Sunday, August 28, 2011
At his inauguration, Obama called for a day of service. Now, he has called for Patriot's Day (September 11) to be a day of service.
Only a person who has never been in the habit of service to his fellow man calls for service. Only a person who is not in the habit of giving to charity calls for government to assume the role of charity. Only a man who must be forced to do a good thing believes we need government agencies to manage volunteerism.
Most Americans serve. We serve through our religious organizations, Little League, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Jaycees, PTA, 4-H, the USO, the hospital, dinners and auctions for those with costly injuries and illnesses, blood drives, the widow next door, women's shelters, homeless shelters, animal shelters, Habitat for Humanity, thrift stores, fire departments, police and sheriff's departments, search and rescue, Civil Air Patrol, Community Emergency Response Teams, Red Cross, amateur radio, rape and suicide hotlines, libraries, schools, tutoring, family history libraries, tourism offices, the food bank, Meals on Wheels, soup kitchens, Master Gardener, Girls' State, Boys' State, wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation, Hunter Education, trail and park maintenance, veterans organizations such as Veterans of Foreign wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans, community organizations such as Lions Clubs, Elks Lodges and Kiwanis Clubs, Special Olympics, Toys for Tots. We even pick up the trash in the streets. And that's just a sample of what Americans do locally. We travel all over the nation and the globe at our own expense for opportunities to serve. We give more effective help to those affected by war and natural disaster that do all the governments combined.
Service is not a one-off event on a day chosen by a president. It is not a photo-op for pandering politicians. Unlike politicians, we serve when the press isn't around. Unlike politicians, we serve until we are beyond tired and dirty. We serve on more far days that those selected by the president. We don't serve because a president or any other mortal tells us to. We do it because we are Americans and because we are children of God who try to do His will.
Politicians like Obama will never understand let alone see it. People who are dependent on government by habit and family history -- not true need -- will never understand it. None of these will never acknowledge the work that we Americans do without being asked because they think that only things that are government-controlled are important.
Most of the United States have enacted shall-issue concealed firearm permit legislation. This means that if an applicant meets specific standards (most importantly pass a background check), the issuing authority must issue the permit. Some states still issue permits on an arbitrary basis (eg after contributing to the sheriff's campaign fund). A handful of states correctly require no permit at all (Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and more soon) to exercise this Constitutionally-guaranteed right.
Some states, such as my own State of Utah, recognize permits of all jurisdictions. This recognition facilitates the nation-wide travel of responsible persons with guns. Unfortunately, a few jurisdictions don't recognize the permits of other jurisdictions. To resolve this dilemma, federal legislation (HR.822) has [again] been introduced to require all states to recognize the permits of other states -- just as they recognize driver's licenses of other states.
I have mixed feelings about HR.822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. I'd like to have my Utah permit uniformly honored throughout the nation (and world). However, I'm tired of the central government imposing its will on the states -- no matter how noble the cause may seem. But, I do like to see the central government enforce the Constitution for a change.
Instead of H.822, I'd like to see all states unconditionally honor the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of all responsible persons to carry and use arms for any lawful purpose including self-defense. This recognition must be extended to all citizens and legal residents of all states and territories of the US.
Instead of a concealed firearm permit (which, in too many jurisdictions, is issued arbitrarily if at all) I suggest using the driver's license as ID. Whenever a person has a life event or condition that voids his right to arms (ie violent felony, addiction, adjudicated insanity, illegal alien, etc.), he gets a new driver's license or substitute government photo ID with an obvious color-code to indicate he is a restricted person. When and if a restricted person demonstrates to a judge that he has reformed his behavior for a reasonable period, he is issued a new driver's license with the color-code removed.
When purchasing a firearm, the presentation of a driver's license without the color code would be all the ID necessary to buy a gun -- no FBI/NICS/Brady background check would be necessary to determine whether the sale should proceed. The only paperwork necessary would be for the seller to document that he checked the ID.
