal debt limit</strong></li> <ul> <li>For almost 100 years, there has been a legal limit on the amount of money that the US government is allowed to borrow.  As of August 2011, that limit was increased to $14.29 trillion.  However, with current deficits of over $1T, it is expected that the government will again hit the limit of money it is able to borrow in order to meet its obligations</li> </ul> </ul> <p><strong>January 1, 2013</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Expiration of" Bush Era Tax cuts”</strong></li> <ul> <li>Enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009, these cuts are the effective individual tax rates on individual income, capital gains, dividends, etc.  Extended by Obama in 2010, these tax rates (after a decade, they are the rates, not cuts) are expected to expire, essentially raising the average household tax burden by $1,600 per year</li> </ul> <li><strong>Expiration of payroll tax holiday</strong></li> <ul> <li>Passed by Obama in an effort to “stimulate the economy”, it was temporary reduction in Social Security payroll taxes from 6.2% to 4.2% for the first $110,000 of wages.  While it gave temporary relief, in essence, this tax holiday did nothing more than rob a individual’s long term social security retirement of this funding, for negligible short term gain.  When it expires, it is expected to raise the average household tax burden by $700.</li> </ul> <li><strong>Deadline for Business Depreciation Tax extenders</strong></li> <ul> <li>Includes targeted tax breaks for business such as breaks for research and experimentation credits and for depreciation of business tangible asset purchases from their profits.  Should this not be resolved, it is estimated that it will cost small and medium business $75B for the year.  As business pass their expenses on to consumers, this will result in higher prices in goods and services, while retracting research and development for new and innovative products and services.</li> </ul> <li><strong>Expansion of Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)</strong></li> <ul> <li>A minimum tax designed to insure that higher income taxpayers do not pay “too-little” in income taxes via various deductions, exemptions, and credits in the tax code.  As this tax is not automatically adjusted for inflation, 27M Americans will now fit into the confines of the AMT for 2012, at the cost of $40B.  In short, if you make $50K and live alone, you are now subject to the same tax penalty as millionaires.  Welcome to the 1%!</li> </ul> <li><strong>Expiration of extended unemployment benefits</strong></li> <ul> <li>Congress enacted recessionary measures to extend unemployment benefits for up to 93 weeks.  Upon expiration, benefits would return to their previous levels of 26 weeks, affecting ~2M people</li> </ul> <li><strong>Obama Care tax increases begin to take effect</strong></li> <ul> <li>The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or Obama care) will increase the Medicare payroll tax by .9% and 3.8% on net investment income for individuals/households making $200K/$250K respectively for an overall increase of $24B in tax increases.</li> </ul> <li><strong>Expiration of Medicare “Doc Fix”</strong></li> <ul> <li>The “Doc Fix” was enacted as way to delay Medicare fee reductions due to the fact that impracticality of the Medicare Sustained Growth Rate (SGR) used to calculate fees paid to doctors.  This would result in a 27% cut in physician payments, which again, would be passed on to the patients at a cost of $14B.</li> </ul> </ul> <p><strong>January 2, 2013</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Enactment of sequester cuts</strong></li> <ul> <li>Part of the “grand bargain” resulting from the Budget Control Act of 2011, it is comprised of across the board hatchet cuts of $1.2 trillion to government defense and discretionary spending budgets.  Impacts are expected to be 13% for defense, 11% for for non-defense discretionary spending, 10% to mandatory spending programs (farmer subsidies, etc) and 2% to payments to Medicare related plans and providers.  </li> </ul> </ul> <p><strong>February 2013</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>“Extraordinary Measures” deadline exhausted</strong></li> <ul> <li>Should the debt limit be reached and government no longer allowed to borrow money, the Treasury will have to utilize measures to fund government activities, such as borrowing from other agencies, federal retirement funds, etc.  All money borrowed is expected to be repaid with interest.  At this point, it is expected that the government has exhausted these measures and will no longer be able to raise cash necessary, thereby defaulting on financial obligations.  At this point, decisions will need to be made towards funding priorities for government programs and what bills will be paid.  E.G, funding of EPA, social security payments, armed forces pay, debt interest payments, etc.</li> </ul> </ul> <p><strong>March 2013</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Expiration of FY2013 Continuing Resolution</strong></li> <ul> <li>All funding for federally appropriated programs are only funded thru March 27th at the pro-rated FY2012 levels ($1.047T).  At this time, these programs will no longer have funding from the federal budget and decision will need to be made on how to continue.</li> </ul> <li><strong>Expiration of Temporary Assistance for Need Families (TANF or Food stamps)</strong></li> <ul> <li>At this point, the food stamp program will no longer be funded due to a lack of continuing resolution.</li> </ul> </ul> <p> </p> <p>So, man, that is a lot of information and it certainly sounds ominous doesn’t it?  However, how bad would it be if Republicans simply walked away from the table and let us go over this “Fiscal Cliff”.  Based on the information available and Congressional Budget Office predictions, that is exactly what should happen.</p> <p>The passing of the “grand bargain” of the Budget Control Act of 2011 which included the sequester cuts was never designed to be enacted.  Due to the substantially high cuts to the Military, it was perceived that the Republicans, with Defense being their sacred cow, would be willing to negotiate and these cuts would never happen.  However, we all know that Republicans are cowards when it comes to “deal negotiations” so the best option they can take is to actually give the democrats exactly what they asked for and allow us to go over the cliff.   Per the deal, conservatives would get exactly what they want, which are spending cuts, while the democrats would get what they want, which is tax increases.  The inevitable outcome will be protests from the American Taxpayer as they seen their income go down, the price of services go up, and their family budgets squeezed.  When that happens, it will allow for “true” negotiation, in that the Republicans would then be starting from a fresh slate of reduced spending; therefore, they would not be able to hurt themselves in negotiation as it would put the Democrats under pressure to come up with a plan to ease the suffer (read:  Tax cuts) while allowing Republicans to address the nation’s real problem, government spending.</p> <p>So what would each of the statements really mean and what are their impacts?</p> <p><strong>Tax rate expiring:</strong>  This would result in average household pay going down by $60 to $400 per month dependent on income, potentially raising government revenues by $281B.  However, this would take us back to the Clinton era tax rates, which lefties love to espouse as the golden age.  So it could be argued that if these are the same tax rates when Clinton was able to “balance the budget and have no deficit”, then surely this congress could do the same thing.  They would have no arguments about not having enough revenue.  </p> <p><strong>Payroll Holiday Expiration:</strong>  The social security payroll tax rate would increase by 2 points, this would result in about $19 being taken from the paycheck per week for someone making $50K and raising government revenues by $115B.  When enacted, congress agreed to reimburse SS by the lost revenue ($103B), but congress never cut spending or raised other taxes to offset the cost.  So in effect, they are robbing your retirement to pay for a little extra money today, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/49506640/End_to_Payroll_Tax_Holiday_May_Weigh_on_Economy">all with borrowed funds.</a>  As few want to see impacts to SS, this holiday must go regardless.</p> <p><strong>AMT expansion:</strong>  This will cause more tax payers to be subjected to a minimum tax.  Good news is that it will bring more people into the tax roles, where as today they are not.  However, as stated above, the argument can be made that the government should be able to live within it’s means with these increases and if not, MORE SPENDING CUTs!  Time to use Clinton against the left and make them face their proliferate spending habits. </p> <p><strong>Unemployment benefits expire:</strong>  Yes, this will be a lot people hurt by this, but at the same time, extended benefits do nothing to prod people into trying to get back into the employed populace.  As <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/49506640/End_to_Payroll_Tax_Holiday_May_Weigh_on_Economy">another report shows</a>, we have already reached a point where it is more financially beneficial to be dependent on the government than it is to get a job and earn your own way.  We have to reduce this mentality if we ever hope to move forward as a country.  This would be the first step in that direction.</p> <p><strong>Obama care taxes come due:</strong>  Again, this will give the government additional revenue in the range of $14B, but it will continue to squeeze more money from the taxpayers and doctors.  This will serve to show the people exactly how disastrous this legislation is as we experience the pain of the taxes along with the hidden tax of increased cost of health care that this is already showing.  Will help with the discussion to defund/repeal of this horrible law.</p> <p><strong>Medicare Doc Fix:</strong>  Another increase of government revenue, but it will reduced doctor pay.  This will result in even fewer doctors accepting Medicare patients, leading to a doctor shortage and outrage by our aging class.  Furthermore, those that do accept (or forced to by our government) Medicare will offset that cost with standard patient costs, thus further increasing healthcare for the majority.  This will serve to add fire to the discussions for Medicare and entitlement reform that is so desperately needed.</p> <p>Lastly, <strong>Sequester cuts:</strong>  While it would be more beneficial to do specific program cuts, spending cuts are spending cuts.  While I’m sure we would all prefer targeted spending cuts, we have to take the reductions in spending any way we can get them.  Any negotiations done with the democrats will only result in them getting all the tax increases they want, but no spending cuts needed.  In this case, it’s best to just let the tax increases pass as planned and let the spending cuts go thru. At this point, the republicans would then be able to negotiate with reduced spending already in effect.  What I mean is, once these cuts go thru, they are the new budget.  All new spending cut negotiations would be based off this line, not off of proposed increases, as they are today.  Current negotiations have been on enacting cuts to planned increases, not current budget line items.  This gets us nowhere and results in still more spending.  However, should these cuts go thru, that lowers the baseline budget and gives us something to work with.   Today, if government spends a $1 on something, plans to spend $2 next year, but agree to only spend $1.50, they call that a spending cut and a savings of $.50.  No, it’s still increased spending no matter how you spend it.  We need real cuts now and we should take them however we can get them so we can focus the debate on the real issue, government spending.</p> <p><strong>Summary</strong></p> <p>To be clear, yes, this will cause all of us pain.  None of us want to see our take home pay go down and prices go up, but we are faced with a serious choice.  Either we make those decisions today or have them forced upon us during an economic meltdown.  I would go for short term pain over long term disaster any day.  However, how much pain will this really cost?  Well, according to the <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-08-12-FiscalTightening.pdf">CBO’s report on “Fiscal Tightening”</a>, they had the following predictions:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>If the fiscal tightening (i.e. fiscal cliff) were to go through as planned, it would cause the economy to dip into a short term recession.  GDP would drop by %.5 in 2013 (measured from 4th qtr 2012 – 4th qtr 2013), reflecting a decline in the first half of the year but renewed growth at a modest pace in the last half.  Unemployment would rise to 9.1% in the 4th qtr of 2013, however, the next year the labor market would strengthen, returning output to its potential level (reflecting high rate of labor and capital) with unemployment dropping to 5.5 by 2018.</em>  </p> </blockquote> <p>So, if we did nothing, we just let all the planned outcome come to fruition, the expectation is a year of hardship followed by substantial growth.  Well, we’ve been in a recession for over 4 years with no end in sight, so I opt that we give that a try.  What what does the CBO expect if congress were to “reach a deal” and prevent us from going over the cliff?  </p> <blockquote> <p><em>If all of the fiscal tightening were to be eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time.  Moreover, if the fiscal tightening was removed and the policies that are currently in effect were kept in place indefinitely, a continued surge in federal debt during the rest of this decade and beyond would raise the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which the government would lose the ability to borrow money at affordable interest rates) and would eventually reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur if the fiscal tightening was allowed to take place as currently set by law.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Yep, you read that right.  If we do not allow ourselves to go off the cliff, the CBO expects that the fed would keep spending us down into a hole from which we couldn’t recover.  It would cause our output and income to be less than if we just allowed the “cliff” to happen.  Seems pretty self explanatory to me.</p> <p>So take all the media exploitations with a grain of salt.  If you haven’t realized this yet, you cannot trust the media and you cannot trust politicians.  The best thing we, as a people, could do is just to roll with the punches.  We’ve missed our chance to come out of this pain free, so some pain is necessary, the question is, how much pain do we want to experience?  Temporary pain for an additional year or sustained, worsening pain over the next decade(s)?  I know what I would chose, and to that end, I urge the republicans to simply walk away from the table.  </p> <p>Republicans - You are not saying no, you are allowing the previous agreement to take effect.  The Democrats made this bet on the suspicion that Republicans wouldn’t have the testicular fortitude to abide by it.   They placed their bets on the fact that they would once again be able to fear monger and use the media to force you into yet another bad deal for America.   Yes, the Dems put all their eggs into the “Republicans are spineless” basket, so now is the time to call their marker.  We aren’t asking you to make any grand stands, just to go along with what you’ve already agreed to.  I’m sorry, but you can’t be trusted to do any better at this point.  So there need be no political war, no sustained debate, and definitely no further negotiations, just walk away and abide by the deal as set by the Democrats.  Allow the Democrats plan to take effect and prepare yourselves for a revived debate next year on spending reduction. Even you guys should be able to do that!</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-7612905725657447392012-11-15T11:25:00.001-06:002012-11-15T11:25:03.883-06:00Atlas Shrugged: 11/06/2012<p>I will say what no one else will. Last night I watched as Atlas Shrugged and I no longer care.</p> <p>My patriotism cannot be questioned, but this is no longer the America of my parents and grandparents.  We are no longer the Home of the Free, but we are now the Home of the Free Stuff.  I have made my arguments based on logic and reason, but have been overshadowed by emotion and "requests for compassion".  I have quoted history and circumstance to only have that lost in the noise of ideology and falsehoods of leftist media.  I have stood for the preservance of my country and been called a racist and bigot for doing so. Last night, I watched, sick to my stomach, as I came to the understanding that I had let my country fail on my watch.  I was nauseated as I realized that I had failed to live up to the expectations of our founders.  </p> <p>You cannot save those that do not wish to be saved and the American people do not wish to be saved.  We have lost the path of the American Dream by allowing ourselves to be distracted by the promise that others will provide for us.  Last night the providing class became a slave to the recipient class. We have been co-opted by the notions of class warfare and the idea that people have a "right" to another’s fortune.  We abandoned the ideal that we are responsible for our own destiny and now believe that government is the keeper of the governed.  People have picked their seats on the gravy train and are intent on riding that train until the money runs out and the train derails.</p> <p>Well if that is what they want, then let them have it.  The only way to let the people see the absolute failure of this premise is to give it to them, lock stock and barrel.  We have been heading that way for almost a century, so no longer will I fight to "pump the brakes" and try to stand in the way of the inevitable.  If failure is the only cure, then let it fail now.  For when it does, I will be sitting on the sidelines reminding everyone that this is exactly what they voted for.  In America, we get the government that we deserve because it is the government that we choose.  Last night, we chose failure, so that is what we will get.  Gut our military?  So be it, cut to your heart’s content and allow us to become targets for the world.  Raise taxes to feed the welfare nation, raise them as high as you want and watch as those that fuel our economy leave.  Carelessly borrow and print money to finance votes, then so be it, and watch as inflation destroys the middle class.  Sunshine is the best disinfectant and I now believe that there is no hope for recovery without people feeling the pain of their choices.  So, you will no longer get objections by me.  Let us bring these policies into the sunlight and show them for the infected, rotted mess that they are.  </p> <p>Cause heed my word, as we devolve into this socialist "utopia" and people realize that government is incapable of providing that which they do not confiscate from others, there will be riots.  As the middle class begins to find itself in the realm of the "1%" and more and more of their livelihood taken for the benefit of others, they will realize their mistake. You need to look no further than the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy to see that the government is wholly incapable of providing even basic relief for its people.  As the cities burn,  we will watch blue devour blue.  When the recipient class has burned through this country like locusts through a field, then those that caused this mess will be victims of their own making.  When the provider class realizes that it is pointless to continue to work only for the substance of others and not themselves, they will stop doing so, we will see the collapse come. When the collapse comes, only then will this country really understand the pain that we caused and only then when we truly understand the premise of survival of the fittest.</p> <p>I refuse to let me and mine be victims.  So I will prepare myself, I will watch with saddened eyes as the country I love heads down a path to ruin.  However, I know, the only way to save America is to let it fail as we are now past the point of logical recovery. While it breaks my heart to do so, the only way to get back the America I know is to let the walls crumble, so that is what I will do.  Again, I no longer care.  I will not sacrifice for an America that no longer believes in itself and its own principals.  We have allowed the idea of freedom to become perverted and that is not something I can abide by.  I cannot stand by as my country dies by suicide.  So to those that are happy with the outcome of last night, I say enjoy your misery but do not bring that misery to my steps.  I will continue to defend the idea of the true America if it only within the boundaries of my own land.  Should a recovery come in my lifetime, I will be the first to step up and champion it, but until then, I remove myself from repeating the past and the perversion of my country.  Enjoy your decisions and god speed in consequences of those choices, but keep them far away from my doorstep.  As the saying goes, if you wish to compel me by force, bring guns.</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-65519026643761465782011-03-11T13:02:00.001-06:002011-03-11T13:02:05.926-06:00Citizens or Servants: How the Overton Window is affecting our liberty<p>It’s a valid question.  What would you consider yourself as an American; a citizen or a servant?  I think most people in these United States would say “citizen”, but I hate to be the one to tell them, it’s (not s0) slowly but surely moving in a direction where we are becoming subjects to the federal government.</p> <p>There has been a lot of talk of the “Overton Window”.  Since a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Overton-Window-Glenn-Beck/dp/1439184305">book by the same name</a> was put out by Glenn Beck, most people immediately dismiss the idea as one of “right-wing paranoia”.  However, the <a href="http://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow">Overton Window</a> is a real political theory put forth by Joseph Overton of the Mackinac Center of Public Policy.  In cliff note form, the Overton Window is the window of legislative opportunity that a politician has to enact change and still win elections.  In essence, the window defines acceptable political options based on outlying extremes and political views.  As societal views change (either by growth or reaction), the window will slide to to either the left or right of the political spectrum, thus enabling or restricting legislative action.</p> <p>Over the few years I’ve become serious in politics, I’ve been able to see the Overton window slide more and more to the left, further in the direction of less liberty and choice for America.  Some of the reactions to move the window were based on real issues, others on contrived/false issues.  Either way, the direction of the slide should be concerning to all Citizens as with each move to left, we lose the very measure of what makes this country great.  With each move, the people of these United States take a step towards citizenship or subjugation.  The slides are often so small, that we don’t recognize them, we don’t see the thefts of our liberty, until several years/decades down the line.  By then, the window has framed a new set of political ideals, making them common, thus making them extremely difficult to reverse. </p> <p>The shifts do not have to be big to make considerable impact.  In fact, it is these small changes that end up having the biggest consequences.  Changes so small, they are barely noticed, but subconsciously translate to the biggest limitations of our freedoms.   Consider for example, in our earlier history, our country was referred to “These United States”; however, in common times, it is now stated as “The United States”.  Historically, such statements were done in the plural form, but in the last couple of decades, it’s become singular.  To many, it may seem contrite, simply a grammatical choice, but it has considerable impact on our nation.  In the past, in the days of the plural usage, these United States were considered just that, a collection of independent states united.  However, now in the singular usage, we are now a collection of states under one umbrella of a federal mandate.  The states are not independent anymore, but instead a fixture of national government, serving only as agents to further and support a federal power.  It may seem small, but it has led to an erosion of the idea and practice of the 10th amendment.  It has beholden the states to a supreme federal power, allowing that federal power to ever increase it’s scope and authority at the demise of one of our strongest principals, federalism.  It has served to move the window.</p> <p>Within the executive branch (president) we are already starting to see the adjustments of the window.  I will not go back into history before me, there are much smarter people than I that are able to do this.  I will stick with my own perceptions only.  On Sept 11th, 2001, we were witness to the largest scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  As we watched on TV, horrified by the scenes, scared by the implications, the people clamored for more security.  Our government had failed us, things must change.  In response, one month after, the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.3162:">Patriot Act</a> was signed into law.  The Patriot Act drastically reduced the restrictions on law enforcement agencies abilities to monitor and track those suspected of terrorism.  It expanded the scope to include “domestic terrorism”, eased limitations on the policies of search and seizures, arrest and detainment of suspects, wiretaps, email interception, and financial monitoring.  Under the guise of terrorism, the federal government radically expanded it’s powers, and in doing so, ripped a large piece of legitimacy from our 4th Amendment rights.  If “suspected” of being a domestic terrorist, Law Enforcement agencies now had far more flexibility concerning the rights of the citizen.  The window moved.</p> <p>Then, due to bad accounting practices, financial pressures from big unions, and general mismanagement, we saw various aspects of industry start to fail, namely two of the big three automakers and financial institutions.  Under the guise of saving jobs and with a rallying cry of “Too big to Fail”, the government (starting under GWB, ending with BHO), decided to use federal taxpayer money to bail these “too big to fail” industries out of distress due to actions of their own doing with the <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h7321/show">Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act</a>.  In essence, the government nationalized the auto industry upon the backs of the taxpayer, but more importantly, they conditioned the concept of “too big to fail”, thusly legitimatizing the use of federal taxpayer dollars for bailouts.  The window shifted.  Today, we are starting to see these same cries in areas of state bankruptcies, union pensions, and the health care industry.</p> <p>Then, we have the vagrant overstepping of authority by the executive branch.  President Obama has done more to shift the window in the last few months, than all other presidents combined, and I’m including FDR in that!  We’ve seen the president sue a state over their legalizing, at the state level, what the federal statute already stated, in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/us/politics/19arizona.html">it’s fight with Arizona Immigration law</a>.  By challenging the law on the basis of personal opinion, the window has shifted in terms of the 10th Amendment and diminishing state’s rights.  In another example, the Obama Administration <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/">drops a case voter intimidation because of the color of perpetrators skin</a>, thus shifting the window.  Later, Obama <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20035495-504564.html">refuses to defend the Defensive of Marriage</a> Act based on his opinion that it is unconstitutional.  He has shifted the window.  He has set a precedent that the office of the Executive can determine which laws it will, or will not, enforce thru the use of a divisive subject such as gay rights.  The President does not have the ability to choose which laws he will, or will not, enforce.  The office does not hold the authority to determine constitutionality of law,  that is under the constitutional authority of the Judicial Branch.  he has sifted the window.  Likewise, we’ve seen the Obama Administration defy legal authority via the defacto moratorium on the Gulf of Mexico oil exploration and on the issue of cap and trade.  By ignoring a court order to break the moratorium, choosing to enact it via fiat instead, placing the administration in contempt of Court, he has established that the judicial branch of government is subservient to the Executive branch.  He has dismissed the ability of the Legislative branch (Congress) to set and enact laws if the Executive branch disagrees.   He has shifted the window.  </p> <p>It doesn’t take much to make such changes, to slowly rob of us our liberties.  Using any public outcry, those with limiting intent can do just that.  We see it in our every day lives.  Outcries over drinking and driving have led to “DWI Checkpoints” in most every state.  Simply by enjoying the privilege of driving, you are giving your consent to be stopped, questioned, and searched without probable cause.  If you fail to submit to breath test, for what ever reason, you are stripped of your property, ability to drive, and in some cases, your freedom via imprisonment.  By enacting this idea of “implicit consent”, we see the window shift.  What comes next? Will they next say that by simply owning a house, you give “implicit consent” to have your home searched for bomb making equipment, further validated by the Patriot Act?  Does having your paycheck direct deposited thru a federally regulated automated clearing house give your “implicit consent” into having your financial transactions monitored?  Do you give your “implicit consent” to have all your medial records stored and searchable by federal agencies simply because you choose to visit the doctor?  </p> <blockquote> <p>If you say no, then you best check ObamaCare.  When enacted, it specifically allows for numerous agencies to store and access your personal medical files.  </p> </blockquote> <p>In short, the window has shifted.  </p> <p>Lastly, we see shifts when it comes to our constitutionally guaranteed 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms.  With each mentally disturbed person, with each gangland violence episode, we see an outcry for safety and the window shifts yet again.  The latest was the attempted assassination of Sen. Gifford in Arizona.  Never mind the fact that this was a mentally disturbed individual, we are now seeing calls for a limitation on “high capacity” magazines.  It’s a small limitation in some peoples minds, but it is a shifting of the window.  First it’s high capacity magazines, then it’s any magazines, then it’s scopes on hunting rifles, then high powered rifles, then concealed carry, then handguns (any guns) altogether.  As the window shifts, we become accustomed, so we hardly notice the shift.  However, in 10-15 years, the “rights” we have are barely recognizable from what they were in the past.  </p> <p>This is the Overton Window.  This is the path that leads us from being citizens to servants.  As the government seeks to disarm us, as they trample on the rights provided to us by our Constitution, we lose our freedoms; We lose our place as citizens.  What will be done when only the government has arms, and the citizens ( subjects) have none?  No longer will you be able to defend yourself against the lawless, who could give a rat’s ass about control.  We grow weaker when the world realizes that the American Citizen is no longer armed, no longer able to defend themselves.  No longer are we safe from overrun invasion.  No longer are the Citizens able to exert control over a tyrannical government, when said tyranny has no reason to fear those over which they rule.  When we are no longer able to resist unjust search and seizures, when we are no longer working for our personal dreams, but instead work for “societal good”, we will no longer be free men.   We have stood by and let the window shift.  We have allowed the window to move in only one direction, with no attempts to correct.  We have allowed ourselves to become servants.</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-86856708170335785902011-01-25T14:24:00.001-06:002011-01-25T14:24:59.611-06:00Time to Limit the Insanity<p>In follow up to my “no one to blame” entry, we will start looking at ways that can provide for the people to rightfully reclaim control over a runaway, oppressive Federal tyranny.  As with anything, order of entry and priority mean everything and I’ve thought long and hard about what our priorities should be and how to best list them.  We are caught in a stampede of federal irresponsibility and headed for the cliff, meaning there are so many things that can, <strong>{should},</strong> be done, it’s hard to pick a place to start.  While others may disagree with my listings, I hope that the message comes across.  These are just methods and means to an end.  If you want to rearrange them, feel free, but point being, it’s time we not be lazy anymore.  It’s time we make a real “change we can believe in” to our current federal policies, not just use the moniker to stealthily disguise a road towards socialism.</p> <p><strong>Term Limits</strong></p> <p>With all the complications that are now facing our country, I came to the realization that we can’t change a single thing until we again take back our government from the brothel that Washington, D.C has become.  