While most Blogs are nothing but a vent for the frustration of right thinking Amiricans, this is not my cause. I am building a link to help gather resources and take a proactive stance against the tide of socialism. My posts are meant to inform you and, when possible, help you better explain and defend our principles. We are all leaders, we are all FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

Our goal is to help coordinate as many local political groups as possible in order to create a strong and organized local movement. We would suggest that you either start a meetup group or join one that's already in place. For help go to http://www.meetup.com/ or 912 Project USA.com / For The Sake of Liberty! . With your effort and support we can become a strong force against the socialization of our great nation. If you have a suggestion or want information, please e-mail me at flounders70@aol.com .

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Ballot Initiatives are UnConstitutional!

Many states have found a way of circumventing their state legislatures and putting bills (laws) directly on the ballot. Florida, for example, has a statewide indoor smoking ban that totally offends me. For the record; I’m not a smoker, nor do I wish to eat my meals where others are smoking.

The problem for me is that these kinds of laws are oppressive to minorities and highlight the fundamental flaw with Democracy as a system of government. I have often ranted about this topic before but the point behind my premise is applicable across the board so I feel compelled to spell it out again.

First let me clarify my position on the specific example of the smoking ban. To take the choice of whether to allow smoking or not away from the proprietor of a privately owned business in the back woods of Plant City and give it to the majority of Floridians who reside in Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando (people who would never set foot in said business) is simply wrong.

The way these things are supposed to work is based on our free market system, not Democratic “mob rule”. In America (at least as I remember it) we have the right to go to which ever business we choose. Likewise, we can choose to avoid any business for any reason that strikes us. If there is a large demand for places in which smoking is not allowed, that market WILL be met. The beauty of the free market is that a smaller demand for establishments where smoking is allowed would not be denied. This reality is best summed by the old adage: When a conservative wants to stop eating meat he becomes a vegetarian. When a liberal wants to stop eating meat he makes meat illegal.

Beyond the question of right and wrong, there is a Constitutional component to the legality of these ballot initiatives. The concept of bypassing representative legislation and initiating popular government is known as Democracy. Webster’s Dictionary, in fact, defines Democracy as: “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority”.

On the other hand, Webster’s defines a Republican form of government as: “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”. The difference should be very clear, Democracy allows the majority to have complete control at the expense of the minority while a Republic requires elected officials to act on behalf of all people at the expense of none.

The reason that these distinct differences are important boils down to the legality of State sanctioned Democracy. Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..” . Having seen all of these facts, how is it legal for the States Constitutionally guaranteed Republican government be bypassed by an act of pure Democracy?

If you think that my view of a Republic is flawed then read the words of Thomas Jefferson from his first inaugural address…

“all too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, AND SHALL NOT TAKE FROM THE MOUTH OF LABOR THE BREAD IT HAS EARNED.”

Sunday, December 19, 2010

The New Urban Order

“NO HOME, NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!” These are the words hand painted on a sign in the window of a vacant apartment building that had been forcefully taken over by homeless people in San Francisco. This movement, known as “take back the land”, started a few years ago but has gained much ground (no pun intended) over the past two years. To those who follow it, home ownership is simply a “natural human right”. The contention is that foreclosed homes belong to banks which were bailed out by taxpayers, and thus, owned by the people.

Maybe there is some truth to that statement but there seems to be something missing. For one, I would like to see the amount of taxes paid by the homeless compared to the amount paid by banks. Secondly, these “agents” (who are nothing but liberal activists) are forcing entry into foreclosed homes and showing them to potential squatters without legal authority. The stated intent of these individuals is to create such a huge draw on legal resources, including law enforcement officers, that they create a long term cushion for the squatters. The underlying intent, however, looks a lot more like socialism.

Below is an excerpt from a presentation by one of their leaders, S’bu Zikode, entitled ‘Re-imagining the City: A New Urban Order’.

“It is very nice to re-imagine the city. We can all start to imagine cities with good housing for everyone and then we can imagine affordable public transport and safe streets with beautiful trees, cool shady parks and welcoming schools, clinics, libraries and sports clubs. We can imagine and imagine cities where everyone’s humanity is respected and where everyone counts. It is very nice to imagine a city where no one has to live like a pig in the mud, where everyone is safe from fires, abuse, police raids, disconnections, evictions and political attacks…..Those who are in power today have the power to distribute our land fairly and freely to those who do not have land. Why have they betrayed us today? The answer is simple. If they do so they will be giving away the very power that makes them powerful.”

“In fact of all the people in society our demands are the most legitimat
e and the most reasonable because we are living in the worst conditions. The demands of those with the most money and power are the least legitimate. Logic as well as justice is on the side of our struggle to put the will of the many against the will of the few which is the only way to turn our imaginings of a new urban order into reality.”

If this sounds reasonable to you then there are a few questions you must ask yourself…

1. Do you believe that a house is a fundamental human right?

2. Are you prepared to build this free house yourself?

3. If you cannot build this free house, then who should be forced to build it for you for free?

4. Where do you think the free lumber, hardware, and supplies should come from and who should you enslave to supply them?

5. If you need to relocate, who should be enslaved to help you find a new free house?

6. What happens to all of the Real Estate agents who will now be forced to give away houses? After all, the commission on free is zero.

You see, nothing that must be provided through the labor of another is a “fundamental human right”. That is, of course, unless the provider is not subject to the right of personal liberty. If you are in accord with the ladder then you would have been quite at home in the former Soviet Union. Here in the USA, our personal liberty is guaranteed by the founding documents that form the base of our legal system.

Make no mistake; those who are propagating this movement are violent and dangerous. Although they profess to be a movement of peace, they are taking property from others and refuse to return this property by any means other than a retaliatory act of violence.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes

So the tax rate depends on your income? As far as the left is concerned, the rich deserve to be taxed more, after all, they can afford it. By this logic, if someone makes $250k annually then they deserve to pay 10% more than someone who makes $249,999.99 is required to pay. So the guy making a penny more is evil, more evil that is than the second guy right?

You’re right, that’s absurd. Maybe there should be a cushion for that penny difference right? So let’s let that guy slip under the line, and the guy making a penny less than him, and the guy making less than him etc… The fact is: there can be no fair line between the man with wealth and the poor guy making a penny less.

Another way to look at it is like this: it seems fair to think that someone making more than 10 times your annual income is doing ok, right? Let’s say you earn $25k annually, so 10 times that is $250k which fits the liberal idea of “too rich”. Granted, most people earn more than $25k, but we will work from a low income. Well I think we need to raise taxes on everyone earning more than 10 times my income, would you agree? Not so fast, my disability (my only income) is $2,988 a year. This means that everyone earning more than $30k will see an increase in their taxes. Why not? My number is just as logical as Obama’s is.

Obviously our economy would collapse if we cut middle class income by 10% or more. Even the left admits that simple fact. Since there is no fair way to divide one class of Americans from another, why don’t we stop trying. We could abolish income tax and either establish a universal income tax or a value added tax (national sales tax).

Our federal government is working on a boutique marketing scheme when they should be more like Wal-Mart. Boutiques provide tremendous service at a high price and to a niche market. The left thinks they can provide great service, at a high price, for everyone, and force everyone to use this service at their own expense. The right, on the other hand, wants the government to offer the cheapest crap available, at the lowest possible price, and allow you to choose where you go for your product. For the record, very few boutiques (if any) achieve the level of wealth and provide the number of jobs as Sam Walton has.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Thank You

More than a year ago I introduced my readers to an unknown Senatorial candidate named Marco Rubio. At the time he was hardly a blip on the radar of Charlie Crist, or for most voters for that matter. I walked around preaching the word of Rubio and trying to get the common sense voters to look at him before voting for the liberal Republican.

I just want to say THANK YOU! Thanks for listening to me, thanks for listening to him, and thank you for carrying him up that great political hill.

To read my previous post about Rubio go to http://freedomfront.blogspot.com/2009/07/marco-rubio-effect.html

Presidential Tyranny

Have you ever considered what it means to be diabolic? By strict definition the word dia-bolic means: opposing pressure. The concept is that contradictory forces are purposefully applied in order to prevent movement. In social cases this is known as “tyranny of the mind”. The military uses this tactic to create “war like stress” during training. Drill sergeants give orders to the trainees and punish them for following the orders, if the trainee refuses the orders he is punished the same. The stress created by this is known to be the closest facsimile to battlefield stress and prolonged exposure to this stress provides an opportunity to teach the soldiers how to react to situations under such stress.

I realize our government is not (necessarily) maliciously creating such stress but they are actively causing this tyranny over the minds of Americans. Take our new health care legislation for example; when asked about how the federal government would enforce the mandate that every American purchase insurance, Pelosi suggested that it would be “strictly enforced” Meanwhile, the administration hired countless new IRS agents in order to enforce their new federal law within the states.

Regarding the Arizona law that enforced federal immigration laws: Obama and his administration spent tax money trying to prevent enforcement of this established federal law because he does not like it.

When it comes to states like California and Arizona and their legalization of medical marijuana: Obama’s administration has promised not to pursue action against states which legalize the use of federally prohibited narcotics.

