Well, who’d a thunk it? Here we are, about 5 months from the Tampa convention, and we still don’t have a candidate. As I’ve stated in the past, I really like Gingrich if he can get past his ancient baggage. Well, Romney’s Super PAC made sure that wasn’t going to happen, so Newt might be done… especially after winning neither Alabama or Mississippi. Ron Paul? Puhleeze. As much as I like some libertarian views, this guy is so far out in left field, you can’t see him. He should just go back to the House and vote NO on everything. Apparently, his TX constituents like that, because they have been reelecting him for years.
That leaves us with Romney and Santorum. Ya know, at one time I considered Santorum a semi-viable candidate… until he started playing the ultra Right Wing candidate from Hell. What he is, is the mirror image of Obama. First he was gonna repeal ObamaCare. In and of itself, a good idea. Then he started talking about working to get Roe v. Wade repealed. Not a smart move for a candidate that wants to appeal to most women. Now, he’s on the “Santorum To Stomp Out Porn” campaign.
Let’s talk seriously: I am not pro-abortion… especially as a form of birth control. However, I am in favor of it being the woman’s call. The decision to have in abortion is between her, her physician and her God… not necessarily in that order. It’s nobody else’s business. Not yours, not mine, and most certainly not the Government’s. Santorum would do well to get off the Roe v. Wade kick.
Moving on to his views on pornography: If elected, Rick Santorum has promised to crack down on the distribution of explicit porn. Well, isn’t that just great! Let’s ignore the economy, the Fed’s monetary policy, unemployment, Congress’ ineptitude and go after an industry that actually employs people and really doesn’t hurt anybody. As president, Santorum says he would instruct his attorney general to prosecute those who distribute content his administration deems “obscene.” Santorum, however, has yet to provide a specific definition of what kind of pornography his attorney general would prosecute.
Look, I’m not a porn junkie, and I don’t care if you are. Watch all the porn you want… just keep it away from kids. What Santorum is proposing is just another form of Big Government… Government intruding on your life and telling you how you should live it… just like Obama.
All of a sudden, our choice of a suitable President is looking more clear. Put another way, perhaps our choices of who is NOT a suitable candidate is becoming more clear. Senator, if you want me to even consider voting for you, you need to BACK OFF some of the social issues, and focus on what’s really important: The Debt, the economy and the balance of trade, to name a few. Stop pandering to your ultra right wing base (sound familiar?), and get back to the issues that affect all of us… or you’ll not only NOT get my vote in CA’s June primary… you might not get it in November if you’re the Republican candidate. I don’t want Obama out bad enough to vote for a potential Facist replacement.]]>
I was reading the news today about how the House rejected a measure which would provide up to $3.7 billion in disaster relief as part of a bill to prevent a government shutdown at the end of next week. According to the AP:
“The surprise 230-195 defeat came at the hands of Democrats and tea party Republicans.
Democrats were opposed because the measure contains $1.5 billion in cuts to a government loan program to help car companies build fuel-efficient vehicles. For their part, many GOP conservatives felt the underlying bill permits spending at too high a rate.
The outcome sends House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and his leadership team back to the drawing board as they seek to make sure the government doesn’t shut down on Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year. It also raises the possibility that the government’s main disaster relief program could run out of money early next week for victims of Hurricane Irene and other disasters.”
I don’t think anybody disagrees that FEMA needs the funding, and that we need to help those who suffer when a natural disaster strikes. What disturbs me is the continuation of business as usual in Congress where they refuse to pay for their expenditures out of cash on hand. Last time I looked, it was a company’s responsibility to fund its own R&D. If it needed a loan, it would go to its bank and get one. If it was a small business, they could go to the SBA (a worse paper chase does not exist in this country… they make it so you just want to tell them to kiss your ass and walk away).
However, a publicly held company shouldn’t be able to go to the Feds to get a loan guarantee for R&D, no matter the project’s goal, which in this case is development of fuel efficient vehicles. Riddle me this: Why are the Dems in such lockstep over the availability of Federal guarantees for this R&D? Think about it. The Dems must have something to gain by guaranteeing these loans. What might that be?
So, do you want to fix the problems in DC? The solution is very simple, you know… and here it is, step by step:
Repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President’s term, he or she can be elected to a further two terms).
Repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution (Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote).
Create a new Constitutional Amendment (we’ll call it the Term Limits Amendment for now) that incorporates the text of the 22nd Amendment, plus the following text:
No person may serve more than twelve (12) years in Congress. If a person has been appointed to fill a vacant Congressional seat by their state’s Governor or by special election, he or she can be elected to terms totaling 12 years in addition to the time served filling the vacancy.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the legislatures thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the legislatures of such State shall elect a replacement to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the legislature fills the vacancies by election.
