Choosing to NOT Be a Victim

I got this via email from a friend and thought it was such a powerful message that I wanted to share it with more than just my contacts.

The Gun Is Civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act!!

By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)

Thanks to Major Caudill for an excellent explanation of the real value of guns. Yet, there are a lot of people out there who want an uncivilized world where mobs and baseball bats rule. We even have a hard and fast rule (called the Second Amendment) that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, yet there are a lot of people out there who can’t read and understand English, including four of our nine Supreme Court justices.  

You’ll note, if you can read and understand English, that there’s a period right after “shall not be infringed.” No exceptions. No ‘unless anti-gun lobbyists can scare people into being an uncivilized mob.’ No exceptions. No ‘unless the state or city decides otherwise.’ No exceptions. Not even ‘unless the Supreme Court agrees.’ No exceptions, period.  

That brings me to excellent article I wanted to pass on from America’s Freedom 1^st, February 2012 – how the anti-gun lobbyists lie to scare people about guns. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns said, every year thousands of murders are committed “by law-abiding citizens who might have stayed law-abiding if they had not possessed firearms.” (From A Shooting Gallery Called America, undated pamphlet). Yet, a New York Times study in NYC in 2003-2005 found “More than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records…” In Baltimore, police records show that 92% of murder suspects in 2006 had criminal records.” (The Baltimore Sun, Jan 1, 2007). Guns don’t turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, they protect us from criminals who commit the vast majority of violent crimes.

When the mainstream media started a disinformation campaign about gun accidents involving children, the idea caught on. The truth is that in the past forty years, deaths of children from handguns have dropped by 90%. In 2007, only 65 children died from handgun accidents. In that same year, 104 children died in bathtubs and 346 died in swimming pools (Center for Disease Control). It would be more prudent to ban bathtubs and swimming pools and cars and a host of other deadly traps if we’re concerned about deaths of children. Guns are not the out-of-control hazard that the media claims.

The number of guns is increasing and so is gun education, which contributes to gun safety and a decrease in gun related deaths. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System reduces the number of firearms in the hands of criminals, the most likely group to commit gun violence. You can also choose to not keep and bear arms. If you don’t feel competent to use one safely and to keep it away from children, then please exclude yourself from gun ownership. As for me, I carry a concealed weapon. It’s my choice to protect myself and my family from someone who wants to use force to convince me. Why would anyone want to turn me into a victim? It’s not rhetorical. Answer the question – why are there people in the government, media, and anti-gun groups who want you to be a victim?

Corralling Congress and the Constitution

During the Republican Presidential debate on September 22, 2011, the question was put to the candidates about dismantling the Department of Education. Generally the candidates agreed that education is a state issue, not a federal issue. First, education is not one of Congress’ enumerated powers and so they have no authority to pass laws related to education. Second, the President executes the laws passed by Congress and if Congress hasn’t the authority to control education, then neither does the President. Third, the Tenth Amendment gives the power to control education to the States by virtue of the fact that it is not one of Congress’ enumerated powers.

 The same can be said for most of the other cabinet positions. The federal government does not have the authority to control housing and urban development, health and human welfare, the environment, or energy. Congress has the authority to control the nation’s defense including the military, homeland security, and veterans’ affairs; treasury; commerce; and affairs of state. The remaining cabinet positions are either questionable or outright unconstitutional.

 Yet, at the same time, I am reluctant to put the decision to dismantle a large part of our federal government into the hands of the President alone. It needs to be done, but to do so steps on many toes. It’s a political hot potato that damns a politician for even talking about it. The man or woman who drastically cuts the federal government will build a stronger America and create a lot of enemies.

I have a simple suggestion on how to justify dismantling a cabinet department. Let’s take the Department of Education as an example. The President should propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that makes education one of Congress’ enumerated powers and give Congress and the States two years to ratify the amendment. I am very confident that the amendment will not pass Congress and be ratified by 37 states in those two years or ever.  Education is a right of the States and it should stay that way. After the two years have expired, the President can then dismantle the Department of Education. It is no longer the President’s decision alone. Failure of the amendment to succeed means the people and the States do not want a federal Department of Education. The people made the decision, not the President.

