Neals Soapbox

Just A Few Thougths

2008-09-06T19:10:00.000-07:00

I would hope that everyone has heard the old saying, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.' Allow me, just for a moment, to expand upon that. What is one to do if the horse refuses to drink? Is he to stand there patiently while the horse dies of dehydration, is he to continually prod the horse in the hopes that it will drink, or is he to give up all hope for that horse and go on about his life, realizing that the horse was going to die?

That is how I often feel when I discuss issues of importance with people. I feel as though I am leading them in the direction they need to be led, so that they can begin to see the troubles that face this nation, and the reasons behind those problems, however, once presented with the facts they just stand there and stare at me, as if to say, 'Are you nuts?'

I understand that people have been lied to by so many people, their educators, the media, and their elected representatives, that it is hard to accept the truth when you finally confront it. Nevertheless, the truth is, just that, the truth. Anyone with an open mind should be willing to at least take a look at the information presented them, and do some research on their own to find out if there is any validity to what they have been told.

More often than not, people revert to name calling instead of taking the time to do some serious searching for the truth. In other words, if they don't hear it on the news, it must not be true.

Yet these same people are willing to admit that there are problems in this country, and they flock to someone like Barack Obama who promises them 'Change We Can Believe In.' However, this article is not about Barack Obama, it is about the people of this country, and their willingness, or lack thereof, to examine facts.

In many ways, the people of this country are like crack addicts. Just as a crack addict may realize that they have squandered their savings, lost their job, ruined their health, they refuse to admit to the real cause, their addiction to crack.

The people of this country realize that we have problems with our economy, crime, and a host of other issues, but they are unwilling to admit the true problem, that there is a concerted force at work to bring about the downfall of this nation.

Until people accept that, they can elect all the Barack Obama's they want, and nothing is going to change. To prove I am not just picking on Senator Obama, the media is now focusing its attention on John McCain's selection for Vice President. She is being vetted by the media, and the American people. Some like what they see, some don't, but that is not the point. The point is that she, while on her own, may be a fine choice for elected official, is only a side show, a distraction. John McCain is the candidate for President, not Sarah Palin, and John McCain is just as bad a choice for President as Barack Obama.

I find it interesting, that as our nation deteriorates, their is a distinct parallel between our inability to discern the truth, and our nations slump into immorality and indecency.

What was totally unacceptable, and unheard of, when I was growing up is now common place. The lyrics of songs, the language used on television, the content of television and movie shows, the open push for acceptance of homosexuals and abortion, these are all things that were taboo when I was young. These are also things that any preacher worth his salt would be openly condemning, no matter the cost to their personal reputation.

Our nation is on the road to ruin, of that there is no doubt in my mind. As I write my commentaries, I am only presenting people with the facts that they need to understand some of the problems we face, and some of the reasons for those problems. If they refuse to heed my words, then I cannot sit here and patiently wait until the light goes on in their head. By then it may be too late.

Just as when a weather forecaster warns of an approaching storm, and people wait until it is too late to evacuate, or at least stock up on essential items, I cannot wait forever for the people of this country to accept that what people like me are saying as truth.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it." The American people have not done that and it is way past time when watching our government is going to do any good. To be blunt, our nations capital needs a good enema to purge the crap that has been putrefying their for a very long time. Unless that happens, this nation is going down the tubes, no if’s and’s or but’s about it.

So America, you have a chance, albeit a slim one, of waking up and saving it. However you must open your minds to the possibility that you have been lied to and deceived for all these years. Only then, when you are willing to examine BOTH sides of the story with equal enthusiasm, can things change.

I Have Lost Faith

2008-09-04T18:08:00.000-07:00

Imagine someone you know who lost a loved one in a tragic accident. Imagine that this person found out that there loved one had gone into a river and had been washed away by the current to drown. Then imagine that there had been some rafters aimlessly drifting down the river who could have helped, but they were too involved in having a good time to pay any attention.

That is about how I feel right now with the state of affairs in our country. It is rapidly on course to implode and people are too worried about their own little lives to take the time to pay attention to what is really going on.

I have lost faith in the majority of my fellow countrymen to do what is needed to change the course of this, once mighty, nation, to return us on a path to liberty and prosperity.

I remember being one of the mindless zombies that lived their daily lives, oblivious to what was happening around me. That all changed in the early 90's when I began writing letters to my elected officials concerning gun control. Guns had always been a big part of my life growing up and I was concerned about all the laws that were being passed to restrict the rights of gun owners.

I remember how happy I felt when I would receive a letter from my Congressman in reply to my letter to them. Yet the new gun laws kept coming. How naive I was to think that they actually cared what I had to say!

The next issue I began to be concerned about was illegal immigration. I added that issue to my list of subjects to discuss with my elected officials. Again I got polite letters in return and thought that they actually read them. Again, how wrong I was as the problem with illegal immigration kept getting worse.

About this time I began devoting time to researching these issues in depth to find out why these things were happening. What I discovered rocked my world! I realized that those who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and preserve and defend our nation had been selling us down the river. The news media, who up until this point I had trusted to tell me the truth, had been withholding this information from me.

That was my epiphany, or awakening to the severity of the problems this country faces. I began studying the Constitution in earnest. I gathered quotes by the founders and researched Supreme Court rulings on the issues.

There is a huge, conspiracy if you wish to call it that, to bring about the downfall of the United States of America. Believe it or not, but the truth exists. I would not have believed it twenty years ago myself, but I am willing to examine the facts for myself and make my own decisions based upon those facts. Far too many Americans are unwilling to even examine the facts, they blindly follow along, thinking that they are making a difference when they vote and write their letters to their elected officials, as I once did.

What is needed is a complete enema of our political system to flush out all the corruption, to be replaced by people who understand and are willing to support the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, as they were intended.

That is when I began writing my commentaries, and each day I learned more. I have also been told that my writing style has improved dramatically, and that I am among the top tier of those who write to save our nation. Of that I am not so certain. If that were the case more people would be listening to what I have to say and our nation would not be continuing on the path it is.

I heard awhile back that someone had said, in response to an article I wrote, that “they hate when someone quotes the founding fathers when it comes to our government.” I was dumbfounded that anyone could be so obtuse.

First off, if it weren’t for our founding fathers we would not have a Constitution, they wrote it after all. Next off, if we did not have a Constitution, we would not have the government as it is formatted today. So how can anyone say that the thoughts of the founding fathers are irrelevant? To say so only shows a depth of ignorance that is the true cause of all the problems this country faces.

If people would read the thoughts of the founders and then compare them to how our government exists today they would realize that something is amiss. Allow me to give you just a few examples of how wise our founders were, and how we would be just as wise to heed their words.

Political parties have divided this country so badly that the chasm that exists between Republicans and Democrats is impossible to overcome. What did our founders say about political parties?

George Washington had this to say, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence was even more firm in his opposition, and said the following, “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

These two founders both thought that political parties were something to be avoided, yet the people of this country are divided along political lines. I would like to ask those who belong to either of the political parties a simple question. Has anything truly been that much better for you, or for our country, when your party has been in power? Could it possibly be that both parties are beholden to their own cadre of special interest groups whose interests have nothing in common with the welfare of the nation? If that is the case, why do you still continue to support them and vote for their candidates? When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil. Evil is not what this country needs.

Speaking of evil, what did our founders have to say about that subject? Again, I would like to quote George Washington, “ I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an Honest Man.”

Thomas Jefferson had this to say, “I never did, or countenanced, in public life, a single act inconsistent with the strictest good faith; having never believed there was one code of morality for a public, and another for a private man.”

John Adams, our third President had this to say, “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”

Now I would like to present a series of quotes about what our founders felt was the function of government.

George Washington said, “The power under the constitution will always be in the people. It is intrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and, whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be recalled.”

Thomas Jefferson made the following two statements regarding government, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Finally, James Madison said, “[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

These men are the same who deliberated in Philadelphia over the structure and powers that would be granted our government. They came to an agreement and that agreement is contained within the Constitution. Each person holding office takes an oath to uphold it and we, as citizens, owe our founders to at least be familiar with what it says.

If we would put aside our own personal interests, the interests of our individual political party, and read the Constitution and what it says our government can and cannot do, we might have a different perspective upon the candidates who seek office. We may also take a different look at the laws that are passed, often with our best interests in mind, or in our desire for action in response to an event that we feel our government should act upon.

Finally, I would like to ask you to look at the legislation our government has passed since September 11th to protect us from future terrorist attacks. Then I would like for you to read the following quotes by James Madison. Think about what these quotes say, and then ask yourself two things. First, ask yourself if the government has the power to enact these laws, then ask yourself if these laws are truly in our best interests.

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”

In concluding, there is one last quote from Madison I would like for you to consider when it comes to people like myself who constantly write about the abuses of power by our government.
“As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”

When I write my commentaries, I gain nothing from them. I am not paid to do so, nor am I supported or subsidized by any group. I do so out of love for my country. I feel that we are on the verge of losing our liberties, and our sovereignty if more people do not wake up and begin to question the things that our government is doing.

If we are to survive there must be a complete, and total, cleansing of the scum that hold office. The ties to the special interests that are destroying this nation must be broken, to leave one single incumbent in office who is beholden to special interest groups is to allow them to retain some semblance of control over the acts of our government.

It may be too late, but if there is still a chance, this is a hail Mary attempt to talk some common sense into the people of this country, to do what is needed to save it from itself. But, as the title says, I have little faith that will happen.

Where's The Justice?

2008-09-04T18:05:00.000-07:00

In 1975 rock guitarist Ted Nugent recorded a song entitled Stormtroopin. In it he sang, "Where's the justice and where's that law. Raise your healthy voice." That was thirty three years ago, yet the question still arises, just where is the justice, and where is that law.

When one talks about who has the power in this country, I often find that people assume that the power lies with the government. That was not always so. Our very first president, George Washington, once said, “The power under the constitution will always be in the people. It is intrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and, whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be recalled.”

That is a very powerful statement, yet for the people to hold on to that power they must be willing to exercise it, sometimes at great cost. For them to fear what may befall them should they go against the many agencies of the federal government means that they have willingly given up their rightful power and that the government, instead of being the servant, has become the master.

The federal government only exists because the Constitution for the United States of America grants it the power to govern. Article six of the Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

James Madison, who many consider the author of the Constitution, declared in a speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, “[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

Ten Years later Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

Even Alexander Hamilton, who stood for a loose interpretation of the Constitution stated, “No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid.”

People assume that our Constitution grants our legislators whatever powers they deem necessary to govern the people. That is not the case. As Jefferson said, "[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."

Short of open rebellion, what are a people to do when their government wields the ability to imprison them for violating laws that are blatantly unconstitutional? First off people must become familiar with the limitations our Constitution places upon our government. As long as we do not understand the true function of government, then we will remain slaves to it. James Madison once said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

Yet even knowledge is not enough. People must be willing to stand up for their beliefs and use the law against those who would pervert it. Each of us, according to the Sixth Amendment, shall “...enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...”

Therein lies our true power over an abusive tyrannical government. Thomas Jefferson said of this concept, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Therefore, if the people become aware of the limitations placed upon the government by the Constitution, and find themselves in a court of law for violating a law that is unconstitutional, there is one thing, which our government does not wish for us to know, which can clear us of all charges, that being jury nullification.

Jury nullification is when the jury finds a person innocent due to the fact that they find the law under which a person is charged null and void. This may sound radical by today’s standards, but consider what John Jay, our very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court once said, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Therefore, a jury may acquits any defendant due to the fact that the law he is charged with is unconstitutional. You have to remember, as George Washington said, “The power under the constitution will always be in the people.”

If the power under the Constitution lies with the people, and that juries consist of our peers, and that juries are also to “...judge both the law as well as the fact ...” then that is a mighty tool we wield to fight against usurpations of power by our government.

Jury nullification is something that was commonly understood by jurors, in fact it was explained to them by the judges themselves. However in the 1800’s the judges began questioning jurors to find if they were prejudiced against the governments position. If found to be biased against the government, they were dismissed.

Then, in 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that courts no longer had to inform juries that they had the power to veto an unjust law. In U.S. v Moylan, the Fourth Circuit Court affirmed the right of jury nullification, yet upheld the courts right to refuse that the jurors be notified of that right. In U.S. v Dougherty 473 F.2d 1113, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled similarly, stating that jury nullification is a de facto power, but they also ruled that a defense attorney may not inform the jury of that right.

Jury nullification is something very few are familiar with. Jurors are now instructed by the judge, as they are in California, “"It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you . . . You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial as the law as stated to you by me."

In 1788, during the debates for the ratification of the Constitution, it was argued, “If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizens safeguard of liberty.”

John Adams, our second President once said, "...it is not only his right, but his duty – to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." (Yale Law Journal, 1964:173)

Jury nullification is a powerful tool that can be wielded by the people against their government. Yet it can only be wielded by a people who are informed as to the true functions of their government according to the Constitution.

This is why I repeat, ad naseum, that our apathy is what is allowing this country to sink further towards our own destruction. How can we fight against an overwhelming government if we are not informed?

Jury nullification cannot work when only one person has the courage to stand up and argue against punishing our fellow countrymen for violating laws that are unjust.
As long as we blindly follow political parties who have no desire to uphold the Constitution, we have no hope of reclaiming our freedom. As long as we rely upon the news media to inform and educate us concerning the true function of our government, we will continue existing as servants to an ungrateful master.

As Ted Nugent said, “Where's the justice and where's that law. Raise your healthy voice.”

Things As I See Them

2008-09-04T18:03:00.000-07:00

In response to, what I like to call my 'Sour Grapes Series' of articles, I have been told by one particular individual that I am too negative, and at the same time, too long winded. There may be some justification for me being called long winded, as I do tend to ramble on a bit once I get started on a subject. But to call me negative, now that is up for debate.

When I write I call a spade a spade. That is something my father taught me a long time ago. Although it has caused me some grief over the years, as I was told by others that I should have used a bit more tact. I may come across as being negative, but the way I feel is more desperate. I have tried presenting people with evidence; quotations and statistics, yet I am, for the most part, ignored or called some sort of a conspiracy nut.

I am just an average guy who, a few years back, awoke to the treasonous behavior of his elected representatives, I have since then been trying to inform others of their behavior. I have no special gifts other than the willingness to examine the facts with an open mind. I spend much of my free time trying to learn more concerning the damage that is being inflicted upon our nation by special interests and their bought and paid for lackeys in office.

If me, being a C average high school graduate, can see through the lies and deceptions, and learn the truth of what is really happening in this country, why can't those with an education equal to, or higher than mine? I have no sympathy for anyone who is so closed minded that they won't face the truth when it is presented to them. So, it may be true that I am a bit negative in some of my writings, but those who are on the receiving end of my articles deserve what they get, for they are blinded to the truth by their ignorance and their apathy.

These same people, the ones upon whom I speak about, are the same ones who idolize Barack Obama as if he is the next best thing since sliced bread. Sure he is a fine orator, has charisma, and is the apparent darling of the media. He speaks to them of change that they can believe in, and they swoon over him like the young women who swooned over Elvis and the Beatles. They are so intoxicated by his charm that they do not even bother to examine the details of this change that he is talking about.

Barack Obama is running on the same platform of socialist programs that have been the hallmark of the democrats for years. So what is this change he talks about?

Is his change going to include changing our national anthem to I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing? Is his change going to be removing the American flag from all governmental buildings because people of the world find it 'oppressive'? Is the change going to be his taking the oath of office on the Koran instead of the Bible? Or is his change going to be simply to be the first African-American elected as President?

But wait, that is not the case either. Barack Obama is half white, a fact he chooses not to embrace. He is part Arab, another part of his ancestry he does not openly embrace. Only a small portion of his heritage is true African, that on the side of his grandmother.

So what is Barack Obama? He is an illusion, created to woo us with his charm and his eloquence, when in reality he is a hollow man, totally lacking in the accomplishments we should be looking for in our next president.

I have been told that I should stop being so negative. I find that asking a bit much when I see the way that people refuse to examine the issues, and would rather vote based upon some warm fuzzy feeling they get about a person from a slick 30 second political advertisement. You have to remember, the devil must have been pretty smooth and charismatic to get Eve to take a bite from the forbidden fruit.

I will stop being so negative when I see that the American people have begun to think again, when they have begun to open their eyes and accept that they have been lied to, deceived, and most of all, defrauded of their liberties by those whom they entrusted to guard over them. That is when I will write sugary sweet commentaries about how wonderful America is. Until then....

Guest submission

2008-08-28T18:56:00.000-07:00

This was written by a close friend, Mr. Jim Schwiesow, a retired sheriff from Iowa. You can visit Jim's webpage at Sheriff Jim Online.

Here is his latest article. It is very powerful and speaks to the heart concerning something we should all consider very closely.

Neal

BEYOND A FIERY GATE LIES OUR DESTINY
By: Jim R Schwiesow

“Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet,
and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue
shall consume away in their mouth.” Zechariah 14:12

He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will
be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be
foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites,
ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs
of the times?Matthew 16:2-3

Today, while surfing the internet I ran across one of those interminably silly arguments, via a written exchange, as to whether the Bible is verifiably true or just a collection of colorful, and obtuse fairy tales. It is interesting that these exchanges always seem to be comprised of a divide between the collective bodies of two groups - those who despise the thought that a sovereign God exists and that He might have any control over the universe, the world or horror of horrors their own personal lives, and those nominal Christians who spin their wheels futilely and vainly with nonsensical contentions and vacuous arguments grounded only in the wisdom and doctrines of men and devoid of an unfaltering, unshakable and unassailable belief in the super natural power of the Eternal Spirit who created a universe of one hundred twenty-five billion galaxies; each encompassing one hundred billion stars. All this is mindful of the old TV commercial in which a little old lady lifts the top of the bun enclosing a hamburger and indignantly exclaims, “Where’s the beef?” Like that scrawny little denizen of the geriatric set a true believer in the eternal almighty and infallible God looks at these delusive and puny proffers and cries out, “Where’s the faith?”

On August 6, 1945 a relatively small, by today’s standards, atomic bomb of 130 pounds of Uranium-235 named “Little Boy” plunged from the belly of an American B-29 bomber and detonated 1,900 feet above the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later another B-29 Superfortress carried a nuclear bomb to Nagasaki, a hapless secondary target that was an unfortunate alternate to the primary target of Kokura, which was obscured by clouds. The Japanese military upon noting that only two aircraft were approaching thought that it was only a reconnaissance mission and no alarm was given. Minutes later a second nuclear device, a bulbous Plutonium bomb aptly called “Fat Boy” descended and detonated 1,500 feet above the city. In two brief and blindingly horrific instances within the space of three days 150,000 people died, incinerated by temperatures exceeding 7,000 degrees Fahrenheit. They died in their tracks; their eyes dissolved in their sockets, their tongues dissolved in their mouths and the flesh was consumed from their bones. They either evaporated into nothingness or dropped to the ground as ashes, which were blown away by fiery winds of six hundred miles per hour. And these were the lucky ones upwards of 200,000 more people of those two cities died slowly, agonizingly and tortuously over the next five years from radiation sickness and cancers.

What is not commonly known is that the Japanese narrowly escaped a nearly complete nuclear annihilation. The then President, Harry S. Truman, had announced that if the Japanese government and military failed to accept the terms for an unconditional surrender they could expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen upon this earth. In the works were four more nuclear bombs and the argument was not whether they would be used, but whether they should be delivered upon the Japanese mainland as they were readied over the next few months or be held and poured out upon the Japanese people in quick succession. Mankind has within its grasp the wherewithal to annihilate every last living soul upon this earth and the evilness of mind to do so.

Mr. Truman failed to note, upon the delivery of his statement as to the likes of such destruction having never been seen upon the earth, that the event was not unprecedented. Those who believe the Bible know that the Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were delivered unto just such a fiery destruction at the hand of God over five thousand years ago in the year 3123BC; the cause - great sin, rejection of God and His laws and a declination to seek His grace in all humility and abject submissiveness.

The Bible contains a chronological recording of the events of the earth and its inhabitants past, present and future. Only the Creator, the Lord God Almighty, has such perspective. The prophets and apostles who recorded His revelations were selected for just such a purpose before the foundations of the earth were laid, and their inspiration - the Eternal God of limitless power - has preserved their work and His word through the ages to this very day. Satan and his minions and the men who serve him have striven mightily to pollute it, pervert it and efface it, but the Word of God stands like a mighty fortress invulnerable and unassailable.

The Bible was given to mankind for his instruction and we ignore it at our peril. Men can laugh at it, scoff at and denigrate the words thereof and denounce it as myth and superstitious nonsense, but that will not erase any of God’s works, it will not circumvent His control over all of nature and current events nor will it prevent every last prophetic word of the Bible from being carried out. God holds the wisdom of men in derision; man’s every prideful worldly self-centered work is as foolishness to Him.

God’s wrath is poised to be poured out upon this world with a fullness of fury and the United States will be the first to fall, while its English speaking allies will either fall simultaneously or succumb to similar judgment in quick succession. This nation has fallen into a depth of depravity unparalleled in our history. It is not necessary to enumerate our sins they are well known. The perverseness of the minds of the people sickens the soul. Government supported vice is rampant, and the people are of a corrupt mind and their hearts are continually fixed on evil. The killing of millions of babies is sanctioned and protected by government decree, as is sexual perversion and various other vices.

“Our feet run to evil, and we make haste to shed innocent blood; our thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in our paths. The way of peace we do not know, and there is no justice in our ways; we have made for ourselves crooked paths.”

Will we change or will we fall?

We have watched trickles of judgments turn into creeks and then into rivers as the country is beset by one disaster after another. Each calamity falls hard upon the heels of another. Coastal cities and states are devastated and ravaged by storms of unprecedented fury. An entire state is set afire by a statewide electrical storm of historical significance and subterranean rumblings portend the soon coming of catastrophic earthquakes. Hundreds of thousands of acres of the heartland are scourged by floods and communities from coast to coast are shredded and torn apart by monster tornadoes.

Unbridled and illegal immigration has destroyed social cohesiveness and injected racial hatreds and dissention into the nation. Crime is rampant, diseases of new and varied kinds are burgeoning and the health of the people is being destroyed by chemical concoctions pushed by the pharmaceutical reprobates in their quest for astronomical sums of money, and the same are promoted by the medical community and celebrity and media shills for the same reason.

Our country is totally bankrupt and in hock for billions of dollars to foreign nations. Our industrial complex has been dismantled by venal corporate elites and moved to foreign shores, and our economy and currency have been decimated and trashed by the treacherous internationalist agents for a new world order.

We have been delivered into the hands of a now fascist government and every last one of our government institutions is corrupt to the bone and oppressively controlling. Government officials meet clandestinely to plan for martial law and the incarceration of dissident citizens to insulate themselves from possible uprisings over their treasonous acts. The pride of our power as been destroyed, and those to whom the deluded citizens of this country have entrusted their security are seemingly moronic blockheads who blunder into wars, or precipitate wars between other nations, by their obtuse and dim-witted activities. They have no concept of the military strength of those who they provoke and grossly over estimate their own nation’s capabilities both militarily and economically.

In short we have been set up by our own iniquity for total destruction.

Prior to modern times it was relatively easy for scoffers of God’s Word to ridicule Biblical prophecy. It was they said physically impossible for a mark to be implanted into the hand or forehead that would either enable or disable ones ability to carry out commerce or control absolutely a person’s access to the necessities of life. And who could conceive of a power that could instantly dissolve the eyeballs in their sockets, the tongue in the mouth and melt the flesh from the bones. It was they said such silliness that argued that the Bible was a work of fiction or at the very least a collection of mythological tales. Modern science, which is worshipped over God today, has brought all that is prophesied in the Bible to the capability of becoming reality. No longer can God’s prophecies be looked upon as science fiction. Fiction they are not and we are about to learn this the hard way.

We, in this country are perilously close to the end. The concluding event of a long line of corrections at God’s hand will be nuclear destruction. At a time when we least expect it nuclear devastation will rain down upon our cities just as it did upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki and our land will be made desolate. Such a fate is only inevitable if we fail to turn to God with true humility and sorrow and beg His forgiveness and plead for His deliverance. It’s not too late, not yet.
“But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.” 1 Thessalonians 5:1-4

It Is Not Your Right

2008-08-17T16:51:00.000-07:00

Rights are something that many people take for granted, yet they are often something that are often abused . For instance, we all the right to speak out and say what is on our mind. However that right does not entitle us to slander or libel someone.

One right we all have is the right to be treated equally as a human being no matter our race, age, or gender. We all have the right to seek employment and to try and improve our lives. Yet we do not have the right to require others to subsidize our us for our failure to achieve those goals.

Often groups or organizations campaign for rights when in actuality what they really seek is acceptance for their particular cause. That is no more so when one considers the subject of gay rights.

For the most part gays have all the same rights that heterosexual people have, other than those few homophobes who seek out members of the gay community and target them to harass or perhaps assault. So what is it with all the talk of gay rights?

What the gay community really wants is acceptance for their lifestyle choice, and that does not meet the criterion of a right.

There has been much ado recently when California allowed for same sex marriages. Yet California’s decision to do so violates federal law. Chapter 1, Section 7 of Title 1 of the U.S. Code states, “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

It is particularly ludicrous that those who support, and fight for, the right of gays to marry, would seek equal standing in the eyes of God by having their unions sanctified in a church.

How can any person who engages in homosexual activities expect God to sanctify their union to another who is of the same sex, particularly when it is written in Scripture, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.” Leviticus 20:13

While it is also true that concerning judging others Christ said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”, that does not mean that homosexual behavior is any less a sin in God’s eyes and should therefore be considered as sinful by all who profess to be Christians.
It seems that the gay community is not seeking the same rights that each of us as individuals enjoys. Instead they are seeking acceptance of their deviant lifestyle. Why else would a Michigan man be suing the publishers of Bibles for $70 million in emotional damages he suffered because the Bible condemns his sexual activities?

Has our country deteriorated to the point where to mention sin is now considered politically incorrect? It is not only America that has these problems, in 2007 a Priest in Spain was sued over a seminar in which he claimed he could “rehabilitate homosexuals”. Going back to 2005 a Pentecostal pastor was charged with hate speech when he denounced homosexuality as a “cancerous tumor” During his defense, Pastor Ake Green told Sweden’s Supreme Court that his sermon was meant to warn gays that their lifestyle would result in an ‘eternal divorce’ from God.

The first amendment right of free speech appears to be a right that the gay community does not respect when that right is exercised in opposition to their lifestyle.

There are numerous organizations which attempt to garner support for the gay community, and nowhere is there presence more strongly felt than in San Francisco, California.

San Francisco is home to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration Committee, LGBT, whose stated goal is to "educate the World, commemorate our heritage, celebrate our culture, and liberate our people."
http://www.sfpride.org/

One of the ways they go about this is by supporting the group that sponsors the San Francisco LGBT Celebration, and the Folsom Street Fair. The Folsom Street Fair has it's own webpage with a stated goal of "Our mission is to create world-class volunteer driven leather events, providing the adult alternative lifestyle community safe venues for self-expression, emphasizing freedom, fun and frolic, while raising money to benefit San Francisco charities."
http://folsomstreetfair.org/

The San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration, which often goes by the name of San Francisco Pride, is a parade and festival which celebrates all things of the gay lifestyle. It is held in June of each year and is one of the most famous and best attended gay pride parades in the world. It is second to only the Rose Parade in attendance.

The Gay Pride Parade is bad enough, with the gays celebrating their lifestyle for all to witness, but the Folsom Street Fair is downright disgusting in its depravity. The link below shows the type activity that takes place at the Folsom Street Fair, but I have to warn you, it is truly disturbing. Yet this is the lifestyle the gay community wants us to accept as normal.

Warning, the link below contains graphic nudity and repulsive sexually deviant acts
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php

Those images are both repulsive and, as we know, a violation of the laws of God as found in Scripture. Yet what about mans law, how do they hold up to those?

According to Section 314 of the California Penal Code, "Every person who willfully and lewdly, either: 1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or, 2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Also, did not one of those disturbing images show a man performing oral sex upon another man, while a third man urinated upon him? According to a California appeals court, urinating in public is illegal as well.

