krashpad

What do you mean "Read The Bill?"

2009-07-09T13:02:00.001-05:00

I'm utterly, and truly amazed.

Flabbergasted.

Astounded even.

I'm utterly and hopeless amused and ashamed by something I just read. What you may ask? Why the simple fact that the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer (D-MD) recently told a reporter:

If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes

Worse, he viewed the entire concept as one big joke.

While LAUGHING about the whole thing, this was his response:

I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill

He's up there, the MAJORITY LEADER for the House of Representatives, and basically telling the nation, "well, hell, I don't read the bill, just that brief overview from when they started the legislative process. I don't really care about what's in it, so long as the right keywords are in the summary."

And this is one of the guys who's a supposed leader of the House.

I can see me, telling my boss, "well, you know, I didn't bother reading the actual requirements, or what the user wanted when I was building that software. I just kind of went with what I thought the document should say."

That'd be a quick trip to the unemployment line for yours truly.

Why on earth wouldn't a Representative or Senator WANT to read the Bill? Isn't it supposed to be their entire purpose in Washington in order to represent the PEOPLE in our Federal Government.

Our government is out of control. Our Representatives and Senators are passing who knows what (not even they know all of the laws which they pass) and We The People are suffering for it.

There's no one alive who knew the what the entirety of the over 1,500 page bill behind the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was. It had not been released in its final form to the populace via THOMAS before it was voted on and passed through the House. What we did know was that it equaled to trillions in new taxes within the next 5 years all to supposedly make a less than .02 percent decrease in ambient temperatures possible over the next 50 years.

Think on that, trillions in new taxes that everyone gets to pay, all over some junk science that may or may not have an effectively undetectable difference on the global temperature. Yeah, that's good government there....

The same applies to the over 1,000 page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--worse, because of the stupidity found within that law, additional laws had to be created to make changes to it. Which wouldn't have been needed if they had provided the populace time to review the document, and if they, our elected representatives, had taken the time to review the document.

But of course that's working under the impression that our Representatives and Senators actually care about our nation.

Because frankly, from where I'm sitting, all they are concerned about is keeping their power in Washington.

The Read The Bill pledge is a good START for our nation to get itself back on track. But we need more changes.

I believe that we need the following changes to how Congress/our Federal Government operates:

Make Senators appointed from State Legislatures again. The entire Constitutional purpose of the Senate was to give the STATES a voice in the Federal government; it was not supposed to be another representative branch of the populace.
Make each bill be required to show which portion of the Constitution allows Congress to enact it
Have each law read into the public record prior to a vote, with the following conditions:

Each Representative/Senator must be there for the entire reading
The entire reading must be performed at one time
Any Representative/Senator who leaves during the reading is not allowed to vote on the law

All laws twilight based upon the majority that voted for said law

With a simple majority (50%+1 vote or greater) the law would twilight in 2 years
With a moderate majority (65% or greater) the law would twilight in 3 years
With a super majority(75% or greater) the law would twilight in 5 years
Laws could be written to twilight earlier, but not later

Bumper Stickers

2009-07-07T07:53:00.001-05:00

Well, as I was driving to work, I found myself reading those silly bumper stickers folks have on their cars.

And then mocking them. So, I thought I would share my amusement with the world.

What this is saying is that "I stop whatever it is that I'm doing whenever PEACE breaks out." Therefore, it's only logical that to make this person a productive member of society, then he, or she, expects constant warfare throughout the land.

This one has always amused me. Yes, it was $1.46 when Bush took office, but hey, that war was all about the getting the gas for America!

The difference is one is a language, and the other is skin color. You'd think even a liberal driver would realize such a simple thing.

Ah... simplistic, vague, and utterly meaningless! Much like everything that comes out of a Liberal's mouth
But His kingdom is Heaven, here on earth--He expects us to work for a living.

Obama wants to strip my Health Care Benefits

2009-06-28T16:54:00.001-05:00

MSNBC is reporting that Obama (who has thoroughly and without any hope of ever retrieving them lost the use of honorifics from yours truly) has:

left open he possibility Sunday that President Barrack Obama might pay for his health care overhaul by taxing employer-provided health insurance.

Which fundamentally means that he is actively trying to strip my health care benefits.

I work for a small technology consulting firm, we have less than 10 folks in total. I do not see any possible way that my company could continue to provide cost-effective health care for me and my family if Obama and the brilliant brain-deads which we currently are calling Congressmen.

I call them all brain-deads because even Jon McCain, the so-called “Republican” Senator of Arizona is proposing a new tax on health benefits much like the one which Obama wants to use to strip me of my health insurance.

But I digress, the point is that my company would inevitably have to drop my health insurance (and/or fire a person or two) rather than actually pay this tax.

I’m sure that my boss will try to come up with a solution. After all, solutions are what we’re paid to devise, but it’s kind of insane to think that we’ll continue the level of benefits that we have if he’s having to pay an excessive amount of taxes on it.

But of course, the Liberals WANT that. If they can force more and more small businesses to stop being able to offer affordable health-care to their employees, then that’s just more schmucks that have to feed at the public trough.

Not I though.

My wife would not like it, but if my boss was forced to drop our insurance, I would start paying into my HSA again, and pay cash for any medical needs before I suffer at the hands of a Federal Health Care system.

I Lied Last Night

2009-06-28T10:38:00.001-05:00

In the post yesterday evening I told something of a fib. Mainly that I didn’t know what the Liberals were thinking when they claimed that the Cap-And-Trade bill was a good idea.

The sad thing is that I know exactly what they’re thinking, and exactly how they’re duping large numbers of people into believing in it, and more or less all of their messages and programs and attacks against the economy.

They’re trying to make things “easy” for everybody. They’re trying to make the government into this massive big-brother which watches all, knows all, and decides what is best for all.

Freedom be damned, because it’s not about freedom. Sure, on things they like, they’re willing to turn a blind eye. They’ll find all sorts of new “rights” in the Constitution, and in the process will “get out government out of the bedroom.”

But the important things? Our livelihoods. Our ability to keep the money which we work hard to earn? No, they want control of that.

They want you to look at all these good ideas they have. All these plans and programs which look great on paper, but have faltered and screwed up, and turned out like the old Soviet Union time and again.

How long will it be before we have our own Tiananmen Square massacre because some college students got uppity enough to demand freedom?

The Liberal/Progressive out there wants you to judge him or her based upon the goodness of their idea. Not the potential end result, or the end result of other programs like it in the world.

They offer free health care, and don’t mention that it will end up just like Medicare.

They wave this magical wand to lower the world’s temperature by less than a tenth of a degree over the next fifty years, but tell you to not pay attention to the massive costs in raised energy prices and loss of jobs.

They talk about wealth redistribution, and evening the playing field, forgetting the fact that most Congressmen make more money than most of their constituents.

They talk about the horrors of the common citizen owning guns, but fail to report that time and again it has been proven that the more access the general populace has to weapons, the less violent a city is (compare crime statistics of Chicago with its draconian gun control laws and basically all of Florida with its rather open definition of the Castle Doctrine).

Conservatives/Libertarians/Constitutionalists just cannot go up against that. Are offer of smaller government, less intrusive government falters when we don’t offer the pretty shiny penny to go along with it.

Forget that our concept means that you get to keep dollars that you earn.

You see, the Progressives have realized a simple truth. They can keep power by offering people money. What do they care where that money comes from, from their point of view, it’s the governments.

Whereas a Conservative sees it as the populace’s money which the government has sucked from the economy and those able to build true wealth.

There’s a fundamental disconnect with a Conservative’s message in this day and age. Conservatives believe that a person must make it on their own. They have to stand up and try and succeed. They have to have the knowledge to make informed and good decisions, and that they have the right and responsibility to do so.

And that’s not easy to take.

Especially if you’ve lived off the government for years upon years of your life.

But there it is, and fundamentally that’s the choice the between progressives and conservatives. Do you want government controlled (tyranny) and easy, or freedom and hard.

For me, that choice will always be an easy one; for no matter the hardships, I choose my freedom.

A Sad, Sad Day

2009-06-27T22:14:00.001-05:00

Well, Thursday evening was, at the “Cap-And-Trade” bill was passed in the House. What is saddest is that there were 8 so-called Conservatives (at least they get a little “R” next to their name) who voted FOR this bill.

Those Republican Representatives are:

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

Now, one may wonder why it is that I despise this particularly bill. After all, the Democrats promise us that it’s ever-so-important in regards to the environment.

