"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin;
"And when politicians find that honor and character matter less than buying votes and a constituency, that too will herald the end of the Constitution. When that happens we must work tirelessly to change their minds, or their occupation!" - Hoping The Blind Will See

Saturday, August 7, 2010

An Open Letter To All Of America

After I wrote this I thought long and hard about actually posting it. I read and reread it many times trying to ensure my points were clear. I am still not certain I have succeeded to the extent I wanted to achieve. I was afraid, and still am, that my intent could be misconstrued. In the end, I decided to post it as is because the need to convince people to engage in the process to preserve liberty outweighs my need for better articulation. So this is my meager attempt to persuade anyone who yet disbelieves that liberty is under siege, of that very fact. To embolden all who are unsure of the course we must embark upon - that of preserving liberty no matter the cost. If I can persuade but one other soul, I will be pleased. It is my belief that you can not be against the Constitution and for Liberty. You can not believe the Constitution is a "living" document and preserve Liberty. I hope I have illustrated that in this post. It is a long post, but I hope enlightening, and inspirational to some degree. Thanks for taking the time to read it.

In America we have 535 members in Congress (435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 members in the Senate), a Vice President of the United States, and a President of the United States, all serving at any given time. Each of them is required to take an oath upon being sworn into the office to which they have been elected.

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United 
    States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United 

    I 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; that I take this 3 
   obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
   discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. – Vice Presidential 
   oath, as well as that of ALL of Congress.

Is the oath that is administered to our political leadership done so as a ceremonial process only, or does it mean something? When it was established, it was taken literally. It was a sworn oath, and held great honor for the person taking it. But if that were the case today, most members of Congress would be impeached or hanged as traitors. For few currently occupying Congress, if any, have upheld the oath they have taken.

If your Senator or Representative has voted against Arizona in her plight to secure her borders, at the peril of the lives of American citizens, they have also voted against upholding the law of the land, and therefore have broken their oath.

If your Senator or Representative has voted to mandate that every American buy a product (healthcare), regardless of the rationale for that vote, they are in violation of their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

If your Senator or Representative has voted in favor of progressive ideas, laws, judges, or agendas, regardless of the motivation for doing so, your Senator or Representative is in violation of his or her oath to protect and preserve the Constitution. For he or she cannot both protect and preserve the Constitution of The United States and support a progressive/socialist agenda. The two ideologies are not compatible.

If your Senator or Representative has voted in favor of taxpayer money being appropriated to any person, or group of persons, or constituency then they are in violation of their oath – regardless of how compassionate their actions may have been. Here’s a story from Col Davey Crockett, Congressman that illustrates that point.

SOCKDOLAGER—A Tale of Davy Crockett, Charity and Congress
April 9, 2010 by Bob Livingston

A "sockdolager" is a knockdown blow. This is a newspaper reporter’s captivating story of his unforgettable encounter with the old "Bear Hunter" from Tennessee.

From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.

We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.

There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.

The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.

Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: .

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"

"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.

So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.

The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied:

"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"


"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:.

"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

He came upon the stand and said:

"Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

And so we find ourselves today with a body of men and women who are liars and cheats, who lack honor and integrity, who do not seem to know or understand the meaning of values and principles, but all of whom are in search of that Holy Grail – power. The vast majority are no longer interested in preserving a Constitution of the people, for the people, by the people. That doesn’t serve their needs, nor does it provide adequate sustenance for their ego’s or their need for power. For most of them, their only desire is to be more powerful than their peers. It’s just a power game to these people. Our lives, our laws, our existence is secondary to their narcissistic hunger to impress each other; to slap backs, and throw around “high-fives”. It has been this way for all time.

The illusion of Liberty in America, while it lasted, allowed these people to create a social and economic “structure” outside of our Constitution, largely unrecognized by the masses while it was being built, that will allow our current social and economic structure to implode directly into their structure. Their structure is nothing new, other than it was created with, and contains, technology that is new. But the ideas of ruling classes versus serfs/slaves/working class, etc has been around since people first roamed the earth. You can find the theme in writings throughout history.

And throughout history you will also read about man’s struggle to free themselves from the tyranny that abounds in such a structure. So why would we be so stupid as to allow ourselves, a people who were given freedom and liberty, to throw that all away? And yet that is precisely what we have done. I hope you’re happy.

And I hope you will be happy as you watch your children, and their children, suffer under oppression and tyranny. I doubt the world will ever again see a people as free as we once were. And yet, as a nation, we continue to embrace apathy. No one has taken to the streets or taken up a rifle to reclaim our country. No one regularly marches on Washington. We are told that we can only succeed in securing our Liberty if we act peacefully, and all the while, little by little, our Republic slips away. Perhaps that’s good advice, I don’t know. But perhaps we’re just being naively led down a path that will allow our would-be oppressor’s to accomplish their ends with little obstruction.

Me? I believe that people continue to tiptoe around the issue of the possibility of a second revolution or a second civil war. I have posted an article about that possibility as far back as July 4th, 2009. I believe the time is drawing near when all good men and women will be required to choose sides. I can’t see this struggle being won or lost without a violent struggle on both sides. And while I am not a promoter of that eventuality, I believe the conditions that will perpetuate it have already been set in motion. I also believe in what George Washington alluded to when talking about British oppression – the American Christian, he said, will die on his feet before he will die on his knees. I hope, if it reaches that circumstance, that his sentiments hold true for all freedom and liberty loving Patriots! Are you prepared for that? Are you willing to commit to that level of sacrifice? I hope, for the sake of liberty, you are. For if it comes to that, if and when we are standing side by side, patriotism, and that lingering taste of liberty which is etched upon our minds, will strengthen us sufficiently to allow us to continue the fight, in whatever form it takes, until we are victorious. There is no other option. God is on our side, and He is a powerful ally!

God Bless America! God Bless All American Patriots! And God Bless The Constitution!

Help Stop Crime - Buy A Gun!

More guns equal more crime? Not in 2009, FBI crime report shows.

