Archive for August, 2013

Musings After Midnight — Drastic Action: A Proposal and a Critique

August 22, 2013

Probably going to turn this into a series. Should have done that a long time ago.

Well, good evening, my good friends, and welcome to another segment of Musings After Midnight. I hope all of you are well, which is more than I can say for myself. Another bout with inflammation of the eyes has beset me of late, stemming from an underlying inflammatory condition that can effect multiple body systems. This, of course, carries with it some rather peculiar difficulties that must be worked around.

But over all, the situation is improving with treatment, although progress is rather slow.

Summer is now in its final days, and here in the South we have been abundantly blessed with one of the mildest seasons I ever remember. In fact, I never remember a summer that has been this unseasonably mild. Rarely has the temperature gone above 90 degrees, which for this area is highly unusual. We have also been the recipients of an amazing amount of rainfall, totally obliterating a drought that has beset us for several years and shattering rainfall records that have stood in place for nearly a century.

If all summers could be like this in this area, I would have no complaints about the weather, although my heart does go out to those who have been hit with flooding. I could do without this much rain, but the temperatures have been wonderful.

And now, down to business.

Things have gotten demonstrably worse politically since we last met together. Obama not only continues to ignore the Constitution but has doubled down in his disdain for its provisions, particularly its clear limitations on executive power. He has made a complete mess out of foreign policy, pushing through and exploiting a precarious situation in Egypt to get a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in power, and now sides with that terrorist organization against the military that ousted him and seeks to maintain stability in a nation that is precariously close to disintegrating into Islamic extremism along the lines of Iran, Libya, and Yemen.

On the home front, Obama defied the Constitutional mandate for presidents to follow the law by granting a delay to the implementation of the employer mandate in his infamous and unconstitutional ObamaCare program. The law he and his cronies wrote expressly fixes the date of implementation. Yet by executive fiat he decides that he will delay the implementation of the employer mandate while refusing to grant the same delay to the individual mandate. This is a clear violation of the law, a violation of the Constitution, and is a high crime/misdemeanor.

In the midst of all of this, Congress does nothing. We already know that Senate Democrats, who control that chamber, are worthless. But now we know that the Republican leadership in the House — Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy — are just as worthless.

As I have stated before in previous Musings After Midnight, the ballot box has completely failed us at this point. So-called “Tea Party” candidates turn out to be complete duds once they get in office, except for Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul.

But one major development that has occurred since the last time we talked is that at least one major conservative thinker has concluded the same thing we have, that the electoral process in America today has failed. The difference is that he has a more orderly Constitutional process for correcting it.

First, I want to consider the proposal and then offer a critique.

Mark Levin, radio talk show host, attorney, and former member of the Reagan Administration, has just released a new book that shot up to number one on the Amazon best seller list called, The Liberty Amendments. Already the book has created quite a stir in the conservative/libertarian world. Some have immediately slammed the book and its proposals while others have enthusiastically embraced them.

Levin’s basic premise is that the Constitution itself has provided a remedy for predicaments exactly like ours when the ballot box has failed us. And make no mistake. Levin agrees that the ballot box has failed. He has lambasted the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court for their systemic failures to uphold the very Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend. And he also debunks the notion that merely electing more conservatives to Congress will correct the problem, or that electing a conservative president with a conservative Congress will correct it.

As we have seen over the past 12 years, any Tom, Dick, and Harry can sound and act like a conservative to get elected or even to get appointed to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush and a Republican Congress (2001-2006) are prime examples. Can you say, Patriot Act? And John Roberts at the Supreme Court is perhaps the joke of the centuries.

So, what are citizens to do in order to stop this brazen tyranny and get the nation back on course? If another election or two are not guaranteed to do the trick, then what will?

Levin proposes a list of amendments to the Constitution that he calls “the liberty amendments.” And how does he propose to get these amendments approved? By using the provisions set forth by the Constitution itself in Article V.

Article V is referred to as “the amendment process.” Some erroneously refer to the amendment process remedy as a “Constitutional Convention,” the very name of which is enough to strike fear in the hearts of patriots who fear that having such a convention will possibly result in a runaway mob that approves measures that obliterate sacred protections of hard fought liberties.