David McDonald, of Berkley, CA, was arrested by police for urinating in a restaurant parking lot. Although it is true that the officers suspected he was in possession of cocaine, Justice Anthony Kline wrote, "There can be little doubt that urination on or near a busy commercial street interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of both life and property." Kline continued, "The sight and smell of urine are vile and offensive, and those who use the public streets and sidewalks cannot be freely subjected to such unpleasantness."

Although not all of the gay community is as 'in your face' with their actions as those who participate in the Gay Pride Parade, and the Folsom Street Fair, their sexual preference is no less offensive to those who chose to live by Gods law and remain heterosexual, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

We all know how in the Scriptures, God destroyed the world with a mighty flood due to the wickedness of man. We also know that God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah due to their wickedness.

Is San Francisco any less wicked than those cities of old? Yet the mayor of San Francisco and his Chief of Police tolerate this deviant behavior in their city, claiming it is their "right" to be different. The groups who support this lifestyle claim that these people are born this way and cannot help themselves. They disregard the Scriptures and what they say about homosexuality. Yet in Proverbs, Chapter 14, Verse 9, it states, "Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favor."

That can only lead one to assume that those who disregard Gods will and defend the 'rights' of the gay community to be different, are to be considered fools, while those who speak out against this abomination find favor in God's eyes.

It is your choice, you can believe what you want to believe, but I find the gay lifestyle offensive and totally against all that I believe to be good. Those who practice this lifestyle have the right to do so, but they cannot claim that among their rights is the right to demand my acceptance of it. Just as much as they have the right to live in sin, I have the guaranteed first amendment right to speak out against it, and I will continue to do so as long as I live.

Would Someone Please Put A Muzzle On SecDef Gates?

2008-08-16T11:02:00.000-07:00

On August 14th the media reported that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a stern warning to Russia in regards to the conflict in Georgia. Secretary Gates said that strained relations may last for years if Russia does not pull back its forces.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4533544.ece

Is it just me, or does anyone else find Secretary Gates comments both arrogant and a bit hypocritical, especially when, according to Reuters, the United States currently has around 162,000 troops deployed to Iraq.

I wonder, how many times former Russian President Vladimir Putin offered the same stern rebuke to President Bush?

Could it be that President Bush is so full of self righteousness that he feels our nation can do whatever it wants without the same fear of lasting consequences or increased levels of anger towards the foreign policy of the United States?

The Bush administration has the audacity to warn Russia to pull back, yet a quick overview of our nations foreign policy history may cause some to ask who it is that needs to be told to 'pull back'.

In 1953 the U.S. overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq and installed the Shah as dictator. During his time in power it is estimated that he had anywhere between 60-100,000 people arrested and held as political prisoners.

In 1954 in an operation known as PBSUCCESS, the Central Intelligence Agency overthrew Guatemalan President Arbenz and replaced him with Colonel Carlos Castillo.

In 1963 the U.S. allowed Vietnamese President Diem to be assassinated, paving the way for Ho Chi Minh to come into power. After the assassination, Minh is quoted as saying, "The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists ... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists ..."

And of course we all know about the Military takeover of Iraq in which Saddam Hussein was removed from power and replaced with a democracy more favorable to the U.S.

These are just a few of the times the United States has meddled in the affairs of other nations. Even more recently the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency funded and trained Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Doesn’t anyone find if a bit peculiar how those whom we support at one time, end up becoming our enemies later on?

Now we find ourselves in a conflict/occupation in Iraq with no clear end in sight. Due to our nations military involvement in Iraq it is estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died due to the conflict. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11717456.htm

It is also estimated that 60,000 Iraqis are forced to leave their homes every month due to the violence from the war. The total number of refugees is now estimated at over 4 million. http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Refugees.htm

One has to remember that it was not Iraq that attacked us on September 11th. According to official reports fifteen of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian citizens, with two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf

Why is it then that we have not invaded Saudi Arabia? Could it be the close ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family has something to do with it?

One has to realize that those radical Islamic terrorists who declare jihad against us are mostly from the Wahhabi sect, the same sect that is the state religion of Saudi Arabia.

According to a 1996 CIA report, one third of all the Saudi-backed charities they studied, were tied to terrorist groups. Also, in 1998 a report by the National Security Council identified the Saudi government as the ‘epicenter’ of terrorist financing, with their being the greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism, funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to jihadist groups and al Qaeda cells around the world.

Not only do the Saudis support radical Islam and funnel money to terrorist groups, they are spreading their message of hatred into our country. The king of Saudi Arabia favors, with financial contributions, certain American organizations and is also funding Wahhabi mosques to be built.

The Saudis support numerous American Universities, including Duke, Howard, Johns Hopkins, and Syracuse.

http://www.kingfahdbinabdulaziz.com/main/m330.htm

Among the mosques they are building here within our own borders, there is the one in Fresno California, East Lansing Michigan, Los Angeles California, New Brunswick New Jersey, Toledo Ohio, Chicago Illinois, along with others in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington state.

While our Bill of Rights guarantees us freedom of speech and religion, these mosques are something we all should be very concerned about. These are not mere houses of worship where people go to praise God and worship Him. These are places were anti American hatred is instilled, places that teach their followers that anyone who follows Christianity as an infidel. They teach that strict Islamic law, Shariah, must be adhered to in America, to include that all women should be veiled in public of be killed. They are taught to see all non-Muslims as their enemies, to dissociate from us, and to oppose us in every way possible. Finally they are taught to prepare for war with America,
"To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government."

Yet, with all this evidence pointed at Saudi Arabia, why do we invade Iraq? Could it be because Iraq would not play ball with us and behave according to our wishes? Could it be that is why Iran is next upon our list to attack?

Or could it be that there are deep ties between the Bush family and the Saudis? In his book, House of Bush, House of Saud, journalist Craig Unger traced millions in investments and contracts that made their way from the Saudis over the past 20 years and found their way to companies in which the Bush family, or their friends, have held prominent positions. These companies include Harken Energy, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group. Saudi Prince Bandar even made a single $1 million donation to the Bush Presidential Library in Texas.

The point of all this is this, Secretary of Defense Gates is telling Russia to ’back off’ in Georgia, or else. Yet we have meddled in the affairs of countless other countries, staging coups and overthrowing their, sometimes, duly elected governments. We have military bases in more countries of the world than any other country from which we can mobilize our forces to invade almost anywhere. We have invaded Iraq, overthrew its government, killed over half a million of its citizens, and displaced over four million more. Yet through all this, Russia invades a neighbor and our Secretary of Defense has the arrogance and gall to tell them to back off or there will be lasting consequences to our relationship with them.

If Americans would view our nations actions from the perspective of someone from another country they just may find the comments made by Secretary Gates both arrogant and hypocritical. They may also begin to see why so many nations no longer consider America as a friend or an ally.

Consider The Following

2008-08-03T08:10:00.000-07:00

Two hundred and forty five years ago a small percentage of citizens stood up against a superior force and declared their independence from the tyranny under which they lived. This revolution for independence spawned men such as Patrick Henry, who declared, "...give me liberty, or give me death." These were men who realized the inherent danger in their actions and were willing to risk all for that most precious gift, liberty.

The successful war, and the ensuing Constitution, which created our republican form of government, gave these men that gift which they had been willing to risk all to obtain. Yet they realized that to hold on to that gift the people of this country must remain vigilant to prevent tyranny from again ruling the people of this land.

George Washington emphasized that point when he said, "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered…staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."

On the very day that Congress had approved the Declaration of Independence, they also appointed Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin to design a seal for the new country. Ben Franklin, along with the support of Thomas Jefferson, proposed the phrase "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

Although it was not approved by Congress, the sentiment is one that was felt widely among the patriots who fought for our nations independence, and brought forth our Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." That issue is one that appears to have been settled, as we are no longer a nation in which the will of the people is upheld by those chosen to represent them.

From the earliest point in our nations history there has been a battle over the interpretation of that document which grants our government its very existence, the Constitution.

There were those such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who felt that the Constitution was to be strictly adhered to. Then there were those, chief among them Alexander Hamilton, who felt that the Constitution was to be loosely interpreted as the needs of the nation demanded.
Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." While James Madison elaborated that point further when he said, "With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

On the other side of the argument, Alexander Hamilton is quoted as saying, "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things."

That issue lies at the heart of all the problems that this country faces, what exactly is the purpose and scope of powers of our government? Forget about Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal. Those issues are insignificant unless you understand what is the true purpose of our government.

Thomas Jefferson described the function of government when he said, "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government."

If that be the case, what of the candidates who run for public office who we choose to vote for? Do the promises they make to garner your vote sound more like the one described by James Madison when he said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

One year before his death in 1826, and one hundred eighty three years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in a letter to William Branch Giles, "I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."

If Jefferson said that nearly two hundred years ago, imagine what he would say if he were to see our government as it exists today. Yet we the people of this country sit idly by and allow our government to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution when it was clearly stated by Jefferson, that "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

When our apathy is so great that our government can violate the Constitution as it pleases, without fearing the populace there is tyranny. Or as Jefferson once stated, "[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." (emphasis added)

Therefore by our negligence in understanding the true function of our government, we are to be held liable for its unlimited growth and scope of powers. We have acquiesced and therefore surrendered our rights willingly, well some of us have anyway.

Even Alexander Hamilton would be astounded at how much our government has grown, and how far its power extends into areas that were not intended. Yet didn’t even Hamilton once say, " Ah, this is the constitution," he said. "Now, mark my words. So long as we are a young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interests, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness. But when we become old and corrupt, it will bind no longer."

So, before you go to the polls in just under four months, take some time to think about what our government was established to do. Dig out a copy of the Constitution for yourself and read through it if you must. You may be unpleasantly surprised to see that our government no longer resembles that which was intended.

Or you could just go vote for the candidate of your choosing as you always do. If that is the case, remember one thing Gore Vidal once said, “It makes no difference who you vote for-the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people.”

It’s your choice, but I would like for you to ponder what Samuel Adams once said, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen”

Power

2008-07-18T13:08:00.000-07:00

"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it."
Woodrow Wilson

Power is something that is often sought. However, once it is obtained it is like a drug that constantly demands an ever increasing amount of it. Most often it is wielded in a way that only benefits those who have it, with little regard for the welfare of those who do not.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others." Our Founding Fathers were wise when it came to the temptations which came with unbridled power. Anyone who has taken the time to research the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and the other founders would know that they were wary of a government with unlimited power.

English historian Lord Acton is quoted as saying, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are always bad men." Is that why Jefferson said that rational men do not seek such power, or is it, as author David Brin said, "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptable. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power."

Whichever may be true the fact is that as Albert Einstein once said, “The attempt to combine wisdom and power has only rarely been successful and then only for a short while.” That quote certainly applies to our government today, and particularly to the increasing scope of power sought by the executive branch under the present administration. Unfortunately, Einstein’s thoughts on power turned out to be more realistic than the vision held by Thomas Jefferson when he said, “I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

When the original thirteen states ratified the Constitution of the United States, they granted the federal government certain enumerated powers that were contained within that document. Those powers were specific and limited, yet over time the people of this country have become ignorant as to what powers the Constitution grants to the government, and more importantly, which ones it does not.

Thomas Jefferson stated that concisely when he said, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition.”

That is exactly what has happened, we, through our ignorance of what the Constitution says, have not only enabled our government to expand it’s powers far beyond the original intent of the Constitution, we have voted for candidates who make campaign promises that they are not authorized to fulfill if they were to govern strictly according to their Constitutional charter.

Our founders realized that there may come a time when the Constitution may not fit the needs of the nation, and they offered us a method to remedy any future deficiency. As we the people were the ones who granted the government its power in the first place by ratifying the Constitution, it is only by an act of the people that the powers granted the government could be increased. Otherwise, as Jefferson said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.”

The proper method for either expanding, or restricting the powers of government are to be found in Article 5, which states, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof...”

Our first President, George Washington felt so strongly about this, that he stated, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

We the people have forgotten that our government cannot simply assume powers not granted them by the Constitution, whether they do so by Executive Order, Presidential Signing Statements, Treaties, or Trade Agreements. Not only have we the people forgotten this fundamental principle, those we have elected to represent us seem to have forgotten it as well.

There is an organization called Friends of the Article V Convention, or FOAVC, http://www.foavc.org/, whose webpage states, “We are a non-partisan association of American citizens from every state in our Republic comprised of a broad range of occupations, ethnicities, religious affiliations and political persuasions. Our common bond is a deep commitment to preserving the values and principles embodied in our founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - upon which this nation was founded.”

One of the members of this organization sent out an e mail describing how he had contacted members of Congress in regards to holding a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. This is part of what he said, "I have openly confronted several Congress members in public arenas now directly. This campaign season is open season, on them. They all respond with thundering silence, completely dumbfounded! One chased me down after the showbiz to ask about it. They don't have a clue what the Constitution says. Its not just that they won't address the issue. Neither the members nor their staff have a clue.”

So, it is not only we the people who are not familiar with what the Constitution says, it is those we elect to represent us as well. When a body of elected representatives do not understand the limitations placed upon them by their charter, in this case our Constitution, how can they be expected to govern within it’s confines?

This also causes one to wonder, are the violations of their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution due to ignorance, or is it something more sinister, intentional violations of the authority granted them?

Could it be that all the special interest groups such the banks, the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, ad naseum that lobby Congress, who contribute to the campaigns of these politicians are the ones who actually have the ultimate say in what our government does, or does not do? Could it be that the political parties, who rely upon these special interest groups for their donations, have gained so power, that a candidate who truly understands the Constitution has no chance of ever getting elected?

George Washington warned us about the dangers of political parties, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Whatever the case may be, those in power, whether they be puppets controlled by the special interest groups, or merely ignorant people who unwillingly legislate outside their scope of power, we the people have allowed them to become firmly entrenched because we also are ignorant as to the powers which the Constitution grants them.

Whether we have simply allowed this to happen due to our own ignorance, or whether we have been lied to by those we’ve entrusted to govern according to strictly defined limitations, the end result is the same, we now have a government that is totally out of control.

What is worse is that when people try to inform the public as to the truth concerning their government, they are shunned and called all kinds of names. Carl Sagan, the noted scientist once said, “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

Folks, we have been bamboozled. Whether it be by design, or by ignorance, the end result is the same. Whether our nation still has the chance to turn things around, or if we are too far gone to survive is something that is being argued by many. In truth, only time will tell.

Unfortunately, if we are past the point of no return, if our nation, as envisioned by our founders, is truly on the brink of self destruction, things are going to get awfully ugly, and awfully quickly. I only hope that people are prepared for what lies just over the horizon. At least they can’t say that they haven’t been warned.

Somewhat of an explanation

2008-07-18T13:06:00.000-07:00

In my recent articles I have been pretty harsh in regards to the people of this country. Although my opinion has not changed, I feel somewhat obligated to explain why I feel this way about my fellow countrymen.

When people vote, I often wonder what is the deciding factor for them casting their ballot for a particular candidate. Is it because that candidate stands for certain principles which coincide with what they believe in? Is it because that candidate promised things which would benefit that person? Is it simply because they are better orators than their opponent? Or is it that they feel disgust for both candidates, but still feel it is their civic duty to vote for the lesser of two evils?

With the caliber of candidates we have had to choose from, I suspect that far too many people are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Even so, when people do cast their vote, no matter their reasons, I still think that they expect that candidate to live up to some expectations in return for their vote.

However, there seems to be one thing that far too many Americans have forgotten, that those we elect are bound by the Constitution as to what they can and cannot do in their capacity as representatives of the people.

Each person that we elect swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet many of the promises a candidate makes, which is why most people vote for them, are promises that are not included in the specifically enumerated powers granted them in the Constitution.

If we used the Constitution as a litmus test for most of the candidates running for office, none of them would ever get elected. That is because if they ran on a platform which conformed to the Constitution, they would not be able to make all those promises they do, therefore the majority of people would have no reason to vote for them.

Consider the following. Let's say there is a town that has a plant that build GM automobiles and the majority of the people in that town do not like Ford vehicles. Is it within the power of their duly elected sheriff to arrest anyone who owns a Ford just because people don't like Fords? What if your neighbor had a nicer house than you, could your duly elected sheriff take money from your neighbors bank account to fix your house up to the same standards as your neighbors? How about if there are a large number of poor in your city, can the duly elected sheriff come into your home, take food from your pantry and give it to the poor? In all the above cases the answer is no. The reason is because the duly elected sheriff is bound to uphold the law. If there is no law that gives the sheriff those powers, then they cannot take it upon themselves to do those things, no matter how large the majority that wants the sheriff to do them.

While that scenario may be farfetched, the same principle applies to every elected representative for whom you cast a vote. If the city charter, state constitution, or U.S. Constitution does not grant a particular elected official a power, then they just do not have that power, no matter how many citizens support it.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."

There you have it, if the Constitution does not specifically grant our government a power, then they do not have it, and they cannot assume it, no matter how many people vote for them because they made a promise to do it.

There is a common mentality that government is there to provide things for us. Government benefits, subsidies, and agencies abound whose job it is to take care of us. We believe that it is the job of the government to do these things for us, to ensure that we have all the things we believe we are ‘entitled’ to. I find it funny that at the same time we are asking the government to take care of our every need, we complain that our taxes are too high. Where do people think the money for all these programs comes from?

There are two quotes that people need to ponder in regards to what our government is supposed to do for us. The first is by Thomas Jefferson, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”, and the second is by Ben Franklin, “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

So, in our desire to let government pass legislation to benefit us, or to regulate nearly every aspect of our lives, we have opened Pandora's Box. Did we honestly think that once government found it could legislate at will, without restrictions, they would only do what is in our best interest?

Thomas Jefferson warned us that, "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." How much more easily would this be possible when the people refuse to monitor the actions of their elected representatives, and in fact, specifically vote for them based upon promises that are a direct violation of their charter of power as found in the Constitution?

Our system of government has gotten so bad that those who hold office no longer represent the people at all. It would not be too far a stretch to say that they may in fact despise us due to the fact that the Constitution grants us more power than it grants them.

Whether their continued efforts to dismantle the restraints upon them found in the Constitution, and to abolish our freedom and liberty as found in the Bill of Rights is something that is happening by design, or by accident, is not the point. The point is that it is happening, and we the people are sitting back and, not only allowing it to happen, but we are supporting it by electing representatives who refuse to govern according to the limitations that are placed upon them by the Constitution.

If our those who hold power no longer represent we the people, then who exactly do they represent? Think about this for a moment. The amount of money needed to run a political campaign is mind boggling, and it has to come from somewhere. Those contributions come from people, groups, and corporations who throw their lot behind the candidate who promises to support their cause, or fight for things that will benefit them.

Therefore, those we elect have gone from being representatives of the people, to special interest lackeys. That alone should be cause for concern. Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator during World War II, once said, "The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power" That is what we have now, a government that cares little for the welfare of the citizenry, instead allowing corporations to run roughshod over the people and to influence policy and legislation, solely for the sake of increased profits and riches.

One look at our government today and we can see what we have wrought by allowing our government to overstep its authority and switch allegiances from the people, to businesses.

One final thought. The question I always find myself asking is this, if the people of this country are unhappy with the state of the Union, why do we always place the blame upon the President when it is Congress who passes the laws? The President merely signs bills or vetoes them, he has no legislative power. If the Congress legislated according to the Constitution many of the programs and agencies of our government would not even exist. Whether they pass laws that are unconstitutional, or if they allow the executive branch to overstep it's boundaries by assuming powers that are not granted it by the Constitution, it is Congress who is to blame for all the problems in this country.

Two recent polls, one by FOX and another by Gallup, show that Congress has a dismal approval rating, wherein roughly 19% of Americans approve of their job performance. http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

So, why do we see so many incumbents getting re-elected? Why has Senator Robert Byrd, from West Virginia, stayed in office for 49 years, Senator Edward Kennedy for 47 years, Senator Daniel Inouye for 45 years, Senator Theodore Stevens for 39 years, and Senator Joe Biden for 35 years?

My own representatives have been in office for quite some time as well. Senator Diane Feinstein has held her seat since 1992, and my representative in the House, Wally Herger, has been in office for 11 years.

Is it because we are content when our representatives do well in ensuring that our state, or our districts get their slice of the pie from the treasury? Is it because the programs and agencies they create benefit us individually?

That is why I am so critical of the people of this country. We have political stagnation, putrid, rotten officials who have lost touch with the people they represent, yet remain in office because we refuse to vote them out. Sooner or later our apathy and our ignorance of the true nature of government is going to come back and bite us in the ass. With the problems this nation is currently experiencing I fear it is sooner.

If we want to turn things around we must see past the lies and propaganda that is spewed from the mouths of those who seek our votes. We must look past the misinformation that is being told us by the media in regards to the affairs of our government. We must turn off our televisions and take the time to do some research on our own about what our government is doing and how these things affect us. If not, all is lost.

We have allowed thieves, liars, and dare I say traitors, to hold office while they entice us with all sorts of campaign promises in one hand, and rob us of our liberty with the other. All this is happening because the people of this country do not care about whether or not their government has become a polluted cesspool of greed and deceit.

If that is what America wants, that is what America is getting. The only problem that I have with that, is that it affects me as well. And that is why I am so mad at my fellow countrymen.

I would like to finish with one final quote by George Washington, "Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

Last Of The Sour Grapes Series

2008-07-07T06:54:00.000-07:00

It has become common for advertisers to exploit events by holding large sales named after a particular holiday. Usually those placing the ads will brag about dropping prices or having zero percent interest for a certain amount of time.

However, in the ads for car and truck sales that I have seen lately, there is a new gimmick designed to get you into the salesroom and into a new vehicle, cheap or free gas. I have seen ads that promise you $2.99 gas for life if you buy their vehicle. I have seen ads that promise $1000 in free gas if you buy before the end of the July 4th weekend. I find that indicative of our economic situation that auto dealers are playing upon your concerns about the rising cost of gasoline.

As I watch these ads over this July 4th weekend, a wide range of emotions have passed through me. I normally begin by becoming angry that these advertisers desecrate a holiday meant for remembering our nation's independence, and the sacrifices made by our founders, all so that they can sell a few cars and trucks. Then I proceed to thoughts of concern over our nation's floundering economic situation. Finally my thoughts return to the people of this country.

Lately I have been awfully harsh on the American people. My methods may not be as effective as I would like, but I am only trying to get people to open their eyes and see what is behind the damage that is being done, and has been done, to our nation by our government, and by those outside influences who wield control over them. I want people to stop trusting their leaders at their word, to stop trusting the mainstream media to provide them with all the facts, or the truth for that matter.

When something as precious as your individual liberty, or the survival of your country is threatened, ought not you to do all that you can to protect it? Would anyone who holds even the slightest amount of honor and dignity cower in the corner, or sit in another room watching television while the safety of his home or family is threatened? How could that same person refuse to take action in defense of his nation or their liberty, especially when it is being threatened by the very people he has entrusted to safeguard it?

Is this what we have become, a nation of timid little mice, too afraid to be different, to take a stand, speak out, and fight if necessary, with whatever abilities that God has given us, against corruption and evil so pervasive, so coordinated that it threatens the very existence of our nation and our Constitution?

Or could it be that we have become so absorbed in our own self-gratification that anything that requires us to take the time to research and to question the legitimacy of the actions of our elected representatives is considered an unwanted intrusion upon our time?

Our ancestors who fought, and those who paid the ultimate price for our liberty, must be hiding their faces in shame at how we have allowed such a travesty to befall to happen to the principles upon which this nation was founded, to witness this nation deteriorating while our liberties are trampled upon by people of our own choosing.

When we go to the polls to vote for a candidate, we no longer have the slightest idea what the duties are of the person for whom we cast our vote or what his qualifications are. Would you hire someone to do a job at your house if you did not know what first needed to be done? Would you not check that person's qualifications to make sure he or she was trained and licensed to do the job properly? If you would do all that work for something as minor as making a repair to your home, why would you not do the same for someone who has the ability to raise your taxes, send your son off to war, or in the worst case scenario, ruin your country and erase your God-given rights?

When people go to vote, they no longer cast their ballot for the candidate who promises to do what is best for our nation. Instead, they vote for whoever makes the most appealing sounding promises that will benefit them as individuals.

Alexander Tytler is often quoted as saying, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Whether or not he actually said that is irrelevant. The fact is that it aptly applies to us. We now have two candidates running for office who are the most unworthy I have seen in my fifty years of existence on this planet. The people who follow them, particularly the followers of Barack Obama, are almost maniacal in their misdirected, mindless loyalty. They refuse to even consider that their candidate may have some serious flaws that make him unworthy to be President.

It is not just the people to blame. The political parties put their support behind these candidates as well. If you will recall, Ron Paul ran on the Republican platform and was shunned and neglected by his own political party.

I wrote both the national and the state Republican Party offices asking how I might obtain Ron Paul material, banners, flyers and such to post and hand out while he was actively campaigning. I never once heard from them. The political parties had already decided that Ron Paul was not going to get their support.

George Washington had the following to say about political parties, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” Washington also warned us to “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

Our system of government is quite simple, and at the same time exquisite in its design. The Constitution grants the individual branches certain powers to do certain things, the whole time we the people have the ability to recall those whom we elect for overstepping the authority granted them. Again, George Washington said, “The power under the constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and, whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be recalled.”

However, somewhere along the line, we fell asleep at the wheel, we took our eyes off our government and turned them to our own personal gratification. Our government began to grow in both size and scope of its powers as the power-hungry expanded their domain of power. We were told that the laws they passed were in our best interests. Daniel Webster warned us about good intentions, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”

When a person is lied to enough times, without ever having the opportunity to hear the truth, that lie becomes the truth to him. When the truth is finally told, that person is often unwilling to accept it, and those who speak the truth are scorned and ridiculed as conspiracy theorists or whackos.
When people write about our liberties being stripped away from us by our government, those who read these articles laugh at us. They, obviously have not done their homework, and they are not taking seriously the warnings about human nature and power given to us by our Founding Fathers. They do not understand what the true meaning of liberty is.

Thomas Jefferson described liberty as, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Does that sound like the society we live in today, where all we do is get taxed, licensed and regulated by government? James Madison, who is considered to be the author of the Constitution, once stated, “[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

When we vote, we elect people to do a job in our government. They are to represent our wishes in government, as long as those wishes are within the powers granted to them by the charter that is the Constitution. They have no authority to take one step outside the powers granted them by the Constitution, yet they do so regularly. That happens because we are, a) ignorant of what the Constitution says, and b) we expect the government to take care of us. Ben Franklin once said, “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

Individual liberty means that you are free to do as you please as long as your actions do not infringe upon the rights and safety of others. However, there is also a flip side to that, and that is that liberty means that you are also responsible for your own actions, and ultimately for your own success or failure.

When our government passes a law under the umbrella of the ‘general welfare’ clause of the Constitution, it claims that it has the authority to do what is best for us, whether we like it or not. However, James Madison said this about the general welfare, “With respect to the words, "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution…[that] was not contemplated by the creators.”

Therefore, the only way that we as a people can know if our government is doing the job it was hired to do is to educate ourselves as to what the Constitution says, and to keep ourselves informed as to what our government is doing. The consequences of not doing these things are already apparent in the lamentable state of affairs of our nation.

Thomas Jefferson said one more thing that I find interesting: “Bodily decay is gloomy in prospect, but of all human contemplations the most abhorrent is body without mind.”

Is that what our nation has become, a group of mindless zombies who blindly follow along without contemplating the repercussions of our government's actions? I fear that may be the case when I see people throng around a candidate such as Barack Obama as if he were a messiah. I fear it may be so when I am told by people what their reasons are for voting for a particular candidate.

If that is the case, I would ask that people stop asking God to bless America, and instead ask that God save America, save it from itself, for it is obvious that it does not know how to do so on its own.

2008-07-04T11:37:00.000-07:00

I don't normally post images like this here, but a friend of mine, The Zombieslayer posted a cool pic of a squirrel on his blog, so I thought I would reciprocate.

I don't normally post images here, but a friend of mine The Zombieslayer posted a pretty neat picture of a squirrel, so I thought I would reciprocate by posting a picture I shot of a bee on one of the flowers on our Hibiscus.

Hope you enjoy.

Rebuttal To Criticism Of My Article On Immigration

2008-06-27T21:27:00.000-07:00

I think that thee may have been a few people who misunderstood the intent of my last article concerning immigration. I was asked how I can call them blood sucking parasites when it is my government that issues the green cards.

