Keep us free weblog

Modern Laws in Yesterday's Culture

2009-11-06T07:46:00.001-08:00

THANK YOU Representative Joe Wilson!!!

2009-09-10T06:53:00.001-07:00

Just sent this eMail to Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC):

THANK YOU. I can't say it loudly enough in eMail, but thank you for standing up to the outright blatant lies that President Obama is willing to feed to us. He knows the media will not expose his lies, so he continues to say them. He started during (and even before) the campaign, saying things like "I did not know Reverend Wright believed those things" {even though I went to that church for 20 years}. How stupid does he think we are? Apparently very.

Representative Wilson, I know it was "improper", but were I in your situation, I couldn't help but think that I would have done the same thing. I probably would have taken it further, found a microphone, and spoke directly into it, calling him out on all his lies, and EXACTLY how he was lying, then outright resigned my position, stating "This is no longer a Constitutional Republic, you blatantly ignore the Constitution which DOES NOT give you the authority to do these things, so why should I respect your position when you ignore the document that created that position?"

Absolutely brilliant (no not really)...

2009-08-06T07:14:00.001-07:00

You and I are spending... no, wait a minute... we're not spending, the Federal Mafia has stolen $1 Billion out of our pockets (and our kids pockets), and is giving it away to... to do what? To crush over 200,000 perfectly good automobiles, sell the scrap to China, and sucker people into buying an overpriced new car that will lose 70% of its value in a few short years. Absolutely brilliant, our government at work.

These folks haven't followed the Constitution for well over a century now, so why are states required to abide by their agreement to submit to the Federal Government's decrees? The Constitution is the document that holds this nation together, and it is wholly ignored. If I were the governor of a state, I would tell the Federal Government that until they start following the Constitution, and ALL their regulations are within Constitutional guidelines, we will be ignoring the Federal Government laws, and will not be giving a dime of our citizens' money in the form of income taxes or otherwise.

Maybe that'd wake them up.

test 2

2009-06-26T09:05:00.001-07:00

test

2009-06-08T20:20:00.001-07:00

Irony abounds in today's age...

2009-04-02T13:02:00.000-07:00

Read the following article, and tell me if you see something rather ironic:

http://www.kcsg.com/news/local/42031997.html

After you've read it, read below:

I'll give you a hint, the ironic part is in a sentence that starts with "KCSG decided to dig a little deeper..."

Do you find it funny that when someone turned in gold coins, their response was "How did something so valuable end up in the bank?" For those of you who may be irony-challenged on this one, the bank is full of money that is supposedly valuable, but anyone who sits and thinks about it realizes that our fiat currency is absolutely worthless in the grand scheme of things. If you held $100 trillion in federal reserve notes, and everyone else out there said "eh, I'm not really interested in buying those things", you are left with piles of paper that are just as valuable as blank injket printer sitting on the shelf at your local Office Max. Actually, probably less valuable, because they're all marked up and you can't print anything on them.

Nobody finds it strange that the federal government can pass multi-trillion dollar spending packages without having the money to back them up? How do you think they get the money to pay for those things? I'll give you one hint:

Gesetz über die Hitlerjugend law (aka the "GIVE act")

2009-03-24T10:41:00.000-07:00

Why is it the ultra left calls conservatives "Nazis" and "Fascists"? Their own leftist actions are more in line with Fascism than anything else in existence today. Fascism is basically "Sure, you can own your own private property, but we're going to tell you what to do with it". For example: "You want to own your own business? That's fine, but you have to hire X amount of women, Y amount of minorities, you have to pay them at least $x.xx per hour, you can't replace them if they go on strike with a union (even though there's a line of 10,000 people waiting to take their job at half the pay), oh, and by the way, if you happen to be a medical doctor who's pro-life, and someone wants an abortion, you have to perform it or we'll remove your 'license' to practice medicine".

But I digress... the original point of this post is to discuss the Gesetz über die Hitlerjugend law. No, that's not its real name, that's just what they called the same thing in Nazi Germany. Its real name here is the "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education act" (aka the "GIVE act"). This has been one of Barack Obama's top priorities upon assuming office, mandatory participation in government-run programs like this. I don't have time right now to explain why this is a horrible idea, but if you can't come up with those reasons on your own, you need to do a little reading about history...

Straight Talker

2008-11-10T18:00:00.001-08:00

Flags in the trash, guess where?

2008-08-28T11:06:00.001-07:00

So I don't update this thing much, it just gets my blood boiling. But I got this one in an eMail and it's too sad to not tell. It was hard enough to find a flag at this particular location (unless of course the primetime TV cameras were rolling), until they searched the trash bags, then, guess what they found...

Flags in the trash can

Che Guevara flag flown by Barak Obama?

2008-02-27T05:08:00.000-08:00

The man whose track record as a lover of America isn't very good, apparently also isn't very good about covering up his true intentions.

Anyone with two nickels to rub together upstairs knows that wearing a shirt with the image of Che Guevara makes you one of two things:
1) An ignorant moron who thinks that's cool to wear a shirt of a murdering communist
or...
2) A lover of a murdering communist.

Now, if you're the frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination for president, you're intelligent enough that we can't assume #1 for you, so we must assume #2. And not only that, he wasn't spotted wearing a shirt of Che Guevara, it was something much more telling: One of his main campaign offices has a Cuban flag with a picture of Che Guevara on it, and NO American flag (that I saw anyhow). (Another office has the same Cuban flag with Che Guevara on the left, next to an American flag in the middle, and a hippie peace flag on the right).

So, this from a guy who doesn't fly the American flag on his campaign plane, won't wear an American Flag pin, and thinks the American public is dumb enough to believe that in 20 years of going to that church, he didn't know that Reverend Wright believed those mean nasty things. Yeah, right... And I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you too.

See a picture of the flag at the link below:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss

Shooting at Virginia Tech

2007-04-17T06:52:00.000-07:00

In a sick sense, it seems that my post on March 15th was simply a foreshadowing of what was to come. It was only a matter of time before some crazed nutjob went on a shooting rampage where there were no off duty police officers who randomly happened to be in the area. Unfortunately, it happened on April 16, 2007 on the campus of Virginia Tech.

