Where did this come from???????

Oh my word!
Honestly I had stopped posting for quite a while because I thought no one was listening to me, but a recent event makes me think maybe I have to respond.

I was Listening to what Obama had to say during his acceptance speech of the Nobel peace prize.
Now in anticipation of his speech (the day before) I thought, if I was him I would turn it down with a statement about how the Men and Women of our armed forces deserved the prize so much more! Well boy howdy was I surprised when Obama almost met me halfway there!

In his speech, which I had heard someone say he allegedly wrote himself, he actually PRAISED the American military and stated that for the past 60 years they defended and preserved peace and democracy in this world.
I thought I can NOT have heard that right, but sure enough Obama praised the military! in fact a lot of what he had to say was... well... good! the man actually sounded for a little while like a president!

He made declarations that made me believe he was an American instead of a toady for some foreign group or cabal, I wondered where exactly he grew the... um... Huevos to make such a speech.
I wondered if maybe he found them in a desk drawer left over from T. Roosevelt, R. Reagan or what. Apparently even CBS thought it was out of character trying to claim he was channeling George Bush.

But upon reflection I thought of something else too. shortly before he went to receive his award, a poll came out (from a liberal pollster group of all places) that declared "his [was] the worst presidency, by poll, in the history of the United States".

Apparently NO president in History has ever had such a huge drop in approval rating from the public for a first term, first year presidency... in plain english... people voted him in office and thought oops! more so than ANYONE EVER before.
Even Carter didn't get such a bad response.
(And remember Carter was a one term wonder who, by the time he left, was universally hated by the military and single handedly drove the American voters to vote overwhelmingly republican for the next 16 years.)

No president has ever had such a drop in how people feel about him ever before... and I cannot help but wonder if the speech he gave wasn't an attempt to regain some seriously lost ground.
Also in the mix he recently "HAD" to increase the troop deployments to Afghanistan by 30,000... so maybe he was trying to "defend" that choice.
well one thing I did notice is the lack of applause that greeted his speech and I thought better of him that he faced that.
When someone is voted into office purely because of his Charisma, as Obama was, it is nice to see him do something that is unpopular and follow it through, even if it is only in the short term.

To be honest I feel for those who are in that office, Really I do! doesn't matter who they are. Being the leader of America is not easy. But that is something that ANY (all?) candidates need to be ready for.
I am afraid that with this president we may have someone who was not, and even IS not ready to be in office. But, as I heard someone declare last November, I finally see a glimmer of hope. Maybe we can make it through this yet.

What should we look for in our politicians.

Well this is a good question.
I wish people would have asked this before voting in the last election.

The things we need to look for are things like….
Values and morality, Honesty, Integrity, Character, Capability, Knowledge/Understanding of the issues, and he/she ought to have a good workable plan for solving the issues and addressing the problems.

And of course Experience is a plus.

Unfortunately the candidate/s we had and ultimately voted for lacked many of these points.

I will grant you neither candidate had a good plan for addressing the issues. Indeed neither seemed to have a grasp of the issues let alone a plan.

But we ended up with the candidate who also had no real character. We voted for the glib charismatic. This worries me. What’s worse it seems that many people realized on some level what he was about and chose to vote for him purely because he was a black man.

Now THAT is racism! To vote for someone JUST because of his skin color is wrong.

Based on my list of qualities I have a short list of people who I think would be reasonable candidates for leadership.

Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Sarah Palin, Chick Norris, Steve Cole, Joe Arpaio, Harrison Ford, Will Smith And Denzel Washington.

I know most of these guys are movie stars but they all exhibit a kind of strength of character that I feel we need in the White House… They seem to have moral values that I can support. And at least some of them are aware of the issues and are prepared to do something about it.

The presidency is not about popularity though. And we need to realize that.

The well analogy

I thought of another good analogy recently! I feel like a guy at the bottom of a well. I felt piled on by the economy, the recession, the war/s, in short all the issues.

I am betting that a lot of other people felt the same. Obama came along and like a beacon of hope promised change, and many bought it.

However I saw the bucket that he was hiding behind his back. (and so didn't vote for him)
See Obama is the guy who came to the top of the well looked down at us and said “I can get you out of there.) Everyone thought he meant with a rope or something.

But what he has been doing since is dumping more water on our heads. He is, even now, dragging a fire hose over so he can make it worse. (he literally plans on doubling the debt with his plans in the next 10 years alone).

He might be thinking that raising the water level will cause us to float to the top but unfortunately by the time we do we will all be drowned.

See so his plan will kill us before it can save us. I hope we will wise up and stop him before it’s too late.

The Star Wars link

I debated whether I was going to post this as a blog or not… my reasons for the debate were somewhat selfish.
I was concerned that a certain element in our society would be a little too… thick to figure out the meaning of this blog and would thus make fun of me/my blog. I was afraid in other words that posting this would be compromising what I was trying to say.

But then I realized that those people would deliberately misunderstand things anyway! So it doesn’t matter how straight or humorous I try to make it. They will still try to put me down by taking things out of context so here I go.

Recently the Liberals who are pro Obama have been complaining about the town hall meetings.
They have a problem with the signs that compare this administration with the early Nazi party.

I think they are right.

For one thing Hitler was a short, angry, white guy. Obama is a tall, Angry, Black guy.

For another Hitler was clearly interested from the start in killing everyone he didn’t like.
Obama hasn’t made it clear who he wants to kill, yet.

But there is a similarity in the sci fi world.
For my analogy today I turn to Star Wars.

I would compare President Obama to Emperor Palpatine.

Let us look at the similarities… Palpatine got control of the republic by a vote of no confidence over the old administration. So did Obama. (remember? “John McCain will just be another George Bush”)

Palpatine manipulated things to get his position. So did Obama.
Both incited fear issues in order to get in.
Palpatine took dangerous, major, Sweeping steps to consolidate his position once in place. So is Obama.
Both of them, in their campaigns, promised hope and change.
Both claimed to be on the side of the people.
Neither lived up to the expectations people had, apparently preferring to serve themselves.

So for me the question arises, Who qualifies as the Jedi in this scenario? Who is the rebellion? And does Obama have his own "order 66" already in place? These are important to know.


Of course there is also the point Mace Windu made… “There is always two, the master and the apprentice.”
If Obama is the “Sith Lord” then who is his apprentice?(or his he the apprentice? in which case we need to look for the master.)
Personally, I say we need to start watching out for a little boy with a cutsie (semi Girlish)nickname!

Equal... and I don't mean the sweetener

What is equality?

Equal

* Main Entry: 1 Equal
* Pronunciation: \ˈē-kwəl\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Middle English, from Latin aequalis, from aequus level, equal
* Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent b : like in quality, nature, or status c : like for each member of a group, class, or society
2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : impartial
3 : free from extremes: as a : tranquil in mind or mood b : not showing variation in appearance, structure, or proportion
4 a : capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task b : suitable

I want to address points 1 and 2 in today's topic.
See the problem is that too many in our world, in our country, want us to believe that equal means something else.

Equal, to them, means... "because you are different from the "norm" you get preferential treatment."

Because you choose to follow a different lifestyle or because you look different you get all the perks, you get all the choices, you get special consideration.

I think Equal ought to be just that. We are supposed to have been created equal that's what the writers of the constitution believed.
We ought to all be given the same, EQUAL chances.

I know this might sound a little odd coming from me but hey let's think about it.

I can hear it now... "but you are against abortion! How hypocritical!"

Ah but see that is part of my point. Why are you so determined that the child who is unborn does not get the EQUAL chance to live?

See it fits.

But really. We need to learn from our mistakes. And the mistakes of others.

We are merely continuing the inequalities that plagued us and led us to war 150 years ago.

How many more have to suffer and die?

United?

I hate to say this. I really do. but lately I have been reflecting on our country (the U.S.) and realized that we need to rename it.

See U.S. stands for United States. But we are no longer united!
We are no longer... us.

We are a contrary, divided, backstabbing, self interested, selfish, self centered, me first kinda place.

We are no longer concerned with us as in YOU and me; No we are now only interested in the me part.
It's all about me! Me first, I don't care about you as long as I get what I want. who cares about everyone else. Me, ME, ME, Me, I, I, I, I...

Maybe we ought to disband the federal government entirely and throw the governing of the people to the individual states.
Give the states the status of being their own independent countries. Most of them are big enough!

I know this sounds cynical, but let's face it. the ideals the founding fathers were for, most in our current government seem to be against.

Freedom is a great example. The founders (except for Benjamin Franklin) all liked the idea of the bald eagle being a symbol for our country.
The Eagle soars over everything! It is free from all that fetters others. But of course people today are more worried about safety.

Will my kids be safe? How about me? when I get on a plane the authorities better make sure I won't get hurt/Hijacked/killed... But what about freedom?