When individual amendments to add agriculture, housing, health, labor, and energy fail, then each of those departments can be closed by the will of the people. On the other hand, if one of those amendments is ratified, then the federal government has the constitutional authority to legislate and control that aspect of our lives, rather than the current situation where Congress has assumed control and the States lack the collective will to reassert their Tenth Amendment rights.  

The question remains what to do to fill the void when, for example, the education amendment fails and national education policy and laws are deemed unconstitutional and no longer enforced. Of course, the States would assume the role. Each state can establish its own laws and standards. A state who wants to emphasize K-12 education can do so and other states may be satisfied with minimally educating their children. It’s their choice and their right.

How can we standardize education across the country with 50 states asserting their own policies? My response is to draw attention to the success of the ubiquitous Underwriter’s Laboratory (UL). You cannot buy an electrical appliance that doesn’t have the UL logo on it that indicates it is approved as safe to use in your house. Retailers won’t carry unsafe appliances and discerning customers won’t buy them. Yet, UL is not a government organization. It was established by the insurance industry as an independent lab to ensure the safety of electrical appliances. It is administered by the private sector, not the federal government. As such, to maintain its reputation and existence, the UL is concerned about accuracy, fraud, and waste – unlike government organizations that don’t have to worry about any of those because the bureaucracy of the federal government protects them.

Mirroring the UL, the States can create an independent national organization staffed by educators and school administrators. This organization would certify schools as providing the necessary level of education according to the state’s laws, rate the competency of teachers and make recommendations to retain or replace individual teachers, and establish standardized tests to determine if a student should pass to the next grade. Our schools are certified by various organizations already. There are standardized tests. The next step is to use those resources to make education decisions. That’s the right of the States, but the federal government hinders the States with “Leave No Child Behind” and other policies and laws. Face it, some children need to be left behind until they learn. I taught 7^th grade math and was stymied by the fact that some of my students couldn’t perform 4^th grade arithmetic. Was the education system working for them?

Teachers’ unions also hinder the quality of education. The union cares about the teachers, not the students. The union protects incompetent teachers and prevents the education system from meeting the needs of the parents and students. Teachers’ unions should support an independent organization to improve education even if it means challenging the unproductive notions of seniority and tenure. To be fair, plenty of individual teachers do care about parents and students; the collective mob mentality of a union does not.

As we dismantle each illegitimate cabinet post and the regulations they enforce, we can replace them with independent organizations to establish housing standards, workplace safety standards, and health insurance standards – private organizations funded by the appropriate industry to replace overly stringent government regulation with seals of approval.   

I have to consider the question as to whether some of the illegitimate cabinet departments should be legitimate. Who but the federal government can establish a national energy policy? Who but the federal government can effectively monitor and regulate the environment when one state’s policies could interfere with a neighboring state’s policies? To wit, the U.S. and Mexico have an agreement on how much water from the Colorado River should flow into Mexico, but we retain more than our agreed share and Mexico is powerless to stop us. Without an overarching authority, individual states would battle for scarce resources. I leave those questions unanswered, but I do mean to establish that we either put the environment and energy in the U.S. Constitution as one of Congress’ enumerated powers or not. We cannot let Congress pass laws without the authority to do so.

Finally, just another thought along the lines of using constitutional amendments to corral Congress, States, and cities. The President should propose an amendment that says, “The Second Amendment is revoked. Congress, the States, and local governments have the authority to pass reasonable laws to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.” I hope that scares you. You should already be concerned that Congress, the States, and local governments do pass laws that infringe on your right to keep and bear arms and the U.S. Supreme Court supports many of them in an underhanded, illegal (and so far successful) attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution by judicial authority. If that’s what we want, then let’s revoke the Second Amendment so it’s legal to ban guns, ammunition, and shooting ranges. However, that is not what we want. That amendment would never pass. The President can propose it and give Congress and the States two years to ratify that amendment and when it fails, he can tell the U.S. Supreme Court that the people have spoken and challenge their authority to rule in favor of any gun control laws. At that point, it would not be unreasonable for the President to charge a Supreme Court justice who votes to deny us our Second Amendment right with treason for defiling the U.S. Constitution and ignoring the will of the people.