At present count, at least 30 people were killed on Monday when a lunatic went through the campus of Virginia Tech with what I believe to be two pistols and a vest full of spare clips. He went first through the dorms, then to random classrooms, opening the door and murdering people, firing 30+ shots at a time into a room as students ducked for cover, then moving on. Eventually the rampage ended when the gunman killed himself, only after leaving 30+ people dead.

Unfortunately, unlike the recent rampages in Utah and Manhattan, there was no off-duty police officer with a gun nearby. And due to the highly restrictive laws on posession of a firearm on a school property or in a public building, there were no students with a gun in those rooms either. Do you know what that means? That means our "good willed" liberal friends bear a large part of the responsibility for the deaths of those 30+ students and faculty members, and the wounding of many more. But you'll never hear that on the news.

Just look at this typical liberal spouting off about guns in the classroom, in posession of an off-duty police officer no less. I bet Mr. Brandon Wilson is swallowing hard right now, except that he's so blinded that he doesn't see how a gun in the hands of HONEST citizens could have stopped this rampage cold.
>No guns in the Classroom

The really stupid thing about this is, as the world reacts with horror they say "Oh those lax gun laws in the US caused this". Give me a freaking break. Oh, great idea, let's ban the guns, then nobody will have them (except all the criminals). If a person wants to get a gun, they will get a gun. They've been around since the 1600's. They can freaking MAKE a gun on their own if they wanted. It might not be highly accurate, but it'll work. What are you going to do next? Ban steel because people can machine it into a firing chamber? Oh, how about we ban bullets too!! Then we can ban brass so people can't form them into bullets. Oh, then we can ban Potassium Nitrate, so they can't make gunpowder!!! Not like people haven't been making that on their own for centuries...

This is all ridiculous. Liberals have been trying forever to explain away why supposedly "good" human beings do bad things, by saying it's not the person's fault, it's their environment (aka it's the gun's fault. Just like it's the spoon's fault that Rosie O'Donnell is fat). They assume that human beings are by nature good, which is one of the fundamental flaws in their belief system. For the best example of this, just look at kids. I love my kids like no other, but they're a perfect example of the "evil" nature of human beings. By their very nature, until we teach them different, they are selfish, greedy, lazy, etc... I mean, just watch them... Tell them they need to give the neighbor kid's toy back... Or even worse, explain it to them, and then when they don't listen, you have to take it out of their hands... What's their response? "NO!!!! {WHACK}... MINE!!!!!"

You get the point. Liberals (and funny enough, socialists, anarchists, communists, evolutionists, and a host of other "ists") also believe that humans are good by nature. Unfortunately, it doesn't jive with anyone's experience.

An absolutely awesome article (hint: it's not about what you think)

2007-03-16T12:40:00.000-07:00

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

One victory, and two validations of the right to bear arms

2007-03-15T05:49:00.000-07:00

Recently it was reported that the US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia ruled against the city officials of Washington DC, and struck down their handgun ban. City officials (like typical liberals, claiming the collective state has more rights than the individual) claimed that the right to bear arms only applied to state militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia." Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority on Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense." {SCORE!!!} Someone finally gets the constitution.

And, the winner of the biggest idiot of the year award, coupled with the "worst excuse in history award", we congratulate Judge Karen Henderson, who dissented, because she says "the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it is not a state." Um... DC is LESS than a state, it's given less power than a state, so... um... Anyhow, let me explain... Now, you all understand the constitution. The constitution is written such that God gives power to Man who gives power to Government. So government has no privledges unless Man gives them to government. And our constitution is such that Man gives power to the States, which give power to the federal government. Basically meaning the federal government has no power that the states don't give it. And Washington DC is NOT a state, it is the territory wherein our federal government resides, and is the only federal property in the country (besides military bases, federal parks, etc...). So this judge basically said something similar to "My boss isn't powerful enough to do this, but I'm more powerful than my boss so I can..." Anyhow... see the full story here.

Second, there's been two (that I can remember) recent shooting rampages by some crazed lunatic. There was the one in Utah I think it was, and was just another one I think yesterday in Manhattan. Now, we all know that if someone wants to get a gun, no gun control law in the world is going to keep it out of their hands, they'll get one somehow. So, with that understood, the end of these rampages is what gives validation to the right of the ordinary citizen to keep and bear arms. Both of these shootings resulted in the deaths or serious woundings of numerous people, but they would have been far worse if something didn't happen. In both instances, an off duty police officer happened to be near, and the off duty officer in both situations pulled out their gun and shot the person who was going on the rampage. Now, it's not an ordinary citizen who stopped it, but if there were no off-duty officers, and instead there was an ordinary, trained citizen with a firearm, he or she could have done the same thing and put an end to the mess. But worst of all, what would have happened if there were strict bans of the posession of guns in those cities, and there was no off-duty officer near? We just might have forty, sixty, eighty, maybe a hundred dead people as a result of one crazed idiot going on a rampage in a busy section of town.

And so, I hope you see the folly of gun control laws, they serve to endanger the general public much more than they ever could hope to "protect" them.

Global Warming Truth

2007-01-31T11:29:00.000-08:00

With all the fury over global warming lately, I thought I'd put together a post to discuss the truth about global warming, and dispose of some of the not-quite-true's.

First of all, if global warming is being caused by humans, should we do something? Absolutely. But if it isn't caused by man, or man's role is nearly insignificiant, should we still do something about it? To some extent, sure, but if it's going to cost us an arm and a leg to do it, then absolutely not. Why? Because imposing strict regulations on the use of fossil fuels for the sake of global warming WILL cost us: Lives, technological advances, any sort of global stability, untold amounts of money (probably hundreds of trillions or more), and have a number of other effects.

Imagine the problems that would occur if an international organization got together and decided that every country on the planet is going to have to implement these changes. Who's in charge of enforcing it? And what do you do when a "rogue" nation refuses to comply, yet is pumping out pollutants that supposedly will kill us all at an unprecedented rate? There's only two answers: 1) Voluntary implementation or 2) Force them to implement it "for all our sake". But what happens if one country, say China, says "forget it" and doesn't implement it, and the international body says "BUT YOU HAVE TO!!!" and China says "no we don't", and the international body eventually gives up. What does India do then? Wow, well if they don't have to, then we're going to not bother either, and save our money... And on, and on... so basically, it's either be prepared to use force (war), or don't even bother. So before we risk war by doing anything about global warming, we'd BETTER darn well make sure we're right on this one.