Detractors of Levin’s book are already going into hysterics over the proposal. Some of that hysteria was evident today on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show not only by the host but by his guests.

But Levin correctly observes that Article V is erroneously viewed as a “Constitutional Convention” that can either discard portions or the entirety of the Constitution. The provision of Article V is more correctly referred to as “an amendment convention,” or “a convention to add amendments to the Constitution.” Such a process is bound by certain time honored limitations. A convention of this sort cannot vote on whether or not to abide by the Constitution. That is off the table and has already been decided. The agenda of the convention is set before the meeting commences. In fact, the convention is called only to consider and decide on proposed amendments, despite Cornell School of Law’s contention that this is up for debate and that the issue has never been decided.

The process itself, however, would seem to work against the possibility that such a convention would go rogue. For example, a specific proposal to amend the Constitution must originate with the states, precisely, two thirds of the state legislatures are required to call such a convention, and any proposal coming out of it eventually must be approved by three fourths of the state legislatures or three fourths of state amendment conventions (yes, a state can call an Article V convention).

Here is the precise wording of Article V of the Constitution:

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

Cornell provides this interesting tidbit of annotation to Article V:

The Convention Alternative.—Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is sur[p.900]rounded by a lengthy list of questions.21When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration.22 This method has been close to utilization several times. Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators.23 Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates.24 The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court’s legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time.25 Arguments existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two–thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.

Regardless of what one thinks about the prospects of such a convention or what may or may not happen therein, Levin’s book, in my opinion, is essential reading for anyone interested in liberty and in putting a stop to the growing tyranny and its concomitant encroachments on the liberties of the people. The book is sure to spawn a lively debate, even among conservatives and libertarians, a healthy exercise for a nation in which a sizable portion of the population has been conditioned to think they have absolutely no power or recourse at their disposal to fight the dictates of a growing oppressive, monolithic surveillance state.

Now, on to the critique.

I have great respect for Mark Levin. He understands the liberty movement, is sympathetic to its goals and objectives, and speaks our language. But he has invited critique with the belief that his is by no means the final word and that the nation needs to have a lively and healthy ongoing discussion concerning these issues.

It is in this spirit that I offer the following observations.

In the first place, having a convention to propose amendments is no guarantee that any of them actually will be followed even if they gain the approval of the necessary number of state legislatures. Granted, merely having the discussion, the debate, and the convention will enhance the chances that such amendments will be enforced. The attention of the entire nation will be focused on the issues addressed in those amendments, and thus, there will be a natural tendency to gauge the extent to which their provisions are adequately implemented.

However, that alone is not enough to guarantee adherence by Congress, the Courts, the president, or even the states. The lawlessness that ravages our land at the present hour provides ample proof that an alarming number of citizens, states, and elected officials do not care what the law says. Nancy Pelosi, for example, has proposed that the state of California officially be designated as a “sanctuary state” for illegal aliens, in defiance of federal law. Barack Obama himself has refused to obey several direct court orders. Congress has failed to hold him accountable.

It is very difficult to imagine any of these people suddenly deciding to obey Constitutional directives just because an Article V convention was held and the states approved. Regardless of how popular Levin’s proposed amendments may be in some states and with some elected representatives, this in no way guarantees that the current crop of lawless despots will leave or change their ways. Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, and others will continue to be the very same criminal vermin they have always been. Barack Obama will not stop lying or defying the Constitution, or ignoring court orders when they are inconvenient to him.

Further, it is also very hard to believe that a majority of voters in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, or Illinois will change the way they vote. They are going to continue to send to Congress the very same tyrants they have for at least 10 to 20 years. Term limits will help, for sure. But the removal of one entrenched tyrant career politician will only result in his/her being replaced by another tyrant. Massachusetts got rid of Ted Kennedy when the senator died of cancer. But they replaced him with a Republican whose only sensible act was voting against ObamaCare, and now they have turned around and placed a kooky, loony bird liberal in that Senate seat, who is even worse than Kennedy or Brown.

