Tyranny

We are a nation that began with the recognition that people, by virtue of birth, have natural rights that are unalienable. These rights are not bestowed by man or government but by our Creator. These rights belong to the individual and may not be infringed unless the individual uses them to infringe the rights of others. Among these are the right to life, liberty. To protect these and other rights, we have the right to arms. To defend our rights against an government that has become tyrannical, these arms include contemporary military weapons. The founders had just fought and won our freedom from a tyrannical government. They were successful because, among other things, they had access to the weapons in common use by armies of the time. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States codifies the right to arms. It does not limit the type of arms, it only limits government from infringing the right of each individual. It is not about hunting or sporting use. It is a recognition that all free people have the right to arms required to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified had the Bill of Rights not been included. There is a preamble to the Bill of Rights that many people have never heard or read. It states the purpose for the inclusion of the first ten amendments. It says, “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” Some felt that rights were self-evident enough that they need not be codified. Others knew that governments, given power, become corrupt. Even with the restrictive clauses, our elected officials infringe these rights with impunity. Of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, the only one that has not infringed is the third. It is time to stop tyranny. It is time to return the government to the limits of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” A tyrant will continue their evil until the become aware that their actions can cost them their life. Our Declaration of Independence rightly recognizes that we don't change long established governments for “light and transient causes” and that history shows that “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” It's not our government that needs changed, it's the elected officials. We've allowed them to expand the scope of government outside the bounds of the Constitution. We've allowed them to turn the Congress into a place where they increase their bank accounts rather than focusing on the business of the people. We must petition our government to stop their continued infringements. We must demand they stop operating outside the confines of the constitution. However, if all peaceful attempts at stopping the tyranny fails, we must also let them know in no uncertain terms that we will stop them.

We Are At A Crossroads.

Freedom is our birthright. Our Creator has bestowed each of us with unalienable rights. These rights preexist any form of government and they can not be taken away from us by man or government. Among these rights is the right to keep and bear arms. This right is codified in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no law or treaty may abridge it. The only way the Constitution may be changed is through the amendment process. Even then our rights are, again, unalienable and may not be abridged.

The proposed U.N. arms treaty under consideration seeks to abridge our freedoms. For a treaty to become valid, it must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. We have seen the current President usurp powers and operate outside Congressional approval and thus outside the Constitution. We have seen the Justice Department ignore arms export laws and provide weapons to the drug cartels of Mexico. These corruptions have resulted in the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds, if not thousands, of Mexican citizens. There must be consequences for such usurpations and corruptions. In 1776, our founding fathers showed King George that there were consequences for his Tyranny. Like our founding fathers, we must be willing to pledge our lives, fortunes and sacred honor to restore the Republic. We must help these current Tyrants understand their further usurpations will result in the loss of these things for them!

Re-Declaration of Independence.

Let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has started wars in Libya, Yemen and elsewhere without Congressional approval.
He has spent money from the treasury without Congressional appropriation.
He has used agencies to pass laws without Congressional consent.
He has allowed firearms to be transported to a foreign land and into the hands of enemies of the United States.
He has harassed states for passing laws important to their well being. (from the original Declaration of Independence: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.)
He has made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess for the sole purpose of bypassing the consent of the Senate.
He has murdered United States citizens without due process.
He, with consent of Congress, has claimed the authority to indefinitely detain United States citizens, if in the borders of the United States or not, without due process and without right of Habeas Corpus. (from the original Declaration of Independence: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.)

These are all I can think of at the moment. President Obama is not the first President to violate his oath and the Constitution but he is certainly the most blatant about it in my lifetime. He is also not the only Tyrant in our Government. Virtually all current and past members of Congress have violated their oath and the Constitution. Most of the alphabet agencies, FBI, CIA, ATF, DEA, EPA, GSA, etc., have no Constitutional authority to even exist. However, they are the most insidious. They create "regulations" that have the full effect of law yet the Constitution gives only Congress the authority to pass laws. The employees of the agencies are not elected and they are accountable to nobody. Congress has abdicated their responsibilities to the point of being irrelevant and we have done nothing to stop them. In fact, we keep re-electing the same Tyrants over and over again.

As Americans, we have a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly have plenty of foreign enemies, the domestic ones are far more dangerous to our Republic. If we don't wake up soon, we will not have a Republic left and there will be no peaceful way to restore the Republic enshrined in the Constitution. We may be too late already.

The Need To Do Our Duty.

The Tea Party and many others continue to push for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In theory, this amendment is necessary to further restrain the powers of a government that is becoming more Tyrannical every day. In practice a balanced budget amendment, no matter how well written, would be only as good as the paper it is written on. The federal government is and has been usurping powers not delegated it by the states via the contract that created the federal government, The Constitution of the United States, for decades. The Democrats and Republicans have equally violated the Constitution and usurped powers. For too long we the people have sat back and done nothing to stop the Tyranny. In general, the Democrats want to steal from those that are willing to work to give to those that aren't willing to work. In general, the Republicans want to limit the freedoms of one group based on the morals of another group. Both of these are forms of infringement on freedom and liberty and therefore in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. Both sides should be condemned for such behavior.

