Saturday, September 27, 2014

The Constitution: It Isn't That They Can't Read It, It's That They Don't Care!

Do you think the highest laws of the land should be followed? Do you believe in the U.S. Constitution and believe it should be respected and enforced?  Well, tough noogies because you are pretty much outnumbered by people who are 'buffet style Constitutionalists' who only pick and choose the parts they want enforced and, even worse, people who just flat don't care what it says.

You can scream at people, especially the far left radicals, all you want that they need to, "read the Constitution!".  Your mistake here is that (a) you think they haven't and (b) that they care what it says anyway.

I had a brief, but frightening conversation (summary in 'vent form' below) with someone claiming to be some kind of campaign manager for somebody in the Central Indiana area last evening.  And, ultimately, my takeaway from it was this person is jealous of ambitious people, hates corporations, doesn't care one bit what the highest laws of our land really say and thinks that 'majority rules' is the best way to force oppression, tyranny and personal opinions on everyone.

Let me say this again.  THEY DO NOT CARE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!  All they care about is getting more than 50% of the people voting for them so they can impose whatever they want, regardless of our founding documents and principles, on everyone else.  And if you are in the 49.99% or lower you can just take it because this is how they will get revenge on everyone they hate.  They don't care what it says because they disagree with it.

As I noted at the end of my Facebook rant, "Seriously, if you think 51% doing whatever they want to the other 49% is moral and legitimate that just makes you a bully willing to oppress any minority that disagrees with you."

Below is from My Facebook Post (and yes, I understand military and interest and some other things aren't included - but try and get the point):

Feeling the need to vent: I was verbally accosted earlier by a ridiculously know-nothing, unambitious, young, whackjob, liberal smartass whose arguments against reducing the level of theft against the citizenry, sound money and all things related to economic freedom basically amounted to saying "Roads and infrastructure, schools and Wal-Mart." ... Okay, fine, out of everything the Federal Government takes from us 3% of it goes to roads and infrastructure and 1% goes to education ... and I could honestly not care less about one (Wal-Mart) corporation out of many tens of thousands. Don't like them? Don't shop there. 
So, give me the other 96% back, keep your roads and your centrally dictated education bureaucracy. I promise to continue not caring who gets married, what you smoke or to endorse the bombing of civilians overseas and unwarranted meddling in other nation's internal affairs. Seems like a fair trade off. I'll come back for the other 4% (just like they try and keep coming for the currently remaining 50%) eventually.  
Of course, when they start the conversation with a childishly mocking "Oh, I bet you think we should have the gold standard. hah hah" ... My reaction to pompous, know-nothing, unambitious, holier-than-thou 'we'll do whatever we want to you because majority rules' jerks is increasingly visceral. Seriously, if you think 51% doing whatever they want to the other 49% is moral and legitimate that just makes you a bully willing to oppress any minority that disagrees with you.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

The Phrase "A Well Regulated Militia" Has No Impact On Your Rights

Those opposed to individual rights and who believe that a woman being raped is morally superior to her being able to defend herself against a (generally) larger and stronger male attacker like to look at the 2nd Amendment and try and argue that the clause "A Well Regulated Militia" at the beginning of it somehow limits the intent of the very plainly worded "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."

It is important to note that it very plainly says, "The Right of the People."  It does not say The Right of the "Militia" or the "Army" or "Specially Trained Operational Units".   And it would be odd if sandwiched in the middle of a bunch of rights that the government is barred from taking from the people it were to throw in some specially privileged group.

So, let us be very clear that the phrase, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" means no more than if the 1st Amendment said, "Because some people think Purple is the best color and others just love Jesus, Congress shall make no law...."

And for those who think that those who wrote and approved of that document thought they must have meant only the muskets available at the time.  Let us remember that these were generally very smart people who knew technology would advance over time and who had just fought for their right to secede against the greatest military power on the planet.  They knew what they were doing and what they were protecting and it wasn't the right to hunt deer.

The musket argument is no different than suggesting that the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech was limited to the movable type and one page at a time printing presses available at that time since the framers could not possibly have imagined the telegraph, radio, high-speed printing presses, television or the Internet.  They fully expected that any individual would be able to arm themselves with firepower equal to any typical, regular soldier or officer of the military [note: before someone who lacks reading comprehension skills tries to say something about nuclear or biological weapons, read the statement again where it says "typical, regular soldier or officer of the military" - hint, they don't generally give just anybody the pass codes to "the football"].

Now that we have completely settled this debate, we can move on.  And anytime some anti-rights, pro-crime, anti-self defense, apoplectic, promoter of all things statist throws out "...well regulated militia..." in one of your spirited Facebook (or other) debates, you can just repost this article.  Because, that is what I'm going to do.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

99, 97, 47 Hike: Painting By Numbers

I'm part of the 99% who doesn't hate the 1% and actually aspires to join them someday.  Or am I part of the 53% who thinks that 47% is too high of a number for a supposed free country instilled with self-reliance and self-determination?  I know that for about a decade I've been part of the 3% that last election was more like 7% and, who knows, might turn out to be 9% or 12% this time - you know, the vote wasters who are tired of the traditionally 48%s demanding we vote for them to get the change they never deliver to us.

Of course, the two old 48%s gave us 200% more debt between 1981 and 1989, 100% more between 2001 and 2009 and at least 60% more since 2009.  Not sure I can vote for more of that.  Of course, they did that while my dollar went down 30% from 2009 to 2012 and my gas went up 100% and Solyndra lost 100%.