It is incumbent upon all voters to lobby their political leaders to make this happen.
Kosher Gun Laws
by Charles Heller
1 - If you use a gun in criminal violence, your rights can be severed.
2 - If you are adjudicated criminally insane, your rights can be severed.
3 - If you are under age 18, your right to keep and bear arms come through your parents.
4 - You are responsible for the results of every shot you fire.
5 - If you attempt to infringe on the constitutional rights of any person, you should pay a heavy fine and go to prison.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Throughout my blog, I often refer to a free market. What is a free market?
Wikipedia defines a free market thus:
A free market is a market free from state intervention. However, the term is also commonly used for markets in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts. It is the opposite of a controlled market, in which the state directly regulates how goods, services and labor may be used, priced, or distributed, rather than relying on the mechanism of supply and demand. Advocates of a free market traditionally consider the term to imply that the means of production is under private, and not state control or co-operative ownership.In free market capitalism, a wannabe producer comes up with an idea for a product or service. He goes through the process of developing his idea, then marketing it. If people like it or need it and it is selling for a price consumers are willing to pay, they will buy it. If they don't like or they can't afford it or they think it is overpriced, they will not buy it. The sale is concluded only if the value the seller places on the product or service matches the value the buyer places on it.
There are occasions where cost of production alone is so high that the product or service is so high that most or all consumers will reject it. Good examples include most things in the so-called "green" industry and so-called "organic" farming. "Green" and "organic" products and services are almost always more expensive than non-green and non-organic products and services. Most consumers do not value the differences enough to pay the difference in cost -- especially when considering that "green" and "organic" products and services are typically inferior in quality and unavailable inn quantities sufficient to satisfy the demand existed.
In a free market, producers who do sell goods and services at a price consumers are willing to pay at a price from which they can earn a profit become more wealthy. As he attracts more customers, he hires employees to help him meet the growing demand. This is the only legal and ethical process by which wealth is created. Most of the wealthiest people in the nation achieved that status because they thrived in a free market. As they accumulated their personal wealth, they created millions of jobs. Many of their employees and investors also became very wealthy.
In a free market, producers who attempt to sell a product or service that is too expensive or which consumers don't want will go out of business. If a a producer gets too greedy, competitors will enter the market with similar or better competing products and services driving the price back down. This free-market competition protects the rights of the consumer.
Think about the last time you went to a store. When you checked out, what did the clerk say? Probably, "Thank you." Why? Because the clerk, as a representative of his employer, valued your money more than he valued the product or service he sold. Hence, he made a profit. What did you say in response? Probably, "Thank you." Why? Because you valued the product or service you acquired more than you valued the money you gave up. The free market is based on the values consumers and producers place on money, goods, and services.
In a free market, businesses that don't satisfy consumer expectations and otherwise poorly-run businesses lose market share due to high costs or poor quality. Businesses must serve their customers and use resources wisely. If they don't, they go into bankruptcy to reorganize and come out a better business or they simply go out of business.
Now, what happens when government gets involved?
Sometimes, government imposes an outright ban on certain goods or services. These bans are based on the values of politicians, judges, lobbyists, and bureaucrats -- not the values of consumers. Sometimes, these bans are wise, more often not. Examples of things that have been banned or will/might soon be banned from the free market or taxed out of existence:
▪ Toilets that flushSometimes, government forces certain goods or services into the market. These actions are based on the values of politicians, judges, lobbyists, and bureaucrats -- not the values of consumers. Sometimes, these actions are wise, more often not. Examples of things that government has forced in to the market:
▪ Pesticides that actually kill pests
▪ Conventional light bulbs
▪ Coal and petroleum as a source of energy
▪ High-octane gasoline
▪ Traditional ammunition
▪ Unpasteurized milk
▪ Herbicides that actually kill weeds
▪ French fries fried in lard (now you know why they don't taste as good as you remember)
▪ Ethanol (other bio-fuels coming soon)Some of these products were forced into the market by regulation and others through subsidies and other mechanisms addressed below. Consumers prefer a toilet that flushes and would continue to use them given the option. Therefore, the government banned them because the government didn't like the consumers' choice. Consumers with families prefer a large station wagon because it provides comfort for adults and room for children, pets, and luggage or other items. The government imposed fuel-economy standards because the government didn't like the consumers' choice. So, car manufacturers quit producing large, comfortable station wagons in order to meet government-mandated efficiency standards. The consumer response? Now they drive even less efficient, more expensive vehicles such as the Ford Expedition or Chevy Suburban -- trucks!
