Reconcile?

In this incredibly fast paced world, it is hard to catch the subtle things.  Things that ought to make you sit up, raise an eyebrow and say, "What was that?"

I was reading this recent post, today, by Grouchy Old Cripple in Atlanta.

Grouchy's point seems to be mostly about the Fergeson, MO debacle.  And I get that.  But what should make all of us sit up and go, "WTF?"  is the last sentence.

“In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.”

Oh, hell no.  Not just no, but HELL no.  The last thing we need to be doing is reconciling our traditions with globalization.  That's one of the biggest reasons we are in the mess we are in.  Our economy and freedom is swirling in the toilet bowl because we are allowing the creeping globalization to take over in this country.

Reconciling with greater diversity?  How is that working out after decades?  How about working toward consensus built around the founding principles of our Constitution and individual freedom, instead of trying to see how different we can all be in language, culture and values.

“Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years? Evidence of its harm can be seen — written in blood — from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines. It is scary how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a word.”
― Thomas Sowell

So much more I could say about that, but I'm keeping it short today.  I'm celebrating the Sabbath, Yom Teruah, and Rosh Chodesh.

Shalom

Official Statistics

I will admit, that I will use statistics just as much as the next guy.  I don't have a problem using statistics.  There is no evil in the statistics themselves, as data is amoral.

But there is an old saying in America: "Figures never lie, but liars can figure."

Data doesn't manipulate itself, but it does get manipulated.  People who want gun-control are notorious for doing this.  Politicians come up with stunning ways to spin facts and figures. Two of the easiest ways to do this are to either include way too much information, or leave out a lot of information.  This little essay has to do with the latter.

Take a look at this graph:

See that dip down to zero at 1919 to 1925 area?  That's because of the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the subsequent Volstead Act.  Since this graph depicts the number of permits,* I have no problem with this graph.  It makes perfect sense.  The graph would be idiotic if it didn't show the number of licenses for producing alcoholic beverage dropping to zero during the time of prohibition.

But let's look at another graph:

Take your time and ponder it slowly. 

This second graph made the claxons go off in my head.  The question is, can you see the problem with this graph?  Anyone?  Anyone?   Bueller? 

Well, you would have to know the rest of the story.  There were a few characters who became famous during the prohibition era, and most notably two.  One of them was far more honest than the other one and spent 11 years in Federal prison for it.  The other guy was lucky enough to be born the son of a prominent politician in whose footsteps he would follow and use his prestige and connections to sock away millions of dollars under the cover of legitimate business.  Read the passage below to figure out who.

"By 1925, New York was filled with speakeasy clubs that sold liquor illegally. Some historians say there were 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs operating in the city, several of which were well known as watering holes for government officials. Prohibition was an attempt to control and reduce the amount of liquor sold in the states, but like most laws, all it did was drive up the price of the regulated item and stimulate the growth of a well-organized underground black market.
One of the most famous names associated with bootlegging liquor at the time was Joseph P. Kennedy – the successful investor, businessman and political leader. Kennedy traveled to England with President Roosevelt's son, James, and made a deal to be the exclusive distributor of scotch, gin and bourbon from Scotland and England. Kennedy had the connections, the warehouses and the money to make the deal, which became a cash cow for him and the family.
One of the reasons the Kennedy bootlegging stories seem accurate is Joseph's association with Samuel Bronfman, the founder of Distillers Corporation based in Montreal. Bronfman specialized in cheap whiskey and took advantage of Prohibition in the United States by bootlegging his whiskey to cities like Boston, New York and Chicago.
Kennedy and Bronfman became business partners of sorts when Bronfman bought Joseph E. Seagram & Sons in 1928, but some kind of relationship developed a few years earlier when Danny Walsh and his crime syndicate bought liquor from the Bronfman-run group. Kennedy had contacts with many Irishmen in Boston at the time and Danny was on that list. Some historians say Kennedy didn't have to be a bootlegger; just about every other Irishman in Boston was."

Why didn't I use the Wikipedia entry or a dozen others?  Because the conquerors are the ones who write history, not the slaves.  Too much of the Kennedy dynasty is still alive and kicking.  But I digress.  That's not the main point of this post. The main point is in the first paragraph of the passage.

If I presented a graph showing marijuana consumption in the U.S. based on sales in retail outlets across all fifty States, I think you would fall out of your chair laughing.  Why?  Because everybody with an I.Q. above room temperature knows that tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cannabis goes up in smoke every year in America.  Are you starting to see the problem with graph number two?

The United States has the peculiar distinction of having a major, multi-billion dollar, nearly exclusively spectator sport that owes its existence to one thing: Prohibition.  That sport is NASCAR.
Please don't cite Wikipedia for me.  I'm from the Southeastern U.S.  I know too many people who are proud as hell to regale you with stories of their fathers outrunning the Feds in cars made fast out of necessity.  We still have names of roads in the deep south that reflect the prohibition era and running moonshine.

The point I'm making, if you haven't already guessed it, is how incredibly silly is that second graph. Does anyone really believe that Al Capone, and probably hundreds of others, made millions of dollars while alcohol consumption dropped to nearly zero?  When you see statistics or figures presented, learn to think.  Ask questions.  Ponder what data might be missing.  Cogitate over who's presenting the data and why.  Anybody who accepts that second chart above without any qualms or questions makes me think of this:

 

But then that's what the global elite have been working so hard for anyway.

 

Now, how long are you going to believe that this whole "War-on-drugs" is a good idea?

 

After the coming meltdown or TEOTWAWKI, if there are enough free people still alive to start a new society and we can write a new Constitution, the following would be two of the articles that I would fight for:

 

 

Article [#] 

Since history has proven that inanimate objects are inherently amoral and can do nothing outside of the hands of man, and since it is self -evident that a person's body is his sole and inviolable property to care for as he sees fit, no branch or any other entity of government shall ever have the power to make any object or thing, whether inanimate or tangible, or even intangible to be banned or restricted or regulated.  This article shall be exempt from repeal or modification by amendment so long as this entire Constitution is in effect.