FBI's latest crime report, for the first half of 2009, shows America is a less violent place even though ownership of guns has surged. Deterrent effect may have a role, but others see no correlation.
By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / December 23, 2009

The oft-cited credo that more guns equal more crime is being tested by facts on the ground this year: Even as gun ownership has surged in the US in the past year, violent crime, including murder and robbery, has dropped steeply.
Add to that the fact that many experts had predicted higher crime rates as the US grinds through a difficult recession, and the discrepancy has advocates on both sides of the Second Amendment debate rushing to their ramparts.
After several years of crime rates holding relatively steady, the FBI is reporting that violent crimes – including gun crimes – dropped dramatically in the first six months of 2009, with murder down 10 percent across the US as a whole.
Concurrently, the FBI reports that gun sales – especially of assault-style rifles and handguns, two main targets of gun-control groups – are up at least 12 percent nationally since the election of President Obama, a dramatic run on guns prompted in part by so-far-unwarranted fears that Democrats in Congress and the White House will curtail gun rights and carve apart the Second Amendment.
Pro-gun groups jumped at the FBI report, saying it disproves a long-running theory posited by gun-control groups and many in the mainstream media that gun ownership spawns crime and violence. “Anti-gunners have lost another one of their baseless arguments,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told the Examiner's Dave Workman.

Some gun-control groups have long sought to establish gun ownership as a health issue, which would expose purchasers to the kind of regulation now imposed on prescription drugs and alcohol. That view embodies the idea that mere exposure to guns makes people more violent.

But more pragmatically, groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have mostly targeted illegal sales and gun-show loopholes as the primary problem in America’s gun culture. They say such loopholes and lax enforcement allow violent criminals to get their hands on used, stolen, and inexpensive guns. “The guns that cause the worst problems in this country are not selling for very high prices,” Brady Campaign spokesman Peter Hamm has said.
As advocates on both sides keep score, what’s the rest of America to think as they weigh the relative crime risks – and statistics – in their own neighborhoods?
The debate over whether guns spur or deter crime has been under way for decades. So far, research has come out with, in essence, a net-zero correlation between gun sales and crime rates. More likely factors for the crime rate decline have to do with Americans hunkering down, spending less time out on the town with cash in their pockets and more time at home with the porch lights on, experts say. So-called "smart policing" that focuses specifically on repeat offenders and troubled areas could also be playing a role, as could extended unemployment benefits that staved off desperation.
“We can absolutely draw a fact-based conclusion about [whether there’s a correlation between declining crime rates and increasing gun ownership], and the answer is no,” says David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control in New York. “There are very consistent findings that the acquisition and obtaining of carry permits by ordinary law-abiding people has either no or very little impact on the crime rate.”
He finds more evidence in the FBI’s new report, which shows crimes declining not only across a variety of violent and nonviolent crime classifications, but also in both gun-resistant and gun-friendly corners of the country.

“When you’re seeing declines [in violent crime] both in cities like Atlanta, which is in a relatively gun-friendly state, and in places like New York City, where it is essentially impossible for ordinary folks to acquire and carry especially handguns, then it’s not the guns that are driving the [statistics],” Mr. Kennedy says.
But one prominent gun rights researcher, Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, leaves the door open to the idea that news of booming gun sales could have a deterrent effect on violent criminals.

“It’s possible that criminals hear about lots of people buying guns, and then you can see a plausible mechanism, that conceivably could have produced a reduction in murder,” says Professor Kleck. “It’s all a matter of perception, not reality, for prospective murderers."

The End

When I got my Concealed Weapons Permit I was required to watch a couple of videos. One demonstrated the criminal mind-set in relation to their perception of whether or not their target was a gun owner. The video showed many interviews with criminals in jail. In their words they would do everything within their control to avoid a confrontation with a gun owner - going so far as to avoid houses that displayed NRA stickers or other stickers that alluded to the fact that the property owner was also a gun owner. So I believe they are a deterrent. But even if they aren't, they are the "great equalizer" if someone should break into your house.

Got Yours Yet?

No Longer Even The Guise Of Fairness; Is This The America You Thought You Lived In?

If it wasn't so scary, you know the thought that this administration could actually do something like this, I'd be laughing hysterically at the buffoon who introduced the idea. But alas, I find myself instead shaking my head in disbelief, and waiting to see what will come of it...

Democrats: Say, Let's Exempt Rich People in Blue States From Tax Hike!

Publius Forum on 08.05.10
-By Warner Todd Huston

If this doesn't exemplify the left's propensity to act in the mode of for-thee-but-not-me, nothing does. The Wall Street Journal (by way of the Wash. Examiner's Mark Hemingway) reports that at least one Democrat has suddenly realized that when the Bush tax cuts fade away his state will be hit by a massive tax hike on the same rich people that donate to his election campaign.

The Journal notes that the "irony" of the tax increase coming on January 1 is that the bluest states will be hardest hit. New York, California, Connecticut, and New Jersey will be hit pretty hard and this poses a "problem" for those pro-tax Democrats that will suddenly find rich constituents who will be angry about the new hit on their income.

But, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D, NY) has come up with the perfect solution. Nadler wants to pass a law that exempts his rich constituents and those of other taxpayers in areas with a higher cost of living, i.e. other Democrats. The Journal reveals that Nadler's new law would "require the IRS to adjust tax brackets proportionally in regions where the average cost of living is higher than the national average."
In other words, the various tax brackets would apply to residents in certain regions at higher income levels versus other parts of the country. A family with an income of $50,000 or even $1 million in Manhattan would pay less federal income tax than a family with the same earnings in Omaha. The bill is called the Tax Equity Act, but a more accurate title would be the Blue State Tax Preference Act.

Imagine that, eh? A Democrat that wants the coming tax hike to affect only Republican states. Who wudda thunk it?
The Journal also reminds us of exactly why it is that these Democrat strongholds have such a higher cost of living: taxes.
A big reason the cost of living is so high in Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco is because of high state and local taxes, union work rules, and heavy business regulation that make it more expensive to produce, sell and buy things.
So, let's review. Unions and high taxes from both the state and the city governments -- not to mention the federal government -- makes living in these Democrat strongholds more expensive, all things that Democrats are responsible for creating. Yet Democrat Nadler wants the very people that created the high taxes and their voters to get a break while the people smart enough not to vote in politicians that cause everyone's cost of living to soar are supposed to pick up the bill.