A parasite, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, is defined as, "1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery 2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism 3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return "

Imagine you took a pair of scales, like those used by jewelers to weigh precious metals, and you put all the benefits that illegal aliens bring to our country on one side, and then toss all the problems and burdens they place upon our country on the other, I think you would find that the bad far outweighs the benefits.

Therefore the third definition for parasite is an apt description of an illegal alien. They may benefit the corporations that hire them by providing laborers at a cost far less than what an American citizen might cost, but does that benefit Americans overall? They may reduce the cost of certain products and services for consumers, but at what cost to Americans?

What other country in the world would allow someone to cross their borders illegally, have a child, and have that child become a citizen, eligible for a plethora of benefits, all funded by the legal residents of that country?

In my article, I may have criticized naturalized immigrants because many of them are not required to learn English adequately to function in society, but there is one good thing about them. They all have to go through a physical exam to make sure they are not infected with a contagious disease. My wife went through a complete physical exam before she was granted a visa to enter this country. Her father, after we petitioned him, had to undergo a complete physical before he could come to this country. Who knows what kinds of diseased these people bring with them? Yet they are hired to work if facilities that handle and serve the foods we eat. Their children, who most likely are infected as well, attend our schools where our children can be infected and then bring that disease home to us, the parents. That our government allows illegal aliens to stay for this reason alone is absolute insanity!

When I speak about illegal aliens, most people automatically assume I am only referring to those who are Mexican, or at least, of Hispanic descent. To me, an illegal alien is an illegal alien. There are many illegal aliens in this country who have overstayed their visa and simply vanished into society an I am as much against their presence in this country as those who sneak across our borders. However, as I just said, those who enter this country on a visa should have been required to have a physical exam to make sure they are not sick with a contagious disease. Those who sneak across our borders sidestep that requirement, and most of those just happen to come across the Mexican border.

I do not like the idea of anyone suffering, not having a job or food to feed their families. However, as I stated in my last article, it IS NOT the job of the United States to be a safety net for all the poor countries in the world. It is not right to give benefits, that most Americans are not entitled to receive, to the illegal alien parents of a child who just happened to have been born on American soil. What makes it even more unfair is that these illegal aliens most likely never paid a dime into the benefits that they so willingly apply for.

One other thing, whenever we have a protest by those in favor of loosening our nations immigration laws, who do you see in the crowd, (beside misguided Americans with some sort of a guilt complex)? Hispanics mostly, that's who you will see. They are there, waving their countries flag, holding banners talking about La Reconquista, and La Raza. They are openly taunting us, with those banners that talk about re-conquering America, or the Race. They openly bite that hand that, literally, feeds them. They want the benefits that this country has to offer, but they do not have one ounce of respect for it.

Finally, the person who responded most negatively to my article said, “I would say that the issue is not outsider coming in, but you government not having a strong immigration policy and not having enough guts to implement them.” Sure our corporations hire these illegal aliens and our government has not done its job in enforcing our immigration laws. That does not mean I have to accept them, or even tolerate their insolence. We the people are also somewhat to blame for this, as we have very short memories and our attention shifts from one crisis to the next in the blink of an eye.

It was barely a year ago when a good percentage of the people of this country rose up in outrage over immigration reform legislation which was introduced in the U.S. Senate. Who just happened to have his name all over that piece of legislation? Why, none other than GOP candidate John McCain. Who voted Yea when that bill was voted on in the Senate? None other than Barack Obama.

Unfortunately now America has a housing crisis and high fuel costs to worry about. Even the war in Iraq has slipped a few notches when it comes to the issues that concern voters the most. Immigration is barely even thought of anymore, except by those who have not forgotten, and those who understand that the problem of illegal aliens is not going away.

The truth is that these illegal aliens do not belong in this country, it is not theirs and they are not entitled to one penny from America. We do not encourage our homeless and our indigent to sneak into Mexico, or any other country for that matter, and apply for benefits. We do not ask our citizens to move to another country and subvert their rule of law to benefit them, or America in general. Why should we tolerate the same from an illegal invader from ANY country?
They are parasites no matter whether our corporations bring them here to work for them, or they sneak across on their own. If you owned a dog that jumped into a creek full of leeches and came home covered in them, would you allow them to stay attached while draining the life away from your pet, or would you pluck them off and discard them? The same goes for illegal aliens. Whether they sneak across on their own, or if they are encouraged to come by corporations with no loyalty to the American people, they still are draining the life out of our country and they need to be removed.

***One last thing. I will not be writing anything tomorrow. It is my wife and my birthdays. She turns 44 and I turn 50. I intend to enjoy a nice day with my family.***

A Few More Thougths On Immigration

2008-06-25T10:52:00.000-07:00

This afternoon at work I overheard a conversation that made me smile. One of my co-workers was discussing illegal aliens with another co-worker who happens to be a former illegal alien that received amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act during the Reagan administration. I, myself, have had numerous discussions with this individual and I have to tell you that he is still an illegal alien at heart. He displays no loyalty to the United States, and is nothing but a parasite who is taking advantage of the benefits this country has to offer, while showing no allegiance to it. After hearing those two go at each other I decided that it was time I do another piece concerning immigration.

As fortune would have it, I had read an interesting article in my local paper on citizenship, and had also received an interesting e-mail that ties in nicely with the subject as well.

According to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service webpage, "Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The general requirements for administrative naturalization include:

-a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;
-residence in a particular USCIS District prior to filing;
-an ability to read, write, and speak English;
-a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government;
-good moral character;
-attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and, favorable disposition toward the United States.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

Yet in my local paper, the article I read stated that, (the name and location have been deleted as they are not important), "______ a ________ resident since 1992, does not speak English and can't read or write in English or Punjabi, his native language.

But after learning to recognize every possible written and verbal question in the citizenship test, and to memorize the correct answers-a feat that has taken him two years to accomplish-he has successfully reached his goal."

This plainly shows that this gentleman does not meet at least two of the requirements for becoming a citizen, he cannot communicate in English, and he does not have a knowledge and general understanding of U.S. history and government. One can only wonder if he has an attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

How could the immigrations official who performed this persons interview not see that he had memorized his answers and was repeating them by rote? That is not what I consider having an understanding of U.S. history and government.

My wife is a naturalized citizen and she had to, not only answer simple questions about our government but, provide, in her own words, basic explanations concerning the various branches of our government.

I am not picking on this gentleman in particular, as I am sure that there are literally thousands of people who become naturalized citizens who are not required to have even the most rudimentary understanding of how our system of government is supposed to work, (Sadly, the same could be said about most of our high school graduates). Yet these people now have the right to vote without the understanding of what the Constitution says about the duties and responsibilities of those for whom they vote. Am I the only one who finds something wrong with this?

It is not only that this gentleman, and many others as well, are not expected to learn the principles of our system of government that bothers me. It is the fact that they are not expected to learn enough basic English so that they can, if not assimilate, at least function in society. We are complicit in this due to the politically correct belief that we should provide forms and handbooks for them in their native tongue. Just as an example, California provides the DMV handbook in Punjabi, as well as Armenian, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog and Vietnamese. In doing this we display a serious lack of common sense due to the fact that we desire to keep our nation fragmented into communities that cannot communicate with each other, and fund it with our own tax dollars. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/pubs.htm

With the inability of so many of these naturalized citizens to speak English, it makes one wonder if they understand the meaning of the oath of citizenship, which states, “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Those words define the difference between the immigrants that came to our country throughout our nations history, and those who come today. Not only that, if this is how little we demand of immigrants who come to this country legally and go through the process of becoming citizens, what about those who chose to violate our nations laws and enter this country illegally?

It is my opinion that a majority of the illegal aliens that come to this country are bloodsucking parasites in the truest sense of the word. They have no allegiance whatsoever for this country and have no respect for those who live here, or our laws. They come solely to partake of the benefits this country has to offer, and care not for whom, or what they hurt along the way. They are parasites and we are the host. As long as we can provide those things that they are seeking, they will continue to come and continue to be a drain upon our country.

Judicial Watch posted a short article about illegal immigrants returning to Mexico due to tough economic times and deportations because of tougher enforcement of immigration law. The following are two passages from that article.

“It turns out that enough illegal immigrants have either fled the U.S. or been deported that officials in the Mexican state of Sonora, which shares an extensive border with Arizona, have complained that too many of their fellow countrymen have returned. They miss the remittances sent from the U.S. as well as smaller class sizes in local schools.”

“One baffled Mexican legislator, Leticia Amparano Gamez, asked in Spanish “how can they pass a law like this?” She went on to explain that Mexico is not prepared for the “tremendous problems” it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs. Another member of the Mexican delegation, Representative Florencio Diaz Armenta, asked “what do we do with the repatriated?”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/mexico-complains-too-many-repatriated-mexicans

That article infuriated me. Mexico misses the remittances sent back to their country by those whom they could not provide for within their own borders. That alone proves that the only thing they want from this country is our money or the benefits that we provide. We should put a 50% tax on all remaining wire transfers to Mexico as well. We may just see more people deciding to return home of their own volition when they find it is just not worth it to come here any more.

Then there is the fact that Mexican legislators are at a loss as to how to deal with these people who are returning without jobs. It just breaks my heart that Mexico is going to have to take care of their own people instead of allowing them to be leeches, draining benefits from the United States. They ask what are they going to do with the repatriated, and I say, I don't care as long as they are not our countries problem any more.

That may sound cruel but America is not capable to be the safety net for countries which cannot give their citizens the same opportunities and benefits that we do. Our roads are overcrowded as are our classrooms, water and electricity usage are on the rise without the ability to keep up with demand, and food supplies are dwindling, especially due to the devastating weather that has destroyed much of this years crops.

I say it is well past time that America grew a backbone and declared that we need to take care of America, and Americans first. If people feel bad for all those across the globe that are suffering, then they should find a charitable organization and donate their money for the support of these people. However, don't place that burden upon my shoulders, especially when it means that my own welfare is at stake.

Immigrants, whether they be legal, or illegal, are not expected to show true allegiance to this country. We are at fault for that for not requiring that they do. However, what do we expect when a good percentage of the people of this country no longer understand what it means to have true allegiance to your own country? But that is a subject for another paper...

Another Independence Day Rant

2008-06-19T21:01:00.000-07:00

The other evening I was watching my local news channel and they were talking about how, due to the dryness of the fields, they may have to cancel some of the Independence Day firework shows. That triggered a thought that they ought to replace them with readings and discussions of the U.S. Constitution. Although Independence Day celebrates the Declaration of Independence, I think a discussion of the principles found in the Constitution would be a suitable substitute for a fireworks show. Then I thought, no one would come to hear someone discuss the Constitution. Therein lies the subject of this article, no one seems to care about our Constitution, the system of government it describes, and what it means to be a citizen of these United States.

I find it interesting that during the religious holidays of Easter and Christmas some of the television networks broadcast movies with a religious theme such as the Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston. Why then, since we are in the midst of the process of selecting our next President, and to a lesser degree certain Congressman and Senators, does nobody seem to care about the document that outlines the duties of these elected representatives?

I am pretty sure that, by now, most people are aware that there are two candidates running for president who get all the media attention, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. However distasteful it is to me, one of those men will most likely be our next President.

With that in mind, I find it interesting that in a 2006 MSNBC interview, Barack Obama made the following statement, “I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics.”

Senator Obama must have foreseen his future nomination when he said that, otherwise he would not have run. First of all the Senator does not understand that we do not have a democracy, we have a representative republic. Just repeat the Pledge of Allegiance and see if you can find where it says, “I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the democracy for which it stands...”

Next up, the Senator does not even know how many states there are in this country. He claims to have visited 57 of them, “It is just wonderful to be back in Oregon and over the lat 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty uh seven states, I think one left to go. One left to go, Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to, but my staff would not justify it.

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

It could be said that he made a simple slip of the tongue, that he actually meant 47 states. But then that would still suggest he thinks there are only 49 states. I wonder which one he left out?

I do not wish for people to think that I am picking on Senator Obama and that I support Senator McCain. Hardly, Senator McCain, in my opinion, is as much a walking, talking piece of human excrement as Senator Obama.

There are two quotes that pretty much sum up how I feel about politicians in general, including the two primary candidates running for President. The first is by H. L. Mencken, “A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.” The other is by comedian Robin Williams, “Politics: ‘Poli’ a Latin word meaning ‘many’; and ‘tics’ meaning bloodsucking creatures”

What does it say about our country, and we as a people, that these two men are the best this country can come up with for President? Does it suggest, as Senator Obama himself stated, that we have gotten lazy and are therefore getting bad politics and politicians? Or is it as Theodore Roosevelt said, “The most successful politician is he who says what the people are thinking most often in the loudest voice.”

Clarence Darrow once said, “When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it.”

I hate to do this, but Senator Obama, once again, may have described exactly how we got to the point where we are having to choose between him and Senator McCain for the highest office in the land. In May of 2004, Senator Obama stated, “People are whupped. I'm whupped. My wife is whupped. Unless it's your job to be curious, who really has the time to sit and ask questions and explore issues?”

That, my friends, is pure nonsense. I work my tail off almost every day, yet I still come home and research, write, and stress out over the future of my country because of people who claim they are too whupped to take the time to research the issues. That is the definition of apathy, and Plato had this to say about apathy, “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

It is not just that we are apathetic, we also have very short term memories. Our country has been on the downhill slide for many years, but people are oblivious to it. Years ago Georg Friedrich Hegel said the following, "What experience and history teach is this- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."

How many remember a certain governor from Arkansas who ran for, and was elected as President, who was just as slick and charismatic as Senator Obama? How many remember that this President once said, "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."

The old Chinese proverb says “"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” Is America about to be fooled again?

Former Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas once said, “As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”

However, since we are so ‘whupped’, we don’t see the darkness falling upon our nation. We have been led to believe that the only viable candidates for office shall emanate from either the Republican or the Democratic parties. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about political parties, "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

We have been led to believe that our government is the cure for all that ails us and that only through their benevolence can we obtain security and happiness. The guidelines concerning the powers granted government which are found in the Constitution are forgotten, just as Arthur Schlesinger said, “For most Americans the Constitution had become a hazy document, cited like the Bible on ceremonial occasions but forgotten in the daily transactions of life.”

Those who blindly follow a candidate because of the political party they belong to, or because they are too ‘whupped’ to research the issues, should ponder what Albert Einstein once said, “...for those who would joyously march in rank and file, they already earned my contempt, for they were given a large brain by accident when a spinal chord would have sufficed.”

Our country is worth saving, the idea that all men are created with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not things that we should let slip away because we are ‘whupped’.

Samuel Adams once said, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

Unfortunately I am realizing that far too many people, as a friend recently told me, “...that most people do not support a civilization and are not concerned with what, why, when, and who make a civilization function. Most people are interested in a dry roof, reasonable health, good food sex and easy to use toilets. After that, most people are concerned with becoming undisciplined hedonists with their free time and surplus capital or borrowed capital.”

Americans care more about sports, video games, the lifestyles of celebrities, and reality television than they do about the affairs of their nation. Let me tell you, reality television has nothing on what is unfolding, and has been, for years in this country. Our rights are slowly being stripped away from us by the very people whom we elect to watch over them. It does not seem that this will change much either, not when we have two candidates who, in a perfect world, probably couldn’t get a job flipping hamburgers at McDonalds.

To quote Edward Langley, “What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.” To quote myself, “What this country needs is some comprehensive government reform.”

The framework for good governance is there if only people would read it and apply it to how they choose their elected representatives. However, as long as they remain too ’whupped’ nothing is going to change.

Putting Aside Political Correctness

2008-06-14T15:55:00.000-07:00

What is political correctness? Political correctness is something that was thought up to appease people, to make them feel comfortable with their deficiencies, their abnormalities, and give them an excuse for errant behavior.

It is no longer politically correct to ask, no, to expect people who come to this country to learn our language.

Language can be either unify a nation, or divide it. David Simpson, in his book, The Politics of American English wrote, "Language, in other words, is seen from the start as a potential element in constituting a political and cultural unity among the citizens of the new republic; or, if it goes wrong, a means of prescribing or perpetuating disorder."

John Adams, the second President of the United States, once wrote a letter to the President of Congress saying that Americans should, "force their language into general use." However, since we had just fought a war with England the founders were hesitant to declare English the official language, as there was no distinct 'American' language.

Nevertheless throughout much of our history it was commonly accepted that English was the official language, and all business would be done in English. In 1795 the House of Representatives failed to pass a bill that would require the printing of 3,000 sets of the laws of the U.S. in German "for the accommodation of such German citizens of the United States, as do not understand the English language."

That all began to change in the 1970's. In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 that federal civil rights statutes required schools to provide special educational assistance to students with limited English language skills.

Did you know that according to the U.S. Census that there are 311 languages spoken in the United States? http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/USlanguages.html

Are we to be required to print our laws, our documents, and provide teachers fluent in all these languages to appease those who come to this country who are not equipped to function in society?

That my friends is political correctness at work. We are made out to be the villains because we refuse to change our beliefs or our behavior to accommodate others.

Just the other day at work I got lectured because of the mistake made by another person who happened to be East Indian. This person relieved me at my line so that I could take a scheduled break. I explained to him what I was doing and he just smiled and waved his hand at me as if to say, ‘just go’. I was gone for just ten minutes and when I returned it took me almost half an hour to clean up the mess that he had made. Yet I could not say anything about this individuals inability to understand English for fear of being written up for discrimination. This is what political correctness does to our country people, and the sooner we do away with it the better.

Scottish author George MacDonald once gave a fitting description of political correctness. He said that the two pillars of political correctness are:
a) willful ignorance
b) a steadfast refusal to face the truth

Doris Lessing, the 2007 Nobel Prize winning author writes, “Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this.”

It is not merely the acceptance of languages other than English that have been forced upon us by political correctness. We are told that we must accept and tolerate perversion. In fact our thoughts are legislated in such a way that if we speak out against these abominations we may be charged with discrimination or even a hate crime.

Our nation and our laws were built upon principles contained in the Bible. James Madison, once of the primary writers of the Constitution once said, ‘We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.’

John Adams once said, ‘We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’

In 1782, Congress voted on a resolution which stated, ‘The congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.’

John Jay, or First Supreme Court Justice, stated, ‘Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.’

Up until 1963, the McGuffey Reader was used in all our public schools. It was written college professor William Holmes McGuffey, and in it he wrote, ‘The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology.’

However, in 1947 political correctness found its way into the Supreme Court. In that year the Court ruled on the case of Everson v. Board of Education. The Court ruled that, “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”

Yet for over 150 years from the time of the ratification of our Constitution, the use of teachings from the Bible was permitted, indeed it was considered the foundation upon all that sets our nation apart from so many others. Why the sudden change in direction taken by the Supreme Court?

Since Everson v. Board of Education the Court has consistently ruled to restrict the rights of Christians by limiting our ability to profess our faith. In 1948 the Court heard the case Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education. The Court ruled that religious instruction could not be conducted in public schools. In 1963, in the case of Abington School District v. Schempp, the court ruled that passages from the Bible or the Lord’s Prayer could not be recited in schools. In 1965 it was ruled that a student can not bow his head in prayer and pray audibly for his food. In 1980 in Stone v. Graham, the Ten Commandments were outlawed from public schools. In their ruling they said, ‘If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective.’yer. How would James Madison feel about that?

What has this wrought for America? Sin is now something that we are to tolerant of and evil does not exist. When someone does something that used to be considered evil and sinful the blame is shifted away from them and onto the society that produced them.

Albert Einstein once said, "Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment, and learn again to exercise his will - his personal responsibility."

Nowhere is this nonsense about political correctness more apparent than in the way we are forced to accept, what is now called, alternative lifestyles. Homosexuality, according to the Bible, is a sin. Leviticus 20:13 states, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Yet since we are told that we need to be tolerant, this is no longer a sin. It is a lifestyle choice, or even more ludicrous, that people are born this way. Can anyone who is a Christian believe that God would make such a terrible mistake as to place the soul of a woman into the body of a man, or vice versa? Yet these same people want the churches to be allowed to perform gay marriages. It is pure hypocrisy!

Political correctness has ruined our ability to see things as they are, or at least to speak out against wrongdoing when we are confronted with it. I remember growing up that gay was not a word to describe homosexuals, they were called queers. What is the definition of queer?

According to Merriam Webster's, queer is defined as, "1 a: worthless, counterfeit b: questionable, suspicious2 a: differing in some odd way from what is usual or normal b (1): eccentric, unconventional (2): mildly insane : touched c: absorbed or interested to an extreme or unreasonable degree : obsessed d (1)often disparaging : homosexual (2)sometimes offensive : gay 4b3: not quite well" I think that describes gays pretty well, doesn't it?

Political correctness should be categorized as a mental illness, if you want my honest opinion. It blinds people to the truth, or at least causes them to fear speaking out against perceived wrongdoing. It stifles a persons first amendment right to free speech. I would like for everyone to ponder something, if they would. If the goal of political correctness is tolerance, why then are people taught not to be tolerant of the views of those who stand in opposition to the agenda of the political correct movement? Why is it that all that used to be considered good and decent is now viewed as being unacceptable?

Political correctness only exists because we allow it to. If we refuse to bow down to them, refuse to remain silent when we witness something we find offensive, the political correct movement would have no power over us.

There is right and there is wrong. William Lloyd Garrison once asked, "Are right and wrong convertible terms, dependent upon popular opinion?" No, the Ten Commandments were written in stone, they are Gods laws for us to follow. Therefore, as Anthony J. D'Angelo said in The College Blue Book, "Transcend political correctness and strive for human righteousness."

As I stated in the beginning, political correctness is something that appeases people, makes them feel comfortable with their deficiencies, their abnormalities, and gives them an excuse for errant behavior. It is up to you whether or not to be politically incorrect or not. For me, I will do what my father used to always tell me to do, call a spade a spade. That is the only way I know how to be, and, as far as I am concerned, those who push political correctness can stuff it.

How Asinine Can You Get?

2008-06-04T20:13:00.000-07:00

I often take copies of my articles to work and leave them laying around for people to read. So it was with my article entitled "A Few More Thoughts On Gun Control". Today, as I was getting ready to leave, someone mentioned that I had 'just missed it.' Just missed what, I asked. This person told me that someone had been reading my article and made a few comments. Supposedly, this person said something along the lines of, "I hate it when people quote the founding fathers when talking about issues.' This person also seemed to be of the opinion that the amendments, I am guessing he was referring to the Bill of Rights, were not needed anymore, particularly the second amendment. His reasoning, from what I could gather, was that the second amendment was passed because at that time we were fighting the British and every one needed to have a gun. Those days are gone and everyone does not need a gun anymore. His words, not mine.

As I said, I missed it, so this is all just hear say and cannot be confirmed by me. However, if it is true, if this person said these things, I cannot understand how they could come to such asinine conclusions.

It appears that this person feels that the thoughts of the founding fathers are irrelevant in today's society. From my conversations with others, I believe that this person is not alone in that belief. Unfortunately he is sadly mistaken. Who better to understand the intent of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, than those people who wrote it, or championed it during the ratification process? Do we honestly think we are better qualified to discern the reasoning behind the clauses and amendments than those who wrote them? What arrogance, especially when we, due to our lack of understanding of those documents, have allowed our government to grow far beyond what it was ever intended to.

It may be a waste of time to use this quote, seeing as how this person does not like it when people use quotes by the founders, but it is, nonetheless, essential that people understand what George Washington said about our Constitution, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."

What part of sacredly obligatory is hard to understand? If the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all, and by all I mean the people, and those elected to represent us, then they must govern within the limitations it places upon them.

Since I was not there to question this person as to what he meant, I am guessing that he meant that parts of our Constitution are no longer relevant? Who is to say which parts no longer hold relevance? The government? Isn't that a precarious assumption, that the very government which was created by said Constitution, is able to decide which of the limitations it places upon them are no longer relevant. That is a recipe for tyranny if there ever was one.

Why don't we just consider what would happen if the tables were turned, if we the people just decided to see what would happen if we chose a law, that our government had enacted, which we decided was no longer relevant to us? How about the income tax, what would happen if we just decided to stop paying income taxes?

Our government is very good at enforcing the laws they impose upon us. Why should we not be any different by enforcing the Constitution upon them? However, since the topic of my article that started this whole discussion was gun control, let's take just one second to consider the second amendment.

If the Constitution not only grants government its powers to govern, but also places limitations upon them by specifically enumerating the powers that document grants them, what is the purpose of the Bill of Rights, of which the second amendment is a part?

Not many know that the Bill of Rights also has a preamble, which states, "The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Let us take a moment to examine that. The states expressed a desire to prevent abuse of the powers contained within the Constitution by creating "...further declaratory and restrictive clauses..." In other words, the Bill of Rights are declarations of further restrictions that are above the Constitution itself. Those ten amendments protect the rights, of the kind described in the Declaration of Independence as 'unalienable rights', that is to say that no one, not even our government, have the right to infringe upon them.

Our second amendment rights have nothing to do with the fact that the people of this country needed guns to fight the British. If this person recalled their history, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, were ratified AFTER we had one our war for independence.

So, to fully understand the reasons why these ten amendments were considered important enough to be added as further declaratory and restrictive clauses we can only rely upon the writings of the very people who added them, our founders. Therefore anyone who says that they hate it when someone quotes them, has no desire to understand their intent, and is due to their ignorance, a consenting partner to our governments abuse of its clearly defined powers.

Accountability and Responsibility

2008-06-03T19:59:00.000-07:00

One morning in 1984, as a young E-5, in the United States Air Force, I found myself face to face with my commanding officer. I had been called in to his office to account for my misconduct. I was young and stupid and had made some mistakes, and now it was time to pay the piper, so to speak.

I remember what he said to me, as if it happened only yesterday. He asked me, "Why should the United States Air Force continue to employ Staff Sergeant Neal Ross?" I could have made excuses and tried to weasel my way out of my predicament, but instead I told him, "Sir, I made some mistakes and I have no one but myself to blame. I think standing here in front of you has put the fear of God in me, and if you will give me another chance I promise to be a better airman."

He told me to come back the next morning and he would let me know what he decided. So, the next morning I showed up, mentally prepared for the worst, but praying for another chance. My commander gave me another chance, however it cost me. I lost one pay grade and would not be eligible for promotion until I had proven that I had indeed learned my lesson.

Some may have been mad at the severity of the punishment but I was not. I was glad that I had been given another chance. I had made some mistakes and I took sole responsibility for them.

This wasn't the first time that I was held accountable for my actions, and I am sure, knowing my wife as I do, that it won't be the last. However, that is how I was raised, to accept responsibility for my actions, not to try and place the blame upon others.

There are two important points to this story, the first is that I was held accountable for my actions, and the second is that I took responsibility for them.
Each and every individual in this country, no matter their status and position, is responsible for something, and that is even more so for those whom we elect to serve us in our government. Each elected representative takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

What exactly is an oath? An oath, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, is (1): a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says (2): a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words b: something (as a promise) corroborated by an oath.

Therefore, when our elected representatives swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, they are making a sacred vow, both to us, and to God, that they will in fact uphold the Constitution.

However, we as citizens also have a very important role, and that is to keep a watchful eye upon those elected representatives to ensure that they are in fact upholding that oath.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it." That is our responsibility, to watch over our elected representatives and to make sure they are upholding their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

However, how can we do our job when the majority of the people are ignorant when it comes to what the Constitution actually says? James Madison stated that, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

Patrick Henry, who gave that inspiring speech in which he said, “...give me liberty or give me death” had this to say about our Constitution, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

Andrew Johnson, who became President after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, once said, “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”

Therefore, if we are to uphold our responsibility to restrain our government within the confines of the power granted them by the Constitutional, we must become intimately familiar with what it says.

Sir Josiah Stamp, a British industrialist, economist, and banker once said, "It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities."

As a people, we have been negligent, we have dodged our responsibilities, and we are now paying the price for it with a government that no longer governs according to the dictates of the Constitution.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, in his book, The Constitution in Exile, says, “The Constitution, as Justice Felix Frankfurter reminded his colleagues from time to time, was not written in order to right every wrong. It was not written to allow every federal do-gooder and busybody to impose his notion of clean living, safe working, or pure thinking on individuals. It was written to keep governmental power diffused, to restrain the government from interfering with the Natural Law, toward one solitary goal: The freedom of the individual to pursue happiness.”