 

Article [#]

It being obvious to people of reasonable intelligence that there can be no such thing as a crime where there is no victim, no branch or entity of government shall ever have the power to enact any legislation, statute, act, or code which makes any activity illegal or unlawful which does not harm or infringe upon the rights, person, or property of another individual.

 

What say you?

*permits and licensing are an evil and abhorrant thing in a free society.  I hope to do a post in the future that explains why there is no need for any kind of licensing in a free society and just how it actually harms society through the auspices of government.

The Danger of Ecumenism

Just like all other regular bloggers, I make it a point to check out a list of certain blogs every day, one of which is Liberty's Torch.  Its main writer is Francis W. Porretto, the Curmudgeon Emeritus, who has no qualms discussing his religion of Roman Catholicism. I like most of Francis' stuff and I recommend his blog, so I'm not writing this to pick a fight.  I'm just offering some food for thought.  If you've checked out most of my blog, you probably recognize that I would be thought of as a Messianic Jew.  I just make that clear in the interest of full disclosure, even though the description isn't really adequate.

It seems Francis is trying be a peacemaker in the kerfuffle over homosexuality.  He is citing ecumenism as an important, if not the most important goal of the "Church."  Since the word "catholic" has it's earliest etymology in what we might now call syncretism, rather than universalism, that does make a lot of sense.  Of course, that is a daunting goal considering the wide range of opinion within the Church.  Let me also make this point:  wide range of opinion is a troubling problem in every denomination and religion.  It is why Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other.  It's why there are four or five different Baptist churches within walking distance of each other while only being a quarter full every Sunday morning. It's why there are liberal, non-religious Jews by birth, and the other extreme of Heredi Jews.

Church bodies split up.  Not all the time for bad reasons, but most of the time it is over stupid disagreements that have nothing to do with what should be the core tenets of the faith.

Politics and religion have been deeply entwined together for all of history.  Some will react with horror to that idea, but it is nonetheless provable by an honest study of history. Rather than do the whole history of the world to prove my point, lets just look at the protestant reformation, the Magna Carta, and the Declaration of Independence.

Martin Luther jump-started the protestant reformation with his 95 Theses (1517) at Wittenberg, sort of being like the little boy in the fable who had the courage to say that the king was naked.  Everybody knew that the Roman Catholic (really the ONLY) Church was cesspool of corruption, but the laity and lower ranks of clergy were scared to death of the power of the Pope and his minions. Most kings could not afford to cross the Church.  BTW - the joint power of the monarchies and the Church did not even begin to come to any real end until the 18th century.  This was in spite of the fact that the Magna Carta made an attempt to establish some separation between the Church and State.  Of course, it only applied to Great Britain.

I'll ask the question at this point: What if Martin Luther had opted for going along with the program for the sake of ecumenism rather than doing what was right?

Francis and I get to live here in the United States and (for the time being) enjoy all kinds of freedoms that would not even be dreamed of before the 20th century.  We owe most of that, with both the good and very bad consequences to the fact that there were enough men who decided to throw off the chains of Great Britain in 1776.  They had enough.  They were in the minority, but they did not seek unity and peace at the cost of continued serfdom to the monarchy or even an elected parliament.  The explanation is in the words of the Declaration of Independence:
 " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government." 

Now just replace the word Government above with the word "Church." That's kind of the idea that Martin Luther was going for.  As well as many in the Church for next several centuries.  Mr. Gutenberg's invention and the rapid spread of literacy in the renaissance period fueled the fire.  People became very aware that men were men and nothing more, and God was God and nothing less.

The central cry of the protestant reformation was the phrase: "Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Sole Deo Gloria."  Faith alone, Scripture alone, only to God be the glory. In a nutshell, the only and final authority came directly from God through His written word, and no mere mortal, regardless of vestments or ordination could supercede that.

Another way I could say that, is that man's opinion no longer mattered.  There's the rub.  The struggle for ecumenism is about compromising on our opinions. Problem is, God didn't establish a democracy or even a republic.  He isn't really concerned with any man's opinion.  He dictated the first five books to Moses (The Torah).  His laws are laws.  Commandments.  Not suggestions.  Religion is a man-made thing. There is no word in the Hebrew language for "religion."  If the Bible is not the final authority for those who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach (Jesus Christ), then we have no standard.  Just like if the POTUS or the SCOTUS or the Congress of the United States can enact laws or executive orders in direct contradiction to the Constitution, we are no longer a free people in a republic. We have become serfs in an oligarchy of petty tyrants.

But since the main issue is ecumenism in a Church that claims allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and claims that they operate under the authority of His Son, let us review His words for what our opinion ought to be so as to be in obedience to the Most Sovereign Creator of the Universe:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."   Matthew 5:17-20  NIV 

I don't see any wiggle room there that allows for opinion.  And when it comes to our Lord and Savior's word on ecumenism:

³⁴ “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
³⁶     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’^[a]

³⁷ “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. ³⁸ Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me."  Matthew 10:34-38 NIV 

Either Jesus needs to send the Roman Catholic Church a new memo on His revised mission statement, or the Pope needs to revise his mission statement for the RCC to conform with the Home Office.

The United States is in the deplorable condition it is, not because we haven't had enough compromise for the sake of unity.  This country is FUBAR because we abandoned the principles born out of an uncompromising adherence to biblical standards, and began tolerating the idea that every individual can and should do whatever seems right in his own eyes, no matter how evil or decadent or depraved it may be.

We have sown the wind, and now we shall reap the F5 tornadoes that are bearing down upon us.

Ain't Gonna Happen

First of all, Scotland's recent (Sept. 18, 2014) referendum proves it won't happen in America.

No, we are not Scotland, those people tend to be way more socialist than Americans are.  That just more than doubly proves my point.  Up until Sept.17, 2014, the vote was close, and at one point the secessionist vote was slightly ahead, but they still couldn't do it.  If a territory of people who mostly like big government and all that comes with it could only come close to a simple majority, then there's no way a land that ostensibly prides itself in "God, guns, and guts," but can only muster a bare 14% of strong support for seceding from the Union,  is going to pull away.

