Xelera's Nos Populus

Australia thinks gun control worked???

2013-01-17T11:39:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, in an online NY Times article, titled "I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too" Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, outlines why and how he disarmed his population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0

As he writes, giving background to his reasons for gun control, and his lack of hurdles, compared to the United States, he tellingly claims the following (bold font added by myself for emphasis):

Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms.

First, this "leader" believes it is CORRECT that his people are not protected by a Bill of Rights. Remember, the American Constitution has a Bill of Rights which is the people telling the government what our rights are, and not the other way around. It is a limitation on government, and protection against abuses that so many governments around the world have perpetrated on their subjects (emphasis, subject, not citizens).

Next, he is bragging, maybe not in tone, but in context, about his government having MORE POWER AND CONTROL over the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of Australian subjects. That is exactly like self-government, except not. Some governments rule, others represent. Guess which one this is... Anytime a people have their "rights" dictated and controlled by the government, they are not a free people, they are not a represented people.

As I've quoted numerous times on this blog (probably because it is SO appropriate and accurate, having endured for several hundred years):

…or it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of ensuring their rights are in the possession of those whom they entertain the least suspicion. - Alexander Hamilton

Lastly Mr. Howard again brags about his courts having LESS CONTROL. The American government system of checks and balances was established with an exectutive leader (President), a legislative branch (Congress), and a judicial branch. That judicial branch is the last say on the actions of laws passed and approved by the other branch. It has the power to throw out laws deemed unconstitutional, as a final protection, or check, against bad government for the American people.

I do like Mr. Howards choice of words throughout the article; it makes the task of revealing the fallacies in his logic so much easier...

To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme.

Scheme... I know some would argue what the technical definitions of "scheme" is, however I submit the average person knows the context and usage most commonly associated with that word, or words like it, for good reason.

Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians.

His scheme involved raising taxes on ALL Australians... talk about turning the knife after stabbing the people with it... Disarm his subjects and make them pay for it as well! Hey, at least he called it "special" and everyone likes special things, so that makes it ok.

This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.

My rights are not "political spectrum material", and certainly are not subject to "widely accepted". Read between those lines and it becomes obvious that it was not unilaterally accepted, but "widely" only, by his claim.

How much resistance was there? By his own claim:

City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia.

So just the rural areas, obviously a small portion of the population...

Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities.

So some simple math and FORTY PERCENT (40%) of his population is rural... and yes, I understand that he did not say "all" of them in that area, but rather, "some". I also understand that he did not say "all" when he described the 60% living in cities were onboard and supporting his ban.

Ultimately, that is why our Founding Fathers formed a representative republic and not a democracy, because as Thomas Jefferson said (reference here):

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

How dangerous is that? Think about 51% of the population being unemployed, living on welfare or other government support... and then when the government is running out of cash, the obvious solution is for that 51% to vote a tax increase or wealth confiscation, on the other 49% minority, because hey, democracy - majority rules.

The most revealing look into Mr. Howards new tyranical soul, is this statement in his article:

Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

In other words, law abiding citizens, oops, subjects, with an exemplary record of safety, no criminal background, and existing as productive members of society, were PENALIZED for the CRIMINAL ACTIONS of others. Not only that, they had supported him, but Mr. Howard knew what was best for them and society, him being in charge of citizens rights and all, as demonstrated above, and REGARDLESS of his betrayal of their trust, he did what he wanted.

Ayn Rand, in an article published in a 1944 edition of Reader's Digest titled "The Only Path To Tomorrow" made the bold statement:

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing ``the common good.´´ Napoleon ``served the common good´´ of France. Hitler is ``serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by ``altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.

If Mr. Howard were the mark, this article is the sniper's crosshair trained on him. It shows "do-good" politicians for their true nature. They sleep with a clean conscience because they have convinced themselves they are doing the right thing for the greater good. They will never tire of their oppressive actions and until removed from power, will continue on relentlessly.

And now this man is being put on a pedestal by the NY Times, describing how the rights of the American people can be usurped. The NY Times has their freedom of the press giving this man his freedom of speech (although he's not a US Citizen and has no Constitutional right giving him such) describing how to take our right to keep and bear arms away from us.

So how successful was the disarming of the Australian population? From his article:

And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

So he claims not that homicide and suicide rates fell, not supported with statistics, but rather, having chosen his words carefully to avoid criticism, states "there is a wide concensus". A wide concensus is not proof, it is opinion. It does not state wide concensus among whom? Australlian city dwellers who supported gun control? Or maybe the 40% of the rural Australians came around to his way of thinking and believe it now? Yeah, right...

But ok, the suicide and homocide rate MAY have fallen... but what about the other violent crimes? You know, rape, robbery, assault - all the horrible reasons many citizens choose to be armed? Here is a link to an article published by his cited Australian Institute of Criminology, a government run organization mind you...

**Link updated 6/25/16 due to AIC website revamp**

http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359.html

At the very top of that article, the author says:

The public's perception is that violence is increasing

So who is right? The "wide concensus" that murders and suicides are down or the "public concensus" that violent crime is rising? It makes you wonder... also in Australia, from that article:

Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively.

Since 1990 homicide dropped 9%? But his article in the NY Times claim he was elected in 1996 and enacted the Australian gun confication/ban shortly after... so why not compare apples to apples? Where is the homicide rate since 1996, not 1990? Also, interesting choice of words, his article claims homocide RATE dropped, but the government website just says "homocide" decreased. Apples and oranges, yada yada...

So now, "armed robbery" dropped by one third since 2001??? Again, what happened to armed robbery between 1996 and 2001, after the gun ban? Also, as more guns are forcibly removed from society, you could imagine the "armed" part of robbery could be going down. So what about other robbery? Physical Assault? Rape? This government sanctioned article not only fails in showing that crime actually decreased (it asserts that violence is up actually) as a result of gun banning, but also picks and chooses statistics so carelessly, taking them out of context, leaving them stand alone when they clearly need support, that it paints yet again, the traditional gun-grabber picture, where statistics which support their cause are hard science, yet the overwhelming majority of statistics that contradict them, are merely meaningless numbers.

Screw it, I'm not going to line-by-line dissect this article, it's too easy and too painfully repetitive, as our misguided liberal friends resort to this sort of misdirection all too often. Here is the opening paragraph... try to keep your food down or at least not squirt soda out of your nose when you laugh.

The public's perception is that violence is increasing, but trends in violent crime reported to police since the early 1990s reveal a mixed story. Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation. Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims. However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased. Victimisation survey data also do not illuminate the most significant recorded increase in violent victimisation, against children, as they are collected less frequently and only apply to those aged at least over 15 years. The paper speculates that the rise could be due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault - especially within the family - but this requires further investigation to examine how many recorded violent crimes against children relate to current and/or past events and of the relationship to the offender.

Yes, people really are this stupid. Tread carefully in these times.

The Power of the Second Amendment

2013-01-07T10:33:00.001-08:00

First, the Second Amendment text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I know, some legal eagles out there will point out that there are two versions, the first, as passed by Congress, and the other as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson. The difference is punctuation and capitals, so I will list the other version as well.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thanks to Wikipedia for this bit of assistance.

So what was the purpose of the Second Amendment (2A)? While our Founding Fathers had just defeated the world super power of the day, Britain, and were creating a document guaranteeing the rights of citizens and establishing a government, they decided that they forever wanted Musketts to be a protected class of weapon for hunting and sport shooting? Hardly...

Thomas Jefferson once said:

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

A bunch of rag tag colonists just kicked Britain's behind, with some help from France of course. These colonists were businessmen, merchants, writers, farmers, hunters... In writing the Constitution, they were addressing the grievances that had been earlier addressed in the Declaration of Independence, and ensuring that a government would exist that would not replace the tyranny of King George.

In the following discussion, note the lack of terminology that implies our rights are granted by the government. The government, federal, state, or local, does not "grant" rights to the people, but rather the rights are natural, inherent to the people, claimed by the people, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the people declaring our rights to the government and what LIMITED powers the government would be granted by us, not the other way around.

These brilliant men declared that "We the People"
1. Retained Freedom of Speech so we could speak out against those who would oppress us.
2. They claimed Freedom of Religion (not "seperation between church and state" like the media and the governments of today would have you believe) so no government could adopt a national religion and oppress their citizens for not conforming to it.
3. They claimed Freedom of the Press so citizens could challenge the governments actions and spread the word, if the government became tyrannical.
4. They established Due Process to guarantee no government could imprison someone who objected to the actions of that government, without first meeting a burden of proof that a jury of that persons peers, not government agents, were satisfied with.
5. They forbid governments from forcing citizens to house soldiers except in time of war, and only then as prescribed by law. This prevented the government from intimidating citizens in time of peace.

Then they brilliantly claimed that this Bill of Rights, 10 articles in all, and by no means limited to the rights listed above, was not all inclusive, and that ANY right not itemized above was retained by the States and the People. This means they realized they could not envision every situation, could not codify every possible question that could arise in the future, and realizing their limitiations, restricted the powers of the Federal Government and granted those powers and rights to the States and more importantly, to WE THE PEOPLE.

So that begs the question... Why on earth, while limiting the powers of government, ensuring tyranny in government would be prevented or combatted, just as the Founding Fathers had fought it recently, would they then decide to ensure the right of the people to go hunt ducks and deer with Muskets?

The answer of course, is that this is not the intent of the 2A. As Jefferson said, if we recollect the "spirit manifest in the debates" and "conform" to the most probable intent of its passing, then having just fought a war with THE superpower of the world, the Founding Fathers were ensuring that an armed citizenry, the true power, and the true governing body of this country, could ONCE AGAIN fight a war against tyranny and oppression executed by the government of those people against them, AND WIN.

Our not-so-bright liberal friends and media will argue that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the weapons of today, and that the 2A is about hunting and sport shooting. Using that logic, they would ban "high capacity" magazines (arbitrarily decided by liberal politicians as containing more than 10 rounds). They would ban semi-auto "assault" weapons because by their logic, the Founding Fathers never envisioned these weapons. They argue that the federal government has nukes, tanks, missiles, drones, satellites and rockets and that assault weapons are useless against this technological terror anyways, so lets just ban them to prevent their use in crimes or against innocent civilians.

I will agree with them on the point that indeed, some of the technology our nation, the world, possesses today, could not possibly be imagined by the Founding Fathers. That is why they wrote in the 9th and 10th Amendments at the end of the Bill of Rights, as a "cover their ass" clause, to ensure citizens could STILL oppose tyranny in government.

If you turn liberal "lack of" logic back on the purveryors of such ignorance, nothing on the internet should be construed as freedom of speech, because our founding fathers could not have conceived such technology.

New media on television, cable, computers, internet, using satellite communication, is not protected by freedom of speech or freedom of the press, because no way could anyone 200+ years ago have forseen such wonders, and therefore it is not within the protection of rights granted under the First Amendment.

DNA evidence should not be admitted, because it was unknown to the Founding Fathers and therefore is not covered under due process.

You see how rapidly these smoke-and-mirror arguments by the liberal left collapse under scrutiny, yet day in and day out, these same arguments are quoted on facebook, spoken by celebrities, and regurgitated by politicians (democrat and republican alike) to justify a little bit more loss of freedom in the name of safety.

