Biker's Ramblings

SCOTUS Rules on Chicago Gun Ban

2010-07-02T12:43:00.002-05:00

Thankfully, the SCOTUS ruled in a majority opinion that the Second Amendment is an individual right and allows for firearm ownership for the purpose of protecting one's self and property. This is the second affirmation that 2A applies to the individual and is not delegated to the states.

On another now, since the Chicago law has been ruled unconstitutional, Daley and the morons on the Chicago city council wasted no time in passing new legislation that further restricts gun ownership. Among the restrictions that are implemented in the new law are a requirement that residents can own no more than one gun and that said gun must be disabled when taken from the home.

This is yet another instance of the left thumbing their noses at the rulings of SCOTUS. One must wonder how much money the residents of Chicago have spent on defending the agenda of their mayor and council. Do those in charge really think that this latest law won't end up being overturned as well?

Yet another bow to a foreign leader...

2010-04-13T00:34:00.002-05:00

Is there anyone that BHO won't bow down to other than his employers, the American taxpayers. Seems that BHO hasn't quite caught on that he is supposed to be the leader of the free world not to mention the United States and he should never bow to anyone. Here is a shot of BHO now bowing to Premier of the Communist Leader of China, Hu Jintao.

Congress passes a bill they considered flawed

2010-03-22T10:11:00.003-05:00

Yesterday was a historic day. It is a day that will rival 12/7/1941 and 9/11/2001 in infamy. March 21, 2010 will forever be remembered as the day that socialism came home to roost in the United States.

The Democratic side of the aisle passed legislation that was so flawed, in less than an hour they felt it was necessary to immediately try to revise said legislation. How screwed up is that? This bill was won by back room deals, promises of Executive Orders and secrecy. How can this be justified in any way at all?

Now I realize that some view our Constitution as an outdated piece of paper. However, it is the foundation for our country. A foundation that has survived and thrived since the founding of this great nation. Our country was founded on a firm belief that our rights were granted to us by our Creator, not by the government. The reason for this was simple, if a government grants you a right, that same government can take that right away from you. A right granted by our Creator can only be taken from us by Him and not by our elected officials.

Going back to the health care bill...

Although our government servants are very short on logic, even someone with basic math skills can tell that this process will only end up as another version of Medicare over time. The progressives have every intention of implementing a single payer system on the road to fully socialized medicine. They are going to accomplish this by making it impossible for the private industry to provide health care insurance and stay in business.

Insurance, by definition, is the pooling of resources and risks. The idea is that the resources will exceed the need for services. As the level of risk and subsequent need for money increase, the insurance company must raise the rates across the pool of individuals in order to maintain the same level of reserves.

As more higher risks individuals enter the group and the costs rise a cap on rate increases decreases the ability of the insurance company to meet the financial obligations of the insured. In short, the money runs out. As with any business, once the money is gone, bankruptcy will follow. That is unless the government steps in again to support the insurance companies as they did with AIG. The goverment will provide a bailout for those companies in exchange for a stake in that company witness the auto industry, the bank and even parts of the insurance industry in just the last year.

As more companies fail, there is little option left to the government other than to implement a single payer system with fully socialized medicine covering every citizen in America. After all, health care is now a "right" granted to us by the socialists. Therefore, that "right" will be protected at all costs by the socialists.

I can see companies that offer health insurance beginning to spin off those divisions in order to insulate themselves from bankruptcy. This will allow the health care side of the business to fail without impacting the remainder of the company. The government can then step in and take over those divisions in order to preserve the "right" of health care until they can be rolled into the new solcislized medicine plan.

Same old story, same old song and dance...

2010-03-03T16:34:00.003-06:00

While I was in the Navy, there was an acronym used often that indicated things were not going to be going as we expected. The acronym was BOHICA which stood for Bend Over Here It Comes Again.

Well America, BOHICA. The Democrats (or should we just call them Progressives) are getting ready to ram one home in the form of "reconciliation" of the heath care bill. Amazing that the Senate bill could not garner enough support to pass in the House previously but now Pelosi figures she can round up enough idiots to pass it now.

Do as I say...

2010-02-21T09:47:00.006-06:00

Our fearless leader (Yes, that is a Rocky and Bullwinkle reference) is currently visiting Las Vegas trying to drum up support for Reid's campaign. What I find most ironic about this trip are the past comments by BHO regarding Vegas and spending money there.

Twice since he has taken office, BHO has slammed visiting Vegas as a sign of excess. Here are the quotes:

"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," he told the forum." You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college."

"You can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime. There's got to be some accountability and some responsibility.”

Now, I will agree that blowing the college tuition on a trip to Vegas may be irresponsible. However, as a private citizen, what I choose to spend my money on is my business. With the second quote, Obama was berating the banking industry for attending a convention in Las Vegas "on the taxpayers dime". Ironic isn't it that BHO is doing the same thing that he took the bankers to task for?

His trip to Vegas is for the sole purpose of trying to stop the bleeding in Reid's campaign. This visit to Vegas also includes BHO informing Nevada of the governmental pork that will be spent in the state. The trip has already negatively impacted tour flights in and around Vegas as tighter security measures were put in place for the visit. (Review Journal article)

Back in 2006, a report was put together for Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) as he attempted to recoup costs from Bush for campaign travel. The report outlines the costs of flying Air Force One per hour and the cargo plane that accompanies the president on his jaunts around the country.

Here is a breakdown of just what the flight from Washington DC to Vegas is costing the taxpayers based on 2006 costs:

Distance Washington DC to Las Vegas: 2060 miles

Air Force One
Cost per hour: $56,518
Flight time to Vegas: 3.26 hours
Sub total: $184,248.68

Cargo Plane
Cost per hour: $6,609
Flight time to Vegas: 3.97 hours
Sub total: $27,631

Total plane costs for one-way trip Washington DC to Las Vegas: $211,879.68
Round Trip cost (planes only) : $423,759.36

Let us not forget the additional costs associated with the travel of the president. Here is a quick list of expenses that the taxpayers will foot the bill for:

Advance security team (air fare, hotels, food)
Las Vegas police department (additional security/overtime)
Entourage and BHO's hotel rooms and meals
Rental vehicles, etc for transport of the entourage

Mr. President, who is paying for your flight on Air Force One, your security details and the other logistics associated with this little family vacation and campaign trip? Is it not the taxpayers? Should you not be held accountable for how you spend my money as well?

Global Warming??

2010-02-11T12:07:00.009-06:00

OK, I have heard about enough of this bull. I sit here in north Texas, just outside of Dallas and we have almost 6" of snow on the ground and more on the way. The picture below is one of my chickens and Cabrito the goat in the background trying to figure out what this white stuff is all over the ground.

OK, I know those that maintain we are actually warming up this planet have stated that the reason for the snowfall on the eastern seaboard and now here in Texas is a result of the warmer air holding more moisture. So... I may be swayed into believing the "warmers" on the fact that warm air holds more moisture. However, on the local news yesterday, it was stated that our high temperature was 20, yes 20 degrees colder than the normal average for this day each year. Since the high hit a whopping 39 degrees, that means the normal temperature should be in the high 50's and I should be out riding my motorcycle.

Now forgive me if my logic is a bit messy here...but, since we were 20 degrees colder yesterday than normal and now have 6" of snow on the ground, would it not be logical to deduce that if the planet is warming than the temperature would have been higher or at least close to the normal high? Stay with me here... if the temperature is higher AND the air is holding more moisture, then would we not be getting rain instead of snow?

For some reason, this is just not making sense to me. Here in north Texas, the snowfall for today is the most snow in one day for over 30 years. Temperatures are 20 degrees below normal. Now it's looking like I am going to have to go find a snow shovel to make it to the mailbox.

Now, let's take a little trip down memory lane... Being the old curmudgeon that I am, I was in elementary school back in the 70's when the old Pitch In campaign was being force fed to me in public school. We had the joy of sitting through hours of movies on the environment and all of the damage that humans were causing. Back then, the word was if we didn't change our ways, we would experience another ice age because temperatures were falling. Iron Eyes Cody was seen crying on television ads about the sad state of America. How can we forget Woodsy the Owl and the catch phrase "Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute". Now the campaign did have some benefits, we did clean things up somewhat and there is less trash in our waterways and the air is cleaner. However, that ice age cry still sticks with me today as an example of faulty science.

