Latest Entries »
News is now coming out about how high levels of the IRS knew about the targeting of groups that educated on the Constitution, had “patriot” or “tea party” in the name, etc. The IRS was used as a weapon against those who differed politically from the administration.
If that weren’t enough, they also targeted Jewish groups. They were asked, by the IRS, regarding their tax-exempt status, whether or not the group supported the existence of the land of Israel. They also were told to describe their belief system toward the land of Israel. Not sure how this could have ANYTHING to do with a tax-exempt status. Seems eerily familiar to other times Jewish groups have been targeted.
Tyranny is oppressive power that is exerted over someone or some group. Typically, we discuss the tyranny of governments. Well, when they admit to using the force of government to target and intimidate certain groups, I’d say that qualifies. But, don’t let this distract us from Benghazi. Following is a detailed time-line of events on the night of the attacks in Benghazi by whistle-blower HIcks: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/started-as-a-routine-day-benghazi-whistleblower-recounts-deadly-chain-of-events/.
The fact that there was an attack is not the issue. That happens, as sad as that reality is. The issues are:
1. There was warning of an attack, which was ignored.
2. Security was drawn down below even standard minimum amounts, despite the threat of attack.
3. Also, despite the threat of attack, the Ambassador was sent to Benghazi, instead of staying in Tripoli, on 9/11, an annual high threat day.
4. The Ambassador was denied extra security, though he asked 13 times, AND wrote for help through official lines.
5. During the attack, help from Aviano was told to stand down TWICE.
6. We are told help could not have gotten there in time, but how do they know how long the attack was to last?
7. The day after the attack, Obama went on a fund-raiser. We don’t know if he watched the men die as they fought for their lives in vain (there was an unarmed drone sending video in real time, plus phone calls and emails calling for help), or if he just went to bed to slumber the night away. We don’t know because, unlike during Tropical Storm Sandy, we don’t have pictures of him in the Situation Room.
8. Hillary claimed not to know about anything. She’s either lying or needs to be fired for incompetence.
9. They blamed a video for the protests, even though that was an out-and-out lie.
10. This lie sent the FBI on a wild goose chase and they delayed getting to Benghazi for their investigation for weeks. Delay NEVER improves a crime scene.
11. No one but the film maker has been arrested.
12. The whistle-blowers have been harassed and intimidated by the administration for testifying, even being yelled at and demoted. This isn’t the first time the admin has gone after whistle-blowers, either. See the link about gun running below.
13. The government has been recording ALL phone calls, emails, texts, correspondence of ANY kind for a few years now. If Congress really wanted to get to the bottom of who knew what and when, they’d just get those records. Why can’t/won’t they do that?
Now, Geraldo is claiming to have sources that will testify to the administration running guns to Syria, in violation of a specific treaty. It’s bad enough Clinton knowingly put her folks in danger to make a political point (“See? We’re all FRIENDS!”), but if the cover-up was to keep people from finding out they were running guns (again), in direct violation of the treaty, it’s just that much worse.
Don’t let the IRS thing go, but don’t forget Benghazi, either.
The Second Amendment. It’s a statement of a natural right that each human possesses. It’s not a human right. Those are given and taken away by other humans. No, fundamental rights are rights that are endowed to us by our Creator, and we shaped the government around them. These rights existed BEFORE the government of the nation that became known as The United States was formed.
We have other rights like that. The right to move about, to speak, to write, to not be found guilty of crimes without proof, etc. We cherish our rights, but don’t seem to give the same level of credence to all of them.
I’m going to say something that will shock even those who support a person’s right to keep and bear arms. There should be NO CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE LAWS. I mean it, and here’s why.
Do we press for laws that make it necessary for a person to obtain a license before they speak, lest they commit slander?
Do we press for laws that make is necessary for a person to get a license before they write, lest they commit libel?
Do we press for laws that make it necessary for a person to obtain a license before they walk from one place to another, lest they jay-walk or walk into someone else’s private property?
Then, why do we require a permit for a person to carry a gun?
Some of the arguments are that a person might not know how to use it, they might hurt someone, or they might be a criminal.
1. If a person doesn’t know how to use a gun, they might make a mistake. That’s true. Does anyone here believe that a 4 hour course is going to make a person an expert. If you believe that, I have some land for sale I’d like to talk to you about later. For more on this, by an expert that will “out-expert” just about everyone reading this, read here.
Also, in this, I might point out that people can do considerable damage to a person’s life with slander and/or libel. A person could be ruined, made destitute, and end up dying on the street with slanderous statements, if enough people believe. That’s why there are laws against it. Just like there are laws against reckless discharges of a gun, yada, yada. Next!
2. Of course they might hurt someone. It’s called risk. You might get hit by a bus when you walk outside your front door. Do you risk it? Yes, because it’s a low risk. There are plenty of states that allow open carry without a permit. Do you hear about these states having gargantuan numbers of random people randomly shooting? Nope. You hear of mass shootings in “gun free zones.” Next!
3. They might be a criminal. Well, yeah. If they are, do you think they give a lick about laws anyway? What else ya got?
This is the bottom line: We are being charged BY THE STATE to exercise a fundamental right. They take finger prints. They charge a fee. They keep tabs on us.
If we had to register our editorials with the state and show our license to write, would you feel the same as you do about concealed carry laws?