To sum it up.. Obama does not like federal immigration laws so he is actively preventing anyone from enforcing them. Obama does like the federal health insurance mandate so he has hired deputies to enforce it at the threat of violence. Obama does not like the federal law that absolutely prohibits the use of marijuana so he refuses to enforce the law at all.

The duty of the executive branch of government is to enforce the laws that are drawn by the legislative branch. If we have an executor who has chosen, based on his own agenda, which laws will or will not be enforced then we have a public official who is acting to purposefully contradict his duties. We also have a public official who has breached the Constitutionally provided separation of powers.

Regardless of whether this is an act of ignorance or malice, this is, by definition, an act of tyranny.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Stuck in the Middle Again

The Left wing mantra, as constantly drilled into our heads by every single self proclaimed “progressive” with a microphone, is wrapped around the “rebuilding” of the middle class. The goal, as I understand it, is to create a nation of laborers so that we (America) can take the throne as the international leaders in industry. If you call yourself a progressive then I would love it if you would either tell me how I am wrong or explain how this works.

Based on my understanding of the progressive goal, I have some questions, accompanied by comments, for you lefties…

1. How do you intend to expand the middle class? The only way to force the expansion of the middle class is to either give money to the lower class or take money from the upper class, or both. This leads to the next question..

2. Who has the right, or power, to force the expansion of the middle class? Having read the Constitution, several times, I can tell you that the official answer is: Nobody! However, obviously the progressives have shown little respect for that particular document. This being the case, the only entity with the power to force an expansion of the middle class is the Federal Government (through the IRS).

3. Why would you want to expand the middle class? I have an answer for this question as well: Power! Other than that, creating a massive middle class makes no sense to me at all. It seems to me that you would want to help raise middle classers up to the upper class, thus expanding the upper class. If the majority of Americans are rich, they would have much more money to dedicate to charity. This would also offer more jobs so that the poor would have more opportunities as well.

4. Why would you want a nation of laborers? I can make $10 an hour building widgets, or I can sell 10 widgets an hour and make $20 an hour without the physical stress. Meanwhile, I can be providing jobs for the 10 guys who are doing the labor in some poverty stricken country, thus helping to create a burgeoning economy where there was none. Where is the evil in that?

You see, the widespread belief is that the right supports the rich and the left stands for the little guy. I am willing to accept this premise, are you? Well, both parties desire power, right? Logic then dictates that, in a Democratic Republic, those who gain power through the support of the little guy would necessarily need the majority to be little guys. Adversely, the group whose power depends on the support of the rich would need a majority of rich people. As one who has spent 40 years as the little guy, I am ready to try that rich thing now, therefore, I will be supporting those who need me to get rich.

We right wing not jobs would love to clear this whole mess up, therefore, I invite you, my political opponents, to explain where I am wrong. More to the point, I would love some justification for your political support.

KEEP IN MIND. This is the arena of ideas, politicians under every label have proven time and time again that they do not adhere to ideology. In this arena, there are no parties, just individuals seeking social cohesion.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Don't Blame Obama, Blame the Idiots We Elected in 2006

It’s time I set the record straight for our myopic liberal friends. You morons keep claiming that the mess we are in is because of Bush and that Obama just hasn’t had enough time to fix it. If you are one of these part time, media informed, Dems, I understand your ignorance, but, If you are perpetuating this nonsense then you are a complete dirt bag.

The hard facts only serve to prove just how dangerous it can be to give the left wing nut-jobs control over our media and our economy. While it is true that the economy started its downturn during the Bush era, he only had a small part in the problem. The truth is that the Democrats took over both houses back in 2006 and the president does not write laws, nor does he control the pocket book.

The toughest thing for the left to choke on is the fact that this entire recession happened under their control. I challenge you to look up ANY economic, social or political graph and watch the upward climb shift to a downward collapse upon the election of 2006. Let me give you a couple of examples..

During the republican era, one dollar worth of gasoline got Americans farther than ever before. The price averaged less than $2.00 per gallon and cars had reached new levels of efficiency. Since the Democratic era, gasoline has averaged $3.00 per gallon with marginal increases in fuel mileage.

While the Republicans were in charge, unemployment broke modern era records. After Clinton explained that his unemployment record was perfect, since 5% of Americans would simply never work, the Republicans got the level down to 4.7% by the 2006 election. The following year, after the Democratic congress took control, unemployment began to rise, only to reach levels near 10% (more than twice the worst of the Republican era).

The Republican era also held the record for home ownership at more than 70% but averaged 69%. Since the election of 2006, home ownership has fallen steadily to 66%. The left wing attempt to recover this loss by making credit easier for those who did not earn it was, in fact, mostly responsible for the credit collapse that led to this recession. Their other responses, borrowing money from Americans to give money to Americans, have served as the driving force for the continued collapse of our economy.

This goes on forever, the facts do not lie. I admit that things are a bit more complicated than I’ve explained but I am willing to debate the details if you dispute me. So, as for you lefties, you have tried your ideas for four years, since things were actually good, and you have screwed up everything. Just take some friendly advice and SHUT THE HELL UP!

The other thing I get a kick out of is the “Progressive” mentality that the right is trying to knock America backwards 100 years. For you progressives, this seems like the opposite of progress so you think it would be horrible. Well, let’s look at things 100 years ago compared to what you’ve done to us today.

During the beginning of the 20th century, immigrants were flooding into our country at a rate of roughly 20% per year. Almost 2,000,000 legal immigrants entered in 1909 and we, as a nation, still maintained 3% unemployment. Now the number of unemployed is 300% higher.

GDP was on an unbelievable incline during the early 1900s and has only fallen during periods of total Democratic control; including the great depression and our current recession. There were no income taxes during that time and America became the only country in the world to farm millionaires, that is, more were made here than in the rest of the world combined. Today, the Dems have created a tax system that punishes that kind of success and they proudly work toward forcing anyone who is successful back down to the middle class.

The truth is that left wing ideology has failed everywhere, and every time, it has been tried. Just look at Europe, Canada, South America, and the rest of the world who has run out of other people’s money to spend and are looking at us for help. In fact, look at the Democrats in control who have done exactly the same thing.

Friday, October 15, 2010


Today I decided to risk my sanity and subject myself to a full day of left wing talk radio. I tuned in to American Left on my satellite radio, duct taped my head, and began to work on a few of my projects. Needless to say, my neighbors frequently felt compelled to remind me that the morons talking on the radio could not hear my arguments, regardless of how loud I was.

Since I was unable to convey my ration, reason, and logic to the intellectually challenged elitists who preached their common senselessness, I’ve decided to vent my grievances here. If I have learned anything, however, I have a better understanding of how the libs feel when Rush glosses over the in-depth explanations of his ideology.

There were many statements made that made my skin crawl but one penetrated me like no other. There was a long conversation about the new Tea Party movement and the rise of neo-conservatism. These self proclaimed progressives were convinced that the right wing surge was a “NAZI-like” build up of “fascist socialism”. Yes, the leftists think that Republicans are like Hitler and that they crave socialism. HAVE THESE IDIOTS BEEN PAYING ATTENTION?

It’s not as if their own literature is loaded with socialist propaganda or anything, wait, it’s just like that. Well, it’s not as if the progressives have ever shown any appreciation for Marxism, in fact, they are rooted in the writings of Marx and take pride in being “anti-capitalist”. So clearly the Republicans favor the Hitler campaign agenda which included; nationalized public transportation, heavy federal funding for education, single payer health care, renewable energy, abortion rights, tax increases for the rich, strong labor unions, and social justice.

Seriously, how can these so called intellectuals profess that the right wing is working toward fascist socialism with a straight face? It is freedom, liberty, and opportunity which we crave, not fascism and defiantly not socialism.. morons!

So if you call yourself progressive, liberal, independent, or even conservative, I challenge you to explain and defend your ideology against me. After all, if you support Obama and his agenda, you may have very good reasons for this, but, you are very much un-American! If, on the other hand, you call yourself conservative, you need to know why and be prepared to defend that stance as well.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Food Stamps: Setting the Record Straight

I understand (and share) the commonly held level of disrespect for those who live their lives as wards of the state. That is, those who refuse to pull their weight as they collect welfare, food stamps, and even child support. I also share the desire to force welfare recipients to pass the same drug tests that working folks are subjected to in order to receive the desired benefits. For that matter, I agree that WIC recipients should be held to a certain level of nutritional value as they are being partially supported by taxpayer funds in order to feed their children.

Where I differ from those who I would otherwise agree with is in the area of food stamps. Currently there is a movement towards forcing nutritional value on food stamp recipients. The first step is to ban the purchase of “sugary soft drinks” on the IBT card. I feel that this attempt to control the diets of food stamp recipients is asinine.

In order to support my case I must first explain something that most people do not understand about food stamp distribution. For a great number of the food stamp recipients, the stereotype of “ward of the state” applies, however, this is not nearly universal. Food stamps are also allocated to disabled veterans. In cases where a veteran is in the process of rehabilitation and unable to work, the state provides food stamps as part of the package.

Think about this; for roughly twenty years I was paying into the tax base, handing a portion of my meager earnings to the government as part of the huge safety net. At one point I was making better than $60K annually while paying one third of my income into taxes and one third into child support (neither by choice). The remaining pittance covered my basic needs and left virtually nothing to put away for a rainy day.