Congress shall make no law that affects The People that does not apply to the members thereof.
There you have it. So, what have we done here? First, we have eliminated the career politician at the Federal level. Nobody spend more than 12 years in Congress… period.
We have also helped undo the partisan politics inherent in having members of the Senate elected by the general population of each State. Our Founding Fathers created the House of Representatives as The People’s House, whereby those serving in The House were looking out for The People’s best interests. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, Senators were elected by State legislatures; this was intended to ensure that the Federal government contained representatives of the States, and also to provide a body not dependent on popular support that could afford to “take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress”.
Though some will claim otherwise, the 17th amendments was a pure power play designed to further entrench party politics in DC. Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way Senators are elected, the States lost any representation they had in the Federal government and that this led to the gradual “slide into ignominy” of State legislatures, as well as an overextension of Federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by State legislatures. In my opinion, these critics were correct in their assessment, and it is time to go back to doing things the way our Founding Fathers intended they be done.
We have also eliminated loopholes such as those created by ObamaCare when Congress was able to exempt themselves from it. If a law is good enough for The People to be subject to its statutes, it’s good enough for the members of Congress to be subject to it, as well.
It is pretty clear there is no way Congress will author an Amendment that will limit their term of service to 12 years. After all, it’s not in their best interest. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the States cannot limit the terms of their representatives to Congress. So, the only way left for We The People to regain control of our Government is to take matters into our own hands, and push for a Constitutional Amendment ourselves. I will be discussing how we can do that in another article.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. I welcome your comments.]]>
It’s too bad the President and Congress don’t. Please take 5-1/2 minutes, and watch the video below. Whether you agree or disagree, please take the time to enter your answer to the new poll in the right margin.]]>
An old prospector shuffled into town leading an old tired mule. The old man headed straight for the only saloon to clear his parched throat. He walked up and tied his old mule to the hitch rail. As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other.
The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying, “Hey old man, have you ever danced?”
The old man looked up at the gunslinger and said, “No, I never did dance.. never really wanted to.”
A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, “Well, you old fool, you’re gonna dance now,” and started shooting at the old man’s feet. The old prospector – not wanting to get a toe blown off – started hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet. Everybody was laughing, fit to be tied.
When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon. The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled shotgun, and cocked both hammers.
The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air. The crowd stopped laughing immediately.
The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly. The silence was almost deafening. The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes of those twin barrels.
The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old man’s hands, as he quietly said, “Son, have you ever kissed a mule’s ass?”
The gunslinger swallowed hard and said , “No sir….. but… I’ve always wanted to.”
There are a few lessons for us all here:
I just love a story with a happy ending, don’t you? I think Congressman Weiner should have learned this. Especially the part about arrogance.
As seems to be the case a lot lately, I cannot take credit for this…. but I wish I could.]]>
A young Texan grew up wanting to be a lawman. He grew up big, 6′ 2″, strong as a longhorn and fast as a mustang. He could shoot a bottle cap tossed in the air at 40 paces. When he finally came of age he applied to where he had always dreamed of working, a West Texas Sheriff’s Department.
After a big mess of tests and interviews, the Chief Deputy finally called him into his office for the young man’s last interview.
The Chief Deputy says, “You’re a big strong kid and you can really shoot. So far your qualifications all look good. But we have what you call an ‘attitude suitability test’ that you must take before you can be accepted. We just don’t let anyone carry our badge, Son.”
Then, sliding a service pistol and a box of ammo across the desk, the Chief says, “Take this pistol and go out and shoot six illegal aliens, six ACLU lawyers, six Democrat Senators, six meth dealers, six Muslim extremists and a rabbit.”
“Why the rabbit?”
“Great attitude,” says the Chief Deputy. “When can you start?”
Again, I can’t take credit for this… but its sentiment sure resonates through me.]]>
I met a fairy today that would grant me one wish.
“I want to live forever,” I said.
“Sorry” said the fairy, “I’m not allowed to grant wishes like that!”
“Fine,” I said, “Then I want to die after Congress gets their heads out of their asses!”
“You crafty bastard,” said the fairy.
I can’t take credit for it, but I sure do echo the sentiment behind it.]]>
Yeah, like we haven’t heard that before.
Back in 2005, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) initiated a program called Project Gunrunner. Project Gunrunner is also part of the Department’s broader Southwest Border Initiative, which seeks to reduce cross-border drug and firearms trafficking and the high level of violence associated with these activities on both sides of the border. ATF has determined that the Mexican cartels have become the leading gun trafficking organizations operating in the southwest U.S. (DUH) and is working in collaboration with other agencies and the Government of Mexico to expand the eTrace firearm tracing software system. eTrace is supposed to provide web based access to ATF’s Firearms Tracing System to allow law enforcement both domestically and internationally the ability to trace firearms encountered in connection with a criminal investigation to the first recorded purchaser – who may have innocently sold the gun years ago. eTrace supposedly allows law enforcement to access their trace results directly (name and address of first purchaser) and offers the ability to generate statistical reports to analyze their trace data to estimate firearms trafficking trends or patterns. Here’s where it gets interesting.