Yep, that sounds like a Democrat, doesn't it? Make rules to "help" people, but make sure other people pay the costs of this "helping."
No wonder the scariest phrase in the English language is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

I Don't Remember It Happening, So Somebody, Please, Tell Me When We Fell Down The Rabbit Hole 

Friday, August 6, 2010

Two Great Black Leaders?

While Martin Luther King Jr will always be remembered for his "I had a dream" speech and the philosophy that dream embraced, our esteemed barack obama will forever be remembered for his "I have a scheme" philosophy. MLK was a uniter, b.o. is a divider. While one wanted to judge people by the content of their character, the other wants to judge you by how much money you make, and how much and how quickly he can take it away from you. Both espouse far different philosophies. Most people felt the honor and integrity that MLK possessed in their hearts. As for barack obama? The only thing I feel in my heart is heart ache with a side of heartburn. Two great black leaders? I don't think so. Give me someone who can motivate and unite peacefully and through love like Martin Luther King Jr any day. The anger the current president generates is going to tear the country apart if he isn't stopped soon. Where are the voices of the  Democrats who aren't progressives? Where are the voices of the RINO's? Where are the voices of the more conservative Republicans? And where are the voices of ordinary Americans? Where's the outrage? This president's actions are akin to raping the constitution! Where are all those men and women of great honor and intelligence who took an oath to protect it? SILENT!! Let's make some noise!

barack obama may think that he's trying to fill Martin Luther King Jr's shoes, but he's failing miserably. He's a lot like that nursery rhyme about the old woman who lived in a shoe - that's how small he is in comparison to the shoes he's trying to fill. Give it up b.o., it just ain't happening!

By the way - notice the two quotes in the picture? Notice MLK isn't talking about "privileges"? Gotta love "Content of Character"...

If This Administration Doesn't Have You Outraged, You Just Aren't Paying Close Enough Attention
Posted by Picasa

Senator Pearce, Arizona, Squarely On The Front Line

First and foremost, Thank You Arizona and Senator Pearce!

Now, who do you believe? Who is more believable? Senator Pearce or barack obama and his band of merry men?

Here's an article from Newsmax.com:

Arizona Immigration Law Author: Failure to Enforce Law Impeachable Offense

Thursday, August 5, 2010
By: Jim Meyers

State Sen. Russell Pearce, the chief architect of Arizona’s tough immigration law, tells Newsmax that the recent court ruling on the law was a “huge win” for Americans fighting to stem the flow of illegal aliens in this country.
Pearce, a Republican who represents parts of suburban Phoenix, also says the law “scares” the Obama administration because it will lead to the enforcement of immigration laws — and agrees that Obama’s failure to enforce those laws is an “impeachable” offense.

A highly decorated former law officer, Pearce crafted and co-sponsored Arizona SB1070, the immigration bill that was passed in April. Federal Judge Susan Bolton blocked some of the most controversial parts of the legislation, but Pearce remains cheered by the results.

“It’s been a long battle,” he says. “I prepared for the fistfight. I knew it was coming, getting sued by the open border crowd, the left-wing folks who fight you on any effort to enforce the law. So I knew what was coming.
“But we won. It’s a huge win. We won everything we really needed to win.
“The main thrust of 1070 was [against] sanctuary policies” that restrict the enforcement of immigration laws in certain jurisdictions. “They’re actually illegal under federal law. But [federal officials] don’t sue them, they sue Arizona because we decide to enforce the law.
“The other parts that she blocked temporarily were important tools, but what did go into effect, people need to understand, is that sanctuary policies in the state of Arizona are now illegal. She didn’t block that piece. So law enforcement may enforce the federal law to the fullest extent of the law.
“And if they don’t, we the people will sue government — that’s also in the bill. If they block or interfere or limit the enforcement of these laws in any manner, we will sue.
“The other piece that stayed in there is on day laborer issues. It’s a felony to hire them. We’re going to stop the hiring of illegal aliens that take a job from Americans. If you pick up an illegal alien day laborer, you’re going to go to jail. Your car is going to be impounded for 30 days, mandatory. So some significant pieces are still in effect and are huge in this bill.
“This law has teeth. That’s what scares people. That scares the Obama administration, which has a non-enforcement policy.”
Pearce was asked how he reacted to Sarah Palin’s comment that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer “has the cojones that our president doesn’t have.”
“I reacted very well to that comment,” he tells Newsmax. “I appreciate the governor’s vigilance in defense of the bill.
“During the debate over 1070, a good friend of mine was murdered — right after [Janet] Napolitano, your Homeland Security director, said the border is more secure than ever. Simply not true.
“Fifteen Phoenix police officers, just to pick on Phoenix, were murdered or maimed at the hands of illegal aliens. Enough is enough. We spend $2.7 billion a year in Arizona to educate, medicate, and incarcerate. It’s the citizens that pay the price for this illegal alien invasion that can no longer be ignored.”
Pearce cited one Arizona family that has been terrorized by illegal aliens who come across the border, suffering “18 burglaries, three home invasions, multiple vehicles stolen. At night they hear a noise outside and they pray for daylight. They have their doors boarded, their windows boarded. And we have a federal government that stands by and thinks that’s O.K., that’s just collateral damage as they move forward with their agenda of amnesty. Enough is enough.”
Pearce says he is encouraged by other states that are following in Arizona’s footsteps and seeking to pass immigration legislation.
“Over 20 states are going to model legislation after 1070, so I’m extremely encouraged. In fact, I’ve talked to 34 states that would like to do it but don’t have a legislature or governor that would sign a bill.
“That’s what scares the Obama administration. They’re not worried about profiling. They’re not worried about anything but enforcement. What scares them is the fact that the laws are actually going to be enforced.”