What about the spirit that says,

"yeah I might be risking my life but at least I am free! I can pursue my dreams even though it might entail risk."

Well not anymore buddy... you gotta make sure it's safe or you can't do it.

I'm talking about the spirit that allowed Orville and Wilbur Wright to give us the chance to soar like the eagle.
It is the same spirit that let Lewis and Clark map the country when it was still wild.
The same spirit that, I believe, infused Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, Theodore Roosevelt, The pioneers, the Old west lawmen, and so on.

Without that spirit, how much more dull would history be? Oh not that I think history is dull.
Quite the contrary. History, especially American History, is full of awesome things. But if the people who made it so awesome had the same attitude we do today, then nothing would have gotten done. It would have been as exciting as wet toilet paper.

We would have never populated the west, made it to the moon, and we would have never had the guts to stand up and do what was right.

What is it to be united?

During the Revolutionary war they were united in defeating the British, (and again in 1812).
During the "Civil war" the states that remained united eventually agreed on freeing others (the slaves)
In the two World wars they were united against fascism and dictators who would commit genocide and "rule the world".

I have often heard the generation of my grandparents called the last great generation. Why is that???

It is because, when faced with adversity, they didn't wimp out, they didn't say "oh but we just want to be safe." they stood up and said,

"NO! NO more! this will not happen now! we are going to do what needs to be done! we are going to do what is right! and we will do no less than all we can for freedom!"

Right now I want to challenge my generation and all those younger than us. let us take the example of our grandparents and great grandparents! let us stop being so selfish! Let's stand up and say "NO! No more. it is time to do what is right and preserve our country as the founding fathers would have done (Indeed as they HAVE done.)
There is no excuse or reason not to.

Safety be "darned" what use is it to be safe in a pen waiting to be slaughtered? when we could be living free and wild soaring on the breeze.

Then when we Unite in that goal,Unite in the idea that we should strive together for what is right and good (not just what we can get out of it) maybe then we can be called the UNITED States once again.

To quote J.F.K. "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Freedom?

Yes that’s right today’s topic is a simple one… Freedom.

What does it mean? Why is it important? What is the big deal anyway?

One thing we see consistently is that time after time men have fought for their freedom. And whether ALL the accounts are right or not, the fact remains that there is plenty of compelling arguments that freedom was a major driving force in many if not most of those conflicts.

As evidence I will rely on other’s quotes to make my point…

Benjamin Franklin said,

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

And,

“Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.”

So what is too high a price for peace? I would conjecture that the loss of freedom is what he references based on this quote of his…

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The gist being, Peace (security) is not worth the loss of Freedom (Liberty).

“I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.” ~Author Unknown

“Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.” ~Albert Einstein

Freedom is the last, best hope of earth. ~ Abraham Lincoln

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

So we see there a sense of how important freedom has been, I mean let’s face it we all have heard the famous quote from Nathan Hale…

“I only regret, that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

But during my research for this I found one of his quotes that was equally compelling…

“Let us march immediately,” he said, “and never lay down our arms until we obtain our independence.”

That was before he even joined the military to fight the British. So this was an attitude or belief he held throughout. In fact the concept of freedom was important enough that he signed up BECAUSE of it! And he later agreed to do whatever needed to be done to ensure that freedom for all! this was NOT a fly by night proposition.

But the thing about freedom is that with the privilege of freedom there is a responsibility too.

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” ~George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman, "Maxims: Liberty and Equality," 1905

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” ~Thomas Paine

Wait… you mean I have to be willing to allow my opponent the same freedom I am demanding?… YES! But there is more.

“Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed - else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Here is my advice as we begin the century that will lead to 2081. First, guard the freedom of ideas at all costs. Be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to oversimplify. And don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression.” ~Gerard K. O'Neill, 2081

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” ~Thomas Paine

And of course...

“We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.” ~William Faulkner

We cannot shirk these duties. We must defend freedom at all costs. There are many out there that would deny our freedoms and they would do it in ways that are insidious…

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

“The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.” ~Daniel Webster


“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” ~Louis D. Brandeis

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” ~Edmund Burke

So this is all my response / Advice to the current (and future) governments… in order to uphold the freedom/liberties purchased for us at so great a price, you must practice freedom and you must defend it to the uttermost.

“My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.” ~Adlai Stevenson, speech, Detroit, 1952

“We on this continent should never forget that men first crossed the Atlantic not to find soil for their ploughs but to secure liberty for their souls.” ~Robert J. McCracken

“For what avail the plough or sail, or land or life, if freedom fail?” ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

“No one is free when others are oppressed.” ~Author Unknown

All of us need to stand and defend our freedom or we might not have anything to stand for, or anywhere to stand.

So in closing I remind you of one more quote...

" The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

(this is attributed to Edmund Burke.)

Global Warming

I hate to say it but for me the jury is still out on this topic folks.

I have heard a lot of noise from the people who claim it is real. But I also believe actions speak louder than words.
And I was very interested to note that all the people who claim that Global warming is a problem seem to not REALLY care about it so much.
They have a big concert to make people aware and they all show up in Humvees and other gas guzzling monstrosities.

Al Gore, the leader in the whole "Oh no we are doomed" crowd was VERY notable in not observing the lights out night we all shared in worldwide earlier this year. (He had tons of lights on).
Even more telling he always travels in a caravan "for safety" with 3 or 4 SUV's and other cars to all his social engagements, he refuses to have an honest, open debate, OH and the convoy he travels in has to remain idling, sometimes for hours, while he speaks, just in case he has to leave quick.

I also Like to note that there are some scientists who disagree with the global warming hypothesis.

HERE is a link to one of their sites.
I found some of this guy's arguments to be ... persuasive.

So if I ever really come up with a thought about Global Warming I will let you know.

I can't believe it.

I found an irritating one today people. Just thought I would share it with all of you because the thinking is alarming.
I got ahold of this originally from a friend’s Facebook page. I commented there but I felt that this really required a little more than I could get in on the comments spot SO…
First of all you might want to read the original blog to which I am responding.

It is right here.

But now to get into the nitty gritty.
Let’s start with his surprisingly Accurate description of one of the issues, the article states,

“Big State government — think Hitler, Stalin and Democrats — wants to take away your ability to do whatever you can afford to do.”

Well duh!
That is a major issue… but oddly the guy posting this sees it as a good thing.

He is trying to say that Conservatives tout freedom as a mantra but that the conservative model doesn’t work, then he says That the Democrats are better because

“You can’t out-”freedom” the Democrats. They offer no restrictions, no cultural norms, and a welfare state. Almost no obligation, even to go to work.”

Meanwhile in the next sentence he dooms his own argument.

“If everyone acts on their freedom, we’re not going to pull together in the same direction, and we won’t be able to face big problems of resources limiting our ability to do whatever we want.”

But there is a big part of the problem that conservatives see in our country!
Or at least I do.

I am NOT willing to go to work and slave away for 40 to 60 hours a week so some lazy Slob can lay around all day whining that he doesn’t get good enough service on his satellite T.V. Paid for by the sweat of my brow.

And I find it crass that this guy, who wrote the article, would then have the temerity to complain that I am the one wasting our resources.
I have an honest job and am doing my part to pull the team on, NOT wasting resources. I would argue that it is the liberals who allow such laziness who are wasting resources.

While freedom is an important part of life in America, conservatives realize that there has to be responsibility coupled with the freedom or else people will fail.

Remember HE makes the point that the DEMOCRAT model means there are people who have

“Almost no obligation, even to go to work”

This means there are fewer people putting into the system than are taking out! The Democrat model, not the conservative, is the one which will

“limit our ability to do whatever we want.”

He keeps trying to blame all the issues on the Conservatives while at the same time pointing out the very reasons why the issues really lie at the doorstep of the liberals.

So his great solution?
Kill off all the people. Have mandatory abortions. Force people to early graves. Etc…

He supports in other words the same model that was attempted by many others.

For example, once the Greeks encouraged infanticide and abortion. Look where it got them. (Hey yeah let’s kill off all those kids!)

The Chinese Have tried all kinds of things. Including the idea that if you are a man and want to have sex for fun, do it with a boy. If you want to have sex for procreation find a girl/woman.
(So child abuse and rape is ok is it?)

The author of this likes to use a traditional tactic, which liberals love to bring out all the time.
He skews and twists everything he can to fit his idea but rejects all other arguments. (talk about dishonest!)

So his whole point is trying that the Conservative/s are “doomed” because they are all liars and they cannot see the truth of the big picture.

I actually find that idea a little amusing… this is like the Cast Iron Dutch oven calling the green teapot black.

He actually states,

“Our goal in this is to smash the sacred cow of the conservatives, which is individual autonomy as a promised right to all people. It is also a sacred taboo of the left through their dogma of ‘equality.’”