Now the one thing I find strangest about the Pitch In movement of the 70's and the dire predictions of that time are the parallels with the "warmers" of today. The doomsday cries of global climate change for one. In the 70's it was another ice age, now 30 plus years later, it's global warming. Strangely, the 70's campaign has all but disappeared from view today. I have scoured the Internet trying to locate some of the "studies" that were done back then and have had problems finding a real mention of any of them outside of a blurb here and there. Apparently they are no longer relevant, or maybe they just weren't accurate assessments even at that time.

Now let's move forward to today. First we have garbage science that is using articles from environmental activists (spell that nut jobs) from a magazine devoted to climbing and supposition by other "scientists" on the melting of glaciers and representing those as facts. Of course we cannot forget the email scandal with faked information on global warming.

To me, I find it hard to believe much of anything, first we have only been tracking weather on a semi-large scale for about 150 years. Everyone knows that Earth has experienced at least five major ice ages that came and went long before humans were polluting the air and the planet. How can we, with so little actual data, determine that the changes to the environment (if there really are any) are anything more than normal fluctuations? Hell, even the local meteorologist can't get the weather right for three days from now. What warmed the planet back up at the end of the ice ages? Fred Flintsone's car ran on foot power, not fossil fuels.

I'll anxiously await some environmental egghead's response to my questions. Right now, I have to go dig my chicken out of the global warming event before she freezes to death.

I don't believe it....

2010-02-03T16:55:00.012-06:00

Or then again, I guess I do. The picture above is a shot of BHO bowing to yet another "official". The original captions is: President Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla.

Back in November 2009, BHO decided that the emperor of Japan deserved a bow as well:

This bow was inappropriate according to Japanese customs. According to Wikipedia, "Generally speaking, an inferior bows longer, more deeply and more frequently than a superior. A superior addressing an inferior will generally only nod the head slightly, while some superiors may not bow at all and an inferior will bend forward slightly from the waist". Notice who is in the lower bow? Our dear president.

Now customs aside, it was certainly inappropriate for the leader of the nation that defeated Japan in World War II to be bowing to a representative of that country. How soon we forget our history.

And before we forget, a few months before the Japan bow, BHO was caught bowing to the Saudi King.

Holy crap! What's next? Maybe BHO needs some simple etiquette lessons. Allow me to educate the Harvard grad here... Mr. President, you are the leader of this country, you are also (or at least should be) the leader of the free world. You represent the greatest nation on this planet. Why the hell are you bowing to anyone? Have you no pride in yourself or this country?

The mayor is not royalty, nor clerical, you are not a subject of the Saudi king or the Japanese Emperor . What is wrong with you? Or maybe, this is an example of how you should greet every taxpayer in this country instead, in other words, your employers?

Mr. President, I am available for a groveling session any time your busy schedule permits. I would love to have you bow to me and beg my forgiveness for screwing this country up as bad as you have in the last year.

The "New" Plan Going Wrong

2010-01-31T21:37:00.012-06:00

I watched the State if the Union address the other night and it almost cost me a new television as I was about ready to put my foot through mine. How can one person stand up in front of the nation and do what BHO did? Let me outline a few of my thoughts on this fiasco in no particular order.

BHO chastising the Supreme Court

WOW... it takes some kind of cajones or a complete lack of tact to stand up in front of the world and chastise another branch of our government. Especially when you first, are not accurate in what you are stating and second when that branch deals with the Constitutionality of the laws the other two branches write and pass.

The ruling in question, contrary to BHO's opinion, will not allow foreign countries to influence elections. The law prohibiting foreign influence is not the one that was in question. The law was declared unconstitutional as it stifles the First Amendment right of free speech.

Now Mr. President, I realize that you are not fond of the Constitution and the rights that are mentioned therein. You seem to want to step all over them as often as possible. However, the law was not just and therefore struck down. If you and your cronies want to pass another law, one that does not violate the Constitution, then feel free. I'll be interested to see how many of the other programs this administration is pushing can pass that same Constitutional test.

The Latest Executive Order

Yet another example of the sheer arrogance of our President. The Senate refuses to pass a bill creating yet another government committee and the response is to form said committee by using an Executive Order? A little history here Mr. President... our Founding Fathers created three branches of our government for the sole purpose of ensuring that one branch was not able to create a dictatorship. However, your use of the Executive Orders is doing just that. Under our Constitution (again with that pesky document), the duties of the president are:

To be Commander in Chief of the military
To conduct foreign affairs
To negotiate treaties with other nations
To nominate members of the cabinet, judiciary, etc.
To review and sign or veto bills
To administer the laws of the nation
To issue pardons as he sees fit
To address the Congress from time to time to assess the state of the nation

I do not see anywhere in that list that the duties of the President includes creation of committees after the Senate has denied such an action.

"Green" Jobs

I know that the latest Washington buzzword to pull us out of this economic mess is the creation of alternative energy related jobs. In other words, we need to build more solar panels, windmills and other assorted "green" items.

While jobs are certainly an issue, let's look at economics here. If there were money in making those items in this country, someone would be doing it on a grand scale. There has to be a market for the product and the company must be able to produce that product cheaper and/or better than one that is imported.

Let's face it, the U.S. as an industrial might went out the door at the same time the unions came in. Since BHO is currently catering to those same unions, it is highly unlikely that there is going to be a climate that is conducive to new manufacturing jobs anytime in the near future.

So... we all go green and we can buy our solar panels from China and our windmills from Taiwan. More dollars going overseas and none coming back unless it is in the form of another loan to keep us afloat.

More on Jobs

So, now the jobs that BHO is proposing are little more than the Works Progress Administration (WPA) jobs of the Roosevelt years. Let's put the country to work, building bridges, roads and dams then pay those employees from the public monies. While I can see some trickle down into the public sector, how much of this is going to lead to more government spending?

An Open Comment to our President

Yes, the country was in a mess when you started this job a year ago. However, you have taken things from bad to worse. Your administration has focused almost solely on health care reform. Something that is apparently not what the public wants. Maybe if you had spent the last year turning around the economy and focusing on jobs, Massachusetts voters would not have turned their back on the candidate you were campaigning for and your approval ratings would still be high.

Here is a suggestion; create a climate that allows businesses to grow and prosper, loosen the collar of the government and the unions that are holding back growth then watch what happens.

This Blame it on Bush mentality is wearing a bit thin to say the least. Your party has enjoyed a majority in both the House and Senate for a year now and still cannot accomplish a thing. My math tells me that a majority is 51%, not 60%. So then, why isn't anything getting done when your party has enjoyed more than enough votes to pass just about anything?

The capitalistic system works, leave it alone!. Mr. President, if the government decides that taking my hard earned money away from me and then "spread it around" to others, then I have no incentive to work. I can sit on my ass and await my check each month along with the others on the government tit.

Being successful is not a crime and it actually used to be encouraged in this country. If you worked hard, you made money. Make enough money and then you can have others work for you. It is that simple. Let me keep the fruits of my labor and I will decide who deserves to share in it, not the government.

Get off the ass of the banks. Yes, the government stepped in to bail out some of the banks. The same banks that were encouraged to make sub-prime loans. The same banks that the Federal Reserve is supposed to over see. Many of those banks have paid back that money, and in record time. Now leave them alone! Those repaid loans should release the banks from an obligation to the public or the government.

The budget "freeze". Freezing a bloated budget is like telling an obese person that freezing at 10,000 calories a day will help in losing weight. Let's take this a step further, Let's freeze the salaries of all governmental employees. Better yet, let's drop them to the level of their civilian counterparts and factor in all of their benefits. In fact, I'd even take a bit further for our elected officials, turn your entire salaries back in to the treasury for the use of the country. Show me that you are serious about cutting spending then maybe I can sit up and take notice of what you are trying to accomplish.

----

I received the following in an email the other day, and really liked the sentiments. Feel free to forward this to your elected officials:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

The War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

"Doomsday" Plan

2010-01-18T18:37:00.003-06:00

According to the NY Daily News, it appears that the majority party is going to ensure passage of some form of a health care bill come hell or high water in the event that the Massachusetts race goes to the Republican contender.

To me, this race is probably the best indicator of how the general public is looking at our legislators and specifically how the majority party is taking care of business. Massachusetts has long been a stronghold for the Democrat's. While Ted Kennedy was in office, he was a shoe-in every election no matter what. Mitt Romney helped to build the Massachusetts version of Obamacare for the state that failed miserably. Yet they were still re-elected time after time.