This blog was not about crime statistics, gun control statistics, arguments for or against based on civilian shootings... those arguments have been beat to death (with the gun control crowd usually losing). This is about the purpose of the Second Amendment, the purpose of the entire Bill of Rights, and that is for what Thomas Jefferson claimed:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Or how about what George Washington said:

When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour.

Gotta kill us some turkeys and deer or this nation is screwed?

Or Alexander Hamilton when he stated:

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

The people AT LARGE? That they be PROPERLY ARMED? He meant armed with musketts right? Yes, he did, because the British were also armed with musketts. If the British had been armed with assault rifles, then so would he have claimed we the people should be armed with them as well.

What did James Madison think?

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Now our government refuses to trust us, We the People, with arms...

That is the spirit manifest in the debates of the 2A and the most probable one for which it was passed. This is why we are armed, why we possess assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and all caliber of firearms - because our government has them too, because governments around the world have them.

Fiscal Cliff versus Fiscal Abyss

2012-11-28T10:30:00.000-08:00

I would say that anyone who pays attention to politics or watches TV, should be grossly saturated with the political pundits new popular phrase "the looming fiscal cliff". The caveat to that, is that it is a gross over-estimate of the average American's ability to pay attention let alone understand what is happening, even while being slapped in the face with it.

Doubt me? I present exhibit A: Google Searches for "Who is running for president" spike on election day... in the graph, 100 does not represent hits, but rather 100% or the highest hit rate.

So yeah, over $1 Billion spent on the presidential campaigns, saturating the airwaves for months, and some of these registered voters still had no idea... scary isn't it?

Anyways, back on topic - Fiscal Cliff.

This of course, is in reference to the imminent expiration of Bush era tax cuts, 5% across the board for all taxpayers, the expiration of the 2% Social Security tax holiday, and the increase in capital gains tax rate, from 15% to 20% across the board, and some earners (over $200k/year) paying an additional 3.8% on their capital gains.

http://apiexchange.com/index_main.php?id=8&idz=236

In the above article, it also describes the source of this 3.8% tax increase... from the healthcare bill, aka "Obamacare", passed in 2010:

Beginning in 2013, the national health care reform legislation that became law in March, 2010, imposes a new 3.8 percent tax on certain investment income. The new tax will apply to single filers with incomes over $200,000 and married taxpayers with incomes over $250,000.

This rhetoric being thrown around the nation's capital, is that if we do not raise taxes on the richest Americans, those who our Pretender-in-Chief claim can afford it (ie, anyone making over $200k/year) that all these wonderful tax increases expire on EVERYONE. That, and the deep deep mandatory spending cuts that are supposed to be automatic after the failure of the bi-partisan "Super" committee last year to arrive at a resolution to taxation and spending cuts.

You remember that of course, don't you? Where the Republicans refused any deal that would raise taxes and the Democrats refused to talk about spending cuts unless tax increases were on the table? And lest we forget, what resulted in the formation of the "Super" committee to begin with, where the Republicans staunchly refused to consider debt ceiling increases, and then caved in when our Messiah went public with scare tactics claiming if we did not raise the debt ceiling, that as early as the next month, people would stop receiving social security checks?

End result, Republicans caved and approved the debt ceiling increase, "Super" committee failed, automatic spending cuts are to take effect and tax increases go up automatically, and we, the American people get screwed!

And now here we are, with these Republicans having committed to a pledge 20 years ago to not raise taxes on anyone, now agreeing to go back on that agreement.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/23/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html

In that article, one Senator from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss is renouncing his pledge in the interest of saving his country... or so he claims.

"I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," said Chambliss, who faces re-election for a third Senate term in 2014.

Referring to Norquist, who has vowed to oppose candidates who break the pledge, Chambliss said that "if we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that."

In response to Chambliss, Norquist told CNN that the senator "wrote a commitment to the voters of Georgia."

"He got elected and re-elected making that commitment," said Norquist. "He's never promised me anything."

Essentially, as most politicians are known to do these days, he promised one thing to those who elected him, then once elected, spits on that promise and goes about business as usual, telling himself whatever lies he needs to, in order to sleep at night and live with whatever remnants of a shriveled conscience remains in his dark soul.

But broken promises aside, the more revealing detail is his belief that raising taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans, will fix our debt issue.

And don't drink the "Cool"-aid presented in this article, where it claims:

Obama's victory this month with a slightly stronger Democratic majority in the Senate and a slightly weaker Republican majority in the House signaled general public acceptance of the president's main campaign theme: raising more tax revenue from the rich as part of a deficit-reduction package.

Obama in 2008, beat McCain by a score of 69.5 million to 59.9 million, roughly 9.5 million total votes. In 2012, Obama only beat Romney by a score of 64.9 Million to 60.5 Million or roughly 4.5 Million total votes. The long and short of that, is Obama lost almost 5 million votes he had four years earlier, and his challenger, gained over half a million votes. A win is a win, but it by no means implies general acceptance of his policies, but rather the exact opposite, that his views have lost favor with a large chunk of the voting population who used to back him.

Enter my next exhibit: Wall Stree Journal Article - November 28th, 2012.
In the interest of not receiving any copyright or infringement "cease-and-decist" emails, I will not copy and paste the entire article, though it warrants it. Instead, the summary of the article, is that the $15.9 Trillion deficit tied to our fiscal cliff discussion, and the $1.2 Trillion 2012 deficit immediately tied to it this year, is actually a staggering 86.8 TRILLION DOLLARS. That is the true debt the government owes not just to other countries and other people, what they always talk about, but how much they owe in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unfunded government pensions.

This number, 86.8 TRILLION DOLLARS is over five times (5x) our entire GDP. That means, our government would have to take EVERY dollar earned by EVERY person/family making over $200k/year (ie, the "richest" Americans who can "afford it") AND EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR earned by EVERY corporation in America, JUST THIS YEAR to cover THIS YEARS true deficit of roughly 8 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Of course, after you raped every corporation and "richest" family of every penny they owned, there would truly be nothing left next year to take from either of them. This would amount to a farmer eating all their wheat one winter, then wondering how they were going to grow crops since they did not hold out any for seed the following season.

So looming "Fiscal Cliff" or already here "Fiscal Abyss"? The answer is easy, unless you are one of those voters who had to look up who was running for president the weekend before the election...

That didn't take long...

2012-11-09T18:32:00.002-08:00

So on Tuesday, the people spoke, and what they said was "Obama for President". Actually, that's the loose translation; what they actually said was "Baaaaahhhh". But you get the idea.

So there were two options. The first, go to bed Tuesday night, wake up Wednesday and realize the world didn't end, business as usual and go about living, with a relatively oblivious and unchanged perception of reality. Or the second, scream the sky is falling, set your hair on fire and run around like chickens with our heads cut off. You know... act like most liberals do when they do not get their way, all because "The One" was re-elected, when a monkey should have been able to defeat him this election (enter Romney, an all new class of monkey).

Like watching the news these days, where you turn on MSNBC, listen to it, then turn on FOX, and after listening to it, add them together, divide by 2, to approximate truth - the reality of day to day life should be somewhere between oblivious blissfulness and the Michael Jackson in a Pepsi commercial squealing with his hair-on fire-antics.

So what happened? Page one, first paragraph, first line, first word from the liberal playbook, happened...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107

First line of that story: "Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected..." Emphasis on HOURS!

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade

Long story short:
1. essentially, the UN Disarmament committee "moved quickly" following Obamas win...
*I'll bet they did*
2. Talks broke off back in July but not because Obama was running for re-election...
*Oh really?*
3. UN Officials REALLY REALLY wanted to vote before the election but Hurricane Sandy precluded it...
*And I have lake front property in the Sahara*

But typical gun-control lobby shenanigans aside, this next quote almost made me vomit.

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."

Here's a little known secret this guy apparently isn't aware of... The Syrian military already had guns and ammo and is the ones killing their own citizens, the 30,000 civilians of their country. So who is using these guns and ammo "pouring" into their country now? THE OPPRESSED CITIZENRY.

So why would some archaic neanderthal of a non-humanitarian want to stop weapons from flowing into Syria now (since the rest of the world has turned a deaf ear to their citizens cries for help)? There is only one reason, to eliminate any opposition to the existent government structure.

Geniuses like this do not care about what people are using the guns for, to save their lives and their famlies lives from brutal dictators circa Nazis vs Jews. All they see is a chance to solidify the powers of government, to control people and to run their lives on every level, and without an armed society to fight back, they will win.

What did our founding fathers, the original, they the people, think about guns?

Let us ask Thomas Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT".

Or maybe George Washington:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have SUFFICIENT ARMS AND AMMUNITION to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might attempt to abuse them, which would include THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT".

Can James Madison shed some light on the issue?

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Remember that "Give me liberty or give me death" guy, Patrick Henry?

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

And finally, good 'ol Noah Webster, of Webster's Dictionary fame...

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

And now how about a Dictator to play devils advocate for me?

"History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

Thank you, Mr. Hitler...

Voter Fraud: Fact or Fiction?

2012-10-30T17:40:00.000-07:00

Let's start with a link from ABC:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376

According to this story:

"Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas."

That is just over 1 in 1 million, by ABC and Department of Justice (run by Eric Holder) calculations? So how is it that we have such a non-existent problem that is taking up so much voter and politician time?

Before continuing on about voting, I will reference a document describing firearm purchases and denials statistics, for 2009:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/234173.pdf

Consider this first, that in 2009, 6,083,428 applications for a firearm were submitted to the FBI NICS (National Institute for Criminal Statistics) for consideration under the Brady Law. Of those applications, 67, 324 (1.1%) were denied. Now, remember, this application form has a great big warning on it saying: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

"I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law."

Of all of those denials, or people that said they were able to own firearms, only 140 cases were referred for prosecution, of which 45% (63) were denied or not further pursued for prosecution, meaning only 77 cases were followed through for prosecution. So 77 prosecutions out of 67,324 denials, and not just denials, but FEDERAL FELONIES punishable by UP TO 10 years in prison AND a $250,000 fine IN ADDITION to state prosecution. So 77 divided by 67,324 = 0.11 percent of the denials prosecuted, or just over 1 in 1000????

Oh, and for good measure, some more math, 77 prosecutions divided by 6,083,428 total applications = .0012 percent.

Keep those numbers in mind now, as we talk about voter fraud. The article referenced above at the start of this blog, would make us believe that because it is such a low number of actual voter fraud cases, that there is no need to pass voter ID laws, or voter reform laws, and that states should stop wasting their time on laws such as these, because they are useless.

First, if we discard laws that prohibit even a minute fraction of voter fraud, then why have the NICS checks? Such a SMALL percentage of people get denied anyways, less than 1% and then when its all said and done, only 0.1% are prosecuted... but again, only .0012 percent of all gun purchases in 2009 were prosecuted. Where are the liberals who are saying we do not need voter ID laws at, defending the uselessness of this federal gun law?

Make no mistake, they are embracing the anti-gun laws, including these NICS checks, with every breath of their being.

Ok, but now, since I said "First" it stands to reason I must follow with a "Second" and that is exactly what I intend to do. The SECOND I wish to discuss, is the fallacy of the ABC article data, making lite of how severe a problem voter registration fraud actually is.

