The Supremely Endangered Court

It's a great day for the second amendment today as the Supreme Court ruled against the high crime city of Chicago's handgun ban. The handgun ban is of course part of why Chicago has such high crime in the first place.

Common Sense:

Criminals don't follow the law, that's why they are criminals. When you ban guns from law abiding citizens with blatantly unconstitutional laws the only people left with the guns are the criminals.

Never forget what happened during Hurricane Katrina when the Bush administration forcefully, (and unconstitutionally), took handguns from legal owners: looting, raping, crime. The criminals had the advantage since they knew the guns were gone.

There's a huge problem with today's ruling though and I haven't seen anyone talking about it yet. The decision was 5 - 4!! That's no reason to be happy. This should have been an easy 9 vote victory as the second amendment is clear, short, and uncomplicated.

Amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution, (ratified effective on December 15, 1791):

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

There are currently serious regulations on people with gun licenses. There are extensive background checks etc. Therefore, current law already upholds the "well regulated Militia" end of the amendment.

It's the criminals who aren't well regulated so it's also the criminals causing the problems with guns. However, what political ideology tends to be softer on crime?....Liberals.

Their belief in excuses of circumstance and rehab they hope will work leads to child rapist getting lean sentences and therefore repeating the offense. My state, Massachusetts, for example is very restrictive with gun control and makes it hard to get a gun, yet it's also a state where the Liberals won't pass Jessica's Law because they deem it unfair to child sex offenders. That's the kind of insanity you get when you get too Liberal. That was the kind of stance the 4 liberal justices on the Supreme Court tend to take and they showed it again today.

It's funny, states are challenging the health care law with the base of the 10th amendment regarding states rights as the Constitution grants no such power to the federal government.

Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution - (also ratified on December 15, 1791):

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This administration and the left laugh at the fact that states are challenging the health care law with this. At the same time the right to bear arms is under assault by the left all the time even though it is clearly "delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

While Elena Kagan will be confirmed regardless of what she says since the Democrats have enough of a majority to confirm her anyway. Now it gets dangerous.

Obama is one replacement away from flipping the court to the left decisively. The court is just another politically partisan group. The fact that 4 of the 9 Justices couldn't rule on the side of the Constitution in such a clear and easy case is dangerous at at time when we have a president who himself has called the U.S. Constitution "a charter of negative liberties".

Negative liberties!! What's negative about this:

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

Thesaurus

Liberty - Meaning: the state of being free from the control or power of another

Anybody want to explain what's negative about that?

Dictionary -
1: : the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges: the power of choice

2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits

3: : an action going beyond normal limits: asa: a breach of etiquette or propriety

You see, the Constitution isn't a charter of negative freedoms, it's a charter of positive freedoms. The right to bear arms isn't a negative freedom meant to enable criminals to kill. It's a positive freedom meant to enable law abiding free people to have a defense against criminals.

It's a freedom that must be protected as well as all of the Constitution's positive, (not negative), liberties. If you don't like it then there's a process to amend it legally. That is how many positive changes have been made over time, the end of slavery by amendment 13 for example:

Amendment 13 of the U.S. Constitution - (ratified December 6, 1865):

Section 1 - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for a punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2 - Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The most important responsibility of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution and it's no health care bill. The Constitution is pretty easy to understand. That's part of it's ingenuity. You've read some of it in this post and how much did you find confusing?

We now know that 4 of the 9 justices, as well as our president, find much of it confusing. The progressives only need 1 more after Elena Kagan. If they get it then the protection of our Constitution against an overreaching government will be in danger. The government already has far more power than it should. It must not get any more.

FDR was trying to pack the courts for the left because it was shooting down many elements of his massive New Deal failure. Obama has the same mentality in the face of a similar problem.

While the left will demonize today's ruling in favor of the second amendment the rest of us should applaud it. I wish the Liberals would put as much effort into fighting crime as they put into painting all gun owners as criminals.

Read more...

MoveOn's Propaganda For Social Security

MoveOn.org is of course blaming Republicans and Conservatives for the cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Dear MoveOn member,
It sounds like something Glenn Beck would cook up: a powerful cabal of right-wing ideologues hatches a secret plan to force cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and they're on the verge of succeeding. 1 But it's true.

Right now, the stars are aligned for conservatives who've spent decades trying to cut Social Security—the heart of the New Deal. They're focusing public anxiety over the economy on the deficit—and even though the deficit is almost entirely a result of Bush cutting taxes for the rich while waging two wars, the "deficit hawks" want us to cut the programs vulnerable Americans rely on to survive—Social Security and Medicare. 2

And instead of articulating a progressive response, Democrats seem frozen, like deer in the headlights.