What the Dims don’t want you to know, is that this bill will be responsible for raising that cost of energy by thousands of dollars. And that price tag is even before you factor in the jobs that will be lost, and the 1.6 Trillion dollar price tag attached.

In effect this is a massive tax on every person in this country.

But of course the Liberals don’t want THAT to be the sound bite. They tell everyone that the Businesses pick up the bill. That the “Cap and Trade” in question here are just fines and fees levied against businesses.

But that belays the most obvious thing that any business owner will tell you:

Businesses do not pay taxes.

It’s simple. They don’t. They never have, and they never will. Anything that comes their way that is labeled as a tax or a fee or a fine, is merely passed onto the consumer. It’s part of the price that you pay for any good or service.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant. Or both.

But it gets better, those folks who know these things—and I’m including the greenies here –state that this bill will influence the environment by less than 1/10th of a degree in 50 years.

Yes, our “fair” leaders have seen fit to saddle us with massive debt, a program which encourages the wasteful spending of states such as California, and passes that burden onto more fiscally conservative states (such as Indiana) and one which seems to be designed to drive businesses overseas.

They will be driven to counties which produce more “greenhouse” gases than we do, and by driving our businesses to them, they will see no real reason to stop producing the gasses which get an environmentalist’s panties into such a bunch.

In fact, this is what the Heritage Foundation has defined as the end result of this bill if it manages to pass the Senate:

Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;

Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and

Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.

By 2035 the bill will:

Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; and
Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation

Why anyone thought this was a good idea is beyond me, but I guess that’s why I’m a Conservative.

"We the people are coming."

2009-06-18T18:38:00.000-05:00

Republishing this letter from The Smallest Minority, just because it rocks.

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Respect Mah Authoritah!

2009-06-10T18:10:00.001-05:00

There's been a lot of recent media attention revolving around the 72-year-old Grandmother in Texas who was tasered by a cop who pulled her over for a routine speeding ticket.

Early on, she got on the media and claimed that the cop lied about her being verbally abusive. Frankly, I believed her--this due to the fact that it seemed more reasonable to me that a cop tasered this woman for jollies than she was verbally abusive.

Well, the police released the video, showing exactly what happened in all it's glory.

And yes, the woman was a bit verbally abusive towards the officer.

But does that give him the right to taser her? Would your opinion be different if he had hit her with his fists or his nightstick? What if he had shot her with his gun?

Frankly, I see no difference between a taser, a gun or a nightstick. All are weapons, and all can, and do, kill.

Now, yes, this woman was speeding, and Texas law does require you to sign a reckless driving summons. So, yes, this woman was in violation of the law by refusing the ticket.

At which point, the officer should have taken her and placed her in the back of the squad car as he was doing.

Which if you've watched the video, it is on this being escorted to the squad car that the woman said she would go ahead and sign the ticket. It is this point, at which this government-mandated goon should have allowed the woman to sign the ticket and go about her merry way.

Instead, he proceeds to push her against the back of her truck, and when she attempts to return to her vehicle, he blocks her, pushes her again, tosses down his ticket book, and then tasers her as she turns away from him.

Yes, this big man, tasered a grandmother who had her back turned to him. ~~Big man there.~~ Oh wait, I'd better not say that, don't want him to come taser me.

But you know what, none of that matters. Sure, the woman was being argumentative, and wasn't the most responsive to the officer's demands. But so what? That's not a reason to taser her.

And as is usually the case, it gets better! The officer in question has been praised by his direct superior, because the officer in question did everything by the book. He treated this woman just the way that the Officers of the Law are expected to treat any one who dares to not immediately bow down in obeisance to said Officers of the Law.

As if wearing a state-approved costume automatically grants you the wisdom and right to be above the citizens who pay your salary.

Most of the people who are approving of this cop's actions are doing so because the lady didn't listen to what the cop said, and worse, because she had the audacity to argue with him.

Maybe if more folks argued with the Powers That Be, we would have less Powers That Be.

No, I cannot think of any legitimate reason that this woman should have been tasered. She had no weapons, and was not physically violent. She was merely argumentative, and unwilling to a) sign a summons and b) place herself into the back of a car driven by a man that she did not know, and was attempting to physically restrain her.

God forbid that there's someone who's not instantly deferential to the "Boys in blue."

Why so hard to contact a Representative?

2009-06-09T18:58:00.000-05:00

You know, in this day and age of instant communication, I find it odd that our elected Representatives in Washington still see the need to enforce filters on their email between us and them.

Oh sure, you can go to the House website, and enter in all sorts of information and then click the SEND button. But that's just a hassle.

What's worse, is that when you do do so, and you finally get a response (weeks later mind you) then you're are out of luck if you try to RESPOND.

Your representative begins an email dialogue with you, but as in most things where Washington is concerned, it's all one way. You try to respond to the email you just got, and you get the following error message:

550 550 5.7.1 Unable to deliver to (state 14)

I find it odd. Now, what brought this on you might ask? Well, I recently contacted my Representative (Gregg Harper) through that hard-to-use form on the House website, and provided him my view on H.R. 1256--which I see as a fairly straightforward power grab by our Congress.

He responded, told me that he voted in the AFFIRMATIVE for a list of "feel-good" reasons, mostly involving minors and "research."

Then he ended his email with this line:

Again, I appreciate you sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

So you can see why I'd be annoyed that I could NOT immediately contact him with my response and thoughts. It's annoying. It actually makes me think that they make that form hard to use just so that they will be bothered as little as possible by their constituents. They certainly don't want a dialog on their decisions.

But, since I'm fed up with the online form at House.Gov, I've decided to place my response here on my website. This is the email that I attempted to send by way of further dialog on Mr. Harper's decision to support H.R. 1256:

Mr. Harper,

Sadly, I don't remember (nor can I find) the part of the Constitution which grants the government--or Congress specifically--the powers as outlined by this bill. Could you please provide me an annotated copy of the proposed legislation detailing the relevant articles (or amendments) of the Constitution which allows Congress to infringe upon these rights of the states and citizenry?

Another concern is the fact that this is nothing but a sin tax to be levied against those individuals who chose to partake of cigarette. After all, any fee which is imposed upon a business (and this bill imposes a fee upon businesses) are inherently passed onto consumers in the way of higher prices.

Then I have to wonder on the wisdom of raising the minimum legal age at which an individual can purchase tobacco products (which routine--and expensive--studies to determine the feasibility of such are a part of this bill). It is currently 18 in most states, the age at which an individual reaches their majority--and can thus enter into contracts, join the military and vote. Why then is this not also an appropriate age at which they can make the decision to smoke or not?

Additionally, State Laws already prohibit the sale and marketing of tobacco product to minors. Why exactly do we need another level of bureaucracy and legislation--at a Federal Level-- to reiterate this point? If the minors in question decide to break the state laws in regards to the purchase of tobacco products, how is having another way to fine the business people who are duped by these teens to purchase tobacco products a good and relevant thing? How is the cost of enforcement of this law going to help anything, especially in the current climate of financial insecurity in which we find ourselves.

Maybe later I'll find the time and energy to actually wade through the House website and send this through their arcane "Contact Us" form.

And maybe one day, they'll actually be concerned enough about what their constituents think that our elected Representatives would welcome a dialog from their constituents.

But I'm not holding my breath for that....

Another Government Land Grab

2009-06-07T16:03:00.001-05:00

Over the past few years, the government has broadly reinterpreted it’s abilities of Eminent Domain. While traditionally, Eminent Domain was used to gather land for roads, schools, and other uses for public use, the government has extended that to mean that if a local government wants your land to give to someone else on the off chance that a different owner would provide more tax revenue, then it is legally able to do so.

It’s a horrid, and despicable action on the government’s part, and there have been too many instances of this collusion between government and private enterprises to steal land already.

Which makes me even more annoyed at the latest thing.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that our government is telling landowners that they have 1 week in which to sell the land to the U.S. Department of the Interior, or else they would take it via Eminent Domain.

The reason for this particular land-grab is that the government wants to take a bit over 2,200 acres of land up there in Pennsylvania and turn it into a memorial for Flight 93.

To put this into perspective, let’s consider some other numbers:

Disney Land sits on less than 300 acres
The 4 theme parks of Walt Disney World takes up less than 1,100 acres (Disney owns nearly 30,000 acres in Florida, of which 7,100 acres are truly developed)
Six Flags over Georgia takes up 230 acres
Busch Gardens Tampa Bay sits on 334 acres
The National Mall takes up 310 acres
Arlington National Cemetery is a bit over 600 acres

Now all of these theme parks and national icons have hundreds of thousands of visitors annually, and they don’t need 2,200 acres.