We are like the typical 14-year-old who wants to stomp our feet and demand to be treated like an adult when we want our way, but ten minutes later we are excusing our fear or stupid behavior by saying, "But I'm only a kid!"  The bottom 50% of income earners in the U.S. not only do not pay any income tax, but most of them are likely to get the "Earned Income Tax Credit."  Not the Orwellian title.  Then note that probably better than 15% of the people who are ostensibly working to earn a paycheck now are doing so by working for some government agency.  No, that's not an exaggeration. Take into account city, county, state and federal.  It really is that high.  But we can't just take into account the direct employees of government.  Think about all of the businesses that depend on government contracts to be in business.  Defense contractors.  Infrastructure. Welfare. Subsidies for business and farms.  The social security Ponzi scheme.  True free-enterprise has not existed unfettered since we got three things:  An income tax, a private central bank called the Federal Reserve, and Social Security.

The people who make up those percentages on the map above are rugged individuals who want to be free to succeed and be left alone.  But the vast majority don't care what government does as long as they can have their booze, drugs, cigarettes, sports or other mindless TV programming.  Politics is boring, dontcha know?  Until, that is, that the system implodes due to a collapsed, worthless dollar, and the sheep who survived the first couple of waves of riots over food and other necessities get herded into the FEMA camps.

Nope.  Americans haven't felt near enough pain yet to even start thinking about taking back control of the government, let alone learn the names of their congressmen or what the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution says.

And you also have to remember that there are way too many examples of this in the United States:

Exponentially Wrong

The piece I'm about to fisk can be found here.  I'm only going to deal with the first two paragraphs, because that's all I need.  When you start with an incredibly flawed premise, your conclusions can only be madness.

Read the piece below and see if you recognize the error before I deal with it.

When we practice the privileges granted to us by our governing documents, in this case, the Bill of Rights and bearing arms, we enter into an implicit agreement with the Union to recognize and act according to the State's rules and regulations for the use and ownership of arms. And as we agree to those rules, so does the government agree to act responsibly on behalf of our collective well-being.
In this manner, our relationship with our nation mirrors our relationship with our parents; both our parents and our nation raise us; both provide for our welfare; both teach us values and ethics; both act on our behalf for our well-being. And thus should we regard our nation; as a parental figure to be a moral example, an ideal to respect and to obey. For, if the dynamics of our relationship with our parents are mirrored functionally by the dynamics of our relationship with our country, so too should the convictions and loyalties that characterize the former persist in the latter.

Let me just start with the words before the first comma.  Privileges?   Where did you get such an idea Mr. Lelonek?  Our founding documents don't even mention privileges.  It speaks of inalienable rights that come from God.  It speaks of the purpose of a righteous government being to secure and protect those rights and never abrogate them.  Therefore, we don't enter into any agreement whatsoever to agree to any rules the State might make in direct violation of our God-given rights.

Has the government violated the Constitution by passing laws that infringe on our rights?  Oh yes.  We have an outlaw government.  This is pretty much beyond any question for those of us who have read history and understand it.

It is bad enough that this condition exists today, but for someone to come along and try to interpret it 180 degrees out of phase is infuriating.

To read the records of the founding fathers as they argued and hammered out the Constitution, as well as from reading both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, an intelligent human being understands that the founders understood government in all forms to be a necessary evil that must be chained down and guarded to keep it from doing the very things that you advocate in that tripe you call an opinion.  The Constitution was written to be the very set of chains that restrained government from being anything other than a servant to the people as sovereign individuals and the sovereign States who agreed to create the Federal government.

It was never intended for the government to see to any collective well being.  Any idea of a collective was diametrically opposite the goals of the founders.  Government was meant to stay the hell out of the way of individuals pursuing their own well being and happiness so long as they respected everyone else's rights to do the same.

To  draw an analogy to parenting in regard to government is outrageous.  I don't have enough words of contempt for such an idea.  Such is the language of totalitarian communist states such as North Korea, or Cuba.  Free people understand that human beings are flawed.  We understand that getting elected to office or being appointed to positions or getting hired as a bureaucrat does not bestow some super human understanding or intelligence for making better decisions in directing other people's lives.

In a more sensible time, it was understood that when a person reached the age to vote and be a responsible citizen, they would be capable of being a parent, not needing one.  It is not the job of government to provide me with welfare or anything else.  Even more important, it is not the job of government to take part of my life and liberty in the form of the fruit of my labor and my time in order to provide things for other people.

If you are genuinely ignorant of the true meaning of the founding documents, Mr. Lelonek, I suggest you get schooled on the matter.  If you can't comprehend the writings of the men who composed those documents over 200 years ago, then I suggest some courses at Hillsdale College in Michigan.  They specialize in teaching exactly what the founders were trying to and did accomplish and exactly why.

If you really do know the history and the meaning of the founding documents, then you are a most egregious liar and you would make the most perfect example of someone who deserves to be stripped naked, slathered with tar and dusted with feathers.  Then you need to be dropped off in one of the countries that attempts to govern according to the concepts that you espouse.
There are plenty of such places.  Please take as many other child-like folks with you who don't have the grown-up thinking and maturity to handle freedom and live in any of the countries with nanny-state government.

Let them tell you what is safe to drive, eat, and talk about.  Let them dictate to you what lightbulbs to use, whether or not you can pack your child's lunch for school, who you can associate with, how much money you should be allowed to make.  Go ahead, there's nothing stopping you.

We grown-ups who have worked hard and made good choices would like to be left alone.  We know how to handle sharp objects and things that go bang.  We've even been known to create fire on a regular basis and cook our own food.  Lot's of us actually can do math at levels high enough to balance multiple checking accounts.

Take you and your immature friends and find yourself a parent style government someplace else.  Leave us alone.

Hat tip to Joe Huffman.