Now why would this race for Kennedy's vacated spot be so contested that a Democrat needs to get the POTUS in to campaign on his wife's birthday? Is this maybe a sign that the public, at least in Massachusetts, has realized the error of their ways by putting the Democrats in power? Considering that Massachusetts is a known Democrat stronghold and the race is almost a dead heat it sure seems that way to me.

Now back to the "Doomsday Plan". According to the NY Daily News, the Dems have a plan to rush the Senate version of the bill through the House without the standard meetings and reconciliation steps. This will ensure that there is some form of framework in place before Brown can make it to Washington to slow down the bill by opposing the mess.

What does this all mean to the average person? To put it simplistically, those in the majority party are once again going to sell out the American public for the sole purpose of getting some form of a bill passed. Since the two bills differ and there have been late-night secret meetings with special interest groups to make sure they are satisfied, then why the hell would it be necessary to rush this bill through if it was good legislation?

So here are my predictions:
1. Brown will send Coakley back to the farm come tomorrow by winning the election.
2. A form of the health care bill will be passed immediately upon hitting Obama's desk thus negating his promise that there would be five days for the public to review and comment before he signs any major bill.
3. The 2010 midterm elections will result in the Dems losing their majority in both the House and Senate.
4. Our legislators spend the next two years battling to get rid of junk legislation that caters to special interest groups instead of focusing on re-building the economy.

Let's hope my crystal ball is defective....

Is the creation of jobs really a priority?

2010-01-17T18:48:00.004-06:00

In the last week I have read article after article that states that BHO and the Democratic leaders are now making the creation of jobs in this country a top priority. With about 1 in 10 Americans out of work, I would say that this should have been the number one priority for the last year. But I digress...

So...now that the creation of jobs is the highest priority for BHO and the majority leaders, let's take a quick look at what they are up to today:

BHO - Campaigning in Massachusetts for Coakley to ensure that his party can shove the health care bill through. Hell, campaigning for Coakley was more important to BHO than spending the day with his wife on her birthday. Hell, if campaigning is more important that your wife's birthday, what chance do the unemployed have of having a job created for them?

Reid - Busy campaigning himself and trying to backtrack over his racist remarks. Oh wait a minute, those remarks would only be considered racist if Reid were not a Democrat and in BHO's back pocket.

Pelosi - No news reports today. However did take the time to slam the health insurance companies for ads opposing the health care reform bill calling it lying to the public. Well Nancy, once you finish your latest botox refill, you may want to review the promises that your party leader made and refuses to uphold. Especially the one about transparency in government. Remember that one? It was the one that you quipped about stating that BHO was "for many things when on the campaign trail".

I see our leaders are hard at work. After all, they surely put in a lot of work in the last few days since they returned from the Christmas break.

Oh the lies... a compilation of videos... featuring BHO

2010-01-16T13:22:00.008-06:00

Note to those viewing the blog on Facebook: To see the videos, you need to click on the "View original post" link to go to blogger for the videos to show up.

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

Anyone else remember these promises from BHO while on the campaign trail?

Ok...so he was on the campaign trail and all those aspiring to hold office make promises that they cannot keep...right? Well how about this from right after he took office:

Ah but surely he was just misunderstood...single payer was not what he really is striving for...

I guess we should have seen this coming...here is his claim that his father, born in 1936, is a WWII Veteran:

Apparently, even Pelosi knew that the campaign promises on transparency were just lip service to get BHO elected:

How many more are out there? I got tired of searching after less than 30 minutes for clips of BHO with his lips moving... and lying through his teeth.

More back room deals

2010-01-15T14:14:00.002-06:00

Wow...it is lovely to read today that the administration has now made yet another back room deal in order to push the "health care reform" down our throats. The latest in a long list of deals goes to the unions. Surprise, surprise, unions have long been on the bandwagon of entitlement mentality so it fits right into the socialist agenda of this administration. This administration has shown that the special interests groups have a huge hold on Washington. Those in power right now are willing to sell their souls to get this bill passed.

The unions have managed to destroy the manufacturing industries in this country by excessively burdening the very businesses that provide employment to their members. The residual effects of this are impacting the auto industry due to the lifetime entitlements that the unions forced out of the companies under the threat to strike. When over $2,000 of the cost of a new car goes to pay for benefits to FORMER employees, there is something wrong with this system.

People, businesses are in business for one reason and one reason only, to make money for the stakeholders of that company. I know of not one single person who has founded a company with the goal of providing a lifetime of benefits for their employees. Employees are a commodity that are necessary to produce the goods and services. When the time comes that the commodity is no longer needed or becomes too expensive, then the business must raise their prices or reduce their costs, plain and simple.

Anyone who has taken a basic business management class understands that the quickest way to push cash to the bottom line is to cut labor costs. When limited by the legal extortion of a collective bargaining agreement, most compaies will choose to look offshore for cheaper labor, something that is not all that difficult to find. Once those jobs leave the U.S., they are gone for good. As the availability of the jobs in this country decreases, then unemployment increases further burdening the social programs. Those unable to find work are no longer contributing to the tax base that helps to pay for those services.

When are the union workers going to realize that the unions ARE big business. They are not there for the workers, they operate solely to continue to line the pockets of those that run the unions. Why do you think that the unions were(are) so popular with organized crime? It is a huge cash cow with a huge number of drones that are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves. By using extortion, they shut companies down in order to exact the pound of flesh they so desire.

The SEIU, one of the largest unions that has BHO in their back pocket, admits to representing ILLEGAL workers as well as some that are working legally here. Their catch phrase is that the workers of world need to unite as they try to spread the tentacles of the union overseas. Union workers, is this a group that actually has YOUR best interest at heart? Are they saving "American Jobs" for Americans or are they merely paying lip service to that philosophy while selling you out?

ILLEGAL workers can be forced to work for less than someone who is here legally under the threat of deportation. By representing the ILLEGALS, the SEIU ensures that they have yet another pool of drones to exploit. This time at the expense of those in the country legally. Now this administration is selling out the American people to that very union.

Come on with the midterm elections!!!

Transparent as a lead door

2010-01-06T21:42:00.008-06:00

Well Obama once again has proven that he is not a man of his word. Big surprise, right? On the campaign trail, Obama promised a "transparent and bi-partisan government". I suppose that only applies to those items that they actually want the public to know about, health care reform is apparently not one of these items.

The health care reform is certainly a "fundamental change" to our system. The .gov is taking over health care just as it has taken over or shall we call it "nationalized" the financial and automotive sectors.

According to an article in the LA Times today, Obama now favors the "Cadillac Tax", something that his buddy in the SEIU and other unions are strongly opposed to. As union backing is the cornerstone of keeping this administration in office (that is if you exclude the voter fraud that groups like ACORN helped with), it will be interesting to see how long they will continue to support someone who gives the m the shaft along with the rest of the public.

To show how "transparent" this administration is taking this whole debacle, here are a few quotes from the LA Times: "A Senate aid who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the closed-door meetings said that the White House had signaled it would "convene and run" meetings from now on as lawmakers strive to reach a consensus" and "On one point both chambers seem to agree: keeping the negotiations private".

Note that the meetings are closed-door and cannot be discussed? What is going on behind those "transparent" doors? Very simple, the American public is being sold out for the Socialist agenda of this administration.

An open comment to our lawmakers; look at what the public wants. Put this whole bill up for a vote in front of the American people,. We are having a mid-term election in a year, well before this bill is set to go into effect. Place this measure on the ballot and let U.S. decide if we want it. Simple majority rules. Let's see if you first have the nerve to do this and second if the public is going to let you give us the shaft.

A Novel Idea

2010-01-05T19:04:00.005-06:00

I am not sure where this originated so I am unable to give full credit to the author. This little ditty was sent to me in an email. After reading it, I felt compelled to send it to my legislators asking them to introduce this as a bill as well as post it here. Feel free to forward this to your legislator and see if anyone has the nerve to do right by the people and submit such a bill.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11 .

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

Transparent? Part II

2010-01-05T18:52:00.004-06:00

Wow, do I have the honor of Nancy Pelosi actually reading this blog and taking advice? In a Wall Street Journal article today, Pelosi was quoted as saying that there would be more transparency in the final negotiations regarding the health care reform bill.