Heck, even Walt Disney purchased the 30,000 acres of swamp land and citrus groves where Disney World sits—despite the fact that the government knew about it coming to town. Back then federal, state and local governments did not conspire with private firms to force other private firms/individuals to sell their land.

The thing is that the park/memorial itself I have no qualms over. It doesn’t bother me that they’re making it per se (though I do have questions on whether or not a new park is a good use of resources while we’re in the midst of a recession, and the government is borrowing nearly half of every dollar it spends).

What bothers me is the simple fact that they are forcing people to sell land that they own under threat of having it taken from them by force. Maybe these people don’t want to sell this land for sentimental or familial reasons. Maybe they don’t want to sell this land because they really like it, or want to hunt it. Maybe they don’t want to sell their land because they want to develop its natural resources for profit (all this land holds decent amounts of lumber, natural gas and coal).

But the government doesn’t care. All it is concerned about is taking enough land from private citizens that it can build this memorial to this flight, and do so for the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

What a way to honor those willing to die for their fellow citizens. What a way to honor the death of the only one of the 4 hijacked planes who had the gumption to fight back against hijackers armed only with box cutters.

I know that I’d hate to think that I was to be “honored” for the things that I’ve done in my life by having the government steal from others, or to force people to sell their property under duress of having it taken by Eminent Domain.

The RNC Wants You!

2009-06-04T21:44:00.001-05:00

In the past few weeks, I’ve received two surveys from the Republican National Convention—an odd state of affairs as I’m a rather vocal Constitutionalist these days.

It’s the usual stuff, with the Republicans struggling to realize what they need to do, and fundamentally they just have a bunch of recent bullet points that Obama and company have been working on, and give everyone the option to cast a yea/nay on their “survey.” Ultimately, what the survey is saying is “if you elect us again, we’ll not be big-government liberals this time, we promise.”

Yeah, I’m holding my breath for that.

But what amuses me the most about these ballots is that the last question is asking for money. The first one, was fairly standard and only gave two options (yes, I’ll contribute, here’s X or XX amount, or yes I support you, but I don’t have money right now, here’s $11).

I can understand, gaining and keeping power is expensive these days apparently.

But, as I said, I’ve gotten two recently, the latest of which came in today. While the previous one was labeled a “2010 Congressional District Survey” the new one has a title of “2009 Republican Party Census Document.”

Just the titles of these things are amusing, but what really got me, was the last question of the “Census Document.” It read the exact same way as the first one (well the “I don’t have money right now” option went from $11 to $12) but with the addition of a 3rd option. Now, they had a no option, and it read “No, I favor electing liberal Democrats over the next ten years.”

I laughed. Heartily, and loudly.

Then I got up, went into the other room to show it to my wife, who in turn laughed.

I’m amused, and disgusted, because the RNC just doesn’t get it. They still don’t understand, and they assume that I’m stupid enough to just forget the past 8 years of big government policies which they’ve endorsed and pushed through.

Their survey yaps about not supporting Obama’s bailouts, but happily overlook the fact that the Republicans started it.

Public Law 110-33 (H.R. 1424) was passed with the following votes:

House: 263 Yea; 171 Nay

Democratic: 172 Yea; 63 Nay
Republican: 91 Yea; 108 Nay

Senate: 74 Yea; 25 Nay; 1 Absent

Democratic: 41 Yea; 10 Nay
Republican: 33 Yea; 15 Nay

And then signed by a Republican President.

Of course, the Republicans suddenly remembered their “fiscal conservative” roots once Obama took office, and no House Republicans voted for Obama’s “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” (Public Law 111-5) which is some 1,000 pages that absolutely no one in either the House or the Senate actually read in its entirety.

Which is why I do support a “Read The Bill” Amendment to the Constitution, something which forces both houses of Congress to have every piece of legislation read aloud prior to a vote.

But I digress.

The simple fact is that the Republicans have lost touch. They did nothing to stop the growth of government during the Bush years (on the contrary, they happily helped it along). They did nothing to shrink the government during all those years when they had power.

They gained power during the mid-nineties on a small government platform, yet that never came into being. Instead they hemmed and hawed and passed pork-laden bill after government growth bill.

There is no way that I’m voting along party lines for this group. I’ll find the person who votes (or promises to vote) for smaller government, for less taxes, and to do away with any and every government program out there.

In the end, I’m not sending the RNC there suggested donations. I’m not sending the RNC the “$12 to tally the survey.”

No. I’d rather have a Liberal Democrat in office---after all, they’re honest in their liberalness as wrong as I view it-- than a Republican who claims to be a Conservative all the while voting for big government, insane spending bills and/or higher taxes.

Anyways, my $12 would be better spent buying myself a book, a meal, or even just shoving it under my bed.

Barbour: It's Tax & Spend Time

2009-06-02T22:19:00.000-05:00

Ah, the idiocy of politicians. A few months ago, I was proud of Governor Barbour for standing up against the idiocy of the "Bailout" where the Federal Government sends itself further into debt with nations that are actively hostile to our way of life.

Yet, here he is, just a few scant months later pushing to ensure that I think he's fairly worthless as a politician.

Mississippi, like most states, is facing a shortfall in its general fund. People are spending less which means all those taxes on sales, and Corporate fees, and the various other things where the government takes money away from those who actually produce wealth, are down. It's estimated that the state is ~$300 million down from expectations, and there's only a month left in the fiscal year.

That's a lot of money to have not been collected. So of course, the politicians are in something of a frenzy. After all, they need that money to further their own little power schemes, and to hand out money to their constituents. Oh, excuse, we're supposed to call them, "the worthy poor" or some tripe like that.

So, after taking in 300 million dollars less than expected, you'd think that someone in Jackson would realize that now would be a good time to cut spending. After all, if I bring home $300 less than I expected I would certainly do so. After all, contrary to the Government's belief, one really can't continuously spend money which one does not have.

But alas, that's where one gets into the issue of politicians and their idiocy.

My guess is that they don't really understand where that money comes from. They don't understand that for every penny they bring in, that's taking a penny away from one of their constituents. Those thousands of dollars that I spend on sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, and my share of fees levied against the companies I frequent could have been spent on my family.

That's money that they're taking from me under duress, all because they feel the need to push their social agenda and hand out money. In 2008, this is how the state split up the money they took in from its people (the General Fund):

Social Welfare - 2%
Agriculture & Economic Development - 2%
Corrections - 5%
Debt Service - 6%
Hospitals & Hospital Schools - 5%
Medicaid - 8%
Other - 9%
Colleges & University - 17%
K-12 Education - 45%

It's easy. Take a category, and cut. Look at K-12 Education, nearly half of the funds taken in go towards that. On average, 20% of their budget goes to indirect costs--which are those things not directly related to teaching our kids. How much of that is needed? Would it not be better to do things like cut back on the cleaning staff, and instead make the kids clean up the school? Would it not be better to strip away the administrative overhead, and give more power directly to the school's principles? I think so.

It's easy to find things to cut--it's just sad that so many people come to expect the government to hand things to them, or to take care of things that a generation ago, our parents/grandparents would have done.

It's even sadder that the politicians are so determined to keep their jobs and their power, that they'd willing drive us all further into debt, rather than do the right thing and work towards shrinking our government.

Obama: Ignore The Man Behind The Curtain....

2009-06-02T06:54:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, I really do have to wonder what the Democrats/Lefties are smoking up there in their little world-outside of Reality.

The White House has published a new report that claims that to "fix" the economy requires a revamping of our health care system. Their justification? The fact that Health Care, which currently accounts for ~18% of our GDP is estimated to grow to be around 30-34% of our GDP in THIRTY years. Yes, thirty, 3-0.

What, the report is not telling you is that the taxes to pay for the another expansion of Government abilities and capabilities, would crush our economy with 5.

Let's look at the two biggest tax items which are in the works to "pay" for health care by Government Mandate. The first is the "beverage" tax. What this is, is a tax on any drink you drink. Everything from sweet tea, to coke to beer to wine falls under the purview of this tax, dedicated to drive a majority of the food/dining industry out of business.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

The next tax is the VAT, or the Value Added Tax. This works similar to a National Sales Tax, except it is on EVERY transaction (while sales taxes are typically applied only to transactions where no resale is involved). And while this does have potential, they're talking about adding it to the top of our already complex Income Tax system. This will ensure that our already weakened retail industry falters further.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

And that's just the issues involved on the TAX side of things that health care reform will cause. Then there's also the simple fact that health care as we know it will cease to exist. After all, once Bureaucrats get in charge of making health decisions for you what you want, or think you need, will be irrelevant.