As the government ripped one third of my check out from under me, I was given no power over what they did with the money. I could not tell the IRS that certain expenditures were potentially hazardous to our economy or even our collective health. They invested poorly and grew an unprecedented level of debt.

Meanwhile, I enlisted in the military, was seriously injured, and was medically separated. My injury prevented me from working in any field where my skills and experience would provide an opportunity. As a result of this disability, I am enrolled in the Voc-Rehab program and currently working toward an engineering degree. Once I have achieved this degree I intend to re-enter the workforce and once again become a contributor. In the mean time, I am receiving state food stamp benefits in order to help the ends meet.
Is it fair that the government can store my earnings, against my wishes, and when I need some of that money back they can tell me how the money can be spent. Had I been allowed to invest my own money and build a nest egg, I would not need food stamps and I would be able to eat as I choose. So how long will it be before our government decides to take everyone else’s money and allocates their own idea of a healthy diet to you?

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Latteral Blast

For most of America, politics is something that other people worry about. The changes in laws and policies, as laid out by our governing body, have a very gradual effect on normal people. So gradual is this effect that most people cannot identify these changes other than by expressing how different things were when they were young. Much like the tremors that emanate from deep inside the Earth along various fault lines, political tremors usually get some amount of public attention but only for a very short time.
These subtle shifts take place as political tectonics create pockets of pressure and then release only to temporary settle until pressure rebuilds. As with our continental plates, the political landscape bears the scars of generations of social upheavals and powerful opposing forces. Where our nation holds the evidence of this constant geographic struggle in the form of mountains and fault lines, our people also carry with them the results of every decision ever made on a governing level.

You see, rarely does one generation get to actually witness the creation or destruction of a mountain. This is a slow and constant process that seems nearly invisible to the untrained individual. Scientists, on the other hand, know what to look for and are watching carefully as the Earth changes shape right before their eyes.

Politics work the same way. For those who know not what to look for, things do not seem to change much. For those who are tuned in, things seem to be changing relatively rapidly. In fact, the minor tremors and subtle shifts seem to be hitting at a record pace.

When Mt Saint Helens erupted back in the 1980s, it had been dormant for quite some time. As the eruption approached, the tell tale tremors and the burps of smoke suggested that something was about to happen. Suddenly the signs began to slow down significantly and volcanologist David A. Johnston was sent to investigate. With Johnston on the mountain, the massive volcano gave way to the pressures beneath it and the giant mountain blew itself apart. Mr. Johnston’s camera was found and pictures of the approaching pyroclastic flow were developed but as for David Johnston, well, “Vancouver!, Vancouver!, this is it!” were his final words and his body was consumed by the Earth.

So the question is: Do you want to be David Johnston and have a building named after you? Or do you want to be the guy that sees this thing coming and pushes others out of its way? The tremors will slow, the smoke will thin, and the noise will fall silent just before the landscape undergoes a catastrophic change that will alter the political landscape forever. Please spread the word, let your friends know that something is brewing and things may soon be different. Pay attention to the signs but may more attention to the signs that seem to go away!

Monday, October 4, 2010

My Dictionary

We hear a barrage of terms thrown at us like FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and many others, but do we really understand what they mean? One of the big ones is “anti-American” and this term is embraced by all side every political debate as a weapon against the others.
Having spent a short time sitting at a bar debating with the lovely young lady sitting next to me, I realized just how muddy political terms really are. I feel compelled to try to filter (or at least skim) some of this mud out of our political pool. Please allow me to define, in my own words, some mainstream political jargon..
These definitions are strictly traditionalist and do not apply to the bastardidation perpetuated by our current political parties.

REPUBLICAN: A government in which a constituency chooses a representative who will make government decisions on behalf of the people, regardless of the popularity of said decisions. This is an outcome based system where the representative is given the benefit of the doubt during his term but is held responsible for his decisions during the elections. This is how most corporations are operated as the boss makes executive decisions but can be deposed if the company shows a loss.

DEMOCRATIC: A government in which each decision made must be done so with popular approval so that everyone takes part in running things. One problem with democracy is that only the majority gets the power. I have never heard of a successful business that is run as a democracy. Imagine if the employees of your company had the right to vote for the rules, the pay would be high, productivity would be low and vacations would be long, but the profit would never be made and the place would collapse.

FREEDOM: If you think you are a liberal then you totally misunderstand this principle. Freedom means that you get to choose how you want to live as long as you do not impede the freedom of someone else. You are not guaranteed the freedom from insults, failure, homelessness, poverty, illness or ignorance. You have the freedom provide a service for whatever price you and the consumer agree on without a portion of that money being taken from you to provide for any other citizen. You also have the freedom to be as useless as you might choose to be.

PATRIOTIC: No, dissent is not the highest form of patriotism. Your forefathers gave their lives to give you the freedom to screw up your own, it is far from patriotic to give up that freedom in the name of security. Patriotic means loving all that your country is made of and working to keep it that that way. Progressives need not apply, you are far from patriotic.

UNAMERICAN: To be “Americanistic” you must be willing to get your hands dirty but eager to find an easier way. You must be willing to accept that score must be kept or the game is not worth playing. You must know that companies are not greedy, consumers are. No company can force you to buy their product without government involvement and the American government is not supposed to have that much power. You must acknowledge that no amount of money is “too much”, and that we all have the same chance to go get that money. You must see that you have no right to anything that must be provided by someone else, that includes health care. If you disagree with any of these premises then you are probably UnAmerican.

CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL: Conservatives want to make laws telling you what you cannot do, Liberals want to make laws telling you what you can, and must, do.

LIBERTERIAN: These folks just want to be left alone. I lean that way but I feel we need a small amount of governing to keep things working.

LAWYER: One who cannot add 2 and 2 so they have the second two stricken from the evidence and win by default. These guys usually become Democratic politicians.

Feel free to ask about any other definitions in which you may not be clear.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

The "Electable" Candidate

Listening to talk radio, I have heard conservatives on both sides of the issue. I am glad to finally hear some sense of reason slowly take over the "party first" mentality. There are, however, many morons who are still stuck on the idea that electability is more important than core principles. Sadly, some of these morons are very high profile.

I understand the view, held by these partisans, that a candidate who supports some of your ideals, and has a chance at winning, is better than losing to one who totally disagrees with you. It makes perfect sense to consider a grat, but "unelectable", candidate a non factor and choose to vote against the worst of the evils. This is especially true when the elections are permanent.

The problem comes when these elections are short term, as in our political system. The current state of our country, both socially and economicly, is a direct result of this mentality. Hopefully I can clearly explain my position on this debate, I will try. I will also use conservatism in my example but I would like for you liberals to apply the same logic to your side as well.

Starting with Ronald Reagan, since he represents the closest thing to the perfect Republican, and following through to today, we have seen a stady movement towards the left from Republicans. This has happened because voters have allowed it to.

Think about this, after Ronald the great we had to choose between George H. W. Bush and Dukakis. Nobody knew anything about Bush, other than his having VP to Ronnie, but Dukakis was an easy target. Republicans learned that conservative ideology did not win elections, the fear of liberal ideology wins elections.

In 1992 we saw a three way race involving Bush, Clinton and Perot. Perot drew votes from both sides but mostly the right. This split gave a very narrow win to Slick Willy. This became the "posterchild" election for those who fear a third candidate.

The following election had a Bill Clinton who had suffered the first loss of both houses of Congress in several decades and was presenting himself as a moderate. This crowded Bob Dole and Perot into a small corner of the electorate and taught the Republicans that elections are won in the middle.

After Clinton, Republicans chose a moderate to go against Al Gore, giving us George W Bush. He ran, not as a right wing conservative, but as a compassionate (progressive) conservative. Republicans learned that Unhappy right wingers would hold their nose and support a potentially liberal Republican over a left wing Democrat.The strategy worked and republicans eventually gained both houses as well as the presidency.

As Republicans moved leftwards they gained votes. They only needed to stay just right of the opposition. Whilst many right wingers were vocal about their opposition to this method, they continued to throw their grudging support behind the Republican with the best chance of beating the Dem. This showed up in internal polling and only served to encourage this leftward slide.After all, as long as we keep accepting progressive Republicans at the threat of losing to the socialists, why would the party look for true conservatives?

This phoenamena has a natural oscillation to it. As the over confident Liberals move to the left they will begin to lose votes to the right. When they finally notice the trend they will push back towards the center and the Republicans, who have been easily winning, will start to slide to the right. This cycle will repeat until, either the end of time, or everyone starts reading this blog.

I want to force the tide. We can stop this cycle if we just vote our conscience. If the Republicans start losing two things will happen. First, they will start looking at where their votes are going. When they realize they are losing a great deal of votes to conservatives they will be forced to move towards that direction and regain their base. Meanwhile, the left will be screwing things up so bad that even the moderates will be compelled to try voting for the right wingers.

It will suck during the short term but our kids will love us for it. Oh and I don't want to hear about Supreme Court Justices. SCOTUS can only review law, not make it. The liberal weenies in that branch of government cant force socialism, they can partially stifle capitalism but that is still a short term problem. As time passes, so will the hippies in our Judicial branch.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Back in business

Finally I've got my new computer! Now I am immersed in school and doctors appointments but I will try to post more often now. Thank you for your patience and stay tuned!