Before the original states would ratify the Constitution they required that the first ten amendments be adopted. These amendments are also known as the Bill of Rights. These codified rights are bestowed on every person by their Creator. They existed long before governments were instituted and they will exist long after governments have gone. It is obvious since these rights are unalienable and existed before government that these rights, including those not codified but just as real, are free from state abuse as well. There would be no reason for the founding fathers to codify the right to free speech if they believe this right could then be removed by each and every state.

The Bill of Rights has a preamble which is often excluded from copies of the document. Once you read the preamble you will understand why it is often left off. The preamble reads as follows: “THE conventions of a number of States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” This preamble is clear and unambiguous. Even so, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government have violated all of the Constitution at one time or another for decades if not a century or more.

The Congress has made laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It has made laws abridging the freedom of speech, press and peaceable assembly. It was not passed laws but unless you have millions of dollars there is little process for petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. All in violation of the very first amendment to the Constitution,

The Congress has violated the second amendment as well. It has not only made laws infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, it has created an agency, the ATF, whose sole purpose is to enforce those infringements and even increase those infringements through “regulation.” I quote regulation because a regulation is a law because a violation of that regulation results in punishment of some kind. The Constitution delegates the power to create law only to the Congress and its duly elected members. Congress can't delegate the power to create law without an properly ratified amendment to the Constitution. Yet Congress has done this in many areas.

To my knowledge Congress has not yet violated the third amendment which is about quartering soldiers.

The Congress has violated the fourth amendment, most recently with legislation known as the Patriot Act. It's strange how the titles of the legislation are usually the exact opposite of the intent of the legislation. Even the federal courts, including the supreme court, have violated this amendment. We are no longer secure in our persons, houses and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Congress and States have violated the fifth amendment. The federal government violates the “double jeopardy” clause by trying defendants for civil rights violations after the defendant has been acquitted in the state for the underlying crime that caused the supposed civil rights violation. I admit that my opinion is arguable. The states violate the same clause with third strike laws. In these cases, the defendants are being held accountable from crimes already committed and punished.

The Judicial of both state and federal governments violate the sixth amendment by restricting who may or may not be a witness or what evidence may or may not be presented. Both also violate the speedy part this amendment.

The Judicial of both state and federal governments violate the seventh amendments. That amendment says: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trail by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise be reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.” Again, when a state acquits a defendant and the federal government tries the defendant for the same basic underlying crime, this is a violation. States do similar things.

The judicial of both state and federal governments violate the eighth amendment. Excessive bail happens and worse yet, no bail happens. Also, with the three strikes laws, cruel and unusual punishment is inflicted often. Recently, Alex Trebek's hotel room was burglarized. The defendant is facing life in prison for that burglary. While I certainly don't condone burglary nor repeat offenders, I do believe that life in prison for a burglary is cruel and unusual.

The Congress and the Judicial of the federal government regularly violates the ninth amendment. The Constitution delegates no authority to the federal government to regulate any kind of plant, food or other similar product. The Congress and the Courts claim that the commerce clause gives them the power to regulate these things. If indeed, the commerce clause did this, there would be no need for the rest of the Constitution because the Congress could control everything. Regulate in this case means to make regular. In other words, one state can't trade a product to one state at one price and to another state at another price or to one state but to no other. The Congress has abused this clause for to long and the courts have assisted in this Tyranny. The violation of the amendment occurs when people are put in prison for federal drug laws for which the government has no authority to create and enforce such laws. America accounts for about 5% of the world population yet it locks up more than 20%
. A vast majority of these prisoners are for non-violent drug offenses. This is absurd and has created a vast, highly profitable business in housing and feeding these prisoners and also by fighting the war on some drugs. A war that, on the federal level, is completely unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

The Congress regularly violates the tenth amendment, the drug war is just one example of many.

Article one, Section eight of the Constitution enumerates the powers that Congress has been delegated. The final part of Section 8 says that Congress can make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Many Congressmen and others that want ever bigger government usually stop that sentence after “necessary and proper.” Again, if the sentence stopped there, there would be no need for the rest of the Constitution because this would give them broad discretion on what is necessary and proper. It is clear that necessary and proper refers only to the powers delegated them by the Constitution.

In Federalist Paper number 45, James Madison says “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” What we have today is the exact opposite of that. The federal government is usurping powers not delegated it by the States and the state governments have grown so dependent on federal handouts that they refuse to stand against the leviathan that we have allowed to grow. Only when we are willing to do our duties to stand against Tyranny will we be able to return to the limited federal government that our founders created for us. The states entered into the contract that created the federal government with the expectation that such government would honor its side of the contract. The contract of course is the Constitution of the United States. Our founders also knew that men, given power, would become corrupt and Tyrannical. That is why they put the control of the government in the hands of the people. However, they also knew that the Republic created by the Constitution could only remain as long as the people were diligent in doing their duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. How can we expect the government to care about our liberty and freedom if we are not willing to stand against those that would wish to destroy that liberty and freedom?

The End Of The Line

I recently read an article about two wounded veterans from Texas being harassed at an airport because of the shrapnel they had in their bodies. I've seen stories of the TSA feeling up infants, children, the elderly and even copping a really good feel of a beauty queen. I still see long lines of sheeple at the airports. I've read of Phil Mocek, the brave American who refused to show his ID to a TSA agent and was arrested by the Albuquerque New Mexico police. Mr. Mocek was acquitted of all charges. I still see long lines of sheeple at the airports with their ID's out like good little useful idiots should. It really wouldn't take much to change the useless behavior of our government. If only half of the sheeple would refuse to fly for a month or two, the airlines would feel the pain in their bottom line and force a change or go bankrupt. It's a shame that we can't get a few, let alone half, of the people to stop flying. They've been convinced that they are safer but when you ask for a single instance of the draconian behavior of the TSA stopping a single incident, they can't provide one. They end up saying that they just “feel safer.” If feeling safer were a right I may fell sympathy for them but it's not.