Now wait a minute before we begin dancing in the streets about this. Does this mean that C-Span will get to televise our industrious leaders hard at work to hash out this bill before we are force-fed it? Um...nope. How about the promise that BHO made that the negotiations on this bill would be televised? Um...guess again.

It looks like the powers that be are still looking to keep most of this a secret from the American people. After all, they know so much better than we do both what we want and what we need. It doesn't matter that poll after poll now shows the majority of the people are opposed to this bill, the morons keep shoving it through for passage.

So, in typical fashion, the back room deals will continue, promises of favoritism for those on the fence to support the bill will go forward regardless of the wishes of those that elected these morons. Once again, the American people get to bend over and take if from our elected officials. The Socialist regime in Washington is bound and determined to pass this bill no matter what is compromised in the process.

Interesting Web Site

2010-01-05T15:11:00.004-06:00

I found this site and love their products. Just the perfect gift for your favorite Right Wing Extremist.

Deliver Us From Liberals

Here are one of their better products... every Texan needs this t-shirt!

Transparent and Bi-Partisan?

2010-01-05T08:30:00.011-06:00

Where do I start? How about this little debacle that our government is attempting to shove down our throats under the guise of resolving the health care "crisis"?

Let me preface this latest rant by stating that I have been without health insurance for the last 27 months. This is largely by choice as I am self employed and the cost of a policy for myself is staggering. I weighed the financial aspect of purchasing a policy versus the amount I typically spend in a year on medical care. With only minor use of my abacus, I discovered that, barring something catastrophic, I would spend about 10% of what a policy would cost on health care per year. Simple arithmetic told me that I could gamble that I would be able to maintain my relatively good health and save a ton of money by just paying cash.

Funny thing is I found out on my first visit to the doctor, that I actually would receive a cash discount for not using insurance. In other words, I would save even more money over the cost of a policy. By taking a look at what my portion of the cost of my group coverage was costing me previously ($300/mo), and factoring in the co-pay for each doctor visit ($15), the group plan would cost me roughly $915 per quarter with a single visit to the doctor. My doctor charges me $65 per visit before my 15% discount for paying cash bringing my standard office visit to $55.25.

Once again, a bit of bead movement on the abacus told me that I could visit the doctor and pay cash 16 times a quarter and still break even. Now since there are 12 weeks in a quarter, that means I could go visit my doctor every week and still save money. Now where is the crisis?

The Health Care "Crisis"

Today I read a couple of news articles that had very similar content. Each of these stated that the Democrats are planning on foregoing a number of the standard procedural steps to get the two versions of the bill to BHO's desk and signed before his state of the union address in February. This is all to avoid the potential that some cooler heads in our government may prevail and keep the bill from passing.

In that same article, it mentions that a number of the attorneys general are going to challenge the constitutionality of the deal that was made with Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska to get him to sign on to the bill. I am proud to say, that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot is one of those ready to challenge this deal.

Now I recall one of the cornerstones of BHO's campaign was a more transparent and bi-partisan administration. What I am seeing here is a bill that is split almost exactly along party lines (Let's exclude the sweetheart deal Nebraska's Senator Ben Nelson was offered for his support for now). That is hardly bi-partisan in even the wildest imagination. When sweetheart deals are made to gain support and standard procedural steps are circumvented in the name of passage of a bill, then something is rotten in Washington.

This whole bill reeks in so many ways it is pathetic. Being somewhat of a critical thinker I have to ask myself a number of questions that seem to escape the powers to be:

First, if there is indeed a health care "crisis", then why will the bills not go into effect until 2013 or 2014 and the taxes will start immediately. So, let me get this straight, our government, deeply in debt right now, is telling me that I need to start paying for something today that I will not receive for four or five years? Why, if there is a "crisis" doesn't the bill take effect immediately to resolve this issue? Could this be just a disguised tax increase that will swell the coffers to allow for doling out more pork projects? Now we all know full well how poorly our government acts as a steward for our money. Recent bailouts indicate that this administration will already spend money that it does not have. What will happen to this money that is to be earmarked to resolve this "crisis"?

Now second, let's question the constitutionality of this bill. I read through the whopping four pages of the document that set up this great country. No place in that document is the power to dictate health care granted to our government. If we expand the search to include the the Bill of Rights, there also is nothing that grants the government that power. In fact, the Tenth Amendment clearly states; "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, under the Constitution, the government does not have the power to force us to purchase anything. This includes a government run/mandated health care plan.

Since 1884, our leaders have taken the following oath upon assuming their duties as our representatives: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In a previous post, I mention the oath that I took when I enlisted in the U.S. Navy. That oath also cited the defense of the Constitution as one of my obligations. I still feel that I am bound by that oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Now I ask, why can't our elected officials stand by the promise that they made to each of us to protect and defend our rights while they are still in office? Since the powers are not granted to the government, then the bill is not constitutional and is therefore illegal.

Communists and Socialists in Our Government

2009-12-30T11:04:00.009-06:00

I grew up on or around military bases. My father proudly served in the Air Force for 22 years. As a result, I grew up with an awareness of the "Red Menace" of the time. I can recall alerts being held on the base where my father grabbed a suitcase and headed off to work to protect this country from that threat. I also vividly remember the days when we were taught to "Duck and Cover" because an attack by the Communists was imminent.

A week after my graduation from high school in 1979, I joined the Navy. The oath I took that day, stated clearly that I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same". This same oath has been in use since 1962. There is not a clause in that oath that limits me from defending the Constitution after my discharge from the service. It is time for every American to accept that same responsibility.

My first duty station was Midway Island. At the time, Midway was part of the SOSUS net that was used in an attempt to track Russian submarines. My next duty station was the USS Brooke (FFG-1). Our primary mission was anti-submarine warfare against those same Communists.

From the end of World War II, our government was intent on preventing the spread of Communism. We fought a war in Vietnam to aid them in warding off this menace, we sent aid in a number of forms to other countries in an effort to help them. Our own congressmen held witch hunts to rid our country of this threat. Apparently, at one point, the thought of a Socialist country scared the hell out of most Americans. What has changed?

According to Wikipedia, "Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended"

The reason I bring all this up is there is an alarming trend in Washington right now. Our government is trying to shove a socialist agenda down our throats. First we have the feds taking over private industry. The second agenda item is the attempt to bypass the Constitution and legislate that a citizen is required to purchase health care.

From early on in the campaign, BHO has pushed this Socialist agenda. In his now infamous discussion with "Joe the Plumber", BHO stated "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody". Now I may not be the brightest bulb in the hallway, but that statement alone reeks of a Socialist view. Just what "wealth" was BHO planning on spreading around? Simply put, the wealth of those who have worked hard to achieve success.

To achieve this goal, BHO has managed to populate the inner circle with Socialists and Communists. Some of his closest advisers have been quoted as stating the admiration that they have for Mao Tse-Tung. Remember chairman Mao? He murdered millions of his own countrymen. Such a great person to admire. Remember, he was also arming the North Vietnamese to fight against us in Vietnam.

Among those professing their love for Mao is Anita Dunn, the now former White House Communication Director. She so admires that fine humanitarian Mao, that she explained that love in a speech to high school students. She touted the fact that he siezed control of the country without the backing of the military and against all odds. She went on to state that she often turns to the teachings of Mao as one of her "favorite political philosophers". Hmm...let's see if I understand some of this "great" philosophy...implement a regime that provides a communist/socialist agenda, kill those who oppose you, treat women as second-class citizens, eliminate the rights of the people, close the borders and prohibit your people from leaving the oppression...I think that about sums up some of the key points.

Apparently Mao is so revered in our government that a Christmas ornament bearing his picture adorns one of the Christmas trees in the White House. Kind of ironic, here is the likeness of a Communist on a tree in Washington. Last I read about the Communists, they are atheists, to have Mao's picture on a tree that celebrates the birth of Christ is ludicrous to say the least. Add to it that Christmas is typically considered a time of peace and goodwill toward your fellow humans and it becomes even more ridiculous.

To put this gently, the Commies are in the wire...they are walking among us. To use a quote from BHO himself right before the election, "five days from now we will fundamentally change America". WOW...this administration (maybe that should be regime), is trying to do just that, turn us into a nation of Socialists where the government is there to take care of you from cradle to grave. Uncle Barack will be there to take the hard-earned wealth from others and give it to those with the entitlement mentality because "when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody".

