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.
what kind of government have we wrought?" She asked.
Franklin replied, "A
Republic, Madam, if we can keep it."
remember folks: TANSTAAFL!
There ain't no such thing as a free
"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."
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."
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
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,
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
(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
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that
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
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
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
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.
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).
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
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
Debate is Irrelevant
Folks, this is it in a nutshell. We have a President
who ignores the laws he is sworn to enforce.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Implicit here, but ignored by the press, is that the Justice
Department will not be prosecuting anyone for intentionally disobeying
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.
CLOSE OUR EMBASSIES, AND BRING OUR PEOPLE, AND TROOPS HOME.
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
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.
- The House of Islam: You are Muslim.
- The House of War: You are an Infidel, and either convert to
Islam or die.
- 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.
I WILL NOT MINCE WORDS...
If you support Obama, or any "Progressive" Democrat, you are supporting
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.
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
HEY, O'REILLY, GET A CLUE!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
THE WAR OF ISLAM ON THE WEST IS NOT NEW
“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.”
Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul
Rahman Adja to Thomas Jefferson, March
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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?
|TOTAL FEDERAL DEBT
|2011 FEDERAL DEFICIT
|AVERAGE U.S. FAMILY INCOME (2008)
POPULATION OF U.S.
|AMOUNT OF U.S. DEBT PER US CITIZEN
|AMOUNT OF U.S. DEBT PER US
See the "magic" of debt in real time....
The U.S. Debt Clock:
A MISTAKE OR AN INTENTIONAL OMISSION?
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.
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."
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.
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?
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."
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.
HOW TO BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET
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
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.
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
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
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:
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.
Place sufficient troops
in the FNDZ to Secure the Borders from illegal invasion
Enlarge the Immigration
and Customs Enforcement agency to allow internal enforcement of
Enlarge the U.S. Border
patrol and bolster it's presence on the border
PUT PEOPLE WHO HIRE
ILLEGAL ALIENS IN JAIL!
PUT PEOPLE WHO HIRE
ILLEGAL ALIENS IN JAIL! (Yes, I said it twice.)
PUT PEOPLE WHO CONCEAL,
PROTECT, OR SHELTER ILLEGAL ALIENS IN JAIL.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Deny admission of
illegal aliens to all State funded institutions of learning:
municipal school systems or state universities.
Deny funding to all
State funded institutions of learning, municipal school systems or
state universities who allow admission of illegal aliens.
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.
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
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
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
THE UNITED STATES IS BANKRUPT, AND THE SOCIALISTS SPEND ON
If you voted for the socialists you deserve what you get, but the rest of us
and the nation do no.
|TOTAL ESTIMATED DEBT
|2009-10 BUDGET DEFICIT
|2007 BUDGET DEFICIT
|2010 ANNUAL BUDGET
|2008 ANNUAL BUDGET
|AVERAGE U.S. FAMILY INCOME (2008)
|POPULATION OF U.S.
|AMOUNT OF U.S. DEBT PER US CITIZEN
|AMOUNT OF U.S. DEBT PER US
|POPULATION OF EARTH
|AMOUNT WE COULD GIVE EACH HUMAN ON PLANET
EARTH FOR $10 TRILLION
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
US DEBT CLOCK
Gosh and BOTH his parents were black!
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%
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
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
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
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.
DUAL NATIONALITY AND DUAL CITIZENSHIP (British)
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
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
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
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
UK Border Agency's citizenship renunciation
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
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
oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced
to require the actual termination of original citizenship.
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
- Can one be the President of the United States with "dual citizenship?"
I don't know.
- Certainly, he is eligible for the Presidency as long as he was "born
in the United States."
- But can a "British Citizen" ethically be President?
- 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
- Maybe Mr. Obama should "be clear" about that.
Before serving as
Police Commissioner NYC
Assistant Secretary of
Colonel, U.S. Volunteers, Spanish American War
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Assistant Secretary of
Capt. Army National Guard, WW-1
State House member
U.S. House of
Capt. Illinois Militia, Blackhawk War
Chief of Staff, U.S.
Supreme Commander NATO
Career US Army, West Point Grad., General of the Army
U.S. House of
Lt. Cmdr USNR. WW-2
current candidates to date:
City Council Member
NONE same as Dick Cheney: Dodged the
draft during Vietnam (But nobody mentions it about Biden)
U.S. Naval Officer
Naval Liaison to U.S.
U.S. House of
Naval Academy Graduate; Pilot; POW; U.S. Navy, VietnamAN
Louise Heath Palin
City Council Member
Mayor, Wasilla, AK
Chairwoman, Alaska Oil
and Gas Commission
Governor of Alaska
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.
Governor Sarah Palin
manages 15,000 state employees, a huge state with a population of 700,000
people; and a budget of $ 9 BILLION!
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
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.
Barack Hussein Obama,
and his Democrat Party, simply are socialists.
Look people. Use your heads. Think
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
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
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
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
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."
BAILOUTS AND THE NEGATION OF RISK
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
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
Mussolini was "change."
The Russian revolution and Stalin's pogroms
Merely shouting CHANGE is not enough.
The change must be good, it must be substantial and effective. Obama's
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
PRAISE THE CONSTRUCTIONISTS!!
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
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
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.
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.
REGULATION TO ELECTED
MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS."
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
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
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.
All muslims are not
terrorists..... but all the terrorists were muslim.
Draw your own conclusions.
It is not the "religion of peace."
IMMIGRATION: TOLD YA SO.
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:
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.
Make it a felony to hire
Make it a felony to hide,
import, assist or transport illegal aliens.
Withhold Federal funds from
any state or municipality refusing to enforce immigration laws, or
Bar illegal aliens from any
public assistance: welfare, ADC, etc.
Provide a 90 day window to
exit the U.S. without prosecution
Those exiting can then
apply for re-admission using existing channels and procedures.
Those caught inside the
U.S. after the 90 day window are permanently barred from application for
Begin apprehending the 12
million, ONE AT A TIME IF NECESSARY,
until they are all deported.
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
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,
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.
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.
All Congressmen should be
limited to two consecutive, contiguous terms. We limit the
President, why not the Congress?
They should be allowed to
run again after a minimum one term break in service.
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
Congressional pay and
benefits should mirror median constituent pay and benefits. That is
average median family income plus 20% for their service.
Congressional retirement system should be abolished so as not to provide
an incentive to make it a permanent career.
Repeal the 17th Amendment,
and return the selection of US Senators to selection by their respective
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.
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.
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
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
"...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
~29,340,000 estimates of ice caps on ground (land ice) in
Rise in sea level if all land ice melted: The final result,
according to many, would would be around 66 meters rise. Bad.... Yes.
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: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
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
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
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
"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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
this guy's picture at the May Day protests?
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.
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
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
Once legalized, and voting,
these illegal invaders will instantly skew the political picture in the
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.
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
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
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.
attack the innocent, are like termites. They gnaw at the very
foundation of our society and our humanity.
You cannot "bargain"
You cannot "reason"
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--
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.
01/18/2014 19:44:06 ©
Copyright 1998 William L. Liddell