All other reforms and attempts to steer our country back to the principals of our founding will be for naught if we don’t find a way to force all the corruption, and the very idea of a ruling class, from our congress.  In my opinion, the only way to do that is to impose term limits upon our elected representatives.  Yes, I’m aware that there are arguments against such measures, but I will attempt to dissect them and explain why term limits are not only the first step in returning the government back to the people, but the only method by which we will save ourselves from the fate of Rome.</p> <p><strong>Proposal</strong></p> <p>The solution is to impose a strict term limit on the amount of time that a person can serve as a representative.  Several options have been proposed, but I most favor a three term limit with a 12 year maximum time served.  The reason for this is to provide for sufficient length of service for the senate, while preventing complacency and providing for adequate turn over in the house.  In essence, a representative would be able to serve two six year senate terms, one six year senate term and two house terms, or three two year house terms, with no more than 3 terms or 12 years served.  This would not exempt a representative from being eligible for presidential consideration.  </p> <p> Why the disparity?  For one reason, the senate was designed to represent the wills of the state with a responsibility to consider long term effects of legislation.  Providing for two terms allows those representatives to recommend and see their proposals thru implementation, while maintaining a sense of continuity and maturity of government.  Secondly, the house was designed to represent the will of the people with a primary focus on funding.  By providing the above restrictions, it keeps this house full of fresh faces (for shorter term interests) and allows for relatively small time frames in which the people can affect change on public policy via the purse strings (funding).  In addition, since funding is such an important function of funding, it prevents a representative from becoming entrenched in the system for 6 terms and susceptible to corruption of pork projects, reelection malfeasance,  and financial games.  Lastly, this would prevent people from shifting houses to reset the clock, excluding the possibility that someone could possibly serving full terms in both houses and finding a loophole around the intent.</p> <p><strong>Advantage:  Reduction of seniority and return to Meritocracy</strong></p> <p>The prevailing advantage of imposing such term limits is that it would remove seniority from that halls of congress and instead replace it with fresh ideas and competition, where those with the best proposals would be promoted thru the congressional leadership tiers.  No longer would members be given valuable committee chairs simply because they’ve earned the “right” by being in position for so long.  In fact, since all congressmen would be on relatively equal footing in terms of time in office, it would reward those with the best ideas to be moved up, replacing worn out “that’s the way we always done it” mentalities with a fresh air of competing ideas.  Those who show the most promise and forthright thought, will be given their chance at leadership rather than having to wait on their laurels because they have not “served their time”</p> <p><strong>Advantage:  More voter choice</strong></p> <p>It would allow the voters more choice, as it would drastically reduce the incumbents strangle hold on maintaining their position of power.  Consider this, we have imposed term limits on the President because of fear that they would wield too much power (as FDR did), however we don’t seem to worry about the same issue affecting the congress, the people who actually write and pass our laws and regulations.  Due to the amount of power that comes with a congressional seat, those previously elected have a large incentive to become reelected.  By limiting the amount of time that they can serve, we remove this incentive, thus increasing the turn over of our congressional houses and more fresh faces to choose from, as incumbents have an incredible advantage in campaigning over  challengers.  Due to having built in campaign offices (staff) who are in essence working for their own jobs, perks of the office such as junk mailer allowances, ability to campaign while remaining employed and earning a (tax payer funded) wage, etc, it makes it very hard for challengers to compete.  By implementing a term limit, these effects will diminish, as the incentive for reelection is not a prevalent consideration.  More choice equals more directional options.  </p> <p><strong>Advantage:  Diminished voter apathy</strong></p> <p>Going hand in hand with more choice is the fact that voter apathy will be reduced.  Due to a representative only being able to serve for a limited amount of time, voters voting on name recognition alone will begin to reduce.  Voters will have to start taking their time to research candidates to ensure that they know who they are voting for.  Voters will no long be able to attend the polling places with a mindset of  “we know what he’ll do, he’s done it for years”, instead, with fresh faces coming in every 6 to 12 years, then voters will need to be more involved in the elective process.  While not immediately apparent, as the systems starts to mature, as more candidates start cycling out of congress, this effect will grow until it becomes a normal part of our political lives.</p> <p><strong>Advantage:  Reduction of pork and special interest influences</strong></p> <p>Special interests are able to “invest” in representatives today.  Simply put, lobby groups know that incumbents have a enormous advantage in election cycles with our current system.  Therefore, they are able to groom (corrupt) politicians with lures of money for reelection bids, promises of moving work to districts in exchange for influence & consideration, etc.  However, if representatives were only able to be in office for short amounts of time, the return on their “investment” just isn’t there.  Why invest large amounts of money or move work into a district, when the chair will be vacant in a few short years and possibly replaced by someone not as cozy with special interest needs.  Sure, lobbyist will still exist and some corruption will still exist, but now they would have to make their cases more on merit rather than enticements.  Likewise, pork projects are a method to ensure that a representative gets reelected by bringing money into the district.  However, if a representative knows that he’s only in office for a limited time, he/she will be less likely to support the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back” mentality when it comes to pork.  Why vote for another states pork, so that they will vote for yours, when it will do nothing to keep you in office any longer.  Instead, representatives will start slipping into a mode of state protection, looking out for the best interests of their state rather than what would get them a better reelection bid.  We will have representatives who start voting their principals rather than trading their votes for a possibility for improved reelection and growth of their power base.</p> <p><strong>Advantage:  Return to a citizen congress</strong></p> <p>I regard this as probably the most important advantage.  With term limits, the rise of the “ruling class” or “career politician” goes away.  No longer will someone be able to make a living as federal politician.  Instead, we will return to a scenario where our representatives who come from the real world, a business world.  Representatives will serve their country for a short time, then be expected to go back into the business world to earn their way.  By breaking the class of career politicians, we will get a couple of side effects.  First, we will get representatives who actually understand, and live by, the rules that they impose.  Be it doctors, lawyers, businessmen, or farmers, they will have an understanding of the harm that regulations, taxes, and  government interference wreck upon businesses, citizens, and the economy.  We will be putting the responsibility of such matters in the hands of people who are intimately aware of what it means to make a payroll, comply with stifling regulation, and financial impacts of legislation.  Second, we will find representatives who actually start operating with the primary objective of protecting and benefiting their constituencies.  After their terms, they will be having to go back and live within their communities, deal with the ramifications of their actions by the citizens they represent, and reap the rewards/consequences of their actions/laws passed.  Lastly, we will begin fostering a breed of representatives who are actually closer to the people that they represent, rather the politicians we have now, who may hail from a specific state, but spend most of their time on the beltway.  Due to the fact that they come from having to make a living outside of politics, they will be more inclined to spend more time at home districts maintaining that business/living.  This provides their constituents with greater access to their representatives, instead of leaving a voicemail (when mailbox not full) on a Washington, D.C. phone number.  What better way to take back the birthright of a government BY the  people, than to remove this ideal of a ruling/politician class and return it to the average citizen?</p> <p>Yes, there are arguments against term limits, but most arguments just don’t stand up to a debate.  </p> <p><strong>Argument:  Term limits throw out the good politicians with the bad</strong></p> <p>Response:  Yes, we will lose some good politicians due to term limits, but the benefits far out weigh the risks.  Like a free market system, good ideas will rise to the top.  If a good politician comes along and is loved by his districts, then that will be seen and like minded people will fill his role.  In addition, term limits limit the time in office, not the time in politics.  A good representative can always serve as an advisor to new faces, help groom upcoming representatives in his methods, and further provide for his district.</p> <p><strong>Argument:  Reelections provide incentives for service.  With term limits, those incentives will disappear.</strong></p> <p>Response:  It’s possible, but personally I don’t believe it to be true.  We have a lot of people out there with good ideas for the direction of this country.  Truly patriotic people who one want to see America remain the beacon of hope and freedom for the world.  However, due to the advantage of incumbents, the amount of money currently required to run, and the fact that seniority prevents new ideas from being able to be successfully heard from freshman congressmen, I think most are discouraged from even trying.  Level the playing field, make the possibility of office achievable, and I think we will see more people seek office.  Isn’t that what this country is really about?  Providing opportunity and a chance to make better the lives of yourself, your family, and your countrymen?</p> <p><strong>Arguments:  Term Limits are Unconstitutional</strong></p> <p>Agreed that the founding fathers specifically decided not to put term limits into the Constitution, however, I don’t believe that they fully expected that 1. the people would allow the establishment of a ruling class via apathy or intentional gaming of the system  or 2. that people would become “career” politicians.  In fact, I can provide you with tons of quotes from our founding fathers illustrating the point that congressional service was expected to be a short term service in benefit of the nation (with possible exception for the Senate, due to the maturity and long term vision required).  In addition, if a term limit amendment was added, it would no longer be unconstitutional if constructed correctly.  While I’m a believer that the Constitution is on of the greatest documents ever gifted to mankind and that it should be interpreted strictly, the founders did provide us a method to change it when it became necessary to thwart tyranny.  It’s not easy, but I believe that current circumstances have dictated that we must make exceptions when effects  unseen by are founders start to pervert the meaning and intention of our government.  Career politicians and the ruling class are examples of that perversion.</p> <p><strong>Summary</strong></p> <p>As stated, this would not be an easy, or quick, undertaking.  We would first have to convince those in power to vote to limit that power, however, it’s a road we must travel.  It’s apparent that this is something that the voting public agrees with, as 23 states have already imposed term limits on their state legislatures and the time has come to impose those same limitations on the federal.  </p> <p>Again, it won’t be easy, but we can help by only supporting those candidates in primary and general elections who agree on record to support a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits.  When you go to your town halls or write letters to your representatives, ask them directly if the support congressional term limits.  If they refuse to answer, hold their feet to the fire and stand your ground demanding an answer be presented.  It’s simple, a yes or no answer will suffice, no explanation necessary.  If they do not, then ask them why?  Ask them why they are so unwilling to relinquish their power base?  Ask them if they fear having to live in a world of their own creating, and if they are not, then why the need to defend the establishment of a ruling class?  Lastly, ask them directly, if they truly feel they are more capable and knowledgeable with regards to what is best for their constituents than the very people they serve?  </p> <p>Yes, I’m asking you to be direct.  Yes, I’m asking you to sometimes be obstinate with your representative.  Remember, you are THEIR employer.  They work for YOU!  It’s time to make them accountable and insist that they answer the important questions  We have been lazy for far too long.  It’s time we take back our government.</p> <blockquote> <p>My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years, rather than for life, was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governors which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget.</p> <p>- Thomas Jefferson</p> <p>The security intended to the general liberty consists in the frequent election and in the rotation of the members of Congress.</p> <p>- James Madison & Alexander Hamilton, 1782</p> <p>The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.</p> <p>- Thomas Jefferson</p></blockquote> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-69324151249127036062011-01-19T14:20:00.001-06:002011-01-19T14:46:35.645-06:00No one to blame but ourselves<p>As I sit and listen to the congressional debates regarding the repeal of Obamacare, I can’t help but wonder to myself, how did we get here?  How did we get ourselves into a position in which Americans now believe that the Government is the answer to all our woes and in which we allow said government overarching control over our lives?  How did we allow people to represent us who have zero understanding of the meaning of the Constitution and the premise behind how our government is to be behave?   How?</p> <p>As easy as it would be to place blame on either the left or right, ideologues who have corrupted our political system, etc, it’s just wouldn’t be intellectually honest to do so.  Our slide into this perversion of America has been aided by both sides of the political aisle.  Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault, so how? Sadly there is but one answer:  We have no one else to blame but ourselves.  It is the voting public who has allowed our government to become the very beast that our founding fathers warned and sought to protect us from.</p> <p>When I look at what our country has become, I find myself disgusted.  We have figuratively pissed on the memories of our founding fathers and their vision for our country.  These were men that gave their lives, their freedom, even their personal wealth to help create a system that curtailed the power of an obtrusive government and provided for the freedom and liberty of it’s people.  They came from an era when government left unchecked, would constantly and consistently trample on the governed.  Therefore, after great personal and group sacrifice, they declared that government had no right to impede the liberty of free men and waged a war to guarantee that the future of this country would not suffer as they did.  Their legacy is a form of government never before seen by the world.  They knew that government would always grow when left unchecked, but they provided a means of allowing the people to self-correct and limit that ability, however, the American people have not held up to their end of the bargain.  We have grown lazy and allowed ourselves to become the governed, rather than following the blueprint that our founding set for us to be the governing.</p> <p>We have grown lazy in our responsibilities to this country.  