Rights? Not According To The FDA

If you somehow thought that you lived in a free country (meaning the United States of America), you've got another thing coming.  The Federal Food and Drug Administration would like to disabuse you of the notion that you can decide what food you would like to ingest.

And doesn't it seem ironic when the "progressives" of the Democrat party tell everyone that there is a right to medical care while at the same time the FDA is saying, "there is no generalized right to bodily and physical health."   Somebody got some 'splainin' to do.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/031934_FDA_food_freedom.html#ixzz1JGgweONY
That's right.  The bureaucrats at the FDA think that all that stuff in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution about the purpose of government being about protecting the God-given rights of the people is really just a bunch of crap.  They are your superiors and they'll tell you what you can eat.

Don't believe it?  Go read this article.  If you can find any evidence that it's a hoax, let me know.  Make sure you read the contents of Senate bill 510 that passed earlier this year as well.

Isn't that the kind of "Hope and Change" you can believe in?

No Reverence For Men

Leftists continue to amaze me with their penchant for projection and utter lack of self awareness.  This is most evident when it comes to glorifying men. It is really disgusting when it comes to them glorifying themselves as individuals.  Robert C. Byrd being a great example of this. That man makes me embarrassed to admit that my parents came from the State of West Virginia. When it comes to praising the people that they consider heroes, the sky is the limit.  The reverse side of that coin is that they accuse conservatives of putting our heroes on pedestals beyond reproach.  Are there people within our ranks who do that sort of thing?  Of course, but they are a small minority.

I was prompted to write about this today because of the flap over the reading of the Constitution on the House floor.  From Ezra Klein to Joy Behar, the left has no shortage of folks that love to shower scorn and derision on those of us who see the Constitution as one of the finest documents ever written.  Of course we see it as an ironclad contract designed to protect the people by putting chains on government.

The left sees the Constitution as an archaic bit of history written by patriarchal slaveholders who couldn't possibly have anything to benefit society today were they alive now, and so that stupid old document is nothing more than a hinderance to the progressive ideas of "Hope and Change."

Because they don't actually read the Constitution, leftists like Bill Press make idiotic statements about what the document says about the right to privacy while on the Joy Behar show.  I think he found it next to the part about the right to abortion.  I forgot which article it appears in, so you will have to go look it up yourself.  And because they don't read the document or the Federalist Papers or the Congressional records of the time, they don't comprehend the idea that we conservatives hold the ideals and principles of the document in high esteem, while understanding that the men who contributed to it all had serious flaws.

Benjamin Franklin was a brilliant man and a darn good scientist, but his hedonistic lifestyle would have made me blush.  Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves is nothing to be proud of, but more than that I am ashamed of Jefferson championing the French Revolution as if it was on the same moral level as our own.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Thank goodness Jefferson fought valiantly against Hamilton when it came to the idea of a central bank.  John Adams had much to commend about him.  He held honesty and truth in high regard to the point of defending British troops on a charge of murder even though it was incredibly unpopular to do so, and he also was in favor of self rule by the colonies. But Adams was also very outspoken and not much for tact.  He also fought hard for the idea that the titles of the President smack of Royalty.  That hardly made any sense.  George Washington's own handling of the Whiskey Rebellion tells me that he was no saint.

Were they great men?  Yes.  Were they perfect? No.  It is in their demonstrable failings that they proved the necessity of a Constitution that denied the ability of any one man, or even a group of men from wielding too much power.  We are supposed to be a nation governed by a contract of law, not by people who feel some sort of anointing to tell us how to live for our own good.

We have traveled so far from the original intent of the Constitution that it is no wonder this country is so messed up and that so few citizens really know anything about the Constitution.

Here is a list of myths that a lot of Americans believe which are directly contrary to what the Constitution says or allows:

1. If the economy suffers or improves, it is because of the policies of the president.
2. The Senate is one half of the Congress that represents the people.
3. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution.
4. The Constitution determines what rights the people and the States have.
5. Every citizen in the United States has a right to vote in presidential elections.
6. If there are enough votes in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto, a bill should become law.
7. Prior to the war between the States, the Constitution considered negroes or slaves to only be three-fifths of a person.
8. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution automatically makes anyone born in the United States a citizen with all the rights and privileges thereof.
9. Anyone arrested on U.S. soil, regardless of national origin is subject to all rights guaranteed to a citizen by the Constitution.
10. The United States of America was founded as one country to free us from the British.

Anyone want to answer why the above statements are provably false?

Representative Government

It still makes me cringe like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear anyone refer to the U.S. as a democracy, but this latest post by a contributor to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler reminded me of a couple of things about our republic, and I thought of something he didn't even mention which I think is more important than all of his points put together.

What if every bill proposed in the House or the Senate had to pass a test to see whether or not the Constitution authorized it?

The 112th Congress is about to convene and the collective mouthpiece for the socialist administration and supporters is just going nuts over the fact that they plan on reading the Constitution.  I tend to think it it is only going to be something to laugh at in sad derision since the GOP leadership makes me think it is nothing more than window dressing.

I could be wasting my time writing about this because I don't know how many people come here and read this stuff, but venting about it makes me feel better.  I wonder how much Eric Hoffer thought about the impact his writing might have. Since the inevitable crash is upon us, why not try to educate as many people as possible in case we can try to rebuild something out of the ashes and rubble while we are waiting for Messiah to return?  Some of my fellow believer's may think I should focus only on winning souls for God, but I think all of this stuff, every aspect of life and living, are interwoven.  How you think about certain political issues will quickly tell me whether you are a believer or not.  That's just the fact.

I remember when the democrats howled (Hillary Clinton) over the false accusations that Republicans were questioning the patriotism of the left, or according to her own labeling, progressives, even when it wasn't happening.  Much to my chagrin.  I certainly wish that the GOP leadership did have the gonads to publicly question the left's patriotism.  For decades those on the left with the "D" behind their name have been relentlessly and systematically working to destroy the Constitution, and since the Clinton's occupied the White House, we have enough quotes from their own mouths to prove it.  I don't have to try to convince you based on a nuanced action here, or some vague reference over there.  The cat's been out of the bag in plain view for quite a while.