Against this backdrop, the President has appointed a "deficit commission" stacked with deficit hawks. Right after the election Congress will vote on the commission's recommendations.

Right now, this threat isn't even on most of our radar screens. So we have a special request: will you help us fund a major campaign to keep this from happening? We'll use every tool at our disposal, and the combined voices of 5 million MoveOn members, to demand that Congress deal with the deficit the right way—by helping the middle class get back on their feet and making Wall Street pay its fair share. And we'll show wavering politicians that cutting Social Security will cost them at home.


To do it, we need to raise $185,000. That means we need 3 people from your town to make a contribution. Can you chip in $5?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/deficit_commission2.html?bg_id=hpc5&id=21110-17182837-ayB3Pax&t=3
Why does the deficit commission pose such a threat? Because almost all of its members have interests in seeing cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other safety net programs.

Here's an introduction to some of the folks on the Commission that we're up against:

Erskine Bowles, Co-Chair: An investment-banking millionaire who now sits on the Board of Directors for Morgan Stanley and General Motors. Bowles was Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, where he was called "Corporate America's Friend in the White House" as he negotiated with Newt Gingrich for how best to cut safety net programs.

Alan Simpson, Co-Chair: A GOP power player during the Conservative movement's heyday, he led Clinton-era attacks on Social Security and is already crusading publicly for cuts to Social Security and Medicare to address the deficit.

David M. Cote: CEO of Honeywell, a defense contractor making millions from the Department of Defense and responsible for costing us millions of dollars in misconduct—including failing to test bulletproof vests sent to US troops.
And they're just the tip of the iceberg.


We're planning a full-court press. Washington has to hear the stories of the real people who will be hurt by cuts. We'll run ads and organize in home districts of members of Congress considering cuts, work with progressive policy experts to push real solutions, and respond to the conservative propaganda wherever we can.

But we need to get started. Can you chip in $5 to make it crystal clear to lawmakers how the American people feel about Social Security cuts?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/deficit_commission2.html?bg_id=hpc5&id=21110-17182837-ayB3Pax&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Daniel, Duncan, Amy, Stephen, and the rest of the team

MoveOn.org's been dealt quite a blow recently when Blanche Lincoln beat the progressive they were fighting for in the election, Bill Halter. They've been pretty quiet with the e-mails since that loss.

Now they're trying to tackle another issue with lies. MoveOn's exact words call Social Security "the heart of the New Deal". That's proof enough that the New Deal was a bunch of sh*t from the beginning.

Did you know that when Social Security was passed the average life expectancy was 59? Yet the program didn't pay out any benefits until you turned 62. Coincidence...you make the call. If you did in fact live past 62 then you made out well in the beginning of Social Security. Most who received it made far more on the program than they ever paid into it and there were far more workers paying the Social Security tax than there were collecting the checks.

The problem is that the program has remained the same for nearly 80 years! It has never been reformed even though people now tend to live much longer than 62. Hell, many people work until they're 65 before they even retire, never mind the likely 20 years or so they can be expected to live beyond that retirement.

MoveOn thinks that nobody has been paying attention to the spending of the Obama administration. They say, "They're focusing public anxiety over the economy on the deficit—and even though the deficit is almost entirely a result of Bush cutting taxes for the rich while waging two wars".

They should research history a little more. When taxes are decreased, revenues increase, it's an easily proven fact if you do the homework on it. Art Laffer's Laffer curve explains it fairly simply. If you want the proof then read, The End Of Prosperity, by Art Laffer and Roger Moore.

Also, it's worth noting that all of the failed stimulus spending, political payoffs in health care, the health care bill itself, plus the billions and billions more being spent by this administration as well as the last one, are costing us much more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Remember this: *note: I'm sure you don't:

"If I may, let me explain the situation and what it is we were trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks - that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent. I did say that I would try to restore the integrity to the program. As it is now, the program without change will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillion dollars out of balance." - Ronald Reagan July 24, 1981

This quote has proven so true that it makes Reagan critics look ridiculous. Nobody can deny that he was right. It's also worth noting that he did temporarily save Social Security in the 80's but let's get back into modern times.

Do you remember when Bush talked about private accounts for Social Security? Democrats were proud of the fact that they didn't support the long term solution for Social Security. You don't have to agree with that plan, but isn't it fair to ask for a solution of your own. The Democrats didn't support private accounts but offered absolutely no solution themselves.

Now it's a far bigger crisis. There are far less people working now than there were a few years ago. That means less people paying into the Social Security system and even more people taking money out of the government because of unemployment benefits etc. It's causing Social Security to go bankrupt even faster.