How to Raise Taxes

Did you know that when a city comes under a budget crunch, the first thing the mayor cuts is highly visible programs like trash removal and education? Why? Because that way the people will agree to higher taxes. It’s highly unethical to cut the most important programs while keeping pet projects and special interests’ programs fully funded. Yet, this is what’s happening in Tucson now.  Why would we agree to higher taxes if the projects being cut were unimportant in the grand scheme of things?

You won’t get this kind of misdirection from me. It’s time to stop funding the wrong things and start funding our future.  It’s time for a sensible balanced budget that meets the people’s needs.

Congress is Absolutely Spineless

President obama is required to obtain congressional approval if hostilities go past 60 days. He has not obtained approval for the military operation in libya. Today (15 June, 2011), defense secretary gates (need I point out who he works for?) said that we are engaged in a “limited kinetic operation.” Excuse me, whatever you call it, it’s hostile, it’s war, and it’s illegal. Yet, congress, the very 535 people whose authority is being trampled, is blithely going along with this charade. There is a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances for a reason and congress is selling us out! Don’t ask me why, I’ve stopped wondering about stupidity at the highest levels.

So, I just have to ask what’s next?

1. President obama writes an executive order to eliminate farm subsidies to farmers who won’t post “Obama Forever” signs alongside major roads passing by their property and the interior secretary (need I point out who he works for?)  says, “It’s just a patriotic advertising campaign to build confidence in our government.”
2. President obama shuts down the internet and the commerce secretary says, “This is a limited anti-spam operation.”
3. President obama stops funding schools in Arizona and the education secretary says, “We’re encouraging Arizona to embrace our diversity.”
4. President obama starts ordering nuclear plants to close and the energy secretary says, “I don’t know. Ask the health and human services secretary,” who says, “We’re conducting a long term study in the effects of radiation on cancer.”
5. President obama provides federal funds for building the mosque at ground zero and the homeland security secretary says, “We’re seeking peaceful relations with those wonderful muslims who are certainly not terrorists.”
6. El presidente obama stands up a private army with authority to act in the U.S. against U.S. citizens and the housing and urban development secretary  says, “We’re providing humanitarian assistance to the under privileged.”
7. President obama starts closing National Parks and the interior secretary, says “We’re conducting a limited reduction in outdoor activities.”
8. President Obama releases all prisoners in gitmo and the attorney general says, “It was a computer glitch.”
9. President obama extends unemployment benefits indefinitely and the labor secretary says, “It’s in the budget. We just leased california to the chinese.”
10. President obama declares sharia law is allowed in states the begin with the letter M and the state secretary says, “We’re building bridges to our muslim friends. Not allowing muslims to practice their religion is cruel and unusual punishment.”
11. President obama puts checkpoints at all state lines and the transportation secretary says, “We’re shutting down the flow of drugs.”
12. President obama puts his face on the $1, $5, $10, and $20 bill and the treasury secretary says, “We’re homogenizing our currency.” Actually this might be OK – who’d want to counterfeit him?
13. President obama shuts down the VA and the (former) VA secretary says, “Veterans are potential terrorists anyway and all you conservatives think muslims are terrorists and we don’t have a department of muslim affairs, do we?”

Seriously, when you let the president exceed his limits, then HE HAS NO LIMITS. If congress won’t stop him, then who will? How stupid can you be? And I’m not talking about congress being stupid, I’m talking about YOU! Think about being a jew in 1933 germany. No big deal? Somebody will stop that hitler guy. Now, think up your own worst case scenario. The government and the media will make it sound like it’s no big deal.

As for you, congress… just disband yourselves. You’re just a puppet now anyway. As for senator mccain… I can hear him say, “Gorsh, ya mean my heroes are al kyda?”

Obama’s True Colors: Muslim to the Core

Here is an interesting resource in regards to taqiyya – deception by Muslims. Pretending to be a Christian can be an act of taqiyya. “Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.” (http://www.islam-watch.org) If President Obama is Muslim, he won’t admit it and isn’t denigrating his Muslim faith by claiming to be Christian. So don’t ask him, watch him.