The GAO (Government Accountability Office) released a study:
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05478.html

This article goes on to say that in one district court, as much as 3% of the jurors reporting for duty were dismissed because they were not US Citizens. THREE PERCENT! Do you know where jury duty members are selected from? Exactly, REGISTERED VOTER ROSTERS.

SO in just ONE district as much as THREE PERCENT of the registered voters got out of jury duty because they were not US Citizens? Less than one percent spread warrants a recount in most elections, and if you remember the Bush - Gore election in 2000 when Florida was a swing state with all kinds of shenanigans going on, recount after recount, throwing some ballots out, bringing others back in... THREE PERCENT would have swung that vote either in favor of the losing candidate or pushed the winning candidate beyond recount realm.

So why the spread? Why does one article claim less than .00000013 percent of voter fraud while the GAO is claiming as much as 3%? For the same reason that only 77 out of 67,324 FEDERAL FELONIES pertaining to unlawful gun purchases by lying on the form, were prosecuted in 2009. The government just does not care. Just because some governmental instution does not choose to prosecute, does not mean the crime is not being committed, it just means the government would rather look the other way.

Here are a few links of actual counties where there are more registered voters than actual people in the county: It is in states and counties that are both red and blue, some which waiver back and forth.

14 out of 102 counties in Illinois (roughly 1 in 7)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_852141.html

15 out of 114 counties in Missouri (almost 1 in 8)
http://watchdog.org/25408/missouri-f...us-population/

1/3 of Mississippi counties
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mis...0/27/id/326164

7 counties in Nebraska
http://watchdog.org/52641/some-nebra...s-than-adults/

6 counties in Alabama
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2008/10/...e_registe.html

6 counties in Utah
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2008/10/...e_registe.html

Make no mistake, the liberals will grab your guns every chance they get, they will tout their anti-gun laws, throw statistics out there, put spin on the numbers, then spin their spin. DO NOT turn a blind eye to this, nor to the very real issue of voter fraud. Electing our leaders is a right of US Citizens, not immigrants, not terrorists, not foreign nationals. Is 3% a small number? Maybe, but it is MUCH MUCH larger than .0012%, a number which liberals embrace and justify our tax dollars being wasted on NICS checks to stop all those evil gun owners from getting hands on a gun. After all, if you tell them they cannot have a gun, they will stop committing violent crimes right?

I know, it's been a few months since my last post, but I was inspired by the upcoming election, and a reader who posted earlier this month on my blog and said it was a must read for him. My apologies for taking such a long break, sometimes it seems as though I'm talking to the sky, because no matter what forums, blogs, websites those of us with intelligence post on, the not-so-bright keep on supporting failed liberal ideology.

I cannot post as often as I wish, but I'll try to post a bit more often, to confuse those of liberal pursuits, with the facts.

Boycott Bank of America, Bass Pro, and Wells Fargo

2012-05-16T16:46:00.000-07:00

Generally, when writing, you establish your opening paragraph with a thesis, build supporting topic paragraphs, then summarize your paper with a closing paragraph. Think of a pyramid, building the base, and working your way to the top with support.

Today, I say screw that, here's my closing statement... BOYCOTT BANK OF AMERICA!

Ok, now I'll build this pyramid the proper way, to avoid any angst from teachers I have had in the past, who may happen across this (not likely, no one reads this blog hardly anyways).

So there is a company called McMillan Group International who sells some of the best after-market rifle stocks in the industry. Almost every custom gun builder uses McMillan stocks. In recent years, they have become a custom firearms manufacturing company as well. Canadian sniper, Rob Furlong, used the McMillan "Tac-50", a bolt action 50 BMG rifle, to make what at the time, was the record for longest confirmed killshot, at over 1.5 miles.

Here is a picture of that firearm:

Anyways, they provide firearms and accessories to the U.S. Military, our allies, law enforcement and government agencies, and civilians. In this recession (which "allegedly" ended in June of 2009, but we working class know better) firearms and related businesses, have boomed. Record gun sales, record background checks reported by NICS (National Instant Background Check System), and ammo shortages all attest to this fact. Last Christmas, as reported by USA Today, NICS ran a record 1,534,414 checks in December alone. Many of those are multiple gun purchases, not just a one to one ratio. So the firearm business is doing fine, while many other industries are struggling.

A few weeks ago, April 19, 2012, as reported on McMillan's facebook page:

McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing and McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today (April 19, 2012) Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit ...we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”
“That is correct” he says.
I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”
“You have to do what you must” he said.
“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”
Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing left for him to say.

I initially came across the story from another news article I was reading, linked from one of the forums I frequent, Survivalistboards.com. Always the skeptic, I did a little research, found a few more references to it on various other news outlets, none of which started with MSNBC, CNN, ABC, or CBS (no suprise there). So I took it on myself to write an email to McMillan, following their link from their website.

I received the following reply, from Mr. Kelly McMillan (to whom I must now apologize, for referring to him as "she" in other correspondence and on forums):

Kelly McMillan [k.mcmillan@mcmillanusa.com]Actions
To:MMcCall, Shannon
Friday, April 20, 2012 9:21 PM

The statement posted on the McMillan Group International Facebook page is exactly as it happened and accurate. I would ask that you redact the gentleman's name but leave his title if you repost the statement. Thank you for your support.

http://www.facebook.com/McMillanGroupInternational

Kelly D. McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
1638 W Knudsen Dr
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
McMillan Integrity-Global Vision
http://www.mcmillanusa.com/

For the naysayers out there, Snopes already has this on their website, though their conclusion at this point is "undetermined".

So essentially, Bank of America told a thriving business that they no longer wanted them as a customer, because they deal in the manufacture of firearms. This is a legal business, following all State and Federal regulations, providing weapons that serve to protect us and citizens, in the hands of law enforcement and military personnel around the world.

Of course, with the backlash from the firearms community and supporters of Second Amendment rights across the nation, Bank of America denies this claim as false. Bank of America spokeswoman, Anne Pace, even pointed to BofA's dealings with the "Freedom Group" as proof that this story could not be true. Her reference was to an article in the Chicago Tribune, that has a snippet down near the bottom.

Personally, I think uncommon sense dictates that IF Bank of America is indeed supporting firearms companies, such as the Freedom Group as their press release and slanderous statement against McMillan's claim states, and are trying to make a profit on the other firearms companies in that group (Remingtong, Bushmaster, DPMS, Marlin, H&R, etc) then the more likely cause of all of this commotion, is trying to muscle out a company producing a superior product that competes with the companies they are buying up or investing in!!!

That, or the more nefarious "buy up all the gun companies then close them down when we own them all" approach... I'll let your inner optimist and pessimist duke this one out.

But no one wants to be "that guy" who has to admit either to opposing the Second Amendment, opposing small business, or trying to bully out the competition...

One thing to note, Bass Pro Shops (an outdoor sporting good store, that also sells firearms) issue their customers credit financed by Bank of America. So why did Bass Pro "disseminate" Bank of America's corporate response to this issue?

"However given Bank of America's significant involvement within the... industry, the information regarding the termination of this relationship was misrepresented or misinterpreted."

Maybe Bass Pro does not want to piss off mommy dearest, who funds the customers buying on credit, essentially transferring wealth from us to them, by selling over-priced guns, camping gear, and clothes. But seriously, coming to the defense of someone trampling on a small business, to protect their corporate interests? I guess the Supreme Court nailed it on the head when they said the Bill of Rights applies to Corporations as well...

SO here's my question... if McMillan is issuing false statements, slandering Bank of America, spreading false information around the web, where's the cease and decist orders? Where's the army of Armani suit-wearing lawyers crushing all opposition to what should more appropriately be called, the "Bank of Unamerica"???

There are hundreds if not thousands of people already closing their Bank of America accounts over this, just based on Facebook, blogs, and forum comments. Chump change to B of A? Probably, I mean, they DID just lose a TWENTY BILLION DOLLAR settlement for unlawful and illegal forclosures in the last couple of years. From the NPR article:

"B of A and Countrywide also failed to foreclose on mortgages that were in default, choosing instead to keep taking the fees received for servicing the loans, according to the investors. B of A has denied the claims."

Seems like Bank of America has this denial thing down!

Since my topic said to boycott Bank of America, Bass Pro, AND Wells Fargo, I should touch on why Wells Fargo is on that list.

From BuyMilSurp:

Wells Fargo/Wachovia/Central Payment/iPayment closed another gun companies account, held $17,000 and demanded that he submit "a recent profit and loss statement, balance sheet, and three months of checking account statements and I will CONSIDER releasing SOME of YOUR funds on hold".

These are banks that took TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars in bailouts, who pay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars to their CEO's, even when the CEO runs the company into the ground, and who feel they can pick and choose the winners and losers in a given industry, and tell everyday Americans running these businesses to take a hike.

So in conclusion (see, summary statement, as promised near the opening of this blog) here is a list of the companies that we should be boycotting:

Bank of America (public enemy number one)
Wells Fargo/Wachovia
Central Payment
iPayment
Bass Pro

And one more, for good measure:
PayPal (they will freeze your account and seize your funds if they find out you use their services to transfer money used in the purchase of firearms or anything related).

From the Acceptable Use Policy agreement from PayPal:

"2(i) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories, or (j) ,certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law."

So they are banning their service for firearms, parts, accessories, ammo OR certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law... They are NOT saying ILLEGAL firearms, parts, accessories, just all guns, ammo, and parts... They are NOT saying illegal knives or weapons... just those that are regulated under law, which includes pretty much all knives/blades that aren't bought in the kitchen section of your local store...

And apologies again to MISTER Kelly McMillan for referring to him as a female!

What was January 24th?

2012-01-31T03:21:00.000-08:00

It passed us by with hardly a notice, aside from the almost two hour Obama campaign speech, er, State of the Union address, which allowed him to talk un-rebutted, heavily rehearsed and teleprompter assisted rhetoric, which amounts to nothing more than his usual talking points/bullets he's said over and over again while accomplishing little.

What passed us by you might say? What were we distracted from, by the Pretender-in-Chief's monotonous speech?

It was the day that marks 1,000 days since the last time Congress passed a budget for our nation. That's right, well over two-and-a-half years, since April 21st, 2009.

How long can the government continue it's policy of passing measures to fund this group, that group, etc??? And don't forget, not only are they 1,000 days delinquent in actually doing the ONE FRICKING THING the federal government should ACTUALLY be doing (instead of officially declaring pizza a vegetable, for example) they actually FORGOT to fund the FAA before going on a week long break (as reported on the Communist News Network, aka, CNN).

Remember when the Senate defeated House Budget Committe Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) bill 57-40, without ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT voting for it? At least the House of Representatives is somewhat doing their job, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution:

“Article I Section VII - All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

If only our government were as committed to operating on an approved budget, doing what they are elected to do, as they are in spending money and raising the debt ceiling. Of course they CAN take the time to vote down a balanced budget amendment proposal to the Constitution, saying something to the effect that the repurcussions of a balanced budget would be far more damaging than the benefits... ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Sure lets have talking points on why it should be an amendment... sure, maybe it's a tough call in economic downturn. Ok, I get that, BUT if you were passing a budget every year and made that argument, for short term issues, sure, people might buy it. BUT YOU MORONS HAVEN'T PASSED A BUDGET IN 1000 DAYS (AND COUNTING). Guess what, you don't get to talk about Congress ceding powers to the courts, social welfare spending, and repurcussions, because YOU FAILED AT YOUR JOB ALREADY.