Here is my radical proposal – allow people to exercise their right to defend themselves, and THEN, if they commit a crime with the weapon, they get punished. We’ll call it “due process of law.” Pretty snazzy title, right? I may have borrowed it from somewhere…
My sister is a cop. She told me open carry laws are a joke because you want to keep the criminals guessing who’s armed, always unsure, never bold like where they know all law-abiding citizens are unarmed. I agree. But, let’s not make people bow to the State to get the license that would allow them to defend themselves.
So, I restate my premise – the only concealed carry law I want to see is one that states that people have the right to exercise their Second Amendment right WITHOUT having to get a license to do so.
I saw this picture on Facebook.
This is a good example of the problem with government control of private industry. Why should I care if another person wants to eat garbage, smoke, drink, etc.? Why should anyone else care if I eat garbage, smoke, drink, etc? Answer: they shouldn’t, except on an individual level, as caring friends and family.
Now, since the toll of any bad behavior is foisted upon the tax payers, now I care, and so do you. Why? Because now we have to pay for other people’s bad choices, but the bad-choice-makers are shielded from the consequences because they are now “entitled” to health insurance, which, they are told (and is a lie) will translate into actual health care.
In addition, the government sanctions the poor conditions of feedlots and animals. If left to private industry, the public would force the producers to treat the animals better because there would be much more info spread around about the true conditions. As it stands, the larger corporations exert large amounts of influence at the capital because we have elected weak and corrupt leaders who allow money to influence their votes at the capital and in the states.
Don’t believe me? Ask people who try to sell fresh milk and the intimidation they get from the regulations pushed by the large dairy industry. They’ve almost managed to eradicate their competition.
It’s not so simple as blaming the food manufacturers. If they were scared of losing customer dollars, they didn’t have regulations and laws inhibiting true competition, and had to face the public honestly…as real capitalism dictates, we would have a truly different landscape. For example, supplements are not regulated by the FDA, yet they are regulated…by the consumers. If any product is bad, let me tell you, word travels fast. They are kept in line better than any FDA inspector could.
Then, if people were in charge of their own health, had to make sure they made good choices in an effort to get the best insurance price, like the real free market would dictate, again, we would have a truly different landscape of attitude and choices.
In that instance, insurance would have to compete, instead of follow the regulations for the most federally regulated industry, and the costs would lower. Instead, only the big boys are winning, and now with Obamacare, they will fall and the single payer system will replace them. Then people will care even more what I do and there will be laws that “regulate” your behavior and mine. It’s already started.
In the end, the problem is a corrupt society. We called on government to “take care” of problems that were better left to the free market. This began a long time ago, but has been increasing in intensity the past 50 years. Now, we have the equivalent of the government breaking our legs and then saying that we should be thankful for them giving us crutches and a band-aid.
The root issue is corruption and public complacency and ignorance. All other symptoms stem from that.
The 10th Amendment seems to be a point of contention. Many of our statist friends say that this amendment give the federal government free rein to do whatever it wants, citing the part “not prohibited to it” to mean that it is referring to the Federal Government. But, take a moment to apply basic English rules to it, and you’ll see this is in error.
Here is the text, in whole:
“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.”
So, we see that we can take out the part offset by commas as it would read: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Easy Peasy! If the powers are not delegated to the US, they are to remain with the states or people. BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
This is where it gets dicey. Statists want the offset portion to be highlighted!! “See?” they say, “If they are not outlined OR if they are not denied specifically to the feds, they can do it!!”
Keep your pantyhose on! Let’s delve into that.
Here is the offset part: “nor prohibited by it to the States”. Oh, whoops. Looks like our statist friends didn’t take enough English classes to understand complex sentence structures.
This reads: “nor prohibited by it ["it" means the US Constitution] TO THE STATES. As Scooby-Doo says, “Ruh-roh!”
The following four statements identify that which is for the feds to do, and that which is for the states:
If a thing is not delegated to the United States Congress, it goes to the states and people. (These are few and defined, and found in Article I for a full list of items they are in charge of handling.)
Regarding the states, if it’s not denied to the states, it belongs with the states and people. (This list is almost endless, save the few things denied to them in Article I – such as making treaties with foreign countries.)
The only thing left for the feds to do is that which is specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, and nothing more.
Thus, the next time a statist says to you, “I don’t see the word healthcare in the Constitution!” You can say, “Exactly!” Maybe you will have time for a quick English lesson or two for them.
Here’s the deal. Big government, more government control, means stupid government. It just does…every time.
Cute little thing, isn’t it? Well, government bureaucrats wanted it to be left to die. A police officer and his wife (on whose doorstep this injured fawn was found) decided to nurse it back to health and the set it free.
Awww. How sweet! NOPE! Bureaucrats said that was BAD! Bad, I tell you! So bad, in fact, they are willing to spend YOUR money to prosecute these people in court. You can bet they won’t flinch at the bill…after all, YOU are paying it, not them. Read the whole stupid story, if you dare, here.
Isn’t it great we have all these statists that we keep electing to increase government funding and control? Ah, how much better things are with the “good guys” in government to fix everything! Ugh.
If you think to yourself at this point, “Well, that’s just ONE story and I’m SURE it’s not a typical thing,” please read this story and click on all the links to tale after tale of idiocy by those officials that statists (who also tend to be liberals) as well as low information voters keep electing.
Be careful voting for more government involvement and control. You might think you are voting for bigger government and control for things YOU like, but all you are voting for is less liberty and more stupidity. Once the government has the control, you do not.