Going to a Christian church is not enough to make someone a Christian. I used to consider myself an atheist, but, being raised as a Christian, I still practiced Christian values, considered the U.S. to be a Christian nation, and held Christianity in the highest regard. Outwardly I was an atheist, but I was Christian to the core. It’s a fact that Obama was raised as a Muslim, so I naturally draw the same conclusion about him. The Muslim faith is ingrained in him to the level that he cannot deny its influence on him. He is Muslim to the core. A YouTube video, titled Obama Admits He Is a Muslim, provides strong evidence of his true self.

The video includes a sound bite in which Obama gives credit to the Muslim world for algebra, “it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra.” It is indeed true that algebra is an Arabic word and mathematics was kept alive by Arab scholars during Europe’s Dark Ages. But, just think about this. Has he given credit to Christians for?

• The U.S. Constitution – Our founding fathers were Christians
• Powered flight – Does he think the Wright brothers were Buddhists?
• Nuclear power – The predominantly Judeo-Christian west is responsible for this great leap forward
• Landing on the moon – Proposed by John Kennedy and executed finally by three men, none of whom had a Muslim name
• The Internet – A U.S. led effort that Obama’s administration is trying to surrender to the global community

Has he given credit to Confucianism for gunpowder or pagans (Greeks) for democracy? Why then in this case would he feel justified to glorify a religion (Islam) rather than a people or a nation? He’s a Muslim with a Muslim agenda. Perhaps it sounds just fine because we see the Muslim world as a monolithic thing. Can we really draw the conclusion that since out there in that place we call the Middle East where Muslims live, algebra was invented and therefore it was the Muslims, not the Persians, Arabs, or Egyptians? Fact check: Algebra was invented by the Babylonians in 1900 BC. That’s in the Middle East, but it was 2600 years before Mohammed! So, all Obama can do is give credit to Muslims where credit is not due? Facts are unimportant in the propagation of religion and Obama sounds more like an Imam than the President of a nation with religious freedom.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in freedom of religion. I just disagree with lying about your religion to get votes or lying about anything to get votes for that matter. I’m concerned when the President lies to us about his faith. What is his true agenda? Why does he have to deceive us? The video mentioned above makes it clear that his goal is to promote Islam. He deceives us because as a Christian, his motives can be disguised and his credibility increases.

I’m concerned when Obama uses the lie to shield the truth about U.S. foreign policy. In an incredible turnabout, this anti-Semitic President just told Israel to return to the 1967 borders when Israel considers those borders indefensible and every President before him put Israel’s survival ahead of the Arab desire to wipe them off the map. What’s next? Do we return America to the Native Americans? Well, obviously not, because they aren’t Muslims, so Obama doesn’t care about them. It’s this flippant application of policy that shows Obama is truly Muslim to the core. His policies are not inconsistently applied; they’re just consistently pro-Muslim.

When Obama’s foreign policy consistently sides with Islam, that’s what really defines him as Muslim. What he says about himself doesn’t matter – actions speak louder than words. So how can the U.S. media and citizens be blind to his true nature?

• While Shiite dominated Iran pursues nuclear weapons with a threat to use them against Israel, the U.S. has taken virtually no action to stop this alarming situation. Ineffectively imposed sanctions have not stopped Iran. We will soon see nuclear weapons in the hands of a nation that supports Muslim terrorists and is engaged in its own aggressive policies.
• When protests in Egypt came to a head, President Mubarak offered to step down in September following elections. That wasn’t good enough for Obama, who told Mubarak to step down now. Why was waiting for an election a bad idea and why did the U.S. force a foreign leader, an ally at that, out of power? The answer is two-fold. First, Egypt under Anwar Sadat forged peace with Israel and Mubarak continued that stance. Obama does not want peace between the Arabs and Israel. Second, the real winner in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood who supported the rebellion and now wields power in Egypt. The real losers are the Christians in Egypt. Increased, post-Mubarak Christian persecution resulted in the burning of two churches. The U.S. turned on an ally to promote Islam at the expense of Israel and Christianity.
• In Libya, the U.S. turned on an enemy to promote Islam. This illegal action continues today. Granted, Gaddafi is a particularly bad guy who sanctions terrorism, but why attack Gaddafi forces and ignore other tyrants? It’s because Gaddafi restricts Muslims throughout Libya. The revolt underway there is a Muslim uprising against a non-Muslim strongman. There are links between the rebels and Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda. That’s right, the U.S. is now supporting terrorists. Of course, that’s because they are Muslim terrorists.
• Throughout the Arab world, Shiite Muslims are rising up against Sunni dominated governments – Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain. These rebellions are largely fomented by Iran as they seek to dominate the Middle East. Again I have to ask why does the U.S. take no action to stop Iran? Why aid rebels in Libya, but not elsewhere when hundreds of protesters are massacred by their government? The answer is: in Egypt and Libya, Obama supports Muslims. In Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain, he doesn’t care who wins because they’re all Muslims.