Also, currently, there are billions of people around the planet that count on fossil fuels (or some other sort of polluting energy source) in some manner to perform their daily lives. And a few billion of those people are right on the brink of "not quite making it" to tomorrow. Now, it would be a VERY cruel thing to do to those people, to go to them and say "Well, I know you're only barely making it by, but we're going to more than quadruple the cost of the electricity you use to keep your fridge running, and your kids' food from spoiling." Or go to someone who works in a factory in India making a couple dollars a day and tell them that factory is shutting down because it can't afford to implement the new environmental regulations on its air exhaust. Or tell an old widow in southeastern Europe that her costs of raw materials for the clothing she makes by hand is going to triple, making her products so expensive that nobody can buy them anymore.

Now, is the earth getting warmer? Yes, there's plenty of scientific (real science, hands-on measurements, not extrapolation) that shows an average temperature increase. Is this cause to be alarmed? Maybe, it depends on both the source of the warming, and how the earth has reacted to temperature changes in the past. "In the past?" you ask? Yes, believe it or not, we can actually make a pretty good estimate of the earth's temperature as far back as a couple thousand years ago. More on this later... BUT...

First of all, have you ever noticed, on a sunny day, that it is REALLY really much warmer than on a cloudy day (during the same season of course)? Even better yet, have you ever been out in the sun (maybe on the golf course, since I do that from time to time) walking around feeling nice and comfy in your shorts and shirt, then all of a sudden a cloud comes by and you feel a little chill? I know I'm appealing to common sense here, but that seems to be all-too uncommon when it comes to climate change.

Now, if the climate suddenly starts getting colder (like it was doing right up until the 70's or so, and according to scientists, we were "all going to die" because of an ice age), then wouldn't it make sense to start looking at the LARGEST variables first? And that variable is... dun dun dun.... the sun. (Oh, and a short note... when we start looking at the largest variables as far as greenhouse gases, the largest variable by far is... What is it? You'd think it's carbon dioxide and other emissions caused by fossil fuels, wouldn't you? But it's not. The largest variable by FAR is water vapor. And when I say "by far", I mean like water vapor is responsible for 96-99% of the greenhouse effect, yet it's routinely left out of "scientific" global warming studies).

Anyhow... getting back on point... the sun. Now, you may not realize it (or don't fully understand it, after all, I don't fully understand it all yet), but the sun goes through cyclical phases. And those phases have a very significant impact on our global temperature. One of those is the length of the solar magnetic cycle. And the shorter the solar magnetic cycle, the more active (and thus more bright) the sun is.

Look at the picture at the link below:
Sun Cycles and Temperature

The blue line I believe is the length of the solar magnetic cycle (only measured once every few years apparently by the number of data points), and the red line I believe is the Northern Hemisphere temperatures (the colors may be the other way around). Notice how the two correspond almost exactly? So there's good evidence to suggest that the solar magnetic cycle (which signifies a more active, and thus more bright sun) is a good indicator to global temperature. This suggsts that the sun is a large source for determining our global average temperature. More accurately, it apears to be the primary source for determining our global average temperature.

If you really want to get technical, temperature measurements differ depending on where you're measuring it from. If you're measuring it from a satellite, taking lower atmospheric temperatures, you can get a pretty good measurement. But if you're measuring it from ground level, you've got these huge 500+ square mile chunks of urban and suburban areas called cities (and their suburbs) that generate local atmospheric heating in that area. And when we look at satellite-based measurements, there was a cooling period from 1979 to 1997, right in the thick of the "worst" of manmade CO2 emissions.

And I'm sure you noticed this too, but I have to say it anyhow, we've got all these people crying about shrinking arctic ice, because it's getting "so bad" that it's revealing TREES frozen under the ice.

{pause}

{pause some more...}

Did you get it?

Trees.

Under the ice.

Which means WHAT? It means that there was A FOREST where that ice used to be. And that means... dun dun dun... it used to be WARM there. Much warmer than it currently is. Hmmmmm...

Here's how you deal with terrorists...

2006-08-28T13:51:00.000-07:00

I'm surprised there's nobody reporting on this (actually, no I'm not, because it crushes every argument the mostly liberal media has been putting forth...) Sheikh Nasrallah of Hezbollah has unwittingly confirmed what conservatives have been saying all along about dealing with terrorism. He said in an interview "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it".

***TA-DA!!!*** and there you have it folks... if the terrorists start crap, none of this "oh we're sorry we offended you, here, let's talk diplomatically..." No... you stuff it right back in their face and utterly crush them. Sooner or later they'll get the hint. But you know what? It only works if you've got a stronger military force than they do, and are fully capable of utterly crushing them.

The lesson? Thank you Mr. Clinton for crippling our military to the point that we are still struggling to fight a long term war against a ragtag bunch of knuckleheaded fundamentalist muslims who think that blowing themselves up (along with a school bus full of children) will get them into paradise.

Story below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5291420.stm

Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.

"Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it," he said in an interview on Lebanese TV.

He added that neither side was "heading towards a second round" of fighting.

More than 1,000 Lebanese died in the 34-day conflict which left much of southern Lebanon in ruins.

The Israeli offensive began after two Israeli soldiers were seized during a cross border raid by Hezbollah militants on 12 July.

Annan visit

"We did not think that there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war of this scale and magnitude," Sheikh Nasrallah said.

"Now you ask me if this was 11 July and there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war like the one that has taken place, would you go ahead with the kidnapping?

"I would say no, definitely not, for humanitarian, moral, social, security, military and political reasons.

"Neither I, Hezbollah, prisoners in Israeli jails and nor the families of the prisoners would accept it."

Sheikh Nasrallah was speaking on the eve of a visit to Beirut by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to discuss the expanded UN peacekeeping force to be deployed in southern Lebanon.

A force of 15,000 soldiers, 7,000 of them from European Union states, will be deployed to maintain the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

The UN hopes to have some of the troops on the ground within a week, although the foreign minister of Finland - which currently holds the EU presidency - has said it will be two to three months before the whole force is deployed.

The force will be led by France until February, at which time Italy will take command.

Speaking in Brussels on Friday, Mr Annan said the plan would only work if the enlarged UN force, called Unifil 2, was "strong, credible and robust".