"We'll run ads and organize in home districts of members of Congress considering cuts, work with progressive policy experts to push real solutions, and respond to the conservative propaganda wherever we can."

Let me ask you something. What sounds more like propaganda to you, the letter from MoveOn.org, or the points I'm making?

The progressive left call accurate history propaganda. They call various positions supported by a majority of Americans extremist positions: Tea parties, no government run health care, believing the Constitution doesn't need to be interpreted because it says exactly what it means.

I also find it laughable that every time MoveOn.org takes on a position they send a message of: MoveOn can fix it, send us money. Proof of how dumb the real supporters of MoveOn.org truly are.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

Aren't the progressives, as well as those in groups like MoveOn.org, pushing for a government that stands for the very thing Jefferson as well as just about all of the other Founders were warning against?

Read more...

The Coming Collapse

The oil spill still dominates the headlines of course and the finger pointing is still the best solution Obama and BP have come up with. Now there's even talk of $7.00 a gallon gas coming our way! I wonder, if that does come true, whether the Liberals will be as vocally outraged as they were when gas went up to $4.00 under George Bush.

$7.00 would be devastating to our already hurting economy. Of course if you're childhood dreams included, "one day I want to work for the census!!" then I guess you're in luck. That's one job that's thriving, good job Obama. That's what we get when someone with absolutely no economic experience, and a group of progressive new deal liberals are in charge of economic policy.

I have something fascinating you should all read if you haven't already. It's from my favorite economist, Art Laffer. He is predicting a collapse of our economy next year if we don't change course. I doubt he would put his credibility on the line and say something like this if he wasn't pretty sure of the direction he thinks we are heading.

Here's the article from the Wall Street Journal.

"Reagan's delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%."

The critics hammered Reagan pointing to that period of no growth as evidence that his economic policies were a failure. For example:

"I'm slipping badly in the polls. I think it reflects the constant media drumbeat of biased reporting against what we're trying to do." - Ronald Reagan, written in his diary on April 2, 1982

This is why it's important to understand the points Laffer is making about the recession of '82 and even more important to understand why we face the potential of him being right about what to expect next year.

While Obama continues to make the misguided mistakes of the New Deal with his massive spending with little to show for it I can't help but wonder how long he will be given a pass those who stand so closely by his agenda on the hope that he knows what he's doing.

I also believe he knows what he's doing but I don't think the average everyday liberals have the same goals as Obama. The problem may be that the very culture he has worked so hard with the progressives to create. Let me explain.

Progressives have worked for generations to create an entitlement mentality in Americans. While historically Americans have overcome unbelievable odds through hard work, family values, and yes religion, (part of the reason so many early Americans could read during the American Revolution was because many regularly read the bible). Going back even further, the Pilgrims also read the bible. This proved invaluable as news of the Boston Massacre spread throughout the colonies sparking outrage that led to the American Revolution.

Progressives like Obama have now taught entire generations that hard work isn't important, that the government has a responsibility to take care of you if you don't want to take care of yourself.

The Liberal feminist movement created the idea that women don't need men in their lives and far too many men have walked out on their families simply due to the selfish inability to step up and put their families above themselves. This has been a tragedy for children and caused a massive explosion of poverty.

Ironically, the same Liberal culture that caused these problems in the first place decided to take care of the problems through a cushy government welfare state. Instead of inspiring people to lift themselves out of poverty through responsible decisions those same poverty programs have made people comfortable in that "poverty". That assured comfort zone is hard to teach people to leave. It is for that reason that there is so much protest every time anyone attempts to reform the various welfare programs.

The reason this is so important as it relates to the potentially coming collapse is this. If we face an even bigger recession next year and it continues to slide downhill, how do you expect those trained in the progressive entitlement culture to react?

If the only way to solve our problems is through a massive coming together of all Americans under the values that made us the country that we are. How do you convince those who have spent their entire lives learning that they are entitled to a free ride because they are always victims of circumstances?

It will take hard work, sacrifice, and strong families. It is those values that have allowed the United States to overcome impossible odds time and time again. It is the turning on those values that have brought us to where we currently are. The progressive experiment has failed, accept it.

Embrace change only when it proves to be change for the better. Acknowledge your own failures and don't be afraid to criticize your own party. For the record I didn't vote for John McCain or Barack Obama. It took awhile for me to see big government progressive republicanism for what it was. It's time for the other side to do the same.