Our government has grown far beyond what the founders envisioned when they drafted the Constitution. Our government legislates upon matters they have no authority to do so, and it tramples upon the Bill of Rights.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights plainly states, “The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The Bill of Rights were restrictive clauses which superseded the Constitution. No legislation enacted by our government could infringe upon the rights defined within the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Pearl Buck, the Nobel Prize winning author, once said something we all need to be mindful of, “We need to restore the full meaning of that old word, duty. It is the other side of rights.” We as Americans, not only have the responsibility, but we have the duty to educate ourselves so that we can keep that watchful eye upon our government.

If we chose not to do so then, as John Baptiste Moliére, the 17th century French playwright, once said, “It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do.”

A Few More Thoughts On Gun Control

2008-06-01T20:11:00.000-07:00

It is now June 1rst, and soon the Supreme Court will render its decision on the case of D.C. v Heller, which may once and for all settle the argument over the intent of the second amendment.

At issue is whether the second amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for individual use, or whether the second amendment solely pertains to the establishment and maintenance of a militia.

Just the other day I received an e mail update from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. For those of you unfamiliar with the Brady Campaign, it is an organization headed by Jim and Sarah Brady. As many may remember, Jim Brady was also shot in the assassination attempt upon President Ronald Reagan. After his recovery the Brady's formed their organization with the following as their mission, "As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities."

The Brady's may be one of the better known organizations which fight for stricter gun laws, however they are not alone in that fight. The list of organizations fighting for tougher gun control laws could fill a book, but here are a few of them that you may, or may not have heard of.

There is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), The Violence Policy Center (VPC), Handgun-Free America, Inc. and The Ford Foundation just to name a few. For a more in depth look at who is fighting to pass tougher gun control laws, you can use the following URL's, http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=14 and http://www.gunowners.org/fs0302.htm.

Getting back to the e mail I received from the Brady Campaign, their update urged their supporters to vote for a presidential candidate that would not nominate 'extremist justices' to the Supreme Court. That is what got the whole idea for this article started, what exactly do they mean by extremist justices? Do they mean those who would rule on the side of tougher gun laws, or do they mean justices who would rule on the side of those who feel the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

Whatever is the outcome of D.C. v Heller, or any future ruling on gun control issues, there are just a few things that the people of this country need to be aware of. Far too often Americans fly off the handle and support any new gun laws because of their emotions, especially when these new gun laws are put into place after some tragic shooting somewhere. People need to take a breath and decide whether to support these new laws only when they can make an informed decision based upon facts.

From the webpage of the Brady Campaign I found the following quote, "Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke said that he is hopeful that the "ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families."

How do they expect common sense gun measures allow communities and families to protect themselves? When I was growing up everyone I know had guns. Although my father kept it in his bedroom closet, I got my first gun at age ten, a .22 rifle. Kids grew up respecting guns, and understood their potential for harm if handled improperly. We went out shooting with our fathers, we attended hunters safety courses where we were taught the proper safety precautions and handling of firearms. You want to know something, from the time I moved into the town I grew up in until the time I joined the Air Force in 1979, that town had not had a firearm related homicide in fifteen years. Yet kids came to school with hunting rifles, in plain site stored in racks in the rear windows of their trucks. So how can you say that even more gun laws now will make us safer?

Whenever people are deciding whether or not to support stricter gun control laws, they have to consider the intent of the second amendment. The second amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Twenty seven words that are so misunderstood.

Much of the misunderstanding comes when people try to discern the intent, whether the inclusion of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Are these two separate clauses, or are they tied together. This is the crux of what the Supreme Court is going to rule in D.C. v Heller. Although I am not a Supreme Court Justice, and my opinion carries no legal weight, I would like to explain how I view the intent of the second amendment.

First off we have to ask ourselves, what is a militia? In 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case of U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. In their ruling, the Court stated, "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."

The ruling went on to quote from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force."

Finally, the Court stated, "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

It seems then, that the militia were to be common men who would come to the defense of their county, bearing arms that they had supplied themselves, which were of the type that were in common usage at the time. This is similar to the sentiments of George Washington, when he said, "It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it." This is in stark contrast to what we have today, National Guardsmen who are nothing more than part time soldiers, components of a standing army, something which the founders were particularly wary of.

The true intent of having a well armed militia is something that not many wish to come to terms with, that one day we may have to take up arms against our own government to defend our liberties, much as the founders did during the Revolutionary war.

George Washington understood this, as he explained, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, securely and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."

John Adams, our second president understood that "The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea."

James Madison said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

None were more prolific on this subject than Thomas Jefferson, "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Jefferson went so far as to justify open rebellion should the need arise, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

That is the true purpose of having a well trained militia, to defend our nation from its own government should the need arise. Therefore any law that takes away an individuals right to possess firearms, that are "...of the kind in common use at the time" is a violation of the second amendment, in both spirit and intent.

There are those who also believe the second amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms for other purposes, such as self defense. Those who favor stricter gun control legislation say that we do not need guns to protect us, that is why we have the police.

While many police officers do a fine job in protecting the public, they are often overwhelmed, understaffed and just cannot be everywhere all of the time. In an article from the city of San Francisco's webpage, they brag about dropping their police response time to priority crimes from almost ten minutes to just under six.

http://www.sfgov.org/wcm_controller/community_indicators/publicsafety/policeresponsetime/policeresponsetime.htm

If someone were to break into your home and threaten you, and your family, six minutes would seem an eternity. I would much rather have a loaded pistol or shotgun that was readily available to protect myself, instead of cowering in fear, praying that the police get there in time to prevent any harm to me or my family.

It is not only the fact that it often takes the police far too long to arrive at your home in case they are needed, they are also not legally required to provide you with protection.

In the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman had taken out a restraining order against her former husband, yet he was able to come to her home, kidnap, then kill her three children, even after repeated calls to the police. This happened even though on the rear of the restraining order it was clearly printed, "NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS,” "YOU SHALL USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO ENFORCE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. YOU SHALL ARREST, OR, IF AN ARREST WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SEEK A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF THE RESTRAINED PERSON WHEN YOU HAVE INFORMATION AMOUNTING TO PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS VIOLATED OR ATTEMPTED TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDER AND THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER OR HAS RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ORDER.” The Supreme Court ruled, "We do not believe that these provisions of Colorado law truly made enforcement of restraining orders mandatory. A well established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

This was not an isolated case. In 1856 the Supreme Court ruled, in South v. Maryland, that "local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws."

In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, it was ruled that, "There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect."

In 1982, in Bowers v. Devito, it was ruled that, "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."

In 1975 Ruth Brunell called the police twenty times to ask for protection from her husband. The police told her to call back when he got there. Before she could call her husband stabbed her to death. The courts, in the ensuing lawsuit ruled, "The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help."

Need I go on? While the police have a general duty to enforce laws, protection of an individual lies directly upon that individual. If they choose not to own firearms for their protection, they cannot expect the police to respond in a timely fashion to prevent harm from befalling them.

I have heard people say that they will gladly turn in their guns if the criminals turn theirs in first. First off, by their very nature, criminals are not apt to obey the law. So to ask them to turn in their guns is a waste of time.

Our laws state the penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. 18 USC, 924(c)(1)(A) states,

"Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence. . . uses or carries a firearm. . . shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence. . .

(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;

(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and

(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years."

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has yet to be decided, but with the evidence I have provided, I would hope that people understand that there is more to it than just preventing needless deaths.

How many do you think are going to die at the hands of criminals if the law abiding citizens turn in all their guns? Criminals would have a field day with an unarmed citizenry, we would be like sitting ducks to them.

We also have to remember the flip side to the second amendment, that it enables us to protect ourselves from our own government should they gain too much power and refuse to submit to the wishes of the people.

History has given us many examples of what happens when guns are taken away from the people.

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. - From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. - From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. - From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

And in more modern times, it has been only recently that gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. - The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

Firearms are a vital part of our nations history and are necessary for us to maintain or personal protection, as well as to protect us from tyranny. Gun control laws only serve to limit our ability to do either and place us at the mercy of both criminals and an abusive and overreaching government. I hope you will ponder these facts before committing your support for any new gun control laws.

It's not only me....

2008-06-01T20:07:00.000-07:00

I have written numerous times about how neither the democrats, nor the republicans, care one iota about your well being. I have talked about how they are both destroying the Constitutional foundation upon which our nation was built.

Some have listened, while others have turned a deaf ear to my words. Then there are those who are already aware of the damage being done to this country by the two headed snake that we call political choice. It is from one of those, one who still has the ability to see beyond the propaganda, the lies, and the corruption that is our government, that I would like for you to read.

Ponder these words, as I could not have said them any better myself...

Neal

"That symbiotic dance of always voting for the lesser of evils is what has gotten us mired in this quagmire and only a fool would think that voting the same/opposite way each cycle will bring anything different. The two parties feed off each other's "hatred" for the other. Too many of the voting population are fixated on the two heads of the beast, so to speak, and have lost the ability to think for themselves in any third tangent. Though there is little constructive difference between democrats and republicans, they project the illusion that they are diametrically opposed to each other. Consequently the voters vacillate between the two parties each cycle, thinking collectively that the party currently out of power will fix everything. Back and forth we go, meanwhile sliding ever further into the abyss of extra-Constitutional government. I refuse to be part of that self delusion."

2008-05-21T19:36:00.001-07:00

I don't know what they consider this, artwork? Whatever it is, it is located outside the United Nations Building in New York. If that alone isn't enough to cause you to want the U.N. off U.S. soil, I don't know what is.

Dementia Americana

2008-05-18T18:38:00.000-07:00

I do not wish to mislead anyone with the title of this article. Dementia, or as it is commonly known, Alzheimer's Disease, is not something I wish to make light of. My mother suffered from this tragic disease before she passed away, so I know firsthand how terrible it can be. The reason I called this article Dementia Americana is because one of the symptoms of dementia is the loss of memory. Therefore, what I mean by Dementia Americana is the illness of people forgetting what it means to be an American.

Being an American used to mean more than someone who lives, or occupies space, within the borders of this country. Being an American meant that people took great pride in being American, that they adhered to certain principles.

When I say principles I do not refer to the principles of government as described in the Constitution, although that could be part of taking pride in your country by learning of its history and how its system of government is supposed to function.

No, when I say principles, I am speaking about a code of conduct that people lived by. There were certain things that Americans used to believe in that seem to have been tossed to the wayside. Things like morals, respect, charity, self reliance, duty, trustworthiness, honor, and responsibility.

It seems that every generation has pushed the limits of what was acceptable as far as they could get away with. The problem is that each generation pushes the limits a bit further than the preceding generation and the principles upon which this nation was founded grow more distant in our memories.

It may sound corny now, but when I was growing up I constantly heard the saying, "As American as mom, baseball, and apple pie." I can remember watching the Superman show on television, not the one with Christopher Reeves, but the one with George Reeves. I still recall the opening of each show, "Faster than a speeding bullet.More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird. It's a plane. It's Superman!
Yes, it's Superman - strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman - who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights the never ending battle for Truth, Justice and the American Way."

Truth, justice, the American way... Maybe I am just reminiscing a bit, but those are the things that this country used to stand for, things that we seemed to have forgotten. I remember every morning in school, standing up, placing my hand over my heart and reciting the following words, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible,With Liberty and Justice for all."

Now the pledge is under criticism because of its reference to God. Our country was founded by men who held firm religious convictions. Our nation's principles grew out of the religious beliefs of our founders and our laws are irretrievably based on Christian principles. I don't want to bore you with quotes, but this one by George Washington should suffice, "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Morality has been replaced by political correctness. It is no longer acceptable to speak out against what one considers 'evil'. Take, for instance the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court which allows for gay, or same sex marriages, contrary to the wishes of 60% of the voters in California. Homosexuality is no longer looked upon as a sin, instead it is something that we are supposed to accept as normal behavior. If we were to quote Scripture in schools when the subject of homosexuality is brought up, we would be considered the ones who are violating the law.

But this article is not confined to the loosening of moral standards, as I wish to discuss a few other things as well.

Our nation is currently in the midst of a financial crisis, the severity of which we have not yet begin to realize. While much of the blame can be laid at the feet of our elected representatives, much has to be laid at our feet as well. Our greed and our ignorance of finances has fed the credit beast which sucks the life out of our economy. It was commonplace for me, as a kid, to be told that if I wanted something I would have to save my pennies for it. Nowadays people feel like they are entitled to whatever they want, whenever they want it, on credit if necessary.
Nowadays, everyone has a credit card that they use whenever they see something they 'must have'. Saving your money for something is a quaint idea from the past.

People must have things now, so out comes the plastic regardless of whether they can make the payments on time.

It is that same mentality that led to the housing meltdown. People just had to have a home of their own, so they signed on to these sub prime mortgages, which never should have been approved. Knowing very likely the outcome of this unwise decision, the lenders were more than willing to let you sign your life away. They would profit at both ends of the deal. Now the bubble has burst and the bottom is not yet within sight. All because of greed, impatience, and unwise financial practices.

Our nation's work ethics are going down the drain as well. I see kids come in to where I work and quit before lunchtime because they broke a sweat. Those that do stick it out are useless and lazy. The supervisors are partly to blame for qualifying them to work in the first place, but they are not responsible for the inbred laziness of the youth. That is something they have learned from their indulgent parents, and from society.

People no longer want to put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. When talking about illegal aliens, one of the excuses is that they just can't find Americans willing to do that type of work. That may be partially true. While the farmers may pay these illegal aliens far cheaper wages than they would an American worker, I do not know of many people who would do the work these illegal aliens do, even for triple the pay. I see far too many lazy people who just do not want to work for a living. They feel they are owed a salary for just showing up to work, not for how much they put out.

Look at the popularity of the lottery systems and the Indian gaming casinos. They are making tons of money off people who visit them sometimes daily, seeking quick riches.
Then there are the worst of them all, those who choose to sue someone over something frivolous and idiotic, like the woman who sued McDonalds when she spilled hot coffee between her legs? Didn't her car have a cupholder? What about the guy who sued Burger King because he got fat from eating their food? Did someone force him to eat all that garbage? These people are the lowest of the low. They not only are lazy, but they seek to make themselves rich because of their laziness and their stupidity.

Another thing that appears to have been lost is our integrity. The truth is now whatever we want it to be, or that which suits us at a particular moment. I can remember my father telling me that a man is judged by how well he keeps his promises. Promises are now made to be broken, the truth is something that is whatever you choose it to be. Look at our presidential candidates and how they say one thing one week, then the next week they say something entirely different. Are these the best that society has to offer as our elected representatives? It is a sad commentary on us that we are willing to accept such pitiful examples of integrity to sit in the highest office in our nation. Are they a reflection of we the people, or are they just bought and paid for lackeys beholden to the corporations? Whichever they are, we should demand better of our leaders, and of ourselves.

Finally there just happens to be the fact that the American people have allowed their government to expand into this huge beast that no longer conforms to the dictates of the Constitution, and not only no longer serves them, but has turned them into its servants. We seek to place those who make us the best sounding promises into office, no matter whether their promises are authorized or, in a perfect world, would land them in prison.

This place I live in, I don't know what it should be called, but this is not America. The only thing left of America is the name. The spirit that was America died a very long time ago. The America that was founded over 200 years ago is a brain dead corpse kept alive by the machinery of greed, lust, and personal gratification, but the spirit that used to give this country its life and its vitality has long since vacated the premises.

There are a few of us, who retain memories of what America used to be, what it used to mean to be an American, but when we are gone, the cord will be unplugged, the tiny flicker of life that was America will have died for good. But don't shed a tear for us, we have our memories, while you still have your future, however uncertain and ugly it might be. My you find some peace and comfort in knowing that we brought this about ourselves.

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

2008-05-12T17:15:00.001-07:00

I am going to come right out and say it, Americans are, for the most part, a very ignorant people. Now before you pick up your baseball bats and come looking for me, allow me to explain something. There is a common misconception that ignorance and stupidity are synonymous, and that isn't the case.

According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, ignorance means, a: destitute of knowledge or education; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified. While on the other hand, stupid is defined as, a: slow of mind : obtuse b: given to unintelligent decisions or acts c: lacking intelligence or reason.

Do you see the difference? I could call myself ignorant about many things. I do not understand physics, calculus, or the workings of complex electrical circuits, yet I do not consider myself stupid. It is just that I have not had the opportunity to learn about those subjects.

However, there is a correlation between ignorance and stupidity. As Webster's dictionary said, stupid can mean given to unintelligent decisions, if a person therefore is ignorant in regards to a subject, they may make stupid decisions because of their ignorance. Therefore, it would make sense that people would want to do something about their ignorance so that they could make intelligent decisions. Hence the title of this article, Ignorance Is Not Bliss.

Prior to our nation's war for independence, Patrick Henry delivered a stirring speech. On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry said the following, "Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it."

Patrick Henry made a conscious decision not to be ignorant, he was willing to hear the truth, no matter how bad it was. How this country needs people like Patrick Henry, people who are willing to question what their elected representatives tell them, examine the facts, and learn the truth, no matter how painful that truth may be. Unfortunately, people insulate themselves in their own little cocoons, going about their daily lives, ignorant of the fact that our nation, and what it stood for, is on the pathway to its destruction.

Crisis upon crisis confront us to the point we are overwhelmed, our capacity to handle them in a state of overload. Yet still we choose to remain ignorant when it comes to the cause of these problems. The truth is far too scary a thing for many, something that they refuse to even contemplate, let alone believe. Therefore we hide within the sphere of our own problems while ignoring the root cause. It is far more comforting for us to find a scapegoat upon whom we can place the blame for all our woes, and that makes us feel better. It is far easier to blame someone else, something else, than to admit that we are ultimately responsible for all that ail us as a nation.

It never ceases to amaze me when I hear people blame 'the government' for all our nations problems. Yet who do people turn to when it comes time to solve our problems, that very same government. That is like going to your drug dealer to help you with your addiction, the candy store to help you with your obesity. The government is the problem, on that point I cannot argue. But what is the government but those whom we choose to represent us. They pass laws that are unconstitutional, and morally reprehensible because we allow them to. They don't enforce the laws that are already in existence because we allow them to. They are elected by the people to do the will of the people, and if they do not do their jobs they should be removed from office and replaced with someone who will. Yet these same people who we blame for our problems, and turn to for solutions, are only a part of the problem.

Daniel Webster told us who would be responsible for the destruction of our nation, "Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government."

James Monroe reiterated that when he said, "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."

There is that word ignorant again. We have forgotten what principles this country was founded upon. We have allowed our government to assume powers that are not their to assume. How many government programs do you know that run efficiently? Our government has the reverse Midas touch, everything they involve themselves in turns sour. When it does we turn to them to enact new laws, create new agencies to fix the problems they created. It is ludicrous. Instead revoking laws that do not work, dismantling agencies that do not work, we ask the government to increase its size and the sphere of its operations to fix the problems it is responsible for creating.

Our nations financial backbone, the manufacturing industry has slowly been dismantled and shipped overseas, at the cost of how many American jobs? Yet we allow our Congress to give these corporations tax breaks for doing business overseas, while we sit at home and watch television.

Our government spends us into bankruptcy while we greedily hold our hands out for an economic stimulus check so we can rush to Wal Mart to buy goods made in China, never wondering how our government can afford to send each and every citizen a check for $600.

This nation is in debt to the tune of $9.3 trillion. You can see for yourselves at (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/). That is how much money this country has borrowed, just so its government can continue to function. The debt increases at a rate of $1.46 billion a day. If our government were to tax us all to pay this debt in full, it would cost every man woman and child $30,825.93. This economic stimulus package is adding another $168 billion to that debt, and we act like it is a free handout!

Because of the steady influx of illegal aliens, our nations identity is eroding, crime is increasing, our schools and social service programs are going broke due to the massive numbers of children born to illegal aliens, yet we rejoice in our multiculturalism and the price of cheap produce.

The work ethics of our children continue to deteriorate as we have embraced the concept of political correctness. Diligence and hard work no longer matter, as all are deserving of success, no matter if they work towards it, or waste their lives playing mindless video games instead of studying and planning for a future career. We are raising generations who are taught that dependence upon government is natural, and that is not what made this country into what it was.

Finally, our nations morals have gone down the toilet. I know I may offend some by the comments I am about to make, but you know what? TOUGH. Far too many people call themselves church going, or God fearing, yet they sit back and do nothing about the moral decay that is a cancer eating away at the soul of America.

Our belief in Jesus is just as politically correct as everything else, it is okay, as long as our beliefs don’t offend anyone. Did Christ worry about what people thought when he called the scribes and pharises when he called them hypocrites? Did He concern Himself when He overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple, calling them thieves?

Yet today we are taught to accept homosexuality, as it is a lifestyle choice, not a sin. Far too many of our churches have become feel good centers where political correctness reigns and the concept of standing up against evil is not taught. Listen to Joel Osteen or any other of the televangelists and all you hear is that ‘God wants you to be happy’. There is no talk of standing up for right and confronting evil.

Then there is Oprah Winfrey and her legions of fans who would follow her blindly straight into hell. How many people have been led astray by this woman? First it was “The Secret” by Rhonda Byrne, then it was The Purpose Driven Church, now it is Eckhart Tolle with more new age mysticism.

I am wondering, after all my ranting, do you see the common pattern in all this? It is the fact that Americans want to be followers of something. We no longer have the ability to think for ourselves, to reason for ourselves. We would rather believe what others tell us, be they government officials, or celebrities, instead of seeking the truth for ourselves. We have become a nation of sheep being led to the slaughter instead of independent thinking people who can discern when we are being lied to and misled.

The current presidential race is a perfect example. There is but one candidate who stands for the same principles that this country was founded upon, Ron Paul. The media shunned him, his own political party shunned him, the American people, except for the few who understand the dangers this country faces, shunned him. Instead people choose to follow a candidate that promises us more of the same business as usual that has brought this country to its knees. No matter what these candidates say, if you look at what they stand for, it is all about more government control over our lives. Democrat, Republican, it makes no difference. These are the parties that have had their chance and have failed, miserably. Ron Paul could have made a difference, but the American people laughed at him.

There is another alternative for those who are fed up with the status quo of Republican and Democratic candidates. That is the Constitution Party, whose candidate is Chuck Baldwin. If you want to know what Chuck Baldwin stands for, go to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080502.html and read for yourself. Unfortunately Chuck Baldwin will receive even less media attention than did Ron Paul, and the lack of attention will come at a great loss to this country.

All I can say is that ignorance is not bliss. Look at how painful our lives are today due to our ignorance. Our country is broke, our jobs have been sent to India, China, or some other country, the economy continues to suffer because our Congress has allowed the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank to scam the people out of their hard earned pay. So, keep watching your television, keep believing the news media, keep your faith in those in whom you elect to represent you. I have long since lost faith in them, and more importantly, I have lost faith in the American people to do what needs to be done to save this country.

Scarlet Is Our Color

2008-05-10T12:43:00.000-07:00

This is from a person who I have the utmost respect and admiration for. He is a former News With Views writer who told me that if he was ever censored, or denied he would never write another article. This article was turned down by News With Views, and therefore he sent it to me. I asked permission to send it out on the internet, and he granted it. It is a telling condemnation of America, and one which some, apparently, did not want to hear.

Neal

By: Jim R Schwiesow

Time is fleeting and every second, minute, hour and day hurtles this nation closer to a time of retribution, a time so horrific that the mind cannot comprehend the magnitude of the fiery fury that will descend upon this nation and the people in it. The Eternal is moving against this country with purpose and terrible resolve, like small fingers of flame the preliminary pestilences signal a rapidly advancing holocaust.

The worst of heathen have come to possess the offices of our government, the halls of our institutions and the minds of our people. The land is in the terminal stages of a great spiritual disease. We are an adulterous people and a scarlet A has been emblazoned upon our land.

With regularity one hears it parroted that God’s blessings are upon this nation, those who give lip service only to the God of all creation continually wring their hands in despair over the removal of God from our coins, prayer from our schools and the Ten Commandments from our public institutions. One can only wonder where these same people were when sexual perversity and the teaching of social filthiness invaded our schools. Where were they when derelict and avaricious politicians and government agents incrementally and systematically dismantled the Constitution and destroyed the individual liberties of the people? Under what rock were they hiding when the killing of live babies was sanctioned and a host of soul killing perversions were institutionalized?

Why would a supposed God-fearing people allow such to come to pass? The truth is that the more than one-half of the people of this country who call themselves Christian, a great majority of which are ashamed to utter the name of Jesus Christ in public, have done more spiritual damage than the totality of the non-religious, the atheists and the agnostics who reside in the country.

God’s blessings were withdrawn from this nation years ago, if that were not the case why is it that our vaunted power came to naught in wars with such small peanuts on the international scene as North Korea and North Viet Nam, two tiny two bit nations with little in the way of sophisticated weaponry at the time of their conflict with the United States. Some will bristle and bridle at this and many will alibi the defeats with any number of excuses none of which will explain away the fact that they won and we lost.

That God has broken our pride in our power is not the worst of it, we are seeing increasingly the punishments for our national sins and our refusal to keep faith with the Eternal God our creator and our master. Perversions lie upon this land like a filthy blanket. The land stinks of the rottenness of the lusts that prevail. We now find ways to make iniquitous pursuits seem righteous. With the passing of statutes and a stroke of a pen, Walla! We have made despicable sins acceptable or at least we think that we have. We may fool the fools that pander after the lusts of the flesh that Satan has put into their hearts, but we have not fooled the all-knowing omnipotent God. Those who think that they have are in for a very rude awakening indeed.

We have delivered our children into an ignorance of their origin by prostelyzing for Satan and promoting his religion of evolution. Some like to call it evolutionary science, but I do not because it is not a science, it is an ignorant supposition or theory and those who embrace it denigrate the Holy God and call Him a liar. Many, who call themselves Christian, are ignobly timid and faint-hearted in the face of the blustering of those who believe that they have an absolute right to force their nescient theories upon an entire nation of people. So these pusillanimous weak-kneed Christians genuflect to Satan’s agents in an attempt to placate them by urging an alternative evolution theory the substance of which is that God used evolution to create mankind. Its fine if they want to believe that, but if they do they ought not to call themselves Christians. God’s word specifically states that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. There is no equivocation here and there is certainly no compromise with the devil and his demons who know quite well that man is not a product of a successive morphing of primitive species.

The dam has been breached in regard to the rapid delivery of the nation unto ever escalating catastrophes, manmade and natural, a trickle of such has turned into a deluge.

The dollar has all but collapsed; the economy is on its deathbed and kept barely alive by snake oil remedies that only prolong its inevitable demise. Corporations and industry moguls have discerned the depth of the sickness that they have contributed to and like rats off a sinking ship they are abandoning the country of the birth of their enterprises and moving their wealth and their assets to foreign lands. Crime flourishes; serial killers and others of criminally debased minds stalk the land. The cities are immoral cesspits and simmering racial tensions fed by illegal immigration and shattered family units portend rapidly approaching riots of an astronomical and deadly potential.

It used to be that natural calamities were relatively rare occurrences, we now see deadly and super destructive natural phenomena strike almost daily somewhere in the United States and the areas of destruction are more widely spread. Devastating widespread flooding, thousands of violent tornadoes, hurricanes of magnum strength and completely unseasonable weather patterns are rapidly becoming the norm rather than the exception.

The 10 most deadly natural disasters ever in the United States have all happened within the past 10 years.

The secularists who make up the majority of the scientific community and the national media would have us believe that all this havoc is caused by men and the changes they have wrought in regard to atmospheric conditions. They cannot be expected to know the real source of these anomalies since they have no spiritual base whatever, even if they would open a Bible they would be completely mystified by the contents. They prattle on thinking that they are wise. They do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for it is foolishness to them; and they cannot understand these things because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are enlightened and who do dissent in regard to the global warming myth are bullied and threatened into silence, just as those who question evolution are stifled by threats of loss of tenure, censure and loss of jobs. The agents of deception who serve the dark spirits cannot allow the light of truth to be shined upon the lies that they spin, and since they have not the truth to rely on they resort to smearing those who will not assent to their prevarications. A smirk, a sneer, a curled lip of disdain and churlish commentary are the tools of their trade and a gullible public is their ally in the transforming of their outright lies into fictitious truths.