There are 435 House members, and 100 Senators... that's 535 people that should not have a job over the next six years of elections. FIRE THEM ALL!

Post for one of my daughters

2012-01-25T15:45:00.000-08:00

One of my daughters presented me with a graph she found from a friend's page on facebook, claiming that Obama has increased our national debt by a smaller amount than any president since before Reagan. I told her that she should never believe anything she simply sees on the internet, and that I would show her some facts/research, to prove that just because something is on the internet, ESPECIALLY on facebook, does not mean that it comes anywhere near the truth.

So this is for her, but feel free to enlighten your liberal friends as well...

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Before Bush: 1/1/2001 - $ 5.7 TRILLION Total National Debt

After Bush (8 years): 1/1/2009 - $ 10.7 TRILLION Total National Debt ($5 Trillion increase in 8 years, or $625 Billion/year)

Obama (3 years): 1/1/2012 - $ 15.2 TRILLION Total National Debt ($4.5 Trillion increase in 3 years, or $1.5 Trillion/year – 2.4 as much debt per year as Bush)

Last two years of Bush’s presidency under a Democratic controlled House and Senate: $8.7 Trillion Total National Debt when Democrats took control, minus $ 10.7 Trillion under Bush when he left, for $ 2 Trillion increase in two years, or $1 Trillion/year. That means that for the first 6 years under Bush, with a Republican House and Senate, the Republican’s raised our debt from $ 5.7 Trillion to $8.7 Trillion, or $3 Trillion over 6 years, for only $500 Billion (half a trillion) per year increase in debt WHILE lowering taxes by 5% across the board, and fighting two wars, rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina, and recovering after 9/11.

Myth of the Clinton surplus… used by permission of Mr. Steiner.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

And remember, even if you claim Clinton had a surplus and refuse to believe the article and the facts contained within, then consider that 1994-2000, basically ¾ of Clinton’s presidency, the House and Senate were Republican controlled, meaning the national budget each year, was originated in the House, ratified by the Senate, and sent to Clinton to either sign or veto.

And using that logic, remember that the last two years of Bush’s presidency, 2007 and 2008, the House and Senate came under Democratic control, with an almost philibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Ultimately, both parties are irresponsibly raising our debt rather than getting us out of it, but do not believe the liberal lie that Clinton somehow paid off debt and left Bush with a surplus, and that Bush increased our debt far more than Obama has. And remember, per the United States Constitution:

“Article I Section VII - All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

That means quit blaming the President for all the problems, and quit giving him credit for all the good stuff when it comes to budgets. Blame the House of Representatives, and to a lesser extent, the Senate. Then, and only then, blame the President for not vetoing the garbage budget proposed for him to sign. Of course, since we are 1000'ish days since actually having a budget, and the Executive and Legislative branches have been playing the "pay as you go" system and have not issued a budget for over THREE YEARS it is hard to actually assign fair blame to anyone in particular, so to hell with all of them.

Say no to 535 Congressmen, the President, and the Supreme Court. This is our government, not theirs.

Election predictions

2012-01-19T08:57:00.000-08:00

Obama beat McCain by 7.2% popular vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Popular vote 69,456,897 for Obama, vs 59,934,814 for McCain. Thats a percentage of 52.9% vs 45.7%

If 3.6% of the people that voted for Obama last time, change their vote to the Republican candidate this year, thats a tie in popular vote. I guarantee there is at least that much in swing voters pissed off and voting him out.

That does not account for those that "turned out the vote" that didn't normally vote, but made a point to, because Obama promised the world, was called "The One" by Oprah Winfrey (referring to a question asked in the fictional novel "The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman" if different newborn babies were the ones who would save african-americans and bring them equality) promised his FIRST ACT as president would be to bring our troops home and that we could "take that to the bank". Of course, that video clip was Oct 7th, 2007, and THIS ONE is Oct 21, 2011, a solid FOUR YEARS TWO WEEKS LATER where Obama takes credit for the troop withdrawal "as promised" but which was promised under the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed and ratified in November of 2008, under then President Bush... People were pissed at Bush and voted against his party. Alot of those voters are going to be sitting at home this year.

To say nothing about McCain running a weak campaign...

So I think Obama IS easily defeatable BUT the issue to overcome, is conservative voters being dissatisfied with the GOP's "more of the same" candidate choice.

A little over a year ago, the House of Representatives went from Democrat to Republican by the largest single swap since 1948. That is conservative voters making their voices heard.

Now the GOP is trying to shove Romney down our throats (most think because of a back room deal during the McCain campaign, where he was one of McCains biggest challengers for the GOP nomination, and bowed out from a strong second, and endorsed McCain). I absolutely believe the GOP promised him he would be their choice this election. And thats's the point... facts do not really matter, only perception and beliefs.

Where Obama can win, is where those among us will vote for a 3rd party candidate, or write-in Ron Paul, in protest against the GOP (something I plan on doing not to protest the GOP but because it's my vote, and I intend to cast it for someone I believe in, not someone who is electable).

And besides, I don't think Romney is electable this year.

And if the GOP loses just 5% of it's voter base to disenfranchisement, who vote for 3rd party or write-in candidates or who just stay at home election day, Obama probably wins by a narrow margin.

That, or we can see yet another election where a president wins the electoral votes required to be president, but loses the popular vote... and expect a recount or two.

Just my take on it.

Connecting the dots...

2011-12-26T15:46:00.000-08:00

On Yahoo today, read a reuters article, where the Obama administration has loosened their interpretation of online gambling laws (Wire Act of 1961).

http://news.yahoo.com/gambling-gets-boost-obama-administration-113418228--spt.html

Essentially, it says that the path has been cleared for states to legalize internet poker and gambling, and clarifies the regulations to mean that only sporting events cannot be bet on.

Until now, the department held that online gambling in all forms was illegal under the Wire Act of 1961, which bars wagers via telecommunications that cross state lines or international borders.
The new interpretation, by the department's Office of Legal Counsel, said the Wire Act applies only to bets on a "sporting event or contest," not to a state's use of the Internet to sell lottery tickets to adults within its borders or abroad.

Follow the money trail of course, because the article points out that this has the potential for states to reap BILLIONS in tax revenue.

The Obama administration cleared the way for U.S. states to legalize Internet poker and certain other online betting in a switch that may help them reap billions in tax revenue and spur web-based gambling.

The next dot I want to connect, relates to the article where it says that this ruling essentially legalizes gambling that was previously considered illegal, as long as it is legal in the state where the gambling occurs. It also goes on to say if states legalized intra-state gambling and poker, such as DC and Nevada have done, then there is no federal law which could apply.

But the department's conclusion would eliminate "almost every federal anti-gambling law that could apply to gaming that is legal under state laws," Rose wrote on his blog at www.gamblingandthelaw.com.

The dot? If the fed admits it cannot supercede state law, regarding gambling, then what happens now, when states make their own gun laws? Montana passing their law saying guns built, sold, and used in Montana are BATFE exempt, might not even need to take it to the SCOTUS now, if this precedent is set.
All the other dots... health care, welfare, gay marriage laws, medical (or even legal) marijuana laws? Those state laws could all supercede federal law if the President did indeed clear the way for this type of legislation, all because of wanting more of your dollars!

I understand that this is more the administration picking and choosing what laws it wants to enforce and how it interprets them, in the name of the almighty dollar, but give an inch, take a mile sounds like a solid plan for the States in this situation. The federal government has nickle and dimed the States out of rights and powers, and with this, the States could start getting some of their "change" back.

Talk about one of your all-time backfires!

Food Storage Calculator at BePrepared.com

2011-08-15T20:46:00.000-07:00

One of the things I believe in, is being prepared.

This wasn't always the case. I grew up in the 80's and 90's and my generation has become the WalMart Generation. If you want something, go buy it. It's so easy to believe in the safety and security of society. We send money to charities, that give food, water, and clothes to those starving kids we see over in war torn, impoverished countries. Those countries that graduates of our stellar public education system cannot pronounce, spell, or find on a map. Yup, THOSE countries...

I served in the military, and believe you me, they are prepared. Unfortunately, for most members of the military, we received the traditional "three hots and a cot" and spend an insane amount of money on beer, a new car, cool toys and the like, with little thought given to personal preparedness (Uncle Sam did it for us, and our only contribution was being "prepared" to go when and where he sent us).

Flash forward to America of today. The great country that has been the cornerstone of the world economy for the better part of a century. The military giant, defender of the world (whether the world wants it or not). We have electricity, running water, sanitation/sewer, a WalMart on every corner, and a couple of gas stations across the street from those. Coffee to get us going, fast food to facilitate perpetual going ("going" in more ways than one if you eat that junk) and pills to stop us fast so we can get up the next day and start over. Don't forget the police, the fire department, social services, our health care, and you have the great country that can overcome any adversity thrown our way, unlike those unpronounceable countries on maps right?

Rodney King riots, Hurrican Katrina, Debt ceiling debates with threat of default, $5/gallon gas, massive unemployment, gold prices skyrocketing, jobs exported, and whatever else you can read five times a night on the evening news... ring a bell?

So I support a four-pronged approach to preparedness:
1. Food and water
2. Guns and ammunition
3. Precious metals
4. Physical fitness.

I'll talk about the last three briefly, as they are for other topics.

First, guns and ammunition - self defense, plain and simple (well that, and the founding fathers felt it was the citizens "check and balance" of the other three branches of government). You need firearms, to protect you food, water, precious metals, and property.

Second, Precious metals - our fiat currency (money that is essentially only worth what the powers that be tell us it is) that can be printed when our government needs to spend more than it has, is a ponzi scheme. It is only a matter of time before the dollar goes the way of the British Sterling as the world reserve currency. When that happens, having some silver and gold coins, in a wide variety of forms (bullion, older coins that were still made of silver, jewelry, etc) will go a long way in preserving your wealth. And heck, if everything fixes itself and goes all hunky-dory, then you have a cool collection of coins and stuff to pass onto your kids when you are done with it as hobby value.

Thrid, Physical Fitness - I used to be the epitome of fitness... baseball, volleyball, weight lifting, swimming, running; I did it all for fun. Military service? Check. Now I spend all day working a 12 hour day or night shift, sitting at a panel watching gages, charts, instruments, etc. I've gradually become a sedentary middle-age adult on medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol. My wife and I decided to get into better shape. At the time of this blog, she has lost 55 lbs and I am down 10 lbs, and we walk 3-4 miles a day! We aren't talking military combat fitness, just get out and do something for an hour or so every day, to be active and reap the rewards!

Ok, those are done... NOW onto the food and water storage.

You can see on my blog, on the top-right of page, a link to BePrepared.com (and yes, its a mutually beneficial arrangement... I get a $10 gift card to their website for putting it there). I figured it was easier than putting a link to every grocery store, blog, forum and whatever other site it would take to get people to start reading up on food storage.

And now, again, mutually beneficial, I will get another $10 gift card for posting this review of their food storage calculator!

Basically, their calculator (reachable by clicking the button below) is a webpage where you can enter how much food you have, in what form, and then after you enter the age, gender, and number of people you plan to feed, it calculates how many days of food it will provide, based on USDA recommended caloric intake for those people you listed.