Monday, August 9, 2010

The Face of Islam

It seems like every time we turn around some Muslim group is making a great effort to piss us off. Meanwhile the other part of the Islamic world, that is the majority, stands by and quietly condones their actions. At least, that is the way it feels.

Just Imagine how you would act if you were a Christian and small but powerful factions of Christians were sweeping the world and forcing, at the point of a sword, every group they encounter to convert to your religion. I would think you would be torn, enough so that you begin rationalizing your response (or lack thereof) in order to ease their conscience. Part of you is afraid of becoming a target of those who are spreading right through wrong. Another part of you may want to stand up for the victims and fight for their right to deny or even hate your religion. For most people, they would turn their eyes from the evils and accept that the ends justifies the means.

This is exactly what happened roughly 500 years ago when the Christians did exactly that, they ran around the world forcing their religion on everyone they met. Meanwhile, millions of "real" Christians stood by and allowed virtual genocide. It is a part of our history that we are afraid to think of because it is downright shameful, at the same time, most of us are kind of, for lack of a better term, happy with the results. The international acceptance of Christianity feels pretty good compared to what people must have experienced a thousand years ago.

Nearly 500 years after Christ brought his message to the middle east, another great profit unified the religions of that territory. The Muslims believe that their profit was sent by God to bring peace to the world but that he was merely human but nearly as perfect as any human could be. They worship his actions not his divinity. Their Bible is very similar to the Christian Bible and they believe in all of the same things, in fact, they consider Christ to be an important profit as well. They are not much different than Christians were at the same time (roughly 1500 years) in their history.

Some time in our future, the Muslims will come to accept Christians as brothers, just as Christians consider Jews to be our brothers now. While Christians have added Christ and his teachings to the Bible of the Jews, Muslims have added their own profit to our Bible. The fact is; we are all in this together, Christians, Jews, Muslims and nearly every other faith that celebrates a single God came from the Zoroastrians that were handed the very first instruction manual so long ago.

Knowing this, it is time to reconsider a few unfounded and unreasonable opinions. First of all, we tend to look at all Islamic people with some level of suspicion. It is hard to tell the good from the bad just by looking into their eyes. Imagine again what it must have been like for good Christians during the Crusades. Maybe we should consider the often repeated phrase "trust but verify" when confronted by this suspicion. It is wrong to condemn people for the actions of those who claim to lead them.

Regarding the proposed building of the Islamic worship center near "ground zero", I refuse to make any effort to stop them. I would be violently opposed to anyone who would prevent me from expressing my right to practice my religion in any place where I choose under the guise of hatred for the actions of some radical christian group. This freedom is Guaranteed by our Constitution and I am not one to pick and choose which rights we protect based on popularity. Having said that, I think it was a senseless move by those who intend to do it. If my religion had been hijacked by a group of radical thugs and crashed into Mecca I would certainly avoid rubbing salt into those wounds. These morons must know that they are starting something with this and it is only driving a bigger wedge between the two cultures.

If you are Muslim I want you to know that I respect your religion but you need to work towards a change in leadership. Believe me, I feel your pain... I would hate to be judged, as an American, by the actions of President Obama and it is very difficult to bring society to help me make that change in leadership. It is, however, vital to the future of America for me, and others like me, to work tirelessly to bring the necessary cultural changes to our nation. It is equally necessary for you to do the same.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Half Cocked

First, I must apologize for my absence. My computer screen is broken so I have been without for a while (which is not all bad). Soon I will get back to writing.

Considering my computer issue, I have also been subjected to no other source of information, other than TV news and Talk radio. Neither source provides enough real information to make a complete analysis of any topic. So, rather than going off half cocked, I will ask some basic questions that, for me, came to mind when listening to local news reports.

Is BP responsible for paying Florida for advertising that the oil has had no effect on most of its beaches?
Did BP do anything to drive busines away from Florida?
Did the media portrey massave oil slicks on all of the gulf beaches, even though the mass majority saw no effect at all from the spill?
Should areas who have been economically devistated by the perception of the disaster look toward BP (who did nothing to spread fear) or the media who showed us every drop of oil that touched a grain of sand?

Did the federal government just tell a state that it was not their place to enforce federal laws?
If the fed starts passing laws matching state laws will it become illegal for the states to enforce them?
Is this a pathway to total federal control over the states?
If the federal government has laws that protect states, but refuses to enforce them, while preventing the states from enforcing them, what should the states do? What can they do? How can they protect themselves if the Fed binds their hands?

I am going to look into these and other questions and you are free to shoot me your answers or maybe even ask better questions. So, until I get this screen fixed, consider the possibilities.

PS: I cannot see my screen so if there are errors in my writing, ignore them... Or, close your eyes and post a response of equal length and tell me how hard it is for you!

Friday, July 9, 2010

God, Freedom and America

As I wheeled myself out of the Ambulitary Care Unit and toward the pick up point in front of the James Haley Veterans Hospital, I started to come to a realization that I did not like.

My surgery was very basic, a soft tissue removal from my left foot. I will be back on my feet in a week or so, however, many at the VA are not so lucky. They are bound to their wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.

Rolling through the halls, I noticed the civillians looking away, acting as if I did not exist. I don't know if it was guilt or something else but people were very uncomfortable with my presence. I had two bum shoulders and a seriously bandaged foot, and no offers for help. I had to use short strokes in turning the wheels of my chair and it really hurt.

The designated pick up point was overrun with first timers who had no idea what to do so I decided to go down hill to the SCI (spinal cord injury unit) where my wife could pick me up without waiting for the crowd. It was there where I found God. Not that I did not know him already but it is at the SCI where he lingers with those who had given the most to protect our freedom. You see, many of our veterans have lost the use of their legs, arms and even their ability to speak. In my mind, a lifetime of painful memories and no way to share them or replace them with better ones, is far worse than giving ones life.

Now that I've gained a "Criple's eye view" into the souls of the speechless vets, I understand that, if not for God, they would have no one to talk to at all. Only faith keeps these fellows going. When you are at eye level with these guys, you cannot look away. You are forced to read their eyes and hear the longing for a simple conversation from the heart of a broken soldier.

I saw the local news guy talking about how the supreme court, along with the Constitution, has given every American the right to posess a firearm. He was so wrong! It is God that gives us our rights, all of them. It is our military who puts everything on the line to protect those God given rights. Then, it is our Constitution which prevents our government from taking our God given rights away from us.

Read your Constitution and look for anywhere where it gives us any rights. Our founders were careful to state that our rights were "inalienable" and each amendment points out what rights cannot be taken from us.

The point is.. You have your rights because God gave them to you. You keep those rights because American soldiers sacrifice their own on your behalf. So if you pass by a Soldier or a Vet, and you choose to ignore him rather than look him in the eye, what does that make you? Please, for God's sake, thank them! I don't care if you simply look them in the eye and smile or you reach out and hug them, just show them that they have not given everything for nothing.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Gun Control?

The recent SCOTUS decision regarding gun bans and the 14th amendment, along with the tragic murders of two Tampa police officers last night, has driven me to reconsider my position on certain things. I realize this may come as a shock to my right wing brethren but I am ready to support a ban which could drastically decrease the number of innocent Americans being killed at the point of a gun.

Mayor Daley, of Chi-town, made a great case for a ban when he pointed out that 100,000 Americans are shot each year and eight die each day from gunshots. From that I decided to look into Chicago's crime statistics. I found that more than 77% of violent deaths, including domestic murders, shared one key ingredient. I also found that the same ingredient played a large role in forced robberies and personal crimes.

To know that, in the case of robberies, we could have prevented deaths for all but 4% of the victims by simply placing a ban on the specific cause of those death, it helps me put aside my concerns regarding the constitutionality of the ban. In fact, I am willing to forget that little part of the Constitution and enforce a Nationwide ban that would serve to put a stop to the vast majority of crime around the country.

Yes, it is time to put aside your own reservations (as freedom loving conservatives) and stand up for a complete and total ban on African Americans! What did you think I was going to say, ban guns? That would only invite new crimes. The fact is that Blacks commit more crimes than whites. It's true, in Chicago, only 4% of the murders committed during robberies are by white guys. At the same time, more than 77% of all gun crimes in Daley's little corner of Heaven were initiated by the squeeze of a black man's finger on a trigger.

Now back to reality.. For you morons who think that it is okay to forget the second amendment in order to quell crime, you are wrong! For any twisting of evidence that you can show me which gives some level of credence to your theory that gun bans lower violence, I can show you indisputable evidence that banning colored people would have a far greater effect. Let me say that BOTH IDEAS ARE RIDICULOUS!

I know for a fact that guns are no more responsible for crime than the color of a fellow's skin is. People pull triggers, not skin color, and triggers never pull themselves. There is a violent culture out there that has been adopted by the majority of young, poor urbanites. Most of them are black but that is a result, not a cause.