Wake up America! We don't need to be "fundamentally changed". The Constitution that our founding fathers built here has worked damned well for 220 years. It affirms our freedoms and liberties while limiting where the line is that the government need not cross in our personal lives. We successfully built a world power and a lifestyle that is the envy of others around the world. What needs to be changed?

The elections in 2010 cannot come soon enough in my opinion. Remember Lincoln's statement "government for the people by the people". Those in Washington work for us, and it is time to remind them of that fact or put them back on the streets.

ILLEGAL Immigrants

2009-12-29T21:15:00.008-06:00

OK, let me throw my cards on the table here. I am not politically correct...I speak my mind and tend not to worry all that much about offending others. Now that the cards are out there, let me clarify the oft misused term of "undocumented workers". While that is a PC way of stating that someone is in this country ILLEGALLY, it also glosses over the fact that these people are criminals. They are beginning their quest for citizenship by breaking our laws.

And while we are on the subject of ILLEGAL immigrants, let's take a look at some numbers and how they are impacting our collapsing economy. According to an April 15, 2009 news story in the Washington Post, the number of ILLEGAL immigrants is estimated to be "10.4 million adults and 1.5 million foreign-born children". Add to this number the estimated 4 million offspring of these ILLEGALS that have been born here and now can enjoy citizenship and we have a whopping 15.9 million people in this country that do not belong here.

Let's take the number of adults, many of whom are employed in some fashion here in the U.S. (BTW, it is also ILLEGAL to hire the ILLEGAL immigrants). According the the Bureau of Labor statistics, there are 14.4 million unemployed Americans as of November 2009.

Let's do a bit of simple math here...14.4 million unemployed minus the 10.4 million jobs that the ILLEGALS are holding down equals 4.4 million total people that would remain unemployed if the ILLEGALS weren't here stealing jobs. Wow...even with my poor math skills, that looks like a simple way to drop the unemployment rate by about 2/3rds.

Now let's factor in a few other items that are impacting our economy by the ILLEGALS. Many of these CRIMINALS earn money here in the U.S. and then promptly ship it out to family and friends in their home country. Therefore, simple deductive reasoning would indicate that money that is earned here and then shipped out of the country is lost to the economy here and benefits the foreign economy and not ours.

According to an article on gallup.com (9/22/2009) , "According to the World Bank, Mexico received more than $25 billion in remittances in 2007; a great deal of this money came from the U.S.". So first we have the impact of the loss of jobs for the citizens of this country combined with the loss of $25 billion that is shipped to Mexico alone.

None of the above takes into consideration the ancillary costs that these ILLEGALS are costing each and every one of the taxpayers in this country through the social services these ILLEGALS are using every day...food stamps, housing, medical care, ad infinitum. All of these services are costly to those of us forced to pay for them. In many cases, the ILLEGALS are in line at the emergency room or for other services that delay the ability of a citizen to receive the services that their tax dollars are paying for.

Before I get a barrage of angry messages about my lack of compassion for immigrants, let me clarify a few items. I am the product of immigrants. According to the best information that I have discovered in years of genealogy research, my ancestors came here legally. The earliest settlers that bear the same name I do and from whom I have descended were here in 1775 according to census records. The other branches of my family arrived from that time until the early part of the 20th century. The most recent immigrant was from Ireland and went through Ellis Island.

I understand that, in spite of the views from the Socialists currently running our government, what we have here is the envy of the world. There are many that would love to have the standard of living that we (at least used to) enjoy. However, if we continue to allow this influx of those that steal our jobs and then send that money back home, we will continue to see a dilution of our way of life.

References
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041401433.html

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea35.txt

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123140/half-new-latino-immigrants-send-money-abroad.aspx

Kalifornia Wackjobs

2009-12-29T20:59:00.002-06:00

I cannot believe the idiocy of some people...even the folks from Kalifornia have to be shaking their heads about this.

Apparently Ricardo Dominguez, an associate professor of visual arts at UC San Diego has decided to not only help the ILLEGAL aliens that are invading this country by building a GPS enabled application to help the criminals cross the border successfully and will even pipe them inspirational poetry to encourage them while breaking the law.

Now let's see if I can draw a good parallel here....I build an application that explains how to circumvent the security system of a bank to allow others to steal from said bank. The application also includes poetry to encourage the criminals during the heist. Am I not an accessory to the crime?

Why is this moron still collecting a paycheck from the state? And better yet, why is he not in jail??

World's Smallest Political Quiz

2009-06-04T08:21:00.007-05:00

This is a very interesting project. Check out the quiz here

Update 1/5/2009 - I neglected to add my results in this quiz. My views are right in the middle of the Libertarian area of the scale.

BHO's Date Night

2009-05-31T22:46:00.004-05:00

Oh please!!!

The Obamas made a recent trip to NYC for "date night" all at the taxpayers expense for dinner and a show. Now assuming the Obamas picked up the tab for the dinner and show, the U.S. taxpayers are still out the $40,000 per hour it takes to operate Air Force One not to mention the costs of security, staff transportation, press transportation and a host of other expenses associated with this little jaunt.

I find it amazing that the president that promised "change" would take this step. Especially when there are Americans that are having trouble purchasing basic necessities like food and shelter. Hell, I know I can't afford to take anyone's wife to NYC for date night even if I fly there using frequent flier miles. I'm lucky if I can squeeze in a pizza once a week or so.

And what about the nasty "carbon footprint" this little trip created? Now, now Mr. President, I thought that green was the way to go. Surely a flight to NYC on a 747 for a date night is not a responsible use of this country's resources.

Sotomayor, a Racist on SCOTUS

2009-05-31T22:27:00.005-05:00

Let's begin the entry by allowing me to state that I am white. My ancestors came from England, Ireland, Wales and Germany. So, I am a true Euro-mix of nationalities. I have one line of my family that I have traced back to 1775 in the then colony of New York. My most recent immigrant is my great-grandfather who arrived at the turn of the 20th century from Ireland.

Being white, I am proud of my heritage. However, I cannot express said pride without being labeled as a racist. Should I make a public statement that a white male is smarter than someone from another race, I am labeled a bigot.

Now we have our newest nominee to the SCOTUS who happens to be Hispanic and has gone on record as stating "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Now I must ask, why does this double standard exist? If I were to make a statement that a wise WHITE male would reach a better conclusion than a Latina, I am racist. If I start an organization name National Society for the Advancement of Caucasions or the Caucasion College Fund, I am racist. Even the POTUS spent more time in his campaign focusing on being half black and not half white.

To me, it is apparent that Sotomayor is not suited to sit on the bench of our highest court or any other court for that matter. There should not be a white view, a black view, or any other partisan view from the bench. The job of the SCOTUS is to review the laws and eliminate those that do not abide by our Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

40 Reasons to Support Gun Control | Gather

2009-05-21T20:23:00.001-05:00

40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense ? give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.
18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.

Under fire, Pelosi gets backing from fellow Democrats

2009-05-19T23:16:00.000-05:00

Under fire, Pelosi gets backing from fellow Democrats: "A CNN poll Monday found 48 percent of those polled disapprove of the way Pelosi is handling her job, versus 39 percent who approve."

What a surprise, the Democrats are backing yet another liar. Remember this is the same party that backed Clinton over the whole Monica fiacso.

What the FUCK??

2009-04-29T13:10:00.005-05:00

As any reader of this blog knows, I am not a supporter of Obama in any way shape or form. His recent actions with the king of Saudi Arabia is a prime example of why this man is unfit to hold the office he does.

Since when does the President of the U.S., the leader of the free world bow to a foreign leader? This is bullshit! We are not subjects of any foreign country or leader. That was resolved after the Revolutionary War.

Now the White House states that it was not a "bow" but merely Obama bending down to grasp the hand of the king. Once again, I call bullshit. Take a look a the video and judge for yourself.

Obama bowing

Columbine - 10 years later

2009-04-14T00:50:00.004-05:00

I find it interesting that some of the parents of those killed in the Columbine attack are now crowing that it is time to increase the restrictions on purchasing firearms. Tom and Linda Mauser who had a son killed in the tragedy now "honor" their son's memory by campaigning for stricter controls.

Lets take a look at some facts behind the guns used that fateful day and how they were obtained.

The guns: Intratec TEC-DC9 pistol, Hi-Point 9mm Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Savage 311-D 12-gauge shotgun.

How obtained: The carbine and both shotguns were purchased by Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from non FFL sellers. The TEC-DC9 was purchased by the shooters from a friend.