He says the administration is worried about enforcement for two political reasons.
“First of all you have the open border anarchists who want to change the political makeup of America, and that’s through change in the demographics. Their best hope is open borders.
“Then you’ve got the other side, the corporate oligarchy, the profits-over-patriotism crowd. They want cheap labor. They don’t care what the cost is to America, and they have a stranglehold on Washington D.C., while 70 to 80 percent of Americans say close the borders, enforce the law.”
Pearce agrees with South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham that the policy established by the 14th Amendment — that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen — needs to be changed because it was never intended to be applied to aliens.

Sen. Jon Kyl says that when he asked President Obama to secure the border, Obama’s response was that if he did, it would remove the incentive for Republicans to negotiate on comprehensive immigration reform. Former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has called the refusal to enforce the law an impeachable offense. Pearce was asked if he agrees.

“Absolutely,” he declares.
“Five to ten thousand folks come across that border daily, and what’s coming across — 20 percent have criminal convictions — are gang members, drug smugglers, human smugglers, child molesters, rapists. It’s an invasion. It’s in violation of the Constitution. Yes, it’s impeachable. He not only neglects to do it, now he’s refusing to do it. It’s impeachable.”

As for reports that a Mexican drug cartel has placed a $1 million bounty on the head of tough Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Pearce says “the silence is almost deafening from Washington, D.C.”

If This Doesn't Outrage You, What Will?

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Are You Prepared?

Life as we've known it is changing rapidly. The problem is, that we won't see the result of those changes until the damage is already done. It's a lot like skin damage from sitting in the sun. It looks good, it gives you a healthy glow, but it destroys cell structure and leads to cancer. That's where we're at in this country - enjoying the healthy glow. Except some of us have done the research and we know what the result will be. And we don't want the cancer. So, are you prepared for that eventuality? Because we're going to get the cancer, not enough people are heeding the warning. Let's have a quick listen to Jim DeMint...

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!

Still Proud To Be An American?

An email I received today...
My name is d'Lynn. I'm a disabled Vietnam vet. I don't look too bad for a beat-up old fart, do I? And that's my ride. She's looking pretty good also, especially when you consider that she'll turn twenty this summer. That's right, it's a 1990 with a 1990 sidecar. I can't ride a solo bike, ergo the sidecar rig. It's my sole means of transportation - rain or shine, snow or wind, and this summer also marks a milestone in both of our lives, as I will finally be able to pay her off. Twenty years old? What? Why did it take so long? You weren't paying attention, were you? It's right at the beginning of this paragraph.

I am a disabled vet, which means I receive a veterans administration disability pension, which also means "I'm broke!" Just one step ahead of being homeless every month, and that's not an idle statement or an "Oh, woe is me" dire complaint. There’s a point to this, so hang in there a minute or two and read on.

There's a 25-year-old illegal immigrant woman living in Florida , with eight kids. Yes, eight "anchor babies" and she receives just shy of $1,500 per month per kid, plus medical, plus food stamps.
Oh, wait. I've been informed that I shouldn't call them Food Stamps anymore. That's not PC. It's all called “Social Assistance” now. You do the math on that yourself. I'd say that she was schooled early in how to make it in the system. Twenty-five years old, eight kids . . . . . Yep, she started early.
You can whip out the calculator if you want, but this woman, who never has paid a dime in taxes of any kind, (and still doesn't – she's 'illegal,' remember?) is here in this country illegally. She hasn’t paid out one cent in medical for all the “anchor babies,” makes more in one month, legally, than I receive in over a year and a half in disability payments and I can't even get food stamps! Oops, I mean “Social Assistance.”
Technically I am eligible for “Social Assistance.” I was told it would be a walk through – a gimme – being disabled. No problem, and in the very next breath I was also informed that under the law the amount I received in “Social Assistance” would be deducted from my disability pension.
Let's say I take a great photograph. It was just luck, a one of a kind accident, in the right place at the right time shot. My local newspaper offers me fifty bucks to use the photo in a featured story. (I live in a small town and fifty bucks is all they could afford.) I have to report that fifty dollars to the VA as earned income, which will immediately be deducted from my next month’s disability check. If I don't report it I’m in violation of federal law and technically they can stop my disability pension and prosecute me under a federal felony. Pretty cool, eh? For fifty bucks.
I see no point in dealing with two federal bureaucracies, so I don't bother. What's the point?
She's here illegally and with just one kid would make over twice what I receive per month. She has eight and she’s not a stand-out case. She’s not alone. That's the way the system works. Millions of illegal immigrants know this, know how the system works and know how to use it. (Haven't you seen the pamphlet? It's handed out all along our borders, "The Illegal Immigrants' Guide to Keeping America Just The Way It Is.") and that's just the way it works.
Did you know that the federal government provides a “refugee” in this country with a monthly “stipend” of $1,890, plus $580 a month in “Social Assistance?” That’s $2,470 a month, tax-free. That's two and a half times what I’m allowed to receive as a disabled vet. And just what did they do to earn this? All you have to do is show up on our collective doorstep, raise your right hand and swear that you're a refugee and, bingo, receive $30,000 a year, tax-free. That's more than someone making $15 an hour, and they have to pay taxes to boot!
Now, in defense of the Veterans Administration, they are doing what they can with what they've got. This is precious little compared to what they should have to get the job done. At least this country has a VA.
It's the Senate that keeps passing laws, rules and guidelines, cutting their budget, denying requests for more staff and computer systems to handle the massive work flow. Their hands are tied by the very government that's supposed to give them what they need to get the job done, by the government you voted into office. Don't scream at the VA. I have. It's misguided anger.
The point to this “story?” Just why are you paying such high taxes to support this incredibly screwed-up government? Why? And I’m not proposing you stop paying your taxes. That's wrong. There are good programs and reasons to pay your taxes and support our government.
What am I proposing? It's quite simple. Vote.
The government, our government, is broken and we as the voters serve as the maintenance crew. We fix it . . . . . by voting. If your state Senator has been in office more than two terms, vote 'em out at the next election. If your state representative has been in office more than two terms, vote 'em out of office. We put term limits on just about every publicly-elected official in the country except the House and Senate.
Why? Believe me, they know this and love it! Ahhh - the power!
I don't care how much you believe your Senator or Representative is doing a good job. They're not! Look at the government you have....that we have. How can you state they are doing what you want as the voter that put them there? How?
Vote them out of office. Do it.
Change the course of this country's history by what you are granted and guaranteed under the law. Vote! And if you have the guts, the anger, the outrage, start a petition in your state for a state-wide initiative to be placed on your next state ballot. Limiting the terms of office for your state senators and state representatives to your federal government to two terms.
The federal government will never pass such a law, but you can. You can get it done. You can force it. You can make it a law.
This is the first step in “getting it right.” Just vote. It's simple. It's easy, dammit!