Soon, the lines we are all standing in will end at the entrance to a box car. Rather than being alarmed or outraged, we'll simply ask what movie or ball game we are going to see and march forward.

The Hypocrisy of the Left

The list below is of things those on the left have said about those on the right. It's surely not an complete list but it show the rhetoric on the left is just as vile as that on the right. I don't understand how the left can honestly say that only the right says things like this.

The Discovery Channel shooter said he experienced an “awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore's documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38968317/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ Nobody on the left denounced Mr. Gore's rhetoric, which was been proven to be lies. That have not asked him to stop the rhetoric either.

Hollywood and the record industry are the two major groups who put out violent, hateful imagery as a product to make money from. Both industries have vehemently denied that their products cause people to cause violence. It's not lost on the author that the vast majority of those in the movie and record industries are far left in their ideology. The say they words and images do not cause violence while at the same time saying that words and images used by the left cause violence. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

I do not believe that the words of the movie and music industries cause people to commit violence. I also don't believe the words of politicians on the left or right cause people to commit violence. The blood was not dry on the pavement and the left, including The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, were dancing in the blood. Johnathan Alter of Newsweek said '“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman.' Read the entire article at http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/10/the-impact-on-obama-s-presidency.html and judge for yourself if Mr. Alter cares for life or cares for the impact that it can have on Obama's Presidency. There will be no outcry from the left over Mr. Alter's callous comments.



Abort Sarah Palin bumper sticker: http://www.cafepress.com/+abort_palin_bumper_sticker,305510100

Actor Alec Baldwin: “If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together,all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death!”: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1998/cyb19981215.asp

Bill Maher: Sorry the assassination attempt on Dick Cheney failed: http://newsbusters.org/node/11169

Daily Kos: Should we mourn Tony Snow?: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/12/113616/867/661/550555

Hollywod movie: Death of a President: “assassination of President George W. Bush”: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/

Death Threats Against Bristol Palin & Mark Ballas during “dancing with the stars”: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6061268/death_threats_against_bristol_palin.html

Van Jones compares President Bush to a 'crackhead': http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/57373-jones-likens-bush-to-a-crackhead-in-latest-video-gaffe?page=1

During a concert, Madonna threatens to kick Sarah Palin's ass: http://www.buzzfeed.com/laurencook/madonna-ill-kick-sarah-palins-ass-nv

President Obama: “If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun.”: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

Daily Kos article on Gabrielle Giffords just two days before assassination attempt; repeated the use of word “dead” in relation to Giffords. “My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!”

Daily Kos put “bulls eye” on Gabrielle Giffords back in June 2008

Daily Kos scrubbed their web site but screen shots can be found at: http://hillbuzz.org/?s=daily+kos+target This site also contains a screen shot of a common Democrat political graphic using “bulls eye” targets.

yelp.com:“Who else hopes 'The' Dick Cheney Dies?”:http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-who-else-hopes-the-dick-cheney-dies

Can We Fix Our Election Process?

I don't see our Federal political process getting any better until we take the money out of campaigning. It has become obvious that donations are nothing more than bribes or at the very least the appearance of bribes. Just the appearance of a bribe can get an Government employee fired. Candidates for public office should be required to avoid all appearances of taking bribes so they should not be able to take money from their party, individuals or corporations. I feel the Supreme Court made a huge mistake in their decision to give corporations rights. People are the only entities that have rights. Rights are endowed on the people by their Creator. Governments can't bestow or remove rights.

One way to take part of the money out of the elections process would be to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This would return the process of electing Senators to the Legislatures of the States. Repealing the Twelfth Amendment would return the election of the President back to the electors appointed by the State Legislature. Both of these actions would reduce the number of people who could unduly effect these elections so it would be easier to tell if any corruption had taken place. We are then left with the election of our Representatives. Because the districts in the states from which our Representatives are elect are relatively small, I think any corruption can be easily detected.

A wider solution to the influence of money problem would be to remove all campaign contributions. Because such contributions can and do give the appearance of bribes, I don't feel to deny them would violate the Constitution of the United States. These are current of hopeful public officials under article one of the Constitution and therefore don't have the right to freedom of speech. Government officials don't have rights, they only have powers delegated to them by the states and the people. Candidates must be able to get their message out in a reasonable manner. To do so, I think each candidate should get equal time on all media. We should only hear from the candidates themselves and all claims must be honest and verifiable. If a claim is proven to be dishonest the candidate should be removed from consideration for office.

Because government is controlled by corporations, I'm under no illusion that this proposal would ever come close to being implemented in our current form of governance. Because there are so many citizens waking up to the corruption and abuse of our elected officials, I do hope this can start a debate about how we can return to a Constitutional Republic.

