But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace sobriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona. Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

 

In my case however, I much prefer the pseudonym or pen name of “John Galt V” out of a deep sense of awe and respect for the vision of Ayn Rand and the Wachowski Brothers … and I assure you that you shall rarely hear those names mentioned together … much less to ever be joined in such a respectful setting.

An Analysis of the Irony of V For Vendetta, the Movie

 

You may know that many die hard liberals see this as an attack of a liberal (or an anarchist as was strongly suggested in the Comic Book) upon the Conservative establishment and government “control” of their lives. While many of the Liberal Left Lackeys may wholeheartedly believe this, I do believe that the Liberal Left Leadership is fully aware of the irony and reflection being demonstrated here. Hardly card-carrying members of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy, the Wachowski Brothers created this film seemingly to poke their Hollywood Leftist fingers into the face of Bush and the American Conservatives … much to the dismay and consternation of Alan Moore who created the original comic strip series V. Okay, in all fairness, their political views as espoused in their movies seem to point more directly towards anarchy rather than towards the left but both will inevitably lead to socialism, Marxism or open Communism. Do not get me wrong, I love many of their movies and perhaps this one most of all. However, when many of the leftist elite try to express their political convictions, as much can be read into what is not said as to what is. In this case, it seems that the opposite is true. However, the reflection of what is actually happening in the world today is quite revealing when looked at from an objective point of view.

 

Cries of “Neocon”, “Fascist” and “Nazi” abound when it comes to liberal lefties spouting out about the “Radical” right-wing movement. Meanwhile, evidence, the truth and those pesky little critters known as facts all point towards just the opposite conclusion. Granted, there are radicals that can easily be chosen from either side of the political playing field who can be used to vilify the entire political “party”. See if you can put those aside for a few moments and look at this objectively. Look at the regular, every day people of each party and see what more closely resembles the truth. Read the books on both sides of the aisle and see who is taking what actions. There are many people on the left who, whether it is known to them or not, actively promote a socialist lifestyle and honestly believe that it is a good thing. The fact remains that the road to the left can, much like anarchy, lead only to a socialist, Marxist or openly communist solution. The movie V claims that the proverbial NeoCon, Right-wing radical religious type zealot has taken over the Country of London based on lies, deceit and fear from horrors that were in fact, created by that very same government. This is one of the reasons that the movie “rings so true” to many leftists. They can honestly believe that this would happen.

 

Let’s take a look here for a moment though? Who has openly declared that “No Crisis should be allowed to go to waste”? Why I believe that Robert Gibbs uttered words to that effect, as did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But surely, what they are doing is for the public good and the general welfare of we the people right? Where did these crises come from? Let’s start with the current housing crisis as it is still fresh in many people’s minds and many people are still suffering from its ill-effects. Where did it come from? What started it? Well, government “real-good/feel-good” legislation is where it started. Why? They decided that it was prejudiced against the poor of this great nation to prevent them from owning a home because they did not qualify for loans that they would not be capable of paying back.

 

The government, in its infinite wisdom decided to fix this through government interference in and regulation of the private free-market economy and forced the banks to hand out loans with unreasonable terms to people who had no reasonable chance ever to pay them back. The government then used this crisis of their own design as an excuse … not to regulate more … but to actually implement a government takeover of private banking institutions. Was this part of some vast right wing conspiracy at more government control? If you say yes, than you should be aware that if true, it would mean that Barack Obama is part and parcel of the vast right wing conspiracy. This same government (Chris Dodd) specifically included bills forcing the payment of bonuses to AIG executives and then turns this into its very own mini-crisis as a further excuse to regulate payment … not just for those companies directly bailed out with taxpayer funds but for anybody who received anything in any way that can reasonably be construed to have come from stimulus funds. That would mean that legally at least, the government now has every legal right to decide how much you may or may not earn, pay your employers or profit from your very own business.

 

 

This cry has been called out over and over by the left when it comes to sexual conduct. As long as the sexual conduct is confined to your home, and sexual acts between consenting adults of legal age and (at least functional mental capacity … able to make their own decisions about the right or wrong of their actions) I do not even care whether or not it is in your bedroom. In fact, I would add that anywhere that you can reasonably expect to have a sense of privacy, any actions by you that are acceptable under our laws are none of the governments concern and should not even be an issue. If you are camping out and sleeping in a tent or a camp-trailer or RV, who has any real right to come in to tell you what you may or may not do as long as it is legal and between consenting adults? The answer is and should be in all cases, that nobody has the right to come into your home or even your business for that matter, and tell you what legal actions are right or wrong or what you may or may not do within that very private property. Yet what happens when the issues change?

 

The left leaning politicians call for that same government to come into my home, tell me when and where I can smoke and what light bulbs I can use.  This goes on to the point of me being legally required to fill out EPA paperwork. Additionally, there is need for a full HazMat team to respond should I break that light bulb. Whether you know it or not, you really are legally required to do this … though I imagine that like so many real-good/feel-good laws, enforcement will be totally arbitrary and used solely against the most unpopular people of the day … and somehow that is supposed to make it okay. The left also advocates the government to come into my private business to tell me what I can and cannot do, who I can and can not hire, who I can and cannot allow into my business. But again, the actual enforcement of these laws is solely arbitrary and at the discretion of the government and not we the people.

 

But hey, since it protects those people who were oppressed some four hundred years ago, it is all good right? While there are certainly social issues that need to be addressed, the current setup is what I can only see as somebody using a crutch their entire life because they broke a leg when they were three or four years old, despite the fact that while they may limp, they should no longer need the crutch. For those people that were oppressed, just remember that the day will come when you are on the same list and those same powers will be used against you.  May God forbid that it ever happen but it is not an unreasonable assumption or conclusion to this setting by any stretch of the imagination. The government has already made it abundantly clear that they can blatantly disregard the Constitution and be held completely blameless and unaccountable. The government has already far overstepped its reach and used the strong-arm techniques to prove that power is their right and they have the right to do whatever they want with it. The only things left standing between our government and complete oppression is an illusory wall of obfuscation, there only to muddy the waters, cloud the issues and deceive we the people.

 

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

 

A government takeover such as that seen in the movie V for Vendetta is almost certainly inevitable at this stage of the game. However, it is not going to be some non-existent vast right wing conspiracy that does the taking over. It will be a socialist takeover implemented by a large portion of the general populace who is willing to trade not only their liberties but their very freedom itself and actually watch, applauding as our ConstitutionalRepublic collapses under the weight of their action. Just as in the movie, we will quickly discover that the government will not stop there in order to “protect us from ourselves” but will continually force its way into our private lives on an increasingly oppressive scale. Just the same as in the movie, something will be terribly wrong with our country if we do allow that to happen. Just as in the movie, many people will pay the ultimate price just to get our country back to the point where we can once again make our own choices and create our own futures without big brother watching every move under some misguided, faith-based belief that they can actually protect us from ourselves when they cannot even clean up their own political back yard.

 

The irony is rich that a left-leaning Hollywood should put out such a movie clearly expressing everything that they are doing to take over our nation while effectively passing the blame on to “the other guy” and accusing the other guy of doing exactly what they are doing. The sad part is that so many people actually believe it. The historic level of irony, the sadness it creates and the implication that somehow, somewhere there may be another V to get us out of this mess makes this one of my favorite movies of all time.

 

Sign me,

John Galt V

 

There are many (justifiable?) arguments that all this brouhaha with the TSA may very well be a distraction to allow the current cackle of corrupted congress critters to ram a bit more legislation down our collective throats before they hand over the reigns to “the other guys” in January of 2011. I will skip out on all of the “conspiracy theories” and allow other, more qualified journalistas to peruse the facts and draw their own conclusions there. However, despite all of the uproar, I think the TSA may be onto something here so to paraphrase; “Please. Allow me to retort!”

I do not own a business but I have worked for quite a few. I went “Galt” in 2004 and became an expatriate. My current income from my writing is barely sufficient to meet my needs here in the Philippines where I have emigrated, but that is as much a matter of choice as it is a result of my personal decisions. I have made no cries for help, asked for no sympathy and asked for no welfare from the state for my personal gain or benefit. However, as one of the few (if you believe the “press reports” anyhow) poor, white republicans … or in the words of Harry Reid, a small part of the great, unwashed masses, my situation is not altogether unique though with my traveling over the course of time, my opinion may be. (That is my completely fragmented, run-on sentence to give those who will not discuss valid reasoning, a cause to doubt the veracity of my claims as expressed here … and something to troll about in the comments section)

I am thoroughly convinced that not only is the TSA on to something good here, but that it should become common practice in just about any private, commercial enterprise. While I may not personally own a business, my wife does. Since there is a probability that it could be robbed, I think I should be able to randomly and arbitrarily select people to “frisk” to insure that the business remains safe. There should be a caveat however. The ones that have been primarily responsible for the vast majority of the damage should be excluded from these searches based on subjective reasoning … be it for religious restrictions or whatever. However, the searches for those that have not been historically shown to be a danger will be greatly increased in number and intensity in order to make up for my inability/unwillingness to search those that do have a history of creating similar problems. It makes perfect sense does it not?