The unrighteousness of our people, the moral degradation upon the nation, the rebellion against Almighty God and the rejection of His rule have brought us to the cusp of absolute destruction. Repent is not in our vocabulary and humility does not inhabit our soul, foolishness is forever on our lips and pride and arrogance mark our character.

The ignorance of our leaders and the delusion upon the people has made way for the institution of the elements of our own destruction. Our cities are teeming with forty million illegal foreign nationals with no allegiance to, or regard for, our safety or our domestic tranquility. They see the American people as intruders and interlopers on lands that they covet as their own. We allow unfettered access to many thousands of Islamic militants each year and have allowed them to establish hundreds of Mosques throughout the country, which serve as sovereign citadels for subversion and truculence. In deference to political correctness we have undermined our social underpinnings and delivered up our schools and other institutions to moral bankruptcy. Only a nation that has been cut-off by Almighty God could have been handed over to such great vulnerability.

We have foolishly expended our resources and frittered away our assets. Auguries of a coming food shortage are upon us. We are diverting our crops to the making of fuel and

food reserves are at a thirty-year low. Food inflation has become more serious than the rising cost of fuel. Given the unnatural weather patterns that are upon us it is inevitable that we will in the very near future experience massive crop failures through drought and other weather related developments. Famine will bring us to riots of unthinkable dimensions. The cities will erupt with the fires of such and the toll in death and destruction will be fearsome. But, the end is not yet.

The cataclysmic events described heretofore will weaken the nation and render us completely vulnerable to attacks by belligerent nations. At the present time the fuse has been lit in the middle east that will ignite most definitely a third world war. But, it will not be the Islamic nations that will put an end to us. It will be the nations, our former enemies of Europe, who have risen like a Phoenix from the ashes of their defeat and been reborn in their nazi fascist image that will make an end of us.

Many have written to me and bewailed what they see as a failure by me and other columnists with News With Views to provide solutions to the problems that we describe. They concede that we have accurately identified the degradation that it upon our nation, but they want someone to provide the answers that will deliver the nation from a seemingly imminent demise. The truth is that there are no secular solutions that will deliver this nation. No resolution other than a nationwide confession of sin and repentance thereof will save this nation.

In one of my articles I quoted the following scripture and noted that some took umbrage over my application of this scripture to the United States. Protestations to prophetic scripture will not prevent the fulfillment thereof.

“How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. Revelation 18:7-8”

Another I Am Getting Weary Article

2008-05-10T12:27:00.000-07:00

It is my honest opinion that we are in the final days of the existence of the United States of America as a free and independent republic as founded some 200 plus years ago. The American people think they still have their freedom since they can go to work, watch television, take their kids to their soccer matches, go to the mall and do numerous other things.

That isn't freedom. The American people would not know what to do with freedom if true freedom were suddenly thrust upon them. They have become far too dependent upon government to solve all the nations problems, that they have lost the ability to think, reason, and care for themselves. Look at our elections, we vote for the candidates who make the best sounding promises to do what, DO THINGS FOR US instead of promising to minimize their interference in our lives.

This may sound farfetched, but what would happen if suddenly all cell phones, the internet, and the news media outlets suddenly went silent? What would people do if militarized police forces suddenly showed up in the streets in ominous numbers? What would happen if all of a sudden a curfew was put into place, food and other resources were placed under governmental control and would only be rationed out in limited quantity?

As I said, it may sound farfetched, but the laws granting our government those powers are already in place. Now why in the hell would they have those laws if they did not intend, at some future date, plan on using them?

I am not going to go over them again, as I am getting awfully tired of repeating myself to people who don't want to hear the truth. Those of you who have been reading my ramblings for awhile, know what I am talking about. For those of you who haven't, you can go to my blog, http://www.neals-soapbox.blogspot.com/, and do some research for yourselves.

This country is under attack, that's right, I said attack, on so many fronts that it seems as though there is no hope for its future. To tell you the truth, there probably isn't. While the blame for the condition of things in this country do not fall directly upon our shoulders, it is the people in general, current and past, who have let it get as bad as it has.

I am constantly either ridiculed, or complimented for my articles concerning the abuses of power by our government. That is fine, at least people are reading them, and just maybe they are thinking about them as well. However, when I write about the apathy of the people, or their ignorance about the issues, I usually and treated as though I am a leper, or at least a raving lunatic. I am often told that it is the governments fault for letting things get so bad. They didn't pass this law, or they did pass that law. Never are people willing to consider the fact that those in power are elected to REPRESENT the wishes of the people, as long as those wishes are within the boundaries of the Constitution. Not once have people considered that. How many times have these people, who complain so bitterly about the state of affairs in this country, contacted their elected representatives directly concerning an issue? I have two thick binders full of letters I have written, and the responses I have gotten.

Yet every election people go out and vote these clowns back into office. There are times that the incumbent is voted out, but it doesn't happen as often as it should. Our entire government, with the exception of Ron Paul, is cancerous and needs to be excised and flushed out with sterile material that hasn't been corrupted and paid for by so many special interests that the will of the people is something that isn't even taken into consideration.

When this country was in its infancy our founding fathers made a huge gamble upon a system of government that would, could, only function upon if the people remained vigilant in their observance of its operations.

Our founders told us what we needed to do if we wished to remain a free and independent people, but we, and our ancestors didn't listen. The warnings of our founders still echo through time, but nobody hears them.

From John Adams, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people."

"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people."

From James Madison, "We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

From James Monroe, "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."

From Patrick Henry, "Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it."

Finally, from Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence,
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it."

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

"Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction."

Those were words of warning, words of great wisdom, for us to follow if we wished to remain independent, and truly free. We have forgotten that our government is not our master, but our servant. We have forgotten, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

We have allowed ourselves to believe that government is our friend and only has our best interest in mind when passing law. They have good intentions is what we tell ourselves. Daniel Webster warned us about good intentions, "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

The Declaration of Independence, after stating that we had those unalienable rights, told us what to do we could do when our government violated them, "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It went even further, and stated, "...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."

Our rights are clearly defined, the duties and limitations upon our government are clearly defined. The problem is that the people are unaware, or choose to disregard those limitations upon our government, as long as it benefits them personally.

Our country was established so that the government had limited, clearly defined powers. Any system that does not obey its own laws, and the Constitution is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, cannot exist forever without collapsing. And that is what is happening to ours, although far too many people refuse to face up to the truth of it. People continue to believe in a system run amok, voting for corrupt legislators and Presidents.

And the corruption is not only in those in whom we elect, as they are but a mirror held out to reflect the values of the nation. Merriam Webster’s online Dictionary defines corruption as, “1 a: impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity, b: decay, decompsition c: inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d: a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct 2 archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts”

This nation is fond of using the term God bless America. It sickens me whenever I hear that. The hypocrisy of that statement goes far beyond being ludicrous. America was founded by men of great faith. They held good strong values and morals, which was reflected in the principles upon which this nation was founded, and also found in their writings. George Washington once said, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Read that again and see if you understand what it really means. George Washington did not mean that we should just ’go to church’, he meant that we need to maintain our religious principle as well. That means a commitment to the values given to us by Christ.

John Adams could have been speaking to us on CSPAN just yesterday when he said, “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”

I may offend many, but the truth is this, America is a cesspool and our leaders are just a reflection of that fact. How can anyone who claims to be church going, or God fearing, say that they intend to vote for someone who condones abortion?

Samuel Adams once said, “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.”

And suffer we have, under a seemingly endless list of Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators who have defiled the offices they held, and currently hold. Yet we sit back and remain silent which is just as much a reflection upon our character as it is upon theirs.

This nation had a chance to change course and return to the basic values of limited government by choosing Ron Paul as the Republican candidate for President. We choked at the plate. While the support he received was impressive, it was not enough to overcome the stranglehold that special interests hold upon the political parties of this country.

We have, what I consider to be the final chance, to save this country, not only from those who would see it destroyed, but from itself as well. A vote for Chuck Baldwin, who is running on the Constitution Party ticket, would strike a blow for liberty, but also be a great step in returning Christian values to our nations government. You can learn more about Chuck Baldwin by reading his columns which are archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/speech.html.

I don’t see that happening though. The brainwashing of America has been too thorough. We just cannot accept that our government is ‘capable’ of some of the things it has done, or is yet to do.

So, as I said in the beginning, this country is in its final days. What lies in the future is anybody's guess. I can say that it won't be pretty, and the transition will be both painful and possibly violent. It will also come as a shock to many who refused to heed the signs, and remember the warnings of our founding fathers.

I am not one to give up without a fight. I am however tiring of trying to warn people of what lies just over the horizon. As the old saying goes, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.' I will continue to write my articles, just so that I can have a clear conscious, and also to have something to feed those who refused to listen.

Allow Me To Bore You Just A Bit More

2008-05-07T20:42:00.001-07:00

I am pretty sure that everyone has heard the philosophical question, 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' The same concept can be applied to liberties, 'Which came first, liberty or government?'

If you think about that question for a moment, you can only come to one conclusion, that liberty preceded government. Government is an institution that serves one of two purposes. It either restricts liberties for the benefit of those in power, or it protects liberties for the benefit of all.

If you read the Declaration of Independence, you will see that the author, Thomas Jefferson, believed that our liberties come from our Creator, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Therefore our government has no right, nor authority to deny us what God grants us at birth. The Preamble to the Constitution affirms that one of the duties of government is to protect those rights, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

Our government was established as one of limited powers. Those powers are clearly defined in the Constitution. However our government has taken upon itself powers that it has no authority to assume. How did this happen?

Almost since the very beginning of our governments history there has been a power struggle between those who believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and those who wanted a looser interpretation.

Those who favored a strict interpretation, chief among them, Thomas Jefferson, felt that "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Those in opposition to this principle, led by Alexander Hamilton, felt "[A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so.... is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality...."

How was this debate to be settled, and by whom? The answer came in a ruling made by the Supreme Court, particularly by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

Chief Justice Marshall took Jefferson's concept of specific, enumerated powers and tossed it out the door, ruling that the government has unlimited implied powers. His logic was as follows. Chief Justice Marshall took the 18th Clause of Section 8, Article 1, which states that Congress shall have the power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers..."

From his ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, Justice Marshall states, "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." In common terms, the end justifies the means.

Part of the 'necessary and proper' clause is that it applies to 'the foregoing powers'. The first clause of Article 1, Section 8 states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."

If we are to conclude that Chief Justice Marshall believed that the end justifies the means and tie that to the power of Congress to provide for the general welfare, we have the situation in which Congress now can pass almost any law it deems is necessary to provide for the 'general welfare' of the United States.

Thomas Jefferson warned us what would happen if we allowed the judiciary to settle disputes such as that, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

Unfortunately, that is exactly what Chief Justice Marshall did with his ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, he granted Congress the keys to Pandora's Box, granting them a plethora of powers that are nowhere to be found in those specifically enumerated within the Constitution itself, they belong to Congress because they are merely implied.

What was the result of the Courts decision in this landmark case? We have a government that has passed so many laws, concerning things that are nowhere to be found within their area of responsibility in the Constitution, that you would be hard pressed to find at least one law you are not violating in the obedience of another.

As a consequence of that ruling, the rights of the states were also diminished in that if Congress passes a law as authorized by their implied powers under the Constitution, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Article 6, Clause 2, then the states are bound to obey. If a state does try to flex its muscle against the federal government, the Congress, or the President merely has to tighten the purse strings and withhold federal funding for one of many programs, that they honestly have no authority to be funding in the first place. Quite the catch 22, isn't it?

You may be thinking to yourself that I have strayed off course, as I began talking about rights and liberties and ended up talking about implied powers of Congress. Hold on just a moment longer, it all ties together.

We now have candidates running for all offices within our federal government, making us promises for this, and promises for that. All these promises are designed to get you to vote for them. Some of them are outright lies and were never intended to be kept, while others are merely usurpations of more power, and ultimately, control over our lives---and our liberties. Again, I quote Thomas Jefferson, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

If you don't believe our government is capable, or has the desire, to strip us of those liberties then you haven't been paying attention very well. Need I remind you of what former President Bill Clinton said in a press conference in New Jersey in 1993, "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."

If, on the other hand, you have been paying even the slightest amount of attention, you may be asking what can be done about these infringements of our liberties.

At this point in time, not much as long as people continue to blindly follow political parties for whatever reason they may have. When I hear people say that we have to vote for this candidate so that the other candidate does not get elected, I feel as though our situation is hopeless. When I hear that people will not vote for a third party candidate because, 'he cannot win', I lose even more hope.

Our nation got to the point it is because we allowed it to. We voted for the people who abused their positions and violated the trust we placed in them to uphold the Constitution. As long as we blindly follow a candidate, like rats following the Pied Piper, nothing is ever going to get any better. In fact things will continue to get worse until we select men, or women for that matter, of principle who will defend and protect our liberties at all costs.

There is only one alternative, and it can be found within the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

What The Hell Is It Going To Take?

2008-05-06T20:31:00.000-07:00

I was sitting around the cafeteria the other morning before starting work and one of the guys I work with asked me who I thought was going to be our next President. I wanted to say something sarcastic like, "What do I look like, a fortune teller?" Instead I just said not a one of them are worthy to be our next President. He then said, and I quote, "Aw c'mon, take it easy on McCain, he is a war hero." I was so dumbfounded that I just got up and walked away.

As far as John McCain being a war hero, I have my doubts about that. From what I have read it appears that he was anything but a hero. However, that is beside the point. His being a war hero has nothing to do with his being qualified to be our next President.

I don't know how many times I need to say this, but people need to look at a candidates voting record on the issues before they cast a vote for that person, no matter what office they are seeking.

To prove my point, say there is a priest who has been molesting children in their congregation. Just because that person is a priest, does that qualify them to be pope? No, that priest should be given the chance to make amends for his actions and if he continues to disgrace his position, he should be excommunicated.

The same goes for our elected officials. They are bound by oath to uphold the Constitution and if they refuse to do so they should be removed from office, not elevated to a position of higher authority or power.

On the issue of second amendment rights, John McCain’s rating, according to Gun Owners of America, has gone from a C in 2000 to an F in 2006.

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

McCain was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and served two terms, after which he was elected to the Senate in 1986, and has been there since. He has refused to take any firm action in the Senate to curb the influx of illegal aliens into the state which he is supposed to be representing. In fact he was co-author of the recently failed immigration reform legislation.

Senator McCain has also stated that we would stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to achieve victory, whatever the definition of victory is this week. The war is a quagmire with no signs of ever ending. The Iraqi government is inept and impotent and shows no sign of ever being able to control the violence and regain stability without some sort of a U.S. military presence. This war has cost the United States $517 billion dollars so far and the death toll continues to rise. John McCain is unpredictable and who knows if he would not just decide to extend the war into Iran?

McCain, aside from being a wild card that we just cannot take the chance on, has shown that he has no regard for the Constitution, or the will of his constituents. We just cannot allow him to be elected as our next President.

Then there is an acquaintance of mine who believes the same thing, that John McCain cannot be elected as President, but for other reasons entirely. This person claims that if McCain is elected, the conservatives in this country will go to sleep and let him run roughshod over our remaining constitutional rights. This person claims that we should vote for either Hillary or Obama, whoever it is that eventually wins the Democratic tug of war for their parties nomination.

This person told me the following,

“So I say sway the vote Democratic and make your vote count for something. It won't do a damn thing to vote third party. Plus it will make the Republican party re-think it's liberal neo-con platform. Besides, they really need a good ass-kicking. I believe that a Democratic vote, using this strategy, is in fact a "vote for a principle".

Isn’t that what supposedly happened in the mid term elections? Didn’t the Republicans lose control of Congress because of their policies? Has it made one iota of difference? No, George Bush has continued on a path which is destroying our liberties, and bankrupting this country in a futile war, without even blinking an eye.

This person was a dedicated supporter of Ron Paul yet he refuses to support a third party candidate who stands for the same principles as Ron Paul, someone like, say Chuck Baldwin, who just got the nomination for the Constitution Party.

For those of you unfamiliar with what Chuck Baldwin stands for, I urge you to read his latest column which can be found at

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080502.html

I constantly hear that a vote for a third party will take votes from one side or the other, making them a ‘spoiler’. However, it is apparent that the Republican Party no longer cares for the Constitution. That is obvious by the unethical way in which Ron Paul was treated by his own party.

For anyone who cares one bit about the future of this country to even consider voting for a candidate from either of the two mainstream political parties only shows how uninformed they truly are.

If enough people would have the courage to vote for principle by casting a vote for someone who understands the serious dangers this country faces, we could make a change.

However, as long as I continue to hear people making statements like the ones I have discussed in this article, I am not holding on to any hope for the future of this country. As the title of this article asks, just the hell is it going to take?

If People Really Wanted Health Care...

2008-05-05T17:32:00.000-07:00

The other day my wife and I were in our local Sam's Club picking up some items. There was a woman in the store as well, riding one of those motorized carts for disabled people. This woman was the largest person I have ever seen in person in my life. She was literally spilling off the sides of this cart. Her ankles were as large as my thighs. She could not even get her feet off the ground and was dragging them along beside the cart as she rode around with her husband. I don't mean to be insulting, but this woman looked like she needed a crane or a forklift to get up and move around. It was sad, and pathetic at the same time.

The reason I mention this is not to be degrading to her, I realize that some people do have conditions that just make it difficult for them to lose weight. I do not believe that was the case with this woman. I say this because of what I saw as she checked out in the lane next to me.

This woman had 5 cases of Pepsi, two cases of canned Hormel chili, 4 frozen pizzas, 6 loaves of white bread, 8 bags of Lays Potato chips, and to top it all off, four each 2 lb bags of saltwater taffy. On top of all that garbage she had a stack of DVD movies. She obviously spends most of her time just eating garbage and watching television. I thought to myself that this woman either did not know that she was killing herself with that lifestyle, or she just didn't care.

And that thought led to the topic of this article, the subject of health care. The two candidates battling for the Democratic nomination for President are both offering some form of universal health care. What the people really want is someone to take care of them, they want to shift that responsibility away from themselves, and onto someone else.

There are two types of health care, proactive and reactive. What the Democrats, and all those who push for universal health care, really want to provide us with is a reactive health care system. In a reactive health care system we are not responsible for the maintenance of our health as the medical system is there to repair the damage we do to ourselves.

In a proactive health care system people take responsibility for the maintenance of their health at the optimum level and the doctor is a last resort for serious illness or injury. In a proactive system the people take the time to learn about what they are putting into their bodies instead of just shoveling any pre-packaged garbage they find that tastes appetizing.

That woman I saw at Sam's Club was a poster child for reactive health care. I don't think she could have jogged from the front of the store to her car without causing herself injury, or maybe even having a coronary. Don't get me wrong, I am not the perfect specimen of health. I carry a few extra pounds around my midsection that I would like to see gone. However I am conscious of what I eat and if I do eat sweets, I limit myself as to how much. I could do better, and I realize that. However, I am still capable of putting in a good solid 8 hours worth of hard work without collapsing from fatigue at the end of the day.

If you go to the grocery store, it seems as though the shelves are stocked with pre packaged meals that are fast and easy to prepare...and loaded with who knows what for flavoring and preservatives? Hamburger Helper, frozen microwaveable dinners, are the meal of choice for many people. It seems as though the thought of making a meal from scratch is a dying art in this country. Add to that the fact that our lifestyles are more sedentary and we have a nation of, if not grossly obese, at least overweight people.

Then we wonder why we have a nation of diabetics, with our children even developing this disease at an earlier age. Heart disease is almost something that is accepted as commonplace. Hell, I have friends who are ten years younger than I am and have had triple bypass surgery. I look at them and think that they ought to be grateful they are still alive, but no, they still eat their Burger King, their Dominoes Pizza, their sugar laden snacks, and if they even eat fresh fruits and vegetables, it is as a side dish maybe once or twice a week.

What is the old saying, ‘You are what you eat’. If that is true then Americans are walking garbage cans. People may claim that they are too busy to prepare a 'real meal' and therefore rely upon these prepackaged meals, but I wonder if they would if they knew what was in them? The contents of these meals are established by the food industry themselves.

It is not just foods either. Everyone brushes their teeth, at least I hope they do. I wonder how many people have taken the time to read the warning on a tube of toothpaste. If they haven't they might be shocked, as it says, "WARNINGS: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek PROFESSIONAL HELP or contact a POISON CONTROL center immediately." Go look for yourself it you don't believe me.

I wonder why they would want you to call a poison control center if you swallow toothpaste? Maybe it is because the fluoride they put in it is toxic.

"If the formulation contains fluoride ion higher than 1000 ppm, it can cause poison; and the fluoride ion can react with calcium ion and magnesium in the human body and cause low level calcium ion and magnesium ion in blood. In some cases it has caused heart and muscle problems. If a child were to take a big spoonful of this fluoride and get it down, it is a poison that could kill the child."

http://www.aroma-essence.com/research-reports/fluoride.html

It would behoove people to do a little research into the ingredients of the meals they prepare for themselves if they wish to be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to their health.

If that wasn't enough, the chemicals that are placed into the prepackaged meals that Americans live upon, what about the manner in which they are cooked? Microwaves are a common item found in almost every home, and many workplaces. Although I am forced to use them at work to heat my meals for lunch, I use them sparingly, heating the food just until it is warm. Why?

"There have been very few scientific studies done on the effect of eating food microwaved food. This is rather surprising when you think about the fact that microwaves have been with us for only a few decades - and that in that time the incidence of many diseases has continued to increase.

Two researchers, Blanc and Hertel, confirmed that microwave cooking significantly changes food nutrients. Hertel previously worked as a food scientist for several years with one of the major Swiss food companies. He was fired from his job for questioning procedures in processing food because they denatured it. He got together with Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Biochemistry and the University Institute for Biochemistry.

They studied the effect that microwaved food had on eight individuals, by taking blood samples immediately after eating. They found that after eating microwaved food, haemoglobin levels decreased. "These results show anaemic tendencies. The situation became even more pronounced during the second month of the study".

http://www.relfe.com/microwave.html

So, as people feed themselves these prepackaged meals that they heat in the microwave, they are not only eating who knows what, they are destroying whatever nutritional value they had to begin with.

It all boils down to the issue of whether you want to maintain your health by eating a nutritious meal that provides the right balance of nutrients, or if you want to eat junk that you have no idea what is in it and has little nutritional value.

I just find it far more than coincidence that as the type of food we eat as a nation has gone from home cooked meals to prepackaged, or fast food, so has the number of health issues such as diabetes and heart disease been on the rise.

We would not need the type health care programs offered by Senators Clinton and Obama if we would only do a little preventive maintenance on our bodies by eating healthy and getting a little exercise every now and then.

Unfortunately if you take a walk through the aisles of your local supermarket, you will see that people want to continue on with the lifestyle that includes prepackaged meals with little nutritional value. They are paying for it with increased health issues that could have been prevented if they only ate the right foods.

Like I said, I am not perfect, but I do not go to the supermarket to buy the garbage that keeps me bound to a motorized cart because I am too big to walk on my own.

Another Immiration Rant

2008-05-05T17:29:00.000-07:00

Friday, my day got off to a sour note almost as soon as I got to work. I am not a morning person at all, so I usually get to work an hour or so before I have to actually start so I can grab a cup of coffee and read the newspaper. On this particular Friday I mentioned to one of my friends that, 'Boy I sure don't feel like being here'. From the next table someone said, 'Why don't you get on a plane and fly back home to England then?'

It took every ounce of my will not to do or say anything to the piece of human excrement that said that. This guy is an honest to God, Reagan amnestied, illegal alien from Mexico.

Due to my having written numerous letters to the editor concerning illegal aliens, this person has confronted me on a few occasions to argue 'his point of view'. He believes that Mexicans are doing these jobs because Americans are too lazy. He believes that Mexicans 'have a right' to come here to live and work. He probably believes that the southwest United States still belongs to Mexico, although of that I can not be sure.

This particular individual was granted amnesty in 1986 by legislation signed by President Reagan. By all intensive purposes he is a legal citizen of this country, yet he still holds citizenship in Mexico. Does he respect this country, obviously not when he verbally attacks anyone who stands up for our nations laws, particular those that would keep more people like him from coming to this country.

So, when he said that comment on Friday morning it took all I had not to say, 'Why don't you take your fat wetback ass and swim across the Rio Grande into Mexico? While you are at it, take that dope smoking, gang banging anchor baby kid of yours with you?' That would have started a riot and I am thankful now that I had enough self control to keep those thoughts to myself. Nevertheless, the day got off to a fine start.

Afterwards, as I sat there reading my paper, I came across an article about immigration entitled, Money Woes Have Immigration Activists Weeping. In this article, an illegal alien worker from Zion Illinois, Eric Molina, who just happens to have a thirteen year old anchor baby daughter named Erika, said, "We come to fight for legalization. We're people. We have rights."

What rights does Senor Molina think he has? He has the right to pack his belongings and go back to Mexico. According to Merriam-Webster's online Dictionary, civil rights are defined as "The nonpolitical rights of a citizen, especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress." These people are criminals and they ask us for rights they do not deserve. They ask us to accept them with open arms and they do not respect us, or our laws.

So, after getting verbally harassed, and then reading that in the paper, my anger level was up by a few notches, and I was ready to go to work with a monstrous chip on my shoulder.

That seems to be happening a lot to me lately, getting a chip on my shoulder at work. Just a few days prior to Friday I was working with an East Indian man. Not too many people like this guy to begin with. He ogles and stares at the women, and he is lazy and shiftless. So I was in a sour mood to begin with, knowing I had to work nine hours with this guy. Around lunch time I was minding my own business, doing my job, when this guy comes up and puts his hand on my shoulder and stops me from what I am doing. He then proceeds to do what I was doing, which was dumping baskets of apricots into a hopper. He was doing it differently than I was, and was dropping fruit onto the floor in the process. He then had the gall to say, "This is how we would do it in India." I almost lost control again. I wanted to ask him if India was so great, why the hell did he come to America?

The point is that I have been developing a chip on my shoulder at work. Do you also notice the similarities between the causes of my problems? It just happens to be foreigners who come to this country with the attitude that the country they come from, and their way of doing things, is so much better than ours. Why is it that they have to come here if their country is so much better than ours?

I don't know if people are away of the concept of carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is the ability of a location to sustain life of the inhabitants of that area. Say for instance that you have 100 number of people living in an area of one square mile. These people are living comfortably with enough resources such as water, electricity and food. There are enough medical facilities, supplies, and jobs to provide a comfortable life for all. What then happens when you double the number of people living in that area? what happens to the carrying capacity? Will they still be able to live with the same standard of living? When will the point be reached that the carrying capacity has been passed an can no longer sustain life?

When a carrying capacity has been reached, or surpassed for that matter, the standard of living deteriorates very quickly. Jobs are harder to find, there is more starvation, disease, and many other social problems brought about by the overpopulation of a people inhabiting land that just cannot accommodate them.

If you would like to learn more about 'carrying capacity' I would recommend that you read some of Frosty Wooldridge's articles as he has written extensively on the subject. You can find Frosty's articles at http://newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frostyA1.htm

When you take the population of a country and the square miles you can figure out how many people live on one square mile of land in that country? The number you come up with does not mean that there are exactly that number living on every square mile because there are often large centers where the population is centered, but it gives you an overall idea.

In the United States, for instance, there are approximately eighty four people per square mile of land in this country. Mexico on the other hand has one hundred forty five people per square mile. Then you have India, with a staggering nine hundred fifty four people per square mile.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html

As you can see, both Mexico and India have substantially larger populations per square mile than does the United States. So our resources, or our carrying capacity, has not been strained to the point as it is in their native countries.

That is going to change though if we continue to allow immigration, both legal, and illegal, to continue in this country. It used to be that the average American family was 3.2 people per household. That sounds ridiculous that a family could have point two kids, but it was an average taken from the overall statistics. Hispanic families tend to be higher, in the 3.8 people per family range, while East Indians are even higher at around 4.9.