The left has proven to me that they can significantly change the political and economical landscape through social movements so why don't they spend some of that energy in changing the cultural landscape the same way. It is the left that glorifies the "gangsta" lifestyle, it is also the left that celebrates a culture of ignorance on MTV, BET and other social outlets. Seriously, they've convinced kids that capitalism is evil but murder is cool, WTF?

Friday, June 25, 2010

HEADLINE NOVEMBER 3: Republicans Suffer Unexpected Defeat

I am hearing the pundits predicting a strong presence by the Republican challengers to the Democratic congressional majority this November. It seems reasonable right? I mean, between the Tea Party movement and the clear "anti-incumbent" movement in the electorate, the Republicans are sure to win.

Not so fast! Sure it looks good for the right today, but what is coming down the pipe? Well, let me "splain" it to you.. This current movement towards the right is very similar to that of the first term of the FDR administration. He and his congressional majority had marched in to office and begun chomping at individual liberties (in the name of civil liberties) at a record pace. They pummeled the legislature with law after law in response to a chain of events that added up to a defined National Crisis.

At this point in the FDR years, he had created a huge recovery fund under the promise of fixing the economy but had only spent a portion of it. The conservative momentum from that huge spending bill seemed unstoppable and polls around the country reflected that momentum. As the mid term elections neared and the campaigns shifted into high gear, something started to change. FDR began to filter that un-spent money into strategic places, thus giving him and his party an un-noticed advantage.

It is my contention that our current administration is following the same playbook and will get similar results. Sadly, I predict a great disappointment after the November elections and I fear a much greater crisis in the coming years. Yes, Obama is going to get help on multiple levels and, like FDR, he will come out smelling like a rose. I know you think I'm crazy but let me explain my theory.

First, the economic indicators.. Unemployment, GDP, and inflation are three major economic indicators, in that, they seem to be directly attached to the state of our economy to the public at large. You can expect Obama to strictly monitor these indicators and use federal programs to artificially enhance them. The new banking control, for example, gives the government a great deal of power over interest rates, thus allowing control over inflation. They also use short term infrastructure projects (funded by the stimulus package) to lower unemployment for the near future. That is, at least until the projects are finished. New federal mandates regarding pollution, green jobs , and real estate can force a spike in the GDP and reflect well on the policies of the left.

Second, tactical windfall spending.. Obama and his minions have, no doubt, analyzed the state of the political arena. They know which markets are very unlikely to support a Democrat, very likely to support a Democrat, and those who are undecided. For those areas where Obama is sure that the Democrats will hold their seats, there will be very little stimulus money to go around. It will be the "swing" areas who get the most money. Obama will funnel money into local economies to make it appear that everyone else is getting the same level of help and thus, voters will be convinced that his programs are working for everyone. As for the strongly conservative areas, the battle between the RINOs and the Tea Parties will likely leave liberals with the plurality and the victory.

Third, the Bush Tax cuts... The Bush tax cuts are expected to expire next year and the wealthy are no dummies. If they can find a way to make their money this year while they can still keep it they will. The sudden increase in reported income will give the appearance that the economy has gotten better and even the rich will seem to be feeling the benefits of the Obama policies.

Finally, catastrophe... The Gulf Oil disaster is only the beginning, something else is on the way. It may be natural or it may be man made but the next tragedy is in the works. More than likely it will be much smaller than the media will make it out to be. It could be an illness, a death in the family, a riot, maybe an attempt on his life, who knows? Whatever it is, Obama will find a well timed burst in popularity because people will see a new level of humanity from the exalted one.

The trouble is that, next year, the wealthy will show less profit. They will be afraid to spend what they do make for fear of whatever socialist policies are yet to come from the still powerful Democratic majority. After the election the stimulus money will run out and in the beginning of next year they will have to address that shortfall. Soon after that, the short term projects will start wrapping up and unemployment will start to rise. This is what happened when Clinton provided short term funding for law enforcement across the nation. That funding stopped and cities were left unable to pay the new police and they were forced to let them go. The control over economic indicators will slowly slip through Obama's fingers and people will find themselves locked into another great depression.

This is why the recession of the 1920s became the Great Depression of the 1930s. This is also why we are facing the hardest times of our lives. I'm not trying to scare you, in stead, I'm trying to warn you. The only way we can prevent the repeat of this cycle is through education. Call out the left as they do the things that I've predicted. Remember this post and return to it in October. Show your friends just how things have gone as I've said and how they will continue as they have before. Now get out there and do your part, do it for those who do not see, do it for your children!

Friday, June 18, 2010

The Carrington Flare

It was late August, in the year 1859, many Americans were sitting down to read the newly published "Tale of Two Cities" when suddenly the night sky began to glow red. The fire in the sky drew attention from people all around the world but there was very little panic, in fact most were just fascinated.

By September 2nd, the telegraph machines in boston were so overwhelmed with power that the operators actually unplugged their batteries and allowed the system to run only on the power provided by the atmosphere. The better part of electrical consumption in those days was the widespread and international use of the telegraph, which was visible by the rats nest of wires that ran through the cities.

The curious wonder of the event was short lived though, as electric wires all over America and Europe started to burst into flames. Homes and businesses were destroyed and lives were shattered. Named for the astronomer who first recorded seeing the event unfold weeks earlier, the Carrington event was never considered a catastrophie but would be recorded as the weirdest solar event ever. The lasting aurora was visible as far south as Cuba.

The strongest solar flare in modern history occured in 1989 and cut power to an entire Canadian Province. The 1859 Carrington event was at least three times stronger. While normal solar flares take about four days to reach earth, the Carrington flare took just less than 18 hours to impact our fragile planet. It was that intense speed that allowed it to penetrate our natural magnetic defenses.

Now fast forward to today, a time when electromatic energy (in the form of electronic circuitry) provides us with almost everything we rely on. Todays electronics are far more sensative then the rough wires of the 1850s, and far more integrated into our lives. Just think about our communications, climate control, food storage, cars, airplanes, military weapons and nearly everything we touch in our daily lives. Imagine if every chip in the world failed at one time.

Well, if you haven't heard, the cycle has come back around. Scientists at NASA have established a cycle for this type of radical solar regurgitation and, according to them, that cycle repeats around 2013. Yes, three years from now we might be cutting our lawns as planes start falling from the skys. Fires might spark up all over the world and computer controlled weapons could do... well, who knows what could happen.

If you have not read my warning to prepare yourself for the worst, you should consider it now. This could be another Y2K style empty threat or it could be the biggest thing since global warming. Now that you have read a little history about the damage caused in 1859, you can decide for yourself just how valid the threat really is.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Dead Beat Dad PAC

Dead Beat Dads... it sounds so dirty. The evil of being a dead beat dad is so obvious to all on the outside but is it deserved?

Clearly there are those who earn good money but hide it from their former spouses for personal reasons but what about the rest? I have found that a great deal of great fathers have been forced into dead beat status by the very system that punishes them for that title. It's complicated but let me try to explain..

Imagine having a good solid career in a luxury industry, something like a pool salesman or a consumer electronics retailer. You find yourself working lots of overtime so that your wife can stay home and take care of your small children.

During this time, to your dismay, you find out that your loving wife has been loving someone else. You enter into a divorce and a child support obligation is assigned by the state that reflects your past income.

Now that you are divorced, and lonely, you drop a few hours to try to rebuild your life and try to re-establish social interaction. The state continues to force you to pay as if you were still working the overtime hours because "you chose to lower your income".

As time goes on, the economy begins to slump and the sales of consumer electronics takes a dramatic nose-dive. Along with this, your income splits in half. You go to court to try to lower the support obligation but the judge decides that you must continue to pay the original amount because he feels you are still just as capable of making money but you are intentionally lowering your income in spite.

When you make $50k and pay $13k, everyone is happy, but when you make $25k and are still required to pay $13k it gets real hard to pay your bills. Suddenly things are being taken from you, your car is re-claimed by the bank and your home goes into foreclosure. There is simply not enough work to make all of the payments and, with virtually no other experience, it is nearly impossible to get another job. Even fast food restaurants turn you down because they consider you "over-qualified".

Losing your vehicle and being forced to move in with friends or family, you find increasingly difficult to get to work and your paychecks start to suffer worse. Now you are making less than your support obligation and accruing debt with the state while barely making enough to get by. Now think about this, back when things were going great you met a perfect girl and married her. Before the economy turned bad, you decided to have a child with your new wife. Having lost your car, your home, and possibly your wife and young child you would be willing to do anything to make things work.

In desperation, you take a huge risk and enlist in the Military. Knowing that it would be years before you could make the money you once had, you accept the fact that your bold risk would be difficult for your family but could bring a basic sense of stability.

Then it happens, you find yourself in the troop medical center being told that you have sustained an injury that would permanently restrict the use of your dominant arm and that they would be discharging you as a result of that disability. Now, back at home, having endured painful surgery and nearly a year of rehabilitation in hopes of regaining some use of your arm, you are ready to re-enter the work force.

It is difficult to find work when 70% of the consumer electronics companies in your area have closed down and you are forced to compete with hundreds of unemployed applicants, who have no physical limitations, regardless of how good you once were. During the 18 months since you have returned from the Army, you have earned nothing and thus, paid nothing in child support. Just as you finally find a job, the state sends you notice that they would suspend your license if you do not pay the $17k owed in back child support. Well, so much for the job.