Legality: The purchases by Anderson were LEGAL purchases at the time under Colorado law as she had reached the age of 18. However, when she then transferred the guns to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the purchase became an illegal straw purchase. The TEC-DC9 was purchased from a friend who apparently knew the ages of the shooters but still sold them the pistol for $500. A quck Internet check shows that one can legally purchase a TEC-DC9 today for under $250. The inflated price would lead one to believe that the seller knew that the kids would not be able to purchase the gun legally hence the increase in the price for the illegal sale.

While Columbine was a tragedy for the students and their families, it was also a tragedy for our 2A rights as well. It has become a rally point for all of those who seek to ignore or destroy our 2A rights.

The fact is all four of the guns used in this shooting were acquired ILLEGALLY. Further evidence that those bent on destruction will find a willing partner to supply them their arms. Although the gun grabbers state they are not after our "hunting" firearms, using this incident as their battle cry only further exposes the truth. The two shot guns are typically used for hunting purposes, the 9mm carbine is a pistol round in a rifle, not really a hunting weapon but great for knocking holes in paper. Even the TEC-DC9 is only a semi-automatic pistol even though it received special attention in the 1994 AWB.

Mexico's Gun Problems

2009-03-24T09:08:00.003-05:00

It looks like the current administration is attempting to leverage problems with the drug gangs in Mexico as a reason to step on our 2A rights. Apparently, BHO and crew believe that all of Mexico's drug gang killings are a result of illegal firearms being sent across the border into Mexico from the U.S. As a result, the feds are looking at additional laws to curtail this mysterious southerly migration of firearms.

Mexico has a serious problem with these drug gangs who use military style weapons including grenade launchers, TOW missiles and a host of full-auto weapons to claim their territory in the lucrative drug trade. BHO and team feel that these weapons are coming from the U.S and therefore more laws need to be passed to prevent this.

Let's examine some facts. Mexico already has some very strict gun laws in place. Not to mention, the illegality of smuggling drugs across the border into the U.S. These drugs typically from Central America and Mexico is just a way point into the U.S.

Now since Mexico already bans both the weapons and drugs, it would appear that this problem has been solved by legislation. However, the so-called border wars continue to rage.

The majority of the weapons being used by these gangs are truly military weapons, grenades, grenade launchers and fully automatic weapons are all hard to come by here in the U.S. However, BHO doesn't realize that there are already laws on the books on both sides of the border that prohibit possession of both the guns and the drugs. Additional laws will be ignored by these gangs just as the current ones are.

If indeed there is a risk of this violence spreading across the border from Mexico, there it is one more reason that we need to get the barriers in place to limit border crossings. In addition, if I were one of the residents near the border, you can bet that I would be armed at all times in order to protect myself and my property from these gangs. BHO would prefer that you become an unarmed victim instead.

Our government has failed to secure our southern border from the daily incursions from unarmed illegals. How the hell are they going to respond to an armed gang with nefarious attempt that wishes to use the same methods of entry?

A word to BHO and crew, lock down the border. Plain and simple. Stop the illegals from crossing the border heading north and you will stop any weapons heading south as well. Securing our border will keep the illegals out that are not only taking jobs from U.S. citizens but also will prevent the flow of drugs into this country, weapons (if there are any) that are heading south and keep the currency that the illegals are sending home here in the country.

Damn that seems like a simple solution to a whole host of problems.

Oakland Cop Shooting

2009-03-24T08:35:00.005-05:00

The recent killing of four police officers in Oakland seems to have brought the gun grabbers out of the woodwork. I reading through the "news" papers from the area, there is a call to further restrict 2A rights in Kalifornia due to this tragedy.

One thing that I notice missing from the ruckus is any mention of culpability for Lovelle Mixon, the shooter or for the Kalifonia parole board that put him back on the streets and threatened the well being of all citizens.

A bit of background for those who do not follow the news from the left coast; Lovelle Mixon was a convicted felon. He served 5 years of a 6 year sentence for assault with a firearm. Mixon gained parole in October of 2007 only to be considered possible suspect in a homicide in Alameda County in February 2008. This status caused Mixon to spend another 9 months in prison before being released again on November 1, 2008 because no charges were filed in the murder case.

Between his last release and February 18, 2009, Mixon apparently performed as a parolee should and reported on a regular basis. Come the middle of February, Mixon had disappeared from the control of his parole officer and was considered a parolee-at-large and a warrant is issued for his arrest.

Attempts were made to locate Mixon and return him to prison before the March 21st events that led to the killing of three officers.

Let's examine where this system broke down; First, Mixon was apparently a repeat offender at the time he was returned to prison during a murder investigation. He was subsequently released again from prison only to disappear from radar three months later. As a convicted felon, he was already prohibited from even touching a firearm under current laws.

As a parolee, Mixon became the responsibility of the state Board of Parole who is responsible for making sure he behaves himself. This process failed as he managed to disappear from their control within three months of his release.

It is apparent that Mixon should not have been on the streets to begin with. The Parole Board should not have released him after he was arrested under suspicion of murder. He should have served the remainder of his time of the original sentence. Both times that Mixon was released on parole, he was in trouble within three months, the first time as a suspect in a murder, the second as a parole violator. Apparently, the parole system in Kalifornia does not work and should be revisited.

Finally, let us not forget that current laws prohibited Mixon from having any guns in his possession. Laws that he chose to ignore and in the process managed to take the life of four officers. Additional laws would not have kept Mixon on the straight and narrow. He was a criminal and, as such, had a history of disobeying the laws currently in existence. Disarming law abiding citizens would not have prevented this tragedy in any form. Mixon would have procured a gun by whatever means were available to him.

It has been awhile....

2009-03-24T08:10:00.002-05:00

I have been a bit neglectful of keeping this blog up to date. Real life has interfered with this process and I apologize.

Although I haven't been writing to vent, I do keep abreast of the news regarding gun laws and other assaults on my personal freedoms. There have been a number of items int he news recently about further assaults on my 2A rights so I will make a few comments:

Kirsten Gillibrand is a sellout!

What first appeared to be a shining light within the NY state political scene has turned into another case of bowing to pressure rather than standing up for what one believes in.

After being appoint to replace Hillary Clinton as the senator from NY, it came to light that Gillibrand was a proponent of gun control rights and actually owned guns. Unfortunately, she has since bowed to pressure to change how she stores the gun in her household by keeping them unloaded, with trigger locks and with the ammo stored separately. All of this to appease some critics and help to gain a few more votes when it comes to election time.

I personally, keep a couple of loaded guns handy in my house and within easy reach to ensure that I can defend me and mine in the event someone enters the house illegally. Locking up my means of protection and hindering my ability to readily access a weapon should the need arises goes against the very core of my belief.

Although I was unable to find a direct quote, it also appears that Gillibrand has made a statement that 2A was about hunters rights. How naive can one person be?

Illinois' Bonehead Legislation Attempt

2009-02-23T09:20:00.002-06:00

Illinois Rep. Kenneth Dunkin (D- Chicago) introduced a bill to require that LEGAL firearm owners in the state carry a $1 million dollar insurance policy covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the firearm.

A funny thing about this proposed requirement, there isn't an insurance company in the country that will issue such a policy. Now what kind of moron makes the decision to introduce a bill that 1) impossible to comply with and 2) only impacts those that try to stay within the law? The answer is apparently the boneheads in Illinois, land of Lincoln and some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

To any of my readers from the state of Illinois: How long are you going to keep tolerating this from your public servants?

Minnesota tries new gun control law

2009-02-19T13:44:00.011-06:00

I see that Minnesota legislators are now looking at a bill to close the mythical gun show loophole that is supposedly responsible for all of the gun related crimes in the U.S. . According to a story by The Star Tribune, "The bill would close the so-called "gun show/Internet loophole." It would prohibit private sales of pistols or assault weapons unless the buyer or seller was a federally licensed dealer, or used a licensed dealer to transfer the weapon. That includes sales at garage and estate sales and over the Internet, which are currently exempt from background checks."

We have a winner for today's bonehead legislation contest. Let's take a look at the comment above piece by piece.

The mythical "gun show loophole" has some new brothers, the Internet, garage sale and estate sale loopholes. First, my personal experience at most gun shows I attend is that the "guns show loophole" is a myth. Yes there are a few private sales of some weapons at guns shows but the vast majority of the tables I have approached are run by those who are FFL dealers and DO require that you abide by existing laws by filling out the paperwork and going through the mandatory background check. The private sales at guns shows eliminate the need of me inviting God knows who over to my house if I want to sell a gun. I can take the gun to the show, others that may be interested in it can view it and make an offer, and a deal can be made.