▪ Solar and wind power
▪ Safer toys and baby cribs
▪ Reduction in exhaust emissions and other pollutants
▪ Detergents that no longer clean because phosphates are removed
▪ Electric and hybrid cars
▪ Smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles that are less capable (ie smaller carrying capacity)
▪ Low-flush toilets (because of these new toilets, sewers in some cities no longer have enough water to carry waste to its destination)
▪ Seat belts and crash helmets
▪ Safety and tempered glass
▪ Digital TV
▪ Compact fluorescent lights
▪ Car seats for infants and small children
▪ Lead-free paint
Other products are forced into the market through subsidies. Ethanol, for example is heavily subsidized by federal tax dollars. In fact, corn farmers say they make more money selling their crop to ethanol producers than to food producers because, with the subsidy, they make more money. Therefore, the taxpayer is basically helping to pay somebody else's fuel bill.
When looking at the price of solar or wind generation of electricity, it is a rare consumer who finds the cost reasonable when compared with the return on the investment. However, with state and federal rebates (and even many electric company rebates), the cost to the buyer is lowered enough to convince him to buy. Therefore, the taxpayer is basically helping to pay somebody else's electric bill.
Electric and hybrid cars have many characteristics that make them unsuitable for most people including limited range, cramped size, limited carrying capacity, and purchase price. However, when enticed with state and federal rebates totaling as much as $12,000 and up, some consumers are lured into the purchase. Therefore, the taxpayer is basically helping somebody else to buy a new car.
One aspect of a free market that seems to get bad press is price-gouging. When there are shortages in a particular product or service, those who need that good or service tend to bid up the price. While many shortages are caused by government regulation and central planning, other shortages are caused by war or natural disasters. For example, after a city has been destroyed by war or nature, there is a sharp increase in demand for food, water, construction materials, medicine, clothing, tents, generators, vehicles, construction equipment, and skilled labor. The demand drives up costs. Consumers respond by saying that the price increase is unfair. But, what the price increase does is attract producers of needed goods and equipment as well as skilled labor to the site of devastation thereby accelerating recovery. Only a free market can accomplish this movement of goods and services efficiently. Government involvement in disaster recovery is always a...disaster.
The government interferes with the free market by designating certain businesses as legal monopolies. This monopoly status eliminates the free market forces that drive innovation and consumer protection.
The government interferes with free market capitalism by establishing a minimum wage and, increasingly, minimum employee benefits. These added costs can make the cost of producing products so expensive that a business can no longer compete successfully -- especially against goods imported from nations without artificially high labor costs. Some businesses are reluctant to hire the additional staff necessary for expansion because they can't forecast labor costs in a fickle regulatory and tax environment.
Sometimes, governments prop up failing businesses instead of allowing them to reorganize through the bankruptcy courts or even close the doors. These bailouts are at the expense of the taxpayer. Therefore, the taxpayer is basically protecting the jobs of overpaid, incompetent employees and management.
Who decides to override the free market and purge some things from the market and force others in? Politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists.
Central planning was a characteristic of the former Soviet Union. Central planners decided who would produce what at what price. The result was inferior goods and services that nobody wanted. When I was growing up back in the '50s and '60s here in the free market of the United States, we considered such central planning silly, inefficient, and unresponsive to the needs of the people. Yet, here we are. In spite of the failure of the Soviet Union do to, in large part, central planning we have allowed our government to plan our market for us.