In short, if the Constitution is not now being followed, then how on earth will several more amendments to it guarantee that they will be followed?

Lawless, elected thugs will ignore the new amendments as thoroughly as they do the current document.

America has not followed its Constitution in over 100 years. Most conservatives/libertarians believe that the Constitution was discarded as soon as the Income Tax was approved, along with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. While I agree that both of these acts are deplorable and unconstitutional, I take it back even further. As soon as Abraham Lincoln, as great as he was, made it illegal for a state to withdraw from the union, the Constitution was on its death bed. The Framers were able to secure the approval of the Constitution only upon the promise to many patriots that the authority of states would never be usurped and that they could leave at any time. Lincoln broke that sacred promise although his heart was in the right place with regard to slavery.

Not long afterward the nation saw the advent of the Progressive Movement, which viewed the Constitution as a great roadblock to its agenda. And when one takes an objective look at the most well known progressives at the time, one is immediately struck by the fact that in one accord they believed the Constitution posed a problem for them. Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst. So was FDR. And in reality, so was Teddy Roosevelt.

Wilson stated openly while he was a college professor that the Constitution was too restrictive in its approach to government. Years later before he was elected president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said the very same thing…in 1926. Both Wilson and FDR advocated putting the Constitution on the back burner, ignoring it, or outright defying it, in order to pursue an agenda that would result in a powerful, controlling centralized government-industrial-military complex — one of the very things our Framers wanted to avoid. Thus, by the time we went to war with Germany in the 1940s, there was actually little philosophical-economic difference between the United States and Nazi Germany or the Communist Soviet Union. The only difference was a matter of degrees.

Lyndon Baines Johnson solidified and expanded what FDR and Wilson started with his Great Society. And here we’ve been ever since attempting to figure out how we lost so many of our freedoms, when the answer has been right in front of our eyes all along, and in fact, was set in motion by our very citizens in the voting booth.

Bill Buckley, one of my mentors, was famous for having said that he would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone book than those who have been elected to Congress. At one time I agreed with him. That day is long gone. I no longer trust my fellow citizens in the voting booth. They invariably make boneheaded decisions that culminate in more and more tyranny for me. So, why would I want to trust you with my liberties?

Frankly, it sickens me to no end to have to say these things, but it is the truth. We have been betrayed not only by our courts, our presidents, and our elected representatives in Congress, but by our fellow citizens as well. Promise them a $200 subsidy for national healthcare, a government apartment on the cheap, and a Social Security check, and they will vote for a modern equivalent of Chairman Mao.

Don’t get me wrong. I have long advocated for political solutions to our current quagmire even while we make preparation for more convincing solutions. To give up on that entirely would be a travesty and a big mistake. Thus, I hope Levin is right and that eventually we can get what he has proposed. I will do my part to work toward it. But I am not willing to pin all my hopes on that, for the reasons listed above.

In a very real sense, Levin is showing some naivete in his proposal. If we could trust the electorate as we once could, then yes, he would be 100 percent correct. If we were not facing the current dire straits brought on by evil men in high places, then yes, his treatise would be a most welcomed and refreshing solution. But reality tells me something entirely different, something that Levin may not be able or willing to accept. The enemy has not only gotten through the gate but he has become entrenched in command central. And most Americans are simply not informed enough to recognize him as the enemy.

The moral and ethical decay that has afflicted, infested, and infected modern American society makes it well night impossible for normal remedies to work effectively. Evil interlopers intent to do harm will say and do anything to get elected or to become entrenched in places of power in the unconstitutional Fourth Branch of government, the vast, nameless bureaucracy that controls most everything behind the scenes along with their allies and financiers in shadowy, duplicitous organizations such as the Center for American Progress, Tides Foundation, the organizations formerly known as ACORN (which, by the way, are still there), and at least several hundred others. These groups know no bounds, no limitations, no restrictions ethically, morally, politically. Their only focus is on the agenda, the end game, to change America from a Constitutional Republic to something else that is a strange combination of Communism, Fascism, Nazism, or more appropriately, collectivism. The individual person does not count. Persons are entirely expendable as long as the end game is achieved. Thus, you and I have no rights. We are mere pawns in a deadly game designed to turn us from citizens into subjects or slaves to the state.