Once again, my friend, the Grassroots Granny, has sent me an e mail that corresponds with the subject matter I just happen to be writing on. (I think that woman is psychic!)
Just this morning she sent me an e mail that covers the surge of growth in this country of the Hispanics, not by immigration, but by birth. From the article I quote,

“Hispanics now account for more than 15% of the U.S. population, and their surge is largely the result of births among people already in the country, according to new Census Bureau data.

In an annual report, the Census said there are 45.5 million Hispanics in the U.S., up from 35.7 million in 2000, when they made up 12.6% of the population. It said growth among Hispanics was responsible for half of the U.S. population gains between 2000 and 2007.”

As the population of this country continues to grow, it is obvious that with the size of American families growing at a slower rate than those of immigrant, both legal and illegal. Eventually we will be outnumbered, and the result of that is something I do not wish to contemplate.

Here in California we have a speaker of the State Assembly named Fabian Nunez. The city of Los Angeles has a mayor named Antonio Villaraigosa. Both these men are Hispanic, and while I have nothing against Hispanics, these men both refuse to enforce our nations immigration laws. They are both actually openly pro-illegal alien in their policies. Basically, they take the side of illegal aliens over that of the rightful citizens of this country.

Now imagine that trend continuing across the nation. Imagine mayors, state representatives, and even Congressmen, Senators, and even a President who takes the side of illegal aliens over the American citizens.

The people of this country need to wake up and realize what is happening to us. We are allowing the people who will bring this country down to the same level as their country, to immigrate into ours unrestricted.

As I asked earlier, what is so great about their countries that they desired to come to ours? If we allow them to continue to flood into ours, with their disrespect for our laws, our customs, and more importantly, for us as citizens, what is going to happen in America? We will be the minority, make no mistake about that! Then, when they have a majority and they ease immigration standards, so that even more of their countrymen can come to America, we will be just like those countries from which they flee, a third world nation whose carrying capacity has been passed. The standard of living will go down for everyone.

California is already experiencing problems with its water supply. New homes have been built which demand water. It is estimated that every person in this country uses 3000 gallons of water per month. California also is experiencing problems with the supply of electricity in the summertime when everyone is using their air conditioners. With this unrestricted immigration, those statistics are only going to get worse.

This nation cannot handle the continued importation of the impoverished masses from all over the world. It is not our duty, or responsibility to feed, house, provide educations, jobs, and all the amenities of life for those from other countries. Not if we wish to survive as a nation. I only hope that people wake up before it is too late and class warfare breaks over the demand for jobs, food, and resources. If people don’t open their eyes to the danger this country faces, that is exactly what is going to happen. Then what?

2008-05-05T17:16:00.000-07:00

Many of you know that I have fervently supported Ron Paul in his bid for President. I still admire Dr. Paul and his thoughts on Constitutional government, but I always had questions about his 'laid back' stance on the issue of illegal immigration. Since Dr. Paul appears not to be able to get the GOP nomination, and that two faced bastard McCain is to be the chosen one for the Republicans, I am now considering throwing my support behind a third party candidate. That man is Chuck Baldwin. The following commentary was written by Mr. Baldwin to outline his stance on the issues. I am posting it in the hope that you might support him as well. I would also hope that even if you disagree that you would at least mention this column to all your contacts as well so that they may decide for themselves who the best person to be our next president. We all know how the media treated Ron Paul, do you think it will be any fairer to Chuck Baldwin? If our country is to remain a democracy, the people need to be able to chose a president from among the people, not only those who are funded by the political parties and special interest groups. So please forward this to your contacts and let them decide for themselves. That is all I ask...

This column is located at http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin445.htm

IF I WERE PRESIDENT

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

May 2, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

Due to my frequent criticisms of President George W. Bush, I am often asked what I would do if I were President of these United States. This column will serve as an attempt to answer that question.

If I were President, I would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country. And this is being done without a Declaration of War. The Iraqi people resent our occupation as much as we would resent another nation stronger than ours invading and occupying America. If such a thing happened to our beloved country, I'm sure many of us would also become "insurgents."

In the second place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary. Instead of sacrificing more than 4,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens (not to mention some 2-3 trillion dollars), President Bush should have supported Ron Paul's bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations. This is the way President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary pirates.

According to Congressman Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the President the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

Had President Bush responded in this manner, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved, trillions of dollars would not have needed to be spent, Osama bin Laden and most of his fellow terrorists would likely be dead, and we would not be bogged down in a nightmarish military quagmire in Iraq. And, if I were President, this is exactly how I would handle terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

Furthermore, it is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.

By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.

And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.

If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion.

Republicans tout themselves as being "pro-life." Yet, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years and did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand. Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.

On the subject of foreign policy, as President, I would end foreign aid. I would also end the current infatuation with nation-building, empire-building, and interventionism. America is not the world's policeman. Neither are our military personnel the personal militia of the United Nations.

Remember that President Bush told the U.N. in 2003 that the reason we invaded Iraq was for the purpose of securing the "peace and credibility of the United Nations." (I lie not; that is what he said.) President Bush also placed the U.S. back under UNESCO in spite of the fact that President Reagan had heroically taken the U.S. out from under that sinister organization.

I am sure that readers recall that the U.N. Charter was authored by a Soviet communist agent (Alger Hiss) and that the U.S. has been fighting wars for the U.N. ever since the organization was created back in 1945.

Speaking of the United Nations, as President, I would withhold funds from the support of the United Nations. In other words, I would get the U.S. out of the U.N. Beyond that, when I move into the White House, the U.N.'s rent is up! They move out of New York City post haste.

By the same token, there is absolutely no reason for us to be in NATO. We should not be antagonizing Russia by attempting to expand NATO. There is no reason why Russia could not become a friend and ally of the United States. Free and fair trade with Russia and a noninterventionist foreign policy in Europe would do much to endear American interests to Russia. To insist on expanding and empowering NATO only serves to further alienate Russia and drive her to make alliances with Communist China.

Speaking of China, it is time that we recognize the very serious threat that China poses to the peace and security of the United States. Our trade practices serve only to allow corporate America to continue to invest in what will surely become an albatross around the neck of our well-being. We must discontinue the practice of allowing China to export its cheap products to the U.S. with no protection for America's jobs and manufacturing, not to mention the lack of protection for our safety. This must stop, and it will stop when I become President. "Free trade" will no longer mean a free ride for Red China.

Furthermore, as President, I would take the preservation of our nation's sovereignty and independence extremely seriously. This means that the burgeoning North American Union is dead on arrival the day I am sworn in as President. Gone, too, is the NAFTA superhighway. And for that matter, I would lead the United States out of NAFTA and CAFTA altogether. And any prospect for the FTAA would be dead as well.

As President, I would be the best friend that gun owners (and lawful gun dealers), homeschoolers, and veterans ever had in the White House. These are three of the most persecuted, harassed, or overlooked groups of people in the country. But not if I were President.

There is no reason why our veterans should wait for weeks and months to receive the medical care they need. It is disgraceful that we would ask our brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces to fight our country's battles and then leave them to pretty much fend for themselves when it comes to receiving adequate health care. I would make taking care of our veterans an extremely high priority, if I were President.

If I were President, I would also do everything in my power to locate and retrieve any and all MIAs. I personally believe that there are hundreds of our servicemen who are yet being held against their will in various parts of the world. I would make finding them and bringing them home of utmost priority, if I were President.

On the home front, if I were President, I would end corporate welfare. I would also work to disband the Department of Energy (along with the Department of Education and many other federal departments). There is absolutely no reason for us to be dependent upon OPEC. There is enough gas and oil under the soil of Alaska (not to mention the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico) to meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 150-200 years. There is also no reason that gas should cost more than $1.50 a gallon (which is about what it was before Bush became President).

We must begin drilling for the domestic oil that we know exists; we must build more refineries and nuclear power plants. There is no reason why the United States cannot be mostly energy independent. It is time we started putting the people and interests of the United States ahead of the CEOs and interests of international corporations.

Lastly, if I were President, I would work feverishly to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, which would repeal the Income Tax. And, no, I would not promote a national sales tax. That would be disastrous! Can you imagine what a 30% sales tax would do to the cost of EVERYTHING? Plus, give politicians a national sales tax to increase and just imagine what kind of percent that would grow into!

I would also work to repeal the "death tax," inheritance taxes, and property taxes. The American people are already paying somewhere between 30% and 40% of their income to Uncle Sam. It must stop. We are bankrupting our country with this incessant and burdensome tax system. In addition, I would work to expunge the Federal Reserve and to restore the American economy to sound money.

Now, I hear people say, That's easy for you to say; you are not a candidate for President. Ah, but now I am.

Last week, in its national nominating convention in Kansas City, Missouri, the Constitution Party nominated me as its 2008 Presidential candidate. Party delegates nominated me over Ambassador Alan Keyes by a margin of 74% to 24%. Therefore, I am now a candidate for President of these United States.

See the CP website

My Vice Presidential running mate is Darrell Castle, an attorney and Vietnam War Marine Corps veteran from Memphis, Tennessee.

Our web site is not online yet, but will be soon. We will be able to receive credit card donations when the web page is uploaded. The address of my campaign website

In the meantime, if anyone wants to support our campaign, checks may be written to:

Baldwin 2008
P.O. Box 131
Palmyra, New Jersey 08065

I believe it is only fair, as I continue to write these columns, that one understands the full disclosure of my candidacy.

As readers know, I enthusiastically supported Ron Paul during the Republican Primary season. I plan to continue to trumpet his call for limited government, non-interventionism abroad, constitutional government, and freedom into the general election as a Third Party candidate.

I do not expect the national media to pay us much heed; they seldom do. I do not expect to receive large donations from corporate America. I do expect criticism and ridicule. That is nothing new. However, I also anticipate tens of thousands of freedom-loving people from all religious persuasions and walks of life to rally to our cause. Why? Because thousands of principled people will not be bullied into voting for the "evil of two lessers" being shoved down our throats by the two major parties. Because this campaign is not about Chuck Baldwin. It is not about a political party. It is about freedom. It is about constitutional government. It is about restoring America to the founding principles bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. If you believe in those principles, join us!

In the meantime, these columns will continue to serve as a voice for America's founding principles, as they have for the past eight-plus years. In addition, unlike the candidates from the two major parties, the taxpayers are not underwriting my campaign, and I will continue my day job. (Imagine that: a Presidential candidate who actually works for a living!) And all of this is just in time for my 56th birthday, which is tomorrow, May 3.

There you have it: this is what I would do if I were President of these wonderful United States of America.

What Kind Of Character Do You Have?

2008-05-03T08:14:00.001-07:00

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Are those words even remotely familiar to you? They should, they are taken directly from the Declaration of Independence.

Did you notice the phrase 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights'? Our founders believed that our rights are God given, or natural rights as they are commonly known. Government does not have the power to give us rights, our rights are granted us at birth and they come from God. Government can only restrict rights that we are born with.

So what exactly is the purpose of our government? The purpose of our government is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

Do those words ring a bell? I would hope so, they are from the Preamble to the Constitution, a document I feel too many Americans seem to have forget limits the power we the people have granted our government.

So, with the presidential election just seven months away, I feel it is past time the American people remember a few things about the purpose and scope of their government.

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, once stated, "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction."

We have forgotten the principles upon which our nation was founded and our government granted the limited powers it was. We have forgotten what it means to be free and independent, and we now rely upon government for far too many things.

Martin Van Buren, the 8th President of the United States said the same thing, "All communities are apt to look to government for too much. Even in our own country, where its powers and duties are so strictly limited, we are prone to do so, especially at periods of sudden embarrassment and distress."

With the election coming up, that is exactly what the people of this country are doing, looking to vote for a president who promises them the most, regardless of whether or not he/she is authorized to act upon those promises.

First of all, the President has no Constitutional authority to create law, or enact programs. That power resides solely with the Congress, and as Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

We have allowed our elected representatives to usurp powers not granted them by the charter that grants them their very existence, the Constitution. Without the Constitution the government would not even exist. It is their duty to govern within the powers it grants them, are our responsibility to ensure they stay within those confines.

William Henry Harrison, the 9th President of the United States, stated, "There is nothing more corrupting, nothing more destructive of the noblest and finest feelings of our nature, than the exercise of unlimited power."

Unlimited Power is exactly what our government has, because we the people have neglected our responsibility to keep a watchful eye upon them, and hold them accountable when they abuse their power. Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of the United States once said, "The brave man inattentive to his duty, is worth little more to his country than the coward who deserts in the hour of danger."

So, as our government continues to usurp powers not granted them, we need to remember something Thomas Jefferson said about big government, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

Instead of looking for a President who promises us things they have no authority to do, we should be asking ourselves as John F. Kennedy, our nations 35th President, once said, "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

John Quincy Adams, our nations 6th President, told us exactly what we can do for our country, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

So, as you ponder who you will vote for to be our next president I would like for you to think about something Theodore Roosevelt, our 26th President once said, "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."

On November 5th 2008 we will see what the character of the people of this country truly is. From all the early indications, it is not

You Have To Make A Choice

2008-04-27T19:31:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it is strange how a series of events occur that inspire me to write. This week was one of those weeks that, by weeks end, an idea was beginning to formulate itself in my head for an article. Then my good friend, the Grassroots Granny (www.grassrootsgranny.com)sent out an e mail that capped it all off. But I am getting ahead of myself, so let me go back to what started this process in the first place.

It all began with a discussion I had at work concerning who I intended to vote for. After I told them if I could not cast a vote for Ron Paul I would probably not bother to cast a vote for president, even though I would still vote on ballot measures and other issues.

This person asked me why I wouldn't vote for Hillary or Barack Obama? I told them there are many reasons, and began listing them. When I got to their desire for universal health care, the woman stopped me and asked what is wrong with everyone having health insurance. I told her nothing is wrong with the idea of everyone having health insurance, as long as the federal government does not tax me for it, or run it.

She said, but isn't that what our government is for? Aha, I thought to myself, another person who knows not the function of their government. I then asked if she could tell me where in the Constitution it says the federal government is responsible for making sure everyone has health insurance. She could not, but said, "It must be in there somewhere."

After counting to ten, well maybe twenty, I answered that it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution that the federal government is responsible for providing Americans with health insurance. I then told her that the Constitution does say that whatever powers are not granted the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people, by 10th amendment. Therefore, I continued, if you really want everyone to have health care, why don't the people contact their respective state legislator and ask that they sponsor a bill to create a state run program, (a thought I find repulsive and unwise, but nevertheless within the legal guidelines of our Constitution.)

She tried again to say that it would be better if the federal government did it so all the states could have the same program. I finally said, 'Listen, if the federal government assumes powers it is not authorized by the Constitution, what is to stop if from assuming powers that you may not want it to?' (As though this hasn't happened already, but I didn't want to get into that with her at this point in time.)

She said, well we could always stop them? I said, could we? How? She didn't know what else to say, except that she intended to vote for Hillary anyway.

This person obviously could not grasp the concept that there is a right way to do things, and a wrong way to do things. I find that quite prevalent in discussing politics with many. It is quite frustrating to say the least. I often have to refrain from insults or just slapping some sense into them. I have developed a lot of patience because of people like her. I guess that is a blessing in disguise.

The next event took place yesterday. A woman came to my home early in the morning and left some religious information, no, not Jehovah's Witnesses, it was a local Baptist Congregation. She was a pleasant woman, so we discussed politics, gardening, and other subjects for about an hour before she departed.

That evening my son was reading the pamphlet she gave me and asked me why a person can't go to Heaven just because they are nice, or at least nicer than a lot of other people.

I began by telling him that he should not worry about comparing himself to others when it comes to his worthiness to enter Heaven, he should compare himself to Jesus. He then said, but Jesus was perfect, and I am never going to be perfect. I said, that is true, but your goal should be to come as close to perfect as you can.

Next I told him to get into Heaven he would have to accept Jesus as his Savior. Just believing in Jesus would not be enough. He has to accept the sacrifice Jesus made for him, admit to Him that you are a sinner and then ask for his forgiveness and help in your life. Then you should begin to try and live by the teachings of Jesus.

He did not like the idea, not because he was worried he couldn't do those things, but because his friends were not likely to do them as well, and he didn't want all his friends going to hell. Noble thought, but not of his concern until he first made sure he was on the right path himself.

Somehow our discussion ended up on the subject of eternity. I told him that our life here on earth is nothing more than a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. Would it not be prudent to be on the safe side and do what you know is right to prevent yourself from being damned for all eternity. I told him that there is not middle ground, you either accept Jesus into your life, or you don't. You can choose to work towards going to Heaven, or you can sit back assured that you are going to hell. He looked a bit despondent after our conversation, but at least he has thought it over.

That was yesterday, then this morning, my good friend, the Grassroots Granny sent me an e mail asking that we make a list of opposites, good/bad, woman/man, right/wrong, well, you get the picture. The idea was to show that in most things there are opposites, with no middle ground. You are alive, or you are dead. You are obeying law, or you are disobeying them.

Those are the same concepts I have been dealing with all week, and her e mail was just the icing on the cake for me. This has been the hardest subject for me to get through to people, that there is no middle ground on many of the issues I discuss. Our government is either obeying the Constitution, or they are not. We are either paying attention to what our elected representatives are doing, or we aren't.

Sometimes this issue has me feeling as though I am banging my head against the wall, I get so frustrated that I cannot get people to understand this simple concept. I explain the facts, present documentation, quotes, and news articles to people, then I show them in the Constitution where it says the government is not supposed to be doing this, or they are supposed to be doing something they aren't. I get the 'dumb cow' look.

I recently got an e mail from a gentleman who called it 'dumbass syndrome'. I found it an apt title, but not one help me when attempting to get my point across.

Anyway, my point is that it has been an interesting week, with all these events tying in together like that. The Lord sure does work in mysterious ways. On a side note, I did get a boost around Wednesday. I got an e mail from a woman who had discovered my articles on the Federal Observer. She was genuinely interested in learning about the subjects I write about. So I am closing the week out with a glimmer of hope that there are people out there who are willing to learn, unlike the woman at work who will vote for Hillary, no matter what.

Rights and Responsibility

2008-04-26T11:37:00.000-07:00

After writing my article 'Just Who Is In Charge' I received a few unexpected comments. Some people accused me of insulting their government and spreading anti-American propaganda. One person even went to far as to say I hated my country, which came as quite a shock to me.

I do not hate my country, I hate what it has become. I am angered and saddened by the people of this country who do not take the time to understand how their government is supposed to function, and how those elected to represent us have violated and abused the trust we have placed in them.

In response to some of the comments made to me, I came up with a quick ten question quiz to see how much people knew about their government and its history. They were all simple questions that shouldn't take too much thinking to answer. They were as follows:

1. Can you name the first five presidents of the United States.
2. Can you name the president who was never elected by the people of this country.
3. Which Article of the Constitution concerns the duties and powers of the President?
4. Name at least three of the powers granted Congress by the Constitution?
5. Who was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence?
6. According to the Declaration of Independence, from whom are our liberties derived?
7. Where in the Constitution does it grant the president the power to make laws?
8. Who does the Constitution say the Senators are supposed to represent?
9. According to the Constitution, who can enact new taxes?
10. Who has the power of impeachment, and who acts as the courtroom during impeachment proceedings.

I took my test to those who commented on my article and asked them to take it. Some refused, others did and failed miserably. I even let others take it if they so desired. Overall I was disappointed that nobody got more than 50% of the answers correct.

After taking the test I asked some of them why they should be allowed to vote. They told me that they should be allowed to vote because it is their right. That is true, the right of suffrage belongs to all, except ex-felons. Yet along with that right comes a responsibility, the responsibility to understand the principles upon which our system of government is supposed to operate.

In this country we have many rights and privileges. We have the right to drive a vehicle, but we must first learn the rules of the road before we are allowed to do so. We have the right to own firearms, (for how much longer is a good question), but we have the responsibility to know the proper safety precautions as well. Why should it be any different with voting?

Daniel Webster once said, "Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government."

You may ask why I rely so heavily upon quotes from the founding fathers and patriots of the revolutionary war era. That is simple, they were alive when this nations system of government was first established. They understood best the way it was supposed to work.

If someone makes a complicated recipe for a dish and you attempt to make it and run into problems, who are you going to ask for help? The person who gave you the recipe most likely. Why not then rely upon those who wrote our Constitution, who fought for our nations independence when asking how is our system of government supposed to work?

Thomas Jefferson, once said, "We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it." Have we done this? Hardly, not when we have those sitting in power who have violated the trust placed upon them who should have been removed from office for their violation of their oath of office. Yet these same people are continually re elected by the people. Some, like Senator Edward M. Kennedy, have been disgracing their office since I was nine years old, and I am fifty now! What does that tell you about how well we have watched our government?

James Monroe, our fifth President once predicted our future when he said, "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."

John Adams, our nations second President, once said, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies."

Returning to the words of Thomas Jefferson, he offered a stern warning to the people who wished to retain their liberty and freedom, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Is that were we sit today, a degenerated populace, lacking in virtue? I hate to admit it, but it certainly appears to be that way. When the people of this country cannot explain the basic principles upon which it is founded, they are, as Jefferson said, ignorant.

This nation is now in the midst of the process of deciding who will be its next President. If the outcome of this proceeding did not fill me with so much trepidation, I could almost laugh at the absurdity of it all. All three of our candidates are United States Senators who have a proven track record of ignoring our Constitution, and, in some instances, the overwhelming will of the people. Barack Obama wrote a book entitled, The Audacity of Hope. He has audacity alright, audacity to believe that he is even worthy to step foot into the oval office, let alone be the one who occupies it.

Samuel Adams, the leader of the Son's of Liberty during our nations fight for independence, once wrote, "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

Vain and aspiring is what we have had for years now, and this current crop of phonies is not better, in fact they are the worst I have yet to have the displeasure of having to consider. For a woman whose only qualifications are a failed attempt to push socialized health care down our throats while First Lady, while her husband disgraced the office of President, does not bode well should she be elected.

John F. Kennedy once said, "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Far too many people are going to go to the polls with preconceived ideas of what they want their next President to do for them without even understanding that is not within the powers of the President to create new laws.

When JFK said we should ask what we can do for our country he may have meant that we should be willing to sacrifice more in the way of taxes to support programs that were not authorized by the Constitution.

So I am going to ask the question again, but my meaning is going to be entirely different. I am asking you to educate yourself about how our system of government was supposed to function. I am asking you to do some research in to those who you are offered up as candidates and how well they have upheld the Constitution. They are hoping that you will remain ignorant and easily fooled by their lies and empty promises. Why don't we surprise them by proving we are not the ignorant fools they take us to be while they lead our nation to its ruin? It is your country as well, and regardless of what others may say, I do love it and am hoping to save it from itself.

Just Who Is In Charge

2008-04-22T20:05:00.000-07:00

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people."
John Adams

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
James Madison

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
Thomas Jefferson

It is apparent from the quotes above that our founding fathers considered it essential that the people of this country be knowledgeable if they wished to retain their liberties, but knowledgeable about what? I don't think they were talking about trivial matters such as what is on television this evening. I think they just may have been referring to what their government was doing and whether their governments actions were within the confines of their Constitutional authority.

For the people to be able to determine if their elected representatives were governing according to the Constitution, they would first have to know what the Constitution says. In that instance I find the knowledge of many to be severely lacking.

Daniel Webster once said that "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

So, as the title of this article suggests, just who is in charge? Most people would be inclined to say that the President is in charge. That is not true, we the people are in charge, at least we would be if we had the courage to be.

The Constitution was a compact, or a contract, agreed upon by the people of this country that gives the government certain specifically defined powers. Thomas Jefferson stated it this way, "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."

In Federalist Paper #78, Alexander Hamilton wrote the following, and although it was in regards to the Judiciary, the meaning is clear. (For those who are not familiar with the Federalist Papers, they are a definitive collection of essays regarding the intent of the Constitution), "Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former."

Hamilton explained that in greater detail moments later in the same essay, "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. "

We, the people of this country, have allowed our government to take upon themselves powers which are not theirs to wield. Why have we allowed them to do this? There are numerous reasons. Over two hundred years ago, a man named Alexander Tytler wrote the following, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." In other words, we vote for the candidates who make the best sounding promises, regardless of whether the Constitution grants them the authority to keep those promises.

Returning to Federalist Paper #78, Alexander Hamilton had this to say about that exact scenario, "Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. "

Another reason we have allowed our government to assume powers it has no authority to assume is because of fear. We are warned of threats to our safety, or our national security that can only be answered by legislative action by our benevolent, (sarcasm intended), government. A perfect example is the many laws passed in the name of Homeland Security following September 11. James Madison warned us about that when he said, "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

Whatever our reasons may be, the desire for government subsidies, (handouts), fear, or just plain apathy, we have allowed our government to step outside the boundaries of power and authority which the Constitution grants them.

If we truly wanted our government to take these additional powers upon themselves, there is a way provided, and it is found in the Constitution itself. Article 5 of the Constitution states, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

If we want the government to have these powers, the only legal way to grant them those powers is by a Constitutional amendment. However, as Alexander Hamilton explained, "Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act."

In other words, unless we amend the Constitution to grant our government powers that are not currently clearly enumerated within the Constitution, they do not have those powers, and for them to assume them is ILLEGAL!

Although it is pure hypocrisy for Abraham Lincoln to even have said this, there is one final quote which I would like for everyone to consider, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

Over the course of our nations history the people of this country have given their power and authority to the government. Now, instead of being the masters of the government, we are now their servants. We have forgotten the meaning of the words Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Our rights and our liberties come from God, not the government. We have given up those rights and are not likely to regain them. Samuel Adams expressed my sentiments much better than I ever could, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; My your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Great Letter to the Editor

2008-04-16T18:04:00.001-07:00

The following letter was in my local paper today. I am not including the authors name but I looked him up in the phone book and got his permission to send this out and post it on my blog. He even told me he considered sending it to Bush himself, but that Bush would never see it and why waste a stamp. He also told me that he hoped I realized it was pure sarcasm.

News reporters and business owners of small and larger companies have expressed a need for "undocumented" (illegal) workers.

Some say they cannot stay competitive without them. I suspect there is some truth there.

But what about the flip side? Are we then paying too much for other services? Mexico has qualified engineers, attorney, designers, councilmen and skilled craftsmen just as we do. Why not have these folks also set up shop here, and all of our wallets will thicken.

Professional people should be just as welcome and appreciated as the laborers. Some might say "This can't happen, you must be a citizen. You must have university degrees, certification, board approval and permits, etc." Well our immigration requirements seem to a be a little loose right now. There are "sanctuary cities" where citizenship requirements are ignored, and I hear some illegals can vote in city/county elections. Has the trend started?

Just think of it. If all our doctors, lawyers, bankers, teachers, contractors, politicians, well, everyone that provides a service were illegals, our bank accounts would increase tremendously.

Perhaps the greatest gain would be realized by applying this concept to state and federal governments. If congresspersons, attorneys general, even our president, had to compete with and/or be replaced with illegals, the savings would be stupefying.

I think its worth trying. Write or call your mayor, local council people, governor and the U.S. Congress and demand equal treatment in employment opportunities throughout the United States at all levels.

No, It's Not A Fairy Tale, But It Certainly Is Grim

2008-04-11T19:49:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time there was a nation inhabited by people who came from a multitude of other nations. These people believed in a philosophy which was described by the following words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This nation fought a war against an more prepared and equipped oppressive enemy to secure their independence. After gaining independence it decided that it needed some form of government which would "...form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

Sounds like the beginning of quite the fairy tale doesn't it? Well it isn't, and I am sorry to say that the story, although not completed, appears not to have a happy ending. It is the story of our nation, the United States of America.

The principles upon which this nation was founded are sound, no matter how many mistakes were made by the men who held positions of power throughout the course of its history.

The principles upon which this nation was formed were conceived and actualized by men of honor, men of courage, and men of great wisdom. Men with names like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin, Henry, and Hamilton. Men like Nathan Hale who stated just before he was to be hung, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." How many men would be willing to make that claim today?

These men had a vision for this nation, which John Jay described in Federalist Paper #2, "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."

This nation opened its doors to people from all over the world who wished to come and participate in this great experiment, that people from all nations could live together, united, working for the common good of the nation as a whole. This concept was explained perfectly by Thomas Jefferson when he said, "Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules."