All this is based on the arrogant assumption by America's elitist ruling class that we commoners can't make appropriate decisions on anything without the intrusion of the government.
The proper role of government is to protect the rights of the people. In the case of commerce, its role is nothing more than to protect the consumer from impediments to the free market and from harm such as fraud and gross negligence. Beyond that, the government needs to butt out!
Businesses that are controlled by, or propped up by government almost always receive increased government aid when they fail. Such businesses have incentives to waste resources. Consequently, the free market tends to be pro-social because it serves society, while state-controlled business tends to be anti-social, because it's wasteful and coercive.
The United States no longer has a true free market. Instead, we have a modified free market that is regulated and subsidized by central planners. We have, consequently, given up a significant portion of our liberty. Free-market advocates often have difficulty distinguishing between the principles of a free market and the advocacy of a free market. Saying one is pro-free-market is not the same as understanding and practicing the principles of a free market. The latter is not common among politicians or voters or even businessmen.
We gotta get smarter voters.
Search Engine Submission - AddMe
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
We live in a disposable society. It seems that over the years, we have learned that nothing is permanent.
▪ Throw away unborn children.
▪ Throw away the old computer.
▪ Throw away your spouse.
▪ Throw away the dirty diaper.
▪ Throw away the traditional family.
▪ Throw away that empty water bottle.
▪ Throw away the Constitution and the principles it was built on.
▪ Throw away the empty toothpaste tube.
▪ Throw away the influence of religion in society and in our lives.
▪ Throw away your worn out socks.
They're all the same. Throw 'em away.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Mitt Romney continues to refuse to repudiate the healthcare system he set up in Massachusetts. Yet he says he wants to repeal ObamaCare, which is a carbon copy of RomneyCare.
I'd like him to convince me that had he won the 2008 election, we wouldn't still have ObamaCare, but with his name instead of Obama's. Then, maybe I'll believe him when he says he wants to repeal ObamaCare.
Somebody had to say it. Fortunately, Newt has the boldness to say it.
It's about time that a politician called out the "news" media on their inability or unwillingness to focus on the real issues that affect the nation. When questioning politicians they don't like, they ask "gotcha" questions. When questioning politicians they do like, they ask "softball" questions. They rarely ask the questions that we voters need asked to get the information essential for an informed vote.
During the same debate, Byron York asked Michele Bachmann, referring to her evangelical Christian faith, "As President, would you be submissive to your husband?" What kind of question is that? Does York have evidence that Mr. Bachmann would manipulate her? Or, that he manipulates her now as a congresswoman? I wonder if York is merely projecting his own behavior as a manipulator within his family and as a manipulator of the "news."
A couple of examples of "news" media malfeasance from the last presidential election:
● One day, Sarah Palin was a governor minding her own business and that of her State. She had no aspirations for national office. The next say, she was a candidate for Vice President of the United States. Katie Couric expected Palin to immediately step out of her role as a governor and present herself as a politician who had prepared for national office for years. So, Couric asked "gotcha" questions. Nobody in the "news media" has ever asked a "gotcha" question of Obama.
● The national "news media" descended on Wasilla, Alaska to get dirt on Governor Palin. Nobody in the "news media" has ever looked into Obama's background other than to read the books he claims to have written. We still don't know anything about Obama beyond what he has not chosen to seal. Those who want to know about his past are given derisive names, such as "birther."
● Although she had years of public service as a mayor and a governor, Sarah Palin's experience was challenged. Obama, on the other hand, voted "present" while serving in the Illinois legislature. He had barely been elected a US Senator when he began his run for the Whitehouse. His service in both legislative offices is entirely without merit. (The same can now be said about his tenure in the Whitehouse.) Yet, his level of experience has never been questioned by anyone in the "news media."
