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.