This first step will send a very clear message. It’ll work. It’ill put “us” back in control of “them.” As it should be. As it was intended in the first place.
Are you an American? Born and raised? Then vote!

Side note: I sent this e-mail to a little over one hundred on my e-mail list. If you believe I’m wrong or misguided or you simply don't agree, that's fine. Go right ahead and delete this e-mail. No problem. Sorry to have bothered you. But if you think I just might have a worthwhile idea, something we can easily accomplish, something that could be a small part at getting this country back under “our” control, then please pass this along.

The End

So, an 11% approval rating for Congress. 89% can't be wrong - vote them out!!! Be objective and look at the corruption! Yes, rest assured that your Representative and Senators are involved in it. Vote them out! And while I don't pretend to know if all the "facts" contained in the email are accurate, the issues discussed in it are real. It's time to begin the process of taking our country back!

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention
Posted by Picasa

The Threat Of Tyranny Is Real

All governments, whether by design or through a lack of vigilance, slowly but faithfully plod through the political forest on the road to Tyranny. It is our job, as the watchdogs of Liberty, to ensure the government is reminded of where they are headed and from whence they came, and to turn them back towards their origins - freedom and liberty for all. For if we fail in that mission, then the Republic will be lost and our sons and daughters, and generations of sons and daughters after us, will be enslaved by Tyranny.  Fight for Liberty at every opportunity.

If You Don't Believe We Are On The Road to Tyranny, Then You Really Do Need To Read History - Both Foreign And Our Own - Before You Set Your Opinion In Stone

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

It Is Us

It's time for straight talk and an end to political correctness. The lack of the former, and the rise of the latter have driven a stake into the very heart of America. If you haven't recognized that fact, or learned that lesson first hand, please start reading your history! Talk to your grandparents and ask them what life in America used to be like. Then look at socialist countries around the world. Read about what is happening in them. Then ask yourself, "is this what I want?" "Will this be the type of country my kids will grow up in?" And if the answers to those questions bother you, start getting involved!!

NUGENT: It is us

We're the ones who allowed anti-Americans to take over America
By Ted Nugent - The Washington Times
Friday, July 30, 2010
Barack Hussein Obama did not sneak into power. An army of clueless, disconnected, ignorant Americans invited him to bring his Marxist, glaringly anti-American jihad into our lives. This president's overtly destructive, clear-and-present-danger agenda is surpassed in transparency only by his ultra-leftist public voting record and overall lifetime conduct of consorting with the enemy as a child and student of Marxism, socialist and racist community organizer, congregant of the blatant America-hating black-theology- and social-justice-spewing Rev. Jeremiah Wright and close personal friend of convicted communist terrorists like Bill Ayers, and by his unflinching appointment of an array of communist czars, including Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunne, et al. So let me get this straight: You claim your intentions were noble because you simply wanted to get your child a puppy but somehow didn't notice that it was foaming at the mouth, and now you're shocked that your child has rabies? I think not. That is not a mistake. It is negligence -- dangerous, life threatening and, I am convinced, downright criminal negligence.
And the price for such negligence is catastrophic, don't you know.
But it gets worse. For, you see, the blame doesn't fall just on the obvious stupidity of our friends and families who voted for this corrupt, death-wish government in whose stranglehold we find ourselves. Ultimately, it is our fault. It is the failure of those of us who know better but have failed miserably to educate our own. Living our lives with a captive audience of family, friends, co-workers, socialites, fellow worshippers at church and other parents at school -- everyone in our everyday walks of life -- far too many of us have allowed uneducated, history-devoid, denial-riddled, fantasy-driven, anti-gun and anti-hunting, anti-capitalism general ignoramuses to remain so and run amok, when by all thoughtful considerations, it was our duty to educate and upgrade everyone in our lives to truth, logic and the American way.
It is the terminal curse of apathy and disconnect that got us into this shameless mess we find America in today, and in all honesty, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
We all saw it coming, but political correctness caused most of us to clam up in the ridiculous mindset that it was more important to avoid hurting feelings than to stand up for what we knew in our hearts was being trampled underfoot. Sadly, America has become a nation of ultra-thin-skinned, whining little girls, afraid of our own shadows and so cowardly as to back away from the simple solution of speaking the truth when we know we are supposed to do so.

I have been damned as being a radical extremist my entire adult life for simply standing up and relentlessly promoting and celebrating self-evident truth, logic and common sense. The devil brigade acting upon the Saul Alinsky deception playbook has made its mark by lying, cheating and attacking with the very hate that it accuses everybody else of harboring. With an overall complicit media to bullhorn the brigade's agenda, a nation of sheep has taken the pill and swallowed it whole.
Welcome to the new fat, soft, cowardly nation of wimps with the perfectly corrupt president and pack of soulless hounds in government that they deserve.
Look at Harry Reid. Charlie Rangel. Listen to Nancy Pelosi. What kind of idiots do they represent? A huge army of idiots who wish to do nothing for their country, but whine for their government to do everything for them. Welcome to France, ladies and gentlemen, only worse.
There always have been bad, ignorant people in the world. But in the United States of America, land of the free and home of the brave, the epicenter of rugged individualism founded on the premise of live free or die, where the powerful DNA of defiance got us where we are as the last, best place on Earth, the ultimate violation is that so many hardworking, truly entrepreneurial, independent Americans backed down and failed to stand up when we saw the wimps squawking about all the wrong stuff.