The reason I think that the reading of the Constitution on the House floor is mostly window dressing is because the only bills that should be coming to the floor for a vote are bills that defund and abolish every federal agency that cannot be justified by a plain reading of the Constitution.  In other words, there would be no time on the agenda to take up any new bills regarding non-existing laws for the next five years or more.

Even before a bill is passed that simply states that the previous "Health Care Reform" act is immediately rendered null and void, The House should pass a resolution that freezes all funding to the following agencies, pending further legislation that abolishes the agencies themselves and directs what is to be done with the property and assets of those agencies.  I'll spell them out for a reason.  This is just the short list.

Environmental Protection Agency.  (EPA)  They don't exist to protect any environment.  They exist to make it prohibitively expensive to manufacture or process any goods, because the main enemy of "progress" for the left is free-market capitalism.

Food & Drug Administration. (FDA)  Exists to siphon off billions of dollars from the drug companies in the form of campaign contributions, and at the same time guarantee that drug companies have a virtual monopoly on medicine that can be patented, while at the same time scaring the public into thinking that natural herbs and foods are dangerous.  Nanny government must protect you.

National Endowment for the Arts  (NEA)  When's the last time you dressed up and went to a symphony?  When's the last time you went to an art museum or gallery?  I'm sure you have been throwing lots of disposable income around on various art projects.  That's why the federal government sees no problem in taking away your money to fund buying millions of dollars worth of incomprehensible statuary to stand outside of government buildings, to fund performance artists who do things that you not only wouldn't watch, but if your child did them you would beat or disown them.

Department of Education.  Created by Jimmy Carter in 1979.  Prior to that, there was very little education going on in the United States.  Engineering, math and science were struggling along without direction or purpose because there was no centralized government agency to look to.  There are rumors that we landed men on the moon using slide rules, because the digital calculator hadn't been invented yet. Can you see how much this country failed to accomplish because we had to wait for a visionary like Jimmy Carter to show up?
Now you can go into many fast food restaurants witness the mathematical prowess of high school graduates making change.  You can go on Facebook and read the most stunning literary prose of the average American teenager and marvel.

Department of Energy.  While France, a country which has led the way in showing Muslims that their country need not be conquered using conventional arms and warfare, has built enough high technology nuclear reactors that their country safely gets 90% of it's energy that way, our DOE has been regulating what little nuclear capability we have nearly out of existence.  At the same time, the DOE has been making any building or modernization of Petroleum processing prohibitively expensive or impossible due to unnecessary regulation.  How much energy does the DOE produce?  None.

This is how modern government works.  It would almost be funny if I could say that you can take the name of a government agency, and whatever that name is, that's what they don't do, or don't produce.  But, alas, it is worse than that.  Whatever the name of the agency is, that's what they are out to destroy.

Don't believe me?  Just look at the list.

Internal Revenue Service.  Granted they don't actually write the tax law that taxes income, but they administer the Income Tax.  Does the IRS promote income?  No.  They destroy it.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)  How many times have you heard of family farms going under; if not for the cost of regulation of farming, then because of the death tax.  How many of you know that Corporations like Monsanto and other huge agribusinesses use their lobbying power to put small competitors out of business?  The USDA is all about making life hard for small farms and the people who want their products.

Department of Transportation.  Just go talk to any truck driver, especially if he's an owner.  The next time you are stuck on a very large expanse of concrete and/or asphalt, knowing that you will never get that time back, or contemplating how much it will cost you to repair the damage that was caused by road conditions that should have been repaired months ago, remember that it's called an expressway because it gives you lots of time and reasons to express yourself.

I could go on, but you get the point.  The fact of the matter is that since about 1913, about 90% of all the legislation passed and signed into law has been unconstitutional.  Let me restate that.  Most of that law has been downright illegal.  Congresses have just taken the attitude: "We don't care if the Constitution doesn't give us the authority to do this, we want it, and some of our constituents want it, so, there!"

When the people who themselves are supposed to be the guardians of the law become completely lawless themselves, thinking themselves above and outside the law, why should they expect any respect, let alone obedience to their own dictates?

Is there a single person reading this who voted for somebody with the idea in mind that you know that you are just too stupid to decide how best to live your own life; that the supreme law of the land is just too archaic today?  Are you the voter who was thinking:  "Please, Congressperson, pass whatever law you think best as long as it makes me believe that you will provide housing and jobs and medical care and won't let anybody besides athletes and movie stars make too much money."

Impeaching Is Too Good For Him

But if impeachment is all we can get, I'll take it.

That anyone can take the clear and plain language of the Constitution and twist it out of shape to enslave us makes him an enemy of the Constitution, plain and simple.  If he and four other associate justices on the SCOTUS can interpret that way, then we don't have any rights, none, nada, zip, zilch, efes.



My sincere thanks to House of Eratosthenes for bringing this to my attention.  If you believe in freedom, pass this on.

Fighting Revisionist History

I have spent about 24 hours fighting the urge to fisk this one little section of the very long screed by Mark Ames. I mentioned it in this post earlier.  It had me going around the web and looking up information I already knew, but needed to check references on.


Let me just get on with it.  Mr. Ames' words are highlighted.  

"Ever read the preamble to the Constitution? There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest."

For those of us who actually know the history of the United States and actually read the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers; you read a statement like that and your mouth drops open. It's like the reaction you have to followers of Louis Farrakhan who believe in that mother-ship stuff, or that the Apollo moon landings were faked.  The statement is so ridiculously wrong.  It almost seems silly to point out why it is so wrong, but then I realized; if Mark Ames is this clueless, there's a good chance that others are as well.  I was watching Glenn Beck the other night and he pointed out that one in four Americans don't know who we won our independence from, so how could they know why?  So, in the off chance that one of them comes to this blog, I want them to be exposed to the truth.


