Wednesday, October 30, 2013

The Second Amendment: Beware the Ambitious Man

The Second Amendment:
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.
Legislation Background and Usurpations:
Militia Act of 1792

Describes in detail the weapon and supplies every militia aged man should own.  Basically a
description of the "modern" infantryman.  Shows the sense of Congress that the 2nd Amendment
should at least be interpreted to understand the people should be armed in a like-manner of
what today we have as our standing armed forces infantryman.  The current version of the Militia
Act provides for two classifications of militia - organized (National Guard) and unorganized (Non-National Guard).  In no way does it make distinction as to which firearms should be carried between the various types.
The Freedman's Bureau Act of 1866
  Reinforced that all freemen have "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning  personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery" 
18 USC 1715 The first federal firearms law bans ordering a gun through the mail.
 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986

 This law bans the sale and ownership of armor piercing bullets.

National Firearms Act of 1934  & 1938 

Hoover pushed Congress for the 1934 act to harshly tax the sale of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, so much so that to this day the original tax has not been raised.  This technic has been repeated many times by Congress.  You might recall that is how the Affordable Care Act was a tax under the Commerce Clause.  It also requires a federal registry of these weapons.  In 1938, Roosevelt adds licensing interstate gun dealers, who must record sales, and prohibits sales to individuals under indictment or convicted of violent crimes.
Gun Control Act of 1968
The government assassination of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr., spurred the communist Lyndon Johnson to prohibit all convicted felons, drug users and the mentally ill from buying guns.  The GCA also raised the age to purchase handguns to the age of 21.  Also the burden of record keeping expanded for shop owners.
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
A heavy push against constitutional intrusions by the government let to the passing of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The law limits the BATFE from inspecting gun dealers more than once a year, with follow-up inspections only in cases of multiple violations.  An amendment is also passed banning civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Weapons made and registered before that date are not affected. The law specifically forbids the government from creating a national registry of gun ownership.
 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
The Brady Act mandates background checks of gun buyers in order to prevent sales to people prohibited under the 1968 legislation. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), is maintained by the FBI. Records of such checks cannot be preserved because federal law prohibits the creation of a national registry of gun ownership. Sales by unlicensed private sellers who are not engaged in gun dealing as a business are not subject to the checks under federal law, though they are required by some states.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
The Assault Weapons Ban produces a 10-year federal ban on the manufacture of new semi-automatic assault weapons. The law specifies 19 weapons that have the evil look of technology, including the AR-15, certain versions of the AK-47, the TEC-9, the MAC-10 and the Uzi, several of which had become the preferred weapon of violent drug gangs. The act also bans large-capacity ammunition magazines, limiting them to 10 rounds. The law does not apply to weapons that were already in legal possession, and there are easy ways to adapt new weapons to avoid the prohibitions.
Tiahrt Amendment of 2003
The Tiahrt Amendment to a federal spending bill. The amendment, proposed by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibits law enforcement from publicly releasing data showing where criminals bought their firearms.

The Liberal Question:
Why do right-wing nutjobs need firearms people just shoot each other and I hate senseless death?

Joseph Story, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States spoke to this in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833.
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men" 


Monday, October 28, 2013

Driving Tax: Driving middle income into poverty

Fox news reported today more states are considering implementing driving taxes along with black box devices that sit on the dashboard and use Wi-Fi to send data which will show when and where you drive you car.  Who is the world of crack-smoking liberals thought to themselves this is a fantastic idea to save the planet and that the government will never use all that information for anything nefarious.

There already exists a "driving tax".  It is called a fuel tax.  It knows exactly how far you drive because when you have used it all, you need to buy more.; If this new driving tax was about revenue, then this fuel tax would just be increased. The result of additional driving related taxation; will be yet another liberal attack on the middle class. Lower middle class family back into the city to make use of public transportation which has long been used to keep the inner-city enslaved in poverty. The Journal of Urban Economics, published a paper written by Glasser, "Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation." in which he described how "the urbanization of poverty comes mainly from better access to public transportation in central cities.".1

The fact is fuel tax or a driving tax is just a tool to regulate the level of income the government wishes to force into the urban landscape.  Any "black box" program regardless of what reason given is just another way to assume control of the people under the guise of other reasons.  It needs to be wholly rejected on constitutional principles by every American as well as an increase or creation of any transportation related taxation.