Whoa... WaIT a minute... Isn't this guy a liberal? he just slammed them... but really he is.
AND
Yes that’s right folks, he said it! According to him we are NOT able to govern ourselves, we are not even equal!

He thinks he is better than you… And he thinks he, or someone else just like him, ought to be allowed to decide who gets to live (or die). Because he is an honest upright kinda guy, Right?

He wants the earth to prosper… never mind that MILLIONS of people will have to be sacrifice! Especially as long as all those who sacrifice are conservative.

Hey you know what would work better? Let’s kill off ALL the people on earth! That would ensure that people would NEVER again be a problem here.
But no he doesn’t really want that… no He wants it to be just everyone ELSE… after all if all of us were killed off then everyone left (at least those who agree with him) could be living in a utopia.

A beautiful place where he can enslave everyone else; just because “we are not all created equal after all”. You know, it was just “some silly idea of those idiots.”

Wait until someone stronger than him uses his logic to enslave him… what will he do then?

I gotta admit I admire the Chutzpa of this guy. He actually came right out and said it!

The sad part is that so many are taken in by this idea.
I just have one piece of advice for you who think this way though. If you really think that the solution to our world’s woes is the end of at least a percentage of the human life on this planet. Then go for it.
But you first.
I want you to set the example that you want me to follow.
Because I do not think you truly have the courage of your convictions. I think you just want everyone else to lay down and die (or suffer) so that you can live it up because so far that is the only thing I have seen people who use this argument do yet. They are the ones who are so good at thinking of themselves first.

Please Mr. President

Mr. President sir.

I have to tell you that I am frightened. And I feel I must blame you for this fear.

You are apparently running pell mell into destroying this country.
I served in this country’s military because I once believed in this land.
I believe in the ideals the Founders of our country had. But, by your actions, you tell me that you do not care for this country.
So I want to know why?

Why do you hate this country so much?
Why do you mock the ideals we have,… no, excuse me, HAD.?
Why are you destroying everything that so many (including myself) have sacrificed so much for?
What is it that the men who died in World War Two did that makes you despise them?
What did the Founding fathers do to you that makes you so spiteful?

I really want to know!

Why are you trying to ruin the lives of my children? What have they done to you to deserve such poor treatment?

Let’s review why I feel I have to ask these questions.

1. You are increasing the national debt to unprecedented levels so our children will be burdened with more debt and interest than they can ever hope to pay.

2. You are destroying the basis of good quality health care that currently exists in favor of an inferior model, which has been historically proven to not work at all, ever.

3. You are appointing people to positions of authority who have shown themselves to be biased and or racist.

4. You are appointing people to positions of authority who have little or no ability to perform the tasks assigned.

5. You are breaking the law/s you helped to put in place when you were a congressman.

6. You are telling our enemies we are morally weak. You are saying we are not willing at the same time that we do not have the troop / physical strength to defend ourselves.

7. You appear more concerned with party politics than you are with our country's well being.

Mr. President; I have Studied history, I have served in the armed forces, I am a parent.
Everything I see you doing right now, Based on my studies and experiences, is leading us into utter devastation.
Please give us a break! Let our children have the chance to grow up safe and sound.

Give us the hope that you promised when you ran for the position you now hold.

The People have given you the chance to prove yourself… now please give them a chance too.

Like that song John Denver used to sing… “We want to live”…

"I wanna live, I wanna grow
I wanna see, I wanna know
I wanna share what I can give
I wanna be, I wanna live"

Again part 3 (hate crimes cont...)

The other day I heard an excellent example of the problem with legislating Hate crimes/speech issues.

The man speaking (I did not catch the name) pointed out that "Anyone can say anything, and that what they say can drive others to violence."

He went on " It does not matter WHO is spewing the rhetoric, Conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican; Christian or Atheist."

See the problem here with making laws about hate speech is the constitution guarantees us the right to say whatever we want... PERIOD!

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech!"

This is in the First amendment. Look here for more.

Now as I posted in the first "again" article, We need to consider where the founding fathers were coming from.

This amendment is the same one guaranteeing our religious freedom so this won't be that much of a stretch.

One of the things faced by the pilgrims; And come to think of it by the founding fathers themselves, was that they were not allowed to speak things that might be hurtful even though they were true.
They were fomenting rebellion! they could have been hanged for just saying "gosh that King George, He sure seems to be behaving cruelly."

They saw that kind of power as being tyranny. So they made certain that, that form of tyranny would not be allowed on U.S. Soil.
They saw it as wrong that the government would/could punish them for speaking out against a person (or people) truthfully who the crown (aka the government) favored.
But that is exactly what the idea behind the hate speech/crime acts is about!

I would like to take a moment here to point out that this does NOT apply to lies and verbal attacks that have no merit.

But really this is all secondary! See the real problem is that this can be used to attack innocent people.

If a pastor says something about how the old testament regards homosexuality, and someone in hearing of his statement decides to go burn down the house of a homosexual, that pastor, According to this concept, can be held accountable.

But in that case I guess we better all stop talking because we never know what it is that we might say (or for that matter what we might NOT say) that could send someone over the edge.

I would hate to be held responsible for an abortion clinic to be blown up because I said something about the eggs I got at the supermarket and I was misunderstood.

Worse even then that is the point that Anyone could say I said ANYTHING and I would be held guilty and accountable... EVEN IF I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING!

Think about it...

And again I need to point out that this legislation does not work for everybody, if you doubt the way this is going consider the prop 8 vote in California.

The people who voted in favor of stopping same sex marriage were vilified! they were "evil and Hateful." they were "bigoted Hatemongers." so the media would have us believe.

But what the Media did NOT report was that some rather militant groups of homosexuals deliberately destroyed personal and public property ( particularly if it belonged to people who "voted against them") and they threatened, harassed and behaved violently towards people who voted in favor of the ban.

But they were not prosecuted. if it had been the other way around not only would they have had the book thrown at them, they would have been plastered all over the news for everyone to see.

Don't believe that?

What happened at Duke University?

The Lacrosse team was blamed for Rape and violence against an African American. And the American public was very quick to condemn the men blamed.

When they were PROVEN innocent all of a sudden it became a non story. ( no one bothered to tell us how those men suffered for being wrongly accused. They were, in short, victimized by the accuser. (And our society.)

Did you hear about this one though? Click here.

Here we find a Homosexual man living near Duke who raped his 5 year old son, filmed it and broadcast it online. He also offered the boy in prostitution.
Where is the media attention at for this?

Why is it a story when it is one side but not the other?

See this is what they call a double standard. And that is exactly what we will get with the "Hate crimes" legislation.

Again part 2 (the hate crimes issue)

O.K. today's topic is "hate crimes".

First I would have to ask you, Is there any crime that we could NOT consider hateful?

Recently Someone (a congressman) mentioned that the aim of the "Hate Crime" Legislation currently working it's way through congress is ... shall we say, rather exclusive.
In other words the legislation they are trying to pass will be to protect people of one side but will not apply to people on the other side.

Whatever happened to the Idea that we are all created equal? whatever happened to the idea that we are supposed to have fair and equal representation?

Certain people I know would tell you that we owe something to all those people who the bill is designed to give special treatment. They "Suffered enough" and we "owe it to them".
I don't think so!

The point behind the formation of this country was so that we could all be judged on our own merits.
In other words I am not responsible for my father's (or grandfather's or great grandfather's or ...) indiscretions, EVEN IF THEY HAD ANY. (which, to my knowledge they didn't.)

I am responsible for me. That's it end of story.
I have had ancestors who have done amazing things for this country. one of them (Sgt William Jasper) is still remembered to this day for something he did in the revolutionary war.

For more info On Sgt Jasper click here.

But This does not mean that I get any credit for what he did, those actions were his and his alone. I cannot take any credit.
Likewise we cannot hold the descendants of bad men accountable for their ancestors.

So to legislate something to protect one group of people and leave others out, even though it might be in "reparation for past crimes" is wrong.
(and, BTW, unconstitutional.)

(to be continued...)

Again part 1

I have been thinking I ought to start a series. I would title it, "If I were in charge."
The thing is I do not particularly WANT to be in charge!

See the problem is that people today behave in a very childish fashion.

How many "adults" are addicted to Spongebob Squarepants?

How many of them are trying too hard to be best friends to their children instead of parents?

We keep thinking only of ourselves (the "me syndrome") instead of others.

Too many people are like that today. And frankly I do not want to have the responsibility for all those people.

I am quite satisfied with having to be responsible for the ones I already have.

So instead I am now Blogging. and today's subject is...

Common sense.
Something that we have apparently lost a long time ago.
The Founding Fathers had it, and there is even signs of it during the 40's.
But the 50's and 60's?... well they seem to have misplaced it.