Our government is one OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people, but as of late, it has become a system of the elite, by the corruption of special interest, and for the limitation of liberty.   We have forgotten that it is our birthright to be self governed, allowing instead to have career politicians and political elites to determine our course.  We' have grown lazy in our responsibilities to ensure that the government bows to OUR will via the methods set in place by our founders.  We have forgotten that WE determine our own destiny, instead allowing a new ruling class to determine as much for us.  We do this at direct insult to our past and in direct conflict with our path to remain free in the future.  It’s something that we MUST fix if our country is to remain the only beacon of personal liberty in the world.</p> <p>How is it that most anyone can name who the latest celebrity is dating or the latest scandal in Hollywood, but seldom few can name their congressional representatives?  How is it that time can be made for the local bowling league or a night out drinking at the local bar, but few take the time to research and vet those that they elect into power?  Why is it that people will set aside hours to watch their favorite sports team on the television, but are unwilling to set aside 30 minutes to an hour to try and understand the political issues of the day and how they will be personally affected by them? Why do people get upset that a homeowners association can tell them what color they can paint their house, but could care less that their government seeks to disarm them and take away choice in nearly every aspect of their lives?  We have grown lazy.</p> <p>I look back in history and it’s easy to see why we are such a great country.  We were filled with people who took the “American Dream” to heart and worked hard to provide it for themselves and their families.   The founding of this country was done on the backs of men who willing offered their lives and wealth for a <u>possibility</u> at personal freedom and opportunity.  The west was won by individuals and families who set out seeking new opportunities knowing that they were risking their lives in doing so.  The world wars showed an America that banded together to serve the interests of this country of their own will, not by government demand, by helping the war effort with time, sweat, and the buying of bonds.   Charity was not the exception but the rule.  Communities came together for the betterment of each other, knowing that individual success lent to community success.   We were a people who thrived on individual accomplishment, possibility, and responsibility.  We were a people that KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we were a free people and defended that ideal at all cost. </p> <p>However, now, America no longer believes in success, but rather protection from failure.  We are no longer a people who believe in assistance from our government as a final last resort, but as an expected “right”.   Americans no longer take responsibility for their own actions, but instead believe that bad decisions are allowed and we expect others to shelter us from the consequences of those decisions.  We went from believing that all men are <u>born</u> equal, into expecting that all men will be <u>made</u> equal, from a right to the <u>pursuit</u> of happiness, to a right of <u>guaranteed</u> happiness.  Again, we have grown lazy.  </p> <p>We have allowed our ideals to be compromised by the vocal few and have said nothing.  We watched as our government takes greater and greater control of our lives, but have remained silent.  We have allowed a ruling class to strip us of liberties, forgetting that we have inalienable rights conveyed to us by god not men, and instead have let that ruling class redefine those rights as they see fit.   We have forgotten to study and understand our constitution and what it means, instead allowing it be be stripped out of our children’s schools and have elected people to abide by it that have no depth of understanding of it’s true meaning. We believe that the Constitution is no longer the blueprint for our country, but instead something can is malleable and can be “interpreted” to mean whatever a person wants it to mean.  We stay quiet when people throw out charges of racism or hatred in order to silence opposition, forgetting that debate is the best method to determine policy.  We have forgotten that we are the greatest nation ever conceived and have abandoned our sense of national pride, deciding to portray and feel guilt for the very successes that our method of government has given us.  We have grown lazy.</p> <p>No one is exempt from that criticism, even myself.  As you may have noticed, I haven’t written anything in a long time.  It wasn’t until I had the pleasure of recently meeting new members of my family on my fiancé's side, that I realized I too had grown lazy.  I tried to explain it out as I had become disgusted with the lack of common sense and complete disregard for the will of the people that had made me stop, but again, that was just lazy.  What I was doing was exactly what the ruling class wanted me to do, to become disheartened and sit idly by as America was “transformed” into a bastardization of what it was meant to be.  The ruling class is expecting me to shut up, they are expecting me to be lazy, so as to not challenge their rise to tyranny.  I’m thankful that I met these soon to be additions to my family, because they opened my eyes to the fact that I was becoming the very thing that I speak out against, a citizen who shirks their duty to their country.</p> <p>So where do we go from here?  Well, in the coming weeks, I will begin laying out, what I believe to be, a method of correction.  This is nothing new or profound, as our founders provided for methods to self-correct and reign in the power of our government.  All it really takes is an interest and desire to fulfill our duties in self-governance.  There are many methods to do this, but most important, is our ability to  speak out.  The fact that freedom of religion and speech were the first addtions to our bill of rights is not lost on me.   We need only to speak out, let others know that we are with them, believe as they do, to organize the people to take back control of our country.  We can do this via writing letters, attending town halls and meetings, or by participating fully in the campaign and election process.  Each of you must figure out the best method for you, but you must make your voice heard.  Our government is in our hands, therefore the future of it lies in the same.  Only we the people have the power to change it, therefore, when it comes to the preservation of our freedom, we must no longer be lazy.</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>"Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights. "</strong> </p> <p>Thomas Jefferson, <i>The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia</i>, John P. Foley, ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1900), p. 842.</p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p><strong>"Now, more than ever, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption."</strong></p> <p>James Garfield, "A Century of Congress" published in <i>Atlantic</i>, July 1877</p></blockquote> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-49386206245799449812010-11-11T16:01:00.001-06:002010-11-11T16:01:54.861-06:00Open letter to Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)<p>Below, you will find a letter that I have written to Senator DeMint.</p> <p>Senator DeMint,</p> <p>I write to you today, not as a constituent of yours, but as a concerned American who is worried about the direction of our country and has began to fear the rapidly expanding power and scope of the federal government.  For that reason, I hope you take the time to hear me out on my thoughts.</p> <p>I come to you in regards to an interview that you recently did with David Brody of the <a href="http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2010/04/22/jim-demint-talks-to-brody-file-about-whether-he-wants.aspx">The Brody File</a> in which you were asked if you would consider a run for president.  Your response to that comment was,</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“You know, I’ve always thought of myself as an average guy and when I think of the President of the United States I’m hoping that there is some knight on a white horse that’s going to ride that I can look at and say you know this is Ronald Reagan character or the level that we could have. Frankly, the people that I’ve seen here in politics I realize that I can hold my ground with any of them. There are a lot of changes I’d like to make in this country and I think Americans are going to be ready for someone to tell them the truth next election. Not someone who will give them a good speech but someone who reminds them that the federal government has to do less not more. I’m hoping we can find that candidate out who has shown himself to be a great Governor or somewhere. It’s not something I desire. Anyone who really desires it does not know how much trouble we’re in as a country because we’ve got some tough times ahead of us and we need a President, who says we can get through it, we can come out better on the other side but we’re going to have to sacrifice.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>With all due respect Senator DeMint, while you stated that it was not something you desire, you laid out every reason why you MUST run.  As a freshman Senator, you have proven yourself a leader.   You stood up to your own party with respect to the TARP program, you fought the current administration on the Stimulus plan, and you work to prevent the intrusion and government into our lives at every turn.  In large part because of you, the American people were able to make our voices heard with the election of Marco Rubio (Fl) and Rand Paul (KY), which were huge wins.  While some of your other picks such as Sharon Angle (NV), Ken Buck (CO), and others were defeated in the general elections, their victories in the primaries were instrumental in stirring up the establishment GOP.  Even today, you yourself stand up to the establishment with your resolution to ban earmarks, showing that you truly understand the people and their desire to change course.</p> <p>Sir, you are what America needs to saved.  You spoke true words when you made the following statement:</p> <blockquote> <p>It's going to be a painful job for the next president if they do it right. Taking apart this huge bureaucracy, fighting the government unions, doing the things that have to be done to cut spending and cut the size of the federal government and restore some fiscal sanity,</p> </blockquote> <p> We, the people, understand these words.  We are willing to follow someone who will tell us the truth and communicate the consequences.  Your popularity proves that you are someone that Americans relate to and understand.  It proves that they will follow, if you would just have the willingness to lead.  Yes, it will be hard, but it is something that must be done to restore our valor.</p> <p>You state that you are waiting for a “white knight”, but I bring to you the idea that you are the white knight.  Heroes rarely understand their place until after their actions make them so.  I understand it is not a job you may want, but it is a job that American wants (needs) you to have.  With this election, you have a number of young guns that can help your position with Rubio and Paul.  You have others such as Paul Ryan, who have been begging an audience for his good ideas but has been largely ignored by the current administration and GOP establishment.  The tools are there, all that is lacking is a leader.  I believe you to be that leader.  If given the opportunity, you will have my vote and my promise to do all within my power to assure your election.  This nation is under attack from within and we have precious little time to defend it.  If the GOP did not get the message and amend their ways, then 2012 will be our last hope to stop the leftward slide that America has been taking for years.  For this reason, I beg you to reconsider.  </p> <p>American and fellow patriot,</p> <p>Nicky Pike</p> <blockquote> <p>"Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them."  - <b>William Shakespeare</b></p></blockquote> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-32603975559314652582010-09-14T15:08:00.001-05:002010-09-14T15:08:28.591-05:00Your retirement accounts: Future funding for the growth of government<p>Many of you that read this blog I know are older than I.  I also know that many of you have been responsible within your working years, having set aside money to aid in your retirement.  There are even some of you that are living off your hard earned (and invested) retirement dollars now.  However, there are now talks on Capital Hill that the Government needs to "protect" you from the uncertainty of retirement investing.</p> <p>Yes, you read that right.  The government is now holding Department of Treasury committee meetings on "lifetime income options for retirement plans".  For those of you that don't speak politics, the above can be revised to say "How can we nationalize and confiscate the retirement plans of hard working Americans to help fund and grow our entitlement agenda".</p> <p>Don't believe me?  Check out the Peter Heller article "<a href="http://news.coinupdate.com/us-departments-of-labor-and-treasury-schedule-hearing-on-confiscation-of-private-retirement-accounts-0431/">US Departments of Labor and Treasury Schedule Hearing on Confiscation of Private Retirement Accounts".</a>   If you don't want to take Heller's word for it, you can see the press release from the Dept. of Labor regarding the hearings <a href="http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/2010/ebsa082610.html">here</a>.</p> <p>The long and short of the plan is based on an idea by Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to eliminate the incentives of popular tax plans, namely 401K and 401B plans.  This idea involves workers transferring their current assets into Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRA) created by our ever-benevolent government.  In return, the government would deposit an inflation indexed $600/year into the GRAs, while workers would be required to pay 5% of their pay into the same.  For this, the government will guarantee a 3% return on investment for each account and upon retirement, the government would then convert that payout into an annuity, payable each year to the retiree, supposedly to ensure that the retiree has a "life long source of income after retirement".  </p> <p>So what's the problem that they are trying to fix here?  It seems that the government does not think that the American public is smart enough to handle their retirement financial affairs.  Their operating premise is that employees are put at "undue risk" because generally retirement investments are presented in a "lump sum payment" thus making them "responsible for ensuring that their savings will last throughout their lifetime".  Again, the fed wants to play the "American people are too stupid to take care of themselves, so we need to do it for them" card that has become the standard operating procedure here of late.</p> <p>So why this new found concern for retirees?  Could it be that the government is generally worried that retirement investment income will not last sufficiently thru a worker's golden years?  Well, if you believe that, please log off my site, cause reality is not something that you show an interest in!  No, the reason for this sudden found interest is for nothing more than a huge cash grab intended to help fund the behemoth that is US Government policy.  According to the <a href="http://www.ici.org/pdf/fm-v19n3.pdf">Investment Company Institute research on 2009 retirement market</a>, total US retirement assets are sitting at ~$16trillion, up 14% from 2008.  Considering the spending orgy that this current administration has been on, this is simply too much money to ignore and boy would that come in useful in furthering the beaurcracy and entitlement mentality of our new found socialistic "hope and change" for America.  Therefore, they are now considering the nationalization (confiscation) of American retirement accounts.</p> <p>So what does this mean to workers?  Surely a guarantee of retirement income is a good thing?  First, since the GRA payout is converted to annuity, upon death, the benefit will terminate.  No matter how much you saved, your heirs would no longer be able to inherit anything left over from your hard work and thoughtful savings and investment.  Similar to Social Security accounts, the remaining funds would simply revert back into the general fund.  Second, you will only be guaranteed a 3% return.  Even with a finicky stock market, the average rate of return from money market and IRA accounts average 7%.  Right from the start, you will be taking a 4% decrease in benefit.  <a href="http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html">James Pethokoukis</a> puts these figures into something much easier to understand by showing that $10,000 growing at 3% for 40 years would leave you with roughly $22,000 at retirement.  However that same $10,000 at 7% for 40 years would net you a total of $150,000.  Not only do you risk a loss of $128,000 of net return, but you must also remember the payout of the annuity.  Would you rather see a monthly payment based on $22K or $128K?  True, we are only assuming a $10K investment, but you can do the numbers to extrapolate.  Also, after spending your life, dedicating 5% of pay into this account, wouldn't you want the satisfaction of knowing that your savings could be willed to your family in the event of an early passing?  Not so with GRAs!!</p> <p>In the end, we also have to look at the government's (any government's) ability to manage and dole out with respect to fiscal programs.  Social Security, bankrupt.  Medicare, bankrupt.  Guaranteed pensions, backed with IOU's, but no money in the coffers to back the promises, forcing many states (California, New York, etc) to the brink of bankruptcy.  You seeing the same trend I am here???  The simple fact is that the government does nothing well.  They can't run a business (USPS), they can't guarantee the current retirement supplement (Social Security), and I don't trust them to be able to carry me thru my retirement years.  In addition, since these GRAs will be backed with Government Treasury Bonds, I'm not even sure they could guarantee the lowly 3% return they are promising.  Have any of you taken a look at the falling dollar in the world market?  As our current policies keep us going back to the loaning tree of the Chinese and other unfriendly countries, as our debt continues to rise at the rate of super fueled rocket, how can we possibly be satisfied with a "promise" that Treasury Bonds will even be worth the paper they are printed on?  Simple answer, we don't.  </p> <p>Decide for yourself, are you willing to trust the fed with your hard earned dollar?  Are you willing to be forced by law to save into an account that will most likely not provide you with a return on your investment that will be in the black?  Do you have no concern that all of your savings will not go the betterment of your surviving family in the event of your death?   How about knowing that your savings will be used to fund the retirement of those who have not contributed as much as you? When will the fed want to open these accounts to non-tax paying illegal aliens as we've seen with Medicare, etc?  Rest assured, if allowed, this will not be the end of confiscation of private property.  First it was the water ways, now it's your personal savings.  Where will it end? </p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-24416780016041479222010-09-09T16:10:00.001-05:002010-09-09T16:10:43.193-05:00To burn or not to burn?<p>Before I start this rant. let me go on record stating that I think Pastor Terry Jones is an idiot.  Pastor Jones is the man who will be heading up a "Koran Burning" down in Gainesville, Florida on the eve of September 11th.  While I understand Pastor Jones's sentiment behind the burning, and even stand by his legal right to do so, I still think he is an idiot.  I do not think he is an idiot because of possible backlash by Islamic followers or the multitude of global protests, but because I believe he is doing this burning for no other reason than to gain his 15 minutes of fame in the public eye and he is going against the very principals of Christianity that he is supposed to foster.  </p> <p>That being said, I wish to speak to a key number of consequences that have come from his decision to perform this burning.  At the top of the list, comes the statement by General Petraeus stating that doing so will put the lives of soldiers in danger.  First, let me state that everyone who knows me knows that I have nothing but the utmost love and respect for those in uniform who protect the American ideal, however, in this case, General Petraeus should have stayed silent.  The General is a just that, a general in the US military.  The subject of burning a religious text as protest is a political matter, of which, a general in the US Military has no business intervening.  Had Gen. Petraeus given his "personal opinion" out of uniform, and clarified that such statement was not one of the US Military, it would have been one thing, but he did not, thus violating the very principal of a citizen military.  Just as President Obama, as a national figure, consistently, and unjustifiably, inserts himself into local matters, the General has inserted himself into a political matter of which he has no jurisdiction.  In addition, need I remind the General that our soldiers are, and have been, in the line of danger for sometime. Regardless of President Obama's misguided declaration that combat operations in Iraq are over, we still have 50,000 troops actively engaged, and in the line of fire, daily in Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan.  Those soldiers fight for the rights granted us by the US Constitution, even if they are things that they may not personally agree with.  I know not one soldier who would agree with the burning of the American Flag, but every day they lace up their boots and put themselves in harm's way to maintain the right to do so.</p> <p>Second is all the media claims of Islamic backlash, the coverage of all the "global protests", and the Ground Zero Mosque Imam's thinly veiled threat that if this burning is not stopped, then the "radicals" of Islam will take this as an attack against Islam and that we will suffer the consequences.  To start, the media is just as culpable in this as Pastor Terry Jones.  They gave significance to his protest, choosing to make it a national and global issue.  Was this done to take the eye off of our current administration's failed policies, to distract the people from the mid-term elections, or to further foster their claims that "islamophobia" has gripped the country?  I don't know, but it appears that they succeeded in all three.  </p> <p>Since when do we let outside entities dictate how America will react?  Since when do American's lay down in fear and abide to thugs due to risk of violence?  From Hillary Clinton, to Gen. Petraeus, to Angelina Jolie, everyone is stating that this should be stopped or violence will ensue.  Take a look around you!  Pick up any newspaper within the last 20 years and you will see that we've been in the grip of Islam violence for some time.  I do agree with Pastor Jones in that we cannot be afraid of Islam anymore.  We cannot allow our policies, our lives, or our rights to be violated by the Islamic faith.  If we allow Islam to sway our decisions, then we have already lost our freedom.  If we make decisions based on the "possibility" of Islamic violence, then might as well lay down and submit ourselves to Sharia law, as the terrorists have won and the American way is gone.  We must remember that Islam is a religion of violence and fear.  If not this Koran burning, it would be some other perceived atrocity that they would rioting and threatening us over.  Where does is end?  Do we then submit our laws to the same fear?  Will we allow a man who beats his wife to go free because Islamists say it is his right?  Must we demand that rape victims be publicly and violently punished for their misfortune?   Must prop 8 in California be turned to law because Muslim's will distribute violence upon us for allowing homosexuals to have marriage rights?  At what point do we say enough is enough?  At what point does it become too late to make that assertion?</p> <p>On the subject of "islamophobia" as progressed by the media; first, we must agree on the definition of "Islamophobia".  A phobia, as defined by Merriam Webster is "an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical, fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation".   There is nothing illogical or inexplicable about opposing the building of a monument to the very faith that murdered over 3000 of our American brothers and sisters.  Would it be illogical to demand that a rapists face be tattooed on the body of his victim?  It is not illogical to claim that Islam is a religion of violence when history has shown over and over again the numerous jihad's that have resulted in the murder, rape, and torture of non-believers.  It is not a phobia, but a realistic look at Islam for what it is.  </p> <p>But what about the "moderate" Muslims?  While I agree that there are those within the faith that wish to modernize it, there has to be an understanding that it will never happen.  In order for Muslims to "modernize" and transform Islam into  a "religion of peace" then those moderates would have to decry their own prophet and religious text to do so.  Mohammed is not a figure of peace and virtue, but instead was a murderous, war-mongering, child marriage practioner, guilty of rape, pillage, and plunder during his lifelong quest to control and subjugate infidels to his faith.  It is also believed that the Koran is a direct dictation of speech between Mohammed and Allah to be followed implicitly and without question.  In order for revisionists to change the Muslim faith, they would have to separate themselves from the very core of their belief.  Since the faith itself punishes any outspoken person against the religion with death, we can expect the vast majority of Muslims to remain silent.  Just as not all Germans were Nazis, they stayed silent as the "radicals" overtook the culture.  We are seeing the same thing today with Islam, but rather just a matter of national pride, we are talking about religious indoctrination which is much further ingrained in the psyche, thus much harder to defend against.</p> <p>While I believe Pastor Jones to be an idiot for his "protest", the media has now made this a no-win situation for America.  Due to their proliferation of this non-subject, we are now in the global [Islamic] eye.  If he does not go thru with his burning, then we once again allowed ourselves to bend to the threat of Islam.  If he does go thru with it, then we allowed ourselves to "declare war on Islam", and give them an irrational justification for the actions that they've been perpetrating for centuries.  Either way, Islam has gotten what it wants, rule over American freedom or an excuse for their violence.  While I disagree with Pastor Jones's actions, I will have to take the side of standing up against the Islamic threat.  This will get me labeled as a "racist", but they've been calling me that for 2 years now, so what the hell?  This is a situation that was fueled by a sensational liberal media and by politicians who involve themselves in affairs that will advance their political clout and agenda.  It has to stop somewhere, so to Pastor Jones:  I will curse you for your ignorance, but I stand by you in light of the fire you have started.</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-43096549204263416422010-08-31T11:00:00.001-05:002010-08-31T11:00:38.772-05:00Why I believe President Obama will go down in history as this nations most important president<p>Yes, you heard that right.  It is my belief that President Obama, after all the dust has settled, will go down in history as this nations most important president.  That may seem like a strange statement from me, considering all the writings I've done here of late, but let me explain.</p> <p>Why would I dare suggest that ole Barry may be one of this nation's most influential when compared to the likes of Ronald Reagan, JFK, or Abe Lincoln?  Could it be that he reminds me of the honesty of "I can not tell a lie" George Washington?  Of course not.  I don't think that President Obama has ever told the truth.  Lies come from his mouth every opportunity he has to open it.  Be it about promising to bring transparency and openness to the present administration, while allowing back room deals to pass his socialist agenda or denial of the public to witness the health care debates.  Or promising that if we passed a trillion dollar stimulus package that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%.  No, he has shown nothing but a complete lack of honesty  at every turn, promising that we would all be allowed to keep our health care plans if we wished, when the bill show's the exact opposite.  So no, it's not honesty that leads me to my belief.</p> <p>Maybe it's his ability to lead and direct policy?  Again, the answer is no.  President Obama has absolutely no leadership skills to speak of.  He is a man that has never led anything in his life.  He's never ran a business, never had to make a payroll, and has never made a major decision on his own.  He was ill-prepared and ill-qualified to hold the office of President.   He is a man who was raised by handlers his whole career and whose only accomplishments include being a community organizer and voting "present" on 129 votes, to include such contentious issues as the sealing of rape and sexual crime victims records and partial birth abortions.  Even as President, he had no control of his own party, letting the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid walk all over his political promises without nary a reprimand.  Maybe it's leadership to maintain a level head in controversy, but Barrack lacks in this area as well.  He's quick to opinion on such topics as the <a href="http://rednexrants.blogspot.com/2009/11/ft-hood-act-of-terrorisim.html">Ft. Hood Massacre</a>, claiming it's too early to claim terrorism when it was clearly proven it was.  Maybe when he claimed racial <a href="http://wbztv.com/local/obama.comment.cambridge.2.1097782.html">discrimination and that the police acted "stupidly</a>" in the Gates arrest, before knowing all the facts.  Does the fact that he defended the building of the Cordoba Mosque at ground zero, before backtracking the day after show his skills of leadership?  No, it couldn't be his leadership because a leader would take the time to garnish all the facts before making a statement.</p> <p>Maybe it's because of his unequaled amount of patriotism?  Surely, as President, I'm in awe of his love for his country?  Sadly, no.  Obama's first act as president was to go on a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124044156269345357.html">world wide tour in which he apologized for America</a> to every dictator and enemy nation in the world.  His foreign policy has been modeled after the U.N. in which he assumes that all the trials and evils of the world rest squarely on America's shoulders.  He has <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY">bowed to the King of Saudi</a>, exclaimed to the world that America has too often tried to force it's ideals on global citizens, and made nice with brutal thugs such as <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/04/17/2009-04-17_president_obama_meets_hugo_chavez_and_opens_door_to_change_in_cuba_policy.html">Hugo Chavez</a>.  He has made America seem weak by refusing to deal with <a href="http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/26/obamas_iran_policy_is_all_bark_and_no_bite">Iran's nuclear ambitions</a>, backing out of the <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2009/0917/p02s13-usfp.html">European Missile Defense initiative</a>, and by agreeing to the new <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html">START treaty</a>.  Lastly, he has <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100036389/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-top-ten-insults-against-israel/">abandoned our long term allies</a>, such as Israel and Britain, leaving them to suffer alone and without friends.  So no, it's not his patriotism, as he has a complete lack thereof.  </p> <p>So it MUST be his character?  Surely he is a man of strong character and conviction.  Again, the answer is no.  Obama is a man of no character or of real conviction.  He takes no responsibility for his own actions, seeking to shift the blame in all cases.  Almost two years into his presidency, he still uses the same tired line of "He inherited this mess from Bush".  He claims that the deficit is all Bush's fault, but fails to see that <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/">he's created a greater debt in two years than the Bush Administration did in it's eight years or of any President in history for that matter.</a>  The gulf oil disaster, Bush's fault, but <a href="http://www.redstate.com/muckraker/2010/05/29/obamas-oil-spill-response-key-objective-blame-bush/">ignores that his own inaction</a> only served to make things worse.  He tells the American people that Republican's have no new ideas, no proposals, when he was offered many proposals on everything from <a href="http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare">health care</a> to the <a href="http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/">economy</a>, which he chose to ignore.  He regularly takes credit for things that he had no part of, such as the capping of the oil well or the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/feb/11/obama-administration-take-credit-bush-success-iraq/">draw down of troops in Iraq</a>.  