Nonsense is the only type of sense that any of this makes. It is not that anyone is objectionable to reasonable security measures. The old days of metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs yielded just as many prevented disasters as the current measures have … if not more. In fact, to date, not one single person has been caught due to the increased security measures and in fact, airport security under the banner of the TSA has proven just as lackluster in performance when it comes to allowing “test explosives” through the system when such tests are conducted by internal security experts. In fact, every one of the disasters to date that have been prevented were prevented by observant and concerned passengers and not any type of enhanced “security screening” that includes what could only reasonably construed to be a sexual assault were it done under anything but the guise of security.

If you do not believe me, try selectively choosing whom to “pat down” at a Jr. High School or High School football game. After all, somebody could theoretically blow up a stadium or arena in the name of terrorism could they not? Try the same thing at the super bowl or the world cup and see what happens. If you do not think for one moment that running your hands inside the undergarments of a young female or male student would result in your having to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life, you are delusional. Many people have had to register on this list for offenses completely free of any actual physical contact. In one case I know of personally in Reno, a friend was forced to register on this list for walking home when he was drunk rather than driving. Okay, there was more to it than that but allow me to explain briefly. Having had too much to drink, he decided to walk home from the bar. Walking, inebriated as he was, he had the urge to urinate and chose to do so in the only “secluded” spot available, the parking lot of a school. He is now forced to register as a sex offender with special notations about schools and children for the rest of his life … yet had he driven, he would likely have been home in time to utilize more proper facilities.

The fact is that if we stand idly by while our rights are even further eroded, we deserve what we get. Still, a large part of the voting public rarely, if ever flies so they know only what they hear and see on television and from other “news” sources. Their perceptions and their decisions will likely be based on nothing more than what they hear from second-hand and even third-hand accounts in addition to what they know from the media. Even if these intrusive searches did prove to be effective … which they have not to date … would it be worth it? Imagine how many lives could be saved by banning such mundane items as kitchen knives or motorized vehicles. Still, there are some cases where the cure is worse than the disease and such has proven to be the case here. According to one study, your chances of getting killed by a terrorist are about the same as your chances of receiving some type of fatal cancer from one of these machines … which have been shown time and again to emit more radiation than the reports say they do. Throw in the dirty gloves that the TSA is using to swipe inside numerous under garments, often in complete contact with the passengers’ genitalia … and then used over and over again on numerous passengers in the same fashion … well, let’s just say I would rather take my chances with the unlikely event of a terrorist attempting to set his underwear or his pathetic little pee pee on fire.

One suggestion gaining traction seems to be hitting the airlines in their wallets by refusing to fly. There are some major issues with this solution however. For many people, there really is no alternative to flying … and in many cases, this is the only way that they can remain gainfully employed. While it would be outrageous to expect these people to give up their jobs or businesses as a form of protest, the other problem is even more outrageous. The fact is that the vast majority of airlines … Southwest being the notable exception and the only profitable US based airlines … is that the Airlines are taxpayer subsidized. If their profits show a discernible decrease, the taxpayer will be left on the hook to cover their losses and make sure that they remain “profitable” even if it takes all of our money to make that happen.

So what is the answer? Like so many of the issues today, the answer lies in the ballot box. We need to constantly hold our representative officials feet to the proverbial fire and remind them that they work for us, not for the lobbyists, the unions or for the benefit of the government … but as public servants to we the people. As long as we the people remain apathetic enough or weak enough to allow only those that seek power into public office, there can be no change, much less any return to the Constitutional Republic this nation was founded as.

 

Something to read more for fun than to inform – A strictly editorial opinion piece that looks at some of the oddities and contradictions that comprise the “progressive” thought process.

In case the title is not controversial enough to get your complete attention, let me add a little fuel to the fire here. I, like many conservatives, believe in both global climate change and Darwinian evolution. Unlike many liberals, I think the actual sciences should be carried out by real scientists according to scientific theory and not by a bunch of political scientists concentrating on getting the next government (read taxpayer) sponsored grant to get more of the desired results rather than looking at the actual science behind these phenomenon.

There are numerous records of ice ages and global heat waves throughout history and as such, it would be foolish to try to argue that the climate never changed. Furthermore, the climate itself encompasses weather patterns and other phenomenon, global in nature and subject to variations on a seasonal and even daily basis. The climate is certainly changing on a regular basis and this fact should not be in dispute. What I do dispute is the fact that killing off all of the plants while we ignore hazardous chemicals is going to make anything any better for the environment, for the planet, for we the people or even for the political elite who are pushing this nonsense and trying to tax and regulate the laws of nature out of existence.

Darwinian evolution is hard to contest scientifically and factually because it is true. However, as even Darwin himself was so quick to point out, there are numerous “holes” in his theory. He also believed that as time went on and more fossils were discovered, his theory would be strengthened though such has not really been the case. The horse is only one example where the “missing link(s)” were “discovered” only to be proven false after more intensive and exhaustive research. The fossil record itself points to numerous different species appearing at roughly the same time as well.

With sincere apologies to all of the wannabe atheists out there, you have to have more than just a little faith if you want to preach Darwinism as anything more than au unproven and un-provable theory and to teach it as scientific fact, defies both logic and the facts. Mind you, I am not advocating that public schools take up the reigns and begin preaching any religion either. Frankly, I want the federal public school system done away with entirely and apart from that, I do not want any school trying to teach or instill their morals and values on my children. That is a different article for a different time however, and not totally relevant to this particular writing.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, the fact is that every mutation we have ever seen has had negative impacts on the species/individual who has undergone the mutation and they have always remained members of the same species. Additionally, any actual evolutionary progress that can be seen and scientifically proven is merely an adaptation to a given environmental circumstance and again, all of the evolved have remained members of the same species with no discernible “new species” ever appearing. Indeed, as more and more fossils are discovered, the evidence continually points increasingly towards a “bursting forth” of new life forms all at once or even gradually but overwhelmingly and without exception, with no ties to previously explored or known species other than perhaps, some peripheral similarities. (Most life on this planet shares an incredible amount of the same genetic makeup so there are always going to be a large number of similarities between life forms that are indigenous to this planet)

Still, there are numerous people out there who insist that they are the direct descendants of apes and as a mere mortal with no formal scientific education, who am I to insist that they are wrong? Interestingly enough, the vast majority of these people are also liberals, progressives and other people who are readily accepting of mocking anything to do with a god or with God, creation or any sense that there is any entity higher or more important than the “self”. Many of these people are also die-hard environmentalists, many of whom would happily sit on the sidelines to cheer on the destruction of mankind before we “destroy the earth”.

If you are such a person, let me offer you some reassurances first. Even if you are correct in every way, humans are not going to destroy the earth. The most we can ever “hope” to accomplish and “change” as a species when it comes to your Mother Gaia or Mother Earth, is to render the planet uninhabitable for humans, humans will die off as a species and the earth will, over the course of time, take all of the necessary steps to heal itself and return to its former glory days of primordial soup and toxic atmospheres or a planet full of trees and plant life that have to seek out new forms and methods of getting precious CO2. (Yeah, the same CO2 that we are so ardently trying to tax and regulate out of existence in order to help the very same plants that need to breathe it in to survive and be able to provide precious oxygen for other life forms … like killing off all the plant life is going to somehow make this a greener planet!?)

Isn’t killing off humans as a species already advocated by many of the radical environmentalists? If it is, and this is already what we are accomplishing, I fail to see where or why there is a problem and why they must try to force themselves into every other aspects of our lives but again, that is a different argument for a different article. Why do these same people shout about the need for government intervention to prevent something that these same people are all for accomplishing as an end-game?

However, if you are also correct about the rest of your beliefs, it does lead to some interesting conclusions. It would also explain a lot of the liberal beliefs that defy logic and in many cases, even the survival instinct that pervades almost every aspect of other species on this wondrous planet we call the earth.

We know that Communism and Socialism do not work. If we lived in an ideal world, a socialist FORM of government may be an ideal solution … but then again, if we lived in a perfect world, we would not really need a government would we? We live in a world that is far from perfect and no matter what we do to level the playing field, you cannot force an equality of results. If you were to take every asset in the world today and divide it evenly among all of the peoples of the world, it would likely take no more than a few weeks for disparity to appear again. Those that have the drive and ambition to acquire would do so while those that have little or no ambition would quickly devolve back to their current situation or at least, to a state very similar to the one they live in now.