When compared to the entire history of the world, this nations existence has merely been the blink of an eye, yet in our short time here we have already brought about our imminent downfall. Just as a child grows into adolescence and forgets much of what it was taught in its early years, our nation has forgotten the principles upon which is was founded. The names of our founding fathers are fading from our memories, and the principles they left us have long since been forgotten. Once again I am reminded of something said by Thomas Jefferson, "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction."

Without character... The first amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Patrick Henry could have been predicting our future when he stated that "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."

John Adams, our second president declared, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."

We have forgotten these principles, and in so doing have chosen the path that is leading to the end to this once great nation. I find it ironic that the people of this country are fond of using the phrase God Bless America. Why should he when we have turned our backs on Him?

Thomas Jefferson once said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

James Monroe, the fifth president must be weeping in his grave, as he predicted exactly what has happened to this country, "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."

The country that was founded by those men over two hundred years ago is long gone, the country which contained "a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..."

It has been replaced by a politically correct quagmire of multiculturalism, full of ignorant and apathetic people more concerned about the outcome of some sporting event, or the next American Idol, than they are about their freedom and liberty.

When voting for their representatives, and make no mistake, they represent us, not lead us, they take the word of these pathological liars splattered across their televisions in slick 30 second sound bites. They are too lazy, apathetic, or both to research the truth regarding the people upon whom they place the sacred trust to uphold the Constitution.

For instance, those seeking office are always telling us how their policies will create more jobs. However, James Garfield, the twentieth president made the following comments regarding that very subject, "It is no part of the functions of the National Government to find employment for the people, and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for his purpose, we should only be taxing 40 millions of people to keep a few thousand employed."

Benjamin Franklin was more to the point when he made the following comment over two hundred years ago, "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."

Theodore Roosevelt was less politically correct than would be acceptable today, but his thoughts cut to the very heart of the situation in the following two quotes,

"The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight."

"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs."

When Theodore Roosevelt spoke of 'an American' he meant exactly that as he explains in the following, "There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent. Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else."

Thinking like that is just not acceptable today. To expect someone to pull their own weight, to not place his burdens upon his fellow men, and to claim total allegiance to this country? Those thoughts would be cause enough today to label Roosevelt a racist, and unsympathetic to the poor and downtrodden at the minimum. In this politically correct multicultural society it is totally unacceptable to hold people accountable for their actions, and to expect allegiance to our nation and the principles upon which it was founded goes completely against the concept of multiculturalism.

It is now commonplace that this we bend over backwards to accommodate beliefs other than those upon which our nation was founded. While we are tolerant of the beliefs of others, the very beliefs that made America what it is are now considered to be politically incorrect. English is no longer the language that binds this country together, and if we demand it be spoken we are labeled racist and intolerant.

The ability to publicly display our religious beliefs, the same beliefs as those held by our founding fathers, is now publicly shunned, and worse prohibited by our Supreme Court. Yet we make accommodations for those with other beliefs, we practice tolerance while their religion preaches intolerance. From the Quran, or Koran, whichever way you wish to spell it, Surah 4, verse 89 states, “They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

And if that isn’t bad enough, the ultimate goal of their religion is plainly stated in Surah 8 verse 39, “Fight them until their is no dissension and the religion is entirely Allah's.”

We are no longer a nation “speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs” When I speak out on these issues I am told that I am intolerant, but anyone who judges me by my actions knows better. The simple fact is that people come to this country to live of their own free will, we do not import them under duress. The least they could do is respect our customs, our language, and most of all, our laws.

Again, it is due to our ignorance and our apathy that we so easily fall for the concepts of political correctness and multiculturalism. It is for the same reasons that our nation has come to the point it is at today, the point where our elected representatives are mere puppets being controlled by hidden masters.

It is at this point that I am labeled a nut, a conspiracy theorist. Yet Theodore Roosevelt believed it, so did Woodrow Wilson.

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”
Theodore Roosevelt

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Woodrow Wilson

Our country is at a tipping point, at the edge of an abyss from which if we fall into, we will never be able to restore those freedoms and liberties upon which we were founded. In November we will once again go to the polls to elect a new president. It is up to us to think seriously about who we intend to vote for. A vote for any of the three main candidates is a vote to push us off into the abyss. Ron Paul would have been a good choice, but the media ignored him and the people never accepted what he was telling them about our country’s future.

We have a very short window of opportunity to reverse the damage that has been done if this nation is to survive. Our children are being educated in this politically correct multicultural society. When the generation that still remembers the principles upon which our nation was founded passes into history, it will be over for America unless we can educate the youth in regards to the principles which made America great.

However I am not holding my breath. And that is why I say that the story about the United States of America is all but concluded. I don’t believe the people of this country care enough to do what is right for our nations future. As long as they have a roof over their head, three meals a day and a television to numb their minds, they are content.

The end is coming, and coming quickly. Believe me or not, but when it gets here I don’t want to hear people say that someone should have warned them. When the end comes, if you have any complaints, take them to your benevolent government because I don’t want to hear them.

Charlton Heston Speech From 1999

2008-04-09T20:55:00.001-07:00

I didn't write this, but it is worth sharing.

Neal

The following is a speech NRA President Charlton Heston gave to the Harvard Law School Forum on February 16, 1999.

I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."

There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling repainted I'll do my best. There always seems to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

As I pondered our visit tonight, it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty...your own freedom of thought...your own compass for what is right.

Dedicating the memorial at a Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you...the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve...I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured senile, crazy old man." I know...I'm pretty old...but I sure Lord ain't senile.

As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that.
I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.

Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."

Let me read a few examples.

• At Antioch College in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation...all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.

• In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDS, the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not...need not...tell their patients that they are infected.

• At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.

• In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.

• In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.

• At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.

Yeah, I know...that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a no-no now.

For me, hyphenated identities are awkward...particularly "Native-American." I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation native American...with a capital letter on "American."

Finally, just last month...David Howard, head of the Washington, D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.

As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly, (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."

What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind.

Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe?
It scares me to death and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that...and abide it...you are - by your grandfathers' standards - cowards.

Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayors...pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.

I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?

The answer's been here all along.

I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.
You simply...disobey.

Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.

But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.

I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King...who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea in to Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam.

In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful...it hurts.

Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies.
You must be willing to be humiliated...to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma.

You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let me tell you a story.

A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world.
Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black.

I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time and decided to attend.

What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.

"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."

It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.

Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.
"SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY..."

Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner's selling it."

Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warner, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.

When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself...jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office.

When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors...choke the halls of the board of regents.

When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment...march on that school and block its doorways.
When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you...petition them, oust them, banish them.

When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month...boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.

Thank you

Just 8 Short Months To Decide

2008-04-03T21:42:00.000-07:00

"My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy!"
Thomas Jefferson

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams

"Give me liberty or give me death."
Patrick Henry

The 2008 presidential election is just eight short months away. That is both a good thing, and a bad thing. It is good because we will finally be rid of George W. Bush, unless of course something terrible happens and he uses all those unconstitutional powers he has granted himself and cancels the election, declares martial law, and declares himself King George.

The upcoming election is a bad thing as well. It is bad because look at who we have to choose from. We have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are fighting bitterly for their parties nomination, although both are campaigning on pretty much the same issues. It is amazing how arrogant both of them are, thinking that they are best qualified to become president when neither of them seems to understand what powers the Constitution grants the president, or the government for that matter. I defy either of them to show me which Article and Clause in the Constitution grants them the power and authority to enact universal health care. Then again the American people aren't much wiser in that regard, otherwise they wouldn't have the support they do now.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama seem to think they are the most qualified to become president, as they are so fond of reminding us. What a difference between these two and George Washington, who humbly accepted the call of the people to become our first president, "On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies."

On the other side of the aisle we have Senator John McCain who, although he is running as a Republican, seems to be suffering from an identity crisis. Anyone who had taken the time to look into Senator McCain's stance on the issues would be forced to come to the conclusion that he cannot decide if he wants to be a Republican or a Democrat. And this is the best that the Republican Party has to offer?

Congressman Ron Paul was the best chance this country had of changing course and returning to a government based upon Constitutional principles, but his campaign was sabotaged by his own party, the media, and the puppet masters who actually run things in this country.

Although Ron Paul gathered a substantial amount of support I feel that he might be a bit naive in thinking that a true awakening has taken place in this country that will continue to spread his philosophy of government according to the Constitution.

Ron Paul supporters fall into two categories, those who have been aware for many years that our country is going down the tubes, and those who supported him based upon his stance on one particular issue.

Those of us who realize how serious things are in this country looked to Ron Paul almost as a ’last chance’ to save this country, at least within the system. Then there were those who supported Dr. Paul because of his stance on the war, or his stance on the FED and the IRS, or some other issue. I would hope that in supporting Dr. Paul their eyes may have been opened to some of the other issues that face us, but I am not holding my breath. Americans tend to have a very short memory and will soon forget about Ron Paul. Some will choose not to vote, others will vote Republican, because any Republican is better than a Democrat. Back to business as usual, while America and our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties continue circling the drain.

People just do not want to take the time to study the issues and the problems that face this nation, and that is something that those in power are counting on. There are two more quotes that I feel are appropriate at this time. The first is by Thomas Jefferson,

"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” The second is by General Douglas MacArthur, "No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation."

How vigilant are the people of this country, how much do they participate? Not very much, of that I can assure you. To give you an example, most people where I work are aware that I am interested in politics and government. So I am often asked who I intended to vote for. I would, without hesitation, say Ron Paul. Nine times out of ten they would reply with, ‘Who’s that?’

It makes no difference if the supported him or opposed him, but to be aware of the issues, and the stances the candidates take on them, they should have at least watched a few of the many debates held by both parties. So they should have been at least aware of who Ron Paul was. There ignorance shows how uninformed they are, yet many of them still intend to vote. They will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, or Barack because he is black, or McCain because he is a POW. When I hear that reasoning I just want to scream and shake some sense into them. But then, what good would it do? People are too concerned with the cost of gas, or the economy. It would be too much to ask that they understood that all the problems this country faces have been orchestrated to bring us to a pre-planned destination, which is the end of our Constitutional form of government and the end of the sovereign United States.

Not too many people have heard of it, but there is a thing called the Hegelian Principle. What it boils down to is that a problem is created, this is called the thesis. Next there is an anti-thesis to generate opposition to the problem. The final step is synthesis, which provides a solution to the problem. This brings about change which would have been unacceptable unless it was offered as a solution to a problem.

Think about it this way. I am sure everyone has seen some form of gangster movie in which the mob terrorizes businesses and then offers them protection from that harassment, at a cost of course. Would the businesses have been willing to just pay the mob for no reason? Of course not, therefore a problem was created which required the solution the mob offered. That is Hegel’s Principle in a nutshell.

This principle has been used to condition the people of this country into accepting so many things that we would otherwise have found repulsive, and the cycle continues. Each solution brings problems of its own that require a new solution, which in turn bring about more problems, until the ultimate goal is achieved, whatever that goal may be.

This theory can be applied to the War in Iraq, the problem with illegal aliens, the current economic situation in America, the loss of our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties, etc. etc. Each solution gives those in power more power, more control and at the same time takes away another slice of our freedom in the process.

Where does it end? When we have lost all our rights, all our freedom, and all those little things our founding fathers thought shouldn’t be messed with which are contained within the Bill of Rights.

You can call me a kook, a conspiracy nut, or anything you want. When the time finally arrives when the jackbooted storm troopers come knocking on your door or you see the military marching through the streets of your cities and towns, then you will realize I was right and that you should have listened. By then it will be too late. I would rather be safe than sorry. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”

As Jefferson said, it is better to resist your government even if you are wrong, than not to do so at all. I would argue that it is better to resist your government before you no longer have the right to do so.

Since you have put up with my ramblings for this long, I would ask that you do one more thing, Google The United States Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, or Operation Garden Plot and see what you come up with. Then again, why don’t I just save you some time? Annex A, Section B of Operation Garden Plot “defines tax protesters, militia groups, religious cults, and general anti-government dissenters as Disruptive Elements. This calls for the deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil disorder.”

You wanted to know where all this ends, well that is the end right there. When you lose the right to protest, to seek recourse against injustices perpetrated upon you by your government, you have become a slave to them.

Now that you know the ultimate goal of those in power you have one of two options. You can either get informed and join the ranks of those who are fighting to stop this madness. Or you can go back to your television sets and hide from the truth. Your choice, but go back to the beginning of this article and re-read the quote by Patrick Henry to know my choice.

Our yard

2008-04-03T18:01:00.000-07:00

It's that time of year again, time to fix this yard up and make it presentable. This my friends is why I haven't been writing too much lately...

This is one of my babies

2008-03-31T16:49:00.000-07:00

Thoughts From A Recovering Addict

2008-03-30T21:25:00.000-07:00

I find it rather amazing how uninformed the people of this country are in regards to so many issues. Not only are Americans uninformed about many things, a good percentage of us are arrogant and think that we are better than the rest of the world. I witnessed that a lot as a service member assigned overseas. Far too many Americans were unwilling to learn the language or the customs of the host country, and they treated the locals as second rate people. Even back then I was ashamed to be an American because of the way my countrymen acted.

That arrogance is no more predominant than in our governments foreign policy. Does the United States not feel they are the champions of democracy and it is their duty/obligation to ensure that the rest of the world has a democratic system of government? Why are we always trying to impose our values upon the rest of the world?

How many people have stopped to consider that maybe the rest of the world doesn't want our values, our system of government, or anything else that we offer them, (except maybe our money, and lately they don't even want that due to the value of the dollar). Have we ever stopped to consider that the people of the world must find us hypocrites? After all, our country isn't doing too well now, is it? Could it be that the rest of the world does not have that cloud of arrogance impairing their vision and their thought processes. Maybe the rest of the world sees the truth, that the American system, while originally was sound, is now failing and that America is on life support with a terminal condition.

I think it is quite possible that the rest of the world pictures America much like we picture a person addicted to methamphetamines. After all, doesn't a person addicted to methamphetamines live their lives in a drug induced euphoria oblivious to the harm they are doing to themselves? Yet those who are not addicted to the drug can clearly see the damage that the drug is doing to the addict. So, while the addict continues their self destructive behavior, the rest of the people shun the addict in disgust.

Could it be that our arrogance, our ignorance, and our apathy are the drug of choice for Americans, and the rest of the world is just sitting back watching this country implode?

Our country was once the land of opportunity, and arguably the best place in the world to live. Our system of government, while not perfect, provided the best form of government which balanced the rights of the people with the powers needed to maintain harmony between the states.

James Madison once said about our form of government,

“If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.”

Take a second and think about that, re-read it if you must, for it is of great importance. Whatever powers our government has it gets from us. If they abuse it, (which they have), we have the right and the moral obligation to either remove the offenders from office or to take that power away from them altogether. Before that can happen, the people must first become aware that an abuse of power and authority has occurred. That is hard when you are lied to on so many fronts that you have to spend hours seeking out the truth. But as James Madison once said, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." It is therefore your duty, your responsibility to keep yourselves informed.

It is in this context that I like to consider myself a recovering addict. I was at one time just as blind to the truth as the majority of this country. I accepted the fact that America was still the greatest place in the world, (and still could be, but not for much longer), that our government was still the best in the world, and that nothing America did could possibly be wrong.

My withdrawal symptoms were painful. I first had to accept that I had been lied to for most of my life by people who I cared for. I had to accept that these people had been lied to themselves and had bought into the lie. I had to accept that the institutions in place to educate me had lied to me, or worse, knew the truth but were spreading the lie to keep me enslaved for the benefit of some unseen masters. I had to accept that much of what I had been taught about our nations history was a lie, much of what I had been told about my government was a lie, and most of what my government tells me is a lie as well.

Once I accepted the fact that I had been lied to, I had to begin the arduous task of educating myself. To erase everything I had been taught and re-learn the truth concerning two hundred plus years of history is a very time consuming process. I have been in the process of doing that for over four years now, and every day I learn something new. I may never know the full truth, but I am constantly seeking it.

The final stage of my recovery was anger. I became angry at my government for lying to me and abusing the trust I had placed in them. I became angry at the schools I attended for hiding the truth from me, or at least teaching a watered down, politically correct version of it. I became angry at the news media for either openly lying to me, or at least of shielding me from the truth. Finally I am beginning to get angry at the rest of the people of this country who refuse to admit that something is terrible wrong with this country, even when confronted with undeniable facts.

Al Gore recently wrote a book entitled 'An Inconvenient Truth' concerning the subject of Global Warming. I have decided to provide, what I call, a few painful truths that people need to hear about the United States of America.

I am hoping that one of these truths will strike a nerve with you, spark your interest so that you begin to THINK on your own. I am hoping that you will begin to question what you have been taught, and the things you being told. If I can crack open that cloud of ignorance, let one truth filter in, our country may still stand a chance.

Painful Truth Number 1. The United States of America is broke, absolutely bankrupt. Our government does not have a dime with which to buy a cup of coffee without going further into debt. Our current national debt is an astronomical $9.4 TRILLION. That is how much money our country has borrowed from others to keep itself operating.

NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

I find there is a lot of confusion between the terms the national debt and the budget deficit. In simple terms, if you make $100 a day and you spend $110 a day, the $10 difference is the deficit, it is merely a shortfall of funds. To continue that level of spending you have to use some form of credit, either take out a loan, or use a credit card. The amount you borrow above and beyond what you take in income is your debt. The same principle applies to our government, they have spent NINE TRILLION more than they have taken in in from us in the form of taxes. The interest alone on that debt is over $400 billion dollars a year. To put that into comparison, the average expenditure for education in this country is only $61 billion annually.

Right now, if every man, woman, and child in this country were required to come up with the money to pay their share of this debt, we would, each of us, have to write out a check for $31,000. Yet instead of reigning in their spending our government continues to spend money in a fashion that would put a drunken sailor on shore leave to shame.

Consider that as of this date our government has spent $506 billion on the Iraq War, with no end in sight. That is $341 million dollars a day to fight a war that has no sign of ending. (I am not arguing for or against the justification for being there, just commenting on the cost)

Consider this, although our nation is not taking in enough money to finance it's own operations, yet it intends to give out $1200 stimulus checks to the people in the hopes that the money spent will stimulate our ailing economy and create jobs.

Aside from the fact that the only thing it is going to stimulate is the economy of China I would like to think about that from an economic viewpoint for a just a moment. Consider that the U.S. has a population of over 300 million, and if the government only intends to give that $1200 rebate check to 50% of the people, that still totals $180 billion. Where are they going to get this money from? They are going to have to borrow it, that is where they are going to get it. But hey, it is only $180 billion. What's that compared to $9.4 trillion?

The blame for this massive debt can be laid at the feet of each and every American, as they are unwilling to hold their elected officials accountable. Instead of demanding that our government stop the spending, they hold their hands out to the benevolent government, saying GIMME, GIMME, GIMME! We have untold numbers of people flocking to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama because they are promising us all affordable health care. The whole entitlement mentality, (which began with Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal), the thought that the government owes them something, or at least is responsible for taking care of them, at the expense of others is ruining this country and nobody wants to admit it.

Thomas Jefferson once said that "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Jefferson also said "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." and, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

People have been told by the news media and their elected representatives that our economy is in trouble because of predatory lending practices in the housing market and the associated foreclosures. Just wait until the majority of the baby boomers retire and see what happens to our countries finances then. Are you willing to pay higher taxes so that you can finance their retirement and medical expenses?
Painful Truth Number 2- You as an individual mean nothing to your government. As they run for office they can make all the promises concerning your health and well being they want, but the truth is that once they get into office you are nothing more than a meaningless slave to them.

If they cared why would they allow America, which used to be a manufacturing giant, exporting goods all over the world, to become a nation that imports a vast majority of the things we consume. Our trade deficit with countries like China continue to grow at an alarming rate? Why is it that Made In The USA used to be the standard for quality in the world and is now something which is becoming harder and harder to find?

While it is not funny, I have to laugh whenever my wife's family in the Philippines tell me that they want me to send them goods made in the USA. I tell them to read the labels on the things they ask for, they are most likely made in China, Taiwan, Mexico, Bangladesh, or even their homeland of the Philippines, but most certainly not in the USA.

What has happened to all the jobs in this country? It used to be that when you went to work for a major corporation you were set for life. You received a decent salary, good benefits and a good retirement package. Not anymore, downsizing and plant closures are so common that we have become numb to them, until one of them affects us personally.

Yet why is that the pay of the CEO's of these corporate giants continues to skyrocket? If the minimum wage had kept up at an equal percentage to the pay of the CEO's it would be $26 an hour now!

Our jobs are being lost at an astonishing rate, but the president tells us that jobs are being created. He is partly true, but he fails to mention that they are service oriented jobs. The manufacturing industry, which is the backbone of any economy, has been decimated.

Where did these jobs go? To find out you only have to read the labels on the things you buy. They invariably say, Made in China, Made in Bangladesh, Made in Mexico....Get the picture? Why should these greedy corporate giants pay you a good salary and provide you with benefits when they can find sweatshop laborers in some other country?

Then there is the fact that a good percentage of the remaining high tech jobs have been outsourced to India? What about the importation of slave laborers, commonly known as illegal immigrants, who work for a pittance of what Americans are used to? What about the push by people like Bill Gates to up the number of H1B visas for foreign workers? We are getting squeezed out of jobs with the importation and exportation of our industrial base. Soon we will be a third world nation just like those from which we draw our labor force now.

Yet your government allows this to happen. They refuse to take any serious measures to seal off our border, to impose fines upon companies that hire illegal workers. The news makes a big deal about showing the raids where they round up these illegal alien workers. However, we never hear about any hard time in prison for the employers. If they started having to spend time in prison I bet those jobs would soon be opening up to Americans at decent wages.

On top of that our tax code is set up so that the companies that send their jobs overseas get massive tax breaks. Our government knows this and they thumb their nose at us while our taxes go up and we lose our jobs. Yet we sit back and watch these people blatantly lie to us about creating jobs.

Painful Truth Number 3. Which is a continuation of the preceding, is why is the government allowing this to happen? They are not allowing it to happen, they are orchestrating it! America is owned by the banks, and I do not mean Bank of America! I am talking about the big banks of which the Federal Reserve Bank is but a minor player. These banks pull the strings that make our elected representatives dance.

America had grown to be a huge economic success and that threatened their plans for world governance. It is not enough that they have more money than they could spend in ten lifetimes, they want the whole world to bow to their demands. So they set about to destroy us economically. They bought politicians, the media, then they gained control of our monetary system via the Federal Reserve Act. Once they had control of the printing of our money, and they had a handful of politicians in their hand, our countries fate was sealed.

Now via the FED these banks control our economy by the raising and lowering of interest rates. The FED can create economic booms and downturns at will. On top of that the outsourcing and insourcing of cheap laborers is depressing our wages dragging down the standard of living for American workers.

On top of that our government is spending money like crazy. A good percentage of the money they are borrowing is from the FED, which they create out of thin air with nothing to back it up.

I used to remember my father telling me about all of the gold in Fort Knox which backed up our paper money. It used to be that you could read on a dollar bill that the Federal Reserve Note was exchangeable for gold at any Federal Reserve Bank, not any more. When that gold backing disappeared the FED could create as much paper money they wanted. The result is inflation.

When too much currency is floating around, it loses its values causing things to cost more. You may think that the price has risen, but it hasn't, not that much anyway. Think about it for a moment. Say you have an imaginary economy and there are 1 million pieces of currency floating around to sustain that economy. In this economy you want to buy a dozen eggs. The price of the eggs is, say $1. So you pay for your eggs and all is well. Then those in control of the economy decide to place another million pieces of currency into circulation. Now instead of your money being equal to its full value of $1, it is worth 50%, or fifty cents. The next time you go to buy eggs you find that they have gone up to $2. You say to yourself that prices have risen, but they have not, your money has just become half as valuable due to inflation.

Thomas Jefferson was a very wise man and he made two statements that describe exactly what has happened to this country.

“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.”

He also said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Painful Truth Number 4, you no longer have any rights. Everyone, or at least I hope everyone, knows what the Bill of Rights is. It is a series of ten amendments to the Constitution that protect specific rights of the citizenry that the government was, under no circumstances to violate. Let's see how well they have done.

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

Let me see now, freedom to freely exercise your religious beliefs...Tell your kids to praying in a school and see how well that goes over. You might just offend someone who does not believe in God. Yet they have the right to play music laced with obscenities that offends you. You can practice your religion as freely as you want, AS LONG AS YOU DO IT INDOORS WHERE NO ONE ELSE HAS TO HEAR YOU. I wonder how well that would have went over with John the Baptist?

That ties in with the freedom of speech as well. If you cannot freely pray or practice your faith, you are not as free in your speech as you thought, are you? Aside from that, try using a racial slur and see what happens, not that I condone using them, but just try it and see what happens. You will be labeled a racist or possibly charged with hate speech. Can't happen? Have you read House Resolution 1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007? Your freedom of speech is now being monitored and punished according to governmental regulation, and soon your thoughts will be as well.

How about freedom to peaceably assemble? Try holding a rally or a protest somewhere without obtaining the proper permits. See whether you are allowed to continue or hauled off to jail. How free is does your speech sound now? Looks like the first amendment is pretty much shot to bits.

The second amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Do we have a well regulated militia which can provide for the security of free states? Hmmm, if you consider that in modern times the militia is considered the National Guard, I would say the answer is no. Not when their supplies are being used overseas to defend the freedom of the Iraqi people. We can't protect the states too well when their supplies are half way across the globe.

What exactly is a militia anyway? According to U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, § 311 the militia is:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Maybe according to section (b)(2) we do have a militia after all. However I venture to bet that the government would never call upon the citizens of this country to defend it from something like, say thousands of illegal aliens crossing our borders in what can only be described as an invasion. No, that just wouldn't do at all! Then again how many people would be willing to, as George Washington once said, "It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it."

How about the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed upon? How many gun laws has our government passed? How much hassle has it become for a law abiding citizen to purchase a firearm? Can you carry a gun on your person without a permit? Need I say more? Looks like the second amendment is shot to pieces as well, (no pun intended).

The third amendment, "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This one, for the time being, is still intact. One for our side.

The fourth amendment? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Have you read the Patriot Act in its entirety? Section 213 of the Patriot Act, otherwise known as the Sneak and Peek Provision, allows any federal law enforcement agency to enter your home or business without you being present to collect evidence and they do not ever have to tell you they have been there. This violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Sections 202 & 216 also allow any federal law enforcement agency to monitor your internet traffic, read your e mails and intercept your cell phone calls, if they suspect that you are committing a crime. No warrant is required. This violates the Fourth as well as the Fifth Amendment. By way of these two infractions the fourth amendment has been shredded.

The Fifth Amendment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Due process, what's that? Have you read Senate Bill 3930, Pub. L. No. 109-366 Stat. 2600, otherwise known as the Military Commissions Act? If you are defined as a terrorist, whether it be domestic or otherwise, you can now be imprisoned without charges, denied legal representation, and brought before a military tribunal due to the authority granted our government under the Military Commissions Act. Your family may never see your face again, and they have no legal recourse to obtain information regarding your status. The Military Commissions Act thumbs its nose at the fifth, sixth and the eighth amendments as well.

The Sixth Amendment- "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The Seventh Amendment-"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." For the time being this amendment appears to be in tact as well. Our government appears to be happy to allow us to sue each other for any number of frivolous reasons.

The Eighth Amendment-"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." What about no bail? (Does the term waterboarding mean anything to you?) This amendment is shot as well.

The Ninth Amendment? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Read that again just to make sure you understand what it says. In common terms, it means this, the federal government cannot pass laws infringing upon a right just because the Constitution does not specifically state that you have that right. You may be hard pressed to find a right that hasn't been legislated upon by your state or local government, but the federal government has no right to pass laws infringing upon a right just because that right is not mentioned in the Constitution. Can you count how many laws violate these unspoken rights? This amendment is a draw because you don't have any rights once you consider that if the federal government hasn't passed a law about them, the state or local governments have.

Finally, the tenth amendment? "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."

Let me see, where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the power to dictate what can and cannot be taught in our schools? Where does it give the federal government the ability to restrict private use of the airwaves? Where does it say in the Constitution that the government can mandate environmental policies? Get the picture? Those rights are for the states alone and the federal government has no business butting into the rights of the states. So this amendment is shot to pieces as well.