I don't forget that 50% pay 97% and that the 1% pay 38%.  Of course, as part of the 72% who is willing to point all of this out I'll be accused of actually being in the 1%, or worse, for hating the 14% just because I'm part of the 72% that is in the 53% and aspires to be in the 1%.   In the meantime, most folks are preparing to split their vote up among two guys who basically agree on 96%.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Paul Ryan - Compare Perception vs. The Voting Record Truth

Mitt Romney announced today that he has selected Congressman Paul Ryan (WI - 1st) as his running mate in the 2012 presidential election.  Most conservatives have a positive opinion of Rep. Ryan.  A lot of that is based on all of the media attention that "the Ryan plan" which when contrasted with the Obama White House budget plan and goals was, no doubt, a significant improvement.  However, even that plan did not eliminate deficit spending even 10 years out and I don't recall that it ever actually called for eliminating whole Federal Departments - something that is badly needed.

[Remember, Governor Perry wanted to eliminate three of them but couldn't name all three (VIDEO - see 23 second mark).  Congressman Ron Paul had five on his list to eliminate.  Personally, I have seven I'd like to see phased out.]

But, when we can, it is important to look at someone's actual voting record in order to determine where they REALLY stand.  Do they draw a line in the sand and demand that legislation be Constitutional before they vote for it?  Do they demand that government limit itself to protecting each person's rights to life, liberty and property?  Or, do they buy into the idea that a little bit of big government, expanding government and socialism is good now and again?  Let's look and you can decide for yourself if Representative Ryan is as awesome as his reputation seems to be in conservative circles.  Pro-liberty, conservative defender of the Constitution or myth - you decide.

Paul Ryan voted YES on all of the following:

  • No Child Left Behind (2001)
  • Yes on authorizing invasion of Iraq (2002)
  • Expansion of Medicare/prescription drug benefit (2003)
  • $70 million Section 8 housing vouchers (2006)
  • Head Start Act (2007)
  • Extending unemployment benefits from 39 to 59 weeks (2008)
  • TARP (2008)
  • Economic Stimulus [HR 5140]  (2009)
  • $15 Billion bailout for GM and Chrysler (2008)
  • $192 Billion in additional "stimulus" spending (2009)


Rep. Ryan supports Federal bailouts, increased Federal involvement in education, undeclared wars to invade countries that pose no threat to the United States, stimulus spending, foreign aid and Medicare Part D.  Ryan voted for NDAA (indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without a lawyer or trial), CISPA, National ID Cards and civilian surveillance without warrants.

From my perspective, I don't understand the big Veepgasm that the conservative and Tea Party folks just had over his selection.  Sure, neither Mitt nor Paul are Obama, but neither one of them can hold a candle to outgoing Rep. Ron Paul (TX) or former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.



Sunday, April 1, 2012

Calm in the Face of Danger: Out of Control Government Agent Accosts Young Men

These young men do a great job staying calm and being respectful in the face of an out-of-control agent of the government who threatens and accosts them, and apparently illegally confined them, without cause.   People should always have the right to defend themselves against being, without cause, illegally threatened, assaulted or kidnapped no matter who is claiming the authority to do it.  

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Is Economic Freedom in America on the Wane?

Great (and short) video discussing some chilling facts about the decline of economic freedom in the United States and the connection between economic freedom, economic growth and our standard of living.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

"The End of Liberty" Movie

This (slightly more than an) hour long video is excellent and well worth watching. It makes some excellent points and, fascinatingly to me, my home state of Indiana gets mentioned twice as being a place where laws are getting out of control. One mention regarded the requirement to show ID to buy alcohol no matter one's apparent age, the other mention was slightly more ominous.




Beauchamp

A self-centered person, usually male, who compensates for an inferiority complex by promoting an air of superiority in the belittlement and condemnation of others while employing an arrogant, showy peacock-like behavior that attempts to impress those around them with false bravado, pretentiousness and material possessions.
Uncomfortable with his less than impressive penis, the owner of the cab company became a real beauchamp treating his male and female love interests with arrogant condescension and laughable attempts at sophistication. Scott had money, however, it was not enough to keep his partners from seeking affection and sexual gratification in the arms of their other lovers.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Liberty Political Systems Announces the Advanced PAULBOT 2012!


Liberty Political Systems of America has announced it's latest amazing piece of engineering. The Paulbot 2012.


The "Paulbot" has an advanced operating system that replaces the old "Garbage In / Garbage Out" (GIGO) problem of information processing with an advanced "Knowledge In / Liberty Out" (KILO) software system. It is a much more advanced system as the 'Bot is specifically programmed to question and analyze all data fed into it rather than to just accept that data which leads to incorrect answer formulation. The 'Bot also seeks to maximize its operating environment with special Anti-Tyranny, Anti-Central Planning and Advanced Freedom sub-routines.


The Paulbot can have trouble interfacing with other company's products because the Paulbot has Advanced Foreign Policy Subroutines that require a very large database. This can cause buffer overflow and seg-fault in most other company's 'bots. Those 'bots can generally only database events back to 2001 or sometimes 1979 whereas the Paulbot has massive capacity allowing its special Middle East database tables to be indexed back to at least 1953 and in many cases the 1920s or earlier.


The Paulbot is economic too. Advanced cost reduction processes allow LPS to provide the Paulbot at a lower cost than any of the other, less advanced, political 'bots.