Mr Annan said the force offered the possibility of a "durable ceasefire and long-term solution" to the Middle East crisis.

This is what results from the liberal "we're for the poor man" platform

2006-07-20T11:31:00.000-07:00

A letter to Henry S. Randall, biographer of Thomas Jefferson - May 23, 1857

Distress everywhere makes the laborer mutinous and discontented, and incline him to listen to agitators who tell him that it is a monstrous iniquity that one man should have a million while another cannot get a full meal.

The day will come when in the State of New York, a multitude of people, none of whom has had more than half a breakfast or expects to have more than half a dinner, will choose a legislature. On one side is a statesman teaching patience, respect for the vested rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue, ranting at the tyranny of capitalists and usurists, and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and ride in a carriage while thousands of honest people are in want of necessities. Which of these candidates is likely to be preferred by a working-man who hears his children cry for bread?

...your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid to waste by the barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth, with the difference that the Huns and Vandals who ravaged the Roman empire came from without; and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions. - Thomas Babington Macaulay

I can see clearly now...

2006-07-17T06:43:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd recant this story here, it happened a few months ago.

I was on my last pair of disposable contacts (these ones had lasted me a long time, I only wear them a few times per week usually), and these contacts began to REALLY bother my eyes, to the point where I couldn't put them in without hurting.

Now, last time this happened, I had to dump something like $200+ to get a "current prescription" from an optometrist for my wife and I. Why? Apparently we've got a few nannies involved in writing laws, because there's a law "for my own good" that says "you can't buy contacts without a current prescription". Sounds like a good idea, right? Well, I had already been wearing the friggin' contacts to begin with. And I could have bought a 10 year supply if I really wanted to, but if it's July 2nd, and my one-year prescription ran out on July 1st, I need to go to an optometrist and dump $100+ per person on a contact lens exam.

And so that time my wife and I went to the eye doctor, each getting a prescription for the SAME exact contacts we were already wearing, basically wasting our time and money. I only ordered a 3 month supply (which lasts me about a year and a half because I don't wear them often), and that brings me to the time frame I was talking about in the beginning of this post. My contacts were starting to hurt, but I didn't have the $100+ each for a new exam, nor was I about to blow my money on a new exam to tell me what I already know, that my prescription is the same.

So, remembering the experience I had last time, I thought "maybe I'll call a place in Ohio, and see if I can order from there". Turns out Ohio has the same law. So I call another state, same thing, and I end up finding out that there is a federal law that forces US businesses (optometrists and other resellers of contact lenses) to verify a "current" prescription (usually 1 or 2 year) before they can sell contact lenses to someone. I try a few places online, thinking I can circumvent the law, to no avail.

So, with our nanny government pandering to doctors' special interest groups, and screwing American businesses and consuemrs, I did what any good American would do... {singing} "Oh, Canada... Our home to buy contacts..." (you have to know the Canadian national anthem for that to be funny). I google search for a Canadian company that sells contact lenses online, and find one. I go to my safe, pull out my prescription, type the information in, and order my contacts. A little while later, they show up at my door, put them in, and I can see clearly now...

They Want Bush's Head at Any Price...

2006-06-20T09:11:00.000-07:00

This is another response I had to someone, this time on a message board where he was celebrating the low approval rating of our President, George W. Bush. He was treating it as if this approval rating meant that the entire country is going against the Republican party, when in reality, the approval rating is so low because Bush is trying to cater to the liberals on the left, which is alienating his base.

Know what the funny thing is? The liberals said the SAME things about another great Republican in the 1860's. His name was Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and they said the same things about Ronald Reagan too, but who here lives in fear of nuclear war with Russia today? Looks like Reagan was right too.

Here is my response:

Other guy: "Bush is horrible, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda... approval rating soooo low, yadda yadda..."

Yeah, because he's trying to cater to you ultra-liberal whining bastards who'd rather see a Fundamentalist Muslim standing on the necks of US Soldiers, than you would like to admit that Bush is right in standing up to these crackheads.

Seriously, look at it, over the last few years, as SOON as we went into Iraq, we saw all these rogue nations across the globe stand up and say "HOLY CRAP!!!! Um... yeah, those nuclear and chemical weapons we were devloping, um, we don't want those anymore..." Heck, even freaking Iran and North Korea shut their big fat mouths.

THEN, all of a sudden, crackhead liberals like Ted "Commie-Commie" Kennedy, Nancy "Stalin was Conservative compared to me" Pelosi, and Dennis "Let's try Communism again" Kucinich, started whining about how this is all so wrong, and we need to stop it now. IMMEDIATELY, North Korea and Iran started talking their big crap again, because Bush didn't have the public support that he had when we went in, and they KNEW that they could get away with murder (or developing nuclear weapons, like they are now), because YOU PANSIES would start whining and protesting.

Friggin' hippy bastards.

How About a Minimum Wage Increase?

2006-06-20T09:05:00.000-07:00

I wrote this letter to an excellent radio host, Bob Dutko, on WMUZ 103.5 FM in Detroit, in response to his question to his audience "Would a minimum wage increase help the economy?"

Bob, in response to the quesiton of a minimum wage increase, I have a few quick words:

If you're going to increase the minimum wage, why not increase it to $100 an hour? I mean, if you can legislate people rich (or even "good enough"), then let's do it. But we all know it doesn't work that way.

Some jobs are only worth a certain amount of money per hour. If I'm working in a factory, and my labor only produces $4.35 worth of materials per hour, than why should a company be forced to pay me $5.15 an hour minimum? The simple fact is, increasing the minimum wage in this situation will cause me to get fired, and the job to go to China [where they don't have minimum wage laws].

This is the exact case that happened in Ohio. Congressman Bob McEwen came in to speak at an event I attended, and he related this story: In a factory in Ohio, they employ all mentally handicapped people. They come in to work each day and greet their friends, listen to music, and have fun while they assemble parts to make a product. The value of the items produced is about $3 per person, per hour. Unions and liberals came into that factory and wanted to shut it down unless they paid the workers minimum wage. They ended up getting some sort of special exemption for handicapped workers, and the factory stayed open.