Let me start, therefore, with the idea that we need to stop "reinterpreting" the Constitution so that it means what we think we want it to mean, and let's start accepting that the founding fathers were simply more mature than us!

The Constitution should stand as is. It is really written in simple enough language. For example...

Since it is the FIRST amendment we come across we will use,

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now a lot of people want to claim this means "Separation of Church and State". But it does not say that anywhere here does it? No it doesn't it says,

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;"

It does NOT say anything about religion not being involved in politics. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say anything about religion not influencing the Government. but it DOES clearly state that the GOVERNMENT cannot influence religion.

The Founding Fathers would have been VERY cognizant of WHY European settlers moved to the north American continent, They knew their history (something we seem to be too immature to consider today). They would have been very aware that one of the BIG problems the pilgrims had faced was government that forbade people from following their faith.
The Founding fathers, therefore, were stating that the government cannot dictate how, where, when or why people are to worship.
I know of people who would say "well that is all that we are asking for anyway." But that's not accurate. see there is still that sticky little point, "OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"! When we push for legislation to remove the pledge of allegiance because of the words "one nation, UNDER GOD, We are prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When we demand that memorials or monuments be taken down because they might have religious significance, we are saying, "the Constitutional rights do not matter" because we are taking them away.

I can just hear the detractors splutter... "But We MUST NOT have our elected officials influencing us with their faith! We MUST keep them from leading us down that path!!!"
To which I respond.
"The Constitution was written for ALL the citizens of the United States of America!"

I do not care if the person in question is an elected official, or a school teacher, I do not care if we are talking about a Judge or a clerk.

ALL American people are guaranteed the right to worship when, where and as they see fit, or as their religion dictates they do.

When we start trying to limit that we are WRONG. And instead of sitting around being so childish and immature and wishy washy; Maybe we ought to all grow up some, and develop a little character.
If we did that then it wouldn't matter what faith anyone was, because we would be mature enough to handle it.

All of the founding fathers had faith. it may have been different for each but they all had something they believed in, someone they worshiped.

Most of the records show that they had faith in some form of Christianity.

And they used that faith to provide us with a moral foundation on which to build our country.

Here's the thing.

Even my Cultural anthropology teacher had to admit that Religious beliefs exist, at least, to provide us with a moral code or moral values.

See In order for moral principles to exist, the people who hold those principles have to have Character.
Character cannot be legislated, in order for people to have character they must have belief.
In order for their belief to work they have to have faith.

If we want our country to be great we have to return to that.

The proof is all around us. people all around the world are being raised without any moral fiber. and look at the upswing in...
Unwed pregnancies, Gang violence, rape, murder, theft, and so on...
Every violent crime is up in our world. Much worse than it was 60 years ago.

Citizenship.

Here is an interesting link!
I took the test and got 85% right. This was enough to pass the test! how about you? do you know the answers?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

I will even let you know the ones I missed.

Which of the following amendments to the Constitution does NOT address or guarantee voting rights?

19th Amendment
24th Amendment I picked this one
15th Amendment
7th Amendment This one is the right one.

How many representatives in congress?

I said 100 there are actually 435

What INS form is used to apply to become a naturalized citizen?

I thought.. " who cares?" I answered, Form N-200 "Petition for Naturalization" the correct response? N-400 "Application for Naturalization"

Anyway, see if you can do better... and let me know.

This sucks!

A couple of nights ago I didn't shut off the radio before a certain personality came on.

What Surprised me was the end result...

I like to listen to talk Radio, but there is one guy I really cannot stand! he is rude and abrasive, he refuses to let people get in what they have to say and he treats EVERYONE who disagrees with him like they are idiots for disagreeing.
He seems to believe that HIS view point/belief is THE only acceptable belief and like many others of his... bent... He refuses to listen to reality.

When the first "T.E.A. parties" were happening he insisted they were all set up by the republican party, even though ALL politicians were kicked out, or bystanders, at these events.
He Could not believe or reconcile that there might be any dissension towards Government from the average American,... maybe he thinks they are all too stupid?

So he discounted the "grassroots" involved in the T.E.A. Parties" and insisted they were just another way the opposition party was attacking his beloved side.
He even called them the "astro turf movement"

But then a couple of nights ago he had on a guest. That guy was recently in the news for making the statement that, Americans are not aware of what is going on and it would take an "Attack by Osama Bin Laden in order for [us] to wake up".

Now the host was trying to trick the guy into "showing his true colors", making statements like " well this seems to be a call, by you for a terrorist attack on America." and "be honest, you singled out the Democratic party you really are just trying to push Republicanism."

But then the host asked just the one wrong question... "don't you think the politicians want to do what is best for the country?"

The answer he got clearly floored the man though, the guest said " No! I do NOT think the politicians, on either side, care for America or the needs of her people."
Then the Guest went on to say, well let me actually give you the transcript taken directly from the website of this Host.

COLMES: You don’t think the President of the United States, Barack Obama, cares about protecting this country.



SCHEUER: No, I don’t. Because I don’t think he realizes what the world is like outside the United States. [...]



COLMES: You don’t think he wants to protect the country?



SCHEUER: I don’t think he can, sir. [...]



COLMES: He doesn’t want to protect the country?



SCHEUER: Not if it costs votes.

I would like to note that the total broadcast lasted about 40 minutes, but all he shows is this little blurb, so he can try to show how this guy is "just a nut".

The thing is that I think there are a lot of people out there who believe the same as Mr. Scheurer.

But the Host twists what Mr. Scheurer has to say...

"This comes on the heels of his comment on FOX News that our only hope as a country is for bin Laden to attack us again."

The point the man was trying to make, the point that the liberals will not allow for, is that the only way for us to realize that the wolf is still at the door is when he knocks.!

Mr. Scheurer stated that he did NOT want us to be attacked, but that an attack was unavoidable if we do not correct the problem! BUT he is afraid the only way the problem will become apparent is when it smacks us onto our hineys.

http://www.alan.com/2009/07/02/michael-scheuer-democrats-are-worse-human-beings-than-republicans/

I agree with Mr. Scheurer that our government has failed us.
I would remind everyone of the point that ALL government exists only at the pleasure of the people and ours even more than others.
And I would respectfully suggest that it is time to stand up and say we want our country back.
If that means voting out ALL our congress critters, if that means forming a new party, if that means MAKING those currently in office do what they were hired to do, Then let's do that!

Call your representative, Email your congressman... whatever it takes! tell him or her to stop worrying about getting re-elected and do their job! or they will not be re-elected.

Right now it is kind of like two dogs fighting over a bone. We, the American people, are the bone. the two parties are the ones fighting. And whoever wins the fight, the only interest they have is sucking out our marrow and leaving us wasted and bleaching in the sun once they are done with us.

I think it is time for change and time to get back to basics.

Financial lesson learned?

In my latest post I mentioned that the economy was not as rosy as Obama claimed. I heard in the news last night renewed confirmation of what I was stating.
Apparently it is even worse then what I reported... ah but what do I know?
I am not the President right?

Well let's see a little bit of why we are here.

Everyone claims it was the mistakes of George Bush that led us to it... but was it really?

the point has been made that it was not the mortgage issues so much as it was the fact that Banks were rampantly speculating in areas that did not involve banking at all to begin with.
In other words the financial institutions were playing fast and loose in the stock market and took a greater hit than they ought to have.

But how did this happen now? why not in the 80's in the last recession we faced?

It appears that in 1933 the Government passed a law saying the banks could NOT invest in non banking concerns like this. that bill was drafted and made into law precisely because that is what triggered the great depression.

BUT then it turns out that Bill Clinton, when he was president, countered that law allowing the banks to go back into this risky behavior all over again. and now we are paying the price.

therefore, we need to learn from our past! we need to make sure that this cannot happen again.
Please contact your senator or representative and let him or her know that we cannot continue to make the same mistakes over and over.
We NEED to learn from our past.
After all, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"... guess what.. here is our lesson learned (maybe) again.

Illegal and premature but not for the "media" to say

two points have recently arisen which I feel the need to address.

First, and most important is the issue of Obama breaking the very law that he co-sponsored one year ago in the firing of an Inspector General, with only one hours notice and no "reason" given before the fact, for (allegedly) Blowing the whistle on one of the Obama's apparent friends.

The issue I would like to point out here is not whether the inspector general found something and reported it causing his disfavor.
Neither was it how close the Obama family might have been to the issue.
The point is that ONE year ago, as a senator, Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation which was subsequently passed into LAW, that the President could NOT fire an I.G. without thirty days notice AND a written account of the reason for the removal of the I.G. submitted before hand.
This bill was passed into law in order that people who had the power to make things happen (the rich or powerful) could not abuse that power to thwart accountability.

And yet here he is doing the very thing he made illegal!