Thus, a convention designed to approve commendable amendments to the Constitution, as noble an idea as it may be, will not change anything as long as we do not address the deadly cancer that is growing in the very center of the nation. And in this case, only radical surgery will do the trick.

This means Resist, Defy, Evade, Smuggle, and Sabotage.

The kind of enemy we fight is not reasonable, nice, respectful, or fair. Our only recourse, thus, is to thwart their march into tyranny at every hand, and then, when we get the chance, rout them out by sheer force. Force the criminals in public office to pay the price for their crimes. Place them on trial. Imprison them. And if they murdered the innocent in their pursuit of the “progressive vision,” implement the death penalty if Congress decides this is a fair punishment for their murderous actions.

Sounds rather harsh, doesn’t it? Well, would you rather be a slave with no rights? Would you prefer that government goons kill thousands if not millions of citizens, like Stalin and Chairman Mao? Would you rather political dissidents be thrown into the ovens?

If not, your choices are limited. Either get rid of the monsters that would do these things to you and me, or get set for a bloodbath initiated by a government that is just as oppressive and dangerous as anything we have ever seen.

It really is as simple as that.

SOURCE

Is this gun-grabber the future of the Republican Party? Just say no redux…

August 16, 2013

Modified letter from NAGR, if only the NRA had balls like this!

If you agree, I’m counting on you to sign an open letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus urging him NOT to advance Governor Christie as the future of the GOP.

You see, Governor Christie’s long support for gun control is no secret. In fact, in campaign materials, he attacked pro-gun opponents for opposing so-called “assault weapons bans!”

And just last week, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey signed MANY new gun control measures into law!

To add insult to injury, he even bragged about his state’s draconian firearm restrictions, saying his new gun control schemes would worsen “New Jersey’s already tough gun laws.”

The new bills Governor Christie signed into law last Thursday include:

*** A bill to strip law-abiding residents of New Jersey of their Second Amendment rights if the government bureaucrats ever label them “terrorists.”

After the Department of Homeland Security issued warnings about men and women with the “wrong” Presidential candidate’s bumper sticker on their car possibly being “domestic terrorists,” you and I can be sure this power will be abused;

*** A “turn-em-in” bill to coerce otherwise law-abiding New Jersey residents to destroy or surrender certain firearms to the state within 180 days or get stuck with stiff penalties;

*** An “anti-gun trafficking” bill, which would treat ordinary gun sellers like criminals, terrorists, and gang members for minor oversights.

Under this legislation, not only would you be arrested, and have your firearms confiscated for minor infractions, the government of New Jersey could even seize your car!

The gun-grabbers and their anti-gun national media can hardly get enough of Christie’s attacks on guns and pro-gun members of his own Republican Party!

In fact, the anti-gun left-wing website, The Nation, ran a headline asking, “Can Chris Christie Change the Gun Control Debate?”1

Mentioning a possible future presidential run for the governor, The Nation wrote:

“[Governor Christie] will have little choice but to defend those [gun control] bills during the 2016 Republican primaries. Perhaps that will allow a forceful — and with Christie, one would expect no less — defense of sensible gun control on the national stage, and one directed at his own party.”

After eight years of President Obama’s madness, what a slap in the face this would be!

Worse, if nominated, gun-grabbers will know they’ll have someone they can “work with” in the White House regardless of who wins in November of 2016.

Can you possibly imagine a better political scenario for gun-grabbers like Sarah Brady and radical anti-freedom New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg?

But, Patrick, as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, it could be very tempting for Chairman Priebus to start pushing and praising Governor Christie as the “future of the GOP.”

After all, when else does the anti-gun national media “ooh” and “ah” about a fellow Republican?

If all Republicans have to do is ignore their pro-Second Amendment party platform plank to get praised, why not just do it?

Why not just start asking for Republican candidates all over the country to start “easing up” on their defense of the Second Amendment?

Patrick, that’s why I’m asking you to sign the open letter to Chairman Priebus IMMEDIATELY.

Please don’t delay.