Hard To Understand

I was listening to Rusty Humphries on Monday night. He was talking about the alleged terrorist Mohamed Osman Mohamud. He was trying to personalize what might have happened. He first started talking about being in Washington for the holidays. It was cold so they were talking about going to the Christmas Tree lighting at Pioneer Square in Portland. The weather evidently warmed up and they stayed in Washington. He said if something would have happened at Pioneer Square, he and his family could have been there and been hurt. Latter in the show, after calling Mohamud a “punk ass kid” a dozen or so times, he was saying he was supposed to have been at Pioneer Square that day. He went from talking about going to Pioneer Square because of cold weather to supposed to have been there. Do people re-write events to make things seem like they could have been much worse?

During the show Humphries kept berating Mohamed. He kept saying that he was so important that he was named twice. I must assume that Humphries thinks that Mohamed and Mohamud are the same name. As I stated in “Terrorist Or Propaganda?” below, I don't think Mohamud is innocent but more questions of the FBI need to be asked and answered.

I don't know what good it does for people like Humphries to call names and try to belittle the alleged bomber. It doesn't help get us any closer to the truth and it makes Humprhies less than credible in anything else he says. I guess it could give Humphries a feeling of superiority. I usually only hear or read this type of name calling from Liberals when they don't have any facts to back up their arguments but even then they don't do it so many times during their rant. Don't get me wrong, I'm not perfect. I've probably called people names in the past but I try to base by discussions on facts provided and informed opinion.

During the show, Humphries opined that Mohamud should be put in jail for life after he is convicted. He didn't think he should be put to death because he had not killed anybody. It's Humphries opinon that Pfc. Bradley Manning, the person who allegedly leaked classified documents to Wikileaks, should be put to death because the leaks have caused deaths. What is interesting is that there have not been any alleged, let alone proven, deaths related to the leaks.

Terrorist Or Propaganda?

Mohamed Osman Mohamud was arrested in Portland. He had just dialed a cell phone that he allegedly believed would kill or maim hundreds of innocent people. This story doesn't pass the smell test. Mohamud likely had no contact with anyone other than FBI agents. There could be one other person he was in contact with if you believe the FBI's story of an unindicted associate overseas? With the FBI's record of deceit, I for one don't believe their story. FBI agents provided the plan, the van and the supposed explosives. The FBI also used illegal explosives in the presence of Mohamud. Mohamud dialed the cell phone twice so he is by no means innocent but I doubt he would have done any of this had he not been approached by the FBI in the first place.

It is worrisome that the public is not asking more questions about the FBI's role in this incident. I believe that the FBI is out of control in it's effort to find terrorists. They're not finding many so they've resorted to creating them. I wonder how far citizens will let this country proceed towards a police state before they call for a halt? I just hope we ask our government to rein them in before it is to late to stop them.

Where Is Justice?

David Olofson is in jail for thirty months because he happened to own a firearm that was defective and would sometimes fire more then one round for each pull of the trigger. This made it an unregistered machine gun to the ATF. A government agency that had to use several types of ammunition to duplicate the problem. The job of any law enforcement agency should be to find truth and justice, not to rack up convictions. The defense firearms expert was not allowed to physically inspect or test the rifle. This article is not specifically about Mr. Olofson, it's about the abuse and selective application of the laws of the country.

An Congressional ethics committee document indicates that Representative Charles Rangel owed The IRS $16,775 as of 1990, but he has paid some of the back taxes. It's important to understand that Representative Rangel was the Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means committee which writes the nations tax laws. Mr. Rangel was convicted of 12 ethics violations. Many of these violations would be considered crimes for we lowly serfs and we would be charged with crimes. One of the violations was “Violating Ethics in Government Act and House Rule26: Mr. Rangel submitted incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements, and failt to report or erroneously reported items he was required to disclose under the Ethics in Government Act from 1998 through 2008. In particular, Mr. Rangel amended certain financial disclosure statements only after a House committee began investigating his reporting of income from his Dominican villa.” How many of us would still be free if we filed a fraudulent government document?

In late 2003, former national security adviser to President Clinton, Samuel Berger, stashed highly classified documents under a trailer in downtown Washington in order to evade detection by the National Archives personnel. He then removed and destroyed them. Many, if not all, of the documents were originals so there is no way to know the extent of Mr. Berger's crime. What was Mr. Berger's punishment? He agreed to pay a $10,00 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. Would you or I get such lenient punishment for mishandling, actually out right stealing, classified data?

The CIA learned that in 1996, John Deutch, former director, had mishandled classified materials by keeping them on several unsecured home and office computers. These internet connected computers were also used by Mr. Deutch's children. The CIA didn't report this security breach to the Justice Department until March 1998. Congress was not notified until June of 1998. In April of 1999, the DOJ found that Mr. Deutch's actions, while sloppy, where not criminal. His security clearance was revoked in July of 1999, 3 months after his friends in high places let him off the hook. I'm sure we would get such treatment. Mr. Deutch's case was reopened shortly after Wen Ho Lee, who didn't have friends in high places, was railroaded through the system by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and others. Mr. Deutch was eventually convicted of mishandling classified information. President Clinton later pardoned him but not Wen Ho Lee.

With such massive willful abuse of authority it's easy to understand why such a large percentage of people distrust the government. What is not so easy to understand is why that percentage is not 100? I guess the families of the corrupt are forced to agree with them.