He has also thrown another I.G. to the wolves with as little pretext as the first and with less warning then required by law. (again the law HE promoted one year ago!!!!!)
And a third I.G. is apparently being similarly pressured. this really does make me wonder though about the possibility of the truth behind the allegations. (P.S. the F.B.I. has gotten involved in investigating the individual who was caught by the first I.G. so I guess that firing him came too late for the Obama's or their friends if that is really the situation.)

Now for the second point and this is more of an observation.

A while ago I heard people ridiculing George Bush for the photo op where he had his photo taken on board a carrier with a banner in the background saying "mission accomplished". The point to the ridicule was that he was premature in declaring success when , in hindsight, There was still and indeed IS still a ways to go.

But just about a week and a half ago I heard from Barack Obama's own mouth the words that we are moving out of the recession!
Obama declared that he had pulled us out of the mire, the recession was over and all was going to go up, up, up from here.
I commented at the time "I bet this will be like all those other premature declarations."
I specifically thought of the George Bush "gaff" and wondered how the press would respond if I were right in my assesment.
Sure enough just a couple of days ago I noted that the market took another dive, all the "recovery" Obama was pointing at was a false start, and economists were saying that we still are in a recession and if we do not do something and SOON we will be in real trouble. (Like all those thousands of Americans who are now jobless/homeless or whatever are living the good life now?).

The odd thing to me is that the press is not pushing the issue like they did with George Bush.

I am glad that I do not rely on the "normal"? "regular"? how about just "mainstream" media to report things.
I like to think, I like to get all the facts and base my thoughts and ideas on reality and ALL the facts.
They seem to report only the stuff they want to so they can control what the American people think, depriving their adherents of the complete and total truth. (kinda like the issues of gun violence etc...)

I think it is time that we all stood up and said "we want FAIR, TOTAL and HONEST reporting! not your biased opinion, not numbers skewed so that we only see what you want us to see. And not just the sensational."

Bumper sticker politics. part deux

on the way home from work I often pass a pontiac cruiser that has a lot of bumper stickers on the back of it. the person who owns this vehicle is very obviously pro Obama.
But I have to take issue with one of the bumper stickers and so here we are.

The Bumper sticker is trying to be "witty" but falls short, stating "January 20, 2009 the end of an error."

The point it is trying to make was that George Bush was an "error" the "witty" part was the play on words... replacing Era with Error.
Anyway...
I decided today that I suppose I can concede the point in that message. George Bush did err while in office. Most presidents do! Some points I disagree with him on are...

1. The no child left behind act. this act was not thought through and led to students losing the chance to learn because there was no funding attached to the law and resources had to be redirected that might have benefited more.

2. T.A.R.P. funds. I think the Government should NOT be trying to subsidize businesses even if they are "too big to fail" I think of it more as "the bigger they are the harder they fall"... and the longer you stand under them trying to prop them up the more likely it is that WHEN they fall (because they still will) the more likely they are to take you out with them. (proven now by GM and Chrysler BTW)

3. not reinforcing the border security that we so desperately need. no further comment necessary here.

4. Spreading the military too thin. We do not need to have our military scattered everywhere around the world all the time. when we went into the current wars we ought to have first increased troop strength and second made certain that we had solid exit strategies and realistic timetables for withdrawal.

Here is the thing, If George Bush was an error, then The current administration is a disaster. an error is forgetting to pack a spoon in your lunch so you cannot eat your yogurt or pudding or whatever. We now have an admin in place that not only forgot the spoon but didn't even bother to pack a lunch!
They then want to inflict their poor choice making on the rest of us demanding that we all have to STARVE because they have a problem due to their own shortsightedness. Not only has President Obama failed to FIX the problems George Bush left us, he has compounded the problems and then LIED TO OUR FACES about it.

Not only do we have to face a poorly funded No child left behind act, Now Obama wants to add a poorly funded health care plan that has even LESS thought placed in it then the No child left behind act.

He increased the amount of money handed over to companies that were failing, drawing out the painful process of watching the giant companies flounder creating extra stress and uncertainty on wall street.

Not only are our borders STILL unprotected but he is trying to push for amnesty for all the illegal aliens and stretch our resources even further even though they already are insufficient.

And now we are facing further possible troop deployments because everyone sees the U.S. as being weak because of HIS prevarication. (oh yeah Iraq and Afghanistan aren't enough... let's also face Korea, Iran, Pakistan,...)

So to the person who thinks Obama getting into office was the end of an error? how about this. I think this is more a case of "from the frying pan into the fire!" and frankly I think all I can hope for is that we don't ALL get burned.

Our, ahem, education crisis

I was thinking recently about someone with whom I tried to have a conversation.
I realized the other day why I could not get through to her... she was brainwashed. that's right she was programmed, not only was she programmed but it was done by a public school.

I have long lamented that the schools I had to deal with were uninterested in teaching the kids how to think and were more interested in making the kids memorize. I think this is becoming more and more epidemic of all our learning institutions and in this case I am afraid it might prove fatal to our country.

She had no grasp of reality, history or how to think for herself. all she could do was spout the "facts" she memorized (BTW this is at the college level I am talking about).

when I presented her with the facts, and when I showed her incontrovertible evidence, all she could do was fall back on the old evade and redirect tactics employed by liberals everywhere.

I was discussing Equality and the lack thereof in our society, she had to make it about Racism.
"no, no," I would say, "I want equality, true equality!" and her response was "that is a racist attitude." now I ask you since when is wanting equality racist?

She denied that inequality exists. I pointed out to her that there is so MUCH inequality that it has even leaked into the major media networks despite their trying to do all they can to cover it up. So she switched tactics well the inequality you are talking about is nothing compared to the inequality faced by others.
So I try pointing out that while the inequality she is referring to was horrendous, I do not deny it's existence and I am as quick to condemn it as anyone, This still isn't addressing the issue I brought up, That is in the past I am talking about right now.
"My point is," I rephrase, "Any inequality or discrimination is bad. and we need to fix the discrimination/inequalities that exist right NOW."

"Well there are lots of things that you get to have still." she states then she proceeds to list a lot of Things that "I have that others don't" unfortunately she is wrong historically and realistically.

I point this out to her and give her the real facts even showing her where she can verify them.

She ignores what I say and repeats herself, Oh but wait did I detect a note of self doubt? so I repeat my points again...

It then hit me. this whole byplay reminded me of the movie "Hunt for Red October." there is a scene where the U.S. Submarine is following a new Soviet Sub. the Soviets have developed a new super quiet drive system. when the new drive is switched on the computer decides that what it is hearing is "Magma Displacement" see the computer cannot think so it falls back on it old programming which happens to be seismic studies. The Sonar man however has a mind and can think. so he is able to figure out what it really is.
That was what I was trying to struggle against. this person was "programmed" and cannot think.
I was trying to overcome memorization with logic and thought. and these things don't compute. all because the teache... wait no the Programmer had a bone to pick with a certain race and so foisted this off an the poor girl.
The worst part is that it is not only permitted, it is encouraged today. because this is what the "politically correct" want.

I ought to have started here...

One thing I ought to have started this with was a major point that I now make.

I want to make sure I let you all know, I have no problem with authority or authority figures.

My problem is with abuse of authority.
That is what I am seeing and therefore fighting in our society.
what with people trying so Hard to be politically Correct, or touting Diversity as the only way to get things done. Forcing people into comprimising their values, threatening the wellbeing and health of Americans who disagree... well those are things that the Founding fathers went to great lengths to stop.

An example I would like to use; now that they have the Government tied up the democrats are doing everything in their power (Which is considerable right now)to promote their agenda.
This agenda has nothing to do with the well being of America! it serves ONLY the democrats; it includes making sure Democrats have the edge in ALL future elections, it includes paying off the people they like (especially if that gets them future favors), and it includes doing whatever they can to make sure that, if ever someone tries to reinforce the Constitution they will still get there piece of the pie. ( in other words it includes decimating the Constitution and all it stands for.)


Case in point it recently came to my attention that when GM went into bankruptcy the Government took it over (which they even admit too, why is our GOVERNMENT not doing the job of government and is instead micro managing a car company?).
Then the Dems refuse to abide by the laws of bankruptcy in order to make sure that their favored group/s, namely the UAW, got preferred treatment over the stock holders who got hit with enormous loss.
They shoved BILLIONS of dollars into failing companies in order to " keep them from going bankrupt", which they did/are doing anyway, and now that they are going bankrupt they are forcing GM and Chrysler to give up all the lines of vehicles the democrats don't like in favor of more dangerous cars, "oh but they are better for the environment" ( yeah right... A Republican senator from Colorado recently pointed out that they are on the verge of figuring out how to build the Hummer so that it will get "100 miles to the gallon". but that technology has been stopped because the Dems want Hummer to go to China.)

