Politics, Non-PC Style

Free Speech

2012-08-28T12:35:00.003-07:00

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A few months back Congress passed (and Obama signed into law) H.R. 347. On the surface this bill seems to be just a tweaking of previous bills. When we look a little closer, it just might be more than a little tweak. H.R. 347 makes it a Federal felony to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be protecting anyone. This includes things like Olympic events, the World Series and the Super Bowl. Of course it also includes places members of Congress are visiting, anywhere the President or Vice President are and the Supreme Court. This bill makes it far easier for the government to criminalize protest.

The people who believe they warrant protest, can now shield themselves from protestors because instead of a designated area for protestors, the exclusion zones have no natural or spatial boundaries, they can be as large as law enforcement chooses, and they can move based on the whim of those in charge.

While this bill isn't the death of Free Speech, it is most certainly an infringement by Congress. The Free Speech clause was never meant to insulate government officials from protest, in fact the exact opposite is true. The Free Speech clause was meant to protect the speech of those who would protest in front of our government officials.

There have been slow, incremental encroachments on this right since Title 18 was passed in 1971. This country has a history of protecting political protests, but that protection is slowly being eroded. this type of encroachment on our rights will never end until We The People stand up and use the power of our vote to put people in office that are dedicated to protecting and upholding our rights.

Are you better off?

2012-08-14T09:49:00.001-07:00

When Ronald Reagen ran for President against Jimmy Carter in 1980 he asked Americans, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Today, as I look back to the election of 2008 and the years since, I see an economy that is still sluggish and it can be argued that it is still in recession.

I look back at the Federal debt in November of 2008 and I am sickened at the spending that resulted in a national debt of nearly 10.6 Trillion dollars but I am absolutely horrified at the nearly $16 trillion in debt we have now. We have racked up nearly $1.4 trillion in debt each year since our last Presidential election.

In November 2008 the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $2.40. Today the average gasoline price is $3.702, $1.30 more than it was before our last Presidential election.

In November 2008 the unemployment rate was 6.5%, the highest rate in 14 years. The unemployment rate for last month was 8.3% but the story is even worse when you count those folks who have simply given up looking for work or who are underemployed.

Food is more expensive than it was nearly four years ago, I know, I work in retail and I see the price changes every single day.

When Reagen ran for reelection in 1984 he ran TV ads that asked, and answered the question he asked in 1980. The ads listed the ways we were better off than we were 4 years previous. Can Obama do the same? The answer to that is no.

Gridlock? Or just irresponsible?

2012-08-13T09:36:00.000-07:00

Congress has effectively stopped working on any meaningful legislation until after the November elections. There are looming deadlines ahead of Congress, decade old tax cuts that are about to expire, massive entitlement program crisis, budget and deficit issues including the fact that Congress has not passed a budget since the Obama administration took office.

Part of the job of government is to set budgets on a yearly basis. So why can't Congress do its job? The House has sent budget after budget to the Senate for approval and the Senate has not acted on any of them. The GOP and Democratic leadership blame each other for what they call gridlock.

Is it really gridlock that is stopping Congress from acting on important issues? Congress has passed legislation in the last few months including reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank program, extended sharply reduced rates for government-subsidized student loans, re-upped the Essential Air Service program that subsidizes airline service to rural communities; and voted against ending the 1705 loan-guarantee program that gave rise to green-tech boondoggles such as Solyndra and Abound. None of these were party-line votes—all enjoyed hearty support from both Democrats and Republicans.

We aren't seeing gridlock in Congress, we are seeing the abdication of responsibility, both sides blame the other instead of stepping up and leading. Washington knows we cannot continue to spend the way we are without serious repercussions in the near future and yet they continue to not address our runaway spending.

It's past time to start voting the incumbents out of Washington and give some new faces a chance to address the serious issues facing this country. In November, I won't be voting for any incumbents and our vote is the only thing that matters to those in Washington.

Another innocent dies in a no knock raid.

2012-08-07T09:10:00.002-07:00

A Florida man has become the latest victim of a botched no knock raid by police. An innocent man was shot and killed in Lake County, Florida by police looking for a murder suspect. Awakened in the middle of the night by an unknown presence on his property, Andrew Scott answered his door while carrying a gun, police immediately and without warning, gunned him down.

This is far from the first incident of this type. Far to often the police show up at the wrong home in the middle of the night and break down doors looking for criminals that aren't there. Many times innocent people pay with their lives, sometimes police are injured or killed. This map shows incidents all over America where this has happened.

How many times do innocent people need to be injured or killed and property damaged before we stop this no knock nonsense? In this case, the police said they didn't announce their presence because they didn't want the suspect to escape. Simply surrounding the home wouldn't have prevented the suspects escape?

In cases of drug raids police contend that no knock raids are a necessity to prevent drug dealers from flushing the evidence down the toilet. Is the no knock raid worth it when you get the wrong address and shoot/kill an innocent person? What do you tell their families when that happens? Oops?

In nearly every case the victims and their families are not even awarded the decency of an apology. What happened to accepting responsibility for your mistakes and apologizing for them? Far to often our public officials think that kind of decency doesn't apply to them. Far to often the police use the excuse, "We were just doing our jobs." Well you damn sure weren't doing them good enough if you just shot/killed an innocent.

When does it end? When do we as citizens stand up and say enough is enough! We can make this an issue with our State, Local and Federal representatives with phone calls, email, snail mail and with our most potent tool of all, our votes. Until thousands of us do just that, innocents will continue to die needlessly in no knock raids.

In the case of Andrew Scott it took police an hour and a half to realize their mistake. Once they did, they found the real suspect in the building next door and arrested him without incident.

RIP Mr. Scott.

Gun bans, do they work?

2012-08-05T14:45:00.001-07:00

Not long ago Australia passed new gun control laws that banned numerous guns including airguns. Over 640,000 weapons were turned in or obtained in buyback programs. The new gun control legislation was driven by several mass shootings in Australia. (Weapons can be obtained legally but you must be able to prove a need to own.)

What has happened since that time? Have the people in Australia become safer? Gun control advocates like to tell us that is what will happen if more gun control is passed. That is rarely the case though. In Australia armed robberies have risen 69%, assault with guns is up 28%, gun murders are up 19% and home invasions are up 21%.

What is wrong with this picture? Gun control advocates such as Sarah Brady, Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Diane Feinstien would have you believe this kind of increase in crime won't happen here if we have more gun control. If we look at our own history of concealed carry laws, when they were passed and the crime rates before and after the legislation, we see the exact opposite of what has happened in Australia. Crime has gone down in virtually every major area, murder, assault, rape, robbery, burglary and more.

I feel for the Australians, not only are they subjected to more violent crime than ever before, but they aren't likely to ever get back their freedom to own a firearm to defend themselves and their families ever again. Once freedoms are lost they are rarely regained. If they are regained, it is only at great cost. Australians are warning us to not let this happen here, will we listen and remain vigilant?

War on women?

2012-07-31T06:48:00.001-07:00

The Republicans are being accused of waging a war on women by limiting access to birth control, abortion care and cancer screenings.

As far as birth control is concerned, this is not just the responsibility of the woman, it is also the responsibility of men. I don’t care how poor you are, anyone can afford condoms. Why should the taxpayer have to fund Planned Parenthood when birth control is so readily available to anyone that chooses to use it?

Why should the taxpayer have to fund abortions? Many couples can’t have children of their own and would love to adopt a baby but the waiting list can be years long. Many of those couples would adopt more than one child if the opportunity was available.

I’ve heard all the arguments for abortion. What about rape/incest? I can understand if a woman truly can’t stand the thought of carrying a child to full term in those circumstances but is it really the child that needs killing in these instances? And understand that abortions because of rape/incest account for less than 5% of all abortions done in this country. I’ve heard the argument that the unborn child doesn’t constitute life yet. If it isn’t life, then how is it growing and developing? If it isn’t human then a DNA test would prove this beyond any doubt. I’ve heard the argument that it isn’t human life until it is viable outside the womb. If it isn’t human life then it doesn’t have human DNA right?

All of these things are nothing more than excuses to kill the most innocent humans of all, the unborn child and in 95% of all abortion cases it is nothing more than a form of birth control. I know, I know, it’s all about choice right? I agree, but not in the manner you think I do. Choices are made that lead to pregnancy, including the choice to have unprotected sex. Why is it that the taxpayer must pay for other people’s poor choices? If pregnancy isn’t wanted then having unprotected sex is certainly an irresponsible and poor choice.

We can put aside all the moral issues and look at our national budget. We absolutely must make cuts to our deficit spending. If we don’t, we face potentially catastrophic economic consequences when we default on our debt. To many politicians don't want to make the tough choices on budget cuts, and the cuts don’t go nearly far enough. Planned Parenthood is just one of a number of things we can cut from our budget and it doesn't mean anyone is waging war on women if we do.

2012-07-30T11:16:00.001-07:00

Since the beginning of time when Man first started walking this earth there have only been two methods of solving disputes, discussion and force. In civilized countries we try to resolve our disputes with discussion and come to agreements that are mutual. In every country in the world there are those that would forgo discussion and attempt to use force to coerce others to do their will.

How do we stop this use of force? We could use our fists and feet, especially if we've had martial arts training. We could resort to crude weapons such as chains, various clubs, brass knuckles or even knives. The best weapon though is a firearm.

The firearm is the great equalizer. If I am carrying a firearm you cannot force me to do anything I am not in agreement with. Only a firearm puts a 70 year old person on equal footing with a 19 year old gang banger. Only a firearm puts a 100 lb woman on equal footing with a 200 lb rapist. Only a firearm puts a lone person on equal footing with a mob of unruly people.

When folks argue for gun control or the elimination of guns entirely what they are really arguing for is putting all of us law abiding folks at a disadvantage to those who would do us harm or take the things we've worked so hard for. These folks think that once all guns are removed from society that all will be well. These same folks disregard the fact that baseball bats, fists, feet, stones etc etc can (and are) used as lethal weapons.

None of those weapons are equally effective for everyone. The strong can take a club from the weak, the quick can injure the slow and infirm before they can react.

The gun is the only weapon that is equally effective for the proverbial 90 lb weakling as it is for the strong. The gun is the force equalizer that works equally well no matter who is wielding it. The gun levels the playing field for everyone.

I intend to get my concealed carry permit in the near future and when I have done so, I will carry a gun. I will not do so because I am in fear, I will do so to ensure that I am left alone to carry on my life as I see fit. I will do so to ensure that others cannot use force to take from me or my family or to coerce us to do their will.

2012-07-25T08:24:00.001-07:00

In the aftermath of each mass shooting in the U.S. the debate about gun control always heats up. Some people want more restrictions on who can buy, what they can buy and how many they can buy.

Laws don't stop criminals or those with criminal intent. How many burglars are deterred from burglarizing homes and businesses by laws that are already on our books? Would more laws deter them? Based on evidence that we have thousands of burglars in our jails and prisons and on thousands and thousands of police reports of burglary, we have to conclude that laws against burglary do not deter burglars.

When we look at where these mass shootings take place, we see them happening in places where weapons, guns in particular, are not allowed by policy set forth by the business owner(s) or by laws. The Omaha mall restricts the carrying of guns but that didn't stop Robert Hawkins from killing 9 people. Schools are gun free zones but that didn't stop Klebold and Harris from killing 15 people including themselves. Virgina Tech banned the possession of firearms but that didn't stop Seung-Hui Cho from killing 33 people with guns. The Aurora, Colorado movie theater that was shot up by James Holmes is owned by the company Cinemark, company policy bans weapons from all of their theaters.

Clearly, gun free zones do not stop those with criminal intent from killing, on the contrary, gun free zones simply announce to would be mass killers where their victims are least likely to be armed.

I believe the answer lies in Concealed Carry for law abiding citizens. When Florida passed its CCW law in 1987 alarmists said there would be shootouts on the streets and freeways, that Florida would become the new Wild, Wild, West. These same predictions occurred each time another State liberalized it's CCW laws. None of these dire predictions have come true.

In fact, CCW permit holders are statistically the most law abiding group of citizens. Permits are revoked on occasion but the number of revoked permits is typically very small and the grounds for revocation in most states (other than an expired permit that is not renewed) is either a gross misdemeanor or a felony.

A 3-year study of Texas crime statistics immediately following passage of CCW legislation found that the most common crime committed by CCW holders that would be grounds for revocation was actually DUI, followed by unlawful carry and then aggravated assault. The same study concluded that Texas CCW holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.

In Florida the first person to use their concealed weapon in self defense was a cab driver who shot his passenger after the passenger attempted to shoot him but forgot to take the safety of on his weapon. The passenger died from his wounds. It was also discovered that the passenger was a convicted felon that had been out of prison less than 8 hours before attempting to commit robbery. Fortunately the cabbie was unhurt and there will be no recidivism from the convicted felon this time.

If concealed carry was allowed in all of these places, could a citizen have stopped the crimes in progress? In Omaha a CCW permit holder left his weapon in his car when he entered the mall in accordance with the Westroads Mall policy of no firearms allowed. He said later in an interview that if he had been carrying he could have taken out the shooter because at one point he had a clear line of fire to the shooter while the shooter was firing in another direction. In at least this case, a CCW permit holder could have lessened the carnage. How many other places could this have happened if concealed carry of firearms by law abiding citizens is allowed?

When was the last time we heard about a mass shooting at a firing range? Or inside a police department? Or at a gun store? We don't hear about mass shootings at these types of places because would be killers know their chances of success are greatly diminished (if not eliminated entirely) when their potential victims can shoot back.

Remember, when seconds truly count when the lead starts flying, the police are just minutes away. It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones. In a perfect world this would not be necessary. In reality, we live in a world that is far from perfect and law abiding citizens must protect themselves.

Gun control, Yea or Nay?

2012-07-22T07:14:00.001-07:00

Every time there is a mass shooting in the U.S. the cries for more gun control from the media and politicians rises to a feverish pitch. Last night there was a mass shooting at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado, 12 confirmed dead and over 50 injured by a madman that opened fire as soon as Batman appeared on the screen. This individual was reportedly dressed as the villain from the movie.

Matthew Chapman from The Huffington Post has his own views on last nights violence. He thinks the 2^nd Amendment is anachronistic, poorly written, unclear, and insanely stupid. I’m not sure where he is from, but he says wherever that is, guns are more or less banned and people don’t live in fear. I was born here, I own guns and I’ve never lived in fear regardless of whether or not I had a gun with me.

The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that firearms are used as many as 1.5 million times each year to foil crimes in the U.S. many times without a shot being fired. (I personally foiled a break and enter attempt in my apartment with a revolver years ago.) Yes, there are far to many multiple shootings in the U.S. and I don’t have an answer for how to eliminate those without trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens. Is it fair to take guns away from law abiding citizens just because a few disturbed and evil people use them to commit crimes? Ben Franklin once said "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Mr. Chapman likes to point to other countries to show how well they deal with the issue of crime and firearms. I’m betting he isn’t thinking about Switzerland where every able bodied male of conscription age is required to have a military assault rifle and a certain amount of ammunition in their homes. Crime is very low in Switzerland including gun crime. I’m not saying the U.S. should do the same because here we have the option to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Each person can decide for themselves which option is best for them and that is exactly as it should be.

Mr. Chapman specifically pointed to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil as an example of how a government should deal with firearms. Rio de Janeiro is ranked as the 8th most dangerous city in the world just ahead of Mogadishu, Somalia which is still embroiled in a decades old civil war. How is disarming the citizens working our for the poor folks in crime ridden Rio de Janeiro?

The shooting in Aurora, Colorado is certainly senseless and tragic but I believe that even without access to guns that this sick individual would have found a way to commit his ghastly crime. The intricate booby trap in his apartment is evidence of this.

What I have to say to Mr. Chapman and those like him, if how things are done in your country of origin suit you, then maybe you should return home. If all you want to do is make this country like your country of origin, then maybe you should return home and let us resolve our own issues.

I say a resounding Nay to more gun control.

Make the rich pay!

2012-07-19T09:49:00.000-07:00

That's the hue and cry from the Democrats and has been for several years now. Let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich because they aren't paying their fair share. Really? They aren't paying their fair share? If the rich aren't paying enough now, then what exactly is their fair share? Let's take a look at some statistics from the IRS shall we?

From 2009:

Top 1% of taxpayers paid 36.73% of all income tax.

Top 5% paid 58.66% of all income tax.

Top 10% paid 70.47% of all income tax.

If this isn't their fair share then just how much is their fair share? 70% of Americans pay just 30% of all the income taxes and the bottom 50% pay just 2.25% of the income tax burden. I agree that those at/below the poverty level shouldn't be paying any taxes, they have a hard enough time already without throwing a tax burden on top of things. But should the top 10% of wage earners really be made to pay even more than they do now?

Why does Obama and the Democratic leadership demonize the rich when most of them are rich as well? Do they really want to pay higher taxes? Or is this just a battle cry to get more votes? I think if they wanted to pay more in taxes that they would cut checks to the IRS for the amount they think they should be paying. We don't see that happening though do we? This whole demonize the rich charade is just that, a charade to garner more votes.

Enumerated Powers

2012-07-18T09:06:00.002-07:00

The U.S. Constitution enumerates (or defines) specific powers for each of the three branches of our government. Congress has the exclusive power to pass legislation which then must be signed into law (or allowed to sit for 10 business days while Congress is in session to automatically become law) by the President. (Of course, the President has the option to veto.)

The Supreme Court (or lower courts) is the only branch that has the power to void laws and this must only be done based on the constitutionality of the law in question.

Temporary Assistance For Needy Families is a law that went into effect on July 1, 1997. This is a welfare reform law that put emphasis on putting people back to work. People were required to work 20 - 30 hours per week or participate in preparing to go back to work in order to receive financial aid. This program was very successful in promoting greater self reliance. It moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs so that they were providing for themselves. Child poverty fell, and single-parent employment rose.

Congress deliberately shielded or exempted nearly all of TANF from waiver authority. Obama through an executive order, has now essentially rewritten TANF by removing the waiver restriction that those receiving financial aid must work or prepare to return to work.

No where in the Constitution is the President given the power to rewrite or void existing law. Those powers are exclusive to Congress and the Supreme Court respectively. If we are a nation governed by the rule of law, then why isn't Obama adhering to the law instead of rewriting it as he sees fit? Is there anything more dangerous than a government that doesn't abide by its own laws?

Out of Touch Part 2

2012-07-14T07:00:00.000-07:00

In my previous post I discussed some things Amy Davidson talked about in her article. Today I will address her misconception about the constitutionality of a certain precedent she alluded to.

The precedent she alluded to is Wickard vsFilburn and all subsequent court rulings that have used this case as precedent. In Wickard vs Filburn the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to regulate not only commerce that crossed state lines but also anything that had the potential to affect interstate commerce. The Founders intended for the Commerce clause to preclude the kind of discriminatory legislation by the States that was permitted under the Articles of Confederation.

The Commerce Clause has been used by Congress to justify a very wide range of laws but is that authority being abused? Under the Articles of Confederation the States were implementing protectionist economic policies and the Commerce Clause was intended to prevent that from happening again by establishing free trade across State lines and nationalizing trade tariffs. This article describes the history of the Commerce Clause from its beginning through it's history in the Courts in a non political way.

The Commerce Clause had become the the single greatest source of government power until Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Congress can no longer regulate everything simply because it has the potential to affect interstate Commerce. In one bold stroke The Supreme Court has gone back to a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause and has vastly reduced the power of the Federal government.

I believe this is a good thing since I believe the government has had far to much power. However, how this will all play out remains to be seen.

Out of touch? Part 1

2012-07-12T17:29:00.002-07:00

The Republicans passed a bill in the House of Representatives to repeal Obamacare. Of course it will never make it to a vote in the Senate. In this article Amy Davidson has the gall to call this obstructionism on the part of the Republicans while completely ignoring the fact that 60% of Americans want it repealed. Doesn't Congress exist to serve the people who sent them there? If so, (and I believe they are supposed to serve the People) then Obamacare should be repealed. There is nothing obstructionist about complying with the will of your constituents.

Miss Davidson delegates an entire paragraph to complain about the various names Republicans have given different bills to repeal Obamacare. I think some of the names are kinda silly but aren't there more important things to complain about? Like maybe...a $17 trillion national debt? Or the most sluggish economy we've seen in decades?

Miss Davidson also claims that 50 million Americans will lose out on health insurance if Obamacare is repealed. Fact is that of all those without health insurance in this country an estimated 13 million of them are illegal aliens.Millions more are young people in good health who can afford health insurance that opt out of insurance. (That is something I did when I was younger and in good health to save money.) There are millions who are to poor to buy health insurance and there are millions more that are unemployed.

For those who are to poor to afford it themselves, they still have access to health care through Medicaid. For those here illegally, I say get the hell out because I don't want to give you a free ride for your health benefits. For the unemployed, we need to fix the economy so they can once again find jobs.

Jobs, what the government and media don't tell you.

2012-07-11T16:53:00.002-07:00

Politicians like to talk about creating jobs, and it sounds like a noble goal. Many times the reality is far different.

For those of us old enough to remember, in the 80's the US steel industry was crying foul because other countries were producing steel and importing it into the US at cheaper prices. The steel industry said they couldn't compete with cheap foreign labor. So the lobbyists went to work and succeeded in getting Congress to restrict steel imports. The import restrictions saved 5000 jobs in the US steel industry.

The other side to that story is, because US steel had less competition, it became even more expensive and manufacturers had to use the more expensive steel to make their products, other foreign products became cheaper for the US consumer and as a result 26,000 workers in other manufacturing industries lost their jobs.

Was it worth it to save 5000 steel workers jobs?

In another example, the restrictions on the importation of sugar is estimated to have cost 3 times as many jobs as it saved in the US sugar industry since many confection manufacturers took their operations to Mexico and Canada where sugar was cheaper.

For both the sugar and steel industries it would have been far better for those two industries to use some good old American ingenuity to come up with innovative ways to reduce labor costs and increase productivity, both of which would have lowered the costs of those two commodities. Far more people would have kept their jobs and it is likely that jobs would have been created by the private sector in the process. And the US would have stayed competitive in the world markets in both of these industries.

Sometimes the government should just mind their own business.

Affordable Health Care Act

2012-07-03T12:15:00.002-07:00

There's been a lot of talk lately about the AHCA and the Supreme Court ruling on it.

I believe we need health care reform in certain areas. I just don't believe we need a bill that is nearly 3000 pages long in order to do it. I also don't believe it is Constitutional to force anyone to buy health insurance or any other commodity.

If we didn't already have health insurance through my wife's employer, I wouldn't be able to get it because of a couple of preexisting conditions. That needs to be fixed. We should have affordable options available to all Americans. Including those with preexisting conditions.

We also need to address our malpractice lawsuits. Malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of our health care not only in the cost of the awards and costs of defending against lawsuits, but also because doctors perform unnecessary tests and procedures in order to cover their butts in case of a lawsuit.

One possible fix for this particular issue is how Sweden approaches malpractice. Say you have unforeseen complications from a surgery that may be the fault of the doctor. A board will review your case and decide how much compensation, if any you are entitled to based on a variety of factors. In Sweden people don't get rich for life because of a malpractice lawsuit.

As far as the poor not having insurance, they already have an option for health care, it's called Medicaid. Years ago when my wife and I were just starting out we lost our health insurance right after she got pregnant. Medicaid helped us through that.

Illegals? Screw them, they shouldn't even be here in the first place. 'Nuff said.

2012-06-18T07:34:00.000-07:00

Recently a Massachusets town, Middleborough, passed a resolution making profanity an offense you can be ticketed for. If the Massachusetts Attorney General approves it, you will soon start receiving $20 tickets for public profanity.

From what I've read, there are no guidelines in the new resolution as to what exactly constitutes profanity. Our Courts have repeatedly struck down laws that are general in nature and don't explicitly outline unlawful/lawful actions.

All that aside, what gives Middleborough the authority to infringe on our First Amendment right to free speech? Former Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote in Cohen vs California that one mans profanity is another mans lyric. As it stands right now, in no small part due to the previously mentioned Supreme Court decision, the First Amendment protects profanity unless it’s coupled with true threats, fighting words or an incitement to imminent lawless action.

So when do we as a People, stand up to these politicians who write and pass laws in direct violation of the Constitution and say enough is enough and start voting these folks out of office? I for one, start now.

2012-06-16T09:54:00.002-07:00

Sheriff Arpaio strikes again! He has openly stated that illegal immigrants with Obama's new work visas will still be arrested. I love this guy, he actually does his job as Sheriff of enforcing ALL existing laws and not just the ones that it is politically correct to enforce.

Sheriff Arpaio has said that if you don't like a law, change it. Until then, he is going to enforce ALL the laws. I couldn't agree more.

2012-06-15T09:09:00.000-07:00

I saw on Yahoo today that the Obama administration has stopped the deportation of some 800,000 illegal immigrants. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against immigration, my own ancestors came over from Czechoslovakia.

What I am against, is folks coming here illegally and then acting like they have the right to be here and the right to all the benefits of living in America.

There are options, but coming here illegally and then being rewarded with a work visa shouldn't be one of them. If we are a Nation governed by the Rule of Law, then enforce the existing laws and don't reward the law breakers.

As far as options go, one option is to reform our immigration laws to accommodate more immigrants each year and make the immigration process easier and more streamlined. Another option for those that just want to work here temporarily is to reinstate the old Bracero Program. These are just a couple.

Crime should never pay. Giving out work visas to illegal immigrants is making crime pay. That's just wrong.

2012-05-31T19:39:00.001-07:00

I saw this photo on Facebook today.

I see a lot of things wrong with the statement in this picture in regards to the Tea Party. First, a simple Google search will give you the goals of the Tea Party (which isn't an actual political party, at least not yet). The goals of the Tea Party are simple and few, reduced government spending, cutting taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

One thing that really irks me about the media is that they always seem to misrepresent certain groups, the Tea Party being one of their favorites in this regard. Just tell me the truth, unlike Tom Cruise in a Few Good Men, I CAN handle the truth.

The first part about farmers really irks me. No one wants to make the American farmer go broke. Well, except maybe the big corporate farms. Do we need to truly reform farm subsidies? Yes, because folks living in some of the wealthiest communities in America (and most definitely urban areas) are getting millions of dollars in Federal farm aid. ( Details here.) The kind of reform that is needed will never happen though because of our corrupt Washington politics. Instead of doing whats right by the American taxpayer they do whats right for themselves, their buddies, their campaign contributors and lobbyists.

Who is against medical care? No one that I know of and certainly not the Tea Party. I am personally against any sort of national health care system and one needs only to look at how health care is rationed and delayed in countries with socialized medicine and our national budget deficit to see why. I'm not against helping those that are to poor to pay for it themselves.

We are spending more than ever on education in America and our schools are not producing better results because of it. Our global standing in education continues to slip despite massive spending on schools and teachers. Clearly, throwing more money at the problem isn't the answer.

No Trayvon amendment

2012-05-09T20:04:00.002-07:00

Amendment withdrawn

I posted about the Trayvon Amendment a few days ago. Democrats have backed off for now but have stated they will still pursue it at a more appropriate time.

If it wasn't for the media and their gross negligence in reporting the facts in this case, this amendment would never have been an issue.

2012-05-09T17:40:00.000-07:00

The Democrats in Washington D.C. are blaming the Republicans for student loan interest rates that are about to double. In 2007 the Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate and they passed a bill cutting student loan interest rates in half. But....they set the bill to expire July 1st of this year. An election year.

So now they blame the Republicans in an attempt to make them look like the bad guy. The Republican party is far from perfect, but this one belongs at the feet of the Democrats. If the Democrats had wanted to create a permanent interest rate cut for student loans they would have done so in 2007. What they really wanted to do is play political blame games and create opportunities for themselves in an election year.

So why isn't anyone in the media reporting this? It is my belief that the job of the media is to report the truth to it's views/readers. The media should be all over this one, but they aren't. Politicians on all sides need to be held accountable and the media can, and should, play a very large role in doing just that.

The Trayvon Amendment.

2012-05-08T17:35:00.000-07:00

The Trayvon Amendment

House Democrats want to push through an amendment that will attempt to force States to repeal their "stand your ground laws".

If House Democrats want to repeal these "stand your ground laws", then why don't they simply pass a Federal law that says you must retreat in the face of danger as long as it doesn't increase your own danger? In this case the supremacy clause in Article 6/2 of the U.S. Constitution would come into play and all stand your ground laws would be struck down in a single stroke.

Why should we be forced to run from criminals? I don't think that any reasonable person wants to kill or cause serious bodily injury to another human being and yet there are instances where we are attacked or threatened by those who would do us harm or take our property by force.

When this happens shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves in a reasonable manner? In this writers opinion, when an individual crosses the boundaries of Law and attacks or threatens another, then by his actions, he has given up any right to his own safety. We should not protect those who commit crimes.

Should we be allowed to beat up or shoot someone just because they look at us in a manner we don't approve of? Of course not, and stand your ground laws don't allow for that kind of behavior anyway.

This amendment is only being proposed because a 17 year old was shot to death while beating another human being senseless. Maybe that 17 year old shouldn't have physically attacked someone else. This much is beyond question, if Trayvon hadn't physically attacked Zimmerman, he would still be alive today.

2012-05-07T16:23:00.002-07:00

Tax fraud ignored
When I first read about this, I was outraged, well, I still am. How can the IRS and Congress continue to ignore this problem? Billions every year are stolen from the American taxpayer in this manner.

I'm not against immigration, heck my own ancestors came over from Czechoslovakia but they did so legally. It's bad enough that these people come here without going through the proper channels. These people though, add insult to injury by defrauding all of us taxpayers. They claim dependents on their tax returns that have never lived in their homes which gives them thousands of dollars extra on their tax refunds. Much of this money doesn't stay in the U.S which makes it nearly impossible to recover.

If an American citizen did this, the IRS would be all over them and they'd not only have to repay the money but they would also stand a good chance of going to jail.

2012-05-06T12:01:00.000-07:00

My first post on this blog was going to be about the National Debt, the IRS ignoring tax fraud, or something else equally serious and offensive.

I've found something far more offensive than anything else I can think of.

This nation had it's first surviving Medal of Honor recipient since Vietnam. The 9 previous recipients received it posthumously.

While watching the video of the award ceremony, I couldn't help but wonder where this mans family was. They weren't in the front row where they should have been. Congressmen were in the front row. Where were the families of the 2 men who were with Ssgt Giunta who died? They were in the 3rd row.

At the end of the award ceremony President Obama was shaking hands with the Congressmen and chatting it up with them. Instead of spending time with the Medal of Honor recipient, his family, and the families of the deceased soldiers, our President was hobnobbing with other politicians. This day wasn't in honor of politicians who did nothing on a battlefield to deserve our countries highest honor for Valor. It was a day to honor a soldier who's selfless acts reflect honor upon himself, his fellow soldiers, his unit, the US Army and this nation.

Ssgt Giunta's family should have been in the front row. The families of the two soldiers who died should have been in the front row. His surviving fellow soldiers in the second row if they can't all fit in the first row.

Politicians should have been behind all of these folks. Why were they in the front? Politicians have 365 days a year to grandstand in Washington D.C. Why do they need to take the place of honor on this day, this hour, from folks who have done far more to earn it than they ever will?

President Bush was far from perfect but he would have gotten this one right. Maybe President Obama should have called him and asked for advice on this one.