Liberal Thought Process

The Liberal thought process is a funny thing. On “The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell,” Mr. O'Donnell said , “As the first congressional election during his party chairmanship approaches, Michael Steele is dancing as fast as he can trying to charm independent voters and Tea Partiers while never losing sight of his real master and paycheck provider, the Republican National Committee.” Had a white Conservative said this, they would have been branded a racist and likely forced to resign. The Liberal mind recognizes the speaker as a white Liberal so no offense is detected. Christine O'Donnell talked about her beliefs on masturbation. Mr. O'Donnell also said, “How can Michael Steele attract independents with candidates that want to ban masturbation.” Mr. O'Donnell heard Christine O'Donnell's personal opinion and his mind turned it into her espousing policy. There is no limit to the hypocrisy of the left.

Mosque at Ground Zero.

On Friday, July 23, 2010 I heard Sean Hannity on XM Radio Channel 166. He was saying that we must not allow a Mosque to be built in New York City at Ground Zero. He basis this decision on what the Iman of the proposed Mosque believes and what he might do. It has been said that the Imam wants America to become a more Sharia compliant society. He believes that America's actions are responsible for 9/11. During one conversation he also said that he wouldn't support a church for satanic worship. This gives evidence that Mr. Hannity does not understand the Constitution of the United States, freedom or liberty. Mr. Hannity gives as proof of his understanding of the First Amendment the fact that he makes a living with the First Amendment. I beg to differ. He makes his living as a talk show host. He told one of his callers that you can't yell fire in a theater. This is a false statement. You can yell fire in a theater if there is a fire. You can yell fire in a theater if the theater is empty. If you yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic is when the problems arise. The same would be true if you yelled tire in a crowded theater and caused a panic. The limit is not on the speech, the limit is on the results of the speech. With all rights come responsibilities. You have the freedom to say anything you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. If you cause a panic with with what you say you are infringing on the rights of those panicked.

Before I continue, I must give full disclosure. The first Presidential election in which I was able to vote was between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. I voted for President Reagan. I've been a registered Republican since that first election. I don't always vote for Republican, I vote for the person that I feel will best uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Back to the Mosque. We were not attacked by Muslims or the Muslim religion. We were attacked by a group of radical criminals who, in my opinion, perverted their religion to justify their actions. There have been criminals in every major religion that haver perverted their religion to justify violence against others. Many Catholic priests have committed sexual violence against a great number of children over the years. We didn't rush to ban building Catholic churches anywhere. Many white supremacist groups , including the KKK, consider themselves members of the Christian church. We don't rush to ban their existence or the building of Christian churches based on these groups. Our founding fathers fought hard for this country. Part of the reason they did so was for religious freedom.
Mr. Hannity complains loudly about possible attempts of the Government to limit talk radio. There are people in this country that don't agree with what talk radio says so it should be okay with Mr. Hannity to stop it. After all, Mr. Hannity and other talk show hosts are okay with the the Patriot Act. Part of this act makes it okay for the Federal Government to do warrant less wiretaps in this country. Because this is in direct violation of the founding principles, we should be able to stop his and other shows.

The mindset of people that want to ban things amazes me. Even if Mr. Hannity and others were able to stop the Mosque, they won't stop the Imam from his beliefs. This country banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol in this country in 1919. This ban did nothing to stop the manufacture, sale, or transportation in this country. Prohibition did more to increase crime in this country than the thing they attempted to ban. Because prohibition increased crime, the Government created the FBI, an agency with no basis in the Constitution of the United States. The increase in crime was directly responsible for the Gun Control Act of 1934. A law that is in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The unintended consequences of banning something are usually more onerous than the thing being banned.

If the things said about the Imam are true he disgusts me. I will not, however, infringe on any of his rights. If he, or anyone else, does something to harm this country I will do everything with in my power to bring those people to justice. We can never live with freedom and liberty if we are willing to so easily deny it to others based solely on their beliefs.

Do Your Duty

Monday, May 31st was Memorial Day. It was formerly known as Decoration Days and it commemorates U.S. Soldiers who died in military service. It has expanded to also be a day to remember the service and sacrifices of veterans and active duty military. Soldiers who have fought and died for this country have made huge sacrifices. Many of them carry scars, both visible and hidden. The sacrifices they make are so that we can live in Freedom and Liberty. I wonder how many New Mexicans were out camping, boating, drinking and just generally partying? I wonder how many of them did so without knowing why they didn't have to work that day?

Tuesday, June 1st was primary election day in New Mexico. On that day only 28% of eligible voters actually voted. It is shameful that our soldiers sacrifice so much but 72% of eligible voters won't sacrifice anything to do their duty as citizens. It is not difficult to drive to the polls and vote. If people find it difficult, they may request and absentee ballot and not have to leave their houses to vote. I recall the first elections in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Men and woman risked their lives to take part in their elections. After voting, they proudly held up their purple fingers to show that no amount of threats would stop them from doing their civic duty. Low voter turnout favors the incumbents. The incumbents have gotten us in our precarious position. The are charged with regulating the financial industry. They abdicated that responsibility and many people lost their life savings. The Government is charged with regulating oil companies and drilling in the United States. They abdicated that responsibility and we now have an ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Government rules without Government oversight will always lead to disaster. Yes, the businesses involved in these problems share some of the blame but Government is there to provide checks and balances.