Project Gunrunner has a stated official objective to stop the sale and export of guns from the United States into Mexico in order to deny Mexican drug cartels the firearms considered “tools of the trade”. However, since February 2008 under Project Gunrunner, Operations “Fast and Furious”, “Too Hot to Handle”, “Wide Receiver” and others (all together satirically dubbed “Operation Gunwalker”), have done the opposite by ATF permitting and facilitating “straw purchase” firearm sales to traffickers, and allowing the guns to “walk” and be transported to Mexico. This has resulted in considerable controversy.
Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) initiated an investigation with a letter to ATF on 27 January 2011, and again on 31 January 2011. ATF responded through the Department of Justice by denying all allegations. Senator Grassley responded with specific documentation supporting the allegations in letters to U.S. Attorney General Holder on 9 Feb 2011 and again on 16 Feb 2011. ATF refused to answer specific questions in a formal briefing to Senator Grassley on 10 Feb 2011.
Indictments filed in federal court, documentation obtained by Senator Grassley, and statements of ATF agents obtained by Senator Grassley and CBS News, show that the ATF’s Phoenix Field Division allowed and facilitated the sale of over 2,500 firearms (AK-47 rifles, FN 5.7mm pistols, AK-47 pistols, and .50 caliber rifles) in “straw man purchases” destined for Mexico. According to ATF agents, Mexican officials were not notified, and ATF agents operating in Mexico were instructed not to alert Mexican authorities about the operation. Some ATF agents and supervisors strongly objected, and gun dealers (who were cooperating with ATF) protested the sales, but were asked by ATF to complete the transactions to elucidate the supply chain and gather intelligence. However, there are accusations that ATF was attempting to boost statistics to “prove” that American guns are arming the Mexican drug cartels and to further budget and power objectives.
Many of these same guns have now been recovered throughout Mexico, which is artificially inflating ATF’s eTrace statistics of U.S. origin guns seized in Mexico. One specific gun, recovered at the scene, is alleged to be the weapon used to murder Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.
ATF’s negligence and their obsession with pursuing their anti-gun political agenda cost the life of an American law enforcement officer. The details of the scandal are straight forward:
To top it off, this comes while ATF press releases continue to spread the flat-out lie that over 80% of all the guns used in Mexico’s drug war come from the United States. And now, officials all the way up to the Obama White House are denying any knowledge of an operation that would have clearly needed high-level approval.
I don’t believe for a second that a project such as this one didn’t have to be signed off by the White House, do you?
The ATF has repeatedly ignored Congressional requests for documentation of their operation. It has even come to the point where ATF leaders are being subpoenaed by Congressional committees.
And yet, they continue to flaunt their obvious contempt for the rule of law… unless it’s their “rules” and their distorted “laws”, of course.
Had enough yet?
I urge you to contact Speaker of the House John Boehner directly at
Office of the Speaker
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-0600
Fax: (202) 225-5117
and demand he hold ATF accountable for their actions.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. YMMV, and we welcome your comments.]]>
Supposedly seen on Northbound on I-5, near Chehalis, WA (88 miles south of Seattle)…
Supposedly, the federal government is now petitioning to have these signs removed or Washington state will be denied additional monies for interstate highways. Rumor has it the State of Washington replied that they will secede from the Union rather than be intimidated. These are a matter of free speech paid for by a private citizen. It seems the Obama government uses intimidation and ignores the first amendment when they want to silence someone.
True? I dunno. But you gotta admit, the signs are funny!!]]>
It has been awhile since I’ve written anything. I’m not entirely sure why, except I’ve started up a new business, and that has taken the lion’s share of my time of late. I guess I was also a bit burned out… which I suppose is precisely what the followers of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” want.
That is not to say I haven’t been listening to all the political pundits on both sides of the aisle. The discussions have been interesting in some cases, and laughable in others. However, we’re now 6 short weeks away from the mid-term elections, and we have some important decisions to make as the electorate.
Since reading Robert Heinlein’s “Time Enough for Love” back in the 70s, I have been a subscriber to the “Lazarus Long School of Politics”. His mantra was “Always vote, as there may not necessarily be somebody you want to put in office, but there is almost always somebody you want to keep out“. Yes… a lesser of two evils policy. That is pretty much where we as a nation find ourselves today. Do we want more of the same BS we’ve been getting for years (yes… even going back to the days when Republicans had control of Congress), or are we really ready, as a people, to take responsibility for those we put in office?