News reporters and editors around the world are so lazy or inept in their reporting that they often regurgitate everything in press releases word-for-word as if it were entirely truthful -- if they agree with the message -- without taking even a second to read the press release and examine its egregious flaws. This parrot-style reporting is typical of the profoundly lazy, biased, and dangerous reporting in today's "news" media. Instead of recycling propaganda as news simply because it feels good, I expect news reporters and editors to do thorough research on every story before going to press.
The fact that the news media, in general, consciously neglects to tell the whole story about certain candidates and issues certainly doesn't help inform. Instead, they focus on sensational, irrelevant, and trivial "news." News reporters no longer even try to hide their biases. The horrible government we have can be traced directly to the egregiously ill-informed electorate and to the selfishness of some voters who are simply voting for whomever will give them the biggest chunk of somebody else's money. (Selfishness is the root of socialism.) Power-hungry politicians have made it far too easy for layabouts and ignorant people to vote. The "news media" is an active participant in this ignorance pandemic.
The lazy news media in general seems to revel in ignorance on the part of voters as much as it does lazy reporters. And that's exactly what post-turtle politicians like Obama are counting on.
There are very few in the so-called "news" media who aren't weasels or lazy or both. I have just about as much respect for most news reporters as I do for most members of Congress. Zero! If I only wanted to get mindless propaganda, I'd get it from Oprah and Bill Maher. If the top dogs in the "news" media (eg Wolf Blitzer, Katie Couric, Nancy Grace, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Chris Wallace) want my respect, they must do it the old-fashioned way: Earn it! Report what we, the people, need to know -- not what you want us to know!
And, as Newt suggests, ask meaningful questions of all candidates.
Friday, August 12, 2011
The above cartoon presumes that Obama understands that a free market creates jobs. I'm unconvinced that he understands that simple concept. His history (what we know of it) indicates that he, like all good Marxists, believes jobs are created by government central-planners and bureaucrats.
What Obama, nearly all Democrats in Congress, and too many Republicans in Congress fail to understand is that businesses are not hiring because:
▪ They don't know how much an employee will cost them under the nation's current fickle tax environment. If they have figured out the cost, they can't afford to hire.
▪ They don't know how much an employee will cost them as ObamaCare is phased in. If they have figured out the cost, they can't afford to hire. (The cost of health insurance at my employer went up $238/month/employee this year. They passed that cost on to the employees. That is only an interim increase. Once our new labor contract goes into effect, the employee share of health insurance will go up another $400/month/employee. Thank you very much, Obama/Pelosi/Reid and all the other partisan cowards who pushed that unconstitutional legislation through over the objections of the people.)
▪ They don't know how the unending reckless federal spending and resulting federal deficit and federal debt will affect the economy and, consequently, their ability to find consumers willing or able to buy products and services.
▪ They don't know how new regulations will affect the products and services they want produce. Will their products and services be required to meet irrational standards or even be outlawed? If they have figured out the cost, they can't afford to hire.
The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution requires and empowers Congress to "regulate" interstate commerce. At the time of the founders, the word "regulate" was understood to mean that the Congress was to ensure trade between the several States flowed smoothly, unimpeded by State tariffs and differing currencies and standards. Over the past 100 years, the government use of "regulate" has evolved into government central planning and restrictions on all trade -- even intrastate trade. This usurpation of power has even evolved to where the central government even controls what a farmer grows on his own farm for his own use! Imagine the stifling effect heavy-handed regulations have on a businessman's business decisions!
For some reason, Congress, the Administration, and far too many consumers believe that business is evil, that captains of industry are solely in the business of accumulating wealth at the expense of the consumer. Consider this: no businessman can possibly make money unless he provides a product or service that the consumers want at a price the consumer is willing to pay. If a businessman fails to do that, somebody else will step in to satisfy that consumer demand -- in a free market. If a business sells a product or service that harms the consumer (eg tainted dog food from China), informed consumers will stop buying that product or service and move their money to a competitor -- in a free market. (Government regulation did not stop the importation or sale of that dog food. Consumer demand and the desire of businesses to hold on to their market resolved the problem as soon as it was discovered. Government intervention came after the problem was resolved.)