A Government of the people, by the people and for the people requires the participation of the people. If 72% of the people are to lazy and apathetic to do their duties as citizens we must stop asking our military to make such great sacrifices defending the rights that allow us to vote.

Take time to read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, Federalist papers, and Anti-Federalist papers. If you under 60 years of age, forget everything you learned of American History in school, if you learned anything at all. It's likely all wrong. Find more writings of the founders and read them. Our founders weren't a bunch of rich, old, white racists. There were Black and Hispanic founders that fought and died for our independence.

Thwarted Attack?

I'm having a hard time understanding why Government officials are saying that the attempted car bombing in NYC over the weekend was thwarted? The attempted bombing was not thwarted, it failed. A citizen did notice the SUV smoking and alerted authorities. That was after the detonation failed. Had the bomb been well constructed, nobody would have noticed before death and destruction ensued. New York and we as a nation were very lucky. It's unfortunate that the Obama administration is trying to take credit for thwarting this attempted attack. This gives people that impression that we are not as susceptible to terrorist attacks as we really are.

Rights Are Unalienable

The United States Supreme Court will soon rule on McDonald V. Chicago. The question in this case is whether or not the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to States through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. I don't understand why there is any doubt that the Second Amendment applies to the States. I also don't understand why the Fourteenth Amendment was needed? I do understand that states were denying rights to the newly freed slaves after the Civil War but I don't feel an Amendment was needed to protect their rights. Being free, they retained the same rights as all citizens of the United States. The United States of America was responsible for six percent of the slave trading in the world. While this is not a huge percentage, we brought them here against their will. Once freed, if they chose to remain they were citizens as much as any other freeman.

The first ten amendments are referred to as “The Bill of Rights.” These rights are a few of the unalienable rights that each person is endowed with by their Creator. At the time of the Ratification of the Constitution, a number of the states insisted the Bill of Rights be included. The preamble to the Bill of Rights reads, “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adoption of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” For some reason, this preamble is often left out of printouts of the Constitution. Amendment Nine reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, the rights codified are not the only rights the people have. The Tenth Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, we, the States give the Federal Government some powers and we reserve some powers for ourselves. The rest we, the people, retain.

Let's use the Freedom of Speech as an example. Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to limit speech so there should be no need to tell them they can't make any law abridging the freedom of speech. The foresight of our founding fathers was amazing. Imagine how many more laws abridging the freedom of speech would exist had they not insisted on including the prohibition in the First Amendment? Now let's use the Second Amendment as an example. The Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, from time to time we are going to need a well trained militia to protect our security so Congress can't infringe on our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Even with this strict prohibition, there are around twenty-thousand laws that do infringe our our right to keep and bear arms. As we've seen, some of our founding fathers trusted the government to abide by the Constitution and others didn't. These two groups of founders wanted the people to retain our unalienable rights.

There are people that believe that the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Government. It makes no sense to suggest that our founding fathers would forbid the Federal Government from making laws abridging Freedom of Speech but be fully accepting of a State doing just that. How could you exercise right to freely speak out if the State you live in abridges that right? Similarly and back to McDonald v. Chicago, how does it makes sense that our founding fathers would use such stringent words as “shall not be infringed” against the Federal Government but then think it okay for a city to completely ban handguns? I don't think they would and I've seen none of their writings that would suggest this was their intent. Their writings are quite the opposite. Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” During Virginia's Convention to ratify the Constitution, George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment was asked “What is the militia?” His answer, “It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Patric Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed.”and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Thomas Paine said, “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” Alexander Hamilton, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

During oral arguments of McDonald v. Chicago, the justices seemed open to the idea of incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment with the understanding that “reasonable restrictions” could be enacted by the state legislatures for the betterment of society. Let's say a state legislature determines that because the great majority of crime in the inner cities is black on black crime, they are going to pass a reasonable restriction against blacks living in the inner cities. This type of law would obviously be a violation of the rights blacks and the justices would hopefully find this law unconstitutional. In Heller v. D.C., the majority agreed that reasonable restrictions were allowable and they will likely do the same in McDonald v. Chicago. How can they do this when the Second Amendment clearly says, “...shall not be infringed?” There is no equal protection under the law in this country.

Fact Based Policy, Not Emotion Based Policy

On April 20, 2010 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 4 year old Luke Daniels accidentally shot and killed himself. In short order, Democratic state Representative Gail Chasey was calling for tougher gun laws. The accidental death of anyone is tragic but the death of an four year old child is horrific. The heartache the family is going through is unimaginable. However, for an politician to use an emotional event like this to disparage firearms and their owners is imprudent. It's important to look at facts before attempting to use this incident to push an agenda. Reports say that Luke's father is a law enforcement officer. Therefore we can conclude he is trained to use, safely handle and safely store firearms. There are no reports that suggest this is anything more than a horrible accident. Data from the Centers for Disease Control shows that from 1999 to 2006 there were 2 accidental deaths of children aged 1 to 4 related to firearms in New Mexico, 0.19 deaths per 100,000. For the same time period there were 29 deaths of children aged 1 to 4 related to drowning, 2.69 per 100,000. For the same time period there were a total of 169 accidental deaths, 15.65 per 100,000. When there are 167 accidental deaths not related to firearms it seems derisory to focus on the 2 accidental deaths related to firearms.