We'll see more cases, like the recent one where someone is being forced to undergo chemotherapy at a Judge's orders, despite the fact that he does not want to.

In every area of our lives that bureaucrats exist, we see petty tyrants doing things to harm the very people who they are supposed to be helping.

In California, the "Land Use" bureaucrats tried to force a couple who were holding a Bible study with a few friends (~15) in their home to get an major use permit
Some Veterans are turned away from VA hospitals because clerks are unable to fill out the DD214 forms correctly
The Dutch have a plan to force "Unfit Mothers" to take contraception, and if you get pregnant while on the contraceptives, they will take your child\

Here in the U.S., Liberals love looking at our neighbors to the East and seeing all these grand, and wonderful plans they have in action. They see the social systems in place in France, Britain, Germany and Sweden, and they salivate and say "This is good."

But they never stop and actually LOOK at these things. They don't pay attention to the fact that Britain, France and Germany are all limiting access to health care. They're rationing doctors and medicines and diagnostic treatments.

In 1996, Michael D. Tanner wrote an article entitled "A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine" for the CATO Institute. In it he explains how Medicare fails. How the properties of a very elementary rule forces programs like this to fail.

That rule: If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it.

This is a simple truism. I have free cell phone minutes to my wife, therefore I call her routinely just to chat and hear her voice. Before "family plans" and free mobile-to-mobile minutes, I would only call to provide relevant information--things I needed for her to know.

These problems, the access issues, the poor service, the general... crappiness of medicare, are proof that the government should not be involved in health care for the people. The fact that they can't even get Veteran health care right--and there's a lot less of them, than on either Medicare or private insurance--is proof that they should not be doing this.

But above and beyond that, this is something outside of the bounds of what our Founding Fathers expected us to do with this country. They would be appalled at the thought that we have invested so much power into the hands of so few.

Need proof, then we but have to look to the words of one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, who in the Federalist No. 45 wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

and during a speech at the Virginia constitutional convention in December of 1829 said:

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.

Our Government was not designed to hold this power, and it should not, for it puts too much power over ourselves, our bodies and our health, into the hands of just a few bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats whose sole purpose will be the gaining of more power and prestige for themselves.

A scary thought, where the health of my family is concerned.

Dare to be a Daniel

2009-05-31T14:49:00.001-05:00

Well, I preached this morning at church, and am now going to throw up here my notes/sermon text/etc stuff…

Focus Passage - James 3:2-12
2 For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well.
3 Now if we put the bits into the horses’ mouths so that they will obey us, we direct their entire body as well.
4 Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires.
5 So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire!
6 And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.
7 For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human race.
8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison.
9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
11 Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?
12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh.

Introduction:

A few days ago, I was playing with my youngest son on the floor, and for whatever reason, I said, "Well, aren't you a stinky-monkey."

Without missing a beat, and in the most exasperated tone imaginable--it was one of those tones that you can hear his eyes rolling in his head-- his response to that was, "I'm not a stinky-monkey, I'm a Daniel."

At the time, I dismissed it, but as I began thinking about what I was going to write, the more that simple statement echoed in my head over and over again. And as I listened to the echoes, the more I realized something, something that my two-year-old son had, and firmly, naturally, understood.

He knew what he was, and what he wasn't. For him, it was simple, he wasn't a "stinky-monkey," he was a Daniel. More importantly, was the simple fact that he was willing to tell me that.

What my son intuitively grasped, what he knew, was that when denying what he wasn't, to claim what he wanted to be, he had to speak, and do certain things.

Willing to Speak:

First, he had to be willing to speak. He had to think about the fact that this was something that he wanted to speak against, or speak for, and then he had to do it.

How many times have we been in situations where we've felt the Lord urging us to say something, and we haven't--all because we were unwilling to speak.

How many times have we looked at something that needed to be done within the Corps, and we haven't, because we were unwilling to serve.

Willingness to act, is as much an act as anything. After all, if you're unwilling to do something, then that is the act of not doing it. God wants and needs us to be willing to do for him.

Matthew 4:19 reads, and he said unto them, Follow me and I will make you fishers of men. This is Jesus while gathering His disciples calling out to Simon and Andrew. He called, and asked them to act--He asked them to follow Him. How different would things be, if Simon Peter had hesitated? If he had been unwilling to act? But no, Simon and Andrew had been willing to listen to Christ, to heed His call, and what they did was they left their nets and immediately followed Christ.

That willingness to act is part of being a Christian. We're supposed to act and do as He commands--and to do that, we have to be willing to help. We need to be willing to step into the roles and the needs that He opens for us.

When To Speak:

Next my son had to actually speak up--and more importantly, he had to know that he had to speak at that moment. It would not have made any sense to anyone, if he had come to me three or four days after I had called him a "stinky-monkey," to tell me that he wasn't one.

But, knowing when to speak, and when not to--which is actually a much more important skill--is expected of us.

Proverbs 1:27-28 states, He who restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent. Paul is actually even clearer, in Ephesians (5-4), he says, Obscene, flippant, or vulgar talk is totally inappropriate. Instead, let there be thanksgiving.

It's clear that God expects us to control our tongues. He expects us to not speak words of hate and anger, and sin but rather words of love and praise and thanksgiving.and knowledge. Psalms 49:3 says "My mouth shall speak wisdom; and the meditation of my heart shall be of understanding." while Psalms 119 verse 172 reads My tongue shall speak of your word; for all your commandments are righteousness.

And that not just running your mouth, that not speaking inappropriately, that takes practice, and prayer. We have to continuously be on our guard against what will slip out of our mouths. Much the same way that we have to be willing to listen for God's voice telling us that now is the time to speak.

What to Speak:

The third thing that my son had to know what to say. He knew what he was, he was certain of it, therefore, he was able to give voice to that knowledge. I'm a software consultant, people pay me to be knowledgeable and to speak with authority about computers.

As Christians, that is how we're supposed to be. People, expect us to know the Bible, and to know what it says about things. I was talking with a friend awhile back, he happens to be an ordained minister. We were talking about our kids and I made the off-hand comment that my brother-in-law calls my eldest son, Nathan, "The Little Prophet." I could see he was slightly confused, so I had to explain to him that Nathan was a prophet in the Old Testament. Now, Nathan was not nearly as popular a prophet as Elijah or Isaiah, but in my studies of the Bible I have come across his name several times. I mean, it was Nathan who rebuked David after the incident with Bathsheba, and it was Nathan who intervened during the attempted palace coup by Adonijah. I expected my friend to know about the Bible, and that expectation of knowledge applies to us all.

Hosea 4:6 says: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. and Proverbs 18:15 tells us, The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.

These are just two of the verses in which God tells us how much of an emphasis He places on knowledge, on us learning things, on us learning about Him and His Word. So often, we stop learning once we get out of school. We find ourselves a nice little perch, where we tell ourselves that he know enough, and we decide that that's it. That that's all we need to know.

In my career field, I would be obsolete within two years if I did that.

And it's not just in our careers, but in our existence as Christians, that we can't just stop learning. We're supposed to be in the Word. We're supposed to be learning, and growing. We're supposed to be doing this, so that we can speak with authority. So that we can witness, and so that we can teach.

What he is not:

The final thing he had to do, is he had to know what he wasn't. For him, it was simple. He was not a "stinky monkey."

For those of us who are not two years old, it's much harder, because we have to look deep into ourselves, and realize things about us, about our nature, that are not nice.

First, we have to firmly grasp the concept that none of us are good people. The Bible is clear, we are all sinners, we are all wicked, and we are all justly condemned by God.

This brings us to the next thing that we have to realize about ourselves. We have to realize that, in and of ourselves, we are not worthy of God's glory. That's the entire purpose of the Old Testament--to show us, just how impossible it is for us to truly work our way into Heaven. The OT shows us that, by virtue of the Law, and the fact that only 1 man in all of history was able to never break a single one of them.

These two facets of ourselves can be summed up by Romans 3:23 which states that for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Think about that verse for a moment, as I want to bring two points into focus.

The beginning of that verse says "all have sinned," grammatically that's in the perfect sense, which means that it has happened in the past, and is continuing in the present. That all includes, everyone--the verse is clear, we have all sinned, and we all continue to sin and we all will continue to sin. The second part of that verse, furthers that thought, but does not reiterate it. I have often heard the second part of this verse misquoted. Some people, say "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." That's wrong because right now, right at this moment, we fall short of the glory of God. Until you die, or are raptured, you will continue to fall short of the glory of God.