The events leading up to the Revolutionary War, the war for independence from Great Britain, was all about liberty, and if there was one thing that the founders of the United States saw as a fundamental right, it was private property.  Don't believe me?  That's okay, they spoke for themselves.

"Among the natural rights  of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."  -- Samuel Adams

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."

 -- Thomas Jefferson

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."  --  John Adams

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."

-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

There are many more quotes, but that should suffice.  Even if I didn't have those, one of the most well known slogans of the Revolution was "No taxation without representation!"  What are taxes?  Taxes are a way to take some of the fruits of one's labor, their property.  If a person doesn't understand that simple concept, they'd better hope that someone else is going to be available to bring a tray of food on occasion and change their diaper regularly.


Then there's the issue of self-interest.  It would have been amazing enough had Ames only mentioned property, but to then assert that the Preamble was written without regard to or that it wasn't about individual self-interest is mind-boggling.  How much dope does one have to smoke to come up with that conclusion?  If the founders weren't concerned with self-interest, then what was it?  Ames is really begging the question.  What is the opposite of self-interest?  The collective?  All this talk about freedom and liberty is so we can then create a government powerful enough to enforce neighborhood covenants and deed restrictions?  Make sure that nobody earns too much money or eats what they want?   Are there some secret writings of the founders that we don't know about?  Is there a secret decoder ring or enigma box that tells us what the founders really meant?


The entire contents of the Declaration of Independence is about the freedom of the people as individuals to pursue their own interests without interference from government. In essence, freedom is about being left alone.  Freedom to associate or -- and this is important -- NOT associate with anybody you choose.  Liberty is about not having to worry that someone is going to demand part of your life, embodied in the fruits of your labor, for the benefit of others, regardless of your consent.


What taxes needed to be collected, were for very restricted and well defined purposes.  
 In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, 

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." 

-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

This was said by James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution because of his leading effort in writing the document.  He was also the 4th President.  Notice he is saying that such a right was not granted to Congress.  Yet we live in this upside down world today, where when someone asks the former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, where they [Congress] think it is in the Constitution that they have the authority to pass the totalitarian medical care bill known as "Obamacare,"  the best she can come up with is: "Are you kidding?" 

Mark Ames continues:

This country, by contract, was founded in order to strive for a “more Perfect Union”—that’s “union,” as in the pairing of the words “perfect” and “union”—not sovereign, not states, not local, not selfish, but “union.”

What would Thomas Jefferson say about that?  Here you go:

“The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.”

That is a complete, in-your-face refutation of Mr. Ames' assumption or assertion.  There may have been some arguments among the founders early on about some details, but the States would never have ratified the Constitution had it been common knowledge that the purpose of the contract was to make them subject to a powerful centralized government that would forge them and hammer them into someone's utopian idea of a "perfect union" as seen through the eyes of a socialist.  It took three years of publicly pleading with the States via the Federalist Papers to get them to ratify the Constitution by 1789.

Now here is where Mark Ames really proves himself to be either totally ignorant about U.S. history, or he is a liar:

And that other purpose at the end of the Constitution’s contractual obligations: promote the “General Welfare.” That means “welfare.” Not “everyone for himself” but “General Welfare.” That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it.

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817 

 "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."

-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 

 "With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."  

-- James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

It really doesn't take a lot of effort to go and read the words of the founders and understand the plain meaning of what they said.  In fact, they made it a point to be well understood by the populace precisely because they were counting on the populace to agree to the system of governance that they had created.  How important was this concept of making the law clear and simple?  Let's hear from James Madison:

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."

-- James Madison, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788

That tells me that if Mr. Madison were here today, he would be leading the march on Washington to burn the entire contents of the U.S. Code and dissolving every cabinet post and bureau save but maybe three or four.  It is with the utmost confidence from studying the words of the founders, that I can say that their concept of freedom was to only tolerate the most minimum of government.  The highest aim of this experiment in self-rule was for all men to be left alone to live  their lives as they saw fit, as long as they didn't encroach upon the rights and freedom of others.


So, now that we can see the truth in the words of the very men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, what should we do about it?  Let me use Mark Ames own words:

Now, our problem is that there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their entire lives to subverting the stated purpose of this country. We must be prepared to identify those who disrupt and sabotage our national purpose of creating this “more perfect union” identifying those who sabotage our national goal of “promoting the General Welfare”—and calling them by their name: traitors.

Mark Ames, if you are merely ignorant, and willing to admit it, then let us forgive you and help you to rectify your delusions.  If you insist on holding to your beliefs which are destructive and counter to all that the founders said and wrote, then you have made yourself to be a most loathsome creature in the eyes of those who yearn for freedom.  You have made yourself a lover and friend to the state and champion of the statist, and as such, you have made yourself an enemy of any people who wish to remain free.


Those of us who understand real liberty do not wish to impose anything upon you other than for you to leave us the hell alone.  If you can attract enough people to engage in your ideals of how a society should function, go and get it done. Take California or New York. They are almost completely there already.  I'm sure it won't matter to you if I tell you that it's been tried over and over and over, in places like the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. etc. etc.  The definition of insanity has never been a deterrent to those who believe in your cause.  As history shows, every time the schemes of creating a socialist utopian dream fails, the response of you and people like you is always to double down.  As Kevin Baker has elaborated:  "Do it again, only HARDER!"


Do what you have to do, Mr. Ames.  Just don't expect those of us with a sincere and lucid understanding of what this country was founded to be, to just roll over and let you do it.  Molan Labe.

Reading Comprehension

We live in a world where few people like to engage in debate because somebody's feelings might get hurt.  The left has so successfully dumbed down most of society in this regard.  "Political Correctness" is all about not being able to clearly state the truth because it might make someone uncomfortable.  The other side of that coin is that it allows people to say really stupid or completely false (or both) things that make people feel good. Then, if you point out that such things really don't make sense, or are a lie; you are the villian.