In the end, you have given every ounce of yourself to a system that has made it progressively more difficult to meet your obligations. You have sacrificed your home, your car, your wife, your children, your dignity, and even the use of your right arm in an attempt to do the right thing. Imagine, if you would, what it is like to give all of this up only to be tagged a "dead beat dad."

Obviously this story is not a random example of what might happen, it has happened. In fact, since I have forced myself to work harder to try to rebuild my life, I have seriously re-injured my right arm and will require another attempt at surgery. Beyond that, my left shoulder has suffered from the overcompensation and might require some amount of surgery as well.

Yes, this is my story. I know, from talking with others, that I am not alone. Many men are beaten down by a mixture of circumstance and a ridiculous system, and those men are living with the stigma of being a dead beat dad.

Now I am asking for help! I don't want your money, I want something else, something bigger. I suggest that, with more than half of Americans being divorced, there has to be a way to fix the system. I want to start a Dead Beat Dad PAC. Imagine how powerful we can be if we unite and offer political backing for those who would stand up for us. I have several ideas that would make it easier for the man to succeed while the mother gets what she needs rather than driving the father into the ground and hurting everyone.

Please send this to every divorced man you know and help me unify a group of good people who just need a little support so they might support their own.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Stock Up!

The faint smell of gun control is not from a distant memory but a warning of things to come. With the increase of border violence, the pain of the economy, and the power grab by our government, we are fast approaching a major movement against firearms. Like the stench of a coming storm, we are about to be hit by an anti-gun tsunami.

Think about it this way; The president of Mexico just passed through and blamed their violence on our lack of gun control (Obama agreed). The "state" of Chicago is about to test the recent Supreme Court decision on the D.C. gun ban. Liberals are feeling very powerful right now and, once the next election surprises the conservatives by going more liberal, the left will start pressing the issue.

Now is a good time to prepare for the storm. The wise thing to do, assuming you're a reasonable human being, is to arm yourself. I'm not suggesting that we prepare for some kind of war or anything but there are several good reasons to get ready.

First, we had a cold winter this year and a mild hurricane season last summer. This does not necessarily mean anything but it could be an omen. If the storm of storm comes through, especially with the flood of oil in the gulf, things could get ugly. It is reasonable to assume that the Katrina incident might be relived in your town. If so, there may be problems getting food, water, and fuel into the affected areas. Gangs of hungry, desperate people might come looking to relieve you of your supplies. It might come down to you or them.

Second, the terrorist potential. Never underestimate the possibility of a major terrorist attack, one that would bring the better part of the nation to a complete hault. How long would you last if the stores close down for a couple of weeks?

Third, civil unrest. With the virasity of today's political conflict, we could be edging toward a major event that might cause mass riots. A Boston Tea Party type of event or something like the Kent State shootings could spark major upheaval. Furthermore, what if, God forbid, some idiot takes a shot at Obama? Having seen what happened when a thug like Rodney King gets beaten by a few white cops, imagine what the riots would be like if the first black president is assassinated. You might be at work when the news hits and, on the way home, some thug pulls you out of your truck and beats you to death.

There's also the possibility of a global conflict. It's not far fetched to imagine an invasion, especially with the collapse of the global economy. We are the sole nation of wealth. Not so much the money but the resources. We would be an inviting target to a gang of failing countries, especially if we are politically divided.

The point is: Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. There is no harm in being ready. Go out and get yourself some food, water, fuel, and bullets.. Turn them over once in a while but keep a stock of those things that are important. Don't forget to consider the little things... diapers, toilet paper, soap, bug spray (when power goes out the bugs come in). Keep your Ice maker and gas tank full, make friends with your neighbors, and have a plan.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Splii Baby Spill!

I don't know if you've heard but there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While the news is telling us about every single bird, turtle, and fish that has been affected (along with unfounded estimates about how many others might have been), we hear little about the Humans who died in the accident.

Let me be the first to say to the families of those who died that my heart goes out to you and I consider your lost family member to have been a hero of sorts. They worked a very tough job so that we would not need to rely as much on imported oil from those who would intend to harm us. Thank you for your great sacrifice!

As for the media, the politicians, the oil companies, and damn near everyone else whose talking about this disaster.. Go F**k yourself! As far as we know, it was an accident. These things do happen. Nobody at BP wanted to pump countless gallons of potential profit into the gulf. Nobody in the government wants the oil to harm the environment. Nobody in the media wants to walk up and down the shore in the stench of salt, dead fish and crude oil. No body who kissed their husband goodbye that day wanted to spend the rest of their life dealing with their loss.

So why has this become a political issue? This is not Obama's fault. This is not Cheny's fault. It was a tragic accident that should have no effect on whether we continue drilling or not. Let's stop trying to blame people, stop using the incident for political capital, stop overstating the impact on the ecology, and start working to fix it.

I, for one, feel for the people at BP. They have been made to be evil, heartless, hatemongers by the media and our President. I think the proper response is to support BP in their time of need. My response has been simple.. For the last month I have purchased all of my gas from BP stations. This is my show of support for everything they are doing to try to make ammense for their mishap.

If you are a reasonable person you should consider doing the same!

Sunday, May 16, 2010

The Evil of Obama's Democracy

Everywhere I go, I find myself explaining to another undereducated political ostrich what Democracy is and why we are not democratic. Usually, when explaining the part about our being a Republic, these lost souls reply with "oh yeah, like in the national anthem". I realize they are talking about the pledge of allegiance but, well, at least it's a step.

The reason socialists are attracted to democracy is because it is inherently evil. Democracy is basically "mob rule", in that, the majority holds all of the power. The reason there are no democratic businesses is that they would collapse from within. If a business was run by all of its employees then the majority would inevitably vote for more money and demand that the minority take on the responsibility of meeting the budget. In time, the minority would join the majority or simply stop producing.

This is why Jefferson said that "in this republic"..."the majority must always prevail, unless it is at the expense of the minority." The problem we have today is that the majority is voting for things at the expense of the minority. Things like welfare, health care, energy, food, transportation and virtually anything else that our government can claim in the name of social justice. Not only is this anti-American but it is downright evil.. and it must be stopped.

The way I see it we have only two choices, revolt or secede. The former would involve a violent uprising against those who are working to redistribute everything through the power of the majority. This would be very bloody and would likely become a world war of sorts. It is safe to assume that the vast majority of our soldiers would come down on the "Right" side of the battle, as would much of American industry. The capitalists would probably concentrate into the middle of the nation leaving the southwest and northeast to the socialists.

The socialists would need to force themselves on the capitalists. After all, socialism breeds reliance and without the taxes of the wealthy they would need to invade. Many other socialist countries would gladly supply the left with weapons and soldiers to help overthrow the producers in the heartland. For us, the right, it would be very hard to find allies. Only a small handful of countries who rely on our productivity would stand with us so the battle would be he artful but nearly impossible to win. Regardless of the outcome, it feels better to fight to the death in the name of America than to just fold to our conquerors.

The other option, my favorite, is to secede. The left is doing everything they can to take from the rich and give to the poor. At the same time, they are working on amnesty for illegal aliens. So here's my thought.. If all of this nations producers liquidate their possessions and convert them to "tangibles" that can be kept in a protected place outside the reach of the U.S. government, then they can renounce citizenship.

Once they do this, they can take advantage of the movement towards amnesty. This would allow them to stay in the country and drain the government without contributing. With the serious drop in federal income on top of a new class of immigrants draining the social network, the federal government would be forced to fail. The American Socialist Democracy would suffer a complete economical collapse (much like Greece) and the door would be open for those who can rebuild the free market through tangibles.

This is effectively a hostile re-takeover, with no shots fired. Once the nation is back under the rule of the Constitution, we can punish those who led it astray. If you are reading this and considering me seditious then you are confused. I am patriotic, I love our country and swore to defend its fundamental document, the Constitution. It is the movement in support of the Obama doctrine that is seditious. I simply want to put the saddle back on democracy and put the American citizenry back into its rightful place.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Teacher Shmeacher

If there is one thing that I have learned in college, it's that teachers really believe they have all of the answers. To have a sociology professor claim that my logic is flawed and direct me to a University of California paper describing "Fallacy of Logic" is laughable. This professor acted as if anyone who had not graduated from college with a history degree had no place referring to history. This is the definition of "intellectual elite".

I have stated my position on teachers and lawyers before but let me do it again. MOST (not all) teachers became teachers because they were good at going to school but had no idea how to apply knowledge in "the real world". They usually have no real skills but think of themselves as brilliant because they outscored their peers when tested.

There are exceptions to this law. My English Comp professor, for instance, was passionate about teaching. He loved writing and was good at it so he felt obliged to impart his skill on anyone who would choose to learn. He is the teacher by which all others should be gauged,

As for the other kind, they are a joke. Just because you know all of the answers that the book has to offer, you think you are smart. The problem is that teachers NEVER experience the test of application. For the most part, teachers have been taught, they have not learned. Someone can teach you that steel is hard or lead is heavy but you never really learn until you break a few drill bits or drop it on your foot. Working knowledge is almost always better than the theories you've learned in your books.