Now, what would have happened if the liberals got their way? VICTORY for the working guy, right? No, those handicapped people would be sitting at home right now, without a job, and without the enjoyment and sense of satisfaction they got out of being at the factory, doing something productive. And that would have been a MEAN thing to do.

Binky the barking leopard

2006-02-24T20:53:00.000-08:00

I was involed in a debate on a forum recently, and wanted to make a short post here. Basically, a person was charged with speeding and the prosecution brought criminal charges against him for it. Their basis is that Arizona law (where the speeding took place) says that anything over a certain speed (or a certain speed over the limit) is a criminal offense.

Now, a little background here for those of you who aren't familiar with law. A crime by its very definition requires a victim (someone who was harmed by a person's actions). Here's a definition from a law dictionary:

crime
n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties. There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs.

This reasoning goes back to natural law, which our nation is founded upon, which says basically "You can do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt me in any way by doing it..." And so in order for there to be any sort of crime, there must be some sort of corpus delicti (body of the crime, or essence of the crime), aka someone who was harmed by the defendent's actions. For example, a person cannot be tried for murder if there is no body, except in very rare circumstances (believe it or not, people have been executed for murder, and the "murdered" person turned up very much alive later).

And so, basically, in this case, this person did not commit any crime. He may have a civil case brought against him, but no crime has been committed, because nobody else was (unwillingly) on the road anywhere near him at the time of his speeding. If they were, they could reasonably argue that his "excessive" speed (say 30+ mph faster than someone else) caused a situation that threatened someone else's property, health, or life. But, there wasn't anyone else there, and they're still trying to charge him with a crime.

Now, this really bothers me, because what they are doing there, by calling "anything over X speed" a criminal action, is they are essentially doing the same thing as I would be doing, if I walked up to you with my dog and said the following:

"HEY!!! What do you think of my new leopard I have here?"
You reply "Um, that's a dog..."
I say, "no... it's a leopard, and his name is Binky... Binky the leopard..."
You say "no... Binky is a dog... Binky the DOG..."
I CONTINUE to insist "no... Binky is a leopard, see, Binky, bark!!!" {woof} "See? Binky barks just like a leopard..."
You then walk away from me thinking "what an idiot..."

Unfortunately, we've got this attitude in America that "the lawmakers bind themselves to the Constitution and our rights, they wouldn't violate them and step outside their legislative power, and if they did, the judges would reel them in..." This is obviously not the case, lawmakers have been making laws for years that the Constitution has given them no power to enact, yet they still do it, and we don't call them on it.

The simple fact is, a crime requires a victim. Plain and simple. No victim, no crime. There is NO such thing as a victimless crime.

So, my dog isn't a leopard, no matter how much I call it one. But if you agree with me that it's a leopard, even though you know it's not, you aren't doing me a favor.

Now, legislators aren't mean people out to harm us, but they've been slowly led down this path over the years (like a frog in boiling water) of allowing certain laws on the basis that "it's a good idea" even though government has no business doing certain things.

So the next time a lawmaker says "that's a criminal act" when there's no victim, just remember my barking leopard, and say to the lawmaker "No sir, Binky is not a leopard" ...wait for his reaction, then tell him the story of Binky.

The government in your shower...

2006-01-11T06:37:00.000-08:00

Here's a great story about our grand old central planning system...
http://www.mises.org/story/2007

Why we fight... today

2005-07-10T18:42:00.000-07:00

Seventy years ago now, there was a man in England whom nobody listened to. He had been Lord of the Admirality during World War I, and after the war was over, he was shunned by his fellow politicians. His situation was similar to that of Julius Caesar, when he came into the Senate and Antony said to Caesar, "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look". To which Caesar basically replied "there's nothing I can do about that..." Antony replied to him "Such men as he never be at heart's ease, whilst they behold a greater than themselves".

And so, every time Parliament would meet, their customary first vote would normally be who would be prime minister. But instead, while this man was in Parliament, their first vote would be "Winston Churchill shall not hold any position of power", and then they would go about their business, because they knew that if he held a position of power, he would climb his way right to the top, and being the little worms they are, just like Cassius, they "never be at heart's ease, whilst they behold a greater than themselves". And so all during the 1930's, Winston Churchill offered warning after warning about Hitler's rise to power and military buildup. His fellow politicians would laugh at and scorn him. He pointed out Germany's past aggression, their past disregard for treaties, and their breaking of current treaties like the Treaty of Versailles.

And they still laughed at him. Churchill then proposed that England at least begin to build up a military, so that they would be on closer to equal footing should war come. They labeled him a warmonger, among other insults. And eventually Winston realized that they would not listen.

In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria, and nobody did anything except "we condemn this and say it is wrong". And this sent a message to the rest of the globe saying "Hey, these guys won't stand up against us if we're careful about it..." Italy did the same thing in Ethiopia, and eventually Hitler went way beyond the Treaty of Versailles and remilitarized the Rhineland, and Churchill said "um, hello guys, do something", so they yelled at Hitler and said "don't do that". Then he went into Austria, again in disregard of the Treaty of Versailles, and the European and American leadership did nothing. He then went for the Sudetenland, and they claimed "that's it, if he goes after the rest of Czechoslovakia, that means war". Hitler thought to himself "these guys are a bunch of ninnies" and so he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, and they STILL did nothing but yell at Hitler. And so Hitler called the leaders of Europe together to the Munich Conference, where he declared "I will not take any more countries, this one is it" (poor Czechoslovakia is down the tubes, but hey...)

And so Neville Chamberlain comes back with the Fuhrer's signature in his hands, claiming "peace in our time, peace in our time", everyone cheered, except one man, Winston Churchill. A reporter came and asked him, "What do you think of what the Prime Minister has done in securing peace in our time?" To which Winston Churchill replied "The Prime Minister faced a very difficult question, whether to choose war, or shame. And he has chosen both".

And as we know, on September 1, 1939, Hitler again broke his word, and plunged the world into the bloodiest war of all time, wherein FIFTY-FIVE MILLION people died. And if we asked Winston Churchill what he called this war, he would have replied "This war will go down in history as the unnecessary war". Because Sir Winston Churchill knew how to stop the war before it even started, but nobody had the backbone to do it.