He claims legitimacy to the office, yet he has spent millions of dollars to hide his birth certificate.  Surely, with such a simple solution to end the controversy, a man of conviction would just provide his birth certificate, but not Obama.</p> <p>So with all these critiques, why would I think that Obama will be a historical president?  The answer is simple, it was Obama who started the "no shot revolution" in America (to borrow a phrase from Mark Levin).  Had Obama not been elected, had he not showed all his faults, had he not tried to push his ideology and rapidly expand the intrusion of government into every aspect of American lives, we would have never seen the resurgence of conservative American values in this nation.  Yes, Obama was the straw that broke the camel's back.  It was his election that showed Americans the other side and that forced the voter to start moving back to center right.  We've seen what a move towards socialistic European style government will do this nation and we've decided that we don't want any part of it.  We've dealt with shady politicians, who only seem to have their own future ambitions in view, and not those of the people they represent and we are now starting to hold those politicians accountable for their actions.  People are starting to demand that their representatives "do it our way" or find another line of work.</p> <p>Yes, we are witnessing a non-violent revolution starting to take place in this country.  Americans are missing the values and ideals that made this country great and they are seeking to make a return to them.  I've seen people who could care less about politics suddenly get heavily involved and become activists.  We've seen the growth of grassroots movements, such as the Tea Party, take hold, flourish, and become political powerhouses.  The American people are seemingly starting to find themselves, their voices, and are demanding that they be heard.  While this is a non-violent revolution, I suspect it will be a politically bloody one.  Democrats and Republicans alike are now fearing for their positions with a clear message from the American voter of lead or be forced out of the way.  Yes, this is American liberty at it's best.  Tired of the trampling of our founding documents and the visions of our forefathers, the voter is once again looking to gain control of an over-reaching, oppressive government. For this, we have Barrack Obama to thank.  It was his radicalism, his goal of deteriorating America, that fired the "second shot heard round the world" and re-ignited the lust for American liberty.  I know that someday I will be telling my nieces and nephews how I took part in this time in history, how I watched the re-birth of America before my very eyes.  I will use the posts that I create on this blog to detail to them the extent and danger that leftist, stateist control poses to the freedom that they enjoy.  I'm expect it will be with tears in my eyes that I will tell them how we came so very close to losing America, but thanks to Obama showing us the error of our ways, that America stood up and reclaimed it's birthright.  That had it not been for his desire to lead us down a wrong and destructive path, we would have never had the courage to put an end to the stripping of our liberty and save this great nation for them to enjoy.  So for that, I thank you President Obama.</p> <p>Remember in November!!</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-61870946727559019522010-08-26T14:10:00.001-05:002010-08-26T14:10:54.552-05:00Center for Biological Diversity trying to use EPA as an end run around 2nd Amendment<p>On August 3rd, the <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/index.html">Center for Biological Diversity</a> (CBD) filed a <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/Final_TSCA_lead_ban_petition_8-3-10.pdf">petition</a> with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate and ban the sale and use of lead ammunition and fishing sinkers citing the <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/tsca.pdf">Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976</a> (TSCA) as it's basis.  </p> <p>The CDB is a known anti-hunting group whose mission is to "secure a future for all species, great and small".  More simply put, they wish to ban the hunting, fishing, or killing of any animal.  In sticking with their mission, they are attacking hunters by waging a war against the tools of the trade.  Instead of going after the guns themselves, they are attempting to find a way around the 2nd amendment by outlawing the munitions used.  With this petition, they are asking the EPA to step in and provide "regulation" of any lead based munitions or accessories.  While not all munitions are lead based, if allowed, it would provide a significant, and detrimental, amount of regulation and oversight by the EPA of our guaranteed right to keep and bear arms and an open door for future infringement.</p> <p>However, does this petition have merit?  If you do a Google search of the aforementioned petition, you will see many people stating that the TSCA specifically excludes firearms and munitions from the act.  Me being one who likes to know the facts, decided to read the TSCA myself, in order to better prepare myself for argument.   Finding this exclusion was not easy, in that the wording of the TSCA never specifically mentions the words firearm, weapon, munitions, or ammunition.</p> <p>However, within Section 3, Article B, Line (V),  the TSCA does explicitly exclude:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>any article, the sale of which, is subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax provided by section 4182 or 4221 or any other provision of such Code)</em></p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00004181----000-.html">Section of 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954</a> states:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold: </em></p> <p><em>Pistols. </em></p> <p><em>Revolvers. </em></p> <p><em>Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers). </em></p> <p><em>Shells, and cartridges.</em> </p> </blockquote> <p>So, it was clearly the intent of Congress, when passing the TSCA, to specifically exclude all firearms and ammunition from the act.  IRS, Title 26, Section 4181, is not hard to understand.  There are no other provisions of the code, it specifically, and only, deals with all firearms and munitions.  By providing an exclusion that calls out "any article, the sale of which is, subject to tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954"", the act clearly denies regulation of ammunition under the TSCA.</p> <p>So, the CBD is perfectly within it's rights to bring up a petition to the EPA under this act, but per the law written within the Act, the EPA should have no other recourse than to summarily deny the petition.  HOWEVER, I don't think we can just rely on the EPA following the law.  Within the last two years, we've seen the law circumvented by agencies who decide which laws they will follow/enforce and which ones they won't.  Case in point being the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/official-says-feds-process-illegals-referred-arizona/">Immigration Control and Enforcement  (ICE) Agency deciding that it will not deport illegal aliens referred</a> to them.  If ICE can decide to ignore federal law and decide for themselves that they will not enforce it, what is to stop an agency such as the EPA (who consistently oversteps their authority) to ignore law (TSCA) and decide that it is within it's right to deny Americans their right to keep and bear arms by over-regulation of the munitions used?  Considering the government's track record on following of law and constitutional authority here of late, I don't think that we can assume that they will stay within their legal authority and not try to circumvent the 2nd amendment by regulatory fiat here.</p> <p>The EPA has opened the CBD petition up for public comment and I urge each of you to go and express your opinions regarding the possibility of the EPA once again over stepping their authority.  You can reach the comment page <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480b3974b">here</a>.  Feel free to use the information in this post with in your comments.  If you wish to add additional information, the <a href="http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition-take-action-now/">National Shooting Sports Foundation</a> has some pretty good arguments to include as well (<a href="http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition-take-action-now/">link</a>).</p> <p>NOTE:  The EPA has until Nov 2nd, 2010 to accept or deny this petition.  How convenient that it must decide the day prior to the November Mid-term elections.  So please, make you voice heard soon and pass this along to all other Americans who will not see their constitutional 2nd amendment rights trampled, in any way!</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-17617853274500531052010-08-19T13:29:00.001-05:002010-08-19T13:29:33.438-05:00The Enumerated Powers Act<p>Imagine if you will, a new bill to be presented to congress.  This bill, which we will call the Enumerated Powers Act, would require that every future piece of legislation presented before Congress include a statement detailing under which specific Constitutional authority the bill is being considered for enactment.   Considering that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly and finitely details the specific powers bestowed upon on our government, wouldn't it be fitting that every law brought forward for vote be made to show that it is within those Enumerated Powers?</p> <p>Sounds like a wonderful idea to me, but unfortunately, I cannot take the credit for this common sense, extremely relevant idea.  That praise belongs to Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), who has already introduced such a bill to Congress.  In fact, Rep. Shadegg has introduced this piece of legislation to every meeting of Congress since the 104th.  For those of you that may not understand the numbering, we are currently in the 111th Congress, with the 104th being called to order between 01/4/1995 - 11/4/1996.   So each of the 15 years since 1995, this bill has been presented, but I'm guessing this is the first any of you have ever heard of it.  Wonder why?</p> <p>The answer is very simple.  Our ruling class has been operating unconstitutionally and out of bounds of their specific powers for decades.  This isn't just a Democrat or Republican fault, but a rapidly expanding government fault.  Many of the things that we now accept as common, are in fact, unconstitutional per our founding documents.  True, we've witnessed an explosion of governmental growth over the past 18 months unseen since the day's of FDR, but to steal a quote for our current president, "Let me be clear", this has happened under both Republican and Democrat congresses.  Things such as Obamacare, the proposed Cap and Trade, bureaucratic expansions of the EPA, ATF, and other agencies, and even Social Security and Medicare are all outside the scope of the enumerated powers granted to our government by our Constitution.  </p> <p>That being said, it's no wonder that you've never heard of this bill.  Our ruling class doesn't not want, I would even say, are desperate to avoid, having to base their legislation proposals upon {gasp} the specific powers they have been granted.  We have allowed a ruling class to gain power that feels that they know better, and can govern better, than the people whom they've sworn themselves to serve.  We have a ruling class that denies the states the authority to self govern, even though the states were granted that specific right to do so per the visions of our founding fathers.  We have allowed a judicial class to become activists who bend, mold, and pervert the words of our Constitution to fit political ideologies rather than uphold it as the law of the land.</p> <p>In short, we have brought our current troubles upon ourselves, the governed.  We elected officials who have no understanding, or desire to understand, the importance and significance of the US Constitution.  We the people have voted in career politicians whose only ambition is to expand their financial, political, and social authorities while desecrating our founding principles.  Politicians who do not make the effort, or take the time, to fully understand the impact of the laws that they vote on.  Politicians who care more about earmarks and political favors than the best direction for this country.  Politicians who when asked about constitutionality respond with <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/55971">"Are you serious?  Are you serious?"</a> or "<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/02/democratic-lawmaker-dont-worry-constitution-health-care-overhaul/">I don't worry about the Constitution</a>".  </p> <p> We have allowed the media to be lax in their duties of vetting potential candidates and not asking the hard questions and looking for real answers.  We allowed ourselves to be taken in by a Presidential candidate who had no leadership abilities, no experience, and worst of all, a destructive ideology that is driving our country to it's death.  We, the people, have forgotten the words of the constitution, and the powered bestowed by it, ourselves.  We have forgotten that this is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.  We have allowed this ruling class to ignore and abandon the very principals and documents that made this nation great and I believe that this bill would be the first step in taking back our nation.  The first step in returning to the great vision that the men who founded this country believed in, enacted, and provided for the US to become the greatest nation in the history of man kind.</p> <p>I urge each of you to contact your representative and urge them to vote for HR405: The Enumerated Powers Act (full text of bill <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-450">here</a>).  We must ensure that this bill finally makes it out of committee and gets put forward for a vote.  Let us all find out whom in our ruling class is scared of being required to declare the constitutionality of their legislation proposals.  Let us find out who the patriots are and who are part of the problem.  If you do not know the name of your Representative, then contact me and I will help you find them and their contact information.</p> <p>Make no mistake, I am under no illusions that this one bill will solve the problems of  the rampant, run away government that we are seeing now, but it is is a start.  It will allow people to become better informed on legislation at a glance, it will reinstitute the premise of constitutionality in our process, and it will help us weed out those of the ruling class who wish to over reach their power.  It will allow for us to recognize and address a government who has far too long stretched the meanings of the  General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses for their own means.  When every bill comes thru quoting either of the above, it won't be long before someone sees that they are being abused and demand reform and constraint.  To borrow meaning from Neil Armstrong, passage of this bill would be "One small step for law, one giant leap for American freedom and constitutionality."</p> <p>Remember in November!!!</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-21719336107225053612010-08-18T13:51:00.001-05:002010-08-18T13:51:17.704-05:00Stand Against Us and We Will Destroy You<p>This is basically the motto of the Obama Administration.  We see it every day, any one who dares speak up or act out against the failing, disastrous policies of our socialist in chief, gets the full weight of the federal machine levied against them. This time, it's Sheriff Joe Apraio of Maricopa County, AZ.  </p> <p>I'm sure you've all heard of the controversy's surrounding Sheriff Joe in the performance of his duties.  Requiring inmates to wear government issued pink boxer shorts, the creation of canvas incarceration grounds known as tent city, illegal-immigration sweeps, banning of smoking, coffee, and pornography within his jails, and after learning that it was a federal mandate that prisoners be allowed to watch TV in prison, cutting off all channels but the Weather Channel and Disney. </p> <p>Well it seems that Sheriff Joe has gotten the attention of the US Justice department and is currently being investigated for civil rights crimes including racial profiling/discrimination in his immigration sweeps and mistreatment of inmates within the Arizona prison system.   Never mind that this is a man that has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio">won his elections by overwhelming majorities since first winning in 1992</a>.  Never mind that this is a man loved and respected by a majority of those he is charged to protect within his county (except for those prisoners in his ward).  Instead concentrate on the fact that Sheriff Joe is a man that has denied that the federal system has the right to restrict his ability to protect those citizens whom he has sworn, and was elected by majority, to protect.  </p> <p>In a <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/08/doj-letter-to-sheriff-joe-attorney.php?page=1">letter</a> issued to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Civil Right Attorney General Thomas Perez issued an ultimatum to Sheriff Joe to turn over millions of documents to the AG's office or risk being sued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Sheriff Joe has refused to comply.  I, for one, completely agree with Sheriff Joe's decision.  The tenacity, and unethical treatment, of this law officer goes far outside the jurisprudence of the AG's office.</p> <p>Investigations originally started in 2004-2005 upon the same claims proved to be baseless.  However, after debate surrounding AZ SB1070, and a subsequent ruling by judicial activist Susan Bolton knocking down several provisions of the bill in US vs Arizona, Sheriff Joe defiantly decreed that he would still perform his duties under various other state laws and that the ruling would have no effect on his efforts to secure his county.  He further stated that he was doing his duties long before SB1070 was even a gleam in anyone's eye, so this has no affect.</p> <p>Well, that statement then garnished an unprecedented attack by the US Justice Department.  Never mind my opinions on how the DOJ has become the black hooded thugs sanctioned to ensure the policies of the Obama Administration go unchecked and unquestioned (subject for another rant), you need only look at how the DOJ is going about this "investigation".</p> <p>So disappointed was the DOJ that they opened up a 1-800 to collect complaints about the Sheriff's office.  In my research, I can't find another example where the DOJ has used such a measure to try and gather "evidence" against a law enforcement office. ((Yes, there are whistle blower lines for generic misconduct, but never one set up for a specific office).  In addition, the turn over of the documents requested are so general in nature, that they pertain to no specific crime(s).  Lacking the basis of any real evidence, the DOJ is now looking to go thru millions of pages of documents in a hope to try and drum up some charges.  As quoted by Robert Driscoll, Sheriff Joe's attorney and former DOJ official under the Bush Administration:</p> <blockquote> <p>"Generally the way it should work is you have evidence that someone's done something wrong, it's not that you're allowed to go fishing around and tell somebody what they did wrong after you look around for a year and a half," </p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>"If they had a good-faith basis to believe there was a pattern and practice violation of constitutional rights, they could file suit,"  [however]  "It's kind of the cart before the horse, because they've picked the person and they've picked the sheriff's office, and they didn't find a violation and so now they're trying to, for the lack of a better term, gin up a violation."</p> </blockquote> <p>So, what we have is a Department of Justice who refuses to <a href="http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=175817">prosecute voter intimidation by the Black Panther Party</a> when they had an open shut case including video, refuses to go after any <a href="http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/doj-whistleblower-in-infamous-black-panther-voter-intimidation-case-visits-king-st-patriots/">"hate crime" suspicions perpetrated by minorities</a>, sues one of it's member states over the their right to uphold FEDERAL immigration law, and now wants to take to task a man who was sworn to uphold the law of the law and protect his constituents.  Is it just me or does it appear that the our DOJ has become a protector of the illegal and criminal rather than upholders of American law?</p> <p>By the way, the crimes that Sheriff Joe is being accused of?  Racial profiling in immigration sweeps because his sweeps regularly take place in Latino neighbors.  Ignore the fact that is also these very same communities that boast the highest crime rates.  Mistreatment of prisoners by dictating that even bilingual jail officers can only speak to inmates in English stating it provides for a risk that medical emergency may go unchecked.  Ignore the fact that it doesn't prevent guards from "listening" in Spanish, only regularly speaking in Spanish.  Ignore the fact that this is an English speaking country, where the vast majority of it's people speak that language.  Cruel and unusual punishment by forcing prisoners to live in Tent City where temperatures can reach 120 degrees.  Ignore the fact that, as Joe puts it, we have American soldiers facing the same conditions, but wearing 40Lbs of body armor, who did nothing wrong but commit themselves to the defense of our nation and "if you don't like it, don't come back".  Racial targeting in that most of Sheriff's Joe's sweeps result in the incarceration of primarily illegal aliens of Mexican descent.  Never mind that Arizona is a border state, over run by drug cartels and illegal's crossing the border, where <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1">Phoenix has become the #2 city for drug cartel related kidnappings</a> and murder, behind only Mexico City.   Improper arrest and detainment techniques in immigration enforcement.  Ignore the fact that 100 of MCSO deputies were trained and instructed by the Federal Immigration, Control, and Enforcement (ICE) agency, who are supposedly charged with doing the work that Sheriff Joe is now doing.  Yup, Sheriff Joe sure does sound like a den of corruption to me.</p> <p>In closing, the Sheriff's office is not an office of the US Constitution, but one of state constitution.  This is an example of balance of power, in that the Sheriff's office is responsible to the state, not the federal government, operating under state law and authority.  I agree, there should be a level of oversight to prevent egregious abuses, but that is the charge of the state.  If the DOJ wants to go after someone, then they should do so thru the state legal process.  Let the state conduct the investigation and make the appropriate measures, not the Fed.  In either case, this is just another attempt by the Fed to silence those who fail to fall in lockstep with Obama's policies.  Yet another case of our government choosing to protect those that knowingly and willingly break our laws, rather than those that abide or are sworn to uphold them.  First it was the Tea parties, then the State of Texas, now Sheriff Joe Apraio.  This is becoming more and more common place.  If we allow our government to grow at unprecedented rates, we will soon find ourselves in a position where no one is allowed to speak out against the "all knowing, all powerful" federal government for fear of the weight of that government being able to suffocate us.  Who's next?  You, me, the vote of the American people?   That's not the America that I was brought up to believe in nor one I wish to see us devolve to.  This has to stop and November will our first step in this nation's course correction.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>End Note:  In a "let me be clear clarification" from President Obama regarding the Cordoba House mosque at the site of Ground Zero, he stated that he was no longer going to comment about the mosque because he did not want to, "get involved in local decision-making".  Well Mr. President, too bad your philosophy doesn't extent to Arizona or Maricopa County.  I guess the only time you don't want to get involved is when you accidentally step on a political landmine due to your inability to keep your mouth shut.  So much for consistency.</em></p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-84996339498439656292010-08-16T16:12:00.001-05:002010-08-19T13:39:12.916-05:00Mosque at Ground Zero<blockquote> <p>Note:  This is strictly an editorial piece.  You will find little, to no, links trying to prove a point.  This is strictly my personal opinion.</p> </blockquote> <p>There has been a lot of media attention regarding the proposal to build the 13 story Cordoba House mosque just 600 feet from ground zero in Manhattan.  We've heard everything from "we are stereotyping Muslims" to "destroying religious freedom" from the proponents of the build.  So it got me thinking, from an intellectual standpoint, what do I think about this?</p> <p>Honestly, my opinions are deeply divided.  I've found myself trying to balance my opinions between an intellectual standing and an intensely emotional one.  As someone who always stated that politics and opinion should be based on common sense and thought rather than emotion, I find it very difficult for me to do so on this subject.</p> <p>From the intellectual, libertarian standpoint, I believe that a person (group) has the ability to do what they wish, as long as the outcomes of that decision do not harm, or impede, upon the rights of another.  Physically speaking, the building of this mosque has no direct affects on the safety of another, in that it causes no physical harm.  It does not impede on any rights (real rights) of another that I'm aware of , so from that standpoint, again it should be allowed.  And finally, I do agree with a statement that President Obama made, in which he stated:</p> <blockquote> <p>'Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.</p> <p> <br />'That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.'</p> </blockquote> <p>The part with which I agree is that Muslims DO have the freedom to practice their religion with the borders of the United States, should they be legal citizens.  My personal opinions and reflections upon their religion have no bearing on the subject, as simply disagreeing with someone does not infringe upon my rights, nor should it infringe upon theirs.  I also believe that they should have the right to build a mosque on private property, however, this is where my emotional side kicks in and it is a side that I can not ignore.</p> <p>While I believe in all the above, as an AMERICAN, the place that have chosen to build this mosque is an outrage and a travesty.  To build a tribute to the very religion that perpetrated the worst attack on American soil in history, taking more than 3000 American lives, is nothing more than a snub to the people of this great nation.  Now, I understand that not all muslims supported this attack, it was still under the umbrella of Islam that the attacks took place.  It is akin to building a memorial to honor Japanese Kamikaze pilots that died in the Pearl Harbor attack upon the shores of Pearl Harbor or a memorial to soldiers that "escorted"  the Cherokee along the Trail of Tears.  It is claimed that this building will serve as a way of healing, but muslim mosques are not the community centers we envision.  They are places of exclusive worship for muslims and are not inviting of those outside the faith.  There are more than 30 mosques within New York, so why this one, why here?  It's not because there is a lack of locations for muslims to worship, this building serves no other purpose than to add insult to our injury, to rub salt into what is still a very open wound.</p> <p>The Imam that is pushing for this mosque has stated that the purpose of this mosque is to promote good will and peace between muslims and the west, but how can you possibly believe that is the intent when they propose to build this center in what would of been the shadow of the the very buildings that this religion's follower's brought to the ground and resulted in the  murder of  thousands of citizens.  This is not a building of peace and love, but one of occupation and conquest.  It will serve no means other than to remind the American people of the loss that we all suffered on 9/11 and to claim a victory in that loss.  It is for this reason that I cannot separate my emotional feelings from my intellectual ones in this matter.</p> <p>Another portion that treads on the fighting side of me is the complete and total amount of hypocrisy that has surrounded this whole affair.  This land has sat for years undergoing zoning decisions, landmark status, etc, but as soon as this Imam decided to build a mosque, all that was put aside and the process was essentially fast tracked to allow it.  It seems that nothing can be done quickly in New York, unless you are muslim wishing to build a monument to those that murdered American citizens.  </p> <p>Likewise, when you look at the leftist attacks that have taken place against religion in this country, it simply blows my mind that "religious freedom"  is now the rally cry of it's supporters.  You can no longer have "Christmas" celebrations in areas that are within view of the populace, churches are not allowed to have public Nativity scenes, Hanukkah has suffered the same fate, cries for the word "God" to be pulled from any type of publication, even from the very documents that mark the founding of this great nation, yet we are being asked to respect "religious tolerance" for the Islamic faith.  With no other way to put it, that's a crap argument and only goes to prove that the leftist only believe in freedom when it's a freedom that they want.  Remove all traces of Judeo-Christian faith, but allow the building of religious house to support those that killed our people, it's bullshit!  Piss on a picture of the pope, or make comedic commentary on Jesus/God, and it's freedom of speech, but draw a cartoon picture of Mohammad and you suffer death threats and cries from the left of intolerance.  Again, bullshit!</p> <p>As equally unnerving, we are now supporting this Imam in his travels across the Middle East as he raises support for the building of this travesty.  Sure, the official word is that no fund-raising will take place, but if you believe that, then I've got some ocean front property for you.  So not only is this Imam, who will not condemn or call the Hamas a terrorist organization, traveling the world to raise funds for this monument of islamic victory, but he is doing it on the American tax payer dime, paid in full by our state department.  It seems the more Anti-American you are, the more support that our government gives you.</p> <p>Lastly, while I quoted President Obama above, I am left in disbelief that he voiced those words in the place that he did.  As President, he is supposed to be guardian of American ideals and of the American people, but like multitudes of times before, he put his personal ideology before that of the people that he represents.  Even though he quickly backtracked on those statements, (isn't that the Obama way), the fact that he made these statements, with no clue or caring about the views of the American people, goes to show me that he has no leadership abilities whatsoever.  It would have been best if he would have just kept his opinions to himself, but instead, he choose to do what he always does, speak off the cuff with nary a thought to fact or consequence.  The police acted stupidly, "plug the damn hole" while doing nothing to support, but tons to hinder, and now supporting the slap in the face, and adding to the pain, of of all the survivors of 9/11 by the islamic faith.  </p> <p>Considering that Islam has made it a point of record to build monuments of triumph, in the form of "holy" places, at all sites of their conquests, maybe we were stupid to expect anything differently.  However, the Will of the American people is much stronger than muslims give us credit for.  Should this travesty be allowed, I fear for the conditions that it may cause.  I fear for the acts that it may result in, but then again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Politically speaking, I think that the People will remember that our government not only allowed this disrespect to happen, but aided it with wide open loving arms of support.  I think the people will have their say, but it may take until November 2010 & 2012 for their voices to be heard.  For once, I cannot  separate my emotional and intellectual feelings.  In this instance, American pride, grief for those lost, and mourning for a country scarred win over.  I hope this mosque, if allowed, suffers the same fate as the great buildings that stood 2 blocks over.  Those things birthed by fire, shall also be devoured by it.</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-83605410546378222272010-08-11T14:02:00.001-05:002010-08-11T14:02:08.183-05:00When you find yourself in a hole, grab a shovel!<p>Well folks, the educational amendment that I told you about in <a href="http://rednexrants.blogspot.com/2010/08/show-down-at-high-noon.html">The Showdown at High Noon</a> has been passed into law.  This is the educational amendment, originally included in a War Supplemental bill, that unfairly targeted Texas and provides $10B in educational funding and another $16.1B to help fund state's medicare responsibilities. </p> <p>However, this "emergency spending" amendment is no longer part of the War Supplemental bill, but is now part of <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1586">HR 1586</a>, which was originally a bill in March 19th, 2009 that was to be used to limit the amount of bonuses received by TARP recipients, but is now part of the FAA  Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act.  