And if you could, please agree to a generous contribution, as well.

Even if all you can do is chip in $10 or $20, it will help me send the message to GOP Chairman Reince Priebus that you and I are serious about protecting our Second Amendment rights.

But most importantly, please sign the open letter to Chairman Priebus at once.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

P.S. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey just signed many new gun control bills into law and bragged about it!

Is this the future of the Republican Party?

With all the national media attention Governor Christie is getting, it could be very easy for Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to start promoting Chris Christie as the future of the GOP.

You and I can’t let that happen.

If you agree, please sign the open letter to RNC Chairman Priebus and agree to your most generous contribution — even if it’s just $10 or $20 — TODAY!


References:

1 – http://www.thenation.com/blog/175649/can-chris-christie-change-gun-control-debate#axzz2c4dU8zWz

 

Florida Democrats trying to Convene Special Session to Repeal “Stand Your Ground”

August 15, 2013

Florida Democrats trying to Convene Special Session to Repeal “Stand Your Ground”

Barrack Obama and the liberals on MSNBC just can’t take “no” for an answer.

A jury of six women in Florida found George Zimmerman “not guilty,” and even liberal national pundits seem to believe that the outcome was the result of a flimsy case.

Subsequently, “lynch mobs” all over the country rallied to unsuccessfully get Attorney General Eric Holder to do what the criminal justice system refused to do.

Now, Florida Democrats are scrambling to convene a special session for the purpose of repealing Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, and the Secretary of State is currently polling legislators to gauge support for such a special session.

Republicans should resist this siren call.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has worked quite well:

* According to a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times, minorities (such as blacks and Hispanics) are actually MORE LIKELY to successfully use the Stand Your Ground defense.

* The Florida Sheriffs Association is in unanimous support of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

* And a majority of Americans (53% to 40%) support Stand Your Ground, as evidenced by a recent Quinnipiac poll.

Floridians have been safer because they have been able to defend themselves and their families, without having to consider whether defending their families could put them in prison — or leave them civilly liable — for the rest of their lives.

The attempt to use a “quickie” special session to cram a repeal through, without adequate consideration or debate, is particularly objectionable.

ACTION: Contact your state Representative.  Urge him to defend Stand Your Ground and oppose any special session convened to repeal it.

 


HOW TO CONTACT/WRITE YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE:

1. Proceed to http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners

2. Enter your zip code in the box provided under “Find Your Elected Officials” on the lower right.  (Preferably, you should enter your nine-digit zip code to get the best answer.)

3. Scroll down and click on the on the name of the desired representative.

4. Click on your representative’s website, which will be found under your representative’s name (upper left)

5. Find and click on the representative’s email address or webform.

6. Take the pre-written letter below and cut-n-paste this into the email or webform.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

Barrack Obama and the liberals on MSNBC just can’t take “no” for an answer.

A jury of six women in Florida found George Zimmerman “not guilty,” and even liberal national pundits seem to believe that the outcome was the result of a flimsy case.

Subsequently, “lynch mobs” all over the country rallied to unsuccessfully get Attorney General Eric Holder to do what the criminal justice system refused to do.

Now, Florida Democrats are scrambling to convene a special session for the purpose of repealing Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, and the Secretary of State is currently polling legislators to gauge support for such a special session.

You should resist this siren call.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has worked quite well:

* According to a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times, minorities (such as blacks and Hispanics) are actually MORE LIKELY to successfully use the Stand Your Ground defense.

* The Florida Sheriffs Association is in unanimous support of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

* And a majority of Americans (53% to 40%) support Stand Your Ground, as evidenced by a recent Quinnipiac poll.

Floridians have been safer because they have been able to defend themselves and their families, without having to consider whether defending their families could put them in prison — or leave them civilly liable — for the rest of their lives.

The attempt to use a “quickie” special session to cram a repeal through, without adequate consideration or debate, is particularly objectionable.

Please defend stand-your-ground and oppose any special session convened to repeal it.