I frequently hire people from trade schools who can recite all of the rules of electricity and acoustics. I have yet to keep one though. The better employees are the ones whose minds have not been guided, nor restricted, by formal education. They can do the things that "aren't supposed to work" when the educated guys refuse to try.

This applies to everything. There are many history majors who have been taught how our founders were and what they believed so they think they know them. I, on the other hand, chose not to read about our founders, I chose to read their own work. I have read thousands of letters written by Jefferson, Madison, Benjamin Rush, and several other great Americans. I have read letters regarding politics, religion, and even plain old family letters. I have learned their personalities and how others perceived them. I doubt many History teachers have the same knowledge as I but if you ask them, I am ignorant.

The fact is that: if you ask 30 soldiers how a battle went, you will get 30 different answers. The guy in the front might say that it was fast paced and scary but successful. The last guy in might say that it was a bloody failure and that it took forever. Chances are, the last guy left the Army to become a teacher.

The point is: Don't expect me to respect you simply because you have completed the necessary tasks to earn a teaching degree. I will respect you as a person until I see you using your position of authority to propagate your political opinions, at that point, you become my ideological enemy.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Laws Illegalizing the Breaking of Laws

Are you freaking kidding me? Is this some kind of semantical April fool’s joke? To hear the news babe say that Arizona passed a “law that criminalizes illegal aliens” made my head spin. Have we, as Americans, reached the point where we need to make laws that make breaking laws against the law? So, by that logic, maybe we should start on a new law that illegalizes the breaking of the law that makes it illegal to break the law!

I do understand that the lack of legality, in a free nation, does not, by default, make an action illegal. Stay with me, this gets pretty confusing. What I’m saying is that: There is no law written which makes it legal to walk slowly in a crowd. By definition, illegal means that something is either prohibited or not authorized by law. So the slow walker could be construed as an “illegal walker” but not a criminal offender.

When applied to our immigration laws, there are laws that state that one must go through specific channels in order to enter our great nation. Anyone who chooses to circumvent these laws has chosen to become, by definition, a criminal. Now back to my original question; are you freaking kidding me?

Not only are there morons who are opposed to this new law (for reasons other than its redundancy), but these heathens are rioting over it. They have taken it upon themselves to destroy property and attack policemen over a political disagreement. I will say it now, without reservation; if you disagree with my politics and choose to destroy my property or attack innocent Americans, prepare to find out what peace really is! I will send a piece of lead through you at around 3500 feet per second and you will rest in peace for eternity.

To support illegal immigrants means that you would be ok with me, and 10 of my friends, entering your home with the permission of someone whom you’ve never met. We would eat your food, wear your clothes, and even fix a few things around your house. Of course, one or two of us would rape your daughter, steel your money and leave your kids with some highly contagious disease and you will never know who it was because we have no identity.

This is what happens, the illegals are generally decent people who mean well but they refuse to separate themselves from the hard core criminals. If you work hard to make ends meet, is it any less legal to have your life destroyed by a mugger who wants to feed his family than one who simply wants to buy drugs? If you are so consumed with “compassion” that you think it is, feel free to walk around the ghetto with all of your money clenched in your fist, otherwise, get off of your high horse and face reality.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Minds Full Of Mush

Sitting around with a group of twenty-somethings, some college graduates and some still students, the topic of politics came up. Imagine that, me talking politics at a party. I was as impartial as I could stand to be, for as long as I could hold my tongue, and even when I objected, I was nice about it.

I asked these kids what they thought about Obama, hoping for some insightful response. One "kid" stood out as the talker and said "we rocked hard when he was elected but now he ain't so great". As insightful as that was, I had him elaborate. He went on to tell me that Bush was an idiot so he was glad to see an intellectual get elected. To this the others agreed and he continued, "we thought he was going to get us out of Bush's war but I guess nothing changes".

I asked them all what Bush did that was so stupid but the only evidence they had was something said by the Saturday Night Live rendition of him. I asked them why they called it Bush's war and they had no concrete answer except to repeat some idiot on the Comedy channel. I asked them some civics questions about how congress works and what the duties of the president were and only one young lady could answer any of them at all. I asked about the Constitution and heard short phrases like "separation of church and state", "freedom of speech", "some gun thing" and other disturbing sentences.

I asked them, as I always do, if I could use their words in my blog and, in embarrassment, they asked that I leave out their names. This was not the first time this has happened, in fact, it happened a couple of weeks ago as well. I only hope that my little quiz, and the resulting insecurities, led these future leaders to learn about the very system that allows them to be so ignorant. I only pray that you go out and challenge the minds of the young, MTV activists to actually understand the nonsense they spew.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Conservatism on Fags Adopting Kids

Lately there has been a lot of local noise about Florida's law banning adoption by "same sex couples". I think it is my responsibility to weigh in on the subject. Before I do I want you to be sitting down and I would like you to think before you fly off the handle.

Websters Dictionary defines "Disease" as: an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning. Most diseases has a negative effect on the reproductive system in some way or another. If you are strictly religious then you may believe that this is God's way of preventing generational spreading of these diseases. If you are an atheist then you may think that this is Mother Nature's way of accomplishing the same goal.

Regardless of your theology, nearly everyone is happy that science has led to new opportunities for those whose disease would have prevented them from raising children of their own. As for those who cannot be helped by science, there is adoption, which provides for those children who might otherwise have been aborted.

Let's be honest, homosexuality is a disease! It is a condition of abnormal function that directly effects reproduction. It is not an act of evil nor is it a social choice (for the most part), it simply exists as part of ones inner desires. Seriously, if you're a straight guy, do you really think you could simply start liking your sphincter getting reamed out. I know that gays don't like to be considered diseased but too bad. We call alcoholism and sex addiction diseases and we all know that's a crock.

So if we are to agree that homosexuality is a disease, and unlike cancer and MS it is not debilitating, and that it is wrong to prevent sick people from the joys of raising children then what's wrong with "queers" raising kids? It's not like they're going to teach their sickness to a child any more than a parent with cancer would wish their illness on their own offspring.

If you are just offended by their "lifestyle" then you have a huge battle ahead of you. A great number of people who are able to create life have no business doing so. There are many "lifestyles" into which many of our children are born that I disagree with but only God has the right to decide that. I think that God would much rather give a diseased couple the opportunity to raise and love children then have orphans rot away in some halfway house or be aborted by a hopeless mother.

If you are a true conservative then you must put away your disdain for the act of homosexuality, you must ignore the loud minority of overtly flamboyant sissies that try to paint a bold picture of what it is to be gay, and you must accept that the vast majority of homosexuals are just like you and me. They are everyday folks with everyday jobs and everyday problems. They only wish to find love and to live life as normal as they can while they struggle with the social misunderstanding of the disease that makes them desire whomever it is that they desire. It is time to take a better look at what it is to be a freedom loving conservative and stop trying to govern morality while ignoring morals.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Social Responsibility

Recently I received an email from a friend. This friend is a teacher of teachers, that is, this person travels from district to district and teaches other teachers how to teach students. As a high level educator my friend has a finger on the pulse of the public education system as much as anyone could. So you have to understand my concern when I received a link from this friend with a message attached begging that I get this information out to the public.

Our founders told us that we needed two separate systems of education, “one to teach us to make a living and another to teach us how to live.” The intent was for our families, churches, and social groups would teach us the latter and they would create a public education system for the former. This separation between moral and intellectual training was considered vital to social cohesion. Even now most public administrators want to keep religion out of school.

All of this being the case, how is that our public educators are taking it upon themselves to decide, define and provide the morality to our children? It never has been, nor is it now the job of the crappy public school system to teach morality or “social responsibility” to our kids. Frankly, I don’t see that our school system holds the moral equity to pass on their flawed ideology to my children.

Having looked over the link that my friend sent (http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/may09/vol66/num08/toc.aspx) I must say that I was rattled, to say the least. It seems innocent enough when you read “Shouldn't we also expose economics students to the humane, religious, and ethical ways of thinking about economics? The standards and texts ignore poverty as a moral issue, are silent about economic and social justice, fail to even mention charitable giving, say nothing about work as a calling, and avoid any mention of the effects of economic growth on the environment (Nord & Haynes, 1998)”, but read it again.

If you are a liberal then please consider the same written like this.. “Shouldn’t we also expose economics students to the vast rewards of the capitalist system while teaching them to live as children of Jesus Christ? The standards and texts ignore poverty as a personal responsibility, are silent about the basic truth that there is no such thing as economic or social justice, fail to mention that poverty comes from either laziness or a series of bad decisions and that churches and families are the sources of charity, say nothing about work as a decision, and avoid any mention of the effects of economic growth on improving the environment.”

How does that make you feel? You would consider it propaganda right? Well it is, and it’s all true, but it has no more place in our education system then your socialist propaganda does. It is only because you think you have some kind of moral and ethical high ground. The fact is that the public education system is a shining example of how government can screw up anything. You teachers feel smart because you went to college and received a document that says that you have been taught enough to teach children. This does not make you smart, in fact, chances are, you chose to teach because you had no marketable skills, talents or knowledge to help you succeed in “the real world”. So you went back to school, the only place you had ever been. You now have a sense of intellectual superiority (because your peers are children) and a job for which you are required to show no merit to succeed.