It definitely had some benefits, like showing you a breakdown of nutritional information of your daily diet based on what you claim to have stored. Mine showed me that my wife and I were taking in 230% of our recommended daily sodium based on our preps, so something for us to adjust there.

Another convenience, and I think this is the main point of this program, is you can prepare an order as you are entering your preps. You enter in the food you have (say a #10 can of dehydrated strawberries) and if you want two more cans, you simply add a "2" in the column next to what you have, in the "your next order" category.

Also, I really liked the fact that if you didn't see what you had, or what form it was in, you have a tab you can go to, to add items yourself. It requires a bit of effort on your part, to copy the nutritional information off the label, into the program, but what someone sees as effort, another sees as becoming familiar and aware with what you are eating.

Once you are done putting all your information in, the "My Pantry" tab summarizes everything you entered, with a "-" or "+" to add or remove it. You can print your list from there if you like.

The major weakness of this program, is the fact that I think most of us, who shop at WalMart, Sam's Club, Costco, or our local farmers market, will wind up filling in ALOT of information manually. The intent of the program is of course, aimed at generating sales through their website, so you cannot really fault them for this, but it could be made a bit more user friendly, if say, since we already know the general nutritional value of white rice, if we could simply put in the number of pounds we have of it, without having to go into their "add your own items" tab.

I personally would rather just type in "white rice" on a search feature, and have it prompt me for how many pounds I have. Then, after that step, display a list of all the items they sell, that could substitute for my entry (white rice, brown rice, jasmine rice, minute rice, etc) for me to choose from, to add to my order.

Lastly, it would be nice if you could access the calculator as a guest, and not have to sign in (something about OpSec - Operational Security... not wanting to advertise what you have, and having it stored on a file in a computer where it could be hacked, accessed, stolen, etc). Basically, it's not THAT big of a deal, but since we make a list, then give our credit card information, then a mailing address for food to be delivered to (not just a billing address) it could make a few people uncomfortable about putting their information out there (such is the world we live in today).

Overall, it seems like I spent more time on the negatives than the positives, but really, the things this program does right, are already right and were nice to skim across. The things I thought needed improving, well, I figure if I talk them up some, maybe others will agree when they go use this program, and the feedback we generate might be implemented.

Very well executed idea by the people at Emergency Essentials/BePrepared.com!

Demonizing those of dissenting opinion.

2011-07-21T05:12:00.000-07:00

In the movie "A Knight's Tale", Jeffrey Chaucer said:

I will eviscerate you in fiction. Every pimple, every character flaw. I was naked for a day; you will be naked for eternity.

One of my hobbies, is playing chess. I play fairly regularly on the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS) at the following website:

http://www.freechess.org/

One of the services provided (all free of course, hence the "free" part of the name) is various chat channels that one can enter, while playing chess, waiting for a game, or just to say hi to friends or engage in conversation. One such channel, is the political chat channel (Ch. 39). There of course exists a broad spectrum of political leanings and ideologies in that channel and sadly, a few individuals that are unable to accept differing opinions, discussion of facts, and who resort to the traditional tactics when confronted with a view not similar to their own.

These of course being name calling, throwing around labels (such as "Fascist", "Neo-Con", or a new one to me "Tea, Klux, Klan") and of course my personal favorite "I'm adding you to my censor list" (a feature which lets you no longer see the chat from the offending candidate, but in this case, it amounts to nothing more than plugging your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA" over and over).

One can imagine the types that come out of the woodwork, in an environment filled with type-A personality, over-educated chess players (or those that think a little too highly of themselves than they ought to) in a chat room where most feel that using large words in rapid succession amounts to knowledge and a proven point.

I decided to blog this today, after being the recipient of a few choice insults and slurs, not so much because it irritates me when people resort to this tactic, but also because it appears that people have resorted to using the word of the day, applicable or not, and apply this label to all those who disagree with their enlightened opinions. Many use Fascist, Nazi, Socialist, and racist, because everyone else around them does too, so it just seems natural to follow along and hey, safety in numbers...

First, we were in a discussion on the economy and one leftist (his handle is "Jones") was of the opinion that our government should return to the 1950'ish tax rates of 90% on the richest Americans (who Obama refers to as "those making over $250,000/year). He argued that it worked when FDR did it, and redistributed the wealth to the rest of the population, and therefore, if it worked then, it will work now. It was civil at first; I pointed out that regardless of the intent behind it, taking another persons wealth and giving it to someone else, amounts to Robin Hood economics, and that any government that sets that precedent of taking from the haves and giving to the have nots, could later apply it to those of us who don't have quite as much, and giving to those who have almost enough... not a power I want my government to have.

He is of the misguided opinion that our national debt is ONLY $14 Trillion (all blamed on Bush of course) and that the true number of more than $70 Trillion, in total unfunded liabilities is, how did he put it? Ah, right... "BS". I didn't have a chance at this point, to point out that the Debt was already $5 Trillion when Bush took office, and that in eight years, he raised it to $10 Trillion, an average gain of $625 Billion/year during his presidency. I didn't have a chance to say Obama raised it almost $4 Trillion in TWO YEARS, an increase of $2 Trillion/year, or to point out that a huge chunk of Bush's increased debt (almost half) was during the last two years of his presidency under a Democratic super-majority in the House and Senate.

"BS"... That was his response, his retort, and the beginning of his descent into intellectual oblivion. At this point, most would expect, in a civil conversation, to cite references and sources, you know, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" so to speak. If only one could be so fortunate...

As I sat there typing in my references to America's true debt/liability, in an attempt to explain that the true number is greater than the planet's GDP, and that his proposed taxrate on the wealthy of 90% would only yield around $880 Billion per year, still leaving roughly $1.2 Trillion deficit just this year alone, I was called a "retard" and an "idiot". He then called me a "racist" who wants to return to the 1920's depression economy in order to destroy civil rights... Can you imagine that? He doesn't know me, does not know my background, my ethnicity, absolutely nothing about me, but somehow feels justified in playing the "racist" card.

A little background... My step-father is black. I have 4 brothers and sisters who are half-black, a brother who is half-latino, I took my step-father's last name, as he is the only father I ever knew. But back on topic...

Anyways, this little punk, after inappropriately throwing out some fairly serious accusations, including the new one of "Tea, Klux, Klan'er" announces to the channel that he is done talking to me (again... "LA LA LA LA I can't hear you LA LA LA LA) and that he has added me to his censor list.

Slander, counter-point responded to with name calling, and dissenting opinion with censorship. These are time-proven methods which make the weak minded among us, feel better in their blanket of ideological superiority, wrapped head to foot in the warm blanket of bliss that is ignorance.

I felt compelled to add "Jones" to my censor list as well, as he was spamming my screen with irrelevant socialist garbage, the likes of which would bring a happy tear to Karl Marx' eye. If I couldn't respond to him, there was no point in watching his ongoing banter, so after adding him to my censor list, the channel was quiet for several minutes.

The next genius, someone who I have never seen in the channel, in the years I have been in it, suddenly feels the need to chime in on the previous discussion between me and Jones. This person (we'll call him "Ritzel") sends a full paragraph directed at me personally, using some big words that were not at all appropriate in the context they were used (I think it made him feel smarter) but which culminated with him calling me a NAZI and a FASCIST!!!

So while I have been in channel, talking about massive cuts to spending and our government being to large, and needing to be signficantly downsized, he resorts to another label that means almost the exact opposite of what I have been promoting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

That link, defines fascism as:

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Seriously? This is the insult, the label, that this individual could come up with? Whatever happened to the good old days of someone calling you a name, and you having to stop and say "Wow, good one, got me there"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

"a unique variety of fascism that incorporated biological racism and antisemitism. Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies..."

Further down in the article:

"The self-identification term, used by exponents of the ideology past and present is National Socialism and adherents describe themselves as National Socialists."

So Nazi, or "National Socialism" is a form of "Fascism" which we saw above, promotes a strong central government with the power to do whatever it wants essentially (the essence of dictatorship) with incorporated racism (a slur applied to me, somehow justified by its user as applicable in a debate on national debt and taxation) formed of philosophies from BOTH the left and right...

So what is socialism?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

So basically, what my two opponents above were arguing in favor of... take from the rich and redistribute to everyone else, with the full power and force of a government strong enough to do it.

I would go so far as to say that these two individuals are everything they accused me of and more. The trend in debates among the rapidly polarized population today, is to resort to this sort of tactic. Whenever someone disagrees with you, villify them, demonize them, call them a racist, a nazi, a fascist, even if the terms you are using more accurately describe your own viewpoints, use them on your opponent first, because they sound really evil, and no one likes evil! Of course, if your opponent uses them on you, which sadly, some conservatives do, even though they may actually be accurate in this case, they start accusing the conservative of name-calling, etc... even though they just did it to. What a world we live in.

I was naked for a day, you will be naked for eternity...

4th of July parades turn kids into GASP Republicans!

2011-07-04T10:58:00.000-07:00

Well, chalk one up for another useless story with no purpose but to try to scare good, left-leaning liberals into keeping their kids from becoming a future conservative (read, Republican) of America...

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/02/do-july-4th-parades-turn-kids-into-republicans/

All that fireworks-watching, flag-waving and potato salad-eating this weekend could in fact lead to a vote for the Republican party for your child.

And the stats from Harvard back up the claim. When children were exposed at a young age to the Americana fanfare associated with the Fourth of July, they were more likely to vote Republican and make campaign contributions to the party.

Harvard researchers David Yanagizawa-Drott and Andreas Madestam found that kids who attended one rain-free July 4th celebration before the age of 18 were four percent more likely to vote Republican before the age of 40. And whether or not they went to the polls, young Independence Day revelers were more likely to identify with the right wing by 2 percent.

The liberal media makes it sound like going to a 4th of July celebration could give your kid lice, or E. Coli, or some other disease. Sounds great doesn't it? Demonize the one holiday in America where we celebrate EVERYTHING great about our nation, in spite of it's shorfalls, to provide incentive for some far-leftwing wackos to not celebrate this great day with their children...

They try to trivialize the study somewhat, by saying "kids who attended one rain-free July 4th celebration before the age of 18 were four percent more likely to vote Republican before the age of 40". Hey, what's four percent, right?

Well, in the "landslide" win of Obama, over McCain in the 2008 presidential election, Obama won by SEVEN PERCENT.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

That means, if 4 percent of the voters, who voted for Obama, swapped, and voted for McCain instead, McCain would have won by ONE PERCENT.

Left wing liberal media scare tactics? You be the judge.

The study DID admit however, that Republican parents tend to celebrate the 4th of July more intensely than their Democratic counter-parts:

The study notes, "Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place."

Anyways, have a happy 4th of July, enjoy the parades, hotdogs, burgers, watermelon, lemonade, and fireworks. Remember, you may be doing your part for the future of America, by taking your kids along! Heck, volunteer to take your liberal neighbors kid(s) with you too... then show their parents the article afterwards, to freak them out a little bit!

Guns and Immigrants, a tale of hypocrisy.

2011-07-03T19:04:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time (actually April 23rd 2010) a princess (ok, a governor) of a far away place (Arizona is sort of out of the way) decreed (signed into law) a bill designed to fight the CRIME of crossing the border and living in the great country of America illegally. The liberal government had dropped the ball and left many states to fend for themselves without support and turned a deaf ear to the plight of the border states, being over-run with a mix of good people and drug-running criminals swarming their sacred lands...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

Of course, we all remember how this story played out. The government sued Arizona, and some activist citizens appealed to the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (federal court out of that cesspool called San Francisco, CA) who overturned the portions of the law that actually would have worked.