The Internet loophole is something completely new and unusual. Under existing laws, a transfer of a gun across state lines already requires the services of an FFL for a legal transfer. Even within the Republic of Texas, I cannot legally ship a gun to another person. So where is the loophole? Is there some mystical site on the Internet that will allow me to purchase a firearm without abiding by the local laws? If so, please point it out to me as I am sure the boys at BATF don't have an idea it may be out there.

Now one of the key points of the bill according to the article is that it will outlaw the private transfer of the dreaded and evil "Assault Weapons". I am anxious to see what the definition of an assault weapon turns out to be in this bill.

Now a quiz for my readers...

Which one of the firearms pictured below is an "Assault Weapon"?

Answer: Neither, it is a trick question. They are both Ruger 10-22 rifles. One of the most common of the .22 plinkers that millions of people have used to learn the proper use of firearms.

The second picture is merely the same gun with a different set of stocks, guards and other accessories. Both are still .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles with no difference in functionality, only how the weapon looks. The bottom picture even dispalys the standard 10 round magazine sold with the gun.

Some Words of wisdom

2009-02-16T23:24:00.001-06:00

An old grandpa once said, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' knee caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin'."

He goes on to say the following:

I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.

Tennessee Gets It

2009-02-16T09:28:00.004-06:00

The "it" here is that the lawmakers of Tennessee have filed 18 bills to loosen existing restrictions on firearms. An additional 4 bills have been introduced to restrict access to the database that houses information on CHL holders.

Hats off to Tennessee!

Say it ain't so...

2009-02-12T00:32:00.008-06:00

I was handed a news story tonight at a motorcycle club meeting mentioning the little town of Tenaha, Texas. Tenaha is a small town with a population just over 1000 people less than 20 miles from the Texas-Louisiana border.

According to the article, it appears that the law enforcement officers of both the town and Shelby County have been accosting motorists that pass through the area. The law enforcement officials have been coercing motorist to turn over money and property in return for free passage through the area.

These so-called officials are performing what amounts to highway piracy on a regular basis. They have confiscated numerous automobiles, jewelry, cash and other property from 140 motorists between 2006 and 2008. All of this without filing criminal charges against less than half of the motorists. The motorists were threatened with arrest and/or jail time unless they waived their rights to the property.

I am appalled at this lack of respect for the Fifth Amendment rights of these motorists. The Fifth Amendment clearly states that a person shall not be, "...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

One of the "law enforcement uses" for the confiscated property included a beer and margarita party for officers.

Please explain to me how this is justified in any way, shape or form?

The Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee is looking into this matter but only after ten of the motorists filed a suit against both the town of Tenaha and Shelby County.

I'll be following this story and the associated lawsuit to see how the state reacts to this fiasco and will keep you posted.

To quote an oft used phrase from the movies, "Looks like you are in a heap of trouble, boy."

A March on the Texas State Capitol

2009-02-11T17:36:00.014-06:00

A good portion of this blog deals with Second Amendment rights but all of my rights are important to me. As any reader of this blog is aware, I am proudly outspoken when it comes to our elected officials and will gladly point out each of their infractions against my rights.

The picture above is me and about 3,000 of my closest friends marching on the Texas State Capitol on January 16th . Although the picture is a bit small, I am the guy under the big red mark on the photo.

The purpose of this gathering was to inform our legislators that we are aware of the bills they are attempting to pass that limit our rights as motorcyclists as well as citizens of this country. Plain and simple, we have had enough and are not going to take the continued erosion of our rights and liberties sitting down.

I am a patch holder in a local motorcycle club (name withheld to protect the innocent and guilty) and am active in the Texas Confederation of Clubs (TCoC). I am also one of our two club representatives and the DFW area secretary for the Texas Defenders program.

The Texas Defenders program was commissioned by TCoC State Chairman Bandido Gimmi Jimmy in the early fall of 2007 and has taken on a force of its own. This program was presented to the attendees of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM) this year and is spreading like wildfire across the country. The same program is also known as the US Defenders across the country as the various CoC's climb on board to protect their rights.

Another portion of the program is the Coalition of Independent Riders (COIR). The COIR works in conjunction with the CoC's to bring non-patch holding riders into the fold to make sure they are both aware of the legislation that may impact them and to make sure that their voices are heard by our legislators.

The march this year on the state capitol was a very moving experience for me. It was quite something to hear 3,000+ voices raised in unison on the capitol steps as we recited the Pledge of Allegiance before going inside to visit with our legislators.

If you are a patch holder, check with your local CoC and see if there is a similar program in place in your area. If you are an independent rider, join the COIR and make sure your voice joins ours in protecting your rights.

If you need help in setting up a similar program in your area or do not know who to contact, let me know and I will get the information for you.

To read a bit more about the Texas Defenders program, check out the Texas CoC page.

Ride Free!

Definitions of terms used in this blog.

2009-02-11T16:44:00.016-06:00

I have been asked a few times what some of the phrases I use in this blog mean. This post is an attempt to explain these terms to newer readers. I will edit this entry and add more definitions as the need arises.

Unarmed Victim(s) - These are members of the populace who do not understand that the Second Amendment is not about hunting but about personal protection from criminals and tyranny. Unarmed victims typically live with the misunderstanding that all guns are evil pieces of machinery and can act on their own accord to cause harm. They have no desire to protect themselves and are happy to allow the government to dictate what is good for them.

An unarmed victim can also be a member of the populace unfortunate enough to live in a police state that does not recognize the Second Amendment rights of their citizens. Citizens in areas such as Chicago and all of California are, by legislation, unarmed victims.

Bonehead(ed) Legislation - This is one of the nicer terms I use to describe legislation, either proposed or in place, that does nothing to actually help the citizens and actually harms them by ignoring their rights and ability to protect themselves. Examples of boneheaded legislation are HR45, the original AWB and most "gun laws" currently on the books.

I first encountered the term "bonehead legislation" in the title of a book about outrageous laws called 'The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation" by Dick Hyman. I enjoyed this book and for some reason the descriptor for the legislation has stuck with me over the years.

The Second Amendment or 2A - “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.” These are the most important 27 words in the U.S. Constitution. This phrase acknowledges our inalienable right to protect ourselves, our property and our family against the criminal element or, if necessary, our government.

Republic of Texas - To the uninitiated, this is also known as the Great State of Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas agreed to be annexed by the U.S. and joined the Union as the 28th state. Texas is the only state that was a sovereign nation prior to joining the Union. While not a native Texan, the ideals and feelings I have for my home state for the last 15 years are as strong as any native-born son of the Republic.

Below are a few interesting tidbits from the Texas Constitution. It clearly states:

“Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States...” (note that it does not state “...subject to the President of the United States...” or “...subject to the Congress of the United States...” or “...subject to the rest of the United States...”)

And

"All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”

Unfortunately, Texas citizens like most in the U.S. have meekly allowed the government to slowly erode the rights that made this country so great.

Is Canada Finally Seeing the Light?

2009-02-11T13:39:00.012-06:00

Although I rarely concern myself with the events that occur north of the U.S. border, a recent news item caught my eye that I feel compelled to comment on.

As most already know, Canada is one of the countries who has taken drastic steps to disarm the populace and make all of their citizens a member of the unarmed victims. Canada is home to some of the most restrictive gun registration laws in a costly but feeble attempt to protect the public.

About a decade ago, Canada created the Canadian Long Gun Registry that was to cost the taxpayers of the frozen north $2 million to maintain. A decade later, the costs of this boneheaded legislation has increased to $2 billion while doing little to protect the unarmed victims.

Bill C-301, a Private Members' Bill introduced by Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz would eliminate this worthless piece of legislation and require that the Canadian auditor general to perform a public safety test on all gun control measures every five years.

MP Barry Devolin, states about the bill "I believe Canadians would rather see their tax dollars keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs, instead of harassing law-abiding citizens."

Wow, the Canadians are finally realizing that this type of legislation is a too costly to maintain while providing little protection to the the unarmed victims. Criminals do not follow laws, hence one of the reasons they are considered criminals.