Ironic, isn't it? The very people who hold the key to economic recovery -- businesses -- being forced out of participation in any recovery by the government, whose job is to protect a prosperous business environment.
Congress and the Administration must come to grips with the simple fact that the Commerce Clause requires the central government to provide a regulatory and tax environment where commerce can flourish -- where businessmen are accountable to the consumer, not to bureaucrats. Ultimately, it is up to the voters to elect wise and ethical people to Congress and the Whitehouse. Until that happens, we are all doomed to go over that waterfall.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Why in the world are the Left (including the mainstream news media) and most in the Middle (self-proclaimed moderates who can't make up their minds between good [liberty] and evil [big government]) so bent on excoriating and delegitimizing those who want to do something about this: the TEA Party and Constitutionalists?
Why is the Oprah- and American Idol-addicted public so stupid as to cooperate with the excoriation and delegitimization of those who want to do something about this: the TEA Party and Constitutionalists?
Last week Congress passed and the president signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011. That very day, US debt shot up $239 billion -- the largest one-day bump in history. That this so-called debt reduction bill included only $21 billion in spending cuts in the first year, as opposed to an immediate $1 trillion debt ceiling increase over the next year! Is there even one Democrat voter paying attention to this?
The alleged spending cuts are, in reality, only symbolic cuts in the future increases in federal spending that the government pre-plans through what is called "baseline budgeting." Nothing is ever really cut. Only the rate of growth in government power and spending is cut. You could say the whole thing is a scam. Is there even one Democrat voter paying attention to this?
On Friday, as projected by some and feared by many, Standard and Poor's reacted to these series of events by downgrading the US credit rating, which politicians swore would not happen! The Left (including the mainstream news media) has the gall to blame the downgrade on the TEA Party -- not on the nation's disastrous fiscal mess.
The government currently spends more than $43,000 a year for each American household, nearly half of it borrowed and added to the devastating debt already imposed on our children and grandchildren.
The $16 trillion so-called "national debt" is only part of the picture -- total unfunded liabilites (ie MediCare, MedicAid, Social Security, government-employee pensions) exceeds $1.4 million per household!
Some people are paying attention and they're terrified by the consequences of this out-of-control government growth and spending. Everybody else is going to the mall.
Most Americans are addicted to, or dependent on (eg government employees), that wild government growth and spending. As long as they're getting their "piece of the pie," they don't care and persist on electing politicians who eagerly exploit their devil-may-care attitude.
Without severe government belt-tightening, this house of cards must collapse. It will happen in our lifetime.
We gotta get some smarter voters!
Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The derisive use of names is closely related to the use of profanity. Both are a manifestation of a poor vocabulary and an inability or unwillingness to think before or while speaking. They are signs of an uneducated and uncouth person.
Referring to Congressmen (mostly Republicans) who resisted further expanding the nation's excessive debt, Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) said:
We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money....They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want...Not to be outdone, Vice President Joe Biden reportedly added:
They have acted like terrorists.Other labels used include "The Tea Party Taliban," "Hezbollah faction" of the GOP, "suicide mission," "cannibals," "zombies," and "vampires."
Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson accused the Tea Party of "putting a gun to the president's head" on the debt ceiling. Former White House "green czar" Van Jones likewise said:
When any faction in America that would put a gun to the head of 310 million people and say 'if you don't do it our way we will blow your dreams away, we will blow a hole in the American economy,' that is un-American and that is not how we do business and we refuse to bow down to those kind of bully tactics.(Hmmm. As I recall, after the January assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (another thirteen people were also injured and six others were killed including a federal judge), Democrats were condemning the harsh rhetoric from the Right.)