Everything from the New Deal and Great Society on has been a dismal and grossly counterproductive failure, yet we continue to allow corrupt bureaucrats to keep jamming more of the same down our throats with barely a whimper of resistance. How pathetic. How lame. How un-American.

The Tea Party is a better-late-than-never step in the right direction back to the glorious "we the people" experiment in self-government, but as far as I'm concerned, we haven't begun to turn up the heat nearly enough quite yet.

Each and every conservative and liberal American who knows that we cannot spend and tax our way out of debt, who knows that an exit strategy instead of a victory strategy is the same as surrender, who knows Fedzilla is criminal in its refusal to be accountable with our hard-earned tax dollars being blowtorched with unprecedented and insane wastefulness, that a federal government suing Arizona for simply implementing constitutional law is treasonous, and who fails to communicate this with everyone we know is actually complicit with this bizarre, fundamental transformation of the greatest country in the history of humankind.

What in God's good name are we thinking? How much more of this can we possibly put up with? Will we show true American fortitude to stop the beast at the voting booths in November and in every election in the future to make sure no more communists, no more Marxists, no more anti-American redistributors of wealth are allowed in positions of power ever again? Can we outvote the pimps, whores and welfare brats? Will we be smart enough to put every politician to the Pelosi-Obama litmus test? We will be smart enough never to let a Mao Zedong fan club in the White House ever again?

Will we have learned our lesson that we the people have a daily, moral responsibility to be suspicious of everyone in government and the media and watchdog them properly from now on? Will we finally never forget? Will we finally say never again and mean it?

Will we finally use the incredible freedoms as provided by the sacrifices of our amazing warrior heroes of the U.S. military to be sure this insanity can never happen again? Can we show at least that basic respect for the privilege of being American and how we got here?

It is not them, it is us. Pogo was right.

Ted Nugent is an unstoppable American rock 'n' roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is author of "Ted, White & Blue: The Nugent Manifesto" and "God, Guns and Rock 'N' Roll" (Regnery Publishing).

Wake Up Younger Generations Of Americans; Time Is Short!

Welcome To Washington Forest!

When did Washington become Sherwood Forest? And where is the Sheriff of Nottingham?

 Does obama see himself as a modern day Robin Hood? Let's take a look.

Robin Hood, while defying local authority, was allegedly a supporter of King Richard the Lionhearted. Who's King Richard today? Perhaps King George Soros the Goldhearted. Robin Hood was a master of the arrow, able to hit his target skillfully time after time after time. Much like the current barb-thrower obama who slings them at his targets - industry (car, insurance, financial, oil, wall street), class, tea party members, the Cambridge police, George Bush, the Republican Party, Sarah Palin; the list is extensive. But, alas, Robin Hood eventually died, allegedly through the treacherous deception of a known contemporary. We'll see how that turns out - maybe we'll see obama's career die if we can get some contemporary to disclose what's going on behind the scenes. I'm sure it wouldn't be pretty.

While the story of Robin Hood has been glamorized and romanticized over the centuries, the bottom line is that he still "stole from the rich, to give to the poor" and he was still an outlaw. And while obama has the authority and the backing of his band of Merry Men in Washington Forest (Little Harry, Maid Nancy, Friar Joe Biden, "Will Scarlet" Emanuel, Axelrod of Gisborne, et al) he is still involved with stealing from the rich. In other societies, what obama is doing has been seen clearly as a violation of the law. So while obama currently presides over what will surely become the Divided States of Socialist America if he isn't stopped, he is still an outlaw! And time has a way of catching up with them...

If You Aren't Outraged By The Antics And Lawlessness Of This Administration, You Aren't Paying Attention
Posted by Picasa

Monday, August 2, 2010

You've Undoubtedly Heard Of The Rangel And Waters Ethics Investigations

But did you also know that six other black democrat congressmen have been under investigation during this session? Here's an article on it. Maybe we need quota's in Congress for ethics violations too! Unbelievable!

Race No Issue To Be A Crooked Congressman
Posted by JERRY K. REMMERS, TMV Columnist in At TMV.

Aug 2nd, 2010 Politico reporters John Bresnahan and Jonathon Allen raise the question of when the race card is drawn when it comes to investigation of House ethics violations.

At one point this session of the 111th Congress, eight of the 42 members of the House Black Caucus were under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics which was created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2006 to clear the swamp of congressional malfeasance. All were filed by the conservative watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The eight Democrats represent 19% of the black caucus and 1.8% of the 435-member House of Representatives.

Politico quoted one anonymous black Congressman:

There’s a “dual standard, one for most members and one for African-Americans,” said one member of the Congressional Black Caucus, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The member said it’s too easy for an outside group to damage someone’s reputation by filing a claim with OCE.
“This is stacked against you once an accusation is made,” the lawmaker added. “You’re guilty until proven otherwise.”

Majority whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and a member of the black caucus spoke on the record last October: “A lot of people have been raising concerns [about the OCE], and I support them… At some point in the not-so-distant future, these concerns will have to be addressed.”
The OCE investigates and reports its findings to the House Ethics Committee. That committee can send cases for a trial among its peers which, in turn, can expel, censure, reprimand or exonerate.

Unless deals are struck, two trials will be held in September for Rep. Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of Los Angeles.