Let's assume that we hurriedly passed a law that says a firearm must be locked. What then do we do when a child accidentally kill themselves with a kitchen knife? Do we pass another law requiring knives to be locked up? Then a child accidentally dies from ingesting prescription medicine. Another law? On and on. With the plethora of laws already in existence, it's hard for me to believe that there isn't something that would apply if any charges should be filed in this incident. As I mentioned above, there were 29 accidental drownings of children aged 1 to 4. Were any of the parents of these children charged with anything? I'm fairly sure there is no charge of “failure to lock up the swimming pool” or “failure to lock up the bathtub faucet.” If there were charges in these drownings, couldn't those same charges apply here if charges are warranted? Accidents happen in this world and though we do our best to prevent them, they will continue to happen. If there was intent or negligence then charges are probably warranted. If it was truly an accident, and that's how it seems to me, then no charges should be filed.

Where is the Violence?

The Left continues to attempt to deceive the people into believing that Conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party members are inciting and committing violence. However, the violence is actually being committed by the Left. In late March there was an political rally for Harry Reid in Searchlight, NV. On the way to the rally, the Tea Party Express bus was egged by Reid supporters. Andrew Breitbart was at the rally and filmed eggs hitting the bus and at least one supporter with an egg in his hand. As well as the egging, Mr. Breitbart was threatened with violence by one of the supporters. The supporters were directing traffic with signs. Mr. Brietbart asked them why the were directing traffic. For the simple act of asking a question, a Reid supporter pointed at Mr. Breitbart and said “Get him out of here or I'm going to jail today.” Let's recap a few of the incidents of violence during the discussions on health care reform over the last year. In August 2009, SEIU members beat Kenneth Gladney for handing out “Don't Tread on Me” (Gadsden) flags. He was called N****r and a sell out to his race. Mr. Gladney is black and so were his attackers. In Thousand Oaks, CA, September 2009, there was a MoveOn.org rally supporting health care reform. A group was also there in opposition to the bill. Bill Rice was one of the protesters in oposition to the bill. A man came from the group of supporters and approached Mr. Rice in a threating manner. Mr. Rice felt threatened and defended himself by punching the attacker and a scuffle ensued. During the scuffle, Mr. Rice's little finger on his left hand was bitten off. On the day of the house vote for the Senate health care bill, Speaker Pelosi walked with Representative John Lewis and others to try and compare the health care reform bill with the Civil Rights marches in the 1960s. To compare this Freedom and Liberty removing bill with the Freedom and Liberty restoring Civil Rights movement is absurd and I would think, an insult to those that participated in that movement, including Representative Lewis. There have been many reports that Representative Lewis, was called a N****r and spat upon. There are very few people that don't have audio and video recorders built into their cell phones. There were many commercial news outlets at the event as well as many independent new reporters and bloggers. If those things actually happened there would surely be video and audio of it. Andrew Breitbart has offered $100,000 to anyone who has such video. As of yet, no video or audio has surfaced.

The Left demands that the Right denounce those that called members of Congress leaving vile messages. Yet the Left has rarely if ever denounced the actual violence committed against the Right.

Health Care is a right.

We do have a right to health care. Nobody can deny us health care. We just can't demand that somebody else provide it to us for free or paid for by someone else. Imagine if I were to opine that because I have the right of free speech, that the Government must give me a computer and internet access, free of charge. I'm sure there would be many out there that would agree with me and would fight to make it so. Next I'll move to the right to keep and bear arms. How many of the people that agreed with me above would totally disagree that the Government must pay for my firearm and ammunition? The fact that something is a right does not mean that it is the Government's responsibility to provide the means to exercise that right.

Before everybody thought they had to go to the doctor for a cough, they took care of themselves. There were home remedies people could rely on and there were also patent medicines that worked. Our Government has made a prescription needed to obtain most medications, causing us to require a licensed doctor to prescribe them. Our Government has allowed frivolous lawsuits and multi-million dollar awards, requiring doctors to purchase expensive insurance and to do unnecessary tests which further increase the cost of health care. If we used our auto insurance the way we use health insurance, an oil change would cost $250 or more. Because of the way we use health insurance, procedures have a cost that is in no way related to the service. Insurance users don't even care what a procedure will cost, they only care about the co-pay and their premiums. They pay the premiums and then the insurance company and the doctor work out the actual cost. If we were to return to using health insurance the way we use other insurance, the prices would be closer to a true free-market system.

One of the reasons we have states instead of just one large conglomerate is because we are not all alike and we all have different ideas of how things should be done. Each state has the ability to test methods to see what works and what doesn't. When methods are found that work well, they can be shared amongst the others states. This is was how our founding fathers intended this Republic to work.

Misuse of Taxpayer Money

Hank Paulson used to work at Goldman Sachs. Some of Timothy Geithner's staff at the New York Fed had worked at Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs stood to loose large amounts of money and possibly fail if AIG were allowed to fail. More to the point, many friends of Hank Paulson and Timothy Geithner stood to loose large amounts of money. It is for this reason that I believe that it was determined that AIG was “too big to fail.” While there are a number experts that say we were on the brinks of a huge collapse, there are an equal number of experts that say otherwise. We will never know what would have happened. We do know that the only groups that have really benefited from the bailouts are those that helped to cause them.

