Random Thoughts from a Conservative

Dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

2013-03-20T15:15:00.000-07:00

Recently I was in a situation where I was reminded of the scene from "Ghostbusters" where the mayor of NY asks the Ghostbusters what they meant when they say the city is heading for a disaster of Biblical proportions and is given these analogies, "What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!" For those of you who are facebook friends with me, you will remember that I just participated in my first poltical press conference. It is something that is completely out of my comfort zone for a multitude of reasons, but I felt it was was necessary. The topic, "Ethics Reform." My organization, along with others, partnered with a non-partisan group to work toward real ethics reform. As you can tell by the name of this blog, I am a conservative. The other organizations that partnered with non-partisan group are "not conservative." More likely than not, I often find myself at odds with these organizations. During this press conference, we stood together in unity calling for meaningful ethics legislation that will protect the citizens of the state and not the politicians. Not once did it occur to me that there would be a problem with the unlikely alliance. I have found myself reaching across the aisle on many occasions. But, evidently, this is a BIG deal! Once the press conference was concluded I was expecting difficult questions on the verbiage of the bills. Imagine my surprise when the predominate question was about how I felt standing alongside this far left organization with me being far right. After the initial shock, I answered the question. Once I got home the newspapers started spitting out the articles with headlines reading, " Tea Party members, a liberal think tank and an ethical watchdog group all came together at the capitol Monday morning to do something surprising: agree" sigh... This was supposed to be about ethics reform.
I digress. Back to my answer to the press corp. "No. Ethics is not a partisan issue. We need to stop looking at where we differ, and we need to find where we have common ground and can work together for the betterment of our city, state and country. Only then will things improve." Maybe I am being naive, but I truly believe that. When we sit across the table from each other and only see our differences, we will be at each others throats because we are radically different organizations. We CAN find common ground and need to seek it out and work together when we can.
Think of it like a marriage. Most people marry someone who is similar to them. It is easy to share your life with someone who thinks like you. It is MUCH more difficult to marry someone who is different. That is when you have to look for the similarities and really seek them out in order to stay together. They (the pronoun people) say that politics makes strange bedfellows. It is true.
Does this mean that we partner with organizations with opposing views and bury our head in the ground? Well, I hope that I am not that naive. Before we agreed to the press conference, we had a written agreement on what we were looking for in this legislation with specifics. Before our individual statements were given, we shared them with each other to make sure there was agreement. If there wasn't, the statement was pulled.
Interestingly enough, a representative that I met with later that day was in the press conference. It was a good meeting. This legislator is not of my party affiliation, but then neither party is :) I ran into this legislator again yesterday en route to a committee meeting. He seemed incredulous that he was able to work with a tea party member. We had meaningful discussion about the bill and promised to stay in touch to ensure that we ended up with a good piece of legislation. Does this mean I am going to agree with everything the Representative says or sponsors? Far from it. Rather, it means that we have established a common ground where we can work from.

We The People Rally

2010-03-11T14:51:00.000-08:00

Many of you reading my blog have already heard about the "We the People Rally" It is as simple as its name ...WE The People. Our country was founded on the principle of limited government that answers to the people. As of late we have found that our government does not consider itself accountable to us. They government has grown to a monstrous size and is feeding upon itself. The people we have elected to represent us do little other than represent their own special interests. I, for one, have spent countless hours calling, visiting and emailing our representatives only to be ignored. I know many of you have done the same and are experiencing the same frustrations.
We the People need to unite into a single LOUD voice. On April 15 at the Florida state Capitol, we will gather and make our voices heard. Hundreds of other groups will be gathering all across the country for the same reason. Join with us as we tell our government in a loud, unified voice, "No More!"
Make sure you visit the "We the People" website and sign the petition calling on our state legislature to solidify the resolve of the 10th Amendment by protecting our rights as Floridians. More information about the event will follow as speakers and musicians are lined up.

REAL ID

2010-02-18T16:19:00.000-08:00

What would cause groups like NGA, the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and numerous religious and privacy organizations to unite against a cause? It is called the REAL ID Act, and, yet, many people have no idea what it is. My assertion is "if you know what it is and how it will affect you" then you WILL have an opinion and you WILL want something done about it.