Yes, I realize that there are some teachers out there who are actually doing it for the right reasons but then, you’re not the one’s pushing this socialist agenda. You see, public education is a socialist environment. Teachers are paid to show up! If they keep showing up, year after year, they keep getting raises regardless of their “productivity” (or lack thereof). They receive benefits of the highest order, they get tons of holidays and they qualify for tenure (meaning they cannot be fired without an act of congress). I know, I know.. Why EARN a living wage when you can just vote for it.

It’s easy to see why these people support socialism, after all, the money for schools is handed to them by the almighty government and nobody has to actually sell anything. The public is forced to buy their product by law while truancy officers force customers through their doors. What they do not understand is that the same system cannot work if all receive and there is no one to give. But then, most teachers only know what they were taught and their teachers were never taught to teach them that stuff.

Again, I encourage you to look over the site linked above and if you see nothing wrong with it then please.. Smear some environmentally friendly, non petroleum, Government Issue, union supported, high viscosity lubricant around the pointed top of your long haired, pot stinking, Stalin loving melon and cram it up your free market hating, MSNBC watching, Obama worshiping rectum.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Joining the rest of the Modern World?

I’ve brought it up before but I feel I must briefly visit the topic again. I keep hearing leftist idiots say that we are “finally joining the rest of the modern world” by installing socialized medicine. I decided to do the research and I was kind of surprised. I always knew that the majority of medical breakthroughs owed their existence but I didn’t realize just how right I was.

If you look up a list of the top 5, 10 or even 100 medical breakthroughs of all time you will find… wait.. Instead of telling you, I want you to figure it out for yourself. This way you can’t just call me a liar.

I will give you a hint. Every single one is the direct result of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. I dare you to prove me wrong. If you consider Aspirin, a German invention which would (according to their own historical account) have never reached widespread availability had they not procured a US patent. In 1919 the Sterling Products company of West Virginia (that is in America for you liberals) risked $3 million on the development of Bayer’s Aspirin. This risk would be illegal under the new health care law.

Penicillin was discovered in Europe but the economy of the socialist European nations was prohibitive for the production of the necessary quantities for clinical trials. They “turned to the United States for help” and through private contributions Howard Florey and Norman Heatly were able to develop the life saving antibiotics that we rely on today. Again, the private funding would not have existed under the new Democratic health care bill.

I would argue that; if the progressives had forced this bill in the beginning of the American experiment then we would not have Aspirin, Antibiotics, anesthesia, artificial hearts, and most other advantages that modern medicine has brought us.

So, with this undeniable evidence to support my case then we must consider the next logical thought. What new breakthroughs will be restricted by our joining the rest of the modern world in adopting socialized medicine. What cures? What advancements? What treatments? What is the real cost of the destruction of the free market. What is the cost to your life and that of your children in the name of “punishing” successful companies for having a better idea and wanting to be paid for it?
I’ve said it before and I will say it again… If you don’t like America then leave it, don’t change it

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Enimy at the Gate

Today we sit and wait for the verdict. Are we going to remain a nation of free people or have the majority figured out that they can vote away their freedom for a paycheck. As you leftists sit and cheer for this legislation, there are a few things you should consider.

First of all, the government has no power to produce! This means that it can only consume. Let me explain.. For the government to give something to someone they must first take it from someone else. As the government takes from one it divides what it takes, keeping its share and distributing the rest. Like any engine which is doing well to convert 60% of the energy it consumes to forward motion and losing the rest to heat, a government is perpetually inefficient.

Secondly; the harder you try to make all people equal the more you highlight their inequalities. The only way to provide universal equality is to ensure that all are equally without, that is, to strip everyone of everything. The movie "Enemy at the Gate" provides a subtle yet powerful example of this fact. The Soviet Union struggled with this paradox as it tried to create a universal utopia.

In a socialist society there is one constant and we are beginning to see it now. Each time an action or idea proves to be successful that success is equally divided throughout society. In financial terms, if the average income for 1000 people is 100 dollars a week and someone figures out how to double his money, that extra 100 is divided out 1000 ways. If you can't do the math then turn off your computer and go watch American Idol. With that incrimental increase resulting from doubled effort, why would anyone ever double their effort. And thus... equality through governmental interdiction.

Each time a socialist gets ahead there is a new law written to keep that from happening again. This is undeniable, look at the laws that govern your precious European nations. If this is the life you want then just hop on British Airways or build yourself a shotty raft and head to some other country. Please stop trying to destroy this great nation.

We are on the edge of a total loss of everything our soldiers have sacrificed for throughout time. I, for one, will not let this happen. We will fight this socialist takeover on a political level for as long as we have the means to do so. If, at some point in time, we lose the freedom to battle in the arena of ideas then we will take this fight to our death and defend the American way, by all means necessary.

I'm not suggesting we turn to violence in this battle, but rest assured... If you socialists think you can tread on us you are sadly mistaken!

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Fundamental Right?

While listening to the Schnitt Show, this afternoon, I heard another moron call healthcare a fundamental right. Please... let me vent!

Nothing that must be provided by one human being is a right for another human being. We, as humans, have a hand full of rights that are fundamental but can be taken from us. Let me give you the short list.

1. You have the right to life. You may live as long as you are capable of keeping yourself alive and no other person has the right to take your life.

2. You have the right to liberty. You can make your own decisions as long as you aren't stepping on the liberty of another, regardless of whether the decisions help or harm you.

3. You have the right to pursue happiness. You can offer up the product of your labor in trade for the product of someone Else's and the price is between the buyer and the seller, not society and the government (minimum wage?).

4. You have the right to think, feel or say anything you want about another person. If some idiot wants to run around calling everyone a "nigger" then let him. Just don't listen to him whine when he loses all of his friends.

There are a few others I'm sure, but the point is... If every doctor or medical professional in the world decided to quit their jobs one day then who would provide this, so called, "fundamental right"? You see, that's what makes it more of a responsibility then a right.

We cannot force responsibility through government. If we did, it would resemble slavery and we don't want to go back there. I personally think that anyone who thinks healthcare is a right should be forced to give up the product of their labor for the common good. This might change their mind, or we might find that those who think that way are the ones who produce nothing to contribute.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Our Education System

After reading posts on my school discussion board I am a bit shaken. What is happening to our society? When asked how to solve a drug problem in our society it seems most of the youth in my area think the solution is in regulation of corporate entities. That is, they think that pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the Meth problem.

Seriously? That's tant amount to blaming metal companies for gun violence. The Idea that some kind of government intervention on the supply of medicine would prevent people from distorting the intended use of that medicine is absurd. Frankly it frightens me that people are more ready to blame "greedy capitalists" then greedy consumers. Where do people get the idea that capitalism is bad?

Think about it, if not for capitalism then we would still be living in the eighteenth century. We would have no medical system to speak of, we would be confined to small areas and we would be ruled by tyrants. Is this really the solution to our little problems today?

Is it not evident that it was the introduction of governmental politics that ruined the free market? How can someone say that it was the philosophy that one gets what he earns rather than having to share what he earns with one who only wants is really going to work out?

I'm hoping that some of my classmates are willing to move an improperly placed political debate to this forum and continue unrestrained for the benefit of enlightenment. I am willing and eager to engage in a debate between Americanism and progressivism with anyone who is willing to accept the challenge.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

The New Left

What if I were to say that I want to kill all jews and you thought there were better ways to fix the economy. And then I said that the fair thing to do is to come together and decide the best way to kill them as a bi-partison effort. This is the mentality of the left.

They insist that bi-partisonism is agreeing with how to do what they want to do. This president of ours does not get that he has no right to take over health care, energy, education, the auto industry, banks and corporate wages. He actually says we need to come up with a bi-partison way of doing all of these things.

I have always maintained that to follow Obama makes one either unintelligent, uninformed or unAmerican. So this being a fact, what does this say about him. Clearly he is intelligent right? he went to an Ivy league school and has a law degree.

He professes to have a clear understanding of the Constitution, enough so that he said that it was a flawed document that restricts government rather than empowering it. This tells me that he is informed (although badly, I believe)so that can't be the problem right?

That leaves us with the hardest fact to accept. I still like to think that his un-American foundation is a result of bad information and more credit for his intellect then he really deserves. After all, to be that un-American would be downright evil.

If he really believes as he has acted and stated, this means that he thinks the Constitution needs to be replaced with some kind of manifesto. He would have to think that anyone who has not completed the necessary schooling to acheive a law degree has gained no usefull knowledge from which to guide his life. He might insist that the power of elected office supercedes any market forces, that is, no matter how successful one business is our politicians have the right to dictate income, profit and lifestyles of those who have worked for that success. He sees the federal government as the great equalizer who can divert taxpayer money from one man to another based ethnicity rather than merit.

There are many other ideas pronounced by our President and his appointed representitives that are just as frightening as these.. but you should think about this... Every thing I've listed are ideas that I can prove have been forwarded by this administration, they are also ideas that were offered in Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Open your bi-partison eyes and look at where your support for the left is taking us.

I just want you to learn about the leftists in our history and look (objectivly) at what the new left is saying. You could argue whether it is purposful or not but you can not argue that it is wildly anti-American .
Custom Search