Darwin’s theory of evolution espouses the survival of the fittest. Which of these members of the human species are more fit to survive? If the liberal belief in Darwin is so great and humans as a whole are so detrimental to the dear mother earth, isn’t it contrary to these “natural laws” to force the survival of a weaker member of the species … especially when these efforts are made by trying to bring down the stronger members of the species to a point where all of the species is in danger of dying off? Scientifically speaking, wouldn’t it be much more viable (if not more humane … and that is yet another debate that should probably have its own article) to allow those members of the species that are incapable of survival on their own, to die off and be replaced by members of the species more suited towards the overall survival of the species in question?

Does it really sound so preposterous? Where are the outcries to destroy the strongest of the deer so that the weaker members of the species have the “same” opportunity to survive? Yet are we not doing the exact same thing with humans all of the time? When deer hunting was banned altogether in New Jersey, what was the result there? The insurance companies were actually among the most ardent advocates that helped to get the sport of hunting reintroduced into the state. The deer quickly became a “nuisance” that had to be dealt with before the situation got entirely out of hand. If a Prius Hybrid is doing seventy miles an hour down the road and comes into violent physical contact with a deer that is standing still, eyes frozen in the headlights, does either of the parties involved survive?

Teddy Roosevelt’s bloated bureaucracy that became the National Parks service was all about putting humans in control of God’s creations or the creations of mother earth if you prefer, under the guise of protecting it from some unforeseen menace such as human logging perhaps? Yet what happened when mankind took over the responsibilities of nature? Some of the worst fires in the recorded history of Yellowstone National Park (His first effort) were directly attributed to the interference of mankind and their efforts to “conserve and protect” the environment. In this case, efforts to prevent logging left years of dried and dangerous undergrowth as well as numerous dead trees in the area. Man’s prevention of smaller, natural fires allowed these fuels to build up to unprecedented levels and the end result was that the first big fire to occur quickly grew into a monstrosity that could not be stopped no matter how many humans were sacrificed in the effort.

In both of these examples, the failure of humans to naturally cull their protected wards resulted in much more damage than that which would have occurred had nature been allowed to run her course. Time and again throughout history, we have seen balances offset and restructured by mother nature. To paraphrase an old song, history shows us again and again how nature points out the folly of man.

These are just two, small examples of the epic failures of humans when they have attempted to replace God, gods or nature as the caretakers and stewards of the earth. Can we expect the results to be any different or any better when we interfere in the natural selection process when it involves humans? Is this, like communism, “certain to work” if only some things are done differently this time? Is Darwin’s theory only valid when it verifies what we believe and quickly reduced to irrelevance when it interferes with what we believe in? Even a small child should be readily capable of seeing the hypocrisy of any such arbitrary and readily disposable theory or law. Darwin’s theory either works or it does not and if it does, who are we to interfere with it? If his theory does not work, who are we to push it off on the world without offering any alternative views as if it were something much more than a simple and single theory?

Darwin’s theory proposes and our survival as a species requires that those of our species that are strong are allowed to utilize all of the tools at their disposal to excel at whatever they do. This means that each of us as an individual has a personal responsibility to do what we can to make ourselves stronger to insure the survival of the species. Darwin’s theory also proposes that those of the species that are weak, be allowed to fall by the wayside from time to time. It is a sad but regrettable truth in the “hard sciences” presented by Darwin.

Now here is a small point to ponder that should bake a few noodles and make a few heads explode; the Conservative movement actually employs some tenets of the Darwinian theory of evolution in that it constantly strives to empower the individual with the ability to thrive in the world. The liberal “expressions” of Darwinism tend to focus on keeping the species weak, making the strong weaker to insure less disparity and an increasing likelihood of the destruction of the species altogether.

My personal (Progressive) theory of Darwinism in relation to the Progressive Ideology

The survival of a species depends on the strong remaining stronger than their adversaries and environment. As a species becomes over-populated, Mother-Earth will make a certain number of “corrections” to make the necessary corrections for the preservation of the earth itself. Mother earth will allow a sustainable number of the species to survive while culling the overall numbers. In these other members of the species, certain genetics are “evolved” allowing for the removal of whatever genes are there to inspire the sense of self-preservation for the individual. This results in a number of the population of the species reneging on their need/ability to preserve their life above all else and thus, allowing for the natural course of events as required by mother nature to take place without seriously over-populating or endangering the planet.

When a species is small and weak, stronger, more masculine males are needed to insure the survival of the species. As that species grows stronger and more numerous, the need for strength becomes lessened and the need for massive procreation is correspondingly lessened resulting in a weaker, more vulnerable species. Once that species is culled to the point that it is no longer a threat to the environment, the process is reversed in order to allow the species another opportunity to survive.

Ultimately, those species that survive long-term, endure more of a revolutionary process than a simple evolution as the process would inevitably repeat for the entire length of existence of the species while evolution would indicate that it was generally a one-time or limited mutation or evolutionary change. Still, those are just minor technicalities to be addressed in yet another rant some other day when I am sitting around bored. While these theories certainly need to be entertained with a certain dosage of salt, I hope that they did at least provide you with some food for thought and perhaps, even entertain you for a short while.

Rights and Responsibility; these are very unique concepts. Still, they are both interwoven into the very fabric of our society. A right is a basic right of each and every citizen, given to people without question and assumed to be true among all people equally.

Owning private property is a right, being able to dress how we want, drive what we want and utilize that which is available to us in a manner which we deem to be the best for us as individuals. That is one of the key differences between our Constitutional Republic and a very poor form of government which is known as a democracy. It is also one of the reasons I cringe in horror each time someone calls the USA a democracy.

Our forefathers warned us in no uncertain terms that to try to convert this Republic into a democracy would result in her death. As we were warned, it will be a very quick (in terms of historical passing of time) but agonizing and painful death for our nation. Sadly, that is seeming to come to pass. Still, that is not the point ... or at least not the entire point of this article.

Along with our rights, even within the Bill of Rights, comes a modicum of responsibility to which each individual must be held personally accountable. However, we must remember that we are each accountable for our own actions and not those of others. Still, even this most basic concept is becoming ever more ambiguous and flawed as we continue to degrade this once great and proud Nation into the dying form of democracy which we are rapidly becoming.

We all have a right to buy whatever clothes we want and to drive whatever car we want to, those are only to be expected though right? After all, we do live in a democracy right? No we do not, but it is becoming that way and I will explain why it is bad here. In a democracy, the government could feasibly make all of these decisions for us.

If you own a business, do you think that you would be better able to run the business or that the government would? Would you want the government to run your business or would you want to be able to run it yourself?

Some people may actually answer and believe that they would rather have the government running it. More likely than not they do not own a business. However, in what is becoming a democracy, we already have government running our businesses and creating a substantial amount of havoc by doing so.

Don't think so?

Naturally, we cannot allow a business to sell products which are clearly against the law. I would no more believe that someone had the right to open a heroin cafe any more than someone would be allowed to open a school to train thieves or otherwise promote or commit illegal activities.

Why not? Why should the government have any say at all? Despite what is happening now, it used to be that laws were actually passed by representatives of the people. In our Constitutional Republic, that meant that the people actually decided what would and would not be legal. Therefore, the laws were established for a common good of the people, by the people and for the people.

In our current delusional democracy, laws are created not only in the legislative branch by people who have no more sympathy or concern for the people but only a personal interest depending on who is lining their pockets on a particular weekday … but also by a judicial branch which has become increasingly comfortable creating legislation from the bench rather than simply looking at the constitutional legality of the laws it is trying. The lack of concern for We The People could not be more apparent if they slapped us in the face. Dissenters, even quiet and peaceful ones who openly question such backroom, closed-door and private deals are frequently escorted out, left out of meetings altogether or summarily thrown in jail for exercising their legal right to dissent.

But again, I allow the illegal actions of our federal government to interfere with and dilute my argument. Our federal government is already violating our rights, even in our own homes and in our own businesses. Property rights aside, if I have a legal and legitimate business than I have a legal right to run it how I see best fits my needs to earn money or lose money.

Given American society, let us look at a rather historical institution of sorts in the USA: The Great American Drinking Establishments. Whether you partake in the consumption of refreshing alcoholic beverages or not, you have probably been to a bar at one time or another. Smoking may or may not have been permitted depending on where you were.

But Wait! Prohibiting smoking in public places is an important government service to protect the people right? WRONG! MY BAR (My business establishment) is NOT public property. If I choose to allow smoking I have a fundamental RIGHT to allow whatever I see fit in MY establishment as long as it is not violating constitutional law. Still ok for them to do that you say?

DISCLAIMER! WARNING! For those who may think I am racist based on the following concepts, please remember that I am currently living in a third world country by choice, I have lived in others and I speak four languages. I am not in any way supportive of or personally a racist in any sense of the word!

If I wish to limit who comes into my establishment I have a right to do that right? Or do I? As long as it is not offensive to anyone I still do. If I wish to have a club exclusively for people of color or for other minorities, the government will allow me to have that right. If I wish to have a club for gay or lesbian patrons I certainly have that right and it has been ruled as fully legal and constitutional by our Supreme Court.

But those are good things right?

Let us look at it this way. What "right" does the government have to decide what "rights" I may have and may not have? Owning a business is not a RIGHT but a privilege that comes with many responsibilities. The government has NO RIGHT to say what I can and cannot do or allow as long as it violates no one else's rights and does not promote or involve itself in illegal activities as defined by We The People.

I do not care who you are or what you are personally. If you own a business you have a right to open it up to whomever you please, whenever you please and run it how you please. Your targeted market should be the only one who has ANY say in how you run your business. If you can make money and stay in business running an institution for retired Venusian prostitutes, than so be it.

You have the right to pursue that business opportunity in whatever manner you see fit, and if you can find enough retired prostitutes from Venus, you will be able to stay in business and if you do not, than you will not make enough money and will not be around long anyhow. The government has NO right to say you can or cannot open such a business. Period!

There really is no difference in anything that the government gets involved in when it comes to the rights Of the People, By the People and For the People. Once we allowed them in the door they began taking our rights from us one at a time. We The People keep forfeiting our rights in the name of security, righting past wrongs and other real-good feel-good ideologies. One day soon, We the People will wake up too late to realize that we no longer have any rights left.

For those individuals who do not think that it could ever happen in America, I urge you to look at what is happening today all around you. Examine the documents the likes of Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, My Struggle, (Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler) Chairman Mao, take a good close look at what they all had in common. After you have read some of them, take a good hard look at what is going on around you now.

In a Utopian world Socialism would probably be an ideal solution. We do not however, live in anything even close to a Utopian world. As long as we allow government to take control, take it they will. Then there will only be two classes of people left and no way to right the wrongs that have been done. The Have's will rule over the Have Nots until there is nothing left to rule. Only then will real change occur. Stop and think about that next time you want or even willfully ask the government to take away the rights of We The People!

 

There are many fallacies regarding the Islamic religion and how it is protected by the first amendment. Now if indeed we truly are a nation of laws, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be adhered to. This should be beyond debate … even though it may be subjected not only to debate, but to International Law as well with our illustrious supremes in SCOTUS. Realistically however, the words of James Madison still hold true, and yes, I am paraphrasing here … anything that goes against the Constitution is by its very unconstitutional. Thus, how do we, as Conservatives, justify any stance against a religion or its practice?

In truth, we should not. The crux of the matter is the First Amendment and our love of the Constitution and the principles upon which our nation were founded should force all of us to open our eyes objectively and subjectively before attempting to pass any judgment on any religion. As I stated in another article a long time ago, if I were to see a Cross next to a Menorah, next to a Crescent in my neighbors’ yards, I would celebrate it as a true showing of the diversity and freedom of all people to openly practice and display their faith and religion for the world to see. Toss in some Wiccan ware to round out the picture and maybe add a Buddha for good measure and we would have all of the makings of a celebration of freedom of religion.

Sadly, all too many people … generally on the left side of the political aisle, wish to suppress our freedoms and express the first amendment as a freedom from religion … and subsequently from their sensitive feelings and insecurity in their personal systems of belief being offended by such displays. I still believe that if your faith in anything (or in absolutely nothing for that matter) is so weak that it is “wounded” by the mere appearance or suggestion of symbols from some other religion or system of beliefs, that your beliefs and your faith are what you should be examining. If you are so easily offended by the mere symbolism of someone else’s beliefs, you are indeed insecure in your beliefs. Aside from that, the Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, is quite clear that NO LAW shall be made to prohibit the free practice or exercising of religious freedoms. Any laws that are made prohibiting so much as the display of a religious icon for ANY faith, is by its very nature, unconstitutional.

Having said that, it may be reasonable to presume that I fully support the Islamic religion being practiced in this nation. The fact of the matter is that yes, I do support their freedom to express, practice and even preach their religion to all who will listen. I would willingly fight and if necessary (and unavoidable) die to support their freedom to do this. I do not personally have any qualms with Islam or its practitioners as a whole, any more than I do with “Christians” who turn their back on the Word of God to practice the tenets of the church in its stead. (That, I am certain, will raise many hackles but is perhaps best left for a separate article all its own. As for me personally, I am an ardent student of the Bible but not very big on most religions in case that matters) The fact is that most religions are institutions of mankind and as such, subject to the frailties and foibles of humans.

Unfortunately, when dealing with Islamic studies in their entirety, there is a distinct and persistent problem when it comes to the practicing of their religion in its entirety. Islam is not merely a religion but an actual “submission” to a theocratic movement that can only be deemed complete when the entire state is run by, for and as an Islamic state. Now despite their guaranteed rights to freely practice their religious beliefs, this caveat does put Islam at odds with the constitution from a legal standpoint. The Constitution does guarantee that we the people will have a Republican form of government. It does not say anything about us having a democracy … and in fact many of the papers written by the founding fathers warned us explicitly and in no uncertain terms about the dangers of running this country as a democracy rather than allowing democratic rule in the independent but united States of America.

The very concept of these independent but United States of America becoming a theocracy for any single religion should scare the “holy bejeebers” out of anybody. Theocratic movements throughout history have brought us such wondrous studies as the crusades, the inquisition, national and international rebellions, wars and many other horrors far too numerous to qualify in any single article. It would not matter to me what religion it was, there are some very good reasons that our founding fathers prohibited the creation of a State church and it was inherently best for all of us. Much to their chagrin I am sure, their founding principles have been twisted and perverted at least as bad as any religion has and their meanings, their teachings and their desire to enlighten and assist us has been replaced by the teachings of mankind, (the ruling elite in this case) and “interpreted” with little more in mind than tickling the ears and perhaps, justifying the place of the “elite” in their own (fragile?) minds.

The fact of the matter is that the Constitution provides for a Republican form of government (and no, that still has nothing to do with the Republican party of today but rather, a Republic of independent but United States, joined together as a whole with the interest of self preservation and mutual benefit for all states equally) Anything that goes directly against the constitution is by its very nature, unconstitutional. France and the UK both already have areas where Sharia law is openly and freely practiced and according to some of the expatriates in our community here, non-Muslims do not dare or are not allowed to even venture in.

We have already ceded a great deal of territory to the Mexican drug cartels, should we cede even more to people who would, in their ultimate expression of faith, treat us all as scarcely more than chattel or livestock to be taxed, traded and worked? Multi-culturalism is a tried and failed proposition. By all means, allow anyone and everyone to practice their religion freely. This would regrettably perhaps, even have to include those who made football their official religion … and yes, they really did do that … perhaps to openly mock more traditional systems of belief? The point is that there are many different ways that people can freely worship and if you are offended by it, so what? Re-examine your faith if your existing system of beliefs is so weak that it is incapable of withstanding any assault.

By all means, Muslims should be just as free to openly practice their religion as any Wiccan, Buddhist, Christian, Jew or even football fanatic if they are willing to bet forever on their pigskin, but let everyone freely and openly practice their religion without constraint or unconstitutional intervention through questionable and arbitrary laws. However, when you seek to change the entire system of government, that crosses the line from freely practicing your religion to the areas bordering on subversion, treason and a host of other crimes against our nation. While it is true that I would fight to preserve the rights of practitioners of Islam to be able to freely and openly practice their religion, I would be equally willing to fight for my nation and to preserve its existence.

I daresay that I am not alone in this manner of thinking. We will welcome anyone and everyone to worship as they believe and support your right to do so with every ounce of our energy. However, as conservatives, we cannot stand idly by while anybody attempts to fundamentally change the very foundations of our nation and to attempt such a thing would be folly at best. Anybody’s freedom of religion stops only when it attempts to impose a new, unconstitutional political system on the other people of this great nation.

 

Perhaps one of the oldest military strategies in the book is the method of dividing your enemy so that it can be more easily vanquished.

When your enemy’s ranks are separated and their supply lines become drawn out in thin, unmanageable lines, it is much easier to strike at will and force them to come to terms with an inevitable loss.

Such is the case with modern day America.

We The People are being blinded by an oppressive and centralized federal government that is keeping us so busy fighting amongst ourselves that we do not pay attention to what they are doing in the meantime. Gays and straights are constantly being led to each other in ever-increasing numbers. Whether you are gay, straight, love men or women or both is irrelevant and should not be any concern of any other citizen.

The race card is an old standby and a favorite among many politicians. Martin Luther King had his good points and bad points the same as many historical figures did. Yet his “Dream” was of a truly color-blind society where race would not be held as an issue.

Democrats and republicans are yet another arena where We The People have been successfully divided by a fretful, yet increasingly powerful and controlling government. Religion is always a great method for dividing the people. Whether you believe in God, a god or any other deity, let the divine instructor of your faith guide your path without interference from the government. The first amendment clearly states that the federal government can legally make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

This is indicative of a serious problem.

We The People continue to allow the government to divide us and put us at each other’s throats. Like small children eagerly trying to please their parents, we gladly oblige the government by attacking each other, often vehemently and without remorse, conscious thought or any reasoning or logic involved. As long as the government remains neutral in our battles, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

The truth is that they are not neutral however. The government in most cases is the very party that is guilty of instigating these issues. We the people need to wake up to the fact that we are all Americans first and foremost and we must take our country back before political bickering and partisan politics completely erode all of our rights which are endowed to us by whoever we believe to be our creator.

As long as we are divided as a nation and as a people, we will all fall victims to a political chess match that thinks nothing of using all of us as political pawns. We are all unique individuals and all privileged to be a part of the greatest political experiment of all times. Until we remember that we have the power and the means to control how we are run as a nation however, we will forever be in the servitude of the federal government. The path that we have taken to get where we are now has been long and involved and will require many people to change their thinking if we are to repair the damages that have been done.

Do I think that every one of the readers of this site will believe this?  I seriously doubt it but I have to have some faith in what I am doing or I could not do it. However, neither will I settle for “If I could only open one person’s eyes” as an acceptable accomplishment. To accept anything less than the best we can do is to set ourselves up for failure. To accept that changing one person’s mind is going to accomplish anything at all is nothing more than a delusional excuse for admitting defeat without acknowledging it.

We really are all unique individuals but we must once again become united under the banner of the United States of America and reestablish ourselves as We The People who are legally, constitutionally and ethically responsible for the success or failure of the Republic. Whether you love America or hate it really is not an issue unless you are hoping for our once great and proud nation to collapse and become nothing more than a footnote in history.

If you think that our nation would be any better under dictatorial or socialist rule, try talking to any of the people in those countries. I have personally conversed with some of the “artists” in those countries in some online forums where I chat frequently. They have to look outside their own countries in order to accomplish anything. Something so simple as writing a book or a poem requires them to go outside of the country to even think about getting it published or even read.

How popular do you think your dissent or your request for privileges and rights will be under a political system of that nature? It would be wise to remember that the pawns out in front are usually the first ones to be sacrificed. I do not know about you, but I have no desire to become a martyr for what America once was. Personally, I would rather try and do something to make sure that she once again stood proud and tall and that we would quit trying to trip up Lady Liberty.

Try living in Venezuela or Cuba without your elite connections, then come back, and speak to me about your freedoms again. I left America because of what her government and we the people have allowed her to become. If we do not find common ground to unite once again, what was once known as America will be lost to all of us. If that is what you are seeking, you are probably getting your way but remember the lessons that history has taught us.

In each and every case, the common people who brought about the revolution were almost always the first ones to be put against the wall once the new system was in place. Look at the purges in Russia, the tactical removal of the brown shirts by the Waffen SS, the reeducation camps of Chairman Mao. If you think it cannot happen here, you need to open your eyes and your minds. Look around! It IS happening now.

The only question that remains is, are you able to put aside your differences long enough to try and reclaim our once great nation?

 

Would you consider hate crimes legislation to be a good thing or a bad thing?

Take a moment to think about it.

Now why did you make the choice you made?

You do not have to share your answers with the world if you do not want to. Public disclosure is not something I require of anyone but myself here. However, no matter what you may think about this, the answer is that federal hate crime legislation is inherently unconstitutional and cannot accurately be tried … much less in a world gone “politically correct”. You cannot prove intent. To do this, you have to prove how and why someone is thinking the way that they do.

Not only is this not possible but even if it were, people look at things individually from their own perspective. Different people will look at the same set of facts and be quite capable of coming up with different conclusions. The facts never change. The people however, will all have their own personal reason for making the conclusions that they do and they will not all be based on the same principles.

If someone breaks into my home, I do not care what color they are. I do not care what “fates” in life have brought them down to the position of having become a thief. I do not care how they feel about having to break into my home in order to get whatever it is that they imagine that they want. If someone breaks into my home I am going to defend my home, my personal property and my family. Does this make me the heinous criminal in this situation?

Actually, some people truly believe that it does. Many people are quite willing to sacrifice my personal liberties and my safety in exchange for policies that will actually give the criminals an even bigger advantage. Many people become more concerned about the circumstances in life that brought the criminal to the point where he had to become a criminal. Many people will absolutely defend his rights while declaring my rights as undeserved because I am “privileged” to have a home and a family to protect.

However, that is another article and only partially relevant here. The fact of the matter is that nobody can say for certain exactly why he broke into my home. The point is that nobody will ever be able to fully prove his intentions. It could be that he is a convicted pedophile and even more, it could be that my children never even crossed his mind but that he was only trying to steal something.

How many criminals simply encounter a target of opportunity and their intentions completely change course in the middle of a crime? Their intentions, or rather their thoughts can never be proven and to even attempt to categorize, stereotype and package people up in neat little categories never has and never will work.

Federal hate crimes legislation is a crime. We can no more prove thoughts or intentions than we can prove any other “theory”. There are facts that can be proven. If someone is committing a crime, that makes them a criminal. This is an irrefutable fact! There are laws in place to deal with criminal behavior. This is an irrefutable fact! How about we the people take a look at why our courts are failing so miserably now. How about juries of our peers consider just the facts and stay away from speculation that may or may not be relevant to the criminal investigation and the ensuing legal proceedings.

How about we concentrate on enforcing the laws we already have in place before we try to interpret, much less prove and prosecute intent and thoughts that people may or may not have ever had.

 

After the recent election, it should be relatively easy for the more conservative among us to get a little excited and perhaps take a much needed sigh of relief. Hopefully, those people that were elected by the efforts of the Tea Party and other conservatively principled parties, groups and individuals, will take heart to what the overall message of the elections was in reality. However, reality is never so easy to discern and as is always the case, there are numerous other factors that must be kept in mind and guide us in our efforts towards a more conservative future.

We are seeing a number of different points of parity in our once great and proud nation and it is at the very least, important to see and to recognize them if we are going to successfully find ways to overcome them. While our recent electoral victory does indeed give me hope, it is important to remember that there are a large number of disenfranchised democrats who did not bother to vote because the number of programs implemented was so small and the ones that were implemented did not go nearly “social” enough. While the country itself may tend to lean center/right, there are still a large number of likely voters who are all for developing a socialist utopian society … though they may be (and likely will remain) blissfully unaware of how they will suffer in such an “ideal” society.

Why would anyone willfully vote in such a system (despite its questionable constitutionality based on the Constitution’s guarantee of a Republican form of government) and willingly give up their collective rights and freedoms? This question brings us to another point of parity that we have reached as a nation. Almost one half of all of the people in this nation receive some sort of social assistance doled out by the federal government. Even if you discount the number of wounded veterans and truly disabled people, that is still an excessive number of people sucking on the federal, social teat. A great many of these people see no need to “buy the cow” when they are “getting the milk for free” but the fact remains that nothing in this world is free.

Now many people are going to initially pass this off as some sort of racist rant but nothing could be further from the truth. I have had the questionable benefit of being somewhat poor my entire life. Where I grew up in the mountains of West Virginia, it is commonly held that people are going to collect food stamps, welfare and any other “free benefits” that are readily available from the federal government. Let’s add to that little tidbit that these people are not exactly racially diverse or open to new ideas, concepts or even un-known people in their midst. The majority of people living in the more rural areas of West Virginia remain white and many would like to keep it that way. While Arkansas may be the poorest state in our union, the Appalachian Mountains remain home to the poorest areas … even poorer than the average person or family in Arkansas.

That in itself, should point out the fact that this is not a racist issue and that I am not a racist, though sadly, many people will still believe that regardless of the facts, truth or any evidence to the contrary. This brings us to yet another point of parity that is troubling our once great and proud nation and this one, perhaps more than all of the others, is personally troubling. Pick your favorite propaganda minister of choice and insert their name here … would be proud of the ability of the press and the politicians to repeat lies so often that they become readily accepted as the truth and facts despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

The fact is that this nation was formed as a Constitutional Republic and while it may be much closer to being a democratic republic these days, the fact is that it is a republic and not a democracy. People (around the world and not only in the US) consistently praise the democratic structure of the USA when in fact, democracy is inherently evil and subject to fail without exception in the history of the world as we know it. Once those who are satisfied to suckle at the social teat discover that they are capable of providing themselves with raises at the ballot box, they will almost inevitably vote for the person who promises more “freebies” and “government benefits” to them without any regard for the producer who generates that wealth. These same individuals are often willing to believe almost any half-baked truth as long as it provides some sort of tangible benefits to them.

The truth is that as a Republic, we are a nation of laws and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, any law or anything else for that matter, which runs contrary to the constitution, is unconstitutional. Any semblance of democracy as provided for by the constitution, is relegated to the states and not to the federal government. The fact is that no matter what “truths” are spread about our “democracy”, it is going to require a majority of voters to bring this socialist agenda to a halt and not a simple parity between the left and the right. Half the people voting to do the wrong thing does not make it right (or constitutional) and therein lies the problems with and the evil of a democracy.

To try to fight such a battle with half the likely voters being so misinformed is going to be difficult at best and impossible at worst. Narrow is the path and difficult is the way though, and as such, we as conservatives, can ill-afford to sit on our laurels and celebrate this recent (seeming) victory. We need to make certain that our calls do not end, our cries remain loud and clearly understood in Washington DC. If we allow those whom we have voted in to become complacent, they will easily fall into the traps and snares so often encountered and succumbed to by the powerful and “elite” in DC. We must constantly call out to redress our grievances and remind them that they are servants of the people and not our masters.

Like the people at Concord and Lexington, we have made our stand and in all respects, it was a worthy and respectable stand. Now, like our forefathers before us, we need to remind everyone not only why such a stand was necessary, but how the only way that they will personally benefit, is to make that stand with us. You can lead a man to logic but you cannot make him think and the path ahead is going to be long and arduous but I do not believe that it is impossible.

Those who are able-bodied need to once again be willing to stand on their own two feet without the federal government to offer them support and the ability to exist (and even thrive) without putting forth any efforts. Along with our individual rights, we must also come to terms with the fact that we have individual responsibilities as well. Sadly, there will always be those among us who refuse to stand on their own no matter how many times they are helped up and even more sadly; ultimately, there is nothing that we can do for them. Such matters however, are better left for states, churches and local organizations to handle. To grant the federal government the power they need to give you everything you want, requires giving them what they need to take everything away from you as well … but that is only one of the many points that can (and should … even must) be used to persuade those who have become so disillusioned in their complacency and ignorance.

A simple half of the nation or even a majority of the nation believing the truth will do no good unless we can continue to win at the ballot box in the same resounding fashion that we recently enjoyed. In order to do that, a lot of education and information is going to have to be administered. Regrettably, that information will likely have to be served up in small doses so as not to overwhelm the afflicted among us. We can help them on to the road to recovery but we cannot make the journey for them. Such being the case, I hope that our nation does once again rise to the challenges it faces … from within this time … and that we, as Conservatives, do not rest on our collective laurels, but use this as the opening salvo and an opportunity to inform and educate the masses.

As for our leaders whom we have elected, we must keep their feet to the proverbial fire as well, never allowing them to become complacent in their office but remembering that we the people are the final solution. James Madison was quite clear about we the people being the final system of checks in our precarious system of checks and balances. If we continue to forsake our right, our responsibility to be vigilant and hold true to our duties, the point of parity will indeed become the point of no return.

We all heard the expression “Too Big To Fail” used when explaining why the government felt the need to rob we the people in order to bail out wall street and major corporations rather than granting tax relief and offering incentives to “productive” business and other commercial enterprises that would create jobs, increase industry and actually improve the economy. But who is going to bail out the government with these trillions of dollars in new debts and an increasingly weak dollar and economic outlook?

 

The truth is that once again, the government is turning to the productive portion of society to pay for the vast majority of this fiasco. It may do you well to remember that the productive members of society are often called the working class … we the people … those of us who work and take care of our own needs and our own families. We are the ones who are asked to pay for this debacle … we who so many in the government claim they are trying to help.

 

I CALL BS!

 

The last figures I looked at agreed that the wealth does seem to be disproportionately distributed but is that a bad thing? Those people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and others have vast amounts of personal wealth but how did they get it? How many people have they employed? How much have they contributed to the tax base that supports our bloated bureaucracy? Well if truth be told, they have personally contributed relatively little but not for the reason you may think.

 

Who pays for those jobs? Who pays the corporate taxes? Who pays for that CEO’s outrageous salary? Is it Microsoft the corporation? No! It is in fact, the end user or the consumer of Microsoft Goods who pays for all of those. If truth be told, it is ALREADY we the people who are paying their corporate tax. If you do not like it, you are more than welcome to buy an Apple or to use Open Source software such as Linux or Unix. You see, in this market, you the consumer … we the people … ultimately decide when a company fails or succeeds.

 

UNLESS!

 

Unless the end consumer is so un-informed or otherwise incapable of making up their own minds.

 

As long as the end user has the necessary knowledge at hand, there is no need for regulations as the consumer will make their voices heard with their wallets. If you do not like the company, do not support it and it will go out of business based on the needs, demands and wishes of the consumer … also known as the also known as the working class … also known as WE THE PEOPLE.

 

Are you so uninformed and incapable of helping yourself that you have to make it a lifetime career choice to be taken care of by the government?

If you are not, than please stand with us as Americans first and put aside the victim mentality for a while. (We have all seen that at play on all sides of the political spectrum so do not even think about passing that statement off as being divisive in ANY way!) If you are that utterly incapable of caring for yourself, than sadly my friend, there is nothing anybody can do to help you … and if you are a believer in Darwin, should evolution be allowed to take its course here?

 

For those of faith and with the means, helping others is always an option and if you want a hand up, I will be the first in line. If you want to sit on your fat lazy arse on my doorstep every day waiting with your hand out, you are in for a really long wait. What right does the government have to take from anybody to give to anyone who refuses to help themselves. If they are incapable of helping themselves, there are institutions for these people so let them go there! Why should they be legally entitled to the fruits and benefits of those who have and continue to put forth effort day in and day out? If they want help, they can get that now! If they want support, let them either earn it or marry a rich spouse. (like John (I was in) F’ing (Viet Nam) Kerry did)

 

There is no lack of information out there. There is a massive amount of ignorance and apathy on the part of the people however. If you want to know about something, learn about it. If you do not, do not expect me to help you only because I have. Make your voice heard with your wallet and let we the people decide who will succeed and who will fail. If they cannot run their own business I am definitely going to be reluctant to invest in their company to help them fail even more. Yet that is exactly what the government is doing with money that belongs to WE THE PEOPLE!

 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PRODUCE, CREATE OR HAVE ANY MONEY!

 

What they have is the power to redistribute our wealth as they see fit. What they have is the power to take from you and me and give it to someone else. Do you stop and give every bum on the street cash? When you are paying for dinner and you use a coupon, do you distribute that money you saved between all the people you took to dinner?

 

Of Course Not!

 

Why not? Is it because you are greedy? Many people would have you believe that but it is not necessarily true. What you had was the knowledge and the ability to take an existing set of circumstances and make it work out to your favor. That is called freedom. The government wishes to take that away from you though.

 

How?

 

If you dance on either of the two sides of the political party aisles you have heard people and their BS cries of Fascism, Nazism, socialism, communism and likely many more. More often than not these are based more on emotional rants than actual facts or relevant points but it does have a striking similarity to the relevance of the situation we are facing as a nation. While the problems that led us here are numerous and multi-faceted, the end result is going to be the same.

 

What is the one common ground for all of those “Isms” where accusations fly like nothing more than so much snow in a blizzard?

Whenever any of these programs have been tried in the past, they have effectively destroyed the middle class of their respective nations.

 

The last time I looked at any figures, it seems that about fifty-three percent of the nation was paying one-hundred percent of the income tax. Disregarding the sales taxes and other “hidden” “excise” taxes that we the people all pay, what does that say for our middle class? Moreover, what happens when more people are sucking on the social teat than are contributing to it? Can you say “Social Security” boys and girls? I thought you could! The nation as a whole will go bankrupt.

 

Throw in to that unpleasant scenario an increasingly depressed dollar, excessive national debts and other issues and the picture for America becomes even more bleak. What will happen when the corporations are all owned by the federal government? What will happen when only the major industries are all owned by the federal government? If you want the truth, you have to look at what has always historically happened in such cases.

 

Whenever government has instituted a takeover of the primary industries in an economy, the destruction of the working class and the middle class has ensued. A select few who are rich enough and with the proper political connections will be allowed to retain their wealth. The politicians, being the new “providers” will hold all the power, the wealth and the control while the former working class is forced into a state of poverty. Soon after the government takeover of private industry, there is no longer any incentive to produce so what happens then?

 

Do the nations stand idly by while all their people starve to death and the nation comes to a grinding halt? Nope! They put the people to work for their pittance and their crumbs in the way of social welfare programs. They will still tell you that they are looking out for the working class but such is not the case.

 

Those people that are currently working, producing and paying will be doing the same amount of work for much less. Those who are currently sucking on the social teat will now have to work to get their social “benefits” and those who refuse will be re-educated or otherwise removed from the societal prefecture.

 

Does that sound so far-fetched?