Paulson and the Fed had asked Congress for money to purchase troubled assets, that is why the legislation was titled Troubled Asset Relief Program. Anybody that follows the corruption in Congress and the Fed knew that this money would never be used to help the people, those that give the Federal Government the authority to exist. We knew that the money would be used to reward the wall street executives for their highly risky behavior. This behavior was only taken so that the could make further profit. Confident in the knowledge that when the time come that it all came crashing down, they could call on the people that they had bought and paid for at the Fed and in the Federal Government. Then it happened, Hank Paulson announced that they were no longer going to use the money for troubled assets but to infuse cash into the banks. Since the executives had already collected money on the trouble assets, buying these would not be in their best interest. The U.S. taxpayer is still on the hook for losses at AIG but AIG is currently paying out sixteen-billion dollars in bonuses. If we are still on the hook for losses, how can AIG be claiming profit to pay out such bonuses.

In the real America I don't care how much money anybody makes. That America includes a true free market, true capitalism. The America we live in contains crony capitalism and a market that is skewed by corrupt politicians and corporate executives that write legislation that benefits big companies but virtually prevents smaller companies from competing.

In the days of our founding fathers, Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke would have been tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. In a real America today, they would be in jail for misuse of taxpayer money. In the world we unfortunately live in today, they are rewarded and protected by the corrupt, unethical group that passes for Congress. This group regularly and openly violate their oaths of office. They do so without fear because they've trained a large number of people over the years that the Government is in charge of the people instead of the way it is supposed to be, the people in charge of the Government. If you haven't noticed, people are waking up to your corruption. They are doing so in large numbers. Democrats and Republicans alike should be in fear of the people. This is a health fear, a fear that our founding fathers intended. Thomas Jefferson said it best, “When the Government fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the Government there is Tyranny.” We the people are tired of living in Tyranny.

"Rights are always rights."

On August 11, 2009, President Obama held a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Outside of the meeting place there were many people exercising their First amendment rights by protesting. One man, William Kostric, not only exercised his First Amendment Right, he exercised his Second Amendment right as well. Mr. Kostric was openly carrying a pistol and he had a sign that read, “It's time to water the tree of Liberty.” The sign also had an image of the coiled timber rattlesnake, most commonly seen on the Gadsden flag. Mr. Kostric's sign was a reference to a quote made by Thomas Jefferson, “The tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Many who evidently do not believe in Freedom and Liberty tried to say that the sign was a veiled threat against the President. Many people, including John Gibson, that say they support the Second Amendment have said that Mr. Kostric was wrong for exercising his right. They say he should not have had a loaded firearm at a town hall, especially with the President in the area. If these people truly supported rights, they would know that rights aren't dependent on who may be around. Mr. Gibson even went so far as to say that “you shouldn't exercise your rights every minute of every day.” I guess Mr. Gibson would be okay with the police searching his house without a warrant if it was the right time of the day. That might be true, Mr. Gibson believes that warrant-less wire-taps of citizens under the Patriot Act did not harm the Fourth Amendment in any way. Since the Fourth Amendment is clear on warrant-less searches, I have to disagree with Mr. Gibson. It concerns me greatly when people say they support the Constitution yet their actions show this not to be true.

The people that criticize Mr. Kostric seem to be under the assumption that he was the only armed person at the town hall meeting and were also aware of Jefferson's quote as well as many other quotes from our founding fathers. New Hampshire is a free state whose motto is “Live Free or Die.” I can assure you there where many more people armed at that town hall meeting, above and beyond the Secret Service. The license plate on all New Hampshire vehicles display the state motto. I didn't hear a single suggestion that the drivers of these vehicles where threating the President. If someone were intent on harming the President, I seriously doubt that they would draw attention to themselves by openly carrying a firearm.

Chris “I have a tingle up my leg” Matthews verbally assaulted Mr. Kostric, trying to equate him to a Presidential assassin. He was one of the people that tried to say that Mr. Kostric's sign was a threat against the President. Obviously, Mr. Matthews must believe that President Obama is a Tyrant, otherwise, how would the sign be a threat against him? He said that he understood New Hampshire law and the Second Amendment. He also said that because of the history of Presidents being shot in America that you shouldn't bring a gun to a Presidential event. A right that shouldn't be exercised because of circumstance is no right at all. I could be wrong, but I don't recall Mr. Matthews having a problem with the Black Panthers having weapons outside of a polling place for “security.”

Some of Mr. Kostric's critics say that the Republican party should denounce such right-wing extremists. They say that the left will take this incident and use it as ammunition against them. However, why would a person that has harmed nobody, was not being violent, violated no laws, and did nothing but exercise rights granted by our creator and codified in the United States Constitution be considered a right-wing extremist and why would you want to denounce them? I guess if wining an election is the only goal and you don't believe in the Constitution, you might want to denounce an American citizen. The only violence at these town hall meetings has been perpetrated by the left via SEIU members. Conservative citizen, Kenneth Gladney was handing out Gadsden flags at a town hall meeting in St. Louis. He was not forcing the flags on anyone. Before he was beaten so badly that he had to go to the hospital, his attackers asked him, “What is a N...er like you handing out these flags?”

People have a right to say that Mr. Kostric was wrong. However, we should never buy into the notion that rights should only be exercised when someone else thinks it's okay. Stand up against these people. Let them know you won't let them infringe your rights just because they are too cowardly to exercise theirs. If they are afraid of a man with a firearm and a sign, there must be something fundamentally wrong with either their understanding of America or their thought process.