Remember, this law did not require all latinos to "present their papers" as the critics would have you believe, nor did it result in automatic deportation of anyone caught in town without proper identification on them. Instead, this law simply took away the discretion of local law enforcement to choose to follow up on suspects whom they felt may be in the country illegally. If you were stopped, had no ID, couldn't speak English (this is AMERICA after all, it's what we speak) and essentially gave the officer reason to think you were here illegally, they had to follow up on it. Actually, the law required "suspected" illegal immigrants be detained while they tried to clear up the issue of legal status, and if they were PROVEN to be here illegally, then turned over to the appropriate Federal authorities, to be handled in accordance with Federal law.

No ID? That can get any white, caucasian male, a trip to the police station. That's how criminals get around a traffic stop, hoping the officer won't want to waste the time doing the paperwork and investigating who they really have in the vehicle. But do it to a latino, and it's somehow racial profiling.

The government's puppet appeals courts have now also struck down the effective parts of Georgia's attempt at similar legislation. You know, those courts where judges sit, anxiously hoping someday to have a President appoint them to a higher court, maybe even the Supreme Court! Of course, given recent events, they have to wait in line behind teachers who have never been a judge in their life (but she probably DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night).

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/07/03/georgia-immigration-law-goes-mostly-into-effect-amid-confusion/

Remember the good old days, when the States were sovereign? Probably not, because they have been subject to the whims of the ever-growing Federal Government for the better part of a century now...

BUT now we come to the next part of this story... we've already seen how the government has forsaken the borders, and slapped the hands of the States trying to protect their sovereign borders. NOW the same federal government that chooses to look the other way while states suffer an onslaught of ILLEGAL immigrants crossing their borders, has its liberal agents of doom talking about how the poor government in Mexico and our ATF agents are so overworked because of our slack gunlaws.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/30/us.fast.and.furious/index.html?hpt=po_bn1

According to the report...

It called for increased criminal penalties for illegal straw purchases, enactment by Congress of a "dedicated firearms trafficking statute," and for ATF to get reports from gun dealers on purchases of multiple long guns "that are now the weapons of choice for Mexican drug cartels."

Translation:

We have laws on the books, but they just don't deter the criminals, so we want to make it not only illegal, but this time, REALLY REALLY illegal, to traffic in guns illegally, and the felony and jail time needs to be a BIGGER felony with MORE jail time.

Also, though we cannot infringe on your right to bear arms, we want that to mean just as long as you buy one at a time, or one every few years or so, we'll decide where to draw that line later, but trust us, we'll be fair about it.

And finally, we know we already pretend hand guns are worse than other guns, but now, since we have gotten law after law on the book about waiting periods, magazine capacity, different ages for different guns, etc... NOW we think we've got everyone dumbed down enough that they'll just take our word and accept that "long guns" (sounds really scary) are now the weapon of choice of these EVIL DRUG CARTELS (oooh, scary voice).

Actually, "long gun" is what we call our rifles and shotguns. They aren't just going after our assault rifles (those evil black guns that go bang as fast as you can pull the trigger) but now they want your sporting and hunting guns to be tracked as well.

How do you think they propose to track multiple gun purchases? Not on the good word and intentions of the purchaser (that would be us, the law abiding, voting citizens who hold our Second Amendment rights near and dear). No, they would have to keep a record... of course, this would be too cumbersome to have dealers keep the records, so of course, they have to require all dealers to forward all records of purchases to some new three-letter government agency .The ATF, afterall, is so overworked (the reason for this proposed legislation) and due to the SHEER AND UTTER STUPIDITY of it's leadership, has lost a few good agents recently.

Remember, the biggest threat to the citizenry of America, is not a foreign nation hell-bent on wiping us out. It's not due to some obscure and insignificant terrorist threat, who maybe every few years might get away with a successful attack. Nope, it's from our own government, from those we carelessly elect because of empty promises, or those who some other dimwit population of some failing socialist state elect to try to enforce their far left viewpoints on the rest of us red-staters because they just know so much better whats best for us than we do... God bless their little bleeding liberal hearts.

NEVER BUY A KIA!!!

2011-05-29T21:44:00.000-07:00

This is a little bit off from my normal political format, but heck, if I can save someone some grief, money, and frustration, maybe they can focus on other bigger picture issues. The first couple of issues are based on KIA service (or lack thereof) and dishonesty within their sales and service departments. Further down, I will get into the technical/mechanical issues.

My wife and I bought a used 2003 KIA Sedona Mini-van in 2007, and it had just over 40K miles when we bought it. The dealer ranted and raved about this fully loaded vehicle, answered some of our questions, we test-drove it, and sold us on it.

We asked if the dealership provided loaner vehicles if we had to have repairs done, and of course, the answer was a resounding "Yes". When we had to have our first repair done, less than a month after buying it, the service department informed us they could drop us off and pick us up, but they didn't have (nor ever had) a loaner program. We asked our salesman about the discrepancy, and of course he was fully aware that they had no loaner program, and said we must have misunderstood him...

We were also told about their great "KIA Loyalty" program, which was basically up to $4K dollars in discounts/rebates if we were to buy another KIA later on down the road. Salesman specifically stated, in response to my question, that this loyalty program was IN ADDITION to any other factory/dealer rebates already on a vehicle we might consider. We looked into trading our KIA in, about two years after our initial purchase, and looked at another Sedona (before all the repair issues arose). We had the same salesman come help us on the lot, and we inquired about the loyalty bonus on a KIA that had about $4K in rebates from the factory already advertised on the windshield. He told us that there was no loyalty bonus on vehicles that already have factory rebates... I showed him the page I had kept, where he had done some easy math for me back when we first bought our vehicle, where he took a new Sedona at $30K, then subtracted $4K for factory rebates, and another $4K for loyalty rebate, and indicated we could get a $30K vehicle for as low as $22K... he played dumb, and had nothing to say about it, and walked off and left us standing there.

They told us that all used vehicles go through a 200+ point inspection, "the most comprehensive in the industry"...

Of course, a month after we bought the car, we were in under warranty, to have a squealing from the front tires investigated, that only started after we had been driving in town, stop-and-go, for about half an hour. Turns out, there was an active recall on the vehicle, that came up IMMEDIATELY when they ran the VIN number, that was somehow missed... they had to mill down the break calipers or something, because they were too large, and when the brakes got hot from driving around town, the metal expanded and rubbed the wheels...

Next, they informed us, while the vehicle was still in the shop for the above repair, that there was a suspension component that was bent/flexed, too far out of spec... they said it was a known issue with KIA's and that it was not covered under our warranty, but that for just over $50, they could remove it, reverse it, and let it work its way back into spec (sort of like bending a paper clip back and forth, but without the eventual breaking of the part, after too many cyclic flexings, allegedly). Again, this was a month after this vehicle supposedly passed their 200'ish point inspection...

At around 60K miles, the alternator went out... and AGAIN 10K miles later with the replacement.

The headlights were burning out every 2 or 3 months. Turns out, they have an issue, a KNOWN issue, where if you leave your headlights on AUTO instead of manually turning them off and on all the time, and start your car at night, the relay is already closed to the headlights as you turn the car over and draws excessive starting current through the lamps,which results in a much shortened life. We now have to pretend we do not have an AUTO feature for headlights... or pay several hundred dollars for a new relay and to have the computer reflashed, because, of course, this KNOWN issue is still going to make them some money, at the cost of the consumer.

We had to have a new condenser for the air conditioner installed (the old one was leaking, around 60K miles as well). We have had to recharge the freon every year since, and it usually doesn't make it through the 3 months of summer here in Missouri... but they cannot find leaks anywhere, without charging us around $500 for a thorough inspection, and recharge... plus additional costs if they have to replace any other components...

At 67,000 miles, the thermostat went bad, but we didn't have any signs of overheating, steam, water spray, etc... we pulled into the driveway, from some simple around-town driving, and I noticed a small puff of steam under the hood... Popped the hood, and could hear hissing, and see a wet spot. Had the vehicle inspected, and that little failure, somehow resulted in steam cutting of the coolant manifolds on both sides of the vehicle, so had to pay almost $500 for the thermostat, gaskets, and labor.

Our airbag light has been on since about 55K miles and they say it could be anything, but that it would cost several hundred dollars to run a diagnostic, and fix (saying that is based on typical issues, but could be more, could be less).

The drivers door inside handle is broken. The cheap plastic it is made out of, just cracked, and the spring curves out of the hole where the plastic broke off. This was quoted as a $400 fix... for a CHEAP door handle. We live with this now too.

There is massive under-carriage rust, on suspension, body, frame, drive shaft, wheels and exhaust system components. Of course, we were told the famous line of "we'll throw in the under-carriage coating for free!" Has been rusting since the first winter we had it (about 9 months).

The paint on the driver side mirror is peeling. We haven't hit anything, no scratches or rough spots, just about a 3"x 3" area of peeling paint, and getting larger.

For the last 10K miles, our check engine light comes on about every two to three tanks of gas, due to pressure/sealing issues with the gas cap. Pull the cap, clean the gasket, clean the fuel tank fill line that seals against the gas cap, then fill the tank, drive for half a tank and it clears up. About a tank and half later, same issue, rinse, repeat. There is rust forming on the metal sealing surface of the gas tank, that we have to keep removing with a scotch pad (the green scrubby side of sponges).

The KIA wheel caps (the 5'ish inch caps that install on the center of the wheels, to cover the lug nuts) have fallen off two tires while driving (never to be seen again) in the last 10K miles. The first time we checked, this was over $100 to replace each one... we deal with them missing.

The alloy wheels themselves, are chipping/flaking/peeling. The metallic, semi-luster finish is all but gone on them, and leaves them looking very rough and two-toned, with small cracks permeating through the remaining finish on the wheels. This has been happening since the first year we had this vehicle.

The black finish on the front and rear wiper blades is rusting through.

We had an issue with a bell sounding every time we turned right, then when we turned right or left, then eventually, just when we drove straight. There was no warning light or check engine light to indicate what the problem was (it sounded like the door open alarm). Dealer couldn't find the cause. Internet sluthing determined it was an issue with the brake fluid level. The level was fine, halfway between min/max lines, but according to those on the internet, the issue is with a sensor in the brake fluid reservoir, not adjusted properly, so you have to keep it at (or even just above) the max line. Bought some fluid, problem solved. Of course, now we have a possibly over-filled brake fluid reservoir, which is advised against as well... The dealership wanted to charge us again, $200 to troubleshoot the problem.

As of this winter, the rear heater doesn't get hot anymore (just blows cold air in the winter time).

This week, our newest issue... intermittently (meaning sometimes more, sometimes less) our steering got very stiff and difficult to operate, and the steering wheel does not return to center on its own, after turning. Research again, shows this is another KNOWN issue, with KIA's in the "salt belt" states (they list like 10 states on their website, of which MO is one of them). They say this issue arises in over 5% of KIA's in these states, and only 0.5% in non-salt states. The problem appears to be, an exposed universal joint on the steering column, in the engine compartment. It gets caked with salt, ash, and mud, and gradually corrodes, or has that muck fill in the joint and harden. The solution is to replace the steering column intermediate shaft. Of course, this known issue, is again, not worthy of a recall, because its in limited states and only one wreck has been "allegedly" attributed to this issue.