 

Does it sound like some crazy conspiracy theory? Perhaps it does. Still, look around you today and look at what is happening in our society. Do not rely on some government printed book but go back to the books written at the time and look at what has happened in October of 1917 or in 1933 or even during “the people’s revolution” of the forties. Every one of those “Isms” was started “for the good of the working class” and every one of them ended up with only two classes of society. Avoiding for the time being the atrocities that were committed against their own people, look at what has historically happened to those nations. Now look at America today and tell me what is different.

 

Is America too big to fail? Add in double-digit inflation, add in the coming recession and add in the new costs as government takes over the private industries and it gets even uglier. The feds already have the Interest Rate set to zero. It is not going to get any lower. The fed is printing up money as fast as it can go and even China and Japan are no longer buying American debts. Where do you think the picture goes from there? Federal Reserve printing presses are printing up new dollars as fast as they can. At this rate, we will long for the recession of the 1970s but unfortunately, it may be too to fix it this time.

 

Is America too big to fail? Apparently not … but while she has stumbled, she has not fallen yet. Either we come together and work together as Americans first or she will fall … and if she does, the aftermath is going to be an amazingly ugly reality for us all even if it is only a rude-awakening for some.

When is a Law Unconstitutional? ...

Obviously if the omniscient SCOTUS declares a law to be unconstitutional, we know that it is so right? Thus, we should be able to draw an easy conclusion without inference and presume that when that same SCOTUS declares a law to be Constitutional, it is.

Although, if you truly believe that, you have spent entirely too much time listening and not enough time watching what is happening around you.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of people know only what they hear from friends, from the newspapers and from whatever other (generally partisan) source that they get their political news from, not only are there some really frightening things going on around us today, but we are ALL directly impacted by what happens in political circles. Politics is like a marriage is supposed to be; for better or for worse, we have to accept the consequences of what our politicians do today. For example: The SCOTUS has ruled that the McCain/Feingold act is perfectly constitutional and that it could be set forth into law … and so it was. How familiar are you with that act?

It effectively prohibits you, as an individual citizen, from making any of your opinions known on or about an upcoming election. While that is not where it starts, if you follow it through to the logical conclusion based on past examples of real good/feel good political laws, that is exactly where it ends up.

Again, harping on the anti-smoking laws … there was no great cry to make smoking illegal in bars, private cars and certainly not in private homes but that is exactly what has come about is it not?

The McCain-Feingold act will allow those unions that you pay so much money to as they drive your jobs overseas due to the fact that the same officials they are donating your money to are passing laws such as Nafta and Cafta … are by law, allowed to express their opinions right up until the last moment … but you as a citizen?

Nope!

So sad, too bad!

Your rights are inconsequential … and even if that is not where it leads to today, it still sets a very dangerous precedent for the government in allowing them to know that they can usurp the rights of we the people while we stand (or sit) idly by and watch it happen without much of a cry at all.

How about the Lautenberg Act that was written into a much larger bill so that it would go un-noticed by the vast majority of people who actually signed the bill into law, not to mention right over the heads of we the people … the SCOTUS has ruled it constitutional as well … but is it? If you have not read it yet, I ask you to read my post on The Lautenberg Act here where I give you an actual scenario that could … according to that law … actually happen.

Somebody who has never been a threat in any way could easily become an instant felon with no jury, no trial and no hearing at all.

You may scoff at the idea, but ask any of the good cops who got caught up in it … or the military men who were adversely impacted by such laws. I can safely bet that they will tell you the very same thing in regards to this law.

What if the government passed a law forcing you to violate federal laws already on the books?

Never going to happen you say?

I can tell you it is already in the works and when I explain it to you, you may even scoff at it as inconsequential but again, it is not so much the detriment of this one law that is at odds as it is the amount of power that the government can take … without any consent from the governed and with no option on our part but to accept it. CFL light bulbs are supposed to last longer and be “cleaner” since they use substantially less energy right?

But did you know that if you broke one in your home, cleaned it up yourself as you would a regular light bulb, that you would actually be in stark violation of federal environmental cleanup laws?

Remember the old thermometers and thermostats that this same government made you get rid of because they were dangerous and toxic? The same ones that you can no longer purchase because if you broke one, it literally required an act of the EPA to clean it up?  The CFL light bulbs contain this very same substance (Mercury) even if in smaller quantities.

However, the government or the feds at least, do not make any mandates about the amount of hazardous chemicals that are spilled in their laws, they just say that it is a toxic spill and it must be cleaned up by “professionals” who know what they are doing.

Did you know that the “assumption” that there are hazardous materials stored (likely improperly) in your home actually gives the government and the feds the absolute “right” to come into your home with absolutely no warrant to investigate.

Anti-terror laws, environmental laws and many other politically correct laws have given the government unprecedented powers that we must reign in before they begin the systematic and arbitrary enforcement of those laws … waiting until they take them to the next level may make it entirely too late for us and put us in the very unenviable position of Cardinal Berdinand.

I have no doubt that these laws were put into place by people with nothing but the best intentions.

After all, who could doubt politicians who spend hundreds of millions to build bridges to nowhere, keep ninety-thousand dollars in marked bribe money in their freezer and play footsie in public restrooms (without knowing that the very constitution that he is sworn to uphold could have prevented his arrest and subsequently, his guilty plea from being necessary … but who is going to serve you by protecting the constitution that he neither knows or understands)

Who could doubt the good intentions of the politicians that we have in office today?

Then again, I have often heard tell that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Somehow or another, I doubt there is anything good in the vast number of unconstitutional laws being passed these days, no matter what the SCOTUS (or anybody else) may tell us.

It is interesting to me with the popularity of all of these reality shows on television nowadays. The ones that impress me most are shows like "Cops" and "America's Most Wanted" where we get “brownie points” for helping the police catch these dangerous criminals.

It's nice as a citizen to participate in our patriotic duty right?

Except?

Except that there are many problems with this. The most obvious of course is how many of these people are actually criminals? I do not have any doubt that most, or even more likely all of them are right now. But later on? As our rights become less and less apparent and less and less important? What about then?

Police have no civic duty to protect citizens any more.

In fact they are encouraged against it by the law! Huh? How is that? Well, you see in a little advertised technicality, we do not have peace officers anymore like we used to. We now have law enforcement agents who are allowed to interpret the law at the "scene" and then must enforce and protect the Law without regard for the humanity involved. I know there are still good cops out there but ask any of them if their job is the same now as it was twenty or even ten years ago.

Things are always changing and many good people are caught up in the struggle, not just We The People. Like so many powers which are given to the federal government in the name of safety or social welfare programs. Do you really think the government will relinquish that power willingly? Unfortunately, like taxes, government never met a power it did not like either.

When traffic cameras came out for anyone who cares to look it up or who remembers, they were only going to be used for monitoring traffic remember? They were never going to be used in any way to convict anyone or even as evidentiary materials but only to monitor traffic. Like so many more things, Social Security, Anti this and that campaigns, our rights are eroded a little bit at a time until suddenly we wake up one day wondering where the few remaining rights went.Redistribution of wealth has been happening so long that We The People actively encourage big government to participate in it.

The rights of private property owners used to be subject to scrutiny only in the public interest. Remember that once again, it all crept up slowly until it was too late for We The People. Now private property can be taken from one private citizen and freely (and illegally) redistributed to another private citizen without regard for the private property owner. What is the logical conclusion to all of these shows? Remember the movie "Running Man" with Arnold and of all people ... Richard Dawson as an entirely believable bad guy? How many people are going to worry about "a common criminal" that they have never met and do not know? After all, if the government or especially television tells us that this is a dangerous criminal it has to be true right?

Everything we see on television and everything that the government tells us is true right?

"Remember Cadre Members, double points for turning in a family member today!"

Is it really so difficult to see that coming? What stage will it be at before you wake up America?

On Gun Registration

Gun registration is something that I have never personally favored, but again, the idea of this site is to look at things objectively and reach logical (and reasonable) conclusions without the interference of personal prejudices and this is one case, while it is difficult, it is certainly important. You can read my article on the second amendment and tell beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am a fervent believer in the unalienable rights of we the people to keep arms for the purpose of self-defense and self-preservation.



Quite honestly, I do not see that the government can legally or constitutionally pass any laws prohibiting law-abiding citizens from the right to defend themselves, their homes, their families or their property. As Americans, we should be able to enjoy our unalienable rights as well as many privileges, but being human, many of these can be inherently dangerous when they are abused or used in an irresponsible manner and thus, along with certain rights and privileges, there is also an implied sense of responsibility. I say implied because if it were always true, we would not need laws but again, we are still humans and hey! … stuff happens sometimes. Driving is without any doubt a privilege and not a right by any stretch of the imagination. If you think it is a right, tell someone who is blind that it is their right and see where that leads you. It is a privilege and along with that privilege comes the responsibility to make certain that your actions, while driving, do not interfere with the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of other citizens.