And like the original bill, this one maintains it's crusade against Texas, by making them the only state not eligible for funds.  Again we have a bill which includes for unrelated funding begs the question, what does educational and Medicare funding have to do with FAA Modernization? </p> <blockquote> <p>Interesting note:  The latest version of HR 1586 passed the senate under the name of "_____ Act of _______".  You read that right, this bill passed the Senate with no name.  The Obama Congress, in such a rush to pass this emergency spending, did not even take the time to give the bill a name.  In such a rush that M. Speaker Pelosi demanded the House had to be recalled so as to pass this bill immediately and without time to give the bill a proper name.  Don't believe me?  Check the link that has the text of the bill from Govtrack.us, in which the Short Title, Section 1 states that this Act may be cited as 'XXXXXXAct ofXXXX’.  Anyone else getting those "We have to pass the bill before we can find out what's in it" vibes again?  I guess we have to pass this bill before we can name it this time.  </p> </blockquote> <p>What does this money do?  Make no mistake folks, the educational portion of this bill ($10B) is a financial bailout for the teacher's and government employee unions after having been threatened with layoffs in the wake of state budgetary financial concerns.  The sole purpose of this bill is to 1. Prevent the lay off of additional teacher union employees. 2. Rehiring of teacher union employee previously laid off, and 3. Sustainability of current union benefits packages and perks.  This money comes on top of the $53.5B teachers union bailout from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, some of which hasn't even been spent yet.</p> <p>Now before anyone starts blasting me on "Don't you think teachers deserve to be paid for the advancement of our youth?", the answer is yes I do, but I believe that they should be paid fairly and within reason.  For years, teacher and government employee's unions have forced states into contracts that they can no longer afford, especially in today's current financial situations.  There are ways to keep teachers employed, but still allow for the states to make much needed budget cuts.</p> <p>Let us take the case of <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/10/bailing-out-teachers">the Milwaukee school board</a> (MSB)as an example.  The MSB proposed an amended health care plan that would instituted co-pays and would have saved an estimated $47.2M.  Now, most of us that have health care are required to provide a co-pay for our health benefits, but the teacher's union refused to bargain with MSB, thus resulting in the layoff of 428 teachers.  Read that again, rather than to adopt a health care plan that most of American's deal with on a daily basis, they opted for the layoffs, yet the unions were not held to blame.  Instead, it became a cry of "Save our Teachers, Save our Children, Save our Future".  The teachers union had it within their power to prevent this layoff, but choose not to!  It's not like their benefits were being reduced to unusable levels, this is a plan condition that most Americans utilize.</p> <p>What other "benefits" were the union trying to protect?  The reinstatement of coverage for Viagra.  Again, I can't make this stuff up people.  The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association (MTEA) went to a judge to order the MSB to reinstate the drug at a cost of $786,000 per year.  Now, call me cynical, but my thoughts are that the inability to get an erection is not really a "health concern".  If you really are so hard up (pun intended) for this medication, then you should fund it yourself.  The cost of this unnecessary drug comes at a cost of 12 first year teachers, but I guess erections trump jobs when it comes to the union.</p> <p>The second part of this bill ($16.1B) will be used to help fund state's inabilities to meet their Medicare responsibilities.  However, this funding won't even come close to covering many states responsibilities for just this year.</p> <p>Using <a href="http://www.yumasun.com/news/arizona-63053-care-federal.html">Arizona</a> as an example, earlier this year, the Arizona legislature attempted to cut costs by scaling back Medicare eligibility and eliminating the Kids Care programs, however, upon passage of Obama Care, it was mandated that all future Federal Medicare dollars were contingent on states maintaining existing programs at current levels.  While this bill includes $236M in supplemental funding for the Arizona programs, it is estimated that it will cost $400M just to maintain the program thru June 30th, 2011 and does nothing for the estimated $1B gap expected in the next fiscal year.</p> <p>So, the new federal policies have put Arizona (and other states) between a rock and hard place.  They cannot afford to keep up their entitlement programs as they currently stand, but if they make any cost cutting measures to try and bring the fiscal situation under control, then they would be cutting themselves off from any additional funding from the fed to support those programs going forward.  Simply put, who holds the deficit once this money goes away?  It won't be the fed, but instead the states who are already burdened with rapidly growing budget deficits, partially due in part to federal policies.  Sen. Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) has went on record stating:</p> <blockquote> <p>We'd be better off not to take the stimulus", going on to state that Arizona could achieve greater savings if they were freed from all the federal constraints that accepting the stimulus would put on them.</p> </blockquote> <p>So what is the price for this "latest of government bailouts?"  Congress has stated it has been paid for by closing a "tax loop-hole" for businesses doing work overseas and by a $12B cut to the Food Stamps program in 2014.  They also claim that this isn't a bailout, but instead "a jobs saving measure".  </p> <p>So each piece in part, first the "tax-loop hole".  This change will now require that all businesses pay tax on proceeds made internationally, where as they used to be able to claim this as tax deduction for business expense.  While this may sound good for the "keep work in America" crowd, let's look at that.  Company A builds a factory in China, with the express purpose of supplying China with it's product.  As it creates, and sells, it's product, it is subject to Chinese taxation, which because they are a foreign (US) company, pays a higher tax rate that Chinese based companies.  Once they have paid that tax on their profits in China, they must then turn around and pay US tax on that same money.  Now let us be clear about something, businesses never pay taxes.  Business taxes are paid either by passing that cost on to the consumer (if tax goes up, price of product goes up to compensate),  paid at the cost of the employee, either in reduction of wages or layoffs to compensate, or paid by investors in companies thru lower investment earnings as profit is used to pay those taxes.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that none of those three options provide for any growth or benefit to our economy. </p> <p>Now the cut to food stamps program.  While the libertarian in me hates any type of entitlement program, you think I would be supportive of this measure, but I'm not.  It's not the cuts in the program that I disapprove of, but instead the method of the cut:  Use the money now, make the cuts later.  This is akin to telling a car company to go ahead and give you a car to drive now, because in 2014, you will be reducing your gas and housing budgets by $20,000, so the car will paid for.  While this would get you laughed out of any retailer on the face of the earth, this seems to make perfect since to our government.</p> <p>Lastly, this is NOT a job saving's measure.  Yes, it will save the jobs of those in unions, but at the cost of the nation's economy and debt burden.  The members of those unions are overly benefited, which results in a disparity between the labor and the cost.  If you "save" a job that is over paid, do you really save anything at all?  Again looking at the Milwaukee teachers union, the union members average a salary of $56,000 per year, with a $40,000 benefits package PLUS a health care plan that costs $26,000 (compared to $14,500 for private employees) for a total compensation package of  $122,000 per year.  I'm all for giving teachers what they deserve, they are a hard working bunch, but their compensation must be at a rational, sustainable level commiserate with other Americans.  If this money could be saved, what other jobs could be opened up in the form of new school programs?  If state taxpayers were not forced to pay the taxes required to fund this exorbitant packages, how much of that money left in the taxpayers pocket would be injected back into the economy, thus providing for other jobs.  The questions are endless.</p> <p>So, I ask you, when you find yourself in a hole, what do you do?  Well, if you are the federal government facing a huge financial and budgetary hole, you grab yourself a shovel and start digging, mostly into the back pockets of the taxpayer.  When you are a state with disastrous entitlement programs that are not sustainable or achievable (think California or New York) or beholden to union contracts that are neither rational or fair, you grab yourself a shovel and start digging into the Federal reserve, which in turn uses it's shovel against the taxpayer.  I for one do not approve of my money being used to bail out those states in which I do not reside, nor do I approve of the Fed using me as it's personal piggy bank for programs that do not work and will bankrupt this country.  However, the only way I know to stop it, is to take away the shovel.  Hopefully, we will do just that in November.</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13036547.post-7722809100083744202010-08-05T17:21:00.001-05:002010-08-05T17:21:29.119-05:00The Show Down at High Noon<p>So what happens when a state claims sovereignty over affairs within it's own borders and directly challenges the authority of the Obama Administration:  The Fed then passes laws to single out that state and punish the citizens of that state for their impenitence.  </p> <p>This is what is currently happening between the state of Texas and Obama's Democrat controlled administration.  For those of you that don't know, Texas Governor Rick Perry first had the audacity to refuse participation in the federal Common Core Standards and Race to the Top educational programs required to receive educational "stimulus" funds.  Effectively telling Washington to "keep their money", Texas denied receipt of those funds claiming that the programs, and the strings that went along with them, would hurt Texas Education rather than helping.  The Texas Board of Education then detailed their own, state mandated requirements, that provided for a much more elevated quality of education than those provided by the fed.</p> <p>In a second move,  Perry then <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/031309dntexperrystimulus.2b47185d.html">denied more fed funds for unemployment insurance</a> that would have come with even more strings and costs to the citizens of Texas.  Acceptance of these funds would have required the state to redefine their unemployment standards, placing additional costs on Texas businesses that could better use the money to create jobs, rather than fund those without.  Basically, Perry took the "teach a man to fish" outlook on unemployment which has led to Texas being one of the few states weathering this financial repression.</p> <p>The fed then fired back by having the <a href="http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111&sid=1965595">EPA overturn a 16 year Texas air permitting program</a> which will most likely result in 125 refineries and businesses having to reapply for permitting which will have huge financial, and possible job loss, implications.  </p> <p>Perry, undeterred, then fired back a <a href="http://governor.state.tx.us/files/press-office/O-Texas_Delegation20100729.pdf">letter via the Texas Congressional delegation concerning Obama's attempts to take over the regulation of oil and gas safety</a>.  In what was essentially a big "F*** YOU" to federal authority, Texas declared:</p> <blockquote> <p>While Congress has every right to consider whatever regulation it deems appropriate on activities in federal lands and waters, it is not permitted to force states to submit their successful regulations and laws to a federal agency for approval and allow that agency to unilaterally dictate changes.</p> </blockquote> <p>The letter goes on to state:</p> <blockquote> <p>Federal laws and regulations failed to stop the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  Given the track record, putting the federal government in charge of energy production on state lands and waters, not only breaks years of successful precedent and threatens the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, but it also undermines common sense and threatens the environment and economic security of our state's citizens.</p> </blockquote> <p>So, simply put, everything you guys (fed) touch turns into a disaster.  Rigs without our lands and waters are ours and you best keep your hands off!  Don't mess with Texas!!</p> <p>Well, all of this "insolence" has not been unnoticed or forgotten by Washington, so they have decided to use law and appropriations to try and bring Perry in line.  How do they intend on doing that?  By attaching  $10B in educational funding to a supplemental war-spending bill, then adding an amendment that specifically singles out and targets the state of Texas.  Never mind the question about why educational funds are tied to a bill intended for the support of war-time efforts, let's concentrate on the provision that unfairly singles out Texas.</p> <p>In a supplement amendment added by Austin Democrat Lloyd Doggett, undue, and against the Texas state Constitution, provisions are levied against Texas and Gov. Perry.  Titled "Additional Requirements for the State of Texas", this amendment states that Gov. Perry must certify that the $800M in funding will not replace state funding and would remain as additional funding.  Requires that Gov. Perry provide assurance that state support for educational funding for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 at, or above, current 2011 percentages.  Lastly, it requires that the state allocate those funds based upon federal Title I algorithms.</p> <p>So, besides being specific to, and singling out only Texas, this has several flaws.  1.  Per the Texas state constitution, the governor does not have the power of appropriation of funds, as that is a responsibility of legislature.  By law, no one legislature can bind a future legislature, so even if Perry had the power, he would be breaking state law by accepting.  In addition, the provision is unfair as Texas is the only state that would be required to make such a certification.  And to top it all off, by declaring that the funds would be subject to Title I appropriation would mean that state algorithms could not be used, thus possibly resulting in an unequal distribution of those funds.  However, that doesn't stop Washington elites from trying to add such an amendment.  How dare the state of Texas defy the federal government?  Do it not know that the fed is the all-seeing, all-knowing, saving grace that knows better than thou?  I guess Perry and his state have different answers to those questions than those on the Hill would like them to have.  </p> <p>So there you have it.  As I watch this unfold, I'm reminded of a scene in the movie Braveheart, when facing the British Army, the Scottish Nobles ask William Wallace what his intentions were.  With a gleam in his eye, he states "I'm going to pick a fight!"  It appears that Gov. Perry is following in those footsteps, choosing to pick a fight with an over-reaching, over-bearing federal government rather than just folding to their demands.  In what I'm sure to be only the start of a battle regarding state's rights and the place of state sovereignty within the United States, I'm sure this is not the last we will hear from Gov. Perry and the this wonderful state of Texas.   I for one am proud that we have a governor willing to take up this fight and stand for the freedom of his constituents.  I hope others will follow, and that those already in the fight, will continue.  As I've said before, if the State has no liberty, then neither does it's citizens.  Given the amount of intrusion that this Administration has made into our personal lives, I'm starting to believe that it's no longer America that is the last bastion of freedom, but instead, the individual states that make up this country.</p> <p>American by birth, Texan by the grace of God!</p> Rednexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166798133399896369noreply@blogger.com0