Had Europe listened to Churchill, even making him Prime Minister of England, perhaps they would have immediately mobilized the forces of France and England to oppose the Fuhrer's military buildup, sparking a war that cost 10,000 lives, utterly destroyed Germany's ability to produce military equipment or train forces, and removed the Fuhrer from power. Had they done that, Sir Winston Churchill would have gone down in history as a man who started a needless war, and cost the lives of 10,000 people in the process.

HOWEVER, in the process of doing that, Sir Winston Churchill would have prevented World War II from ever happening, my grandmother would probably have her brother still alive to this day, and FIFTY-FIVE MILLION other people would have lived to old age. But, instead, in the name of "peace" and not involving ourselves in an "unnecessary war", we let the problem fester until our enemies became so emboldened that they felt they could control entire regions of the world, and eventually the whole globe, and we witnessed the bloodiest war in the history of mankind, simply because nobody had the spine to stand up and get rid of the problem when it was still a little problem.

Back in the early 1930's when Churchill was advocating military buildup, nobody would have pegged Hitler as a threat to the entire globe, or even the region. And so, I'll let you draw your own parallels to the current war in Iraq. That is what our soldiers gave their lives for, so that the new generation, being born today, does not have to fight this war down the road at the cost of millions of lives, when some other goose-stepping nutjob thinks we won't stand up to him.

High court OK's Personal Property Seizures

2005-06-30T14:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/

This case is definitely cause to be concerned. This sort of "decision" didn't happen overnight. The fact that it can even be allowed to happen is a sad testament to the fact that ordinary citizens like ourselves have NOT been keeping a close enough watch on what our "protectors of freedom" in our government have been doing.

WE the people are supposed to keep the government in line, by knowing the limits placed upon our government. Knowing how our government is set up (we the people have rights and give government powers... the government does NOT give us rights). Unfortunately, we haven't done that. Most Americans have never read the Constitution of the United States, let alone remember mostly what it says (it's just a couple pages long).

This should serve as a wake-up call. We've got a whole aspect of our society that would gladly empower government more and more to the point that it runs our lives. The definition for this Supreme Court decision is "Fascism" (and note that the only justices voting against this measure were conservative judges, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Chief Justice Rehnquist. So don't someone dare come in here and say that the conservatives are on the side of helping big business steal from the little guy)

Help do your part by learning what our government can and can't do. And check out the link below regarding this situation:
http://www.castlecoalition.org/index.asp

A classic case of government causing serious (financial) harm...

2005-06-01T11:07:00.000-07:00

I heard a case on the internet recently of a man who had purchased land within the city limits of Everglade City, Florida over a decade ago, and since then has been fighting with the Army Corps of Engineers {shudder...} over whether or not he can develop his land.

Obviously there are certain restrictions to people simply developing whatever you want, wherever you want. You can't put a "dump your old oil here and burn it" business right next to Grandma's house (unless of course you can somehow guarantee the fumes won't reasonably interfere with Grandma's right to breathe decent air). And so the man who bought the property goes through all the proper government hoops to be able to develop the property (the property mind you is inside the city limits, on a plot of land that is obviously meant to be developed, look at the picture here: http://www.ecotourlodge.com/Everglade_Web2/aerial_propertyvu.jpg)

Now, the owner of the property has done every single thing the government told him to do, then they come back and say "well just do this and you're good", and so he jumps through another one of their hoops. Then they come back and say "well, do this study, and this..." and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS and multiple engineering, scientific, and legal studies later, the state of Florida has nowhere left to legally turn to, he's complied with literally everything they could throw at him (including purchasing at his own expense SIXTY acres of wetlands to simply GIVE to the Florida government to set aside for conservation, so that he can develop his ONE acre of land), and the state of Florida said "dangit, ok you can develop your one acre".

And then the Army Corps of Engineers comes in and says "nope, sorry, can't do it" (even though he's complied with every single "reason" they came up with already, they still denied his permit). And so after hundreds of thousands of dollars, the government has jerked this man around, and when he complied with everything they wanted him to (the process meant to wear people out so they will just give in), THEN they blatantly ignored their own laws and denied him the right to develop his own property.

Eventually he got in touch with a high-position person at the Corps of Engineers who notified the Florida division of the Corps of Engineers and said "It appears he's right. You must review his case within X days". It's been years since then, and they refuse to review it.

The full story is here: www.ecotourlodge.com (click on the "THE REAL TRUTH" link on the left side of that page)

It really disgusts me that they do this. The sad thing is, it's not the first time he's been dinked around with by the government (especially the Corps of Engineers). He's involved in a court case now where the Corps of Engineers illegally siezed his property without payment. He filed a case in court and won, and the Corps of Engineers was forced to return his property. Two weeks after they returned it, they seized it again and gave him pennies for it. Only thing is, about a mile away, a developer had purchased and developed property upon which they built multimillion dollar homes. His land was valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the Corps of Engineers gave him almost nothing for it. And so another court case has been raised, and even if he wins the case, I would be extremely surprised if they actually paid him.

Why is that? Because there's a well-known case in Florida where a man's gravel pit was seized illegally, he fought it in court and won around 14 million dollars for his compensation. The Corps of Engineers said "oh, ok. Yes, we owe you 14 million dollars now". And that's it. They've never paid him, know why? Because you have to budget a 14 million dollar payment, and those in charge at the Corps of Engineers don't write it into the budget.

THIS is the sort of thing I'm talking about. The Constitution exists, but it's not followed anymore. We've since left our Constitution behind, and the only time it's brought up is when it benefits the government or someone with a lot of money like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood, who often take it and twist it to suit their agenda.

It's up to you and I to know what our Constitution says, know our rights, and join together and take a stand against even the smallest government oppression, or things will only get worse. We'll have new government agencies created to protect us from ourselves, and to protect this and protect that. And our Constitutional "freedoms will be taken from us in this manner as surely as if they were taken by conquest".

RAAAARRR!!!! Fix your sidewalk or we'll charge you!!! RAAAARRRR!!!