On its own with only two black sources, Politico reports: “Raising questions about race and whether black lawmakers face more scrutiny over allegations of ethical or criminal wrongdoing than their white colleagues.”
Politico points out that another black Congresswoman under investigation was ed by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a member of the caucus.
“House Democrats are paying a price for OCE’s focus on black lawmakers,” added still another anonymous Democratic insider close to House leaders, quoted by Politico.
“But that doesn’t change the fact that voters are going to see two African-Americans on trial in the House while they see no action against white members with ethical problems.”
Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is quoted the current situation is bound to anger black lawmakers.
“There are ethics problems within the CBC,” she said. “They have to acknowledge that.”
Sloan noted that several white lawmakers, including Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), are currently under investigation by federal and congressional investigators. Ensign is being investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee and the Justice Department over the fallout from an extramarital affair he had with the wife of a top aide, while Visclosky and his former chief of staff are being probed over their ties to a now-defunct lobbying firm raided by the feds last year.
Can someone please explain a double negative to me. Since when is ethics and criminal violations among our elected representatives gone color blind? I always figured it crossed racial lines. A couple of white Southern House speakers come to mind in Newt Gingrich and Jim Wright. Pardon me, but I don’t buy any race card being played in the current flap involving Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. Of course, the party in power usually is the subject of most of the ethical improprieties. It lends credence to the axiom that power corrupts. This is an equal opportunity crime unconfined by racial or gender or sexual orientation.

Vote 'Em Out!

This May Be Where The Progressives In Our Government Are Taking Us; Look Like A Place You'd Like To Be?

The Weimar Republic, 1918-33

The Weimar Republic, proclaimed on November 9, 1918, was born in the throes of military defeat and social revolution. In January 1919, a National Assembly was elected to draft a constitution. The government, composed of members from the assembly, came to be called the Weimar coalition and included the SPD; the German Democratic Party (Deutsche Demokratische Partei--DDP), a descendant of the Progressive Party of the prewar period; and the Center Party. The percentage of the vote gained by this coalition of parties in favor of the republic (76.2 percent, with 38 percent for the SPD alone) suggested broad popular support for the republic. The antirepublican, conservative German National People's Party (Deutschnationale Volkspartei--DNVP) and the German People's Party (Deutsche Volkspartei--DVP) received a combined total of 10.3 percent of the vote. The Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany, which had split from the SPD during the war, won 8 percent of the vote. In February the assembly elected Friedrich Ebert as the republic's first president.
In mid-1919 the assembly ratified the constitution of the new Weimar Republic, so named because its constitution was drafted in the small city where the poets Goethe and Schiller had lived. The constitution established a federal republic consisting of nineteen states. The republic's government was a mixed strong president and parliamentary system, with the president seen by many as a sort of substitute Kaiser. The president was elected by popular direct ballot to a seven-year term and could be reelected. He appointed the chancellor and, pursuant to the chancellor's nominations, also appointed the cabinet ministers. However, the cabinet had to reflect the party composition of the Reichstag and was also responsible to this body. Election to the Reichstag was by secret ballot and popular vote. Suffrage was universal. Thus, Germany had a truly democratic parliamentary system. However, the president had the right to dismiss the cabinet, dissolve the Reichstag, and veto legislation. The legislative powers of the Reichstag were further weakened by the provision for presidential recourse to popular plebiscite. Article 48, the so-called emergency clause, accorded the president the right to allow the cabinet to govern without the consent of parliament whenever it was deemed essential to maintaining public order.

Read the whole history of the Weimar Republic, especially the early 1920's. Do your research...

Still Not Scared? Still Not Outraged? I Have A Feeling You May Be Soon...

US Government Abandons Law Enforcement Community In America

Arizona Sheriff: ‘Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy’

Monday, August 02, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu(Correction: As initially posted, this story inaccurately said that Pinal County was contiguous with the Mexican border. It is in southern Arizona, but not on the border.)

(CNSNews.com) – Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.

Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.

The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.

“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com. “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a temporary injunction on portions of the bill that allowed law enforcement personnel during the course of a criminal investigation who have probable cause to think an individual is in the country illegally to check immigration status. The state of Arizona filed an appeal on Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help,” Babeu said.

Babeu and Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County Ariz., spoke by phone with CNSNews.com last week about the May 17 ACLU class-action lawsuit, which charges the law uses racial profiling and named the county attorneys and sheriffs in all 15 Arizona counties as defendants. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on July 6, charging the Arizona law preempted the federal government’s sole right to enforce immigration law.

“If the president would do his job and secure the border; send 3,000 armed soldiers to the Arizona border and stop the illegal immigration and the drug smuggling and the violence, we wouldn’t even be in this position and where we’re forced to take matters into our own hands,” Babeu said.
Dever said the federal government’s failure to secure the border and its current thwarting of Arizona’s effort to control illegal immigration within its borders has implications for the entire country.
“The bigger picture is while what’s going on in Arizona is critically important, what comes out of this and happens here will affect our entire nation in terms of our ability to protect our citizenry from a very serious homeland security threat,” Dever said. “People who are coming across the border in my county aren’t staying there. They’re going everywhere USA and a lot of them are bad, bad people.”
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), about 250,000 people were detained in Arizona in the last 12 months for being in the country illegally. Babeu said that that number only reflects the number of people detained and that thousands more enter the country illegally each year.
The CBP also reports that 17 percent of those detained already have a criminal record in the United States.
Both Babeu and Dever said they want to remain involved in the legal battle over the law, which many experts predict will end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dever has hired an independent attorney to represent him in the ACLU case and his attorney has already filed a motion of intervention in the DOJ lawsuit so the “(Dever) will have a seat at the table.”

A Web site also has been launched by the non-profit, Iowa-based Legacy Foundation to raise money for the Babeu’s and Dever’s legal defense.
Both men said they believe the outcome of the case has national significance.“For us, this is a public safety matter and a national security threat,” Babeu said.

Sheriff Babeu is another of those members of law enforcement targeted by the drug cartels of Mexico who have put a bounty on his head. What exactly is barack obama waiting for? Ahhh, maybe he's getting a kickback...

If You Aren't Outraged, You Just Aren't Paying Attention!

The Magnitude Of This Man's Character Continues To Impress Me

Can I suggest that you pick up the book Joker One by Donovan Campbell? It will give you a good understanding of what it was like in Iraq at this particular time. It is a fantastic read. And it might give you a better understanding of the reason(s) for Lt. Col West's desire to do whatever was necessary to protect the men and women under his command. As a father of a son who is an active member of the USMC and was also in Iraq, and then Afghanistan, I say to Lt. Col West "Thank You for your service, and your commitment to your men, your honor and your word." You are indeed exactly what we need in Washington! As Sean Hannity would say, you are a Great American! I am proud to have you running in my state of Florida, and I am proud that I can say that we, you and I, are Americans!