Cars are also without any doubts, responsible for substantially more deaths every year than are guns. Thus, being something dangerous, it seems only appropriate that when people choose to use this privilege, that it should be regulated and even bonded with the use of insurance. All too many families know not only the grief but the cost of dealing with accidents caused by people who either can no longer get or do not think that they need insurance. The fact is that people can and do get hurt and even killed by cars and that is simply irrefutable. So what does all of that have to do with registration of guns when the ownership of guns is supposed to be an unalienable right and is not simply a privilege that we should be able to enjoy within reason? Well, the term “Law-abiding” citizen should be your first clue. As long as we are law-abiding citizens of these independent but united states of America, I do not believe that ANY laws restricting our rights to own guns can or should be limited or otherwise restricted and ANY effort to do so is both illegal and unconstitutional.



I will state that clearly and certainly and without any hesitation because I see absolutely nothing in the Constitution, the writings of the founding fathers or anything else that makes me believe that this is anything but the simple truth no matter what some politically correct members of the SCOTUS may want us to believe is true … only because they tell us it is true. Furthermore, I know all of the horror stories about gun-registration from Nazi Germany and into France where they were used in order to force the submission of possible rebellious individuals and were the direct or indirect cause of thousands of innocent deaths if not tens of thousands of people. Nonetheless, the fact remains that gun ownership, while certainly being a right that law-abiding citizens should be able to enjoy unencumbered by illegal and unconstitutional regulations, is also a very serious responsibility and whether you want to admit it or not, we are not always responsible people.



If somebody purposely drives their car through a crowd, they have already proven that they are not capable of being responsible and should immediately lose that privilege and any such persons as may be want to attempt to exert their privilege to drive should be summarily tossed into jail. There may occasionally be extenuating circumstances, but if there are, they will be brought out in a trial by a jury of the individual's peers and can thus, be factored into the appropriate punishment. Likewise, if somebody is to pull their gun out simply because they got angry or upset, their action has proven that they are not responsible and have no legal right to further endanger the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of any other citizen and should lose that right without anything more than a trial. Guns can and are dangerous weapons in the hands of untrained or irresponsible individuals.



If somebody is a threat to society, their mental facilities or whatever other “causes” for their actions that they may have, are secondary to the rights and liberty of the rest of the law-abiding society. If someone is a menace to society, they need to be removed from that society. As law abiding citizens, we all have rights but we also have responsibilities.



Whether you like it or not, I can find absolutely nothing preventing the registration and even ballistics tests for guns in the possession of law-abiding citizens. I do not personally like the thought and truth be told, I think it is abhorrent that we should even consider it but nonetheless, I cannot find anything that says it is illegal or even imprudent for the government to take an active interest in the actual prevention of crime in such a manner. When a crime is committed with a gun, it would actually be much easier to find the guilty party or at least to get going along the proper lines.



In the event that our government ever did try to suppress our second amendment rights, I think that they would still find it incredibly difficult and likely more costly than it was worth, but it remains doubtful that the government would ever attempt anything so foolish … unless through legislation by the courts. (Although I certainly have my doubts as do many other law-abiding citizens) Unfortunately, the problem with such laws is much the same as the actual ownership and use of cars and guns. Despite what should be the case, governmental justice is not blind and does regulate laws arbitrarily.



As long as there is power in government and governments are run by mankind, that law is bound to be arbitrarily enforced and that power is liable to encounter instances of abuse. That however, is yet another article.

The Conservative Movement Defined

True Conservative values are based on the assumption that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it and when you have something good, keep it. It also assumes that there is an equal and very un-arbitrary system of rules and laws that are equal to everyone and not just to a select few. This is actually how we came to be ruled under the Constitution and why the Constitution (at least legally) remains the Supreme Law of the Land.

Conservatism is based on a set system of values, beliefs, morals and ethics. Conservatism is about the expression of personal freedoms, the exercise of personal rights and the implementation of personal responsibility. There is no right expressed or implied that allows a true Conservative to infringe on the rights of others no matter what the circumstances may be … within the limitations and constraints of the laws of the land as set forth by the voting populace anyhow.

This is actually why Ben Franklin and many others warned us and actively sought to prohibit the ability of lawyers (People of Title) to hold public office. Mr. Franklin and other people of a similar mind rightfully believed that to allow the lawyers to create the laws would result in a set of laws so complex and convoluted that only other lawyers would be able to understand them. If you do not believe that this has come to pass, look at the Federal Regulatory Statutes or even the IRS Tax Laws.

True Conservatism does not make room for any moral relativity or any sliding scales. If you work harder at making yourself a better person, you will be a better person. If you are unwilling to do this, you are not in a position to help others who want to and you are not in a position to be a true Conservative leader. A true Conservative does not actively seek out understanding and sympathy but rather a fair and impartial hearing of the facts.

A true Conservative does not attempt to get into the hearts or minds of others. Federal Hate Crimes Legislation is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional not because it is enforced arbitrarily (although that certainly should be a factor that is considered) but because it forces the courts into a position where they must suppose or determine what they believe that the suspect was thinking while the crime was being committed.

A crime is a crime and should be punished as such. If the punishment is not doing enough to deter the criminal element from committing the criminal act, perhaps tougher punishment is in order and not more “understanding” or worrying about how the perpetrator of the crime may feel. It is irrelevant what the criminal was thinking when they perpetrated their particular crime, only that they committed a crime and should be punished.

If you work harder in order to earn more money, you have every right to keep that money and not have it “redistributed” to other people who are not willing to work as hard as you did. Should someone who makes more money pay more taxes? There is nothing wrong with this but there must also be one little caveat included as well.

Taxes are required by the Constitution to be equal among all people. Yes I know that the Supreme Court has tried this, justified it and declared it as Constitutional but that does not make it so. I am a professional writer and if you hand me a piece of poorly written crap, my simply stating that it is great does not make it automatically true.

The Conservative system requires that it be implemented equally among all people. It seems that the only way to do this would be with a fair use tax where individuals were taxed based on what they consumed, but that argument will be left for another article. Nonetheless, it remains true that people who earn more money should pay more in taxes, but again, only in proportion to what everybody else is paying as well.

A true Conservative understands that nobody is perfect and makes no expectations of anyone being that way. As individuals, it is foolish to even think, much less to believe that everybody else will feel or think exactly the same way that you do. Again, that is part of the argument against hate crimes legislation and many other such “constitutional” laws on the books. However, a True Conservative also understands that some things should be kept in the privacy of the home where they are out of the public spotlight and out of government reach, control or explanation.

The Conservative movement does not have gay members, black members, female members, native American members or even white members. The Conservative movement has people that are Conservatives who may happen to be gay, black, white, female, native American or just about any combination thereof. The main difference is that we ask that our voice be heard because we are Conservative, not because of personal differences that “make us who we are”.

If you are capable of expressing yourself clearly and succinctly regarding your beliefs and want to disparage my theories, we may have some issues but we could probably hold a conversation. If you are a good person overall, the Conservative will not care if you are gay, straight, an atheist, black, white, male, female or anything else other than the fact that you are a good and decent person.

Nothing else is relevant in a public setting. What you do within the privacy of your own home should probably be left in the privacy of your own home however. For an example of this, I will use the highly charged Gay Movement. Can anyone honestly say that events such as the Folsom Street Fair with sexual activity in public, in front of homes and businesses and even in front of children (as photographic evidence proves) will help the Gay Movement to become socially acceptable?

Let’s say you are gay and you come to my home as a guest. If you have a gay lover, I do not care and you are more than welcome to stay in the guest room and do whatever you please without any concerns for being judged in any way. However, if you start making out and humping right there in the living room, you would be hard-pressed to convince me that this was tolerable behavior.

Personally, I have a passion for Asian women and if I came over to your home as a guest, I would expect the same courtesy … to be given and received. If you agree with that, how can you possibly agree that public displays of blatant sexual conduct are in any way justified?

A true Conservative recognizes that what you do in the privacy of your own home is your concern and should only be limited by the local laws as voted on and approved by the people living there. When you are in somebody else’s home, you should (as should everybody … and not any particular group of people) afford them the same respect that you would expect from them should you not?

Is the same respect not applicable when somebody is in a public setting? If not, then please explain to me why this is any different. You may accidentally discover (and even be forced to admit) that Conservatives are not the hate-filled bigots you believe us to be. As long as you are willing to convey your ideas in an actual fact-filled and informative manner and not just blast us with an emotional rant, we are more than open to discussion and discourse.

The Conservative Movement has nothing to do with a bunch of fanatics in any genre but a collection of people who believe in personal rights, personal responsibility and the equal opportunity for all people to succeed based on the same rules on a level and equal playing field. If you need to have that field tilted in your direction in order for you to perceive it as being level, perhaps it is not the field, but your way of thinking that needs to be adjusted.

A mind is like a parachute. It will not function unless it is open.