2005-05-06T06:31:00.000-07:00

Ok, so yet another notch in the "we're going to force you to do what we say or we'll scare you into submission with fines and fees" battle, the local city here wherein I own my house has sent me a letter saying in effect "the city has entered into a contract with a sidewalk contractor for the replacement of hazardous sidewalk abutting your property... The estimated amount of sidewalk to be replaced adjacent to your property that you are responsible for and the costs are summarized below... in accordance with City Ordinance blah blah blah, this letter shall serve as your notice to replace the sidewalk.... If you elect to not replace the sidewalk on your own by this date, the City's contractor will be in your area to perform the work and you will be invoiced for your share of the work actually completed." (my "share" of the work is the whole freaking thing by the way) (oh, and by the way, from what I've seen, there is no dangerous sidewalk on my property anywhere, it's all flat and level, no chunks or big cracks at all)

Now wait a minute here. I read this and am thinking "so some random city ordinance says that the city can come onto my property without a contract from ME or my consent, and fix something they deem to be dangerous on MY property and then bill me for it?" When did this happen? So I call the city and say basically
"I received this letter... I don't plan on either doing this work or paying for it if it is done..."
The lady on the other end of the line says "Well city ordinance such and such says you have to..."
To which I reply "So because some lawmaker wrote a law that says something, we all have to comply to it?"
She says, "Yes, it's city ordinance"
I say "Well who owns the sidewalks?"
"The sidewalks are your reponsibility because you live in this city..." (Nevermind that she didn't answer my question...)
"Well ma'am, if I own the sidewalk, then I don't want it in my yard, since it's mine, I should be able to go get a jackhammer and tear that sucker up. I don't want it, I don't want to pay for it, I don't want to deal with the hassle of it"
"Well, you HAVE to have it and take care of it..."
"Ok, I got it. So because some lawmaker says so, we have to? So if some lawmaker made a law that said we all have to get up on our roofs with red underwear and do a little dance, do we have to do that too?"
"I don't think they would make that law..."

At this point I pretty much gave up, but had I continued the conversation, it probably would have gone something like this...

"I don't care whether or not they would make that law, the fact is, if they did, and it was city ordinance, you're saying I would have to obey that ordinance and go dance on my roof in red underwear?"
"Well I suppose if it was city ordinance, yes"
"Oh, I see. So we would have no duty to stand against that blatant disregard for our private rights?"
"Sir, it is city ordinance"
"Yes it is maam, and let I remind you that years ago, it was 'city ordinance' that African Americans could not drink from certain water fountains. And were it not for some African Americans disobeying that city ordinance that blatantly violated their rights and was therefore unconstitutional, then we would STILL have those city ordinances today. As a matter of fact ma'am , if it were not for some 'troublemaker' women years ago, you would not be on the other end of this phone line because people would still believe only a man could hold your position in the city engineer's office"

And so, another notch in the annals of stupidity and carelessness on the part of our government officials. They figure that if they threaten us with "friendly" letters saying "we're going to do this, you do this or else..." that we'll just cave in and do what they want, regardless of how much they are disregarding our rights.

Now, if they sent me a letter saying "we just wanted to let you know, there's some sidewalk on your property that's dangerous (I look and it isn't dangerous by the way), if you could fix it for the safety of those using the sidewalk, we'd appreciate it, thanks" Then MAYBE I might be inclined to fix the thing, if I so chose to do it. In this case I wouldn't because it's not in my budget, and I don't have the spare cash to do it, but if I did, I might be inclined to do it.

I've been wondering what the heck a "tree lawn" was for ever since I was a kid, and I ask my dad, I say "why don't we do such and such to the tree lawn?" And he says "we can't, we don't own it, the city does". I reply "um, then why the heck do I have to mow the tree lawn if we don't own it?"

At any rate, the whole point is this. If the city owns the sidewalk (and the tree lawn, and the curbs, and the roads, etc...), then it is the city's problem. It's incumbent upon them to pay for it, to maintain it, to fix it when it breaks, and to settle lawsuits when someone trips on THEIR property.

Conversely, if it is my property, if I own the sidewalk, then I can post signs at both ends of my property saying "no trespassing (including my sidewalk), not liable for injuries to trespassers upon my property". I can let it fall into a state of disrepair, or I can layer it with 24k gold if I so choose. I can let the snow fall on it and admire the pretty snow in my front yard, and yell at anyone who trespasses on my property, leaving ugly footprints in the pretty snow that fell on my property. OR I can take a stinkin' jackhammer to the sidewalk and crush it into teeny tiny bits, throw away the concrete, and plant grass (or leave a hole, whichever) where the sidewalk used to be, because it is MY property.

But unfortunately, the city is giving me the worse of both deals here. I do not own it, but I must pay to maintain it, or maintain it myself with my labor, and I can do NOTHING about it. Basically they're saying "you must come and fix our property for us, and receive no compensation for doing it." What does that sound like to you?

US Constitution Amendment XIII
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

You make your own judgement, but last I checked, I can't come to you and say "Hey, I've got this hot tub that I'll let ALL the people in the neighborhood use, but since you're my neighbor, you have to clean it once a week, or I'll have a cleaning crew do the work and send you the bill".

If the government has no power other than that which "we the people" give to it, and since "we the people" don't even have the power to force someone to come in and "clean our hot tub", making them our "involuntary servant", then the question we must ask ourselves is: "Since people can only give government powers that they themselves have, then where did government get the power to force us to do that?"

The only answer to that is "they're bigger than me, so they can force me to do it whether I like it or not". Just like the 5th grader picking on a 3rd grader on the playground, he's bigger and can bully around the 3rd grader. But if all the 3rd graders gather together to stand up against that bully, he's in trouble. It's the same with govenrment, "they" aren't bigger than "we the people", and if we all peacefully stand up for our rights, "they" can't bully us around.

A short brief on the state of things...

2005-04-28T06:35:00.000-07:00

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

- George Washington - founding father, general of the continental army in the war of independence, first president of the United States, and framer of the Constitution.

If there was anyone who understood the proper role of government in the United States of America, it was George Washington and the other founding fathers who wrote our Constitution.