1 Glaeser, Edward L., Matthew E. Kahn, and Jordan Rappaport. 2008. Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation. Journal of Urban Economics 63, no. 1: 1-24. Accessed: October 28, 2013 11:16:15 AM EDT URL:

Monday, October 21, 2013

Presidential Infomercial proves roses really smell like poo-oo-ooo

That's right folks, the product is good, good, good AND the prices are good, good, good!!!  It's a good deal.

Three times over the course of the President's "press conference" the talking points where repeat to sell the product.  The product is good.  The price is good.  It's a good deal.  Of course the President did this surround by people that supposedly benefited from the PPACA.  I am positive it couldn't have been any patients or doctors.  Perhaps they were from Wall Street or large mutual.

I mentioned in another post how the government has locked down access to any hard data mining of statistics on the website likely to stop the laughter of the RNC; yet the President claims much of the failure has been because of the overwhelming number of people visiting the website.  Proudly boasting of the "thousands" (313+ million population) already signed up and the 20 million website visitors. 

I don't want to call the President a liar, but I will say he is a liar.  The estimated monthly traffic for over the past thirty days is only 4,439,500.1   Granted this is an estimated metric, but I highly doubt they are off by so between 75% and infinity. As far as unique visitors which means not someone at home visiting over and over and over; only received 829,417 visits. 2

What we can gleam Alexa's web analytics is that has enjoyed 41% decline in visits from search engines over the past three months.  Also that their is likely either a government or grassroots campaign on Facebook which is in full swing to push people to sign up.  Mr. President please listen to your fellow infomercial icon, Susan Powter, and just STOP THE INSANITY!  The number of visitors to the site are not overwhelming; in fact, they are appalling which is why you are in the rose garden pedaling your The Affordable Care Act like George Foreman selling his grills.

One would think with such an important sales presentation, the President would focus on using proper English.  "More better" is only correctly used if following by the word "Blues" and even then it should properly be "Mo better blues".  I guess liberals only cringe at language errors made by oil-drilling Presidents.  I do wonder was there an APPLAUSE sign next to the teleprompter today?  I do not know why people would clan when you were so happy that young people could stay on their parents plans until the age of twenty-six.  Is that because you know it is going to take those people an average of 8 years to find full-time employment now that the PPACA is enacted?  No parent wants a child living in their basement eating Cheetos after smoking a bowl at 2am.  That is not drive nor success.

Why would you mention Oregon already added 56,000 more people to Medicaid because of the PPACA?  Are you proud of yourself that 56,000 people cannot find meaningful and well paying jobs under your administration?  To make matters worse you went back to an old lie proven horrible wrong and that is that for most Americans, 6 out of 10 by your implication, will pay less a month for insurance premiums than the cost of a cell phone of cable television.  Why haven't you sold the plan based on the economic advantages of the low deductibles.  I have heard of deductibles as high as $24,000 with a $6,000 annual premium for one family.  That is a $500 cell phone bill and one major surgery before their coverage even kicks in.

The President made himself into a jester today.  Juggling and entertaining the dumb while selling a horrible product.  Give it another month and he will be giving out free toasters for every knew application and a chance to win a free houses.


Liberals Build Ghettos and Keep Minorities in Virtual Chains

The figures above show the 2012 Presidential election results by state, the highest population cities in the US, and which of these cities cling to democratic mayors and policies.  Economic researches have a State Income Inequality Index which rates the level of emigration occurring in  the state that involves the exodus of higher income individuals away from poor neighborhoods.  This exodus leaves the poor with fewer job opportunities, role models, peers, social networks, and less school funding. 

The tendency is a natural one and is not limited by race or religion.  Income increases that drives people from poor neighbors is almost exclusively because middle-income individuals have a demand for single-family homes; not apartments, but is also, on a much smaller scale, related to a desire for better school districts and less crime.  These neighborhoods that remain with almost entirely low-income households are what always found in the inner-city. 