I’m not saying that Obama bows to Mecca, though he bowed to a Saudi king, that he regularly visits a mosque, that he doesn’t attend church, or that he’d ever admit he’s a Muslim. All I’m saying is if you teach a rat to bark like a dog, it will still hang out with the other rats.

My Bad

Actually I hate it when people say, “My bad.” It’s a flippant response that comes across as, ‘I was wrong, but that doesn’t bother me a bit.’ Used at the wrong time as it usually is, it downplays the bad and assumes forgiveness. In this case, I’m delighted to say it. Donald Trump proved my last post wrong. By announcing his non-candidacy fo the Republican nomination, he has assuaged my concerns that his real goal is to get Obama re-elected. So, my bad – yes, I was wrong, but that doesn’t bother me a bit.

The Reality of the Donald

Donald Trump is considering a run for the presidency as the Republican candidate. The reality is that Donald Trump doesn’t expect to be president. Heck, he doesn’t even want to be. He wants Obama to be president. Look at the facts.

• First, he just changed from Democrat to Republican in 2009. Who knows for sure, but don’t you think he probably voted for Obama in 2008? Now is he having voter’s remorse? In reality, he’s so fickle that he can’t make up his mind. You want a president who turns on a dime on the most important issues facing this country?

• Second, in 2000 he proposed a tax on the assets of the wealthy (anyone with over $10M) of 14.25% to balance the budget. That tax the rich philosophy sounds like Obama’s approach to all our ills, not a Republican platform. He claimed the one-time tax would raise $5 trillion dollars. That would mean that our richest people in the U.S. combined have $34 trillion in assets. Is there that much money in the world? Do you want a president whose logic rivals a fourth grader and math skills might compete with a sixth grader at best?

• Third, just to reinforce point number one, now he says taxing the rich isn’t the right answer. At least he said he wants the Bush era tax cuts to remain in effect.

• Fourth, let’s face it, Ronald Reagan was a movie star and a conservative. Donald Trump is a TV joke and a… hmm, not sure what he is because of points one and three.

That brings me to the reality of his run for the presidency. Remember Ross Perot? For you who don’t remember his run in 1992, check out these statistics. Perot ran for the Republican nomination and didn’t get it. Not to be deterred from his chance at glory (note that he didn’t stand a chance as an independent), he got on the ballot for the Reform Party. When you look at those stats, imagine what would have happened if Bush didn’t have to split the vote with an ego centric billionaire. Thank Ross Perot for altering the future of America. Does this sound familiar yet? Let me make it perfectly clear. Donald Trump fakes a run for the Republican candidacy and loses.

• Egomaniac? Check.

• Former Democrat? Check.

• Republican? Wink, wink.

• Doesn’t like to lose? Check.

Trump runs as an independent, splits the vote, and ensures reelection of the worst president in American history.

I certainly hope history does not prove me right, but that’s how I see the next 18 month unfolding. If we aren’t buried by November 2012, we will be after another 4 years of Obama. Thanks Donald Trump for altering the future of… what’s that… oh yeah, thanks, Donald Trump for nailing the coffin shut on America.

The Illegitimacy of the U.S. Government

Our Founding Fathers wrote the U. S. Constitution as a pact between man and God. In the Declaration of Independence, this is clear when it states “one people” (us) should attain “the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.” It’s a pact that codifies God’s natural laws of self-determination, human rights, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in human terms. For years American government was based on the Constitution and for years America prospered. In Deuteronomy, when the Jews strayed from God’s word, they suffered. Do we suffer today because we’ve strayed from the pact we made with God?