There is another thing that we need to be aware about ourselves, and that is that we are not the center of the universe. Our culture, our way-of-life, teaches us otherwise. You hear people constantly going on and on about self-esteem, and self-worth. The World wants us to look at ourselves, and to put our self, or worse, others, onto pedestals. The world tries its best to teach us that we are all idols of our selves.

Philemon 2:3-4 says Do Nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also the interests of others. Paul wrote those words and took aim at the root of the sinful nature of all of us--our self-centeredness. Think about the person that suffers from jealousy, what are they thinking about? What is the focus of their thoughts? Themselves! Anger, lust, bitterness, greed, gossip, slander--all sins against others, and all of them rooted in our self-centeredness, all rooted in our fallen nature.

End:

Luckily for us, none of those are things that matter to Christ. And the reason that none of those matters is simple. Jesus accepts us. Jesus accepts us, in our evilness, in our wickedness and in our glorious unworthiness. Jesus accepts us.

* ask to come play Just as I am*

Jesus accepts us. He wants us to come to him. With our needs, with our desires, with our prayers. He wants us to come to him, with our hopes and our dreams.

Jesus wants us all to come to him, Just as we are.

For me it is simple. I'm not a good person, I'm a Christian. I'm not worthy of God's love, I'm a Christian. I'm not the center of everything, I'm a reflection of God's love.

I quoted Romans 3:23 earlier, but that's just a part of a larger connected text. Verse 24 continues the thought by saying, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. I'm unworthy. I'm sin-filled, but the blood of Jesus not only redeems me, but it justifies me.

When God had made us, when He had finished making the world, he looked at it and said that it was good. He had to know what was going to happen--he had to know that we would fall, that we would fail, time and again, and that He would have to sacrifice His son to save us all. Yet, He looked at us all, and said that we were good.
He offered the sacrifice, that ultimate, perfect sacrifice, to make us worthy and worthwhile. He did this because His blood makes us acceptable to Him

Come, are you willing to let Jesus accept you as you are right now? For the Christians here today, do you have any problems, unconfessed sins, or just feel the need to get closer to God? Come--God accepts them. God wants you to get closer to him. That's the whole point; that's why God wants you to keep learning, to be willing to listen to His voice, and willing to act when he prompts.

And for any who are not Christian, who do not know Christ as your Lord and Savior, are you willing to finally find those things which the World is unable to offer? Are you ready to find the pure, and total acceptance of Christ? Come--God accepts you.

What Wonderful Product Pictures…

2009-05-24T16:16:00.001-05:00

A few days ago, my Beloved Wife went out to the accursed Wal-Mart, and purchased a slip-n-slide type product. It was a good purchase, and the box is pictured to the side there.

According to the pictures on the box, it looked like it would be grand fun for both of my kids. I mean, the kids on the picture there are about the same age as my eldest, so of course it stood to reason that it would be an appropriate sized toy for both of my boys.

So, a bit later, my Beloved wife, opened it up, spread it out, and prepared for our sons to enjoy the slippery-fun of a water slide toy. After all, the picture shows elementary aged children playing on the toy, so of course our kids would have fun on it.

Or, at least that’s what we THOUGHT!

This is what we got.

Note the HUGE difference in size between the toy my six-year old is standing in, and the toy shown on the box being played with by those 6-8 year olds.

Now, I’m aware that product images are always misleading. One only has to visit any fast food restaurant to realize that particular fact. But, it’s one thing for a whopper to look like a squashed version of it’s image, it’s another for a product to clearly show a child being able to actually to lay down on a product which is too small for a six-year old.

It happily confirms my belief that Wal-Mart is a horrible, horrible thing. I’ve also added Banzai (the maker of this atrocity) to that list of product lines that I’ll go out of my way to never purchase again.

My sons wanted a water slide they could play on, not one for their G.I. Joe figures.

2 School Shootings!

2009-05-07T22:18:00.001-05:00

In the past few days there have been 2 shootings involving colleges. The first I want to talk about happened yesterday (5/6/09) on the campus of Wesleyan University, and involved a man walking into the college bookstore there, and shooting a poor girl dead.

Yes, this man, walked through those magical, pixie-powered force fields called "no-gun zones" and managed to hold a gun as it spontaneously spat out a projectile towards a young lady, identified as Johanna Justin-Jinich of Timnath, Colorado, who was merely working at her job.

And if you missed any of the sarcasm which filled that sentence, you need to go back to high school.

It was a sad thing. It is. But unsurprisingly, there are news articles all over the place (here's Fox News' rendition). In fact it is a story produced by the Associated Press. I'd be surprised if everyone hasn't heard of this particular story by dinner time tomorrow.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the AP shouldn't have reported on this. It is a news worthy event, a young girl lost her life to what amounts to a wild animal.

But I said there were two shootings.

The second story, once again involved a college student. This time though (and this happened on 5/4/09), their were two gunmen. The basics is that a group of students were having a birthday party for someone in an apartment, when two men (and I use that term only in the sense that they are human males) burst into the home waving guns about. They then segregated the men and women, and one of them began to count the bullets they had with them.

Based upon the conversation between the two criminals, their intention was to kill all the men, and then rape and kill the women.

Anyways, the college student in question, one Tom Jones, grabbed a gun from his bookbag, and protected himself, and the others--and in the process ridding the world of one more useless drain on society, sadly his aim was a bit off, as he failed to rid the world of both of the drains in question.

This story managed to get some local news coverage, but that was it. It did not appear on Fox News, and the Associated Press had nothing on it at all.

Now, what's the difference between the two stories?

It's simple, in the first, the person doing the shooting was entirely the evil one. He went into the bookstore and just killed the poor girl. In the second, the one doing all the shooting was a hero. He protected himself and others--not just his friends that he was with that night, but all the other potential victim of the useless twit who wanted to rape and kill them all.

Frankly, they are both news worthy events. They're both describing attacks, but one had a "happy ending" with the innocent still alive, and worse, still alive due to the presence of a gun! The other story showed a gun entirely in an evil light--and because the victim was in a ~~state-mandated shooting gallery~~ gun free zone, there was no one there who was willing and/or able to protect her.

Personally, if I were Johanna's parent, I'd be screaming that these nonsensical gun-free zones be done away with. After all, if there had been someone there with a CCP and a gun, Johanna could possibly still be alive today.

On the other hand, Charles Bailey, one of the 10 people saved by Tom Jones, at least knows that he owes his life to a gun. Maybe next time, he'll be the one willing to risk himself to save those around him.

Now for some blatant emotionalism!

2009-05-06T19:23:00.001-05:00

I despise emotionalism. I hate it in church. I hate it at work. And above all things, I hate it in my politicians. To me, there is nothing more cowardly, and despicable than a politician who takes someones tragedy, and then tries to create an unconstitutional law in order to score political favor-points off of it.

What am I talking about? Why the recent Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act which was introduced into the House by Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK.

Well, there's a nice list of those despicable, cowardly politicians I was talking about.

Of course, now you're probably wondering just what it is about this law which has earned it, and its writer, such harsh and severe descriptions? Well, frankly, what this law is trying to do is make me a felon. The thing is that the way I wrote this blog post alone, is enough to get me sentenced to no less than 2 years in a federal penitentiary according to this law. Here's the meat and potatoes of this law:

`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) As used in this section--
`(1) the term `communication' means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

`(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.

What this translates into is that anyone who tries to coerce someone through aggressive words (which the entire point of this blog is to coerce folks to my line of reasoning, and I'm not above using aggressive and severe words to do so) can be charged and sentenced under this proposed law.

My only guess is that list of despicable, cowardly politicians above just did not get that whole First Amendment thing.

I also have to question if they truly understood their Oath of Office where they swore to protect and uphold the Constitution. Of course being politicians, I guess they figured that they were above such petty things as the Law of the Land.

I'm sorry that Megan Meier lacked the moral fortitude, and the thick skin generated by traditional play yard play, that she felt the need to kill herself for what someone wrote on the internet. Yet that is no excuse for what these despicable, and cowardly politicians are trying to do in her name.

Ms. USA -- but only if you have an approved list of beliefs

2009-04-21T06:38:00.001-05:00

The interwebs are in an state of shock. Gay, gossipist and all-around freak, Perez Hilton, is all sorts of a titter, and calling someone who calmly, and succinctly spoke her beliefs a "bitch."

The 21-year old Miss California is even now getting death threats and what not.

In case you have no clue what I'm talking about, during the Miss USA contest the other day, Perez Hilton (one of the judges) asked Miss California what she thought of gay marriages. Miss California, whose actual name is Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

She wasn't ranting. She wasn't being mean. She responded with her beliefs, her familial and religious point-of-view on the topic being given.

A response which ultimately cost her the crown of Miss USA.

And created a firestorm of hate, and death threats and name calling from the lunatic left. Which, sadly to say, is a large cross-section of all of the left.

Of course, as is often the case, these things just get more, and more inane. In the related story, Fox News reports that

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement. "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

...

I have to admit that I'm truly and utterly confused by Mr. Lewis' statement. In the same breath, he says that he is hurt and saddened by Miss Prejean's comments, then he also states that religions should be able to create whichever marriage unions that they see fit. Then he continues his rather insane talking point on how government shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone, and concludes the statement with how religion has no politics in the Miss California family.

So why exactly did she lose the crown? If politics and religious beliefs had no bearing on the decisions, why did she lose. And why is Perez Hilton ranting and raving against her?

Of course, I know the reason. It's fundamentally simple.

The average, run-of-the-mill Liberal cannot succinctly and intelligently argue their beliefs. This is a fundamental truth to the liberal agenda. It's the reason that rather than discussing the politics behind the TEA Parties over the past few weeks, the liberals out there just hurl insults and mockery. It's the reason that when the gay-left lost the Prop8 vote last November they ranted and raved, and beat up little old women. It's the reason that liberals are trying so hard to get translate conservative concepts into Hate laws. It's the reason that those preachers of Tolerance, cannot tolerate any concept that doesn't fit squarely into their little round holes of political concepts.

Their entire belief structure is built upon pipe-dreams, and lollipops. Everything from ~~charity-under-duress~~ welfare to the magical barriers called "no-gun zones." Liberals react with their emotions and plan what new law they can enact to a) provide them more power, and b) make-believe that something bad won't happen.

Personally, I'm proud of Miss California. I'm heartened to see someone get up in front of, what is effectively a hostile crowd, and unequivocally stand for her beliefs. Regardless of the fact that it cost her the Miss USA crown, and regardless of the name-calling and death threats from the left.

It doesn't matter who walked away with that crown. I believe that Ms. Prejean is a better display of what an American is--someone who stands for their beliefs, regardless of the repercussions--than any of those leftists who react to the beliefs, values and ideals of others with hatred and a general lack of real tolerance.

Continuing the Fine Tradition of Home Grown Terrorism

2009-04-15T06:23:00.001-05:00

Since my government has decided, once again, that I am an extremist, and/or a "radicalized" home-grown terrorist, I figured I should do everything in my power to ensure that I maintain that particular label.

The primary aspect of that is to ensure that I talk about what I view as the demonization of Constitutionalists, and the Constitution in general. I also must talk about how taxes and government are bad for you--because let's face it they are.

Here's the list of articles that have caught my fancy over the past few hours or so, and are things which I think everyone should get around to reading.

I'm heartened to notice in those articles that I'm not alone in fearing and decrying the government annexation of more and more of our rights. From what we are allowed to do with our property to what we're allowed to do with ourselves.

Let us remember and remind ourselves of just what and how we are supposed to be as a country.

Above all, let us remember that those heroes of our nation, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Locke, would all be considered violent, radicalized, home-grown terrorists in this statist nation which we now found ourselves within.

This is not a nation that Jefferson or Locke would be proud of. This is not the nation that Washington fought and bled for.

And I will say that as often, and as loudly as needed. After all, we still have the First Amendment.

At least for a little while longer.

Crazy Killing Machine Buyers...

2009-04-09T20:38:00.002-05:00

ABC has an article up on its website currently about the EVVVILLL gun shows, and how they are such dangerous, evil things, that need to end.

I'm sickened by it. Truly. The Liberal, anti-Constitution bias in the article causes literal pain for me. They carry on about the evilness of gun shows, and even go to classify a LEGAL way to purchase a product a "loophole."

Basically, the entire article is an emotional call, made by one of the ~~legally-mandated sitting ducks~~ students of the Virgina Tech massacre's brother on just how bad guns are. Forget the fact that if someone had been armed that morning in that particular building that it would not be remembered as the largest massacre by a sole gunman. He waxes inanely about wanting to "protect" other people, and how he's trying to do so by showing how easy it is to get guns.

And I'm still trying to figure out, just how not letting additional guns be purchased legally will stop someone willing to murder others? I mean think about it, if someone is willing and wanting to take the extreme step of killing someone, do you think that creating magical legal barriers will stop them from doing it with a gun?

If you do, I have a very nice bridge I'd like to sell you.

Personally, I have long thought it the height of insanity to create these nice shooting galleries where those willing to carry out massacres can go, safe in the knowledge that folks whom are actually concerned about carrying out the law will not be carrying their guns.

Yet, that's not the worse thing about the article. I can say this, because ABC allows comments. Which of course, provided me this particular gem of utter tripe and stupidity by someone named "truth_2_power":

only crazy people would support the ability to buy killing machines this easily... the world has changed and the laws need to as well

I'm going to take a look at the second part of that stupidity first. "The world has changed, and the laws need to as well." From a certain point of view, he's right. The world has changed, and the laws do need to. We need to open up, and make it easier for the populace to own guns.

Of course, that's not what he's meaning. This fine, upstanding, member of the easily-victimized-by-criminals brigade wants everyone to be as helpless as he himself is. Forget the fact that places with concealed carry have less crime. Forget the fact that the police are more likely to use their weapons in an illegal manner than the non-police. Truth_2_Power wants everyone to be as unprotected, and victimizable as he himself is. He insanely believes that making it harder for people who are good upstanding citizens to procure guns will stop people who have no respect for the laws already.

And no matter how you cut it, that's just not true.

Now, let's look at the brilliance of the first part of his statement: only crazy people would support the ability to buy killing machines this easily.

I went to Bass Pro Shops the other day. While there, I purchased a number of machines whose sole purpose was to kill. That's it. That's what they are designed to do. I bought two-dozen of them. It took me minutes, fifteen at the most. My identification wasn't checked. I didn't have to fill out any paperwork. Yet, I was in and out with those killing machines with a "thanks, come again."

What machine was this? Fishing hooks. Which killing machine is not the point. The point is that truth_2_power thinks that just because something can be utilized to hurt someone, then no one, but those magically blessed by the State (or those willing to break the law), should have it.

Any day of the week, you can go into nearly any store and purchase something with which to kill:

Lowe's -- good night, that's a cornucopia of mayhem--chunks of wood, power tools, saws, axes
Target -- walk through the sporting goods section, see all those baseball bats and golf clubs?
Any gas station sells me the needed ingredients for a molotov cocktail
Pharmacys & grocery stores are slower in their killing machines, as they sell poisons

What truth_2_power seems unable to comprehend is that there are people out there who are willing to kill, steal, and rape. They have no problems with this, and are happiest when they know that their victims do not have the means with which to protect themselves.

And don't even think of saying the word "police." The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly stated (Castle Rock v. Gonzales--June 27, 2005) that individuals have no inherent right to police protection. And this isn't the first time. That particular judgment was based upon a long history of case law. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

And in some states, this concept is embedded in actual state law. For example, California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 state (in part): "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

Yet, truth_2_power, and his liberal, anti-Constitution brethren, wish us to believe otherwise. He wants us to happily become the sheep which the police, the government and the criminals fleece.

The only way to truly protect ourselves from those who wish to do us harm is to do it ourselves. We, are the only people capable, and concerned enough to do so. Go out, buy a gun, and get a concealed carry permit. It works, even the police agree.

The Taxman Cometh

2009-04-03T18:00:00.000-05:00

And apparently he's bringing friends.

In an, at least to me, un-amazing move, numerous state, county and even city governments are dreaming up hundreds of ways in which to tax you their constituent.

Here in Mississippi there is talk of both a new cigarette tax, and a new healthcare tax, all in an effort to keep from having to raise the taxes on automobiles.

And Mississippi is not alone in these things. States and municipalities across the nation are taxing everything from tobacco products to strip clubs. And this is even before the trillions in new taxes which Obama's budget promises to crush us with.

The new law of the land seems to be "if it exists, then it can be taxed."

Every tax that's being proposed, has the sole effect of hurting a business, investor or the population in general (don't believe me? check that budget again, there's a cap-and-trade tax which will raise electric rates).

Yet our elected officials seem oblivious to the simple fact that rather than raising taxes, why don't we cut out the pointless, duplicated and un-needed government programs.

Do we need a Federal Department of Education, when traditionally, education is a LOCAL matter, and we elect superintendents on a per-county basis? No!

Do we need huge swatches of income taken from people, under duress and threat of imprisonment, and have that money be given to other people in wealth redistribution schemes? No!

Do we need a special police force dedicated to alcohol, tobacco and firearms? No!

Do we need state police forces, when each county has a sheriff's office, and most towns a police department? No!

Our governments are big, lumbering bureaucracies in this day and age. This is a bad thing. It is an evil thing, and as such needs to go away.

Now, I'm not encouraging anarchy, but I am encouraging a small, streamlined government presence, with a focus on personal liberty.

After all, that's what the Constitution promises us.

Here, There Be Slavery

2009-04-02T05:42:00.001-05:00

Ah, the sweet joys of Freedom. America is a bountiful land, where laws which force our children into mandatory "service" programs, removing their ability to speak out against potential legislation and their ability to practice their religion would never pass.

...

Oh wait, that was BEFORE the Obama Administration. Apparently, I've been dreaming about the standards which our Founding Fathers placed into our Constitution. After all, H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act managed to get passed.

Now, despite the wonderful wording, this act has NOTHING to do with volunteers. Volunteers still have their rights, and volunteers are not forced to perform a service in order to gather the needed high-school credits to graduate or to get financial aid for college.

This is what Rahm Emanuel describes as the Obama Administration's "vision" for this plan:

We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.

"Universal civilian service" is not volunteerism, it's a draft. Yet because this is not for the military, and worse, it's enforced across the board, the Liberal Left is not up in arms over it. Because it's for organizations approved by the Left they're quiet and inattentive.

But if the scope and vile of the act itself is not enough to turn one's stomach, then one can just look forward to the amendments. Here's my personal favorite:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
…

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Yes, you read that correctly. An individual who "volunteers" for this mandatory, universal service (i.e. this enforced slavery at the hands of the State) must give up their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

And people wonder why I get so irked when they claim that the Bill of Rights "gives" us our rights instead of the more accurate description that the Bill of Rights enumerates certain of our God-given rights as a reminder to the State.

This is a firm step that the government believes that it can legislate itself out of the Bill of Rights.

Sadly, both of the Senators for Mississippi (Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker) voted YES for this act. Even worse, 3 out of 4 Mississippi Representatives voted Yes for this bill (Travis Childers, Bennie Thompson, and Gene Taylor). That means out of all of Mississippi representation to Congress, only Gregg Harper stood up for personal rights, and against this monstrosity of a draft into indentured servitude of our children.

The purpose of this bill is to create a body of individuals who place their full faith in the Government and do not question their orders. Additionally, it is to be structured as a paramilitary system, for "civil defense" that is as "well-funded as the real military."

Compare this concept with how the Encyclipedia Britanica describes the values of a Fascist dictatorship: Fascists favoured military values such as courage, unquestioning obedience to authority, discipline, and physical strength. They also adapted the outward trappings of military organizations, such as paramilitary uniforms and Roman salutes.
This is what our nation is becoming. This is the horror that our Congressmen have voted to force onto us. This is the change that Obama promised.

And people wonder why I voted for Ron Paul.

To see how your state fared, look here for the House, and here for the Senate.

I Wish Today's News Was All Just an April Fool's Day Joke...

2009-04-01T06:44:00.000-05:00

I like GM cars. And in fact a majority of the vehicles that I have owned over the years are GM vehicles. So, it saddens me to see them in such dire straights, but such is life in a free-market economy like ours.

At least it was until the Government got into the business of handing out billions of dollars in an effort to shore up bad business decisions.

And much to my dismay, my beloved GM was one of the companies who went begging. Of course they are paying for it now. There are reports that the White House is planning on "reorganizing" the GM board of directors in an effort to make GM continue dancing to the tune it sets.

Not that surprising of a move after the shenanigans that the Treasury Secretary pulled while trying to get the power to seize random businesses and place them into the public domain.

But IT GETS BETTER!

After all the hoopla and the insane tax plans to tax bonuses at nearly 90%, it comes to light that members of Congress handed out 9.1 Million dollars in bonuses.

I wonder if those bonuses are going to be taxed at 90%, after all, that's TAXPAYER MONEY that those dirty Congressional aides cum thieves are receiving. How dare they take that taxpayer money?

Of course, not all the news out there is bad. Walter Williams has a great article up, describing the fallacy of Liberal policy, and points clearly to what is wrong with our society today.

Fundamentally, he proposes two questions which should be answered with a "yes" or a "no" and then defines why he answers the way he does, and also why Liberals (especially Liberal professors and politicians) would try to expound, and explain away their "maybe" answer. Those questions are:

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?

Good questions. I have to say "no" to both. Now, if only more folks saw it that way, maybe my tax money wouldn't be used for Corporate and Personal bailouts.

Taking Your Business, By Duress

2009-03-25T20:25:00.001-05:00

I'm aghast. Utterly, and truly, mind-numbed beyond belief. I have now read something which utterly scares me.

Odd how that seems to happen with more and more frequency these days, eh?

So, what has gotten my proverbial panties in a bunch (does "this time" need to be added?)?

Well, it's Treasury Secretary Geithner, who happens to be Obama's ~~lapdog~~ employee in matters relating to finances and the economy. What's happened is that on Tuesday he went before Congress and "requested" the ability to seize non-bank financial firms (as an aside, the non-political FDIC can seize banks). This power he would then exercise via consultation with the Fed and the President.

So basically, what this guy wants is the ability to nationalize any organization that strikes his fancy.

And how exactly is this not socialism?

Amusingly, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has apparently jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon and started questioning him on just what part of the Constitution allowed for this, and other actions that have been taken since March of 2008, to occur.

Of course, he was only able to point at Congress since no one in the White House is quite certain just what the Constitution says. After all, they had quite a bit of fun rewriting/interpreting the second and fourth amendments (as an aside, as of today (3/25) that bad wording is still up at WhiteHouse.gov site).

This is why our nation is failing. This is why we need major reforms of our laws. This is why we need to go back to our roots and shrink this over-bloated monstrosity which we call a Federal Government.

When the government begins to take the stance that it is all right for it to randomly, and unilateraly take private possessions then you know something is amiss. You know that our freedoms and our liberty are once again curtailed and will suffer.

Additionally, wasn't one of Obama's "promises" to do away with the whole lobby construct? How exactly would this help that? What this does is forces non-bank financial corporations to PUSH money at those they beleive will be in power in order to buy good will so that their business won't be seized by government fiat.

Don't believe me? Then how about this, we know that Chris Dodd is the Senator responsible for ensuring that those $160 Million in bonuses (out of the $107,000 Million in federal "bailout" funds) at AIG were allowed legally. Guess who got the most campaign contributions from AIG?

Here's a hint, it wasn't Ron Paul. Heck, it wasn't even Barney Frank this time.

This is the environment which the Obama administration is creating. Strong-arm tactics designed to force companies to do the will of the administration -- or risk your entire company being TAKEN from you.

Finally, once the government has this power in the hands of the Treasury Secretary what is stopping them from putting it into the hands of the Energy Secretary or the Commerce Secretary? It's a very small step from the government grabbing "non-bank financial companies" to the government grabbing "companies."

We've seen it in Public Domain seizures. Traditionally, properties were only grabbed in Public Domain for roads or schools or other government needs. Today, thanks to the Courts, Public Domain is utilized to seize property so that it can be given to private investors.

Now, imagine this scenario. Say, someone owns and runs a small non-bank financial firm. Now, imagine that AIG has been trying to purchase this firm, but offering a pittance as opposed to a true valuation of the company's worth. Since we know that AIG can buy Senator Dodd in the matter of bonuses, it's not a small step to seem them buying a Secrertary and having this small firm seized, and then given over to AIG, much the same way that Public Domain works today.

Now imagine that being the case for any business anywhere.

With this power, the government will utterly own every aspect of our lives. Everything we have or do, will be at the whims of the government. We will be slaves to this massive monstrosity which is Federal Socialism. Consider the following:

We rent our land from the government (since we're forced under duress to pay property taxes or be evicted from said land) despite any type of ownership claims
The government can claim said land, and give it to any organization as they see fit via Public Domain
The government can seize your finances or non-land property on the suspicision of drug activity thanks to the "War on Drugs" (unless you happen to be a current or former Congressman)
The government seizes your income (and the more you make, the more they take) to redistribute it as the government sees fit
If this new power is given to the Administration, the government can seize any business, and all businesses will run at the whim of the government rather than market forces

This is the "Land of the Free" which our forefathers shed their blood and tears for. This is the land which our forefathers threw tea into Boston harbor for.

If only it still was.

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

Oh Noes! It's a Bonus!

2009-03-18T18:18:00.001-05:00

The American Tax-paying public, and the bottom-feeders that force said public to fund their exorbitant lifestyle, are in a bit of a furor. Mainly, AIG, one of those recipients of the bad-idea called ~~kickbacks~~a bailout, is paying its top executives, and other important employees millions of dollars in bonuses.

These are bonuses that AIG has had in place for months; long before that last $30 million.

My surprise is that anyone is surprised at this?

These bonuses are paid to those employees who figure out ways to bring money into the company. And someone had the brilliant idea that the government would float them. Regardless of whether or not they SHOULD be floated.

Because let's be serious, they shouldn't have been.

They should have been forced to go through the bankruptcy system, and have their top management stripped and their organization and debt reorganized.

Instead, top management is more entrenched than ever, and they now have proof that the government will cover any bad, or risky, behavior they take on behalf of the company.

When will those... morons? idiots? No, those aren't the right words; the comparison is insulting to morons and idiots. Ah, when will those politicians realize that the best government is the one which governs least.

Let businesses that need to fail, fail. It's the entire point of the bankruptcy court system.

And above that, remove government influences from market places as much as possible. The less there, the better.

Need another example (besides the perfectly justified AIG bonuses of taxpayer money)?

Then, let's look at the small-car industry. These are those "fuel-efficient" ugly atrocities which no one really wants to own. At least not while gas is reasonably priced. Yet government is forcing the auto manufacturers to create these cars, and what's happening is that they're sitting on car lots and just not selling.

So what is the "recommendation" by the car dealers and manufacturers? Raise taxes on gas pushing the price to a minimum of $4 per gallon. Despite the fact that such a price hike would finish destroying the economy, doesn't anyone see the idiocy of forcing taxes to move products?

Why not build cars that people want to drive and sell those? Oh yes, I forget, the government imposes regulations on the manufacturers.

See the vicious cycle?

Too bad there's not more Ron Paul's up there in Washington to break it...

Hollywood Helps Terrorism

2009-03-05T20:45:00.000-06:00

In case you've missed it, an MPAA backed study has released findings that claim film piracy helps organized crime and even terrorism. This is released at the same time as the Rand Corporation (the folks who performed the study) and the MPAA and other media cartels have been trying their best to increase what is constituted as piracy, and forge stricter and harsher civil laws in relation to that. The MPAA and RIAA have long been irked at the concept of moving IP from one media to another (I'm talking about things like ripping songs from a cd to play on a digital device).

The following quote appears to be the few sentences most often qouted from the report, and I can see why. They distinctly tell you what the report writers are going for, in just a few words of mumbo-jumbo.

Moreover, three of the documented cases provide clear evidence that terrorist groups have used the proceeds of film piracy to finance their activities. While caution must be exercised in drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence, further investigation is a timely imperative. These cases, combined with established evidence for the broader category of counterfeiting-terrorism connections, are highly suggestive that intellectual-property theft — a low-risk, high-profit enterprise — is attractive not only to organized crime, but also to terrorists, particularly opportunistic members of local terrorist cells.

And they're right. IP theft as it is currently describe is low-risk. It's easy to rip a DVD.

But, I'm not so certain how "high-profit" I'd describe it.

Sure, there's a lot of potential profit to be made utilizing real-world media. The pirates down at the local flea-market who are selling pirated copies of the latest blockbusters for $10 the week after said movie's release, or a 5$ copy of the latest mass-produced, boy-band CD.

But that's not who the MPAA and the RIAA have been after when they say "piracy."

All to often, they have been after those individuals who have the temerity to share music or movies. Or worse, the poor old lady down the street who just happens to run an open wireless network which someone is routing through.

So, it's obvious tht one form of piracy is easily leading to the other. How to bypass it though? How to stop having Hollywood fund terrorism? Because let's face it, it's the simple fact that the media is controlled--and coupled with arcane, and evil DRM--which produces piracy.

Think, one can't pirate Moby Dick.

Sadly, the media-mafia has a plan, and it works along these lines:

Implement all the draconian measures of the PRO-IP Act (PL 110-403)
Utilize the Baucus-Hatch legislative improvements to the USTR's Special 301 process to meddle in the affairs of other sovergn nations
A Media/mafia friendly and consumer antagonistic Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
Attach IP protections to global trade agreements
Use the G8 as a club to enforce IP concepts
Make a large, IP-centric organization, dedicated to suing IP users for copyright infringement--a global version of the MPAA or RIAA in other words
Force other sovering nations (focus on China, India and Russia) into generating additional laws to create more hurdles for the legal customers of IP

As can be evidenced by my take on those "enhancements" I think it's utter and pure tripe. It's hogwash. Poppycock.

Why?

Let's look at our own history for an example: The Prohibition.

What happened during this time? During the Prohibition, alcohol manufacturers in coutnries surrounding the United States flourished, as that alcohol flowed easily and often into the nation. The mafia quickly stepped into place, and soon there was a thriving black-market for the stuff, allowing the crime syndicates (including notorious gangster Al Capone) to flourish.

Here's a little secret, for years, my dad has hoped that the government would fully outlaw cigarettes. As then the mob would bring them in, and sell them for less than the current price of the things.

So, what's the secret here? Where's the point where these two concepts hook up? It's simple, the more something is regulated and structured and used to attack the consumers, the more the consumers will turn to illegal means to access it.

Another example is the computer game Spore. I, and thousands of other gamers, looked forward to this game for years upon years. Yet, when it was released, it had the most draconian version of DRM I had ever seen (I belive there's still a class-action lawsuit concerning it and a rootkit it installed over in California). So, what happened? Well, thousands of folks bought it, but it was still the most "pirated" game ever.

After all, the pirated version lacked the DRM measures. So a lot of people would buy the game, and then download the cracked version of the software so they didn't have to deal with the DRM.

Now, if we really want to stop Hollywood from helping terrorism, then we need to rip apart the current copyright scheme and put a better one into place. These would be my suggestions:

Put any movie/book/song/etc that has not been physically distributed in the last 25-35 years (for corporate copyright holders) or the life-span of the author, artist (for copyrights owned by a person) into the public domain -- leaving things in perpetual copyright is BAD for culture as a whole, and public domaining these older works allows them to be used more easily in transformative works--which is a good thing
Allow CHARACTERS to be copyrighted. For example, Mickey Mouse would be protected under Trademark laws, and Disney would retain the rights to him (as long as he was being used in their distribution channels), but the earliest animations featuring him (such as "Steamboat Willie") would enter the public domain
Enforce DRM-free digital & physical distribution. Digital distribution begs to be free (I'm talking DRM-free, not necessariliy cost free). People want to use their copies in any way that they choose. Let them.
Remove the "Making Available" clause of copyright enforcement. Just because something is up on BitTorrent does not mean that it came from it. Additionally, just because it's a torrent does not mean that it was distributed

That's for the government side. For the media-cartel sides, I suggest producing free, or cheap, electronic copies.

Consider, an ebook is $10 at Amazon, a bit under half the price of a Hard-Backed version of the book, AND a few dollars more than a mass-market paperback.

Yet, there is barely any distrubution costs, and even less production costs (we're talking just editing, formatting, and maybe a "cover" for a digital book)--that makes this a nearly a pure profit sink, and there is literally no reason that it needs to be that expensive.

They should, at most, be $5 for a new release from a recognizable author. Personally, I think a per-word pricing structure would work out ideally. Say old books (published 5+ years ago), go for a $0.02 per 1k words, new mid-tier or lower books, and top-tier (authors like Stephen King who gets a major premium and have good name recogintion) novels that have been out for 2-4 years go for $0.03 per 1k words, while new, top-tier books under 2 years old, go for $0.05 per 1k words.

But in the end it's simple, the MPAA by enforcing this draconian DRM schemes, and crazed copyright/licensing pyramids is producing the situation which makes what this report states to be true. Their actions are what allows piracy to flourish and be a high-profit sink.

So, yes, let's fix it. The first thing we can do is outlaw organizations like the MPAA.

One can read the full report here.