I am sure you have all heard the new GOP catch-phrase “Fire Nancy Pelosi”. After all, RNC leader Michael Steele is cruising all over the country in a large bus touting exactly that. I am not just climbing on the GOP bandwagon by recommending we get rid of Pelosi and Reid. We must remove them from their positions of power in Congress before they drag this great nation even further into the crapper. The Republicans must take control of at least one of the Houses of Congress in order to restore something approaching a balance of power, if for no other reason than to keep the Marxist sitting in the White House from causing any more harm than he already has.
I remind you that I am not a run-of-the-mill Republican. I am a fiscal conservative with a social conscience… and a borderline libertarian. That said, I am not an anarchist, as many libertarians are accused of being. However, since we live under a two party system, I tend to lean toward the Republican perspective, since the Democratic (read that as far left liberal) point of view turns my stomach.
So, how do we fire Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (and others of their radical, far left ilk)? Simple: As hard as it may be for some of you to do, it is imperative that you vote a straight Republican ticket in the upcoming elections. The Republican you vote for may be a far right conservative, or a more moderate Tea Party candidate. IT DOES NOT MATTER!! Vote for them, as this is the only way a balance of power will be restored in the Capitol.
This is the only way we will be able to rid ourselves of ObamaCare, Amnesty for all Illegal Immigrants, Cap & Tax, Card Check, The Fairness Doctrine, Redistribution of Wealth, Government takeover of publicly held corporations (i.e., GM, Chrysler, et. al.)… and all the other radical, socialist Big Government platforms the current administration wants to ram down our throats. We won’t have another chance until 2012, and I fear that, if we wait until then, it will be too late.
Remember, our current financial mess was caused by the Government, due to their mandate that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back loans made to people who never had any hope of repaying them. This Recession (which certain economists claim is over… but I don’t buy it for a moment), was not caused by the greed on Wall St. It was all about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac peddling bad paper (i.e., Mortgage Backed Securities), and covering it up… and they’re still doing it!
We recently bought a new house (well, not new… it’s 7 years old) in California’s Temecula Valley. While house hunting, we came across a lovely home that was priced about 15% higher than comparable homes in the area. In other words, this home would not appraise for close to the asking price. It was a Fannie Mae owned home, and their terms were: Pay their asking price, get your loan through them and they would only ask for 3% down, and would not require an appraisal! That was in April of this year! So, this Government-sponsored organization hasn’t changed the way they do business one iota. But I digress.
Take a look around you. How many truly happy people do you see/know? If you’re anything like me, you don’t see very many. Could it be they are victims of the “Yes We Can” and “Change We Can Believe In” LIES?
Do yourself, and them, a favor this November: Fire Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by voting for the person with the big R by their name on the ballot.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. As always, we welcome your comments.]]>
This article in the series discusses how the left is turning our Government into a nation of entitlements. I’m sure you’ve heard this discussed many times by all the radio and TV pundits. What you don’t hear much about is why this is happening. You see, this isn’t an accident. It’s all part of a grand plan to make the citizenry so dependent upon Government that only those with a certain viewpoint will ever be elected at the national level. As I’ve stated on more than one occasion, it’s all about Power!
I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist. However, I’ll make an exception in this case, and what I’m discussing goes all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt… who happened to be a Republican. Roosevelt served as President from 1901-1909, where he attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. He tried to run again in 1912, and when he failed to win the Republican nomination against William Howard Taft, he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party, beating Taft in the election, but losing to Woodrow Wilson. You can read more about Teddy Roosevelt here.
When Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected President with a Democratic Congress in 1912 he implemented a series of progressive policies. In 1913 the income tax was instituted in the United States with the Sixteenth Amendment. Other significant changes enacted at the national level included direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women’s suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You can read more about Wilson here. If you check out the link, make sure you scroll down to the discussion of Wilson’s thoughts on Government Systems. You’ll be appalled.
Wilson resolved the longstanding debates over tariffs and antitrust, and created the Federal Reserve. Many of today’s U.S. regulatory agencies were created during these years, including the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. You’re probably asking yourself “Well, are these such bad things?”. In and of themselves, no, they weren’t. At that time, big business (i.e., Oil, Textiles, Coal, Steel, et. al.) was running amok and something had to be done. Unfortunately, they didn’t stop there.
The progressives were committed to changing and reforming the country, and were avid modernizers. They believed in science, technology, expertise—and especially education—as the grand solution to society’s weaknesses. Progressivism typically included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind’s ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention. Do you see where this is going?
The term “progressive” is today often used in place of “liberal”. Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, “Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, it’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept… that accepts the world as dynamic.” Progressives supposedly see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.
Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on a concept of natural rights and civil liberties, and the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect those rights. Liberals are often called “left-wing”, as opposed to “right-wing” conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).]]>