REAL ID is a federal law passed in 2005 (and now being implemented) that imposes national standards for state-issued driver licenses in order to be accepted by the federal government for "official purposes." What official purposes, you might ask? In order to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service you will need a federally approved ID card. . . in essence, a national ID card. The Department of Homeland Security is the governing power which has the power to set standards and determine whether state drivers' licenses pass muster. Only those IDs approved by the Department of Homeland Security can be accepted for official purposes by the feds. Many would argue that this new law doesn’t constitute a national id because the law only sets forth national standards and leaves the issuance of the cards and the maintenance of the database in state’s hands. However, these are uniform national standards with linked databases and these cards are MANDATORY if you wish to travel outside the US. We already have an ID that is mandatory for traveling outside of the US and it is called a PASSPORT.

The REAL ID (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109teRrdV:e47420:) was a piece of legislation that was hurried through the legislative process with little debate and no hearings. It garnered passage and executive approval because it was appended to a bill providing tsunami relief and military appropriations. Now that state-wide implementation is being required, several congressional leaders have come out against the Real ID regulations, arguing that the provisions pass the cost on to taxpayers, do not improve national security, and do not protect the privacy of Americans. From a statement issued by Senator Leahy (D-VT): “The Bush administration's Real ID program will not only lead to long lines at every DMV across the country, it will impose a massive unfunded mandate on state governments while offering absolutely no federal privacy protections to our citizens."

Identity theft is a real problem in this country. According to identitytheft.info, it is the fastest growing crime in the United States with over 15 million people victimized per year. That is approximately 7% of all adults having their identities stolen with about $3500 loss per victim. , “Close to 100 million additional adults have their personal identifying information placed at risk of identity theft each year when records maintained in government and corporate databases are lost or stolen. The sophistication level of professional identity thieves involved in organized crime continues to grow along with the methods they develop. From individually tailored phishing and vishing scams, to increasingly successful hacks of corporate and government databases, to elaborate networks of botnets designed to hijack millions of computers without any trace, there is an ever-increasing threat to all Americans.” REAL ID mandates that every state's database - containing Social Security cards, copies of birth certificates, etc. - be linked and accessible to tens of thousands of DMV employees. By making our personal information accessible to countless individuals across the country, Real ID exposes it to misuse and identity theft. And these databases will prove to be tantalizing. If you still aren’t concerned, google “dmv employees arrested.” There are more than 2.3 million results for that query . The DMV is the point of entry for your scanned birth certificate/passport/social security card. From there, your scanned documents go to the IT shop which stores the data; Database Administrators, Server Administrators, and even help desk staff. All it takes is the right question with the right amount of money to any person with access to the database. To see how secure this database was, I spoke to IT Department heads of various State Agencies. One of them said, “Your data is as secure as the person most likely to take a bribe at the institution you are interacting with.”

Real ID won't just cost you your privacy. Once the IDs and database are in place, their uses will inevitably expand to facilitate a wide range of surveillance activities. Remember, the Social Security number started innocently enough, but it is now required for a host of government services. Private companies now have access to social security information to create massive databases of personal information. A national ID poses similar dangers; for example, because "common machine-readable technology" will be required on every ID, the government and businesses will be able to easily read your private information off the cards in myriad contexts, allowing the government to track and monitor law-abiding citizen's every move in their daily lives like we are criminals on parole.

The sad thing is that the U.S. Constitution was written to prohibit the federal government from taking such drastic steps. The long-forgotten Tenth Amendment says that powers not explicitly delegated to the Feds "are reserved to the states" or to the people. Former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr said, "A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment."

To date, 24 states have enacted resolutions or binding legislation prohibiting participation in Real ID with another 8 states having pending legislation. The State of Utah passed a resolution that states that REAL ID is,“ in opposition to the Jeffersonian principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government." It further states that "the use of identification-based security cannot be justified as part of a 'layered' security system if the costs of the identification 'layer'--in dollars, lost privacy, and lost liberty--are greater than the security identification provides" and "the "common machine-readable technology" required by the REAL ID Act would convert state-issued driver licenses and identification cards into tracking devices, allowing computers to note and record people's whereabouts each time they are identified.” The resolution also holds, “ the requirement that states maintain databases of information about their citizens and residents and then share this personal information with all other states will expose every state to the information security weaknesses of every other state and threaten the privacy of every American" and "the REAL ID Act wrongly coerces states into doing the federal government's bidding by threatening to refuse non-complying states' citizens the privileges and immunities enjoyed by other states' citizens." To reiterate, 24 STATES are protesting REAL ID. http://www.realnightmare.org/news/105/

Real ID suffers from serious flaws that will affect the rights of every American. Any way you look at it, this national ID scheme is a bad law that needs to be scrapped. It is enormously expensive, offers little to no benefits, and places our personal information at risk for use in identify theft. It's not too late to fight back—state legislators can still resist implementing the Real ID Act and force Congress' hand. Call your state legislators NOW.

What About the Census?

2010-02-11T09:29:00.000-08:00

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
-- Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States"
The word "enumeration" means "to count, or determine the number of. So, what is the big deal about the Census? It seems harmless enough. The Constitution allows for the “enumeration” of Americans for the purposes of taxation and apportioning political representation. But the Census of this century is about much more than “counting the people.” It is about ethnicity, sex, age, date of birth, marital status, college, illnesses, military service, vehicles, hours at work, days off, sick days, plumbing in house, amount of utilities, etc. We are an information- driven society where everyone is trying to capitalize on what people are about, and the government is no different. The problem with the government getting involved in information harvesting stems from the abuse of power that the government is prone to. We the people stand to lose a lot more than our privacy and dignity.
According to the 2010 Census website (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/why/constitutional.php) "The U.S. Constitution mandates us to count everyone, including both citizens and non-citizens. We’ve followed this mandate, since the first census in 1790.” Now this might be a stupid question, but, if you are counting people for the purposes of apportioning members of Congress, wouldn't you count ONLY those people who are legal citizens? They are the ones that vote.
The Census 2010 website touts “One of the shortest forms in history- ten questions in 10 minutes.” By my count, that is nine more questions than the obligatory, “how many people over 18 living here” that is required by the Constitution. What they didn’t tell you was in 2009, 3 million Americans were sent the American Community Survey as a supplement to the 2010 Census. The 28 page survey asks many of the same invasive questions that the 2000 Census’ “long form” asked. This survey isn’t part of the head-counting. The information is used by the government to spread around your tax dollars and justify federal bureaucracies. This information can also be distributed to private businesses.
According to the 2010 Census website (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/why/constitutional.php) "all questions put forward by them ARE constitutional. It is constitutional to include questions beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people because, on numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census." While the 2010 form is one of the least intrusive forms, one does have to ask "just who is getting this information and why do I have to provide it?" The penalty for not answering each question asked on the forms is $100. False answers can cost up to $500 in fines. Failure to answer the questions on the census can result in a Census representative visiting you along with volunteers from different organizations including ACORN. Refusal to answer the questions from the Census worker/ACORN can result in fines and/or criminal prosecution.
During the 2000 Census, the Bureau had a lot of problems with people refusing to answer their many invasive questions. The "long" form with its 53 questions was so invasive that the sitting President said he didn't know if he would take the time to fill out the form. A lawsuit was brought by 5 naturalized American citizens. Federal Judge, Melinda Harmon, ruled that the Census Bureau has no automatic right to ask questions felt to be personal or intrusive and that it cannot threaten or prosecute citizens who refuse to answer such questions. Then, several months later, she reversed her decision citing that this is the way it has always been done. "This [the Constitution] does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the Constitution," the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in a 1901 case.
The plaintiffs expressed their concerns about how information about their origins and ethnicity could at some point be used against them citing precedence for the US Government using census data of this type during World War II to identify Americans with Japanese ancestry. These citizens of the US were then placed in internment camps for the duration of the war. The government justifies needing this data for the purposes to determine whether states and municipalities are in compliance with Voting Rights Act of 1964. In response to critics who charge that too much attention is paid to racial categorizing, officials point out that all censuses since the first survey in 1790 have included a question on race.
Judge Harmon voiced agreement with the plaintiffs. The internment represented, in her words, "a startling example of how census data, collected for proper purposes, has been illegally used by the government for improper purposes." She even drew upon Filegate as an example of misconduct by government officials having access to confidential files. Having gone that far, however, she tossed the problem to Congress to make the necessary corrections.
Ron Paul, Representative from Texas, said "The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people. More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand.” We as Americans need to maintain a HEALTHY mistrust of the government and insist that Congress protect our rights to privacy. http://easylink.playstream.com/jerryday/Matrix/Census_ffp_vp6_400x224_300.flv

From Apathy to Extremist

2010-02-03T14:10:00.000-08:00

The definition of apathy is lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference. What is important to one person might be of little importance for another. The other day one of my children needed a ride from the auto repair place. I had a City Commission meeting to attend which was important to me since the Commissioners appeared to be more concerned with lining their pockets and raising our taxes. Needless to say, my son thought I was weird. As I mentioned my son's response to my husband, my husband echoed our son. A year ago, I would have agreed with them. I was apathetic. I didn't consider myself that way. I would go out and knock on doors for Bush, man phone banks and do precinct walks for a candidate I didn't believe in so a worse candidate didn't get elected, lobby my politicians for bills that impacted me directly, but still I was apathetic. And it wasn't on purpose. I just didn't know any better. I didn't understand how important it was to keep track of elected officials was. An excellent example of this occurred at the above mentioned Commission meeting. When questioned about the nice compensation package they had set up for themselves, one commissioner responded, “We did this four years ago. Why are you bringing this up now?” We've let the fox guard the hen house too long and now the rooster is crowing.

Perhaps part of our apathy stems from a lack of understanding of the core tenants of our government. Many people are unsure as to what form of government we have. When asked, Nine times out of ten the answer will be, “Democracy.” Even if we answer the question “republic” we would be hard-pressed to define it. In a Democracy, there is no need for a Constitution, since the majority can simply change Law at a whim. In a Republic, there is a Law above the government, and in our case there is a written Constitution. The two aren't synonymous. It would be like comparing apples and oranges..or comparing Republicans view of a loose form of government and Democrats with their centralized view of government. In a republic, people vote for their representatives, but the state's responsibilities are limited because of their charter. In a democracy, the majority's power is unlimited.

The US Constitution was written over two hundred years ago and is one of the most influential, longstanding legal documents in existence. Its purpose was to protect our God-given, inalienable rights. This document was designed to keep the federal government small with its powers limited and well-defined. It was also designed to keep any one branch of government from having too much power. The powers between each of the three branches were balanced. The Executive branch of the government, made up of the President and Vice-President, were given the responsibility for enforcing the laws of the land, although they could choose not to enforce laws that the Legislative Branch passed. The Legislative Branch has a two-branch Congress-the Senate and the House of Representatives and they were given power to make laws. The Judicial Branch made up of the Supreme Court was given the responsibility to decide arguments about the meaning of laws and how they are applied. They were also to decide if laws violate the Constitution. Each branch has checks and balances from another branch with no branch having more power than another.

Many of us learned this when we took civics in middle school. We have done our duty as citizens by voting. We expect those we elect to conduct themselves in our best interest and the interest of our country while abiding by our governing documents. We don't check up on them. We trust them. Occasionally we hear of them doing something we don't approve of and we complain to our neighbors and friends. But we don't do anything about it. All the while, those we elected are becoming more and more disconnected from those they represent. They do as they see fit, regardless of what anyone says, even what the Constitution says. And we have let them get away with it. We have to hold our elected officials accountable and if they can't abide by the law of the land, we have a RESPONSIBITY to vote them out regardless of what their political affiliation

Many Americans are waking up to what is happening in our country. They are out in force educating themselves; finding out what our Constitution says. They are educating themselves on the issues and then making their views known. They are meeting with other who were slumbering and searching for ways to get our country back on track…back to the Constitution, back to the Republic and one nation, under God.

So here I am. I have wasted a lot of time being apathetic along with a lot of other Americans. We are done with allowing politicians a free reign. As our representatives, they are accountable to us and we will hold to that. We have gone from apathy to extremism. We want our country back and now is the time for us to take action.

The Politics of Change

2010-01-23T06:52:00.001-08:00

We heard a lot about 'change' during the last election. One candidate touted his age, experience, and qualifications while the other candidate promised 'change' from the ways things were. The 'O'ther candidate won. Enough citizens were tired of the establishment-and there were a lot of things to be tired of. We are one year into "O's" reign as President. 'O' promised a change from closed door politics. He said ". . . we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." And yet, we are looking at a substantial piece of legislation known as health care and the American people have yet to be able to see it. We get snippets of it. We see one side of the proposal in the form of the House bill but not the Senate bill. We hear 'their' plans on forcing all Americans to have it, penalizations for not taking care of yourself, fines and prison if you don't participate. Americans voiced their anger, marched on DC, called their legislators, emailed, visited them and were asked to leave. We were promised health care would cut health care costs, but reports from the Congressional Budget Office show otherwise. We were told that there wouldn't be any more taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year, but there will be a slew of new taxes on everything from health insurance premiums to cosmetic surgeries and medical devices. Then we have politicians who have positioned themselves against this bill cutting deals for their votes. Two such politicians are Sen Ben Nelson from Nebraska and Sen Bill Nelson from Florida. In order to get a 'yes' vote to pass the health care bill they cut a deal for some (or all) of their constituents. This deal will require all taxpayers to assume the full share of the costs that Nebraska (and some counties in FL) will incur as a result of the expansion of Medicaid.
Hum...Change...
Then there are reports that 65% of Americans DON'T want the governments health care plan. According to the Right leaning-Heritage Foundation, "Public opinion polls for the past year from Gallup, Zogby International and even the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press have shown a steady drop in support, and corresponding rise in opposition, to health care reform legislation that would bloat Washington’s powers over the private health care sector.
Left-leaning, Politico reported this week that exit polls circulated by Republican polling firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates “found that 52 percent of Massachusetts voters said they opposed [President Barack Obama’s] health care push, and 42 percent said they voted to for Brown to stop reform.”
Since the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace Democrat Ted Kennedy, we are seeing Congress embarking on another mission to change the rules so things go their way. Another, you ask? Yes, another. In 2004 when John Kerry (MA) was running for US President, Massachusetts had a Republican governor. If Kerry won the Presidential election, the Republican governor would appoint a replacement. Former Senator Ted Kennedy prodded state legislators in MA to change the appointment rules so a Republican would not be in position to name a sitting senator in the event Kerry won. Well, Kerry didn't win in case you have been holed up somewhere for the last ten years. Since Ted Kennedy's health started to deteriorate, he requested the state of MA change the rules...again. MA has a Democrat governor. It is ok for a Democrat governor to appoint a sitting senator in the event of a senator/representatives death. So, once again, the MA legislature changed the rules to suit the political needs of the liberals in DC. The Democrat governor appointed a democrat senator to temporarily sit in until a special election could be held. BUT those legislatures did not foresee their blue state electing a red senator! Now what? Change the rules, AGAIN! The problem with this is they will have to change federal rules. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) is planning on introducing a bill that will eliminate the 60 vote threshold that will end debate in the Senate so they can ram the health care bill down our throats without a fight.

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper. (T.S. Eliot-Hollow Men first and last stanza)

The Declaration of Independence

2010-01-22T20:05:00.000-08:00

You are probably wondering why a blog would contain this. Simply, when was the last time you read it? What does it mean to you? The last time I looked at it was in high school. Today, I really looked at it with new eyes. Wow! Powerful stuff!

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

The Second Amendment

2010-01-20T19:41:00.000-08:00

I have never considered myself the type of person to carry around a gun. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with them. I grew up around them. I have gone target practicing and have them in my home for protection. But carry one around all the time?? While at a gun shop, at the gun counter, a woman looked at me with incredulity and asked me, "Why would you want to carry a gun with you." Because carrying a police officer would be to heavy!

I get text messages from the local media many times a day alerting me to some crime or another that is happening at places where normal citizens frequent. Places they expect to be safe, yet they weren't. These normal citizens blame the police for not stopping the crime, they blame the gun for causing the crime when in truth, if they had been armed they would not have been a victim.
While living in Texas I had the opportunity to meet Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp on many occasions while lobbying for homeschooling rights. Representative Hupp is and was a concealed carry permit holder. One fateful day while she and her parents were dining in a restaurant (in which guns were not allowed) a mad man came in and calmly executed everyone he could get to. Suzanna watched her parents get executed while her gun was in her car. Unlike many people, she didn't blame the gun and seek more restrictions to take guns from those who need to protect themselves. She directed her anger at the legislation which took away her rights. She was not a politician; just a citizen who could not exercise her constitutional rights and that cost her her parents.
Suzanna has spent a majority of her life fight to protect the rights of others. She has written a book, which I intend to read, called, "From Luby's to the Legislature" which details her walk from childhood to that terrible tragedy at Luby's and finally to the legislature where her reputation is one of a fighter for the rights of her constituents. She is a staunch second amendment advocate and addresses how citizens should interact with the media and how to affect the law-making process. It is a book worth reading from a citizen worth listening to.

So, I carry a gun. I still have the right to protect myself and my family. I wonder how long that will last...

Scott Brown..is this the beginning of Real Change?

2010-01-19T19:10:00.000-08:00

Massachusetts has a new senator . . . a Republican. What makes this unusual is that this is a Democrat-held state. The late Ted Kennedy held the position as senator since the Pony Express. I guess it isn't nice to speak ill of the dead. I have heard many political think tanks touting that this is a message to the establishment. We are tired of how they ignore us. We call, we email, we write letters . . . we even show up at their offices and rally. Still, they don't listen. Surely, with the blue-ist of blue states turning red, they will pay attention. Normally, I am considered an optimistic person. I consider myself to be a realist. In this case, call me a pessimist for the aforementioned reasons. The powers-that-be in Washington have an agenda that does not include what the people want. They have been proving that for a year now. The people spoke loudly tonight - VERY loudly. Unfortunately,they consider us to be a speck of dust on a clover with a sour kangaroo claiming not to hear us. We need to scream louder with EVERY voice we can get.