Sincerely,

Domestic Propaganda Ban Quietly Repealed by National Defense Authorization Act

August 15, 2013

Though not touched by mainstream media outlets for obvious reasons, a decades old domestic anti-propaganda law protecting the public from direct manipulation is now in the dust bin of history. On July 2nd, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, that for decades has prevented government-made new stories intended for foreign audiences from being broadcast within the U.S., came to an end via an amendment tacked onto the National Defense Authorization Act. Now, news stories meant for nations abroad can be broadcast (or used as source material for original programming) to American audiences. While it is common for government and a complicit media to lie to the American public, deception and misinformation has now been codified into law.

According to a document from the Office of the Federal Register:

The new rule “functions to relieve the prohibition that prevented the Agency from responding to requests for program materials from the US public, US media entities or other US organizations.”

“This rule benefits the public, media, and other organizations by allowing them to request and access BBG [Broadcasting Board of Governors] program materials, which previously could not be disseminated within the US.”

The new rule is said to only apply to news stories published by the State Department, though we find it difficult to fathom that such a powerful capability will not be utilized by other arms of the government via alternate legislation, information sharing, etc…

AlertsUSA Threat Journal STRONGLY advises readers to think long and hard about this development. Where you get your news, particularly concerning threats to your safety and security, is now crtically important.


“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” – Thomas Jefferson
 SOURCE
Better to hear about this later than never.

Council on Foreign Relations Says More Gun Control Needed in US to Curb Violence in Latin America |

August 7, 2013

Something we already knew, but a refresher is a good thing! 🙂

wwlee4411

Council on Foreign Relations Says More Gun Control Needed in US to Curb Violence in Latin America |.

Their actual mission is to ban ALL guns except for the police and the military.  It makes it easier to setup dictatorships if the people don’t have the materials to resist with!

View original post

What Bias? Gun Sales! Another Gun Bill!! You, Criminal! Fire Two Blasts!

August 7, 2013

It’s Time For Something Different

August 7, 2013

Philosophical Libertarianism defined. I love it!

Taxes, Stupidity, and Death

In the wake of the Republican Party’s ambivalence and contempt for conservative, small-government ideals, and a complete unwillingness to fight any of the battles that matter, I’m thinking it is time for a new political party, founded upon the ideals of a small and limited government, and a ruthless disdain for all things “progressive”, including the ubiquitous but erroneous belief that the individual is simply not competent to determine how to spend their money, their time, and their labor, because they will invariably make the “wrong” decisions, and that government can, and should better decide for you how to spend these possessions of ours, along with the belief that government has a duty to protect you from the consequences of your decisions, even if it must first enslave you to do it.

Power based on the spending of a shrinking pool of other people’s money is a zero sum game…

View original post 606 more words

It’s Time For Something Different

August 7, 2013

Philosophical Libertarianism defined. I love it!

Taxes, Stupidity, and Death

In the wake of the Republican Party’s ambivalence and contempt for conservative, small-government ideals, and a complete unwillingness to fight any of the battles that matter, I’m thinking it is time for a new political party, founded upon the ideals of a small and limited government, and a ruthless disdain for all things “progressive”, including the ubiquitous but erroneous belief that the individual is simply not competent to determine how to spend their money, their time, and their labor, because they will invariably make the “wrong” decisions, and that government can, and should better decide for you how to spend these possessions of ours, along with the belief that government has a duty to protect you from the consequences of your decisions, even if it must first enslave you to do it.

Power based on the spending of a shrinking pool of other people’s money is a zero sum game…

View original post 606 more words

Cowards and Liberals and RINO’s Oh My!

August 7, 2013

Cowards can find a thousand reasons for not doing what they’re afraid to do.

After staging 38 votes to repeal the anti-gun ObamaCare law — and having Harry Reid throw their bills in the wastebasket 38 times — House and Senate Republicans now have a chance to force ObamaCare repeal right down Harry Reid’s throat.

The only question is whether or not they have the courage.

Gun owners have opposed ObamaCare since its inception, given that a national health database could be used by federal bureaucrats to disarm millions of law-abiding Americans.  The use of medical data has already been used to disarm gun owners in New York — and has led to more than 150,000 military veterans losing their gun rights for ailments such as PTSD.