Let me put it in secular terms. What I do know is that our Founding Fathers made a pact between the federal government, the states, and their citizens. What I know is that we’ve strayed from the U.S. Constitution to the degree that our government no longer has a legitimate basis. What I do know is that we suffer under the reign of power hungry elected officials who care nothing for the very document that gives them executive, legislative, and judicial power and legitimacy.

The Second Amendment establishes in no uncertain terms that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why then do four out of nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court routinely vote in favor of gun laws? How can even the simplest mind misinterpret the words of the Second Amendment? (Yes, I just called four justices stupid and just watch while I add governors and mayors to the list). Why do most states and cities have laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, including the District of Columbia whose laws are in the hands of Congress? (Yes, I just called Congress stupid, most of the 535 members anyway.) Think about it. The Second Amendment does not allow exceptions. The Supreme Court, Congress, states, and cities do NOT have the authority to infringe on your right to keep and bear Arms. They cannot make you register your Arms; keep your Arms off military bases and national parks, out of their city, or out of their state; or even keep Arms off airplanes. Side notes:

• Who would hijack an airplane if half the passengers on board exercised their Second Amendment rights?
• Switzerland trains everyone in the use of firearms and issues everyone a firearm and has the lowest crime rate in Europe.
• Arizona, a state with the least stringent gun control laws, had the lowest gun crime rate.
• If the Army allowed weapons on Ft. Hood, a lot of soldiers would be alive today. Yes, I just called the Army stupid, too. It’s the Army and they don’t have guns? Duh!

Back on topic – The First Amendment says (among other things), “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and the Tenth Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The intent of our Founding Fathers was that States could make laws respecting an establishment of religion. Why do you think we call Pennsylvania the Quaker State? It was the state religion in 1793 when the Constitution was ratified. Don’t like the state religion? Move to another state. We like to embrace diversity and our Founding Fathers permitted State diversity of religion. Where did the U.S. Supreme Court find the authority to rule that states cannot make laws respecting an establishment of religion in violation of the First and Tenth Amendment? How does a “legal” entity such as the Supreme Court act outside the law and get away with it? Nobody should be that supreme in anything!

Fact: There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits a state from outlawing Islam. On the contrary, while Congress cannot, the states are specifically empowered to establish or outlaw religions.

Some shady people (like Senators and Representatives and Presidents and Justices and Cabinet members and “czars” [weren’t they all killed in 1917 because they were bad people?]) think the Constitution is open to interpretation. Wouldn’t you like to be the person in charge who gets to “interpret” the Constitution? You could be shady, too. For example, Congress has sixteen enumerated powers. I’m not counting #17 that says they can make laws in DC and #18 that says they can make laws to enforce the other sixteen (duh!). Not one of them authorizes national health care, the Department of Education, or the Environmental Protection Agency. Instead, we should invoke the Tenth Amendment again which gives those powers and more to the States.

OK, so now you may want to argue that gun laws are good, separation of church and state is right (that was made up by the Supreme Court, it’s not in the Constitution), that the federal (oversized already) government should control health care, education, and the environment. I’ll buy that under one condition – there is an established, constitutional process for amending the Constitution. You want gun laws? Limits on a State’s authority to establish a religion? More power in the hands of the President and Congress? Let’s put gun control to the test and amend the Constitution by abolishing the Second Amendment. Let’s get 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to vote for it and then 37 states to ratify it. Then it’s legal. The pure and simple fact is – the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the authority to amend the Constitution by any means.  They don’t get to “interpret” the wording to mean something that the words don’t say. It’s not Spanish that needs interpreting. It’s English plain and simple. Nobody may infringe on our right to keep and bear Arms. But it happens every day in every state.

Most contracts have a severability clause that says if part of the contract is voided, then the rest of the contract remains in effective. This is not true of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Government, all three branches, routinely exceeds its constitutional authority. If they exceed in one aspect, nothing prevents them from exceeding their authority in other aspects. Do you realize that nothing prevents the President from deciding that dissenters (Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Jews, black, white, blonds, brunettes, blue eyes, brown eyes, Texans, New Yorkers, or any other definition of “dissenter”) should be shot on sight? You may think the U.S. Constitution prevents that, but not anymore. They’ve thrown that out long ago.

There is no other conclusion except that the U.S. Government is illegitimate.

Now what do we do about it?

1. Vote only for candidates who promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution to the letter.
2. Vote them out if they don’t uphold their promise.

Any questions? Join the ranks of the stupid because there aren’t any questions. It’s the Constitution, a sacred document.

The Constitutional Cost of the Gulf Oil Spill

It’s shocking that BP has agreed to a $20 billion dollar fund set aside to compensate for damages for the oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon. Yes, BP should pay damages, but the fund is in the hands of the U.S. executive branch which lacks Constitutional authority to demand, hold, and distribute the money. Instead of being managed by the U.S. legal system, which does have Constitutional authority for determining damages and distributing compensation, it’s been handed to a partisan “pay czar” to pay compensation with no non-partisan or bipartisan oversight. This is a dangerous turn of events. Far from a slippery slope, this is like falling off a cliff when the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court, with the complicity of BP, bow to President Obama’s will. He’s already wielding power as if he has no limits and this only encourages him. It encourages not only him, but sets a precedent for every President yet to come.

How will this money be distributed? Do you know how the $700 billion bailout is being distributed in this age of “transparency?” Will the states get some? How much? What about counties, boroughs, cities, large businesses, small businesses, and individuals? What about a town with a Democratic mayor vs. a town with a Republican mayor? The “pay czar” set salaries for companies receiving TARP funds. What strings will be attached to this money?

Does anyone expect this to be fairly distributed? This is a man who just attempted to use Federal tax dollars to pay of state debts, a blatant election year plan to buy votes that was thwarted by an awakening Congress. Let’s consider a few scenarios that are very possible:

The U.S. Government runs television commercials in the Gulf area to let citizens know how to collect their share of the $20 billion. The announcer casually slips in that the money was obtained by President Obama who is concerned for the livelihoods of the people and the environment. The announcer fails to mention all the things President Obama could have done to mitigate the disaster in the first place. That sure sounds like using BP money to buy votes throughout the South.

1. Rather than distribute the money to citizens based on impact to them, states with Democratic Senators and Representatives get more than their share of the $20 billion.
2. Some or all of the $20 billion is withheld until after the 2010 elections with the veiled threat that release of the money is dependent upon the outcome of the elections. Vote Republican and your state gets less money.
3. Without any persuasion at all, recipients of compensation will feel indebted to President Obama and vote Democrat in 2010. Yet, they would have received the same compensation from the courts if due process was followed instead of imperial will. They will feel indebted just as serfs feel indebted to any largess the king deigns to sprinkle on them. Instead of saying windfall for an unexpected gain, which literally comes from the times when the king owned any standing tree, but let serfs use a tree fallen by the wind as firewood, we’ll have the term oilspill.
4. After an airliner crashes, the President demands money from the airline to compensate relatives of the victim. Five years later when a power plant fails, the President demands money from the power company to compensate those that lost power. Five years after that, you hit a pedestrian and the President determines how much you pay to the victim. He’s Republican and so is the victim, but you’re a Democrat. Good luck.

Who Are the Slaves?

I’m a little behind on my reading and just finished the January 2009 issue of Scientific American on the plane to that city that President Obama uses as a poster child for where not to go during a recession. It was eye opening to see how the recession has hit Las Vegas. I drove west from I-15 down Clark Country 215 through North Las Vegas, a four-lane highway obviously built in anticipation of growth. I applaud the advance thinking of the city and county planners; too many communities wait until the highways are overcrowded. Unfortunately, the highway was built and growth stopped. For miles there is nothing on either side of it. The Home Depot and Target stand out at the edge of civilization as the signs of two corporations’ anticipation. I had business with a company that occupied half of the bottom floor of a pair of four story office buildings. They were the only occupants in either building. We ate lunch in a good sized restaurant that had only five tables occupied. This is what the bank bailout bought us? But I digress.