Our founding fathers constantly warned of the dangers of powerful government. Prior to the founding of the United States in 1776, the prevalent belief in the world was that God gave power to government, who gave power to man. And so the heirarchy went like this:

God --> Government --> Man

This is evidenced by the monarchies and other nations at the time, where the King (or other ruler) owns the entire country, and is just so kind as to let you live on the land and farm it (for a fee). But then the founders of our nation came along with a radical concept for their age, which said that God gave power to man, who gave power to government. Like this:

God --> Man --> Government

This is most clearly shown in their letter telling King George III to shove off (we know the letter as the Declaration of Independence). In that letter, they say this "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." (which in layman's terms means "any idiot ought to be able to see this") "...that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Goverments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." (Read a copy of the entire declaration here)

In those few words, we can look and see the very core of our nation. First (and I don't care if you're an athiest or Buddhist or Christian, or Hindu or whatever... it is an undeniable fact that our Founding Fathers believed this and established our nation on this set of beliefs), we see that we are endowed with Rights by our Creator (in my example, that is God). Next, we notice that these rights are unalienable. The dictionary defines unalienable (or another word often used in its place, inalienable) as this:

inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred (Merriam Webster)
unalienable: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable. (American Heritage Dictionary)

incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" (American Heritage Dictionary)

From this we can see that there are certain rights that are unalienable from us, that is, they are part of our very being, part of our nature, just by the very simple fact that we were created and exist today, we have certain rights that cannot be taken away from us. The only thing that can happen to those rights is someone can prevent us from exercising them (by force or other means). Here is a somewhat weird example, but you'll get the point:

If you own a cheeseburger, you have an unalienable right to eat it. Now, someone can step in and do a number of things to prevent you from doing that. He can walk up to you and cover your mouth with twenty layers of duct tape, thus preventing you from exercising your right. Or he can pass a law saying it's illegal to eat cheeseburgers (this is simply force in a more "friendly" manner). Or he can take it from you (perhaps in the form of a tax) and say "Give me two bites from your burger", thus restricting your ability to exercise that right.

There is an unlimited number of ways people can find to restrict your rights, and we all know, people are rather creative in finding those ways, but no matter how they do it, they are still acting to take away your unalienable rights. Now, our Founding Fathers knew from history that governments tend to do things similar to that cheeseburger example. And so, in our founding documents, they explicitly stated that there are certain rights that are unalienable from us, and as long as their form of government still stood, our government is prevented from EVER being able to take away those rights.

So, we understand the God --> Man --> Government diagram, and so far we've established that the part that "God gives Man unalienable rights". Now, the final part of that diagram, we go back to the text in bold above, which states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." From this we see that Man creates government SOLELY in order to secure those rights. They didn't say "That to secure these rights and to make sure everybody gets their fair share of the government dole..." or "That to secure some of these rights and not others based on what the majority of people think..." or anything else ridiculous like that.

So governments are instituted among men (by man) to secure our rights. We know that now. Reading further, we see that governments derive their power from the consent of governed, meaning all power is inherent in the people, and therefore the only power government has is the power that "we the people" give to it. We the people did that in writing the Constitution.

And so without going into too much detail, basically we wrote the Constitution to set up how our government is to be run, and the only power that our government can exercise is that which "we the people" give it via our Constitution. And so, in theory, we go about our daily lives living under a government that we the people have defined and set strict limits on, so that it cannot do things like the example above, and come in and duct tape our mouth shut so we can't eat our cheeseburger.

Now, here's where we come in. The only way to keep them from doing so is to know exactly what your rights are, stand up for them, and know exactly what we've allowed the government to do (that's why on the left side of this page, I've got links to our founding documents and other importand documents). The 10th amendment to the Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights) makes the proper role of government very plain, when it says: "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."

Our duty as Americans is to know what our Government should and should not do, and when it gets out of line, it is our duty to scream and holler and not stop until government gets back within its rightful place, which is the place "we the people" have set out in the Constitution. If you had started a fire in your fireplace, and all of a sudden a piece of flamin' hot wood rolled off the pile and onto your floor, you'd attack that sucker so fast it wouldn't even be funny. You'd maybe grab the fire tongs and slam it back in the fireplace, or yank the fire extinguisher off the wall and soak it with foam, or whatever it took, to prevent it from burning part of your house. We should have the SAME furor when government gets out of line and leaves its little "fireplace" we built for it in our Constitution.

Unfortunately, here is what has happened and is happening today. I'll use an analogy, similar to the one George Washington used in the quote at the top of this page. We've got a fire in a fireplace, we'll call it "government", and it's burning brightly, serving its purpose in keeping us warm. However, as you know, fire (like government) by its very nature seeks to expand itself, and never willingly reduces itself in size. And so we are carefully watching our fire to make sure it doesn't go out of control. We know that the only way our fire can grow is by catching something else around it on fire, or maybe throwing a spark or something hot out of the fire, so we watch for it. In the case of government, this would be adding to (or subtracting from) its power by amending the Constitution, something which may be useful, but if we're not careful, it could burn the house down our put out the fire entirely, neither of which do we want.

So we're sitting ten feet away from the fire, in a chair staring at the fire, when all of a sudden out of nowhere, in an instant, flames appear on the couch across the room. Now, you know how in one of those moments a million things flash through your mind all at once? You think to yourself "What the heck just happened here? I'm sitting here one second, and all of a sudden the next second a fire magically appears on the couch across the room, with no sparks no nothing? I thought the laws of physics still applied on this planet..."

Now, a fires don't just appear across the room without any sparks or anything else setting it off, because the laws of Physics DO still apply. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with human beings, they don't always follow the rules. In this example, the fire is government, and the laws of physics is our Constitution. If our government were truly governed strictly by our Constitution (as fire is by the laws of physics), and could NOT in any way violate the Constitution, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. However, repeatedly over the years we've watched government fires (from "small" things like Seatbelt Laws, to "bigger" things like mandatory participation in Social Security) appear across the room out of nowhere, in direct violation of the "laws of physics", aka the Constitution.

The only way to prevent fire (government) from acting outside its powers is to know exactly what it should and should not be doing, know your rights, and when government tries to take power we haven't given it, or to take away your rights, then it is YOUR duty (and ours to assist you) to put government back in its rightful place. That is what we will be discussing here. I'm not talking revolution, I'm not talking violence, and I probably never will, as the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration of Independence "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

BUT, in the case one day it does get to the point where it becomes necessary, which I pray to God it never does, the Founding Fathers followed up that last sentence with another: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

And so, I continue to pray that it never comes to that, but if we Americans are not willing to take a stand and peaceably put government back in its place, then, God forbid, the day may come where it comes to throwing it off of our shoulders. I pray that day never comes, and you and I must do all we can right now to ensure that we preserve our Constitution, before it becomes too late.