And to sum this up, all the above, contributes to the KIA Sedona mini-van being rated as THE WORST vehicle for retaining resale value, period.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/p/392/ten-cars-that-lose-value-fast

These vans start at $28k, and go over $30k depending on options. We bought ours 4 years old, used, at $14k, figuring the bulk of the depreciation was done... oh no, not at all. We're pushing, at the time of this blog, $3,275 trade in value for "fair" condition (runs decently, some repairable rust, minor cosmetic issues). http://www.kbb.com/kia/sedona/2003-kia-sedona/ex-minivan-4d/?vehicleid=2641&intent=trade-in-sell&mileage=70000&pricetype=trade-in&condition=fair

That means in the 4 years we've had the car, with LESS than 30,000 miles put on the car in those same 4 years (thats insanely low) we have a car that was worth over 4x what it is now, when we bought it...

So hopefully, I can save a few of you from going through the same issues, both mechanically, aesthetically, electrically, and emotionally, that my wife and I have gone through with this brand of car. I will never buy another KIA, or even a different brand of car from a KIA dealership, EVER again.

How one idiot plans to reduce the deficit...

2011-05-23T09:07:00.000-07:00

So the powers-that-be are back in Washington arguing money along party lines as usual...

In the news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110522/hl_nm/us_usa_debt

What really stood out to me in this article, is where one Representative (I'll let you guess which party he represents) feels that, while we are talking about needing $4 TRILLION in spending cuts, the government COULD save money by paying less for prescription drugs...

Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen, a participant in the Biden talks, said Washington could find savings by lowering the price the government pays for prescription drugs, rather than scaling back benefits for patients.

So, rather than eliminating our "Nanny-State" government, where the Fed has their fingers in every aspect of life, lets NOT cut healthcare benefits, paid for compliments of the 53% of us who DO pay taxes in this country, and instead, tell drug retailers you aren't paying the going price for their medications???

THAT IS BRILLIANT!!! So much so, that I should emulate their philosophy in my everyday life as well!

"Yeah, hello, Walmart? Um yeah, I'm not going to pay $1/loaf of bread (those new smaller loaves) anymore... WTF do you mean I have to? Hello? Hello?" - They hung up...

Ok, let me try another.

"Yes, Mr. Tax Collector? My taxes are too high this year, I'm not going to pay the full amount anymore, I'll just pay half, in the interest of reducing my household costs". "Oh honey, look! The police are here!"

The point is, you don't just "pay less" for something because you are the government and think you can regulate private industry to give you special deals. Why do you think not all doctor's accept medicare/medicaid? Because the government doesn't pay them but pennies on the dollar, for their services rendered... It's not worth it.

But sure, lets FORCE pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies to take less than asking price, when Uncle Sam is paying... THEN they can just pass along the cost to the private citizen like you or I, for our medications, to absorb the loss, local governments get higher sales tax revenue, business is good, and the only ones REALLY out in the cold on this one, are, you guessed it, we the people...

It's called a tax increase, not so cleverly hidden in the now higher everyday cost for you and I, while some bureaucrat pats himself and his colleagues on the back, pointing to their "savings" that never actually materialize in the real world, but look great on paper.

Supreme Court helps government overstep again...

2011-03-19T15:56:00.000-07:00

Well, people pissed at the government, and trying to do things their own way, learned a lesson today...

http://charlotte.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/ce031811.htm

I guess they proved he tried to counterfeit US coins... oh wait, no, that's not what he was charged with... he was charged with "conspiracy to possess and sell coins in resemblance and similitude of genuine coins of the United States." (http://statesmansentinel.com/creator-liberty-dollar-jail). I hope they don't ever go to Chuck E. Cheeses and see their coins, or amusement parks, or any place that makes round tokens of approximate thickness to coins... oh, btw, here is a picture of what he was making...

Yup, that dollar sign with two lines through it looks EXACTLY like what the dollar sign the Fed uses and is on my keyboard ($). Uh oh, no it's not... well, he did say "TRUST IN GOD" which is on all US coins too, and... oh, wait, nope, thats "In God We Trust". I guess using "dollars" on his coin is wrong because the US has exclusive right to that denomination... oh wait, many world currencies use "dollars" as their currency, with no relation to the US dollar. Well, he DID piss off the government, and we all know that is a Federal Felony...

Of course, back to the original article, the public will probably agree that it was a justifiable action because they said:

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism”

Everyone is a terrorist... I guess eventually, someone who does a rolling stop through a remote stop sign will be a domestic terrorist because they have a disregard for one minor law, and if you disregard minor laws, its a gateway drug, er, offense, to violating bigger laws that are actually based in terror prevention. Demonize the offender by "poisoning the well" and no one wants to be the juror that votes to let a "terrorist" go free.

The article original article also says:

"Article I, section 8, clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish and preserve a uniform standard of value and to insure a singular monetary system for all purchases and debts in the United States, public and private. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money which is not issued under its own authority in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of all citizens of the nation."

The specific article giving congress power to coin and regulate was given (Article I, section 8, clause 5) which is great, but then they say "Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money which is not issued under its own authority" which I haven't been able to find in the Constitution...

Why not? Because...

Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533 (1869). http://supreme.justia.com/us/75/533/index.html

Congress having undertaken, in the exercise of undisputed constitutional power, to provide a currency for the whole country, may constitutionally secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation, and to that end may restrain, by suitable enactments, the circulation of any notes not issued under its own authority.

So the Supreme Court decided that Congress has this power as an interpretation of law. Of course, the Supreme Court has also granted congress broad and sweeping powers in regards to "regulating interstate commerce" as in Wickard V Filburn, where Congress was granted the powers not only to impose limits on wheat that farmers could grow, to sell in commerce, but also applying that limit to what they grew for their own personal use.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html

So how did the Supreme Court come to the conclusion that obviously the Constitution intended Congress to be the sole purveyor of currency and coin in the Country? Beats me... especially since many banks used to issue THEIR OWN currency, stores had their own currency, states had their own currency... just about everyone had their own currency even though the Federal Government was printing the "real" money. It wasn't until 1913 that the Federal Reserve (aka "The Fed" aka "the Bernanke NerBanke") was created to establish a federal money policy to begin with...

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Ah, so in response to PANIC!!!!

So where the 9th and 10th Amendments say:

Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It seems the Supreme Court has the ability to "interpret" law to the extent that even though "powers" may not be specifically mentioned, and therefore rights retained by the states and the people, in the long run, it's all going to come down to federal law trumping state law as long as the Supreme Court rubber stamps the agenda of the President that appoints the Justices and the Congress that confirms them.

All that to say, nothing can be fixed with "big government" until a check and balance system is applied to the Supreme Court as well. My own opinion, is that it should not be a lifetime appointment, a candidate for a justice position should have minimum years experience AS A JUDGE, and that state votes should occur to ratify appointment to the bench, as "the states" and "the people" are the ones rapidly losing rights "respectively" otherwise granted to them by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The Supreme Court, and every lower court needs to go back to the basics and realize that fundamentally, aside from a few very limited powers, the STATES AND THE PEOPLE retain the rest of the rights, whatever rights those may be.

Wisconsin getting it right.

2011-03-10T08:31:00.000-08:00

Remember back when Harry Reid needed 60 votes in the Senate to allow the vote on health care reform to continue, and he brokered the "Louisiana Purchase" and "Cornhusker Kickback" to get the last 2 votes (one for LA, one from NE) to go ahead? THEN remember once the bill was ready to be voted on and he changed the rules from 60 to pass, to just simple majority as "a budgetary measure"? Looks like the tables have turned on the Democrats... Wisconsin's Republican majority just gave the finger to the Democrats who left the state because they know they were on the losing end of an upcoming vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110310/us_nm/us_wisconsin

Even better though, is that now, the working, tax-paying, Republicans of that state, will no longer be funding the Democratic party by having state/public employee unions diverting funds to the Democrats, taken from all taxpayers, Republicans included.

The stakes are high for labor because more than a third of U.S. public employees such as teachers, police and civil service workers belong to unions while only 6.9 percent of private sector workers are unionized. Unions are the biggest single source of funding for the Democratic party.

All I have to say is it's about damn time.

America's final WWI Veteran passes away

2011-02-28T02:56:00.000-08:00

As the title says, our last surviving WWI veteran, Frank Buckles, has passed away at 110 years old.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/27/wwi.veteran.death/index.html?hpt=T2

These Americans, alongside our allies, risked (and many gave) their lives, to defend not only America and our freedoms, but the freedoms of Europe and other parts of the world. As Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) said:

"It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's."

Thank you Mr. Buckles, for your service to our country, and may your life and the life of your fellow soldiers and sailors who served alongside you, be an example for new and future generations of Americans.

Buckles' family asks that donations be made to the National World War I Legacy Project to honor Frank Buckles and the 4,734,991 Americans that he served with during World War I. Details can be found at: www.frankbuckles.org

A great Reagan Quote

2011-02-25T03:17:00.000-08:00

Just thought I'd post one of my favorite Reagan quotes, regarding government and the economy:

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

More snow in the midwest last night... I blame global warming.

Chicago on it's last leg.

2011-02-22T20:32:00.000-08:00

Yup, those half-wits in that city have finally outdone themselves... they elected Rahm Emanuel as Mayor, by a large margin.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/22/illinois.elections/index.html?hpt=T2

That would be like California voting for a foreign actor married to a Kennedy, but running as Republican, as Governor then wondering why their state is double digit billions of dollars in the hole. It just won't happen, the people are too smart. Oh, wait... nevermind.

So now, the city infamous for it's corruption, in a state infamous for its corruption, has now elected the opportunistic parasite who said "you never want a serious crisis go to waste".

They elected the stooge that honestly believes that if you are on a government no-fly list, you should not be able to have guns. Translation: "We the government have implemented a secret list, free from the chains of due process and constitutional protection, immune to judicial scrutiny, so riddled with errors that the late Senator from Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy himself, was on it at one time. We however feel that if we put you on this super-secret list, that we can then INFRINGE on your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." You know, just toss out the part that says "shall NOT be infringed". Think I'm joking?

Yeah, THAT Rahm Emanuel...

Hopefully, the City of Chicago becomes a shining beacon of light (beacon of light, burning in flames, same difference) to all the other cities in America, of what not to become.

Another argument for nickels!

2011-02-11T11:01:00.000-08:00

Been busy, so haven't posted lately.

On one of the forums I frequent, the discussion about investing in nickels has come up again (as it does from time to time).

The argument in favor of buying up nickels, is that while only being worth 5 cents face value, based on todays melt value at http://www.coinflation.com/coins/basemetal_coin_calculator.html they put nickels at a worth of 7.2 cents per nickel.

If history is any indicator of things to come, the US Mint may soon do to nickels what they did to old silver dimes and quarters - changed to some worthless or "worth less" base metal, to save money and cost. In the case of silver dimes and quarters, you rarely find one in circulation today (this change happened in 1964). Pennies went from being 95% copper (1982 and older) to the zinc clad slugs we don't bother picking up or even putting in a change jar today.