And they are also closing dealers... oh but wait, not just any dealers. apparently as I understand it, it turns out that most of ( if not ALL of) the dealers on the list to be closed contributed significantly to the Republican party (or at least They donated to Obama's opponents). Meanwhile if a dealer gave money to the Obama? nope it is business better than usual for them.

Look here for details...Dealergate

Or HERE

and HERE I have a link to a letter written by one of those dealers who is losing his livelihood. Although I do want to point out one thing in particular to think on.

"On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

And there you have it. THIS ladies and Gentlemen is the "change" that Obama wants to bring to the United States.
The Change of making the Democrats the ruling party in a sort of democratic dictatorship if you will.

Discrimination.

I recently posted a bit of the tiff I was having with my Cousin. BTW, she still maintains I am wrong but...

So I sent her an E-mail today, honestly I am a little upset with myself that I did. I called her closed minded. I hate devolving to the lower levels, leaves me feeling icky.

in fact here is what I said to her.

I am so sorry that you have been exhausted by our Debate.
I really wish you would LISTEN to me instead of flying off the handle trying to intimate that I am a racist jerk (yes my words you did not say them but you DID imply them.)!

I have tried to explain to you that you totally misinterpreted the original e-mail, I tried to interpret it for you, and you wouldn't "listen" now I finally give up.

I will take a brief moment to point out that approximately 70% of everything you tried to state regarding WHY you were arguing with me was at best misinformation at worst a complete and utter lie.

For example there is not a single "Whites only" holiday out there. there never was. You cite Christmas and Easter.
AGAIN Christmas and Easter are CHRISTIAN Holidays and the very first Christians were ALL "MINORITIES". if there was EVER an all white religion it is either druidism or the Norse gods of Asgard. (and neither of those have holidays that we celebrate in the U.S.)

You cite St Patrick's day (again this could be considered Christian) but in the history of America, Irishmen, which is whom the holiday would be aimed at, at one time were reviled as much as, if not even MORE than, African or Asian Americans. This is Historical fact. Look it up.

But if you really want to keep insisting that Christianity is all white, then I do win because in that case, African's have faced slavery and persecution for about 300 years as far as that goes, But Christians are still persecuted today, they have been fed to Lions for people's amusement, they have been beaten, Stoned, Crucified, Burned to death, Drawn and Quartered (particularly nasty that.) shall I go on?
Therefore if you really want to claim that the RELIGIOUS holidays of Christmas and Easter are ALL whites only then you have to accept that logically that means white men have suffered more and longer than any other race.

Otherwise we come back to my original point. there is no special treatment for White's BUT there is for Everyone else who will avail themselves of it.

I think, however, that you are too closed minded to hear me. so I will try to let you hear from someone else.

The someone else I "sent" her; was Mr. Thomas Sowell. an African American and altogether down to earth kind of guy.
He was talking about the impending appointment of Mrs. Sotomayor to the supreme court. In that article... well why don't you Check it out yourself? (<--- click on the white.)

I highlighted certain parts, so I would like to give you those points...

In Washington, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification" when people realize what was said. The clearly racist comments made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Berkeley campus in 2001 have forced the spinmasters to resort to their last-ditch excuse, that it was "taken out of context."

...

What could such statements possibly mean -- in any context -- other than the new and fashionable racism of our time, rather than the old-fashioned racism of earlier times? Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.

...

Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor's voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create "diversity," her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well.

...

Apparently the famous "empathy" that President Obama says a judge should have does not apply to white males in Judge Sotomayor's court.

...
And so on.
See that was exactly my point. there is a new breed of discrimination out there, and it is aimed at whites.

And whatever the past may have. I am trying to focus on NOW.
It could be argued that all races in this world have faced atrocities beyond belief in the past.
But as much as I like History, I do not live there. I choose to live here and now; and living here and now means confronting the injustices of here and now.

The real benefit we can get from looking at the past is to see what mistakes were made so they are not made now, but the argument of my cousin is that we need to live in the past now so we can "make up" for the things done to minorities in America then, and that attitude is what is driving us to the brink of the same problems all over again.
There is nothing we can do now, about then.
So let's start focusing on making it right for ALL people today.

Oh PUHHLLEEEAAASSSEEE!

Allright listen up people's...
Please let's all drop the ridiculous conspiracy theories!

I mean why? why do you insist that everyone is out to get you?

You know psychiatry has a word for that! it is "PARANOIA".
And don't give me the old line of "just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me."

Look in order for a good conspiracy to really work, all the conspirators would have to be able to keep their mouths shut!
Most of the "conspiracies" I hear about would require a LOT of conspirators. And worse all of those conspirators would have to be 100% without a doubt died in the wool Devils. that's right the levels of depravity you are talking about would require supernatural levels in order for the sheer evilness to happen.

So Either their is a HUMONGOUS number of Demons walking the earth ( in which case we might as well just drop to our knees right now and start praying cause there ain't nothin WE are going to be able to do.) or the whole idea of these conspiracies are totally Bogus!

So get over it people. use your brains PLEASE! before I lose my mind.

Stop with the scapegoat thing

Okay about done now. this post showed up on, Thursday, October 2, 2008

I want to start by asking why?

Why do I keep hearing people Whining and complaining about President Bush, trying to blame him for everything...
In fact for that matter People seem to like to complain about the president in general; no matter who is in office.

I listen to talk radio at work and sometimes there is a parade of people who simply want to whine about the president, presidents past tense and potential future presidents.

My question is why are these people complaining?

Winston Churchill once said "if you are not part of the solution, then you ARE a part of the problem!"

Our Government is a government "OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people." so if there is a problem in our government then the problem everyone is with YOU, THE PEOPLE.

You say George W Bush is responsible for the War in Iraq. I say no, not really! let me explain...

In order for our country to go to war Congress has to declare it... NOT THE PRESIDENT.
Some would say, "Well he misled congress into thinking we had to go there."

Well that is just a cop out!

Congress has the responsibility to make sure there is just cause to go to war. therefore, assuming the war in Iraq WASN'T necessary, either Congress dropped the ball by not doing the necessary research first OR they did the research and erroneously came to the same conclusion as the president.

So we would Blame George Bush and excuse Congress for the same mistake? Why do we blame the president?

If you really want to complain or blame someone then blame congress or better yet Blame yourself/yourselves! After all you ARE the ones who put those members of Congress in office (and also the president... TWICE). so you are as responsible for this situation as anyone else.
And if you say you didn't vote then you are NOT contributing to the solution and therefore, according to Churchill, you ARE part of the problem.
Thank you

Bangity bang.

Editor's note... I was surprised to find that I had posted this. I guess I ought to look at prior postings before re-posting the same idea... then again this is an important issue.. Originally this post was made on,Sunday, February 8, 2009


Today I want to talk about gun control.

I occasionally wonder about the lack of common sense I see around me. One area where I find common sense to really be lacking is in the area of Gun control!

Proponents for gun control insist that by controlling guns crime will be reduced. My response is " what world are you living in??? !!! I mean come on here! really if you take away honest citizens guns then crime will go down???" I think not!

If you make a law to control guns then who will give up their guns? law abiding people.
The term Law abiding means "people who follow the law!"

Do criminals follow the law? NO! the word criminal refers to someone who breaks the law!

I guess I have to spell this one out for people though... Crime is committed BY
C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S.

what do you expect the criminal to say... "oh I was going to use a gun to rob that convenience store but oops apparently NOW it is "illegal to have a gun... oh well."???

I recently found out that statistics point out that somewhere around 450,000 crimes a year are committed with a gun. that is a figure that makes people go "see see told you." But wait there is more to the story!
On average over 2,000,000 VIOLENT crimes a year are STOPPED BY SOMEONE WITH A GUN!

So there are two MILLION crimes that are stopped PER YEAR by the possession of handguns.

There are four hundred and fifty THOUSAND Crimes committed with handguns.

And let's be honest... Even if you could enforce gun laws, criminals who don't have the possibility of owning a handgun would still NOT be deterred from committing crimes. They would simply prey on whoever was weaker than they are or they would group together to take out easier targets.

Now for a few little known facts...

Hitler implemented gun control laws prior to subjecting people to concentration camps.
(They could not defend themselves because they had no guns.)

Areas that have a high gun ownership rate amongst their populace have lower crime levels.

Hawai'i implemented gun bans and saw their crime rate skyrocket. (so did Washington D.C., Chicago, Britain, Ireland, Australia...)

So please people let's start thinking again. let's make "common sense" Common again.
Posted by Colt at Sunday, February 08, 2009

Can liberals count?

Original post, Thursday, February 5, 2009

I heard a great one last night!

I remember during a campaign speech Barack Obama said... he had visited "57 states" in the United States. Not sure where he gets 57... last I checked there were only 50.