This law must be defunded prior to October 1, when two things happen:

* The first is that the “health care exchanges” are supposed to come on line. People — and particularly young people — will find out how much money they’re going to have to flush down the toilet for inflated politically correct premiums, under penalty of law.

* The second thing that happens on October 1 is that much of the federal government will “slow down” — not shut down as has been erroneously reported — unless a funding bill called a “Continuing Resolution,” or CR for short, is approved. For better or worse, most of the federal government will continue to operate as usual, and all “essential” discretionary functions will continue as well.

But there’s one thing that’s definitely “not essential,” and that’s ObamaCare.

In the Senate, Republican Mike Lee of Utah sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on behalf of almost a dozen colleagues, stating that they will not support a Continuing Resolution that funds the implementation of the anti-gun ObamaCare law.

In the House, Rep. Steve Stockman introduced H.Res. 333 on Friday — a resolution that, if passed, would forbid the House of Representatives from passing a CR that funds ObamaCare.

So to recap the bidding: On the very day that the American people flip their lids over this wildly unpopular ObamaCare mandate, Republicans have the opportunity to stage a showdown. And if they win, ObamaCare goes down the tubes, along with the rest of Barack Obama’s agenda.

So, given that option, why would the GOP not want to pursue it?  Just listen to what a few Republican senators have said recently:

* Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) said that using the CR to defund ObamaCare is the “dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”

* Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said that, “I think it’s a silly effort.”

* Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said this was the “dumbest idea” he had ever heard.

* And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the effort was “a bridge too far for me.”

Despite these acts of cowardice, the American people are firmly behind Congress doing something to defang this anti-gun law.

According to a CNN poll, 73% of the American people favor repealing ObamaCare, either fully or partially (March 2012).  So given the widespread opposition to this anti-gun law, why are many GOP legislators balking at this opportunity to drive a stake through its ugly heart?

There are at least five misrepresentations that some Republicans are using to justify their cowardice on ObamaCare.  Click here to see what these misstatements are and how they can be easily answered.

ACTION: Contact your Senators and Representatives. Tell them to insist that NO Continuing Resolution to fund the government contain money for the ObamaCare individual mandate.  Take these three actions right away:

1. Click here to contact your Senators and Representatives.  Urge your Senators to sign onto the Lee letter and your Representative to sign onto the Stockman resolution (H.Res. 333).  You can also call your legislators using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

2. Distribute this alert to all your family, friends and co-workers and encourage them all to take action.

3. Be sure to visit your legislators in person at any Town Hall meetings they schedule this month during their August break.  You can contact their offices (at 202-224-3121) to find out when they’ll be hosting a Town Hall meeting in your area.

Stand Your Ground, Self Defense, Castle Doctrine, and Get Shot in the Back Laws.

August 7, 2013

The recent tragedy involving Trayvon Williams has sparked a new push by the forces of hoplophobia calling for repeal of what has become known as “Stand Your Ground” Laws. First, let us be clear about this. This was not a stand your ground situation, not at all. It was self defense, pure and simple. It also, despite the best efforts of race hustlers about race. It was about stopping having your head bashed into a sidewalk by an up and coming want to be thug. Could this whole thing have been handled differently? Of course, but that is not the issue being discussed in this post.

What have become known as Stand Your Ground Laws are hated by Trial Attorneys. They can’t turn around and sue people because said people didn’t allow themselves or their families to be shot, stabbed, or clubbed over the head from behind. They fought back against an assailant, these laws fight back against tyranny. They are not preemptive in most cases. There has to be a clear threat. If an attack is under way, then self defense law comes into effect.  Overzealous prosecutors with unbridled ambition have abused those laws countless times. Stand Your Ground Laws were passed in part, to thwart those that have some compelling need to one day have “The Honorable” attached to their names.

Closely related are The Castle Doctrine Laws that have been passed in most locals. While overall violent crime has dropped dramatically these past few decades home invasions have risen steadily. The Castle Doctrine allows you to defend your home without recourse by the forces of evil in the court system. Some states extend that right to your vehicle and campsite as well.

The hoplophobes would have you carried by six. I choose to be judged by twelve…

 


%d bloggers like this: