A career police officer and unreserved, unabashed, unrepentant supporter of the Constitution of the United States; all of it, including the beleaguered 2nd Amendment! 

"What makes an insurrection here (the American Colonies) always more formidable than in other places is there is a law of this province which obligates every inhabitant to be furnished with a firelock, bayonet, and pretty considerable quantity of ammunition."  - Brig. Gen Lord Hugh Percy, Royal Army, Boston, 1774

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up." --Martin Neimoller, (1892-1984), German, Lutheran Minister. 

At the end of the day, a woman met Benjamin Franklin outside the hall where the Constitutional Convention was meeting.   
"Dr. Franklin, what kind of government have we wrought?"  She asked. 
Franklin replied,  "A Republic, Madam, if we can keep it."

And remember folks: TANSTAAFL!

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety,  deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill, English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

"The polite society is not one in which nobody is armed, but rather one in which everybody is armed."- Robert A. Heinlein

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

So take a second to say:  "Thank you for your service to our nation" as they pass by once in a while.  They don't expect it, but they certainly deserve it. Remember as Patrick Henry said in Common Sense:  "What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly." 
They pay a high price for the Freedom we enjoy

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

--"Concerning the Militia" From the Daily Advertiser. Alexander Hamilton, Thursday, January 10, 1788


What's New!

Saturday January 18, 2014



"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 invented against it, conform to the probable one in  which   it  was passed"

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to  William  Johnson,   June  12, 1823,  The Complete Jefferson, p322.

What the Constitution does or does not "mean" isn't based on what modern people claim it is, nor should it. 

It doesn't necessarily mean what the Supreme Court says, Marbury v. Madison notwithstanding. That august body has overturned itself many times.  Judge Taney, speaking for the majority in Dred Scott v. Sanford, for example, ruled that people could be property. 

It is wrong and extra-constitutional to redefine the elements, rights, powers, or provisions of the Constitution outside the amendment process to suit your political and philosophical preference or goal.

It is not the "living document" myth, where it mystically changes itself with time and circumstance, as propounded by those who want to change it's meaning without changing it's TEXT. Those who attempt that are wrong and their motives are and should be suspect! The framers provided a clear and unconfused mechanism within the document to change it to fit changing times: the Amendment process.

We have a central government of limited and "enumerated" powers which are spelled out in the Constitution, and any powers seized or exercised outside that framework are extra-constitutional: a cute term for illegal.  Such unlawful appropriation of power renders the very principle of constitutionally limited government invalid and may in fact breach the entire socio-political contract on which this nation, and our constitutional republic,  is based.  There is a great danger in that breaching;  a breaching by all three branches of the national government that has occurred with increasing frequency since the 1930's.  We are endangering our national existence by allowing it to continue.

We should and must either amend the Constitution to allow the central government to accrete new powers; to change the nature or provisions of our enumerated rights; or we must live by the words written there.  Those words should be interpreted NOT in modern parlance, but in the words, thoughts, and intention of the people who wrote them: as Mr. Jefferson so succinctly stated above.  It is not just about the 2nd Amendment but is about all powers and all rights contained within the Constitution, although the 2nd Amendment provides the most striking example of the destruction of a right through "redefinition."

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them."  --George Mason, of Virginia, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

Here we see Geo. Mason, of Virginia, commenting on the strength of the American government and militia system over European systems in comments to a militia company.  Again we find the reference to there being no danger in "putting arms in the hands of every man in the country" once more confirming the framers universally held view that there was both a right to possession of individual arms, and that the militia consisted of all the people of the nation.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."--Richard Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer, (1788)

R. H. Lee was an "anti-federalist" opposed to the new more powerful central government in "Mr. Madison's document" (the proposed Federal Constitution). He and the other "anti-federalists" feared it would first raise a "standing army," then "disarm the people" and thus be able to impose tyranny.

"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." -- Noah  Webster,  An Examination   into   the   Leading  Principles of   the   Federal Constitution (1787).

Webster was a "Federalist" and was making his point to counter fears that the new central government could become oppressive; pointing out that since everyone in the nation would have arms a runaway central government, and any standing army it raised turned tyrannical, could NOT prevail against such a force.

Note that both gentlemen used the same phrasing: "the whole body of the people" and that they are "armed?" Unambiguously indicative of the universal and respected right to individual arms extant at the time of the Constitution's formation.

Here were two contemporaneous men arguing diametrically opposed views on the establishment of, and the nature of, the constitutional republic we have inherited.  Both were involved in the process of creating the United States, and both arguing that an armed "body of the people" with their individual arms is the ultimate protector of freedom!  That isn't "bi-partisan" agreement, it is unanimity!!  There can be no stronger argument that the Second Amendment is, in fact, about the whole populations right to arms than when the people who were there at the time make it. 

It never was about "hunting".....

These WebPages and their content are the product, property and opinions of it's author, me.  Nothing herein reflects any official endorsement of this page, it's opinions, or content by the NNPD, the City of Newport News, or any other listed entity or organization.    

 © Copyright 1998 William L. Lidd



  • Give me a break!

    OBAMA LIED!!!  "If you like your Doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan...  PERIOD."  Seems pretty clear to me... he lied.

    And I have been informed that my own Doctor has decided to retire effective January 1st, and his reason?  OBAMACARE.    So, while I am not in the same class as those whose policies have been cancelled, or whose new ObamaCare coverage won't let them go to their longtime family doctor, the affect on my life is the same.  Come January I have to find a new doctor because mine chose to hang up his shingle rather than to facilitate another socialist power grab.

    Obama lied to win an election, and fool everyone into thinking that his Socialist health care plan would not actually affect you.  If you voted for him you were misled.  Obama is a Marxist: "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."   Or simply put, the rich need to pay their "fair" (but much higher share).  Sound familiar?

    His GOAL is to enact Socialist programs that "Fundamentally transform America" into a Socialist nation.  The ultimate end game of Obama Care is to destroy private health insurance, nationalize the medical industry, and create an atmosphere in which a single payer, Federal Government, controlled system is the ONLY alternative. 

    I said before the first election:  This man is a Snake Oil Salesman, and events have proved me correct. 

    YOU need to decide the direction of this Nation in the next two elections.   Those Social-Democrats who voted for the Obama Care socialist power grab need to GO.   If we do not change the direction of this nation we are doomed to socialist control of the nation and our descent into Third World Status.  Ultimately, the wrongheaded and reckless spending policies of the socialist-Democrat party will leave this nation bankrupt.

Maybe YOU like to be lied to. 

Maybe you like to have a President that IGNORES the law and uses Executive Orders to circumvent the will of an elected Congress. 

Perhaps one who is so incompetent,  or worse, so megalomaniacal, that he has lost track of reality?

Maybe you actually want to mortgage your grandchildren's future, leaving them huge debts that may never be repaid, and leaving them paying for our excesses and stupidity.   The interest on our debt to the Chinese Peoples Republic pays the entire annual cost of the Peoples Liberation Army!!  That is beyond stupid, it's insane. We have gone from being a lender nation to being a borrower nation; and it is a trend that cannot survive the test of time and the lessons of history. 

People PICK a direction.  Choose the socialist-Democrats 2014 and accept that we surrender to Marxist dogma.  Or resist and throw out the socialists out in 2014 and 2016 once and for all!  Restore America to the precepts that made it the greatest nation on earth.


  •  Would you?

    If a leader:
    • Was a captivating speaker, and charismatic personality.
    • Lied about issues and motives for political gain.
    • Issued executive orders to circumvent the legislature.
    • Believed that telling the same lie over and over again actually gave it the aura of truth.
    • Had the complete support of existing internal media outlets.
    • Used tragic events to escalate situations and apply them to his political advantage and goals.
    • Scapegoated opposition or cultural groups to denigrate their views and negate their influence.
    • Took personal credit for good events, and denied the responsibility for bad events.
    • Desired to control private ownership of arms in his nation: registration, permits, and bans on certain weapons.
    • Was willing to lie about himself and his background to his personal and political advantage.
    • Wrote at least one auto-biography about himself, with political overtones, before ever coming to national prominence.
    • Provided economic and political advantage to his friends and supporters on a routine basis.
    • Used the same power to deny economic and political equity to his enemies; and in some cases to destroy them.
    • Supported central government control of business production, while leaving it privately owned.

    Would YOU trust such a leader?

    If you were thinking Obama it was a trap, this was a list of Hitler's traits.


  • Debate is Irrelevant

    Folks, this is it in a nutshell. We have a President who ignores the laws he is sworn to enforce.

  1. He enacted the Dream Act on his own after the Congress rejected it and voted it down:  In effect he ignores Congress and does what he wants. 
  2. He tells the law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing Immigration laws to not do their job: don't enforce the law.  His duty is to ensure the laws are enforced.  This refusal to do ones job is malfeasance.
  3. He tells defense contractors to IGNORE the Warn Act and not give employee's the required notice of a pending layoff for purely political reasons.  Again malfeasance.   
  4. He offers for government to pay for the defense against any lawsuits brought by individuals affected or unions against those contractors.   Ummm... I don't see that power in the Constitution. 
  5. Implicit here, but ignored by the press, is that the Justice Department will not be prosecuting anyone for intentionally disobeying the law. 

Willfully allowing the law to be broken, and not taking action, is violating his oath and malfeasance.  It is just another form of political corruption when government encourages the actual breaking of a law.  The damage done to the system of justice, as a whole, is serious.  Where is the moral imperative to obey the law by the citizens when their government openly breaks the law themselves?  Justice is skewered on Obama's short term re-election altar and the integrity of a "nation of laws" is destroyed.


    As the host nations cannot provide for the security of our sovereign territory in their nations, and will not allow us to bring in additional troops for embassy security it is simply time to bring our people home, close our embassies and shut off all military and economic aid to those nations:  Further all embassies of nations not protecting US legations on their soil should be immediately declared persona non grata, their legations closed, and their diplomats ejected. The seizure of an embassy is an act of war.  It is an unconscionable breach of civilized behavior and the acts of the perpetrators reveal their true nature, and the nature of their religion.

While all Muslim's are not terrorists, it is now clear that their religion outweighs their loyalty to any host nation or their responsibility to international law and conventions regarding the immunity of foreign legations. I have seen the offending video, and if that ridiculous piece of garbage is the  cause of the unrest then THOSE people in the streets have a problem.  They proclaim themselves a religion of peace, but don't show it.  They claim to be tolerant, but are not. Rather they show that they are the most intolerant of modern religions.  If their belief system is challenged, these remnants of 9th century feudalism, resort to violence.  Question or "insult" their "prophet" and they will kill you.

There are three worldly statuses one can have under Islam and demonstrate why Islam cannot co-exist with any other belief system.

  1. The House of Islam:  You are Muslim.  
  2. The House of War:  You are an Infidel, and either convert to Islam or die. 
  3. The House of Peace:  A temporary status where you are useful to Islam or are under treaty. Usually a subservient status, which can be revoked at any time; and where although not an Islamic nation, Islam is practiced in that country.

The duty of the Muslim by their own holy book is to slay infidels.  The fate of anyone renouncing Islam for another religion is death.  This is a religion stuck in the age of the Inquisition, where anyone who challenges any part of the belief system is an apostate and subject to death.  While other faiths have moved toward tolerance, understanding and coexistence over the centuries, Islam is stagnant and remains medieval.

Christians faced with circumstances where their prophets are maligned, or holy places are desecrated, will complain, but would not respond with the violence and hatred of the practitioners of Islam. When the Life Of Brian was produced Christians didn't riot or burn the British embassy:  We weren't happy but then we didn't condemn the producers to death. A book is produced maligning Christ, we don't declare the author subject to a death penalty; not so with Islam; witness the death fatwa's on author Rushdie and the Danish cartoonist. 

No, Christians turn their cheek and pray for the offender.   But you have to understand that Islam, unlike Christianity, was born in violence.  Mohammed was a warrior and gained his early successes by the sword, not the word.  The newcomer religion enforces it's growth by force, violence and hatred.   It is a religion that appeals the the 9th Century mentality of bigotry, religious intolerance, sexism, and violence.

Christ never once advocated violence against anyone, believer or non-believer.  He forgave his persecutors, maligners and even his executioners: and that is the sign of a true Religion of Peace.


If you support Obama, or any "Progressive" Democrat, you are supporting Marxist/socialists  

Their basic focus is "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" which are BOTH tenants of the Marxist dialectic.   The "rich paying their fair share" is classic  "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need":  Marxism, in his own words, boiled down to exactly what the Democrats and the President are saying every day. 

This is the painful part; If you believe or support that view, then YOU are a Marxist.  You are a socialist.  You are antithetical to everything this nation is about.  Freedom, individual rights, free enterprise, limited government-- you name it.  The Progressives are anti-all that!  Their view is all human behavior must be controlled by government, people cannot be trusted.

Most of the framers or founders, would be Libertarian not conservative and most certainly not Progressive.  "That government governs best which governs least" as Mr. Jefferson aptly said.  I think any of them, if returned to earth today, would view the modern Federal colossus with alarm and disgust.  They would certainly look with disapproval on our failure to maintain the wondrous,  miraculous creation which disposed of monarchy or class and emphasized individual responsibility, economic freedom and minimally intrusive government.  We are ruining their creation and sacrificing our future.


    One of Obama's classmates at Columbia, suggests that the reason Obama has spent millions fighting the disclosure of his college records is that Obama may have entered Columbia as a Foreign Exchange student: A status unavailable to an American citizen, but fully available to a Kenyan or Indonesian national.   Why fight the revelation of those records unless you have something to hide?  Do a few bad grades justify spending millions to hide that Obama got bad grades?  It simply doesn't make sense. 

    What does  make sense is that revelation of his records might disclose that Obama himself claimed Foreign Exchange status, probably having to provide documentation of the students foreign national status; and now they would have to hide that.  Combine this with the birth certificate controversy, and if Obama himself claimed to be the citizen of another country to gain entry to Columbia University, what a can of worms that would create.

    So either he LIED, and potentially committed a felony (we will put his self-admitted felony cocaine use aside) in falsifying his application to Columbia, OR he is actually a foreign national, and disqualified from the Presidency!   He quibbles about Romney's tax returns but assiduously hides his birth and college records.


  •  "Romneyhood"

This is Obama's new laugh line.  But remember people, ROBIN HOOD was a thief!.  He stole at weapons point from "the rich" and "gave to the poor."   No matter how altruistic you couch the terms that is just plain robbery.   What would be your reaction if a poor(er) guy "stole" from the rich(er) middle class to "give to the poor(er)."   Where is the difference?   Stealing, even via the mechanism of government, by "making the rich pay their fair share" is stealing!  FAIR is when everyone pays the same percentage.  When one class makes another class pay a higher percentage of tax, that is not "fair" it is UNFAIR.  

Should a richer person pay MORE for a loaf of bread that a middle class person just because they have more money?  Or more for the same model car?  Or for the same size house?  Would that be FAIR?  Of course not!!  

FAIR is everyone paying the same percentage for taxes:  For the same loaf of bread,  for the same model car,  for the same size house.   Don't forget Bill Gates taxed at 20%  of $240M already pays more tax than I do at the same 20% of $66K!!!  

Lastly, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is the prime mantra of Marxism.  It is the creed of the communists.   I shudder to believe that a sizable number of Americans have signed on to the fundamental tenant of Communism, as espoused by President Obama, and the "progressives" of the Democrat (Socialist) Party.  Have we actually become the socialists we fought so hard against for so long?  Has "we met the enemy, and they are us" finally come to pass?

I have to agree with Romney on this point:  Its OBAMALONY!!


On his talking points memo today, Bill O'Reilly demands that "Heavy Weapons" (whatever the hell they are because to me, they are towed artillery, tanks, mortars, etc)  purchases should be reported to the government, ostensibly to detect folks like the Colorado gunman.   Well gee.  A couple things come to mind.

  1. Machinegun, bazookas, and other destructive devices HAVE been regulated since 1935 Bill.!! A factoid that a modicum of research would have revealed BEFORE you ran off at the mouth so vacuously.

  2. Even IF the purchase was "reported" what keeps the nut from shooting people anyway?  Wow, we know he bought them but until he did the movie critic trick in the theater, who the HELL had a clue he'd do a mass shooting with them.   Seems like the horse is already out of the barn on that one.

  3. The Second Amendment protects the right to arms.  All arms, even ones you don't like. All Federal gun control is illegal in my not so humble opinion, and in fact all state gun control is illegal with the application of the right to the states:  McDonald v. Chicago, Billy.

  4. O'Reilly, like many, confuse the exercise of a RIGHT with a third party defined "NEED" to have what the right defines.  I may not NEED an AR-15, but I have a RIGHT to have one, should I choose.

  5. All you NEED is Air, Water, Food, Shelter and in some climates Clothing, in that order.  Everything else under the sun is WANTS.  I WANT a comfy couch.  I WANT a girl.  I WANT more cattle.  The instant you surrender control of your RIGHTS to another who defines for you your NEEDS you lose ALL your freedom.  Someone else gets to define your WANTS because they choose what you do or do not "need."  You don't NEED an SUV.  You don't NEED a Ferrari.  You don't NEED a car with a V-8. You don't NEED to eat steak (Hell, it's bad for you).   You don't NEED two radio stations in your town.  You only NEED one child.  You don't NEED a boat.  You don't NEED  big house. You don't NEED a.... well you get the idea.

  6. The Framers fully intended that ANY standing army was offset by a yeomanry militia (that militia being everyone capable of bearing arms) with "arms in their hands" (see Federalist 46).  The RIGHT to arms was to prevent the tyranny of the soon to be created Federal government.   If you don't understand that, then you either slept through American History, or you had a pathetic instructor.

Lastly, I'd be careful on the gun control "road" some are trying to travel.  People on it, our modern monarchists or Tories,  are determined to surrender their individual sovereignty to the central government and there are many others, those whose attitude mirrors the founding fathers who are unwilling to conform to such anti-individualist, anti-liberty views . Our American Revolution was sparked by main two issues:  Taxation and Gun Control.  The actual shooting war started from the British government trying to disarm the Massachusetts Colony by confiscating their ammunition.  The British were met by the colonists at Lexington and Concord, and the outcome of the "Shot heard 'round the world" is history.  People are funny about their rights, you can push them just so far and at some point the Rubicon is crossed and the people decide enough is enough.

Frankly, I prefer everyone be armed:   Shooting fish in a barrel is a safe game unless and until the fish have a couple guns themselves.


Only Congress has the Constitutional power to declare war.   When both Bush's wanted to go to war they went to Congress and at least consulted that body and obtained votes from both houses authorizing the use of the military forces of the United States BEFORE they committed this nation to armed intervention.

Not so with Mr. Obama.   He has blatantly committed the armed forces of the United States WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.   I also doubt that he will report to the Congress and obtain authorization as REQUIRED by the War Powers Act.

I won't even go into the irony of how one can oppose military intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan, but SUPPORT and engage in unauthorized military strikes against Libya!!  The positions are simply  oxymoronic.

We are once again placed into a position by the Imperial Presidency where our nations youth are to go to war based on the flawed decision of one man.      If we are to go to another war it needs to  be with the advice, consent and a vote of authorization by the Congress:  no by the whim of one man, nor by pressure from other nations or organizations.

It is time for the Constitutionalists in Congress to take action to reign in the power of this president, and any subsequent president, from any political party or philosophical persuasion,  once and for all.  He is a president, not a King.  He has bosses.  We and the people we send to Congress  are the bosses.  If he wants to go to war, he has to get our permission first!


“Islam was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

- Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja  to Thomas Jefferson, March 1785



The debacle in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states over the budget, the last election, and the power of unions is the classic display of the socialists level of commitment to the democratic process, or should I say their contempt for it.   The people of Wisconsin and Ohio spoke in the last election and placed people in the legislature to do the peoples will and fix the budgets of their respective states.  To thwart this mandate the Democrat-Socialists members of the legislature fled the state to deny a quorum for a vote and public servants called in sick for work and instead showed up at political rallies.   As a public employee for 34 years  my view is that any worker presenting a bogus sick slip shouldH be fired for lying and falsification of their time record the second they return to work with slip that essentially steals sick leave.

SHAME on the socialist-Democrat party, the democrat's central committee, and the Obama political machine for entering this fray in the manner they did!!  They are wrong in  encouraging and facilitating the demonstrations, encouraging the breaking of the law by workers illegally skipping work, and applauding the acts of the cowardly Democrat Wisconsin legislators who are in hiding.  Shame that they are siding with forces that are opposed to the process of democracy and the legitimate and lawful outcome of a free and open election.  This action chips away at the foundations of democracy and sets the stage for the rise of the bullies and totalitarians on both sides as we lower the bar on what is acceptable opposition in the face of election results.

Make no mistake, the actions in Wisconsin by the legislators and the public are NOT democracy at work.  It is the antithesis of democracy!!  It is a denial of democracy and  a rejection of majority rule.    Any reaction to a vote by the Wisconsin legislature, and the proposals of Governor Wilson may be addressed, and should be addressed, in the next election or even in courts of law!  In a democracy we address issues in ELECTIONS,  or in the JUDICIAL process, not by hiding out to avoid the democratic processes or taking to the streets and even the private homes of the members of the Wisconsin legislature to intimidate them. 

What the Wisconsin situation represents is the worst of personal greed and fat cat union self-interest over the common good, public interest, the future of the nation and the economic viability of the states.

Acting like a this is not democracy nor is it rule of the ballot that we are all supposed to respect and honor:  It is just plain anti-democratic thuggery and dictatorship of the minority.  The quickest way to destroy any democracy is simply to ignore the democratic process:  people need to be very careful as to the nature of genie that they have released from the bottle.


The national debt is rapidly approaching the current national debt ceiling.  Like a credit card limit, this is the top end above which the federal deficit may not rise without being technically in default.  So, the Democrats, some Republicans, and the Obama Administration is pressing to have the national debt ceiling lifted citing "grave" consequences if we go into default.  Oddly enough the then Senator Obama opposed raising the debt ceiling , refused to vote for it, and pronounced dire consequences if it was raised.  Funny how things change...

Being the cynical soul I am, I really do liken the debt ceiling the same as your credit card limit.  Once it's reached you can't charge or spend any more on that card.  It's the end, the LIMIT of your credit.   Oddly enough, your card company usually raises your debt limit about the time your debt bumps into it.  That leaves you free to spend more, accumulate more debt and provide more interest to your debtors.  This also frequently leaves many in a debt "black hole" from which you can never extract yourself, paying more and more in interest while the principle remains untouched.  I have been down that hole and it can take decades to dig your way back out.  Some never do and they fully default, declaring bankruptcy.

Raising the debt limit is exactly the same for our government.  It is a license to spend more.  And if you  raise the limit they will simply spend more.  We are now at the point where the Federal government actually bought it's OWN DEBT.  Why?  Are other nations now not willing to buy U.S. securities and loan us the money?  And how stupid is it to buy your own debt?  Try calling your credit card company and pulling that scheme on them.   LOL.

What we have it NOT a debt ceiling limit problem, but a SPENDING problem.  The Federal and state governments simply need to balance their budgets the same way we slobs have to balance ours.  You have to get your outlay below your income: it's that simple.  In the average home that means second jobs and cutting spending to the minimal.   In government it means either raising taxes or cutting spending: or BOTH.  The debt ceiling provides a stop point for Federal spending.  It needs to stay in place.  Don't give any of them license to spend more money that we don't have.  It IS a formula for national bankruptcy.

One last point.  The amount of annual interest we pay the Chinese alone on U.S. securities they hold funds the entire cost of their army.  The ENTIRE COST!!  How damned ridiculous is that?













See the "magic" of debt in real time....  The U.S. Debt Clock:


During a speech at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus annual awards gala, President Obama began quoting part of Thomas Jefferson's brilliant "Declaration of Independence," the document establishing the United States of America, July 4th of 1776.  

Obama, after some pandering remarks to an apparently minority packed audience about immigration, launched into the Declaration:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. They are endowed... (long pause in the speech) ...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."   

Did anyone catch the missing verbiage?  The actual quote is "They are endowed, by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights."  The problem is the pause....  and the missing words.

Did the anointed one pause because he, who is NEVER far from the teleprompter during a speech, observe the "by their Creator" language was missing from his speech and the pause was his wondering what happened to it?

Or was the correct quote on the teleprompter and the pregnant pause was Obama weighing whether he should actually mention a "Creator" in his speech?

One would expect a lawyer who taught constitutional law, would know the language so it could be the first option... but then again, if he KNEW the language even an average speaker would simply roll on and insert the correct, missing words.  I know I could.  In fact Obama himself has the exact quote in his book "The Audacity of Hope."  So on at least one occasion he got it correct, and in print much less!  One wonders, who actually wrote the book if Obama cannot remember what was in it...   but I digress.

So, we are left with the simple fact, that when the leader of our nation is quoting our founding document, he intentionally left out the exact language of the author and deleted any reference to the rights being "endowed by their Creator."  He omitted the reference to God.  Or as Jefferson continued on later that the rights are not granted by men but are "of Nature or Natures God."

I find that a telling omission and a sad commentary on "the man we elected King."

UPDATE:  Mr. Obama has now delivered a SECOND speech in which, while quoting the Declaration of Independence, he has AGAIN omitted the reference to rights being endowed "by their Creator."  (the capital Creator is the style format which makes references to God having the first letter in caps:  God, Creator, He, Lord.. etc) Thus, all doubt has now been removed.  Mr. Obama is INTENTIONALLY omitting the Creator reference.  The President of the United States cannot refer to God in a speech and while quoting the exact language of a Founding Father and President, Thomas Jefferson!!  Sad. Very Sad.


There is a very simple way to force the Federal colossus to balance the budget:  Amend the constitution!

Very simple language:  

"The annual budget of the United States will be balanced, with annual expenditures not exceeding annual income, from all sources; and no deficit shall exist or accrue except during a formal Declaration of War by Congress."

It has to be language this specific with no legal wiggle room such as "time of emergency" or "as otherwise directed by Congress" language which gives them a way to avoid compliance.  They balance the budget, period.  The only exception is when Congress formally declares War.

This will force the Congress to either cut spending, or raise taxes, and achieving a balanced budget by mandate of it's employers.   A Constitutional Amendment only requires that 3/4ths of the legislatures of the States pass a resolution for amending the Constitution with this language.  Congress is then constitutionally mandated to comply and cannot legally ignore the mandate to balance the budget.

Even if taxes are raised, at least it is honest and makes a real effort at cutting the 13 TRILLION dollar national debt.


UPDATE:  Now two more Federal agencies have leaked memo's that address the same backdoor plan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.  One agency may be a fluke, but three, nearly simultaneous, memos indicate something more akin to a general discussion of an administration policy decision. 

Update #2, 07/20/2012:  Obama, using Executive Order, has essentially granted defacto amnesty to perhaps a million illegal aliens of foreign birth, kids illegally brought to this nation by their parents.  He has circumvented the will of Congress by enacting the "Dream Act" after Congress flatly refused to pass it!  

Do we have a President, that does the will of the people, or a dictator that does what he wants in DEFIANCE of the stated will of the Congress?

The Department of Homeland Defense denies it is being considered, but it has come to light that the Obama administration is now planning to use a clause in the existing immigration laws which provides for emergency exceptions to immigration law compliance for INDIVIDUALS to grant blanket amnesty to some 12-20 estimated million illegal aliens.  

Members of Congress sent a letter to the White House some five days ago protesting and advising against any such action, and to date have not received any response.   This seems to indicate that the reports are true, and Obama is trying to figure out how to "spin" this so the American people will accept it.

The mere thought that Obama would even try such an anti-democratic, unconstitutional ploy to enact something he knows the elected representatives of the people would reject smacks of blatant totalitarianism.  The arrogance to even consider flaunting the democratic process in such a way fills me simultaneously with loathing and fear. 

He makes the so-called "Imperial Presidency" of some of his predecessors look like recess at a Kindergarten.

Look folks, the concept of the Presidency was that he would fulfill two primary functions.  First, he was Commander in Chief of the military to enhance the concept of one leader in time of war.  The other was that he was a caretaker, present in Washington to administer the laws passed by what was then a part time Congress; which met for only a few months and then went home, leaving the management of the government to the full time President and his Cabinet.

What is next on Obama's list of things he can do without legislative authorization?  Cancel elections?  Ignore term limits?


There is nothing so bad as a bad joke.   Obama's deployment of 1,200 National Guard to the border is nothing if just that: A bad joke.   That 1,200 represents about one guardsman for every 2 miles of border for one duty tour-- round the clock coverage and off time for that same 2,400 mile border would take four to five times that number of troops.  Additionally, we don't yet know what their rules of engagement and equipage will be.  Watch and report?  Interdict and capture?  Armed with weapons?  Or only armed with radios?

Last time National Guard were on the border, they were unarmed and actually had to turn tail and retreat when armed drug runners confronted them.   American troops, supposedly securing our border from illegal invasion,  running in the face of the enemy!  How encouraging.  Seems, once again, our national government is a day late and a dollar short.

The securing of some line in the sand, the border, is not enough.  It would be a start, but it's a Maginot Line mentality.  A linear defense is always weak.  A defense in DEPTH is strong.  We need both a line beyond which the monthly two army divisions worth of illegal alien invaders --About 30 to 60 THOUSAND!!  That is the equivalent of the entire US Army in a year. --  cannot cross and a "defense in depth:" A second layer where the illegal's deep inside our nation are denied employment; are denied services; are denied citizenship to their "anchor babies"; and those identified are rounded up and deported.

We need to identify and punish people, corporations or organizations who hire, or protect or aid illegal alien invaders.   I can name several locations in my city alone where illegal aliens gather (despite the no trespassing/no loitering signs)  and you can watch as American employers seeking cheap workers arrive in pickup trucks and leave with a load of illegal aliens for the days work:  illegal work.  Work that denies minimum wage pay,  is hidden from social security tax contributions, and denies the government the employers matching contributions. They don't pay federal or state income tax because as an illegal alien you cannot legally have a Social Security Number. And the police are denied power to intervene, except in Arizona:  who had the guts to empower their police agencies to enforce the reasonable adoption of a near mirror of Federal immigration laws by state and municipal law enforcement.

Look, I have no problem with legal immigration conducted fairly and equitably.  Come one and all!!  I don't care if you are white, brown, black, yellow, or pink with green polka dots.  My Grandmother was an immigrant from Sweden and my GGG Grandfather Liddell was an immigrant from England.  But they all came here LEGALLY.  They didn't sneak across the border in the dark of night, and break our laws wholesale and with abandon.  No, they came legally, proudly and played by the rules:  I expect no less from the modern immigrants from where ever they come.

We are facing the mass, migratory, illegal invasion of our nation on a scale not  seen since the invasions of the Huns into western Europe.  An invasion that irreversibly altered the demographic and cultural makeup of those lands affected.  An affect which this nation too will suffer unless the flood is halted and reversed.  Fail to act and the "reconquista" will inevitably succeed.

We need to:

  1. Establish a "Federal National Defense Zone (FNDZ)" of sufficient on the U.S. side of the border where National Guard and federal troops can act.

  2. Place sufficient troops in the FNDZ to Secure the Borders from illegal invasion

  3. Enlarge the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to allow internal enforcement of immigration laws

  4. Enlarge the U.S. Border patrol and bolster it's presence on the border




  8. Amend the U.S. Constitution from citizenship by place of birth to citizenship by blood (as most nations in the world do):  one or both of your parents need to be citizens for YOU to be a citizen.  Merely being born on U.S. territory should never be enough.

  9. Empower all U.S. law enforcement to enforce U.S. Immigration law.  (Defense in depth.)  When illegal immigrants are encountered, apprehend, secure and hold them until deported.

  10. Streamline deportation processing.  Illegal aliens do NOT have due process rights.  They are NOT citizens and do NOT gain the protection of our laws by breaking our laws and entering our country without permission.

  11. Withhold all Federal funding, in all categories of spending, for States, Municipalities or groups who refuse to respect immigration laws, establish "sanctuary cities", or protect or conceal illegal aliens.

  12. Deny admission of illegal aliens to all State funded institutions of learning: municipal school systems or state universities.

  13. Deny funding to all State funded institutions of learning, municipal school systems or state universities who allow admission of illegal aliens.

  14. Bill the home governments of the illegal aliens country of origin for any benefits, medical care provided --or federal, state and local taxes evaded--  to their illegally present nationals while in the United States.

  15. NO AMNESTY!  If there is immigration "reform" it should be we require the illegal aliens to leave the country, return to their native soil and APPLY for legal entry as a LEGAL immigrant to the United States.  We will generously forgive their former illegal status,illegal presence, and income tax evasion; and will NOT hold their former illegal status against them.  Hoever, they must comply with the same rules for all the other LEGAL applicants for entry and residence in the United States.  Another blanket amnesty will simply encourage the next flood of illegal immigration and set the stage for amnesty after amnesty in the future.


Did you ever in your life see a presidential candidate, or a President, so ridiculously linked to a teleprompter?  Even in White House press briefings Obama has a teleprompter at the podium..  Someone behind the scenes is feeding him data or worse what to say as he is clearly unable to speak effectively or accurately without that device. I get the distinct impression I am watching a sock puppet whose every word hinges on someone behind the scenes and who is incapable of a rational speech if the power is out or the computer dies. 

Now, there is a report that Obama got up and gave a speech, using his ever present teleprompter, and didn't realize it was someone else's speech until he parroted the paragraph welcoming himself for coming.....  I haven't pinned this down outside a few news reports with few details, the usual non-coverage by media in the tank for Obama, but if true it demonstrates that we have a marionette as president and not a man.

  •   OOOOH.  New scary change.  The two teleprompters at the podium have vanished and now there is ONE BIG WALL SIZE one at the back of the room and outside the view of the normal press room coverage.  You don't get to see it unless the press gives you a non-standard shot showing the back wall.

Again with the Obamanation we must try to fool all the people all the time and hide the fact we need a crutch to make a speech.  One only wonders



        If you voted for the socialists you deserve what you get, but the rest of us and the nation do no. 























I am serious folks for  the same amount of money as our total debt for 2009-10 we could hand each person on earth over $1,000! 

And this is not just the fault of the President, or of the Democrats, but this morass is the direct result of mismanagement and corruption on the part of every member of the Congress that voted for the budgets and programs that brought us to this.  OF COURSE WE ARE BANKRUPT.  Vote all the fiscally irresponsible idiots out!!



  • For the jokester who said I was "racist" for my anti-Obama stance... observe my candidate in the 2000 Republican race. 

  Gosh and BOTH his parents were black!

  •   LET ME BE CLEAR...

Obama is a liar. 

He lied about his background.

He lies about his associations with terrorists.  Bill Ayer's and his wife Bernadine Dohrn are Marxists, and were terrorists, who killed and maimed fellow American's with bombs. Ayers only beat the charge due to an activist judicial view on the legality of a wiretap where Ayers confessed his involvement in the bombings. Obama kept company with Ayers and dribbled out admissions of his relationship starting with denial of knowing the man, to admissions of some involvement but ever so slight, to lessen the impacts of those admissions.  His political career started in Ayers home, they served together on advisory boards of leftist organizations (but they never associated according to Barry) and apparently had a (disassociated?) dinner with Palestinian terrorists at Ayers home.  So much for hardly knowing the man...  Birds of a feather.

He lies about his 20 year relationship with a preacher who preaches hate toward this nation and white people from the pulpit.  Obama seems to claim he slept through every sermon....and never noticed what Rev. Wright was saying.  Gimmee a break.

He lies about being a man of the people. Punahou prep school in Hawaii, and Harvard are NOT common man educations.  His granny, Obama's Momma's Momma, was a bank vice president:  not a "common man" job: and especially in the 1960's!!  Can your kid afford a $10k a year high school or a Harvard education?  Where did the Harvard education money come from Barry...?  I went to Hawaii public schools. I know what Punahou is all about, and my family being an Air Force one, couldn't afford Punahou:  much less Harvard.

He lies about being a socialist, and perhaps even Marxist, in his approach toward American capitalism.  His true colors came out in the "share the wealth" comment.   Or as Karl Marx so capably summarized the prime tenant of Communism:  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Take from the rich, give to the poor.

He lies about his tax plan. Already his "plan to tax the rich" has dropped from $250,000 to $120,000 in income level.  Did you miss that "little adjustment" while you Obama-ites were cheering and waving your signs?  Before he is done there will be more "adjustments."  The middle class WILL be taxed. There will of course be some slick explanations --the economy for example--  but make no mistake the final Obama-Reid-Pelosi plan WILL tax everyone and WILL give handouts to people that don't pay income tax at all. 

Also note: when Obama speaks of this free handout he points out that these folks, the ones who do work "pay payroll taxes" which makes it sound like they pay a "tax."   Folks! The payroll tax is the Social Security and Medicare that all working people pay, the famed "safety net" for retirement:  Obama is obfuscating about people who don't pay income tax --the non-committed money the government can spend for general budget items.  He is speaking about people who will get a chunk of the money YOU have to pay in income tax as a handout, a freebee, money for nothing.  Classic income redistribution or as Obama calls it "share the wealth."

And when Obama-Reid-Pelosi tax the rich and the corporations do you think the rich or the corporations just eat the tax and take an income loss?  Does any business eat an increase in their operating costs?  Does Exxon-Mobile eat an increase in the cost of crude or do they pass it through to YOU at the pump?  Come on people, THINK.  Increase the taxes on business or the private entrepreneur and they simply increase the price they charge YOU.  At the pump, in the store, when you get your house painted, or your car serviced:  YOU, we, everyone pays their tax increase.

America became great, and the richest and most powerful via free market capitalism.  Marxist nations remain poor, backward and bankrupt and third or fourth world:  Russia, Cuba, Albania, China, take your pick.  Only China has really begun a climb to economic success by embracing Western capitalist economic principles. Why would we slide our nation into the pit that socialism digs for the other nations who have embraced it?

He lies about his spending plan.  Where will the money come from Barry?  Trillions for the bailout.  Trillions for new spending programs?  Money for nothing, now money from nothing.  Sleight of hand?  Magic?  Larger and larger deficits?  Or more and more taxes, everywhere for everyone?

He lies about his support for the military and a strong America.  You think the Clinton "Peace Dividend" was rough on the military just wait till you see what Obama would do.  He will gut the military: already there is talk in Democrat aisles of a 25% reduction.

He lies about his stand on abortion.  And no matter what he says now, he has dues to pay to the abortionists.  Both in legislation, and in packing the courts with pro-choice judges.  He can say he "opposes late term abortions," but the judges he appoints to the Federal bench will support them.  Obama knows that, it's a "no risk" statement and a game he plays with words.

He lies about his plan to "fix the health care by taking on the big insurance companies."  How, Barry?  How and what will you do?  He never mentions the problem with runaway civil litigation and the need to reform the tort system.  Could it be the American Trial Lawyers, who Obama is a supporter of, objects? 

He would add millions of illegal aliens to his "plan" sucking the benefits away from you and your family. Watch the lie:  "You will keep your own doctor."  Sure, but your doctor may recommend a proceedure, and be overruled by the Government Health Care Controller Bureaucrats.   Ultimately, you and your doctor may agree on an operation, but the final say will be from a government apparatchik. 

Rationing, which will happen as it does in all socialized health care systems (Britain and Canada for example), will result in operations denied to you and handed out by government controllers to illegal invaders. 

The old  will be denied operations to prolong life in order to hand the operation over to younger people with "more life ahead of them."  Perhaps, your mother will die because she is above a government age limit, and the operation that could save her goes to a foreigner. This isn't fantasy, it already is fact in Britain, and via Obama would come here.

Handing the government to Obama-Pelosi-Reid will transfer control of your health from you, your doctor and your wallet to some faceless government entity with political objectives and not your personal welfare at heart. 

He lies about his stances on gun control.  "I support the Second Amendment, but States and cities should have the power to enact common sense gun safety."  In other words, your right to own a gun is an empty promise in an Obama regime.

He lies about his supposed support for the War on Terror; within a year of being in office, even Afghanistan will be a non-issue and an Obama-Reid-Pelosi team will pull everything out of both Iraq and Afghanistan leaving a power vacuum.  Our enemies will promptly move in and undo all our troops accomplished with the sacrifice of so much blood and treasure.

Worse of all, he lied about, and reneged on his promise to participate in public financing of his campaign.  Instead he has been taking money from anyone, from everywhere. Money from questionable sources, money from overseas sources, money from our enemies who want a weak, inexperienced, pacificist president in the White House and not a strong leader.

His "let us be clear" cliche' is a code for "I am about to lie to you."  When he does speak, it's in vague generalities, in lawyer-speak, which allows him to be obscure when clarity is required,  but a clarity which if stated would give away the game.  He mouths platitudes, bovine scat, of much sound and fury, signifying nothing.  He never tells you HOW he'll pay for his Trillions in new spending plans. 

How he'll "bring jobs back to America."  How Barry?  How do you bring jobs back when labor overseas is cheaper than labor and benefits here?   Import duties and tariffs which will raise the cost of goods to millions of American's? Another hidden tax on the middle class!  Companies moved there, or buy there, to avoid American labor costs and Union problems.  To move the shirt manufacturing job back here you have to make the $5.00 shirt from China as expensive, or more expensive, than the $50 shirt made in New York City. 

Obama, and the Democrat party, which in the past always decried the Republicans ability to raise money for their campaigns, is suddenly flush with unprecedented amounts of cash! Some $150 million in September alone.  Cash which allows Obama to buy 30 minutes of prime time television for an Infomercial, proffering a slick snake oil salesman's pack of lies, mistruths, and distortions, and self-promotion  which would make ay tele-marketer proud.  I suspect that somehow the fanatics of the left like MoveOn or George Soro's (billionaire leftist) has found a way to funnel money into the Obama campaign secretly.  While poor McCain, handcuffed by his fulfilled promise to confine his campaign to public financing rules, and his own McCain-Feingold legislation, struggles with a fraction of the money.   Ultimately, you will get the president which slick money can buy: and who will owe those funding entities big time.

If you are supporting Obama to be part of a historical "first black President" event you are supporting him for the wrong reasons!  If that was actually your purpose where were YOU in 2000 when I was supporting Alan Keyes (a black and a Constitutionalist) for President?  Historical significance is no reason to elect your leader, philosophy and integrity are.  I supported Keyes because he stood for American principles, and not just because he'd have been the first "black President."


No. If you pull the lever for Obama on Tuesday, you are voting for a socialist United States which will be dominated by socialist control of the entire Congress, and the Executive:  ultimately you will pick a socialist Supreme Court too!  Obama is appalled that the Supreme Court never delved into socio-economic equity.  He is upset that they didn't Share the Wealth by judicial fiat.  Any judge Obama picked would have to pass the social(ist) justice litmus test.  

You are voting to choose a Supreme Court, in fact you are shoving the entire Federal judicial system, far into the leftist, socialist, activist camp: as those type judges will be the only ones nominated an confirmed by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi troika. There will be no more attendance to the Constitution by the Courts;  they will be activist, legislating from the bench,  from Federal District to Supreme Court as the Democrat's will rush to appoint liberal, activist judges to all those empty positions they have been dragging their feet about filling for nearly a decade.

You are voting to gut the United States military and why --in a time of international tension and potential military conflict worldwide, a resurgent and militaristic Russia-- would we elect a team which has absolutely no military background?  Obama with no military service, and Biden, a draft dodger from the Vietnam era, versus a real hero and professional soldier John McCain.  And while Sarah Palin also lacks military experience, at least she knows that you aim the pointy end at the bad guys....and can hit what she aims at.

Vote for Obama and you are voting to institute class warfare, socialism, polarization and the ultimately the decline of the United States.


Since the British Nationality Act of 1948, there is in general no restriction, in United Kingdom law, on a British national being a citizen of another country as well. So, if a British national acquires another nationality, they will not automatically lose British nationality. Similarly, a person does not need to give up any other nationality when they become British.

Many other countries, however, do not allow dual nationality. If you have British nationality, and are also a national of a country which does not allow dual nationality, the authorities of that country may either regard you as having lost that nationality or may refuse to recognise your British nationality. If you are a British national, and you acquire the nationality of a country which does not allow dual nationality, you may be required by the other country to renounce (give up) your British nationality in order to retain the other citizenship.

A British person who acquired foreign citizenship by naturalisation before 1949 may have lost British nationality at the time. No specific provisions were made in the 1948 legislation for such former British subjects to acquire or otherwise resume British nationality, and hence such a person would not be a British citizen today. However women who lost British nationality on marriage to a foreign man before 1949 were deemed to have re-acquired British subject status immediately before the coming into force of the 1948 Act.

Renunciation and resumption of British nationality

All categories of British nationality can be renounced by a declaration made to the Home Secretary. A person ceases to be a British national on the date that the declaration of renunciation is registered by the Home Secretary. If a declaration is registered in the expectation of acquiring another citizenship, but one is not acquired within six months of the registration, it does not take effect and you are considered to have remained a British national.

Renunciations made to other authorities are invalid: e.g., a general renunciation made upon taking up U.S. citizenship. The forms must be sent through the UK Border Agency's citizenship renunciation process

British Citizenship by descent

'British Citizenship by descent' is the category for the children born outside the UK to a British citizen. Rules for acquiring British citizenship by descent depend on when the person was born.

Prior to 1983

Prior to 1983, as a general rule British nationality could only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married.

Dual citizenship (United States)

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not, without more, mean that he renounces the other,” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized US citizen has the right to return to his or her native country and to resume his or her former citizenship, and also to remain a US citizen even if he or she never returns to the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) neither defines dual citizenship nor takes a position for it or against it. There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship exists. Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship.[14]

Although the U.S. Government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens. In the past, claims of other countries on dual-national U.S. citizens sometimes placed them in situations where their obligations to one country were in conflict with the laws of the other. However, as fewer countries require military service and most base other obligations, such as the payment of taxes, on residence and not citizenship, these conflicts have become less frequent. As a result, there has been a dramatic increase in recent years in the number of people who maintain U.S. citizenship in other countries.

  1. Can one be the President of the United States with "dual citizenship?"  I don't know. 
  2. Certainly, he is eligible for the Presidency as long as he was "born in the United States." 
  3. But can a "British Citizen" ethically be President?
  4. My research seems to indicate that Mr. Obama needs to renounce his British Citizenship as a affirmative act, and barring that, a passive response means the dual citizenship remains in effect and Obama remains a British Citizen.
  5. Maybe Mr. Obama should "be clear" about that.


Before serving as president:

      Theodore Roosevelt:

  1. Police Commissioner NYC

  2. Assistant Secretary of Navy

  3. Vice President

    Military experience: Colonel, U.S. Volunteers, Spanish American War

Franklin D. Roosevelt

  1. State Senator

  2. Assistant Secretary of Navy

  3. Governor NY

    Military experience:  None

Harry S. Truman

  1. State Judge

  2. U.S. Senator

  3. Vice President

    Military experience:  Capt. Army National Guard, WW-1

Abraham Lincoln

  1. State House member

  2. U.S. House of Representatives

    Military experience:  Capt. Illinois Militia, Blackhawk War

Dwight d. Eisenhower

  1. General, Commanding S.H.A.E.F. (WW-2)

  2. Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

  3. President, Columbia University

  4. Supreme Commander NATO

    Military experience:  Career US Army, West Point Grad., General of the Army

John F. Kennedy

  1. U.S. House of Representatives

  2. U.S. Senate

Military experience:  Lt. Cmdr USNR. WW-2

Of the current candidates to date:

Barrack Hussein Obama

  1. Lawyer

  2. College lecturer

  3. Community Organizer

  4. State Senator

  5. U.S. Senator

    Military experience: NONE

Joseph Robinette Biden

  1. Lawyer

  2. City Council Member

  3. U.S. Senator

    Military experience: NONE same as Dick Cheney: Dodged the draft during Vietnam (But nobody mentions it about Biden)

John Sidney McCain

  1. U.S. Naval Officer

  2. Squadron Commander

  3. Naval Liaison to U.S. Senate

  4. U.S. House of Representatives

  5. U.S. Senator

    Military experience: US Naval Academy Graduate; Pilot; POW; U.S. Navy, VietnamAN

Sarah Louise Heath Palin

  1. TV Reporter

  2. City Council Member

  3. Mayor, Wasilla, AK

  4. Chairwoman, Alaska Oil and Gas Commission

  5. Governor of Alaska

    Military experience: Limited, Commander in Chief Alaska National Guard

There is a list of the pre-presidential experience of some of the "BIG" presidents in our history and frankly of all candidates of all parties in the current election Sarah Palin's experience matches or beats that of all these august gentlemen.

Certainly, her executive experience matches or beats most of them and demonstrably had more executive experience than Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, Truman, Lincoln or Obama and Biden.

The largest group that either Obama or Biden ever managed was their US Senate staffs, which average 46 people. 

46 PEOPLE!! 

Governor Sarah Palin manages 15,000 state employees, a huge state with a population of 700,000 people; and a budget of $ 9 BILLION!

So, don't tell me Sarah Palin is "unqualified!" 


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx.

A friend recently asked me why I always refer to the democrats as 'socialists?,'

"Well," I replied, "because they are." 

Three really fundamental elements define what a socialist is:

First, is the overweening penchant to collect power in a large central government.  To include government control of private industry and wages.

Second, is the struggle of class warfare.  The fight of the proletariat (workers) against the bourgeoisie (middle and upper capitalist economic class).

Third, is income redistribution. "Share the Wealth" or "pay your fair share" as Obama calls it.  That is to take money from some of the population who earned it and give it to another portion of the population who did not. 

Do it with a gun and they call it robbery, do with with a ballot box and taxes and they call it "being progressive."  Interestingly, most communist systems referred to themselves as being "progressive" governments.

Again, Marxism is essentially: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Take from those rich guys, and give it to the poorer guys.

Pit one economic group against the other.

Sound familiar?

Barack Hussein Obama, and his Democrat Party, simply are socialists.


Look people.  Use your heads.  Think a minute...

First, Obama has a HUGE list of new spending programs he would enact.  Every time he opens his mouth some new spending plan gushes forth.  WHO PAYS?  WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM? You cannot spend that kind of money, without either; a) raising taxes for everyone, or b) running up HUGE deficits.  Either is a bad plan, and an even worse plan with our economic woes.

Second, even IF he only raises taxes on those making $250K or more, and on corporations, do you REALLY THINK that those people and corporations EAT that tax increase?  No, those people, and those corporations, simply PASS THOSE COSTS (the taxes) on to the consumer of whatever goods and services they provide by increasing their prices.  THEY PASS THEM ON TO YOU.  Ultimately, you pay the cost of those increased taxes-- Lets say that again: YOU PAY THEIR TAX!  Indirectly, mind you, but you pay it none-the-less. 

So Obama's claim he will only raise taxes on "the wealthy" is only partly true.  Sure, they pay the higher tax, but when you buy the product they produce, or use the service they provide, ultimately it is YOU that pays their higher tax bill. 

Hope that makes you feel better if you are dense enough to elect this fast talking, slick snake oil salesman and  Marxist to the Presidency.


IF you elect the leftist, and very socialist Barry Obama as President you will hand control of the entire federal government over to the socialist party.  The Senate,  House of Representatives  AND the Executive will be fully dominated by a single party for the first time I can recall.  There is a danger here that often goes unspoken in handing the entire government to one party or the other'  much less to a party now so fully committed to class warfare; one moving farther and farther toward rampant Federalism while making ever increasing forays toward  Marxist social and economic philosophy.

Now, I have wished to have my favored party to have such control at one time or another. But when I mulled it over at the time I realized that as much as I would like to have that party be able to ram my favored philosophical stance down the oppositions throats over their resistance, that there was an important "brake" in having an Executive capable of vetoing wrongheaded legislation.  This was one of the famous "checks and balances" you recall being taught about in school.

In fact, originally the US Senate was not elected by the people but was "picked" by their respective state legislatures.  This was the States political infrastructures "check and balance" on the federal legislative:  a check eliminated early in the 20th century.  So now the entire federal legislative branch is picked by popular vote making it little more than a longer seated copy of the House of Representatives.  Which brings us to the last "risk" of a single party domination.

The Senate only 'advises and consents' to Federal judicial appointments:  The President of the United States is the one who proposes/nominates the candidates for those lifetime federal judgeships, from the lowest of Federal District Courts to the Supreme Court of the United States.  Thus, with control of the Senate and control of the Presidency in the hands of one party, that party  have total control over the philosophical makeup of the federal courts and will be making selections that will not just affect us all for the term of that President or Congress.  For while a President will be gone in four to eight years his appointed judges will not.  Those appointed, unelected, and un-removable judges will affect you entire remaining life.

So, if you have liked the path of the federal courts, especially Supreme Courts decisions under the dominance of the Democrat administrations of the past: if you like judges legislating from the bench,  judges engaging in judicial activism,  socialist or statist judges like  Ruth Bader Ginsburg and leaning very far to the left then elect Obama.

However, if you favor the philosophy of constructionist judges like Antonin Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, or Alito then remember that Obama, Pelosi and Reid controlled government will not only not appoint a constructionist but will give us more Ginsburgs.

The next President WILL be appointing no less than probably two Supreme Court justices.  Two appointments will be enough to decisively tip the philosophical makeup of that body one way or the other from it's current teetering 5-4 and 4-5 decision balance.  It would become a solid 5-4 liberal, leftist, activist court.

The boils down to this.

If you want socialism, unchecked federalism and dominance of the nation by one party: Obama is your man.

If you want constructionist judges, checks and balances on the federal government and a balance between the two political parties they requires bi-partisan consensus to rule:  you have to elect McCain.

Obama represents a slippery slope that, once embarked upon, will result in a slide into a one-party system and into socialism which will be both irreversible and fatal to the America that was Lincoln's "the last, best hope of mankind."


I object to the concept of bailing out failing/failed businesses by dipping into the public trough.   It is the very antithesis of capitalism and sets very dangerous precedent. 

Businesses of sufficient gravitas will soon see that no matter how badly they manage their corporate affairs; no matter how gigantic the remuneration or how enormous the "golden parachutes" accorded to the CEO's; that they can simply ignore ethics, good business, accounting or banking principles, run their companies into the ground and trot down to Congress and get the public money necessary to bail them out. 

The more we engage in these public rescues of private mismanagement, on a corporate or even individual basis, the less restraint there is on those entities to practice restraint. A business, or even a personal financial situation, normally uses cost/benefit to establish the levels of risk they can afford against the potential profit or gain from taking that risk.  If someone shows up with a bottomless checkbook and pays the bills when the risk taken fails, then their risk of loss is negated and the cautionary influence of the consequences of that personal or corporate "risk" is lost.

Failure and risk of loss is the governor on the engine of capitalism.  We are now tampering with the basic controls of our financial system.  Bad decisions result in bad outcomes and resultant risks of personal loss.  From my personal budget, to corporate boardrooms and the offices of the CEO this principle is key to restraint and success: a restraint that is rapidly disappearing as we reach deeper and deeper into the public pocket to fund more and more bad business decisions.

The new CEO of the failed, and recently government acquired,  Fannie Mae loan colossus will garner a $900,000 a year salary: which one must note is less than the $1.25 million annual salary of his predecessor, prominent Democrat and Obama advisor Jim Johnson, who actually ran the business into the ground. Judging from that it is crystal clear that the corporate fat cat opportunists will still manage to keep their excessive pay and perks while we, the public, struggle with the cost of those kingly rewards for excessively, un-ethical and perhaps even illegal acts. 

I say let the market forces work.  Let the governor of personal risk and loss work.  Fire everyone in government who got us here.  Let corporate boards and stockholders deal with the corporate pirates who mismanaged and  destroyed those failed businesses, and investigate and prosecute those who broke the law.  Use RICO to seize the outrageously excessive personal profits of the managers of the failed businesses and use that money to reimburse the stockholders and shore up the  company.

Lastly, there is NO constitutional empowerment for the Federal government to engage in this bailout.  It is quite simply extra-constitutional and illegal.  It is a HUGE power grab by government and if we allow it to happen we will live to regret it.

It is harsh medicine to allow someone, or something, to fail but it is the only real cure for the disease.

  •   Observations on an election


Barry Obama is an elitist, is condescending, and arrogant. 

Note that during the debate when Senator McCain directly addressed Senator Obama he corrected addressed his remarks to "Senator Obama."  On the other hand when addressing comments directly to Senator McCain he addressed him as "John." 

Those with a military background will quickly recognize the proper deference to an achieved title, as displayed by Senator McCain, and the disrespectful addressing of a senior Senator as "John."  A subordinate will address a superior NCO or Officer as with their rank.  Senior ranks may address lower ranks by their first name.  In private conversations even unequal ranks may address each other by first names, but in a PUBLIC or OFFICIAL setting the use of first names is improper.

It is no different  in the debate setting.  Both parties when directly addressing each other should use title and last name out of respect and deference to their rank of United States Senator.  Obama's use of the first name was a deliberate put down and a trial lawyer trick to belittle the opponent.

 Senator Obama's use of the first name indicates his lack of hubris and that he simply feels he is so much better than everyone else.  


Over three years ago the Republicans, to include John McCain, raised the issues of the solvency and operation of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac organizations.  Rep Barney Frank, Senator Schumer and the Democrat/socialists went on record touting the efficiency and solvency of both organizations and claiming there was no crisis or problem in their operations.  Of course Fannie Mae these organizations were run by several prominent democrats with connections to the Democrat party and continuing relations with Obama: one being Jim Johnson former Fanny Mae CEO; so is there any wonder that Democrat politicians were blind to the danger?

All the time, these organizations were giving loans to folks who didn't have the means to pay them --which like all welfare programs these loans to unqualified buyers became another Dumbocrat means of buying votes with YOUR tax dollars and dragging the entire US banking system into the mess at the same time-- and set the stage for their later collapse and the endangerment of our whole economic system. 

Democrat mismanagement of the government is directly responsible for the near collapse of our economy.  McCain; the Bush administration, and the republicans were sounding alarms and proposing legislation to regulate and monitor these two organizations over two years ago while the Democrat party stuck it's head in the sand.  Actions were proposed that might had had an affect on this debacle even at that late point; but along straight party lines the legislation was DOA at the committee level and republicans didn't have enough votes.

McCain was there fighting for saving our economy.  The socialist party pandered away in their endless, populist, class warfare fixation, put money in the pockets of the pals, and like Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

McCain was there leading the fight to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barry Obama was absent as usual.

Obama is just a follower and a slick, snake oil salesman, not a leader.



Obama spout volumes of the significance and importance of "change."  But be very careful, because all "change" is not good:  some "change" is bad. 

Hitler's rise to power was "change" from the "old order."

Mussolini was "change." 

The Russian revolution and Stalin's pogroms were "Change." 

Merely shouting CHANGE is not enough.  The change must be good, it must be substantial and effective.  Obama's "change".... isn't. 

In fact, it reminds me of Ross Perot and his "just send me to Washington and I'll fix it"  without ever stating what it was he was going to fix or how he was going to fix it!  Perot's "change" was an empty claim which the Obama campaign is emulating perfectly.


YES!!  Yesterday the SCOTUS in an ideological split decision ruled 5-4 that "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" means just what it  says:  The people, you and me, have a right to possess firearms and the government cannot take that right from law abiding citizens.  This is the first time the Court has directly ruled on the right, and it confirms that it is a right no less eligible for protection and respect than any other of our rights.

What is scary is that this SHOULD have been a 9-0 decision not the 5-4 one.  Even funnier is the activist four are waving their arms about claiming that the constructionist five "invented a new right that did not exist before."   Yet this same crowd that invented a right to abortion in Rowe v. Wade,  where abortion is not even mentioned in the Constitution and the right to arms is. 

The documentation, historical record and words of the framers all supported the right to arms views of gun rights advocates.   If there was a single thought or record  that any  framer would restrict an individuals right to arms then it's the best kept secret in history because not a single record of such a view exists today.   In fact both the Federalist and anti-federalist camps agreed about the importance of a universally armed populace despite their disagreements on other aspects of Mr. Madison's new proposed government.

What is clear is that the activist wing of SCOTUS has, and will continue, to rule from their ideological base views and ignore the historical, documentary and commentaries of our founders.   The responsibility of the SCOTUS under the Constitution and Marbury v. Madison is to INTERPRET the Constitution in accord with the intent of the framers:  not to substitute their social consciousness.

Thus the next election for President becomes critical.    You are only choosing a President for four to eight years but THE PEOPLE THAT THIS PRESIDENT NOMINATES FOR THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE WITH YOU FOR DECADES, PERHAPS FOR YOUR LIFETIME.

You can rest assured that a President Obama, the most liberal Senator in Congress, will replace any retiring SCOTUS justice with another Souter or Ginsburg:  Another social activist who will rule from their ideology rather than the facts.  While McCain isn't my choice, he will get my vote because then at least there is a chance we can replace the socialists on SCOTUS with constructionist scholars.

  •   Which is easier or safer?

  • To keep a dangerous felon who has no business with a gun behind bars, or try to keep a released felon from getting a gun?

  • To establish a government database of people too crazy to have a gun, or to just to keep the crazy people locked up where they can't get a gun?

  • To ban all guns preventing the law abiding from having a gun, or trusting that violent criminals will obey laws preventing them from having guns?

 If anyone is are too crazy or too dangerous, and could not be trusted with a weapon, then they have no business being out and among us.  Criminals don't obey laws, to include gun laws,  --that is why we call them criminals-- while the law abiding do obey them, and gun laws such as the D.C. ban leave the law abiding at the mercy of the criminal class.  Oddly enough, it is the liberal members of the courts who turned the occupants of the mental institutions loose and free violent criminals to prey upon us time after time.

One of these days we will wise up and understand that it's not the tools the criminals and crazies use that is the problem, but it is the perpetrators and their enablers... those august souls in black robes that are the problem.

  •   Well, that's funny

I have been following the D.C. Gun Ban case in the Supreme Court, and it's illuminating.  If you want to see people squirm on a impaling pole of their own making you HAVE to read some of the briefs in support of the gun ban.   One from several states attorney's general, only 6 to be exact, argue that the Court should not rule, but refer the subject back to the "states" for redress of their issue as that, and not the Federal court, is the best venue for protecting their rights. 


In simple terms: "Please, please SCOTUS don't even look at the right being violated here!"  The failure of States to protect individual rights is exactly why this case is there in the first place!  The states and even the Federal government has been blatantly violating the 2nd Amendment for decades.  Civil rights HAVE been violated by the states, and the ONLY cure is a SCOTUS ruling to stop it.

These leftist's are the SAME people who in every other instance of violations of provisions of the Constitution use SCOTUS specifically to deny the States from controlling individual rights.  Are they now saying the Fed's shouldn't be ruling on abortion, or free speech, or search and seizure, or the death penalty:  that the states should have control because the States know best what their people need! As long as it's about the right to arms I guess.  Holy Cow!! Suddenly the left wants' to dump incorporationist doctrine, where the Federal government enforces civil rights via the Constitution, and remand it back to the states as the SCOTUS did, or used to do, over 130 years ago.

If the issue weren't so serious, and so critical, their comments and arguments would be funny.   They want their cake and eat it too...

Look folks, here's the fact.  In 1789-91  when the constitution and first ten amendments were written and adopted,  private citizens could own private warships, the famed "Privateers", armed with cannon to raid our enemy's shipping.  There was no license per se to arm the ships, as private merchant vessels also carried small cannon for defense, the only paperwork were "Letters of Marque", which simply legally prevented the privateers from being hung as pirates. 

So if private citizens in 1789 could own warships, what does that say about the right to arms and any attempt to limit it? 

If I could legally put a cannon on my merchant vessel, do you think the government would be too concerned with the ownership of rifles or pistols?

People have a RIGHT to arms.  They have a RIGHT to self defense.  The D.C. law violates BOTH rights.  The Heller case is long overdue.  At a minimum, I suspect, that government will be barred from banning all arms, especially if kept in the home for self-defense or other lawful purposes.  At the extreme we could see a ruling the affirms the 2nd Amendment Right to Arms and an affirmation of the preclusion of government(s) from restricting lawful possession and use of arms in general.

  •   Sorry but....

All muslims are not terrorists..... but all the terrorists were muslim.

Draw your own conclusions.  It is not the "religion of peace."


I have long argued about the dangers of the illegal alien (largely Mexican) invasion of the United States.   The fact is that according to U.S. sources 30,000 people, the equivalent of TWO U.S. ARMY DIVISIONS, are illegally entering the United States  each MONTH.   The Mexican government states that 500,000 Mexicans enter illegally each year, and  over 300,000 never return to Mexico.

We don't really need "immigration reform."  We NEED government at all levels to enforce the laws already on the books.  

A fence is FINE but is a "Maginot Line" mentality unless coupled with a defense in depth!

In 1976 if I called the Immigration and Naturalization Service because I had stopped some illegal aliens, the INS sent agents to take them into custody and deport them.

By 1986 the first flood of some THREE MILLION illegal aliens were legitimized and granted legal status in the first amnesty.  Laws were tightened to stop the flood but the Federal government simply refused to enforce them against either the aliens or the employers that hired illegal aliens.   If I called INS in 1986 regarding illegal aliens I had stopped, they often responded but simply issued the aliens a written notice to leave the country.

By 2006 the flood reached 12 MILLION new illegal aliens.  Today, if I call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (the new name of INS) they don't come out, they don't give anyone notice, they simply ignore our plight and the gross violation of our laws by the invaders.

Twenty years after the first amnesty the calls are once again out for another amnesty. 

Idiots claim we "can't deport them all."  Perhaps, but in reality we can at least try. We can't catch every burglar or every thief either but that doesn't mean we give up trying to arrest them.

Most of the illegal aliens would depart the country on their own by simply taking the following steps:

  1. Make it a felony to be illegally in the United States; excepting an expired or overstay on an official visa which would be a misdemeanor.

  2. Make it a felony to hire illegal aliens

  3. Make it a felony to hide, import, assist or transport illegal aliens.

  4. Withhold Federal funds from any state or municipality refusing to enforce immigration laws, or establishing "sanctuaries".

  5. Bar illegal aliens from any public assistance: welfare, ADC, etc.

  6. Provide a 90 day window to exit the U.S. without prosecution

  7. Those exiting can then apply for re-admission using existing channels and procedures.

  8. Those caught inside the U.S. after the 90 day window are permanently barred from application for entry.

  9. Begin apprehending the 12 million, ONE AT A TIME IF NECESSARY, until they are all deported.

  10. Change the Constitution so that automatic citizenship status is NOT granted to ANYONE simply born in the United States: even to illegal alien parents.  At least ONE of your parents should already be a citizen for you to gain citizenship by birth.

  11. No guest worker program until the border security, citizenship and benefits issues are corrected.

Look, I am NOT anti-immigrant as part of my family came from Sweden in the huge LEGAL immigration wave in the early 1900's. That is the difference: my Swedish great-grandparents did so LEGALLY!    They conformed with the regulations and fully integrated with their new countries customs, language and laws.  My father, the son of an immigrant, speaks no Swedish despite having a Swedish born mother.   They came here to become, and they became, AMERICANS.

The new wave simply doesn't want to be "American."  They don't assimilate, don't give up their native tongue, and don't identify with the U.S., as witnessed by the Mexican and other foreign  flags being waved at the protests.

I am not racist, because I believe the the growing number of Irish illegal aliens also need to be apprehended and deported.  Illegal aliens are illegal aliens and ALL need to be located and deported no matter what race, color, creed or national origin.

The bottom line is this: 

In 1986 it was three million illegal aliens.

In 2006 it is 12 million illegal aliens. 

Leave this problem unchecked or, worse,  grant another amnesty?

The next wave of illegal invaders may number 50 million by 2026.

It is your choice and your country.  Take action and require your legislators to act, or have your country stolen from you by the invaders.

  •   The new elite II

Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi is a prime example of the new peerage of the United States, that elite is the "career politician."  Examine the two predominate groups that increasingly dominate the members of Congress, and found in both parties.  Lawyers, who constitute the largest single occupation group, and those politicians who's families have made lifelong careers of political jobs:  Pelosi, Gore, and a score of others are in this latter group. The newest iteration of this is the billionaire politician, like Bloomberg, whose party affiliation is a mask to facilitate election and which represents no political philosophical stand.  A mask which can be changed at the drop of a hat.  And who, with their vast financial resources, can literally BUY their way into public office by outspending their opposition.

They are the new elite, the new lords of the realm, and their wealth and connections close the door on most new aspirants to political service who cannot afford the cost of the campaign nor have the personal connections to exploit in their campaigns against entrenched incumbents.

The time has come for term limits on Congress.  No longer should this public function be relegated to a career long occupation.  All members should be limited to two consecutive terms.   Note that is two consecutive, if they are that indispensable then they should be allowed to run again after a break in service, however, the current endless, consecutive, lifetime careers in Congress must end.

  1. All Congressmen should be limited to two consecutive, contiguous terms.  We limit the President, why not the Congress?

  2. They should be allowed to run again after a minimum one term break in service.

  3. Congress should return to a part-time body meeting not more than three or four months per year; then adjourn till the following calendar year

  4. Congressional pay and benefits should mirror median constituent pay and benefits.  That is average median family income plus 20% for their service.

  5. The exorbitant Congressional retirement system should be abolished so as not to provide an incentive to make it a permanent career.

  6. Repeal the 17th Amendment, and return the selection of US Senators to selection by their respective State legislators.

  7. Special Congressional exemptions for compliance with Federal Law should be abolished.

  •   A victory for rights and the constitution!!

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dumps over two decade old D.C. gun ban and rules the 2nd Amendment IS an individual right.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."  -William Pitt

I never trust the "necessity" argument in government.  Some current candidates for political office are into the "necessity" thing.  One for example, "supports the 2nd Amendment," but says that some cities, because of their unique situations, must be allowed to violate the Constitution and pass gun control acts.    What two faced BUNKUM.

However, listeners.... there is HOPE.  In a landmark  2-1 decision the Court found that the language of the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is clear and unequivocal.  That the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is indeed an individual right and not some collective reference to the governments power to arm the military.  This view is rapidly becoming more and more common and this case joins several where the right is clearly expressed as "individual" placing it at odds with a 9th District California ruling that holds it as a collective.  It further reflects that several decades of Constitutional research are finally bearing fruit as the historical record of the Framers intent is finally coming to light. 

This is being considered by the SCOTUS and again demonstrates the extreme importance of electing constitutionalists to the legislatures and the Presidency to ensure that the left-wing socialists and judicial activists who formulated the fallacious "collective right" heresy beginning in the early 1900's do NOT have the courts under their control.  As MLK said, "A right delayed is a right denied" and this decision sounds the death knell of twenty years of denial of a right that not only did NOT cut D.C.'s ever burgeoning crime and violence, but was a gross violation of the human, individual and Constitutional rights of it's citizens.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Federal government has NEVER had a power to regulate private arms, it was and is specifically barred from doing so and any attempt to do so is anti-constitutional.  Further, that since the application of the Bill of Rights to the States, the protections of the 2nd Amendment also apply to the actions of the States and their political subdivisions.  Gun control is, was and always will  be an illegal intrusion into individual rights.   The sooner we understand that, the better our respect for all Constitutional Rights, our personal safety and the strictures on our government will be.

Without a solid Constitutionalist majority in SCOTUS the Court will be left with three options should a case like this come before them, and I have lectured on this before.

  1. Take the case and basically lie about what the 2nd Amendment means:  Leaving all the unconstitutional violations of rights in place and intact and pulling the rug out from under all we nasty "gun nuts"  but risking the Dread Scott case embarrassment of being later overturned by a more illuminated set of justices and suffering the condemnation of history.

  2. Take the case and tell the truth.  But in doing so, throwing the entire body of over 14,000 national, state and local gun control laws onto the trash heap of overturned unconstitutional acts.

  3. Don't take the case.  Leaving the status quo of ambiguity and constitutional effrontery in place and unrequited  This folks, is the safe path.  And while Scalia and Thomas would take the case in a New York Minute, I have doubts about the others.  As Sir Thomas More so aptly put it "There is safety in silence."

Time will tell....

For those interested I have further essays on the matter in the RTKBA STUFF sections.  Give them a look, and tell me what you think.  The mailbox is indeed my e-mail link:  Pick up the keyboard, send me a line.  

  •   A note on global warming and b.s. science.

First, let's consider that not two decades ago the environmental whacks were predicting a "new ice age" and now they have flopped 180 degrees to "global warming."  That said, this is how stupid the environmentalist whacks think you are, or alternatively, how stupid THEY are and why I do not trust them.

"...melting sea ice also raises worldwide sea levels, with potentially significant effects for coastal cities and towns."  

HUH?  Sea Ice?  Ice floating in the water?

Pardon my science, but please tell me, if you have filled to the rim glass of tea with ice cubes in it, does the tea overflow the rim when the ice melts? 

Do we understand volume and displacement?  The entire North Pole ice pack (sea ice) could melt and not raise the worlds ocean levels one inch. Ice floating in water has already displaced all the volume it can and if it melts it raises nothing.  The water ice DISPLACED the same volume of water as a solid as it will as a liquid.  Now LAND ICE, ice which is sitting on solid ground, which does not displace water in the oceans until it melts and runs into the sea, WOULD raise sea levels; but by how much?

 251,327,412  approximate surface area of earths oceans in square miles

~29,340,000  estimates of ice caps on ground (land ice)  in cubic meters

Rise in sea level if all land ice melted:  The final result, according to many, would would be around 66 meters rise.  Bad.... Yes.  Disastrous?  No.

The earth has been warming since the last great ice age, with some colder decades, a period of 16,000 years to get where we are today.  The shorelines back then were different as the sea level dropped as the water built up on land: Remember, water doesn't disappear, it merely changes it's state or location.  Let's say, for example, at the height of the Great Ice Age it the ocean depth was 180 feet lower than today.  Back then, the Chesapeake Bay was dry land, NY's Long Island, wasn't an island, Pamlico Sound was dry land, there were no Outer Banks, and the English Channel was a land bridge to France. When the ice ages ended and the earth warmed the land ice melted and the sea rose. Chances are human inputs to that trend over these first 100 years of the industrial era were minimal.  Just as human attempts to stop that 16k year warming trend are probably minimally effective, and to be honest a blatant display of human arrogance. 

The worlds ice won't melt in a year.  Not even 100 years, so even if it all melted the 180 foot rise in ocean levels would be spread over alsmost 1000 years.    It won't be a wave of water washing ashore, but a gradual encroachment onto land in fractions of inches a year. Plenty of time to adjust our habitation issues.

For more information:

  •   Why West Virginia is an illegal state

"Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."  Article 1, Section 3, Constitution of the United States

During the War of Northern Aggression, the Union stripped away  Virginia's western counties in June of 1863 and created the State of West Virginia.  According the language of the Constitution, that was illegal.


That means that what the Unionists call the "Civil War" was not.  Because IF it was a true "Civil War" then West Virginia could NOT be admitted to the Union as it was "within the jurisdiction of another State" (Virginia), and Virginia did not provide " the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

Now, if the War was a war between to independent nations then the North, by right of conquest, could do whatever it pleased with the conquered areas of the nation they were fighting without violation of the Constitution, which would no longer apply to the Confederacy.  But, if the Confederacy were really just "states in rebellion" then the United States government would be bound by the Constitution and not able to legally create West Virginia.  So West Virginia is an illegal, un-constitutional creation.  

As they DID create West Virginia then there was no "Civil War" but simply an invasion of one sovereign nation by another: thus, the War of Northern Aggression.  Sorry West Virginian's.......  Maybe we Virginian's should sue to get our counties back.


  •   Uncivilized and loved by the left

Updated: 2:51 p.m. ET Jan 24, 2007

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Four of the five Americans killed when a U.S. security company’s helicopter crashed in a dangerous Sunni neighborhood in central Baghdad were shot execution style in the back of the head, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Wednesday.

A senior Iraqi military official said a machine gunner downed the helicopter, but a U.S. military official in Washington said there were no indications that the aircraft, owned by Blackwater USA, had been shot out of the sky. Two Sunni insurgent groups, separately, claimed responsibility for the crash.

In Washington, a U.S. defense official said four of the five killed were shot in the back of the head but did not know whether they were still alive when they were shot. The defense official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record."

The leftist and the socialist press in America, the partners of Al Quieda and the 9th Century Islamo-fascists, decry that we "torture" people at Abu Grahib by making them get naked will probably ignore this news article.  But the fact is that the enemy, their leftist support and  islamo-facist buddies, perform these acts as routine of their daily life whether it Iraqi's opposed to them, or the shot down and injured prisoners whom they execute in a cold blooded and inhumane fashion.  They are cowards! They exact their sick, perverse and evil design from hiding: they deliberately attack the helpless, the wounded, the innocent and the unarmed - all in the name of Allah. 

Show me where American's drag the injured out and shoot them in the back of the head.  Show me where American's intentionally blow up markets full of women and children!   Show me the mass executions conducted by Americans.  Show me Americans dragging dead bodies down the road and hanging them from bridges.  THEN come back and call us the terrorists.  No, only the Islamo-fascists, assorted other terrorist groups like Hammas or the PLO do that.  And their "American"  propagandist buddies and socialist apologists support that buy supporting and defending the terrorists, while condemning America. 

Americans have been and are the humane ones.  The transgressions of the American fighting man in combat are few, so few as to the statistically insignificant, versus our enemies who use brutality an inhumanity as a standard tool. 

I am sorry, but in point of fact, we ARE better than they.  We are more humane, more civilized and are morally superior.  We are more free,  kinder and more tolerant than they. It's a fact and we need to quit apologizing for it, and more importantly stop allowing the propagandists to get away with attacking our civilization and systems.  

"All that it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."    There is evil in the world, and IF WE RUN FROM IT THEN EVIL SUCCEEDS.


  •   BYE, BYE, U.S.A.

Well, the voters have spoken.  The choice of Americans is to install the socialists as the governing body for the nation.  There is no other way to describe this other than a defeat for the constitutionalist view of government and a vote for "cradle to the grave" socialism.  The terrorist cabal's plan of affecting the American election was successful.

The troops in Iraq, and the Iraqi's themselves,  can expect to receive the same treatment in the next two years as the troops in Vietnam and the Vietnamese did.  There will be a troop withdrawal, followed by a hollow declaration of victory and the eventual surrender of the region to whatever forces are willing to step into the vacuum left by our departure. Funding and supplies to the former ally will be cut off and they will be left to fend on their own. The code word used to mask the retreat is 'REDEPLOYMENT'.

The ability of the NSA and other intelligence groups to gather information on the terrorists will be severely hampered by Dumbo-crat intransigence, and their RINO affiliates, and America will again be exposed to undetected threats from these murderous groups.  We will again be more open to attack from without and, sadly, within.

We have signaled to an implacable enemy, Islamofacistic Fundamentalism, that we do not have the gall to fight.  That we will retreat when the going gets a bit rough, and that the deaths of 3,000 in the WTC attacks can be ignored  and 3,000 killed in the war was simply too much blood and treasure for our nation to bear.  This message will resound to the rest of the world and our other enemies.  They will advance whenever we retreat.  They will attack when we recoil from the conflict.  It is the nature of the beast we face.

With the socialists in the tree huggers pocket, there will absolutely no chance of getting needed areas containing invaluable oil reserves opened for drilling.  We will sit idly by while the Chinese are able to drill and recover oil on our own continental shelf, within our view, while we are prohibited by a leftist Congress, pandering to the environmentalist whack's, from doing the same.

  • Your taxes will go up.
  • The economy will begin to weaken.
  • Unemployment will rise.
  • Traitors will continue to spew national secrets and compromise our safety.
  • Service in defense of the nation on the field will continue to be by only those willing to make the sacrifice, while far too many others reject their obligation to national service.
  • The encroachment of anti-constitutional federalism will continue and the central power will continue to grow unabated as both sides spar for the wheelhouse of that power.
  • There will be more assaults on the Constitution as the leftists renew their gun control agenda, an agenda which they  have cleverly soft-pedaled since losing control of Congress and the Presidency six years ago.
  • There will be no progress on controlling illegal immigration. Those steps already taken will be undone or simply un-funded and left to whither on the vine.  There will emerge a "guest worker" program linked to a "path to citizenship," which will result in the admission of tens of millions of lawbreakers to the United States as "legal residents."  The loss of control of our borders ultimately signifies the death of the United States.  We WILL slowly and inexorably become a nation of illegal foreigners as the rising flood of invaders will now continue unchecked.  No nation can survive that cannot control it's borders:  It's that simple.

Like Rome at the height of it's political, military and economic power we too may be already doomed and are ignorant of the fact of our own demise.  Torn asunder by enemies from without, and the secret, dark, sinister enemies within.  Enemies who have perverted and twisted this nation into a hollow shell of its former grandeur.  Enemies who have rendered the term "treason" to the nation meaningless by turning the sacred right of free political speech into an excuse for pandering national secrets to our enemies, or for shallow political purposes.  Enemies who take pleasure in the death of American troops and who routinely and with impunity render "aid and comfort to enemies of the United States."  Enemies in the politicians who say little, promise much, and pander to the factions for their favor; not in the name of principle, but in the blatant and arrogant quest for power and personal aggrandizement.  Doomed. 

  • Doomed. If there is not a repudiation of the self-destructive practices of politicians who sell votes for favors --or who legislate favors for votes: the ultimate corruption of the political will.  Politician who do not stand on principle but rather stand on exit polls, focus groups or wind vanes to determine their principles.  Variable principles are worse than no principles at all: Stand for something, or stand aside.
  • Doomed.  If we do not recognize that there IS such a thing as treason that must be identified and punished as it endangers the collective whole.   Release of national secrets that compromise our safety must be prosecuted at every venue it occurs: Individual, press, government, or corporate.    Make no mistake, there must always be freedom, but freedom entails personal, governmental and even corporate responsibility, lest anarchy erupt. Violators of the national security must be punished.
  • Doomed. Unless there is a reverence for ALL our Constitutional rights, to include the right to arms.  And these rights MUST be viewed  within the framework of the Constitution, fully reconciled with intent of the founders, by judges who rule on a constitutionally sound basis and not pressing their personal social or political agenda from the bench.  Did our founders fight to overthrow one tyrant with crown and scepter only  to replace him with twelve tyrants in black robes and gavels?
  • Doomed.  Unless we repudiate class warfare and recognize that it is capitalism, a free marketplace, and democratic values that made this nation great: not social programs, wealth redistribution, or the "bread and circuses" trappings of socialist dogma. 
  • Doomed. Unless we realize that as much as we yearn for peaceful co-existence with other nations or other creeds, that there are some who remain our implacable enemies, sworn and dedicated to our destruction. That no negotiation, no compromise, no accommodation is possible with them.   In reality, even co-existence is unthinkable in their eyes: extermination is their goal.  With such a foe the only recourse is be a slave to their will or  to fight.   The nation that cannot or, worse yet, will not fight for it's national existence is doomed.  We must be willing to fight to be a nation and we must initiate universal national service to that end.  Service, where the cost in blood and treasure is born by all our citizens regardless of wealth, position or status and without exception. The sharing of personal risk in defense of the Republic is the right, duty and obligation of it's citizens to each other.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.       --- John Stuart Mill, English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

  • Doomed.  Unless we take control of our borders.  Not just a "Maginot Line" defensive "border fence," a meaningless icon to placate a political groundswell; but a real defense in depth where every level of national, state, local government and the private sector work in concert to deny employment, housing, benefits to illegal aliens ; and to identify, apprehend, incarcerate and deport illegal aliens.
  • Doomed. Unless the American people awake and take action and return to the Constitutionalist path our forbearers established.  The unchecked growth of the Federal colossus must be reversed and we must return to the Constitution of the founders.  Change and growth of the Constitution  must be by Constitutional Amendment, not by Federal legislative coup.   The Constitution IS our declaration of principles; live with it, or die by it, for we cannot live without it and remain a people.

Two years hence, there will be another opportunity to restore a glimmer of hope that America can survive, mirrored in the outcome of the 2008 elections.  Either one party or the other, or a new party altogether, needs to take the banner and lead us forth, or we as a nation will be consigned to the ash heap of history as just another failed "noble" experiment.

  •   illegal alien protests

If American companies know they will have to close, or reduce service,  in response to the illegal alien protests, then it indicates that those companies are knowingly employing illegal aliens in violation of existing law. 

We need to pay attention to those companies violating our immigration laws,  which apparently include McDonald's, Tyson and Purdue, and stop using their products.  They are providing the economic attraction that is drawing these invaders here, and providing the jobs that are keeping them here. 

Further, they are exploiting these people; using them as a source of cheap labor as they are able to pay less then they would if an American had the job.  This source of cheap labor depresses wages and forces Americans out of these jobs due to the substandard wage.  So, despite claims to the contrary these invaders DO take jobs away from our own citizens.

Seen this guy's picture at the May Day protests?

Che Guevara!! 


Cuban revolutionary. 


I also find it interesting that the illegal aliens choose the Communist's big day:  May the 1st, May Day, as their day of protest.  Especially as so many are sporting Che Guevara posters or t-shirts.   Che Guevara being the Cuban Communist agitator who died trying to ferment Communist revolutions in many south and central American countries.

If the Republican's think they are going to gain votes from this crowd, they are wrong: dead wrong.  Most of the new voters that will be created by the illegal alien amnesty will be going to the left.  The Democrat's will garner the votes and know it; which is why most Democrats are so in favor of guest worker programs, 'paths to citizenship', and amnesties.

Make no mistake.  If the flood continues, --and it will unless the House bill is adopted which will make it a felony to hire, hide, support, or be here illegally--, then this nation could be forced into being bi-lingual before 2025 and over 51% Hispanic by 2050.  California is already there, and if you watch what is happening there, you can see where the whole nation will be when the flood finally overwhelms us.

We need to demand that the Federal government execute it's responsibilities to enforce immigration law. This current problem is the result of Bush One, Clinton, and Bush Two IGNORING this problem for two decades.  Now, they want to wring their hands, claim that "we can't deport them all" and solve the problem by legitimizing the lawbreakers.


The balance sheet on illegal immigrants


  • They take jobs Americans won't do (Sure, sure.  Maybe if the cheap labor wasn't there the jobs would pay more and Americans could/would take them)

  • They contribute to the economy (Not!  See below.)

  • They pay taxes.  (Some do, some don't.  Sometimes they evade taxes.  See below.)


  • They ARE criminals:  They ARE breaking the law. 

  • Their presence encourages others to also come here and break the law.

  • They take jobs by depressing the wage rates for those jobs to impossibly low levels that Americans cannot afford to take.

  • They destroy the rule of law by ignoring the laws on immigration

  • They encourage American companies to hire illegal aliens  for the economic benefits of the cheap labor.

  • They drain state and local economies by ignoring state and local laws on taxation and licensing

  • They don't pay local taxes.

In Virginia, illegal aliens are registering their cars and getting drivers licenses from North Carolina (the rules there are liberal) and thus deprive Virginia of those fees.  As the property tax rolls on VA vehicles are derived from motor vehicle registrations these illegal aliens are NOT PAYING local property taxes.

  • They place a unsupportable burden on public services

  • They are bankrupting hospitals, and school systems in border states

  • They are NOT assimilating as previous waves of immigrants, but rather choose to remain linked to their native culture

Once legalized, and voting, these illegal invaders will instantly skew the political picture in the United States.

Within one generation the children of the illegal aliens will be moving up the economic ladder to BETTER jobs (the American Dream) and leave a vacuum that must be filled by new waves of cheap labor.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  The fact is, anyway you slice it, the illegal aliens are more of a burden than a benefit.

  •   Ain't it the truth?

In the year 2005, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated,  and I see the end of all flesh before me.  Build  another  Ark  and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans."

He  gave Noah the blueprints, saying, "You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will  start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later,  the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark.

"Noah!" He  roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?"

"Forgive  me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed a building permit. I've been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I've violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to  go to the Development Appeal Board for a  decision. Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be  posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead  obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that  the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on  cutting local trees in order to save the  spotted owl. I tried to convince  the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no  go!

When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued  me. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will.  They argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane  to  put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the EPA  ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood.  I'm still  trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many  minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew.  Immigration and  Naturalization is checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work. The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I  have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience.   To  make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the  country illegally with endangered species. 

 So, forgive  me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this  Ark."

Suddenly the skies cleared, the  sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky. 

  Noah looked  up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy the world?"

"No," said the Lord. "The government beat me to  it."

  •   The truth about islamo-fascism

On September 11th 2001 I witnessed the most terrible thing I have ever seen in my 49 years on the planet.  That life experience includes one major war and 30 years as a street cop.  I still have problems accepting the reality of it, and keep hoping its a bad dream: born out of the pages of a Tom Clancy novel.  But in the end it remains reality...

There is no possible justification for the horrendous, inhuman, vicious, and cowardly attacks launched by misguided religious fanatics; funded by an insane millionaire.  

Terrorists, who attack the innocent, are like termites.  They gnaw at the very foundation of our society and our humanity.  

You cannot "bargain" with termites.  

You cannot "reason" with termites. 

You cannot reach an "accord" with termites. 

You cannot "assume the blame" for the termites doing what termites do, the existence of termites is not the fault of the house or house owner.  Termites do what termites do, because they are termites: period.

You cannot pick which termites have actually  just chewed on your house, killing only them, and ignore the vast colony lurking underground nearby-- waiting.

There is only one "cure" for termites. 

If we don't have the guts to do it, then the termites will be back for more.






These WebPages and their content are the product, property and opinions of it's author, me.  Updated: 01/18/2014 19:44:06      © Copyright 1998 William L. Liddell