Now apparently Nancy Pelosi believes that 500,000,000 Americans are losing their jobs every month! This is an amazing feat! Last I saw there were only about 305,000,000 people living in America! Oh but don't take MY word for it.

For Barack Obama's math skills...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws


And for Pelosi's gaff...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E


One more point about Obama's screw up, He says he has visited 57 states he still has one to go and he didn't have the chance to go to Alaska or Hawai'i so in reality he thinks there are 60, that's right SIXTY states in the union.

Hatemongers?

Original post date, Thursday, February 5, 2009



I find it interesting to note that there are people out there who are constantly demanding that EVERYONE has to accept them, but they cannot accept others.

Usually these people are referred to as Liberal Extremists.

A great example are the ones who insist people ought to be allowed to get married even though they practice an "alternative" lifestyle.

In California they recently passed Proposition 8. This Proposition declared that marriage is a covenant between ONE man And ONE woman.

Well since then I have seen or heard about groups of people who were against prop 8 who have been threatening, harassing, even causing harm to property of people or the people themselves who voted for or pushed for Prop 8.

They are trying to get it overturned in courts, they are protesting in the streets. they refuse to accept the will of the people. They refuse to accept that others might possibly think differently then they do. BUT we have to accept them.

Likewise some of the people who first got upset with Obama got mad at him for doing something that he said he would do if elected.
He tried bringing the conservatives together, erasing the divisions that were driving our country apart, to include them in his inauguration and his cabinet and these same people I mentioned before Started screaming bloody murder! they didn't want to have ANY conservative input whatsoever.
Nevermind that a large percentage of our country is conservative.

These are people who INSIST that everyone has to give them everything!
(they claim it is just to be fair but let's look at it for what it really is.)

When you give them what they first ask for it isn't enough. Kinda like in the children's book if you give a mouse a cookie.

I really question the maturity and/or mentality of these people.

To me they seem like a little child who was slighted by receiving one less chocolate chip than their sibling.
Instantly the child demands that they get at least as many as their brother or sister! but these spoiled brats take it further! Getting the same amount won't do! It isn't enough!!!

to satisfy this child now what you must do is immediately take away ALL the chocolate chips that the sibling got , give them to the one who was slighted in the first place and then (for good measure) Make sure that the sibling Never Ever EVER gets another chocolate chip EVER again or else!

Therefore I ask you When will we FINALLY reach the point of fairness? I am all for (true, real, honest) Equality!
I am not for giving someone preferential treatment just because he or she is (or was) a minority.

Bumper sticker politics.

Original post date, Wednesday, February 4, 2009

I saw a Bumper sticker once, which read "The last time religion and politics mixed, people were burned at the stake."

I actually took offense at this trivialization.

This statement really is problematic in several ways! first of all, the last time "Religion" or a strong belief in morality and the hereafter, became involved in Politics a new country was born.
Namely the United states of America.

The Founding fathers were all devout in their beliefs and the statements that they made, the papers they wrote and the lives they lived strongly support this.

One of the founding fathers even wrote that " For a democracy, such as the one we are attempting, to succeed Faith in God MUST be a part of it."

And according to MY studies of History, the last time people were burned at the stake "politics" didn't enter into consideration, it wasn't about politics it was about Hate and fear.

The funny thing is this Bumper sticker is encouraging the same fear and hate that caused people to be burned at the stake to begin with.

I think we need to think before we say things that are so wrong. Let’s Get it right people.

Headed For Bondage Sir, Ma'am

Originally posted, Monday, January 19, 2009



As I look toward the future I find myself a bit worried. It has been said...

"

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith,
2. From spiritual faith to great courage,
3. From courage to liberty,
4. From liberty to abundance,
5. From abundance to complacency,
6. From complacency to apathy,
7. From apathy to dependence,
8. From dependence back again to bondage.


too long have we lived our lives here expecting the government to take care of us. The problem with letting the government take care of us is,

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

(the two quotes above have been attributed to a Doctor Tyler, or Tytler. However there is apparently debate as to that issue.)

You see we all have lived our lives ignoring what is going on around us. Too many people are trying to take our freedoms away from us. And I worry that we are facing imminent danger of collapse.

The recent vote is a sign, I believe, of such an occurrence. I was very concerned when I saw people who were being polled after the election. many of them indicated that their vote was considered solely on the basis of who would give them more.

for a long time some have been trying to erode the constitution. And we have let them!

We let people reinterpret what the founding fathers wrote to the point where the founding fathers themselves would be hard pressed to recognize their ideals in the laws governing us today.

I believe that what the founders of our country wrote is actually pretty straight forward.

for example...

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Both of these were written into our laws in December of 1791. Unfortunately the first one is either misquoted, abused or both. Note it says Congress (ie: government) will make NO LAW respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;! yet that is exactly what is happening every time they say we cannot pray if we are in government employ (free exercise of religion) or every time they say a pastor cannot preach on a subject because it is "hateful" (this also buts into the freedom of speech part.)

People want us to believe this means "separation of church and state" but I ask you were are those words here? that phrase is found NO WHERE in the first amendment.

As for the second amendment people want me to believe that the guys who wrote this "didn't know that Automatic weapons were going to exist, this must have been established for hunting and no one needs an automatic weapon for hunting." but you know what? I do not see it saying anything about hunting. It states that this amendment is there for us to be secure! To defend ourselves against those who would take from us our freedoms! So if the "enemy" will be armed with automatic weapons doesn't it stand to reason that we too ought to be armed similarly?


I want to end with a few more quotes... note the dates and/or people making these statements!

"One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish their purpose, without resistance, is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms".
- Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. 1811-1845
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
- Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme court (1939-75)

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
- Thomas Jefferson

Well where is the change?

This Blog comes to us from, Wednesday, February 4, 2009 (bonus at the end there is an update to the situation it talks about!)

I am a little frustrated today.

I remember that during the elections a lot of people wanted to vote for Obama because he was going to "make [their] lives better." Or they stated (as one of my own family members said) that Obama's getting elected brought them a sense of "hope".

some of these people Cried whined and complained right and left about George Bush!

"His staff was corrupt."

"He didn't help enough with Katrina."

"He drove the Economy into the ground."

"He started a war in Iraq where we didn't need to be."

So let's look at recent "presidential" events!

Yesterday two of Obama's appointments had to back out of consideration because they were found to have cheated on their taxes.

There is a major disaster (freezing and power loss in Kentucky) almost as high in death toll now (50+) as Katrina ever was And Barack Obama hasn't even gone to look at the problem let alone TRY to help.
At least George Bush was on site as soon as he could be! Where is Obama?

Obama's plan to "rescue the economy" is literally nothing more than "let's spend more money we don't have and maybe that will fix it!"
EVERY REPUBLICAN and several Democrats have already rejected the plan at least till it can be pared down some.
Even the liberal New York press has proclaimed this bill to be a disaster.

As for Iraq? we are still there. of course one could point out that (gasp) they recently had honest to goodness elections! and they were even FAIR oh my.
Something they haven't had in FOUR THOUSAND YEARS. all because the American Soldiers went over there and gave them that chance.

So where are all the whiners now?

Interestingly enough I note that many of the promises Obama made while on the campaign trail have fizzled.

He promised a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. (still there.)

He promised to close Guantanamo bay in his first week, nay in his first day. (nope not yet)

He promised to eliminate the don't ask don't tell policy of Clinton's. (still there)

And so the very people who he was trying to cater to from the start are becoming quite upset with him.
He is trying now to reach the part of the population who didn't vote for him and he is failing there too.
He is failing BECAUSE one, he is pro abortion and Two, he is opening our system (health care, benefits, schooling) to ILLEGAL immigrants.

On a side note (since the bit about Immigrants came up) I find it interesting to note that in the last year there have been 2.5 million American jobs lost. That's 2,500,000 Americans on unemployment who have no work.
They are trying to make ends meet on welfare!
At the same time there were 1.5 million (Yes that's right 1,500,000) NEW visa's /green cards issued for Immigrants to work here in America.

This might not seem "P.C." but, why couldn't we have denied those visa's and put 1.5 million Americans back to work? then we might not have all these big problems.

So back to my point...
I am still waiting to hear, why it is that all these people had so much hope about Obama's getting elected. where is the change... or wait I guess he didn't promise GOOD change just change.
Still it seems like business as usual in our Capitol city.





One advantage to this BLOG move, Now we are in June, while All this I reported was only a month after he took office the problem is the same factors are still in force that I blogged back then. Actually some of them are worse. Obama recently held a little get together to tell us all how wonderful things are. He did this in Nevada which state has lost something approaching 3 MILLION dollars in revenue so far this year, DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF HIS POLICIES! To say the citizenry was less than thrilled would be an understatement.

Oh dear, This might get people upset.