The January 2009 issue of SciAm, published on the 200^th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, was devoted to evolution. The politics of religion vs. science on the subject of evolution aside, I was intrigued by an article that addressed social evolution. Social Darwinism is a concept that we can all accept. Our society evolves around economics, technology, and a host of other factors. In response to the U.S. Constitution, a virus known as career politicians has evolved. In response to Social Security and welfare, to the detriment of society we’ve evolved away from the support of friends and family to rely on the government for support. In response to a vast array of rules and regulations, we evolved specialize species of lawyers. Conditions change and society evolves.

I also contend that a new form of master and slave is evolving and continues to evolve that will soon result in a revolt of the slaves. You can see the beginnings of it already. I recently read a powerful book titled Guns, Germs, and Steel. It’s a compelling story of the rise of civilization, how Europe dominated the world, and how races, cultures and languages evolved. The author carefully explains various stages of civilization, including the rise of slavery. The most ancient humans, hunter-gathers, had no slavery. Each hunter-gatherer had to hunt and gather his or her own food. It just wasn’t possible for one to sit back while slaves did that work. Even the first cities didn’t have slavery. The concept of one person owning another didn’t arise until the age of specialization when a society became productive enough that food could be produced by some, leaving others to build, write, preach, and rule. The Industrial Revolution was a significant boost in productivity. The Internet, information technology, and robotics are again increasing productivity to the point where people are losing jobs to technology. Thirty people can do the work of 300. Lower cost labor in India can perform call center jobs just as easily as the guy next door. In this enlightened age, we’ve also come to understand that slavery is immoral. By the 13^th Amendment, it’s illegal.

At the same time, the push for improved productivity has had an interesting effect on the employed. A common complaint today is that we spend more time working than 20 or 30 years ago. It’s not just harder to find a job, jobs are harder. Working from home, I’ve gotten phone calls at 5:30 am from diligent East Coast workers who have no consideration for areas codes and their corresponding time zone and I’ve been assigned tasks due today that I’ve worked until 10:00 pm. Everything I do is electronic and that trumps time zones and established work hours.

In earlier articles in this blog, I’ve used the term slave to refer to the rising control of big government. In a socialist state, individualism vanishes and we become statistics. We become so dependent upon government for food, water, medical care, you name it that the government becomes the master and we become just slaves. However, synthesizing the ideas of Social Darwinism and the idea that slavery is the child of productivity gone amok to the point that some people feel permitted to force others do their labor gave me a different view of master and slave.

In this model, the government is not the master, but the tool used by the masters to enslave their victims. The masters aren’t even aware they’re masters and the slaves aren’t even aware they’re slaves. The masters are not the upper class, directly commanding their slaves. The masters are the recipients of entitlements that burden society. The slaves are those that pay taxes to enable the government to pay those entitlements. That’s right – the poor are the masters and the wealthiest, most productive 40% of Americans that pay taxes are the slaves. Take a minute and think about it. Who works hard? The slaves, the middle class, the entrepreneurs, the taxpayers, the employed voters who are becoming scarcer and scarcer. Who doesn’t work, but does reap the benefits? The masters, the idle, the uninspired, the entitled ones, the unemployed voters who vote for their own entitlements. So why is slavery illegal, but a progressive income tax that enslaves workers legal?

Now, I used the word revolt earlier, so I want to make sure that I’m not misunderstood to mean an armed revolt. The slaves will revolt when it’s no longer profitable to work. They’re already at work with the Tea Party. They can take the government back from the idle masters and those politicians who serve them reverently and put fiscal responsibility back in the United States. The slaves only need to stop working and the tax base will dry up. In the next ten years, 77 million baby boomers will retire and the income tax base and Social Security tax base will fade away. The unemployed would see that as an opportunity. The idle masters will see it as a conspiracy.

There is another way to look at what the government is doing, namely redistributing the hard earned income of the hard workers. The noble concept of Robin Hood comes to mind… rob from the rich and give to the poor. The concept has no bearing on the modern day United States. In Robin Hood’s time, the rich (in the person of Prince John) was robbing from the workers (in the form of the peasants) with outrageous taxes. Robin Hood was giving the workers back what was theirs in the first place. Today, the comparison would be someone who returned the burdensome taxes to the people who earned the money. Any politicians want to step up to that noble cause?