Here is a link that outlines some of what is currently being discussed in the House and Senate regarding coin composition.

http://www.coinnews.net/2010/02/04/coin-composition-changes-proposed-yet-again-but-now-in-obamas-budget/

The arguments against nickels are many. Primarily, people hold that copper and nickel values are measured by the pound, so are a slow gain in value (compared to silver and gold being measured in dollars per ounce). Others maintain that spending money now, instead of buying nickels with it, will have more worth if you spend it on something worthwhile. They believe that by the time your nickel is worth 4x its face value, inflation will have made those gains obsolete, and maybe even a loss. Another chink in the nickel-plated armor debate, is that the composition of pennies changed in 1983, but the old pennies, though worth around 3cents per penny today based on melt value, are still widely in circulation and easily obtained (some hold that they are still 20% of circulating coins, but that may be one of those statistics that gets "made up on the spot").

So you have to ask yourself, which camp are you in? If you believe in covering all bases and diversifying, as I do, then maybe some measure of nickel investing is for you. If you have lots of money to spend on stocks, IRA's, 401K's, gold and silver, oil, commodities, etc... or if you just think it's not worth your time, then nickels probably aren't going to be something to waste your time and resources on.

So now, how do you go about it? Again, many choices and options are available, and you will have to decide best suits your situation, goals, and means.

Some buy $100 worth of nickels per month. If I had that kind of spare cash, I'd probably be buying gold instead of an occasional silver piece! The other extreme, is just saving your nickels from change at the store. The compromise option between those is what I am going to address.

You see... a nickel and a quarter are both made up of nickel and copper. Technically, a quarter has more, because it weighs 5.67grams whereas a nickel only weighs 5.00grams. The nickel however, has a slightly higher ratio of nickel to copper than the quarter does, and nickel is currently worth roughly 3x the value of copper. That makes a nickel worth over 7.2 cents (at todays melt value of $4.53/pound copper and $12.79/pound nickel) and quarters only worth 6.5 cents. So just starting off, a nickel, being worth 1/5 of a quarter, is worth 0.7 cents more per coin.

Sooooo.... imagine getting a quarter for change at the grocery store. You of course check the date to see if it is 1964 or older, to make sure it's not a silver quarter worth $5.44 cents based on todays silver price of almost $30/oz! Sadly, it is not... So what to do now? Your shiny twenty-five cent piece, though worth 25 cents <happy-face value> because the government says so, is really only a paltry 6.5 cents <sad-face value>. If only there was some way to make this quarter worth more before sticking it in your piggy bank back at home... IF ONLY!!!!!

Then it dawns on you - that cashier has a wide variety of pennies, nickels, dimes, and these anemic quarters just weighing her drawer down! You ask her (quickly, before she closes her drawer) if you could please get 5 nickels for your quarter! She looks at you funny of course, because no one ever wants nickels, they actually ask her for quarters instead... but she obliges, and takes your shiny, popular quarter and hands you 5 measley nickels. Transaction over.

Now lets do the math. You traded one quarter with an intrinsic value of 6.5 cents for 5 nickels, each worth 7.2 cents! You went from 6.5 cents of metal in your hand, to (5) x.($.072) = THIRTY SIX CENTS!!!

Of course, if you do not want to save or invest in nickels, you can still use your 5 nickels for face value 25 cents just like the quarter (though slightly less portable). But why not gain 600% in physical worth, by trading your quarter for nickels, you know... just in case?

Funda"mental" errors of anti-gun wackjobs.

2011-01-24T19:46:00.000-08:00

Time to pick on Caroly McCarthy again, god bless her misinformed little soul...

Lets dissect some key points, and for the slower, not-so-bright out there, who think that guns are the problem, and not the people, I'll try and keep it simple, maybe use some smaller words, etc... well, maybe not. Please try to keep up though.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/rep-mccarthy-intros-bill-to-ban-high-capacity-ammo-clips.html

I know what it’s like to have tragedy brought to your life in a split second by a madman with high-capacity ammunition magazines,”

Emphasis on the madman... so far so good, but then she goes and ruins it by giving life and personality to an inanimate object, the "high-capacity ammunition magazine" (at least she didn't call it a "clip"). It's a piece of metal. These madmen could just as easily have been hatchet wielding felons, hacking and slicing their way through crowds of unarmed and thus, helpless victims. The problem is not the weapon, it's the wielder.

We need... to reduce the number of people hurt or killed by gunfire in America, but one simple way we can do that is by keeping the worst tools of mass murder away from the general public.

So now she contradicts herself, from where earlier the magazine was an accomplice essentially, and actually refers to the magazine as a tool, even if it's "the worst tool". But read what comes after that! Does she say "keeping the worst tools of mass murder away from MADMEN? MURDERERS? RAPISTS? KILLERS? TERRORISTS? ASSASSINS??? No... she wants to keep them away from the GENERAL PUBLIC!!! That is you and me, not the killers, not the criminals... but WE THE PEOPLE!

This nation has come together before to support this simple, commonsense measure, and it is the law in several states right now.

"This nation" has done no such thing. Several notorious, if not infamous states, for violating the Second Amendment and the rights of their citizens, like California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland and Massachuesetts... basically all that is evil on the blue versus red maps of America, have shoved this legislation down the throats of their citizens, in the name of knowing what's best for them, doing it for good causes ("what about the children") and to (not for) the masses that are dependant on the state for support (those who dare not bite the hand that feeds them). Worse, these are the most bankrupt, corrupt, STILL having the highest crime rates among states, and their dumbed down population, the indoctrinated product of their failing public schools, don't have the mental capacity to even realize what tyranny is being perpetrated upon them. They have their food stamps, their cell phones, their "American Idol" and multi-million dollar athletes, and eccentric celebrities... why argue about evil guns? The government gives them everything they need.

Like Loughner’s rampage in Tucson earlier this month, the gunman that killed McCarthy’s husband was not stopped until bystanders tackled him as he stopped shooting in order to reload – strengthening the case for smaller magazines with fewer bullets, according to McCarthy.

How about, instead of smaller magazines with fewer bullets, so brave citizens can tackle an armed madman when he's reloading (hoping, god forbid, that he doesn't have several loaded guns or <gasp> an armed accomplice) and maybe give their life in an attempt to save others, how about, and this is so crazy it just might work... we ARM the population with their own guns, their own larger magazines. They won't have to wait for the assailant to empty his magazine, but rather, could DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE BEGINNING by drawing down and dropping him.

I wonder what would have happened, had this been a Republican or Tea Party event instead. How many in the crowd would have been carrying, as opposed to the liberals that were at the mercy of a crazed lunatic, and how many fewer, if any, deaths might have occurred?

“All I’m saying is we need to stop the terror,” McCarthy said, noting that shootings involving high-capacity clips seem to occur more frequently now than in the past. “How many people have to die because of these clips?”

Oh fiddlesticks... she went and called the magazine a "clip" after starting off so seemingly informed. But that's peanuts next to this Representative, a person with the Library of Congress and all the research power of an ARMY of Post-graduate researchers at her and her party's disposal, making an ambiguous statement like "seem to occur more frequently now than in the past". Really??? She couldn't give numbers? No credible stats so lets make a vague "seems" statement to support your cause??? I thought you were a professional?

It is a small sacrifice that law-abiding gun owners can make once again in order to increase everyone’s safety.”

Yup, the pinnacle, the crown jewel in the argument of the liberal (now called "progressives")... Tell others what THEY can afford to pay, or what someone else can "sacrifice" for someone else's cause. Lady, you sure as hell do not know me, speak for me, or are in ANY way qualified to tell me what you think I can sacrifice... Safety comes second, or third... First come our rights, Constitutionally guaranteed! You are a member of government, you of all people, should know this.

How gun bans and healthcare bills happen.

2011-01-18T21:26:00.000-08:00

First, remember the health care bill, where they needed 60 votes to continue "discussing" the bill (and to block a promised Republican philibuster attempt)? Harry Reid cut a deal with Nebraska Senator, Ben Nelson, giving him the Cornhusker Kickback (aka the Nebraska Compromise), to "allow discussion to continue". Mr. Nelson probably thought if he didn't like the final version, he could vote against it, and they wouldn't have their 60 to pass it, but at least he got a sweet deal for his constituents regardless.

What actually happened? The bill was discussed, other lawmakers removed the cornhusker kickback from the final version, changed the rules so they only needed a simple majority to pass the healthcare bill, the Nebraska Senator voted against it, but rather than it dying from a philibuster before ever proceeding with discussion, it passed with simple majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Compromise

Nelson voted against the reconciliation bill, but as the bill was not subject to a filibuster, it was able to pass without his vote.

Now, consider HR 3355 (103rd Congress, 1993-1994) commonly known as the "Assault Weapon Ban" (passed with the feel good name of "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994").

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h103-3355

Nov 3, 1993: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.
Nov 19, 1993: This bill passed in the Senate with changes by roll call vote. The totals were 95 Ayes, 4 Nays, 1 Present/Not Voting.

Voice vote... no record... nice. But look at the Senate votes!!! 95 ayes, 4 nays... ONLY FOUR voted against.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1993-384

Two Republicans, two Democrats (one from Illinois no less) voted against it. This vote allowed the bill to be sent back to committee's before going to the House to reconcile it with the Senate version (sound familiar) and go up for final vote in August of '94. There, the Republicans in the House and Senate took a stand against it, but too late.

Aug 21, 1994: ...A conference report resolving those differences passed in the House of Representatives, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 235 Ayes, 195 Nays, 5 Present/Not Voting.
Aug 25, 1994: ...A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 61 Ayes, 38 Nays, 1 Present/Not Voting.

So... do not think that we are above/beyond having our rights successfully assaulted. People play the game, vote to give opportunity to "discuss" the issues, but once that is done, the rules of the game can change, and you get stuck with garbage like the assault weapon ban and the health care bill.

Someone who gets it!

2011-01-15T12:59:00.000-08:00

The following article was an opinion piece by Jeffrey Miron, who, as stated in the article

"is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in the economics department at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/15/miron.arizona.free.speech/index.html?hpt=C1

It is simpler to highlight the major points of his article, than to elaborate on each in detail, because his opinions are succinct and to the point. So here goes...

The argument for free speech holds simply that the harms from government restrictions on speech are worse than the harms from free speech itself. If government can determine what constitutes acceptable speech, it will use that power to restrict speech in inappropriate ways.

Opponents of the civil rights movement, for example, could readily have argued that inflammatory speech by some civil rights leaders posed a violent threat, especially since a few civil rights advocates, like the Black Panthers, presented themselves as well-armed, and indeed committed (a few) acts of violence. Civil rights opponents could then have used real or alleged connections between violent and nonviolent groups to restrict speech by all civil rights advocates.

The reality is that every movement, sensible or nutty, has a range of followers, and some go too far. Government must pursue and punish those who commit violent acts, but empowering government to restrict speech, as opposed to violence itself, gives authorities latitude to target almost any cause.

Thus the harms of free speech are the price we pay for the freedom to criticize our government and attempt to persuade others to share our views.

He closes with a statement that is nothing short of brilliance!

Free speech does mean, of course, that politicians have the right to call for misguided restrictions on speech. Let's just hope the rest of us have the good sense to ignore them.

Thank you Mr. Miron, and though it makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth when I say it... Thank you CNN for posting this as well (even with your disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey Miron).