My Fellow Patriots,

One of the most enduring values my Parents instilled in me was a sense of duty through service to my Country, America. Leading by example, my Father served in WWII, my Mother served 25 years as a civilian with the 6th Marine Corps District Headquarters in Atlanta, my older Brother served in the Marine Corps and was wounded during the Battle of Khe Sanh in the Vietnam War, and my young Nephew currently serves as a Captain in the Army, already having served 2 tours in Afghanistan.

The 22 years of active duty service in which I proudly wore an Army uniform defined my life. My military service brought me to 13 countries, including 2 tours in Iraq (Operation Desert Storm & Operation Iraqi Freedom). After retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel in 2004, my sense of duty and commitment to public service brought me to Deerfield Beach High School as a teacher, and later motivated me to return to the battelfield of Afghanistan, where I served as a Civilian Advisor to the Afghan Army for 2 ½ years. It is this commitment to serving my Country, and its citizens, that has motivated me to run for Congress.

As our campaign to restore honor, integrity and character to Washington, DC gains momentum, our incumbent opponent - Democratic Congressman Ron Klein - has made a series of moves that evidences he will do and say anything to win. As our campaign continues to address the issues affecting South Florida, Klein and his political cronies have all but announced that they will distort my proven record of honorable service in the name of retaining power.
During the next 3 months, this dishonorable opponent is going to try to distort and falsify my service in Iraq as a combat Battalion Commander in 2003. Let me be perfectly clear - as a Battalion Commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom, my number one priority was the safety and lives of my men. I am proud to have sacrificed my military career in order to carry out that solemn promise to each of them and their families.
While my service in Iraq has been well documented, I wanted to share this short video with you that further explains what I did, why I did it, and what happened as a result. You will clearly come to know who I am.

I hope you find this information helpful in promoting our campaign aimed at restoring honor, integrity and character back to Washington.
Steadfast and Loyal,
Signed "Alan West"

Republic Restoration Project Under Progress...No Stimulus Dollars Used or Needed. Please Join The Project!

Sunday, August 1, 2010

The Constitution And Freedom - What Don't You Know? Watch, Listen And Learn

Republic Restoration Project In Progress... No Stimulus Dollars Used or Needed! Join The Project!

Please Get This Info Out To Everyone You Know, And Ask Them To Pass It Along As Well

Republic Restoration In Progress - No Stimulus Dollars Used Or Needed! Join The Project!

I just came from a local 9/12 Project meeting where I met Dr. Juan Torres. Dr. Torres is a legal immigrant, originally from Ecuador and who recently gained citizenship status, who has decided that his love for this country required him to actively do something to promote liberty, freedom and the American ideals that originally drew him to America during the Reagan years. He said he has seen significant changes in the 20+ years since he first arrived in America and passionately discussed his disappointment and disillusionment with the Obama administration's stand on many issues - including healthcare, Arizona, and love of country, among others. So he, along with the technical help of Dr. E. Scott Bushnell, has designed a website to aid the Latino population in learning about, and understanding, the issues currently facing the country. The site provides conservative values and insight to the Latino population - many from South American countries, but not limited to them. Dr. Torres made the site live on July 4th, 2010 - how appropriate is that?

Dr. Torres is hoping to reach a minimum of 100,000 Latinos, but perhaps as many as a million, to spread the truth about what is occurring in America because he is afraid there are many Latinos in the country who are not knowledgeable enough about the system and the politics to discern the truth without the information this site provides. Given the complicit nature of the main street media, I can understand his concern. Dr. Torres explained that in his practice he administers to a large Latino population and that is the feedback he receives. He said there are 3.8 million Latinos in Florida alone, with as many as 30 million nationally. His goal of educating Latinos on the issues could be a huge influence on preventing Obama from getting re-elected.

Though the site was designed for Latinos, it has a myriad of information for every American. Follow this link to check it out. Latinos and Americans United - Defending America

Please pass this along through your own blogs and other social websites like facebook. Much appreciated and thanks!

Republic Restoration In Progress - No Stimulus Dollars Used Or Needed! Join The Project!

Die On Your Feet, Before You Live On Your Knees - The Star Spangled Banner

The Star Spangled Banner, like you've never heard it

Smittys Place

MySpace Video

From The Left

I stumbled upon this blog today. This is what America is up against. Take a look, and read this blogger's profile and a couple of the posts and comments there, especially the one about the Arizona immigration law. You'll find intolerance, derogatory name-calling and hate abounds. How do the progressives have the temerity to call us conservatives intolerant?


And then there was this from the W.C.Varone Blog, which I found interesting, especially the part about continuing to push for change...

Don't Tempt Me
E-mails, we get e-mails.

This one from Michelle Obama:

Will you sign Barack's birthday card, WC?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:44 PM
From: "Michelle Obama"
To: "WC Varones"

WC --

Every year, our family tries to come up with a fun way to wish Barack a happy birthday. And this August 4th, when he turns 49, I have something new in mind.

This has been a big -- and hectic -- year for him. After signing the Affordable Care Act and Wall Street reform into law -- and completing his first year as president -- I think it's safe to say we will remember it for a long time.

And I know full well how much he credits this movement, and the work of supporters like you, for the change that we've accomplished.

So I'm putting together a birthday card that I would like you to sign. Together with supporters -- and me, Malia, Sasha, and Bo -- we'll wish him a happy birthday and let him know that we're ready to take on the year ahead alongside him.

Will you wish Barack a happy birthday with me?

Wish Barack a happy birthday

This year also brought a lot of surprises -- some good and some bad.

Supporters like you have helped him make the best of it -- by contacting Congress to help push stalled legislation forward, by re-engaging supporters in the political process, by giving back with service projects across the country, and so much more. And while we can't know what the coming year will bring, all of us, working together, will continue pushing forward for change.

Will you help make this a memorable birthday for Barack and wish him a happy 49th?


Thanks so much,
Michelle Obama
Are You Paying Attention?