What you see if you look at the two maps is that States with an income equality index significantly
lower that the national average have a tendency to vote conservative; while the closer the index is to
the above average the states tend to swing liberal. So what is really happening in these states?
As the wealth move away into better neighbors taking with them all the benefits that they bring to a
neighborhood - jobs opportunity, school funding, etc.  Poor people also tend to migrate away from
those neighbors toward the inner-city.  The research of Harvard economist Dr. Glaeser suggests that
the urbanization of poverty comes mainly from better access to public transportation in central cities.1

The rise of public employment in the United States has for more than 150 years been linked to the
efforts of urban political machines to provide for their constituents.  Once poverty accumulates to its own population centers we saw the rise of subcultures which develop into organizations focused on money and power.  These can range from the rise of The Nation of Islam, community organizations like ACORN, or institutional systems that provide benefits in a non-verbal exchange for a vote.  It is not that organizations such as TNI or ACORN do not provide programs and address social needs, but they arise from a desire for either power or money and if for any extended time those forces where removed they would crumble.

Local black politicians in an attempt to help the issue at the core where very active in hiring blacks into government jobs with good pay and benefits in an attempt to help the poverty in the inner cities.  And temporarily, it works.  However, the American dream has blind eyes and no one is going to stay in a crime ridden slum once they have money.  They are going to get a car and take their family and move somewhere better and commute to work.  If this plan was a true solution it would have rebuild those communities because 20 percent of all government jobs are filled by blacks while they are responsible for only 12% of the workforce.2

Democrats have had a century of policy making designed to simply keep the vote of their inner-city constituents.  They continue to develop new and overlapping social programs that do nothing to solve the underlying issue and their marketing machines, the Jackson-Sharpton crowd and the progressive community organizations, just push hard and fast for support of these policies.  The Democrats get votes, the community organizers make money, and the religious gain fame.  If that were not disgusting enough, they then focus on crime using the same system in which they market their social programs; convincing blacks that murder is caused by guns and violence is a result of drugs.  

There is little social justice to be found in inner-cities. Black make up 43% of the incarcerated population yet are only 13% of the total population.  That means a black person is six times more like to be tossed in jail than that or a white person.  It is not racism that drives these figures.  It is because of the literal attack on the black man by drug policies.  The drug of choice is cocaine.  White and black alike love cocaine as a recreational drug.  Yet in the 80s it was cut down and made into a cheaper product called crack cocaine.  Of course it was horrible and killing the babies of the inner-city (sarcasm).  Well the Democrats stopped that by helping to pass legislation throwing the
book at crack possession and dealing.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Anti-Drug Abuse act, a completely bi-partisan bill.  Only one member of the Senate voted against it.  ADAA establishing mandatory minimum sentences where 5 grams of crack cocaine was treated the same as 500 grams of powder cocaine.  I know first hand from visiting the Bureau of Prisons back in 1999 that a major concern at the time was this legislation and its stupidity.  In 2010 the Fair Sentencing Act finally straightened this out and put sentencing on equal footing.  I have no doubt that someone in Congress was racist when he made his vote, but this about economics and not race; however, due to the large black concentration in inner-cities it makes these policies always appear racist.  It does allow us to use stat differentials between black and whites to ascertain the real truth which is poverty versus stupid policy.

48% of all convicts in federal prison are incarcerated for drug charges.  State prisons are holding about 17% for drug charges.  33% of all people on probation are for their for drug charges.  Democrats  have made lies about drug control and turned it into an entire industry of demanding tax money for treatments, community policing, etc.  All thanks to the policies they create , once they develop the perception of need, they can milk it for decades.  If this sounds far fetched just think about the global warming issue and all the evidence that keeps emerging against its hypothesis.

More proof that social welfare programs are about making money for the government and its friends is that whites are 77% of the population and blacks 17% of the population while both have about 39% of their populations on welfare. To anyone who is racist: this means more white are on welfare than blacks.  This illustrates that poor is poor.  By now the poor of this country are just radioactive waste.  Democrats know their policies cannot fix the inner-city.  Republicans know they cannot take the stupid programs away.  To keep the vote Democrats must keep reinventing the wheel, such as with the PPACA.  To not completely lose the Republicans usually fain to be angry and may delay the legislation before passing it with a "compromise".  It is one big inside job and the poor are the punch-line. 

To further injury they pass legislation like gun control and ban guns from the cities because hardened criminals spend so much time shopping at Walmart for a shotgun.  They steal the economics of escape then literally sentence their inner-city constituents to death and black leaders and paid organizers have the duty to sell sell sell. If you look at the largest cities in America patterns begin to emerge.  When cities with high poverty rates give in to the system and begin electing democrat after democrat they are completely buried in liberal policies that seal their coffins.

A list of the worst of the worst shows a direct correlation based upon the long history of liberal leadership. The status on Democrats mayors in major cities

Chicago  -since 1931
NYC - 80 of the past 100 years
Cleveland 58 of the years since 1942
San Fran - since 1964
Los Angeles - since 1961, 1 republican mayor 8 years
Boston - since 1930
Jacksonville - only 2 republicans since 1888
New Orleans - since 1870
Atlanta - since 1942
Detroit -since 1962
Kansas City - 1 Republican since 1930
Denver - since 1961
Nashville - at least 1951 possibly longer
Seattle - at least 30-40 years
Philly - since 1952
Washington DC - since 1883

Cities in the same scenarios that have no given in to these destructive Democrat politicians have fared much better overall although the basic poverty issues still exist.  Columbus, Ohio, Charlotte, NC, Indianapolis, IN, Miami, FL, Virginia Beach, VA, Phoenix, AZ, Houston, TX, Dallas, TX, Fort Worth, TX, and Mobile, AL.  All of these cities enjoy at least 25% Independent or Republican Mayors in recent history ( 1960s).  This is important because the states where high poverty cities continue to make smarter political choices is reflected in how their states vote in Presidential
elections.  These cities are all very population dense and among the top cities by population in the country. 

The Republicans, Tea Party, and Libertarians would do well to simple focus educational and community efforts in this troubled cities and they will begin to see a massive change in federal elections.  As we know PA, OH, and CO are 3 of the 9 swing states from the 2012 election and targeting cities within these states are a priority for 2016.  Targeting Cleveland would make sense because while it is slightly liberal the state itself is historically moderate-conservative.  Another target would be Denver which is recently experiencing backlash against democratic politicians.  Nashville is in a historically very religious South and would be open to the faith-based approach.  Philadelphia is interesting as it is similar to Cleveland as it is a patriotic blue-collar hard working town that is open to straight talk as long as it is backed up by loyal actions.

1Glaeser, Edward L., Matthew E. Kahn, and Jordan Rappaport.2008. Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation. Journal of Urban Economics 63, no. 1: 1-24. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2006.12.004 Accessed: October 20, 2013 12:05:11 PM EDT

2 2011 . Why Blue Can’t Save The Inner Cities Part I. Walter Russell Mead. The American Interest. Via Meadia. Accessed: October 20, 2013 4:16 PM EDT

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Revolutionary War: Blood shed before Lexington

" First blood shed in our Revolution," has been commonly supposed to have been shed at Lexington, April 19th, 1775; but Westminster, Vermont, files a prior claim in favor of one William French, who, it is asserted, was killed on the night of March 13th, 1775, at the King's Court House, in what is now
Westminster. At that time Vermont was a part of New York, and the King's Court officers, together with a body of troops, were sent on to Westminster to hold the usual session of the court. The people, however, were exasperated, and assembled in the court house to resist. A little before midnight the troops of George the Third advanced and fired indiscriminately upon the crowd, instantly killing William French, whose head was pierced by a musket ball. He was buried in the church yard and a stone erected to his memory, with this quaint inscription :

" In memory of William French, who was shot at Westminster, March ye twelfth, 1775, by the hand of the cruel ministerial tools of George ye 3rd at the Court House at 11 o'clock at night, in the 22nd year of his age."

Here William French his Body lies,
 For Murder his Blood for Vengeance Cries,
 King George the Third his Tory Crew
 Tha with a bawl his head shot threw,
 For Liberty and his Country's good
He lost his life his Dearest blood."

source:  Susan Powell Cottman. "The First Blood Shed In Our Revolution" The American Monthly Magazine, Volume II,  June 1863:67.

Open Letter to The President

Mr. President.

This is America.  This is not Benghazi.  You cannot discard citizens here and hope
your problems remain covered.  The fact is your time as tyrant is coming to an end in
2016, at the very latest.  You will not be the one to take our liberty.  Not by any means
be it legislation, dictation of executive order, or by force.  We saw you blink when you
sent the riot police out in a pathetic attempt to scare of protesting veterans.  We also
saw the videos and the fear in their eyes.  We know you have built an army of “agents”
with over a billions of rounds of ammunition to circumvent the posse comitatus act;
we don’t care.  If we cannot live free then we will die free.