Jim Treacher's (AKA Sean Medlock) response to the Democrat claims of terrorism:
So we're terroists for "holding the country hostage"? Okay, then: For what you're doing to future generations, you are pedophiles. Own it.
After watching the above video, see my previous comments on the debt crisis and why I'm disappointed in the surrender of the "terrorists" (Republicans) and the perpetuation of big-government that is the debt-ceiling "compromise."
New York Times:
There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending. By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today. Indeed, both the government and its debts will continue to grow faster than the American economy, primarily because the new law does not address federal spending on health care.The debt deal authorizes the federal government to borrow another $2.1 trillion on top of the $14.3 trillion it already owes. It supposedly includes $2.5 trillion in cuts. However, those are cuts from a projected baseline in which the national debt grows by $10 trillion during the next decade! Only a politician can say that over $7 trillion additional debt over the next 10 years is less debt!
Moreover, the vast majority of the "cuts" are not scheduled to take effect for years, raising serious doubts about whether they will happen at all.
Nevertheless, Lieutenant Colonel Alan West, US Representative for Florida gives this perspective on the compromise:
Before conservatives go criticizing this agreement consider what would have happened if Pelosi, Reid and Obama were still in control.Most Republicans and all Democrats in Congress fail to understand that one cannot compromise with evil (eg big-government advocates). Such compromise always moves in the direction of evil (eg big government) albeit not as quickly as evil (eg big-government advocates) desires. The Republican party consistently shows why it does not deserve to be the majority party. Except for a handful of the TEA-party caucus, Congress betrayed us all. The mainstream "news" media is complicit.
Every voter in the nation needs to look at the list of congressmen who voted for the debt deal. If your representative and/or senator voted for this legislation to perpetuate the growth of federal debt, you owe it to yourself, your posterity, and the nation to vote them out! Especially if you voted for them primarily because of the color of their skin or their party label rather than for their principles!
If, on going into the polling booth in 2008, you knew and agreed with Obama's principles and agenda and those of his allies in Congress and therefore cast an informed ballot, I can accept that. On the other hand, if you voted for the current president to prove you're not racist, in 2012 you need to vote him out to prove you aren't an idiot.
Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.
Monday, August 1, 2011
For over 20 years, law-abiding Americans have been prohibited from having a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 has made federal criminals of nearly every responsible gun owner in America because it is impossible to travel around any town without crossing the invisible boundaries of these thousand-foot school zones.
It took a wild, malicious, irresponsible stretch of the Constitution's interstate commerce clause (sadly, typical of Congress since Wickard v. Filburn, 1942) to justify this law. It is past time for Congress and the Whitehouse to undo the damage done to liberty by the distortion of the commerce clause in general and by the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 in particular.
Any reasonable person understands that if government disarms all the law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their loved ones the only people who will have arms, and the will to use them, will be the bad guys. We have seen it time and time again – shootings in schools, churches, and even military bases where laws prohibit law abiding citizens from exercising the constitutionally-protected right of having and using arms. In each and every case attackers were able to kill with impunity because there was no one there that was prepared (armed) to stop them.
People don't die because they have a gun. People die because they are denied the ability to defend themselves by anti-liberty, anti-responsibility legislators and presidents! It is past time for politicians to stop empowering the criminal and place the power back where it belongs – in the hands of responsible armed citizens!
As much as they want to help, we can't bet innocent lives on having a police officer around every time those innocent lives are in danger. We must be prepared (armed) to take care of ourselves until the police arrive. The law must never restrict our right to do so – but, since 1990, it does.
HR.2613 (Citizens Protection Act of 2011) is a small step in restoring sanity and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It will restore our right to responsibly have a firearm where 20 years of history shows we far too often need it most – the schools.
Congress and the Whitehouse must take every possible step to see that HR.2613 (Citizens Protection Act of 2011) becomes law immediately.
When I vote, gun rights are extremely important because it is how I judge a politician's respect for the Constitution and for responsible Americans.