For example:  Pointing out that "affirmative action" which creates quotas and in turn puts lesser qualified minorities in positions they don't deserve on merit, or punishes qualified minorities by tainting them with a stain of doubt, will get you dismissed as a racist.  "We don't have to debate the issues, or data, or anything else, you are a racist, end of argument!"  But that's not the point of this post.


I came across this tiny little post by Tam over at View From The Porch, which linked to this very long screed by Mark Ames where he chastises the younger generation of leftists who are dissatisfied (notice I didn't say disillusioned) with the democrat party. 


It makes good sense to try to understand your opposition if for no other reason than to question yourself about what it is that you believe, and if you cannot articulate properly what it is you believe, then you should do some careful analysis to see if what you believe is in error.  


Tam quoted the last paragraph of Ames' lengthy rant to make her point, but it was something a bit before that which got me thinking.  Not about Ames' argument per se, but how in the wide, wide world of sports he could conclude such drivel. Here it is:

Ever read the preamble to the Constitution? There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest. Nothing at all about that. It’s a contract whose purpose is clearly spelled out, and it’s a purpose that’s the very opposite of the purpose driving Stewart’s rally, or the purpose driving the libertarian ideology so dominant over the past few generations. This country, by contract, was founded in order to strive for a “more Perfect Union”—that’s “union,” as in the pairing of the words “perfect” and “union”—not sovereign, not states, not local, not selfish, but “union.” And that other purpose at the end of the Constitution’s contractual obligations: promote the “General Welfare.” That means “welfare.” Not “everyone for himself” but “General Welfare.” That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it. The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union—that’s “union”, repeat, “Union” you dumb fucks. Now, our problem is that there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their entire lives to subverting the stated purpose of this country. We must be prepared to identify those who disrupt and sabotage our national purpose of creating this “more perfect union” identifying those who sabotage our national goal of “promoting the General Welfare”—and calling them by their name: traitors. You who strive to form this Perfect Union and promote General Welfare—You are Patriots.

If you are a Bible scholar, you'll appreciate that this is like talking to a Jehovah's Witness.  They use almost all the same vocabulary that you do, but they have completely different meanings for the words.


In Mark Ames' case, I can only assume that his wacked-out college professors spoon fed him this drivel about what the framers had in mind when they penned the founding documents.  I could take a hundred people who had been educated to read well the English language, but who haven't been polluted by the leftist thought of modern academe and let them read just the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution, and I doubt that even five percent of them could come to the conclusions of Mark Ames.


It would be one thing if all Mark had to go on was just those two documents for him to come up with this "opposite world" view of what the framers intended, but the framers took several years to hammer out the Constitution, and in the process, there was tremendous debate back and forth on the pros and cons of each and every particular sentence. The war for independence began in 1775 and took 8 years to win. The Constitution was not adopted until 1787.  In that time, there were letters published in the newspapers.  This is how we got the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. (Yes, there were people even more radically in favor of constraining  government than even those who won out with the Constitution we have.)  The debates in Congress about each aspect of the Constitution  are a matter of public record.


I could regale my reader with quote after quote that makes it quite clear that the founders saw government as a necessary evil that should be kept in very strong chains and with a muzzle over it's fangs.  "A useful tool, but a cruel master."  They wrote much about the dangers of an overreaching government and a natural tendency toward tyranny, all in the name of "what's good for the people."


I think today I should start looking for such quotes and create a new page for such reference.  Until then, let me suggest that you "google" the web for quotes by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Samuel Adams, etc. to read for yourself what animated those men to create the form of government that we USED to enjoy.


What is scary is how many people there are out there who think like Mark Ames.  People who think that the Constitution of the United States was written as if by Karl Marx.


Anyone with enough intelligence to earn better than minimum wage can understand that the general welfare clause in the Preamble of the Constitution meant that, and I paraphrase here: "The rest of the document, that you are about to read, is designed to keep as much government out of your lives as possible, so that you can be free to pursue a life of prosperity and value and happiness."


The founders were highly intelligent, educated men.  Their vocabularies were immense and many of them knew Greek and Latin.  They chose their words very carefully, and as I stated before, there were often lengthy debates on the wording of every sentence in the Constitution.  Notice that the preamble says "promote" the general welfare and not "provide."  There's a reason for that.


If Mr. Ames believes that it is the purpose of government to create a "perfect union," I suggest he go where they are working hard to make that happen.  Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, France, China, etc. The list is long.  I'm sure they would be glad to have such a true believer working side by side with them.

To Celebrate or Not To Celebrate

I have to make up my mind that I need to be positive today.  I will need to do it tomorrow as well.  Yes, I'm happy that 60 seats were lost to the Socialist Democrats on Tuesday.  I'm not happy that Reid and Boxer and several others who should have been soundly defeated are still going to be in the Swamp of Maryland.

You see, there is no guarantee that those 60 seats in the House are going to translate into a rollback of the socialist agenda that has been tearing our freedom away and crapping on the constitution for so long.  I'd like to think that it will, but I'm old enough to be very familiar with the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 and what happened for the next four years after that.

Put all that aside.  The real thing troubling me is that the Federal Reserve has announced that they are going to start printing enormous amounts of paper notes (some call it cash), in order to monetize the debt.  Now I know that the vast percentage of the populace has never tried to learn about economics, just like they don't want to have to think about politics.  Of course, this is what causes the catastrophic mess that we are heading toward and what causes the disaster in Greece and France, with riots and breakdowns in society.  It's because too much of the populace has buried it's head in the sand when it comes to understanding politics and economics, that we are heading for a major meltdown. It is going to happen, it's just a matter of when.

What does it mean that the Fed is going to print about $600 billion in fiat currency?  Some of you probably understand that when a commodity gets scarcer, the price of that commodity goes up.  You could call that inflation, but that would be wrong, since only that one commodity has an effect on that price.  Inflation is caused when a government creates more currency which then chases after goods.  When there is suddenly a lot more "cash" available to purchase things, prices go up across the board.  What then happens to the cash you already have?  The value of it goes down.  History is full of examples to show that such laws of economics are irrefutable.