This is one of my earliest posts on topic. Tuesday, October 7, 2008.

O.K. once more unto the breach, dear friends, go I.

That’s right, it is the season of politics and so back to politics this blog must go.

My first point is this, back when this race for the president got started, I stated that I was concerned about the reason/s people would use for voting the way they chose. More than that I was worried that people would point fingers and accuse others for voting a particular way because of a bias towards race or gender.

I remember a time when, in Arizona, there was a vote about what holiday/s we ought to “celebrate” the choice was (a) Martin Luther King Jr. day, (b) Christopher Columbus day or (c) both.

The way the vote came out was essentially, “we do not want TWO holidays added, and if we have to pick between Christopher Columbus or Martin Luther King. Then we guess it will be Columbus.

The rest of the country (it seemed) came down on the state of Arizona declaring that all the citizens of that state must be “RACIST” because we were “against Martin Luther King. But that wasn’t the case we were not “against” King. We were just for Columbus. But EVERYONE did everything they could to intimidate all of Arizona until finally Arizona gave in and switched from the idea of Columbus Day and instead made Martin Luther King Day the holiday of choice.

Now I want to make one thing very clear here… For most Arizonans it was not about race. We couldn’t have cared less one way or the other. There might have been a few who were motivated by racism but I am quite certain that race was NOT the main point for the majority of the voters.

The really disturbing thing there for me was the fact that even though the people of the state made a choice in the polls they were forced to change their minds FOR NO GOOD REASON. Just because someone else CHOSE to be offended.

Like wise I wonder how many people will be offended at all the people who vote “against” Senator Obama. See when I think about going to the polls and voting in this election season I see myself voting for the candidate of my choice based on little things like… Issues! Moral Fiber! Leadership Ability! Those are the concerns as I see them.

Recently I watched an episode of Frasier. In that episode Martin (the dad) sides with one candidate and his sons side with the other. During the taping of a commercial for the candidate the sons want in office they discover, what is to them, A serious flaw. Their candidate believes in extraterrestrial beings. Now to these brothers, who are both psychiatrists, this is madness and they believe that their choice of candidate is totally unhinged and incompetent. But because they don’t like the other guy they still do everything they can to get their guy elected.

See they sold out completely. When they threw their support behind their guy, they decided that it did not matter that he was a total loony tune, it didn’t matter that he might lead the country into total danger because of his views or beliefs. All that mattered was getting their candidate elected. They threw away EVERYTHING they believed they compromised all their morals they corrupted all their values. All for the wrong reasons.

I wonder so much if that is what is going to happen this year. I think it might. We need to be Aware of the facts people. We need to follow the candidates and see what is really going on; and most of all we need to open our eyes and start realizing that the person we elect should be elected because he/she stands up for what is right, (not just sounds good) has the strength and fortitude to take office (doesn’t get wishy washy) and will serve the needs of the people rather than his own needs.

No bones here I am for John McCain. He has been a straight shooter while Barak Obama has continuously covered up and lied. John McCain has served the country, sometimes making hard choices to do so, Barak Obama has shown at every step that he is only interested in serving himself.
So why is it that people are willing to shoot themselves In the foot, voting for someone unprepared to take the highest office in the land? People we are all on the verge of selling out! Please when you vote; LOOK AT THE ISSUES. Look at the voting record, look at who has shown himself most willing to be up front. Don’t look at the smooth patter, or the idea of political correctness. Those are not issues and if those are the criteria you choose to base your vote on it could cost us more than we can Imagine.

A new Civil War?

Yet another transfer... from, Tuesday, February 17, 2009...

Last night I was listening to late night radio as I am wont to do while at work, and I got a rather interesting look at where our government seems to be headed.

The "show" I listened to was called "Coast to Coast AM with George Noory". usually I find I have to take all they have to say with a grain of salt (they are very much into U.F.O.'s, Ghosts, and the supernatural.) but last night's show had state senators on from four different states; these senators spoke out about their states policies vis a vis the issue at hand

One of the primary guests was, Jerome Corsi his article on the subject can be found click here.
Or you can go to...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082
The other main guest was Alex Jones whose website is here.

The subject of the show was about state sovereignty. It seems that several states have become extremely upset with the trend of the Federal government and they are declaring themselves to be Sovereign.
In other words there are states (last I heard about 20-30 of them) which are saying to the federal government that they are not going to be Tyrannized by anyone even if that anyone is the federal government.

I find this to be a very interesting (or scary) issue!

I am a little bit of a civil war buff and one point that I keep running up against is, no matter what we think of it today, at the start the south did not go to war 150 years ago primarily about slavery, that was a secondary issue to the matter.

The Civil war (or as some southerners still call it, the war of northern aggression) started when several states felt that the federal government was limiting and/or removing the rights of the states to be self governing.

This viewpoint is somewhat supported in part by the fact that it took over a year (Sept 1862) after the start of the civil war (Apr 1861) for Abraham Lincoln to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

Now the History books would tell us that the civil war occurred PURELY because of the issue of slavery. but there were many who fought for the confederacy who "didn't care one way or the other about [slavery]"

Here I am reminded of the adage "the victor writes the history books."

The thing here is, I see this issue (state Sovereignty) as being the same issue all over again.

When you look at the wording of some of the bills being passed by states today you get a good idea of how serious this is.

For an example I give you HCR-6. this is a declaration by the state legislation in New Hampshire about State Sovereignty. HCR 0006

If you can't get there that way try...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082

I will include the last few (and most pertinent) paragraphs of HCR-6 at the end of this writing.

It turns out that this is a problem that appears to have been brewing for quite a while and now it is coming to a head.
Already there are nine states which have declared state sovereignty; Arizona, California, Hawai'i, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington

And now there are apparently 13 or more states considering doing the same. (for more on this please look here.)

they include...
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, Pennsylvania and Texas.

One of the reasons for these actions is reportedly a presidential directive marked as PDD 51 which would theoretically cause the country to revert to Martial law.*

One of the State legislators who was a guest on the show said "the states created the federal government and the constitution gives states the right to dissolve the federal government."

And they are right! In plain speak, basically under the 9th and 10th amendments provision is made that should the federal government start to become unwieldy and self serving then the states (or the people) have the right and even the obligation to change the government.

What is frightening is that any one who has advocated such actions in the past have been labeled as seditious, terrorists or worse. But now we are talking about STATE GOVERNMENTS who are saying these things; how can a duly elected constitutionally supported government be seditious?

And we seem to have the federal government responding in kind. Declaring that they will enact said martial law and bring the state governments who oppose the federal government to "justice".

I suppose we would have to look at the constitution. But the states declaring their sovereignty HAVE done that. And apparently they are finding that it is the Federal government who is, or is about to be, at fault for disobedience to the constitution.

And it all hinges on the 9th and tenth amendments. In other words, as I understand it, recognizing that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. so even though they are not specifically mentioned federal government still may not take away those rights.

AMENDMENT IX
(1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


In other words, as I understand it, the drafters of this amendment recognized that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. So this was a catch all saying any rights enjoyed by the people, even though not specifically referred to, could not be taken away by the government.


AMENDMENT X
(1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This one is saying that Federal Government cannot remove or overrule State rights, or powers which are held by the States.
ie: The States are free to govern themselves without interference from the federal level; as long as they do not become unconstitutional by taking away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people.



I am worried for many reasons, because we ought to not have to fight for our freedoms AGAIN!, because we ought not to have another civil war, and because I swore an oath as a member of the National guard... the oath goes

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Some of the issues

BUT having signed with the national guard (and both states in which I served as a guardsman are on the lists as declaring their sovereignty) I have a further dilemma. What side do I serve if reactivated?

You see under the statutes for serving in the national guard...

"The National Guard is uniquely organized under the constitution and federal statutes. The Guard and Reserves are equally accessible under federal mobilization and can be called-up for operations, national emergencies, or war...but only the National Guard can be called-up by the individual states. Unless called to active federal service, the Guard is under the command of the Governor, through the direction of the Adjutant General. When called to federal service the President of the United States is commander in chief."

If the state does not recognize the federal government as the proper authority and my first obligation is to my state unless called to federal service by the president. This assumes that the president is recognized as the proper authority.

If the president or congress is an illegal government under the constitution then my obligation lies with the states AND defending the constitution against the president (or congress) who is then declared a domestic enemy of the constitution.
BUT
If the president is the legal authority it is the state/s who are the enemies of the constitution.

I am not a lawyer but I think even a lawyer would be able to argue either side in this as I am trying to do.

I do believe however that I know where I will be if it comes to it.

I feel much the same as an illustrious member of civil war fame that I could not fight against my home.


The end of HCR-6 states,

"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature."





*Martial Law. n:

1. Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
2. The law imposed on an occupied territory by occupying military forces.