If we don't wake up and work together, then not only will the coming collapse be assured, but we will have such a lack of preparation that it will be far worse than it should have been. I'm glad I wasn't around during the Great Depression and I hope I don't see another one. However, as the saying goes, "hope for the best but prepare for the worst."

Read more...

The Oil Spill

The largest environmental disaster in U.S. history and it's business as usual for most involved, finger pointing. As failed solution after failed solution continues to fail in bringing about a stop to the leak, Obama, (in an attempt to appear more competent than his administration actually is), seems more interested in demonizing BP than working with them to stop the leak.

Dick Morris launched an all out assault on Obama's incompetence regarding the oil spill etc.

"America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill."

There's more, here's the whole story.

Of course Robert Reich over at the Huffington Post is calling for Obama to take over BP. Yeah, great idea, after all we all know that everything the government runs works out great, like welfare, low income housing programs, bailout and stimulus packages, cash for clunkers, the post office, the RMV etc. You'll also see some of the more phosisticated, elitist thinking leftist, (and yes I misspelled sophisticated on purpose), making fun of Sarah Palin for blaming environmentalist.

“Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country’s energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It’s catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it.” - Sarah Palin

While her critics attack as usual, even if you aren't a big fan of Sarah Palin there's no denying that she has a point. The policies practiced in the US at the behest of environmental idiots who push through nonsense, causing more dangerous tactics to be utilized, in order to appease the misguided ideas of global warming alarmist and other such environmental phonies.

For example, we can't drill more in ANWR, (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), even though we would only need to drill in a relatively small area and wildlife would practically not even be affected. We can't drill in more shallow water and are forced to drill a mile under the surface in deep waters in order to get the oil.

Here's what's wrong with not increasing drilling on land. Suppose you have an oil rig on land and a pipe burst from an explosion, in other words apply the BP gulf disaster situation to land instead of deep water.

First of all it would be easy to access and fix because actual disaster crews and other people could go right to the area and contain and fix the rig, plug the pipeline, and whatever else they'd have to do but in any case it wouldn't be that difficult.

Secondly, all of the oil that leaks from such a disaster would land on dry ground and just begin to go back into the ground, not such a big deal since that's where it's being taken out of anyway. In light of this gulf disaster "drill, baby, drill", at least on land, is sounding better than ever.

What about drilling where the water isn't so deep? That may sound scary to some but think about it for a second. If the water isn't so deep than it wouldn't be so hard to send a crew of people and technology to the source of the spill and work to contain it. Most of the oil spilled in such a case would be closer to shore and therefore carried mostly onto the same shoreline. I may be oversimplifying this since I'm of course no expert on drilling for oil, but I'd rather see one beach area in trouble from a spill that's easier to reach than an oil spill spreading all throughout the gulf and affecting several states.

Don't think I'm giving BP a pass on the situation with this post either. BP's response to the spill has been almost as big of a joke as the Obama administration's. While the record on deep sea drilling is impressive.

"This is unprecedented. We've had more than 30,000 oil wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico off our four states -- Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama -- in the last 50 years. And this is the first time there's ever been something like this, after more than 30,000 wells." - Haley Barbour

50 years, 30,000 wells, 1 major catastrophe...Show me a government program with such an impressive record. However, oil companies like BP should have more of a hope for the best, plan for the worst mentality when it comes to deep sea drilling.

The ideas coming out of BP have been laughable at best, to the point where now we are taking the idea of stuffing the pipe with golf balls and tires in an attempt to stop the leak seriously. They are currently working on the lower marine riser package containment operation. Here are BP's details on the program. Hopefully this one works. If it doesn't then you have to wonder what they'll try next.

So if you want to point the finger of blame at someone then there's plenty of blame to go around. BP, Obama (the largest receiver of BP campaign money in the '08 election cycle), Bush, environmentalist, special interest, politics as usual in Washington, and lobbying of course.

One solution, make lobbying illegal. If politicians weren't controlled by money from corporations in the form of lobbying maybe Washington D.C. (District of Corruption), could actually get some things done for the good of the country, instead of for the good of their own special interests.

With the way Washington currently works nobody wins. Instead of the country working together to solve our problems we just treat every problem as an excuse to point the finger at others. Whether it's politicians vs companies, Republican's vs Democrat's, black vs. white, etc. Sometimes the finger has to be pointed into a mirror. Beyond that it's time that the people of this country see problems for what they are and work together to solve the problems we face.

This is America, and a United States can accomplish anything when we work more at solving problems and less at pointing fingers. This oil spill is just another example of a problem that should've been avoided, and after the fact could damn sure be solved if there weren't such a desire to score a political point with a pointed finger. Under that type of system we all lose in the end.

Read more...