Let's tally up our score. Out of ten amendments, seven are gone, two are wins for us, and the other a draw. Or in terms all you football fans will understand, we have a 2-1-7 record. Not too good. Still think we are free?

Although our government claims that all the things they do are based upon good intentions I would like to remind you what Daniel Webster said about good intentions, "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

These are just a few of the painful truths I have learned on my journey to freedom from the addiction to ignorance, apathy and arrogance. There are many more, but I hope that I have given you enough reason to question the supposed truth you have been told. However there will always be those who choose to remain in their comfort zone of ignorance and apathy. For those of you who choose this option, for those of you who wish to keep your heads buried in the sand, hiding from the truth of what is happening in this country, I have only one thing to say, 'You know, while you are bent over with your head in the sand with your butt sticking up in the air like that, there is always someone who is willing to come along and screw you."

Our national anthem says that we are the '...land of the free and the home of the brave.' I suggest we change it to '...the land of the meek and the home of the slaves.' As I said, you may think you are free because you don't see the bars to your cell, but they are there, they are invisible, and you have allowed your government to put them there.

When Are People Going To Wake Up?

2008-03-25T19:53:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I am tempted to ask people if they can see China. The reason I say that is because they have to have their heads buried so far in the sand that they must be able to see it. It is either that or they have them buried so far up a certain part of their anatomy that they must be able to see their tonsils.

Before I explain why I say this, I would like for you to read something. This is from Federalist Paper #2, written by John Jay.

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

What does that say to you? Does it mean anything at all to you? Do I sound mad? You bet your ass I am mad! I am mad at the people of this country who tolerate the concept of multiculturalism that is dividing us, instead of uniting us as John Jay stated. I am mad that we are willing to look the other way when thousands upon thousands of criminal illegal aliens, come to this country and refuse to obey our laws. I am mad as hell that the almighty dollar is more important than the future of our country.

Why the rant? Every day on the way to work I pick up the local newspaper to see what has gone in the past twenty four hours. Today was no different than any other day, but you could say it was the straw that broke the camels back.

From today's paper....

Meth Bust Nets Couple In YC-"A Nortenos gang member had a loaded shotgun-and his 3-year old son-in the car as he set off to sell methamphetamine... John Paul Romero... Also arrested was Romreo's girlfriend Roseline Marie Arellano..."

Fourth Suspect Sought In Slayings-"A fourth suspect has been identified in a triple homicide in...A warrant charging three counts of homicide has been issued for Alfredo Valdovino Chavez...."the three other suspects? Guillermo Garcia, Nicolaus Solano, Saul Marroquin...

And that is just from the front page. If I go to the police blotter I read that out of five felony arrests, three of them state,

Alberto Delgado Ramirez, was arrested on suspicion of criminal impersonation. (ID theft)

Alejandro Jimenez, was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, battery causing great bodily injury, and making criminal threats.

Arnulfo DeLuna, was arrested on suspicion of burglary.

Going on to the DUI arrests, out of nine DUI arrests, in the last twenty four hours, six of them are Ramon Chacon Alcala, Carlos Banuelos Rodriguez, Pablo Gutierrez Lomeli, Saucedo Diego Merino, Gilberto Munoz Orozco, and Jose Manuel Rios-Rivera.

Am I saying these are illegal aliens? NO! Am I saying they are Hispanic? Yes! Out of 14 arrests in the past twenty four hours 9 of them were committed by Hispanics. To be fair, the other two felony arrests, which were committed by persons other than Hispanic were for possession of nunchaku, and for a woman who beat the crap out of her spouse/cohabitant.

However, day after day I read the paper and see that the majority of names in Methamphetamine arrests are Hispanic. The majority of names on the police blotter are Hispanic. Day after day after day...

So my question is this, when are enough people going to get tired of this crap? When are we going to put aside political correctness and realize that a very large percentage of these Hispanics who come here as cheap laborers have no regard for our laws, our customs, for our country in general, and least of all for us?

When are we going to pull our heads out of the sand, or our asses, (whichever fits) and demand that our elected representatives begin representing the people of this country. By the people I mean the average folks who work, pay taxes and are trying their best to obey the laws. When are they going to stop pandering to the special interest groups who demand 'rights' for their race. When are they going to stop kissing the asses of the special interest groups who demand these cheap laborers?

Wake the hell up America before our country is overrun with people who care nothing for our laws, which implies that they care nothing about your safety or lives as well. Is it going to take your identity stolen, your house burgled, or you or your loved one killed by one of these people for you to wake up? I hope not, but I am not holding my breath, I am yelling, and I hope to God you can hear me!

Food for thought

2008-03-24T18:46:00.000-07:00

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is:
The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything.

Some Thoughts On D.C. v Heller

2008-03-22T17:48:00.000-07:00

In the two hundred plus years that the Bill of Rights has been in existence, never once has the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments on the intent of the second amendment.

Is it just me, or does that fact raise questions for you as well? Permit me to share the thoughts that ran through my head as I contemplated that fact. First off, why did it take so long for a case questioning the intent of the second amendment to be brought before the Supreme Court? Could it be that at one time the people of this country actually understood the intent and didn't need an explanation? Or could it be that those whose primary goal is the eventual disarmament of the American public have waited until they have a Supreme Court that is more likely to deliver a ruling based not on the actual intent, but their own personal beliefs? These are questions that all should be asking themselves as the Supreme Court deliberates on the case of D.C. v Heller.

In the case of D.C. v Heller the Supreme Court will finally have to rule on the intent of the second amendment. The case of D.C. v Heller involves a Mr. Dick Heller who wanted to keep a handgun in his home. He attempted to register it but was turned down because all handguns are banned in the District of Columbia. Heller took the case to court on the grounds that it was a second amendment right that he be allowed to own a handgun. The D.C. Circuit Court ruled in his favor and the case was appealed.

It is not the position of Mr. Heller that he be allowed to carry a handgun outside his home at will, merely that he has the right to have one inside his home which is readily accessible for home defense. His claim is that the second amendment protects that right.

On the other hand, the lawyers for the District of Columbia are claiming that the second amendment does not guarantee that right, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied inexorably to the formation and maintenance of a militia. It is now the Supreme Courts turn to settle this issue once and for all.

In the initial brief submitted to the Supreme Court, a synopsis of the petition states,

"This petition seeks review of an extraordinary decision by a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit that the District of Columbia’s longstanding law banning handguns but authorizing private possession of rifles and shotguns violates the Second
Amendment. This is the first time in the Nation’s history that a federal appellate court has invoked the Second Amendment to strike down any gun-control law. Absent review by this Court, the District of Columbia—a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well documented—will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

The entire brief can be found here if you are interested in reading it.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/DC_Final_Petition.pdf

The basic argument being heard by the Supreme Court is this, does the second amendment tie the right to gun ownership to the formation of a militia, or is it an individual right that cannot be infringed upon.

On March 18, the Supreme Court heard the arguments from Mr. Walter Dellinger, of O'Melveny & Meyers representing the District of Columbia, Mr. Alan Gura representing Mr. Heller, and with Mr. Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the United States as a non partial amicus curiae.

The entire session can be found at the link below if you wish to read it. I have to warn you, it is 110 pages long, but it contains some very enlightening exchanges between all the parties concerned and the Supreme Court Justices.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Before I continue let me make one thing perfectly clear, I have no legal degree, I do not have a huge staff of legal experts who can research case law with which I can form my arguments.

However in a case of this nature, which is questioning the intent of an amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, which is a part of our Constitution due to being a legally voted on and ratified amendment, it is my opinion, and my opinion alone, that court decisions which occurred after the ratification of the second amendment should have no bearing whatsoever in the formation of a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Allow me to explain. When lawyers argue criminal cases they often use case law as an example to back up their position, saying that a precedent has been set based upon a ruling delivered in a previous case. When a case is being tried in a local court, and a lawyer provides a precedent, it can, and should be, overruled by a precedent set by a higher court, such as a district court, or the Supreme Court.

This case, D.C. v Heller is questioning the intent of the Constitution itself in regards to a legally ratified amendment to that case. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...” Since the Constitution is the highest law in the land, there is no precedent that can be used to formulate a ruling. The Justices can come to a decision based upon their own opinions or beliefs, but this is what is known as judicial activism. Or they can go to the writings of those who drafted our Constitution and the Bill of Rights for guidance as to their intent. Those are the only two ways that the Justices can come to a decision, and for the sake of all gun owners, let’s hope they use the second method.

As I said, the arguments presented to the Court fill over one hundred pages. For brevities sake I will attempt to provide only the ones that I find most enlightening. I would suggest that if you have the time that you read the entire session for yourselves.

From the moment Mr. Dellinger began to speak on behalf of the District of Columbia, he made it clear he was trying to firmly tie the right to keep and bear arms to the formation and maintenance of the militia.

“The Second Amendment was a direct response to concern over Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gave the new national Congress the surprising, perhaps even the shocking, power to organize, arm, and presumably disarm the State militias. What is at issue this morning is the scope and nature of the individual right protected by the resulting amendment and the first text to consider is the phrase protecting a right to keep and bear arms.”

Mr. Dellinger then continues with the following statement.

“In the debates over the Second Amendment, every person who used the phrase "bear arms" used it to refer to the use of arms in connection with militia service and when Madison introduced the amendment in the first Congress, he exactly equated the phrase "bearing arms" with, quote, "rendering military service." We know this from the inclusion in his draft of a clause exempting those with religious scruples. His clause says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Mr. Dellinger then attempted to use a precedent set by the Supreme Court when it ruled in U.S. v Miller, that the possession of a sawed off shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Mr. Dellinger also stated, “I think, as this Court unanimously held in Miller, or at least noted in Miller -- I'll leave aside the debate. The court unanimously said in Miller that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in light of its obvious purpose to ensure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the military forces.”

Eventually Justice Kennedy then cut to the chase and asked, “Well, do you think the clause, the second clause, the operative clause, is related to something other than the militia?” To which Mr. Dellinger then replied, “No.”

A short time later the following exchange between Mr. Dellinger and Justice Ginsburg took place.

“JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Dellinger -

MR. DELLINGER: Yes.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: -- short of that, just to get your position clear, short of reactivating State militias, on your reading does the Second Amendment have any effect today as a restraint on legislation?

MR. DELLINGER: It would, Justice Ginsburg, if the State had a militia and had attributes of the militia contrary to a Federal law. And if it didn't -

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But it doesn't, as far as I know.

MR. DELLINGER: As far as I know, today it doesn't. And I'm not -- and the Respondents make that, that argument that the amendment is without a use. But you don't make up a new use for an amendment whose prohibitions aren't being violated.”

When I read this I was shocked to say the least. Is it the opinion of Mr. Dellinger, and the District of Columbia as well that the second amendment no longer has a use is our nation today?

That firmly established the District of Columbia’s stance, that the right for citizens of this country to own firearms is directly tied to their being a part of a militia, and that since there since there was no longer a militia the second amendment no longer serves a useful purpose. That could set a very frightening precedent if in fact the Court rules in their favor.

The next person to speak to the Justices was Paul D. Clement, acting as amicus curiae. As an impartial participant, he, theoretically, should not take sides. Therefore his opening statement was most encouraging.

“Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, as its text indicates, guarantees an individual right that does not depend on eligibility for or service in the militia.”

However, as the discussion continued the Justices began to question Mr. Clement on the relationship between our Bill of Rights and the English Bill of Rights. The following statement by Mr. Clements caught my attention.

“But what I was about to say is I think what is highly relevant in considering the threshold question of whether there's an individual right here at all is that the parallel provisions in the English Bill of Rights that were borrowed over included the right to petition and the right to keep and bear arms. Both of those appear with specific parallel references to the people. They are both rights that are given to the people.”

When discussing rights, there are natural rights, those which we are born with, and rights that are granted to us by way of laws. Please correct me if I am wrong about this, but are not the rights defined in the Bill of Rights considered natural rights, and therefore are to be protected by the government, and that they are also considered inalienable rights, that cannot be legislated away? If I am correct in my opinion, the right to keep and bear arms is not something that was given to the people by the government.

Next to present their views to the Justices was Mr. Alan Gura, who represented Mr. Heller.

In the course of questioning by Justice Stevens, the following took place.

“JUSTICE STEVENS: So we can -- consistent with your view, we can simply read this: "It shall not be unreasonably infringed"?

MR. GURA: Well, yes, Your Honor, to some extent, except the word "unreasonable" is the one that troubles us because we don't know what this unreasonable standard looks like.”

That answer, coming from an attorney that is supposed to be representing the peoples right to keep and bear arms is worrisome. For him to say that there is, as yet, an undefined line that could be considered reasonable infringement is troubling. Does not the second amendment state, “shall not be infringed” It makes no reference to a reasonable infringement, none whatsoever!

Those are just a few of the exchanges that took place that I found extremely enlightening, and troubling at the same time. There are a few other things I would like to cover however before I conclude.

When the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in favor of Mr. Heller, one of the judges, a Judge Henderson said the following in his dissenting view,

“To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.”

Is Judge Henderson saying that the District of Columbia is a separate entity from the United States, that the Constitution does not apply to the citizens within the District? I can see how one might come to that conclusion as it appears that the majority of our elected representatives do not understand, nor legislate, according to their Constitutional mandate, but for a judge to come out and openly state it like that is shocking. It could be said then, that the reverse is true as well, that any laws passed within the District of Columbia, including those passed by our Congress DO NOT APPLY to the citizens residing within the remaining fifty states. Just a thought...

At the root of all this is the initial ban of handguns by the District of Columbia. They claim it is in the best interest of the citizens that handguns are banned, as handguns account for a large percentage of the firearm related deaths. It all boils down to the fact that a good percentage of the people are looking to the government, or some other agency for their protection. This is due to the lack of desire of the people to accept responsibility for their own welfare. By their very nature, criminals will not give up their guns. Even if you could ban the production and sale of all guns in the U.S. there would still be a black market which could conceivably provide weapons to those inclined to use them in a criminal act. There just aren't enough law enforcement officers available to station one on every street providing protection for every citizen of this country. The ultimate responsibility for their protection lies with the individual. I would much rather have a shotgun or a pistol by my bedside than a phone pre-programmed to speed dial 911.

Finally I would like to provide a random selection of quotations regarding firearms and/or the militia. These can be read and pondered at your own discretion. It may, however, help you in forming an opinion as to what decision the Supreme Court should come to in the case of D.C. v Heller.

“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”
Cockrum v State

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”
Patrick Henry

“The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams

“We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed...”
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
Richard Henry Lee

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
Thomas Paine

And finally, “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, securely and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable.”
George Washington

Notice that in that last quote, Washington makes reference to both rifles and pistols as being equally indispensable.

We can now only await the ruling of the Supreme Court. Much rests on the outcome of this case, quite possibly the last vestiges of freedom that we have. If the Court rules that there are times, in which local government can declare all firearms they deem as an unnecessary danger to the general population, and therefore can be banned, there is no way to stop them from completely disarming the people of this country. With that thought, I would like to leave you with one last quote by Vladimir Lenin, “One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of workers (Communist) and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle class).

Maybe I Was Profling A Bit

2008-03-11T17:44:00.000-07:00

On March 8 my local paper published the following letter to the editor that I submitted.

"On Feb. 20, Mexican President Felipe Calderon visited the California Legislature urging them to "keep the door open."
How dare this meddler come to our country and try to influence policy and public opinion? How dare this pathetic leader, who can't even fix his own country so his people would not be forced to break into ours ask us to take responsibility for his failure?
Finally, how dare this hypocrite ask us to keep our borders open so that his citizens can come here and use/abuse or country while he has the unmitigated gall to want $1.4 billion from the U.S. for a stimulus/national security package? I can't say what I would like to tell Mr. Calderon without being censored but rest assured it isn't very polite."

Today at work a young Hispanic male came up to me and politely told me the following. "You know Neal, the next time you write a letter to the paper about illegal aliens you may want to mention that it is not only Mexicans that are in this country illegally."

I told this young man that he needs to read my letter again because I was not writing about the illegal aliens themselves, I was writing about the President of Mexico.

I told him that I am aware that there are illegal aliens in this country from all over the world. I also told him that it is my dream that each and every one of them either leave of their own volition or be deported.

This answer seemed to satisfy him and he left having duly chastised me. Although he obviously misunderstood my reason for writing the letter he did bring up a good point, it is not only Mexicans that are in this country illegally. There are probably illegal aliens in this country from almost every nation on the planet, and like I said, I want them all gone.

That being said, do you remember the Immigration Marches back in May of 2006? Do you remember the images of all those people marching for immigration rights and immigration reform? Did you take the time to notice which flag, besides the U.S. flag, was the predominant flag flown? It was the Mexican flag. Do you remember some of the banners and placards that people had? They said things about La Raza, (the Race), La Reconquista, (The Re-conquering). These are sayings that are distinctive among the Hispanics, and particularly the Mexicans.

For a group of people who want to immigrate to this country and become part of the melting pot that is America, waving a banner that supports the concept that they are separate and have no need to assimilate into our culture is not a good way to garner support. La Reconquista is even more disturbing in that it implies that they intend to take over this land, whether we like it or not. These are not things that people who want to become Americans should be doing in a march for immigration rights.

Then again there were others in the crowd from across the globe, so I still might be considered guilty of profiling based upon the actions of a select group.

However, if you were to drive through the farms in the San Joaquin Valley during harvest time would you see any illegal aliens from of other than Hispanic heritage? I think not. If you were to drive through a construction zone where new homes are being built en masse, what would be the predominant nationality of the laborers? That’s right, Hispanic. If you were to hire a landscaping crew to come in and design your yard and maintain it, what nationality would the majority of laborers be? Right again, Hispanic. Finally, if you were to drive to one of those ‘Day Laborer’ sites where you could hire someone to work for a day, what are the nationality of the people there waiting for work? Hispanic again. So where are all these Chinese, Filipino, German, and the rest of the illegal aliens from all over the world?

However, just to show that I am fair and am not biased against Hispanics, or Mexicans in particular, I would like to see the following accomplished.

-All illegal aliens and their illegitimately naturalized children will leave U.S. soil, not to return.

-English will be the spoken language of this country. If you can’t speak it, tough! No more translators, no more forms in a host of foreign tongues, no more SAP, (Secondary Audio Programming) in foreign languages for our television shows. While I am at it, everything that is broadcast for either radio or television will be in English only.

-No more ESL in our schools. If you can not learn in English, go back and get an education in the country of your native tongue. I am tired of our kids getting held back while kids that can’t speak English play catch up.

-No more preferential treatment will be given to anyone due to their cultural differences. I do not get any preferential treatment because I am of Irish descent, not even on St. Patrick’s Day.

-If you are found to be in a gang you will be deported to the country of your heritage, regardless of whether or not you are a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen, or an illegal alien.

-Finally, if you are caught in our country breaking any other of our laws, and it is found that you are here illegally, you will be deported to your country of origin immediately. We do not want to spend any tax dollars incarcerating you in our overcrowded prisons.

There, does that sound fair to all? Am I not being impartial enough? As I said, I may have been focusing solely upon the Mexicans in my letter to the editor. I hope this clarifies my intent by showing that I no longer wish to tolerate any illegal alien presence in this country any longer.

Too Many Ism's For Some Peoples Brains

2008-03-08T17:04:00.000-08:00

The other day at work I was talking to a friend and he jokingly mentioned that I must be a communist. I was somewhat taken aback and asked him why he said that. He said, "You must be a communist, you sure hate this country." I told him he was so wrong it wasn't even funny. I do not HATE this country, I love it. I do however hate what is happening to it. I hate the people who are doing the damage, and I hate the people who are just sitting back and allowing it to happen.

I asked my friend if he could tell me what communism was and he said 'Sure, it was the kind of government that Russia used to have'. I found it humorous that he was saying I was a communist, yet he intends to vote for Barack Obama who is much closer to being communist than I ever will be.

It was then that I began to wonder if people actually know the difference between communism, socialism, and fascism. I am by no means a political scientist, but I can read. Therefore I grabbed a trusty dictionary and looked up the meaning of communism, socialism, and fascism. Here they are for the enlightenment of those who might not be aware of the differences between them.

Fascism-a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Socialism 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Communism: 1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.

After reading those definitions it is clear that my friend does not understand the definition of communism, not if he thinks that is the type government that Russia used to have. Russia was formerly known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR.

Russia never was a communist country. Pure communism is an ideology in which there is no private property, everything is shared equally, and everyone works for the good of the community. While it may be a noble concept it is something that will never happen as long as mankind exhibits greed, envy and ambition. Pure communism also takes away motivation, for why would someone try to improve themselves, or work to the best of their ability if those who don’t still get an equal share of the goods produced by the overall community?

To say that I am a communist is a joke. I believe in self reliance, not depending upon others for your own well being. While I do admit that associating with others can be rewarding, and often mutually beneficial, but I do not want to be reliant upon anyone for anything. These personality traits preclude me from being a communist, and my friend should have known better than to make such an uninformed statement.

The former Soviet Union was a socialist state in which the government owned everything. They dictated where you could work, where you would live and whether or not you could move up in society. To maintain that socialist state required that the government stifle and punish expressions of personal freedom and liberty, otherwise people would not sit idly by with no chance to improve their lives.

The people of Russia were told that they were making these sacrifices for the benefit of Mother Russia. Yet the ruling class lived their lives in a manner that provided them with a disproportionately better lifestyle. They did not suffer the poverty that the average worker in Russia was forced to endure for the ‘common good’.

If you think about it, doesn’t socialism sound a lot like what the Democratic candidates all are promising us? Do they not offer us government run and managed health care, education and all sorts of other benefits, which are all funded by the taxes taken from the working class?

Alexander Tytler once penned something that describes what is happening in this country, and also explains what will be the end result. If fits in very well with what the Democratic candidates campaign upon because they are the ones who are offering so many government solutions to the problems in America.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

Isn’t that what is happening in this country, we are voting for candidates who make us promises that in the end will be funded by the taxes upon our labor? When we vote for a candidate solely upon which one makes the most convincing promises, we are voting for socialism, complete governmental control over our lives. You have to realize that as you vote for these candidates, and their promise of government run programs, you are also sacrificing your own freedom to choose. Each program that the government institutes to benefit you also has the flip side of taking away a portion of your own personal freedom.

Since I have just denigrated the Democrats you are probably thinking I am a staunch follower of the Republican Party. Unfortunately that is not true. If the Democrats are socialist in nature, the Republicans are well on the way to being fascists. If you examine closely the economic and foreign policies of the Bush administration you will see that they have enacted legislation which is gives the president almost unlimited power, in other words an autocratic leadership. The foreign policy of the Bush administration and his War on Terror declares that our War on Terror gives the U.S. the right to do anything, and to do it anywhere in this misguided war. The rights of the individual have been trampled upon by numerous laws passed to protect us from terrorism. Does that not put the nation above the individual, a clear sign of a fascist state?

A close friend of mine describes our system of two political parties as a two headed snake. Both heads bite and will cause this country irreparable harm. I agree with that viewpoint and would go one step further. Both heads, or political parties, are traitors to the principles upon which this country was founded.

This country was established as a representative republic. We have been told so many times, coming from so many sources, that we are a democracy that we have accepted it as the truth. That is not true!

Our founding fathers were very clear in regards to the nature of our government as defined in the Constitution. Nowhere are their thoughts more clearly explained than in the Federalist Papers, a series of articles written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, all published under the pseudonym of Publius.

In Federalist #10, James Madison defines a democracy as
“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.”
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm

If we were a democracy, you or I could, if we so chose to, involve ourselves directly with the process of enacting legislation. However, that is not how our system of government was designed to function. We instead elect people to represent us in our government.

In Federalist Paper #39 Madison explains,
“If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.”
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed39.htm

That describes how our government was set up to function. Notice that the government derives its power from us. It does not say the government has power over us. Government was designed to be our servant, not our master. Also, it says that it was to be administered by persons holding their offices ‘during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.’

If we look at the abysmal approval ratings our Congress and our president have right now, it should be very clear that our elected representatives are not holding their offices during ‘pleasure’. If you look at how long some of our elected representatives have been holding office, someone like Edward Kennedy, who has been in office since 1962, it is clear that they are not serving for a ‘limited period’. Finally if you look at the scandals and the corruption that permeate our halls of power it should also be clear that our elected representatives are not serving ‘during good behavior.’

We the people of this country hold the ultimate power. However we cannot wield that power effectively if we are ignorant in regards to what our elected representatives are doing. We cannot wield that power effectively if we insist that government be responsible for caring for our every need.

If we continue to vote for the candidate who makes the most appealing promises, then we get what we deserve. Just remember, that as Tytler said, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Ultimately it is your choice. Do you want to live in a society in which the government controls all aspects of your lives, or do you want to have the freedom to choose for yourself? If you choose freedom, than I suggest you begin paying just a bit more attention to what the candidates you vote for are truly offering you. Is it slavery or freedom?

I only have one last thing to say, and I quote Samuel Adams,
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Editorial freedom

2008-03-07T18:50:00.001-08:00

On February 14th I wrote the following letter to the editor for my local paper.

On Wednesday President Felipe Calderon visited the California State Legislature, urging them to 'Keep the Door Open'. How dare this meddling pissant come to our country and try to influence policy and public opinion? How dare this pathetic leader, who can't even fix his own country so his people would not be forced to break into ours, ask us to take responsibility for his failure. Finally, how dare this hypocrite ask us to keep our borders open so that his citizens can come here and use/abuse or country while he has the unmitigated gall to want $1.4 billion from the U.S. for a stimulus/national security package that would help him secure his southern border from invaders from South America? I can't say what I would like to tell Mr. Calderon without being censored but rest assured it isn't very polite.

The paper asked me to remove the offensive word pissant, which I did and resubmitted it to them without that word. Today, March 8th they printed the following.

On Feb. 20, Mexican President Felipe Calderon visited the California Legislature urging them to "keep the door open."
How dare this meddler come to our country and try to influence policy and public opinion? How dare this pathetic leader, who can't even fix his own country so his people would not be forced to break into ours ask us to take responsibility for his failure?
Finally, how dare this hypocrite ask us to keep our borders open so that his citizens can come here and use/abuse or country while he has the unmitigated gall to want $1.4 billion from the U.S. for a stimulus/national security package? I can't say what I would like to tell Mr. Calderon without being censored but rest assured it isn't very polite.

Note the second to last sentence. The paper took it upon themselves to edit my letter and remove what I thought to be a crucial point in proving my point that Felipe Calderon is a hypocrite.

Therefore I took the liberty of sending my local paper the following.

On March 8, 2008 you printed a letter to the editor that I submitted entitled President Calderon should fix Mexico. I appreciate the fact that your paper has given me the opportunity to express my views and allow others to THINK about the news from a perspective that may differ from their own. As submitted originally the letter had the offensive term 'pissant' which I was asked to remove. I did and was told the letter would then be published. However when I read it in the paper I noticed that something else had been changed as well.
The last paragraph as I submitted the letter stated,

"Finally, how dare this hypocrite ask us to keep our borders open so that his citizens can come here and use/abuse or country while he has the unmitigated gall to want $1.4 billion from the U.S. for a stimulus/national security package that would help him secure his southern border from invaders from South America?"

Someone on the staff of your paper took it upon themselves to remove "that would help him secure his southern border from invaders from South America" from my letter. I thought this information was crucial in proving that Felipe Calderon is a hypocrite.
I understand that your paper has the right to edit letters as they see fit. However my letter as originally submitted had only 140 words, 110 under the limit you set for letters to the editor.
I realize that when I first began writing to your paper I was rather long winded and that was something I have worked on so that my letters fit in to your 250 word limit. I feel now that I have a much more economical writing style. Therefore everything I include, in my humble opinion, is of importance.
I feel that your editing out that one phrase from my paragraph takes away from the intent of my letter and I am saddened that you chose to do so.
In the future if you decide that you must edit my letters for space, or whatever reasons, that you please ask me first. If I find that the change is something that does not take away from my intent, then I will have no problems in agreeing to the changes. However if I feel that it takes away from my letters intent I may just decide to not have it printed. I would not have my letter printed if it means I would not be able to get my point across.

Thank you for your consideration.

Neal Ross