Maybe we need to take a lesson from our neighbors to the north. The Canadian's have already outlawed most handguns and consequently the expensive registry is for long guns only. How would this impact those of us in the U.S.? Take a look at HR 45 that is an attempt to implement a similar registry.

Of course HR 45 is only designed to deal with handguns and those evil semi-automatic weapons with a detachable magazine. But at what cost financially? Our government is not known to be frugal when it comes to spending tax dollars. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our legislators spend money like drunken sailors on a two day liberty. With the current state of the U.S. economy and the projected budget deficits in the coming years can we even come close to affording more useless legislation like HR 45?

God Bless Texas!

2009-02-11T10:22:00.013-06:00

If you look at my profile on the left side of the page, you will note that I am a proud resident of the Republic of Texas. I am not a native born Texan but I did get here as fast as possible.

In my research, I noticed that victims of guns crimes typically take two different paths. Either they become rabidly anti-gun and look to the government for protection by passing new laws or they take matters into their own hands and decide they will not be unarmed should the situation arise again.

Personally, I am one of the latter. As a young adult fresh from the military, I was working as a property manager for a small realty company. On January 4, 1982 our office was robbed at gunpoint. The two gunmen escaped with about $6,000 in cash, some jewelry and my wallet with two weeks pay inside. The gunmen spent about 15 minutes terrorizing the five of us that were still in the office. My boss was so scared that he actually wet his pants during the ordeal. Fortunately, nobody was injured. Unfortunately, these thieves were never caught and brought to justice for this crime. I have to wonder how many others were terrorized by these two miscreants?

The next day, I went out gun shopping and purchased a Charter Arms British Bulldog in .38 Special. This was my first handgun and was purchased for one purpose, to ensure that I would not be an unarmed victim again. My boss had the same idea and purchased a small semi-auto in .32 for his wife and a .380 for himself. Never again would either of us be an unarmed victim.

My purpose to this little trip down memory lane is to mention a lady who I greatly admire for her actions after finding herself as an unarmed victim. Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, was in a Luby's restaurant in San Antonio on October 16, 1991. On that day, George Jo Hennard crashed his truck through the window and opened fire on the approximately 80 people inside. He managed to kill 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. Among those killed were both of Hupp's parents. Hennard managed to reload multiple times and still had ammunition remaining when he shot himself.

Dr. Hupp had left her pistol in her vehicle in the parking lot because of the restrictive laws in Texas at the time regarding carrying a weapon. During the slaughter, Hupp regretted following the law and making herself an unarmed victim. As she stated in testimony before Congress, "I realized that I made the stupidest decision of my life, I took my gun out of my purse and left it in my car. Because, as you well know, in the state of Texas it's sometimes a felony offense to carry a gun in your purse...I'm mad at my legislators for legislating me out of the right to protect myself and my family. I would rather be sitting in jail with a felony offense on my head and have my parents alive".

In the aftermath of the deaths of her parents, Hupp didn't look to the government for protection. Instead, she became vocal proponent of the right to carry. Her actions were key in the passing of the Texas law allowing concealed carry.

During testimony in front of Congress regarding the original assault weapons ban, Dr. Hupp made it clear as to the purpose of the Second Amendment. Some quotes from her testimony:

"As far as these so-called assault weapons, you say that they don't have any defense use. You tell that to the guy that I saw on a video tape of the L.A. riots standing up on his rooftop protecting his property and his life from an entire mob with one of these so-called assault weapons. Tell me he didn't have a legitimate self-defense use."

"Just one final statement. I've been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this, but it's about our rights, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there"

Remember, the "guys up there" were the members of Congress that ultimately passed that original AWB in spite of her testimony. One has to wonder, maybe she scared the shit out them.

My hat is off to Dr. Hupp for her reaction to the killing of her parents that day and her stand in front of Congress. She realized well before the SCOTUS ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) that the police have no obligation to protect us. It is our right as well as our responsibility to protect ourselves.

Note: The quotes from Dr. Hupp's testimony before Congress are used with her permission. Although testimony before Congress is public record I felt obligated to contact her and seek her permission before posting this in the blog. Thank you Dr. Hupp for your permission to use your very compelling testimony and for your efforts in protecting and raising an awareness of the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

Here is one of the clearest videos of her testimony before Congress with some additional commentary by Penn & Teller:

Another Sell Out to the Unarmed Victims?

2009-02-11T10:10:00.004-06:00

Oh how wrong I was.

I was impressed that New York may finally be turning the corner and recognizing the Second Amendment for what it is, the right of the people to defend themselves. When Kirsten Gillibrand first took Hillary Clinton's New York senate seat, I was thrilled. Now I am merely appalled.

Senator Gillibrand has now made a rather idiotic statement in order to garner political favor among the unarmed victims in her state. Her statement, "There's a very big difference between making sure hunters can hunt in upstate New York, because it's part of our heritage and our history and the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and fighting against gun violence," is ludicrous at best.

Senator Gillibrand seems to equate the Second Amendment with hunting and not with personal safety and ones ability to protect themselves against the criminal element.

Is she a sell out or just misinformed?

Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership video

2009-02-10T20:36:00.007-06:00

Below is an excellent video produced by JPFO. It's something every American should view.

Source: http://jpfo.org

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

2009-02-10T20:08:00.008-06:00

Let's take a little trip back just over 230 years ago. The place, a group of angry colonies in the New World.

At this time in history, the colonies were being strangled by the rule from England. Taxes were climbing and the needs of the people were not being addressed.

What was the spark that kindled the smoldering resentment in a full-blown revolution against the government? What was it that compelled our founding fathers to fire "the shot heard 'round the world"? The answer is simple, the British marched from Boston to seize the guns and ammunition held in Concord. Our forefathers did not want to sit idly by while the British government took steps to ensure they did not have the means to defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.

Our forefathers learned their lessons well and made sure the people had both the ability to defend their homes, families and property as well as the ability to take the country back from the new government they were creating should the need arise.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Our founding fathers took a stand with their lives to create what was a great country. They stood shoulder to shoulder and thumbed their noses at one of the strongest countries in the world at that time. Their actions and words were branded as treasonous and had the revolution failed they would have surely paid with their lives. Is this how we repay their sacrifices? Now I ask you: Are you a patriot or a tyrant?

Gun Control Issues

2009-02-10T14:04:00.008-06:00

The Second Amendment clearly states, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This statement as a right of the people (not a militia or other quasi-military group) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. One would think that this might set the anti-gun crowd (hereafter referred to as the unarmed victims) back a step or two in their zeal to infringe upon this right. Unfortunately, the gun grabbing continues. With Obama in office, our second amendment rights are more in jeopardy now than ever before.

A couple of the more recent bills to begin the progress through the mess that is our government are:

HR 257 - "Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009". Introduced by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)

This bill is a prime example of the lack of knowledge of our lawmakers when it comes to firearms. The bill prohibits someone under the age of 21 of possessing a "semi-automatic assault rifle" or "large capacity magazine". Unfortunately, the bill lacks a definition of either of these prohibited items.

Now while this may seem like a great idea to the unarmed victims, the bill does not take into account that many of the members of our military are under 21 and regularly entrusted with the evil "semi-automatic assault rifles" in defense of our country.

HR 45 - "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009". Introduced by Bobby L. Rush (D-Illinois)

This bill is an attempt to institute a nationwide registry for certain guns. Included in the list are the evil "semi-automatic rifles" as well as all pistols. This bill is a knee jerk reaction to the shooting death of Blair Holt, 16 at the hands of Michael Pace, 16. Pace was given the gun by a third juvenile Kevin Jones, 15 who also served as a lookout for Pace.

While the death of Holt is indeed a tragedy, does it necessitate the need for a national registry of certain firearms? I think not. This crime happened in Chicago, land of some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. A law-abiding citizen must jump though numerous hoops just to be able to own a handgun let alone carry one in public as Pace did. Just off the top of my head, there are at least four local laws already in place in Chicago to prevent just such a tragedy from occurring by restricting the right of a citizen to protect themselves. Pace and Jones ignored these laws as well as the ones against murder, assault with a deadly weapon, discharging a weapon within city limits, possession of a handgun by a minor and possession of a handgun on a CTA bus.

Why didn't those laws protect the life of Blair Holt? Are the laws that are on the books already ineffective or unenforceable? I will leave it to the reader to decide.

Licensing every handgun and certain semi-automatic rifles will not put an end to the violence. All this will serve to do is create another government bureaucracy to your money and track your actions as a private citizen.