If you don't truly understand what money is and how it works, it will eventually bite you.  If you don't understand money and politics and how they work together, it will be your total undoing.

This is why I think the people who have been trading all their stocks, bonds, and other debt instruments for gold are pretty silly, especially in the face of a real economic meltdown. Why?  Because when the proverbial fecal matter strikes the pneumatic impeller, gold won't matter.

Let's say you are John Doe in the suburbs.  The U.S. has reached the point of default and finally has to announce such.  The riots in Greece and France will pretty much look like a Boy Scout Jamboree in comparison to what will be happening in the major metro areas here.  Oh, but you were smart and cashed in your 401k before the lame duck 111th Congress seized it, and you bought gold.

What you gonna buy with it?  Who is going to want it?  Let's say I'm Farmer Brown a few miles out in the country.  I don't have any cash, I don't have any gold.  However, I do have a lot of grain stored up.  I'm sitting on 20 acres of arable land. My wife has been keeping a root cellar stocked up with more than a year's supply of food.  I've got a few cows and goats and chickens and hogs.  There's a creek that runs between me and my neighbor.

If you could even hike from there to here, because all fuel has been commandeered by the military, or martial law is in effect and movement is restricted, why would I want your gold in trade for my food?  What would I do with it?  What could I buy?

In a total breakdown of society, all forms of money become meaningless. In every war that has ever occurred in history, survival is all about basic necessities.  Food and water are the only things that mean anything.

Benjamin Franklin replied to the question, "What government have you given us?"  To which he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."   Ronald Reagan was right when he said that we are ever only one generation away from slavery.  We were never designed to be a democracy.  The founders had nothing but contempt for such a form of government, and rightly so.  I leave you today, with this quote from Alexander Tyler:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Where We Started

It is good to think upon this on a day when we are on the verge of a new revolution in this country.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Let me paraphrase.  Let me expound on the things that I see in the text in a spirit of being true to exegesis in honor of the authors.  Let me not speak what I would wish it to say based upon some selfish notion of egalitarianism or other nonsense, but what did the men who were willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor  mean to say.

The introduction above speaks to the understanding that in the late eighteenth century, the modern world believed that kings reigned  because God had ordained it.  That unless a king was so unredeemingly corrupt and evil that appealing to his good graces could bring about a correction of abuses of government, it would be wrong to go to war in order to achieve justice.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

I was once told that, if I didn't like how the government did things, I should move.  That if I didn't like the way the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution, I should just find another country.
I don't have enough words, or words that have the power to contain my anger or commitment to see the death and destruction of such evil.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 

How many people ever consider that the men who created the Federal government of this land expected us to always be prepared to tell the Federal government:  "To hell with you, WE will tell YOU how it is going to be.    You don't dictate to us.  We dictate to you.  And when you start acting like you think you know better how we should live, we will put an end to your sorry and worthless existence."

The Constitution of the United States of America is the first governmental document in the history of the world that had the purpose of telling the government that, "You can do these enumerated things and no more."  The Constitution of the United States was a contract by which the People loaned the government very restricted powers to carry out just the minimum necessary things  that only a government could do in order to protect the rights of the people.  Contrary to modern misunderstanding, the constitution does not grant any rights to the people.  Let that sink in.  The Constitution does not grant any rights to the people.  The Constitution assumes that all rights are inherently belonging to the people from God.

I've read history.  I've read the Federalist Papers.  I hope to spend some time reading the Anti-Federalist papers.  From all of those sources it is abundantly clear that the founders of the United States saw government as a necessary evil.  Something akin to a pit bull on a leash that needed to be beaten back on occasion to make sure it didn't get out of hand.  One founding father compared government to fire; a useful servant and a fearful master.

If you wish to live in a land where the government will dictate to you which lightbulbs you can use, what kind of house you can build, how much sugar you can eat, what kind of medical care you can receive, what kind of car you can drive, what kind of job you can have, then you need to move to a country that already does those things.  Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China, France, England, Mexico, etc.  The world is full of places that  already are happy to dictate every aspect of your life and pride themselves in providing everything you need as a "right."

I'm willing to make a deal with you.  You people on the left can take California and New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and most of the New England States.  Continue to turn them into the Democrat/Socialist utopias that you have so much confidence in.  Go ahead, show us how wrong we are.   We'll take all the other States and see what happens.

What makes me so angry about leftists is that they lie about what we conservatives want.  We conservatives just want to be left alone.  We want a very small government because we know that a government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything away.  We are willing to be offended by groups and individuals who have disgusting and abhorrent lifestyles because that is the price of freedom. We believe you should be free to make billions of dollars as long as you don't do it by force or fraud, or you can live as a hobo subsisting on the charity of people who voluntarily support your lifestyle, as long as they don't demand that the government tax us to support your laziness.

I have so much more to say, but I'm tired.

I Miss Him

Unfortunately, I did not appreciate Ronald Reagan as much as I should have when he was president.  I was too young and didn't understand how dangerous and evil the rabid leftists were, even though some of them were supposedly friends of mine at the time.  They hated the man.

This is part of his farewell speech that makes me swell with pride.  This is the kind of oratory that makes politicians want to compare themselves to Reagan.

Oath Keepers

In the past, I've met young men who aspired to become law enforcement officers.  My first question to them was always this:  "If you were given an order to go house-to-house, confiscating weapons from people, would you follow it?"

If they answered in the affirmative, I would point out that the Constitution made that an illegal act.  I would further point out that people who join the military, both officers and enlisted take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  Not higher ranking officers or politicians. Further, that if the politicians were to "pass a law" that is in direct conflict with the Constitution, such a law would be null and void.

Sadly, I had three young men that still told me that they would obey any order given them.  This is why you need to know about this organization, Oath Keepers.  You need to go join them as a citizen associate.  You need to ask your local LEO if he/she is a member, and if not, why not.  If they tell you that they will obey any order given them, you need to explain to them about the Nazi's and the trial at Nuremberg.  Then you need to be afraid, and you need to keep an eye on that LEO.