You are a communist and have been all your life.  It was not that many years ago your
party as outlawed by the U.S. Congress for good reason.  You are deceptive and full of
radical ideas about equity and equality.  Some wonder if you are truly American and even
have the right to be President.  I can assure you, you may have been born in America,
but you are anything but American.  You are the new red scare.  You legislate to overload
the government with debt and destroy jobs to force Americans to seek help from the
very covered that caused their needs.

We are watching you and waiting your next move.  Our patience, if needed, can well
outlast your Presidency.  In 2014, God willing people will realize regardless of desires,
media spin, or money spent; that Democrats must be removed from the House and
Senate so we can repeal the PPACA.  Our government threatens to destroy the future
for our children with bad fiscal policy; but PPACA is so fiscally irresponsible it threatens
the future of the entire Nation.

Social programs are an issue that should be dealt with by the States.  To mask social
programs as a constitutional tax is offensive to the foundation and principles of the
Republic.  The Supreme Court of The United States of America as branch of government
is as complicit as you at destroying this nation from within. 

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Americans need to be more "level" headed

First let me say for transparency that I am a citizen of the United States of America, a citizen of the State of Ohio, a Patriot, and a Libertarian.  I have family and friends that are vary from crazy liberal to hard-core conservative to very Christian conservative.  I myself lean very conservative and Christian as well.  You may be asking how can I be Conservative, Christian, and Libertarian all at the same time without living a lie.  It is not as magical and mysterious as one might think.  Let me start by explaining my views about the federal government.  I believe the federal government has four objectives:

The federal government's first objective is to establish a system of justice which will provide a method to end disputes between the States and also disputes between the States and the Federal Government.  Also because the U.S. Constitution provides for the recognition of the rights of the people, the justice system must also address cases that protect these rights.

The second objective is to provide for the Common Defense of all the States and ergo the citizens of the States.  We have done this by establishing a standing Army (all the Armed Forces) and also making a unique National Guard and Military Reserves system which provides additional manpower if needed. 

The third objective is to promote the General Welfare.  There is a lot of argument about the meaning of this term.  Some believe the Founding Fathers wanted the federal government to spend money on health care because of this clause.  To those people I call Bull Shit.  Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes for the purposes of paying the debt and providing for the common defense and general welfare.  Only in the mind of liberals like Obama is Health care a tax.

The fourth objective is to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.  This means guarding the freedoms in the Bill of Rights so that we may forever have liberty for ourselves and our future generations.  It also means don't capitulate to foreign powers or give away our autonomy through treaties such as NAFTA  or to organizations such as the United Nations.

The Constitution then lays out the rules and the framework for achieving these four objectives. Let us now get into how I think ideologically and how I sleep well at night.  I will just use some example issues.


The federal government has no Constitutional authority to prevent a woman from the freedom to choose what happens to her body.  The federal government has no Constitutional authority to determine pre-birth when a fetus becomes a human.  I know my Catholic friends just started praying for my damned soul.  I will fight side-by-side with any Pro-Life leftist against the federal government attempting to regulate or lay any policy on these issues because I believe to not do so is to allow all liberties to slowly slip away.  That being said, since the Constitution does not grant these powers to the federal government, this issue is clearly the domain of the individual States.

As a Christian and citizen of the State of Ohio, I will fight for all anti-abortion legislation because I just cannot justify the murder of a child and I personally believe live begins at conception.  I do not find any conflict in how I treat this issue completely differently depending on the level of government involved in the legislation.  I find it the only proper way to act in an appropriate and responsible manner as a citizen in a Republic.


I still cannot believe that President Reagan and Speaker O'Neill never responded to my petition to fill the damn pothole at the end of my driveway when I was growing up.  I recall more than a few bicycle wrecks and scraped knees due to that evil obstruction.  Similarly, Governor Rhodes failed to take up my cause.  As an adult, I realize that my local Township has a Board of Trustees more than willing to fill in the pot-hole if I go to the monthly meeting and give them a speech and my patented "I know where you live" look.   Just another example of the right solution being appropriate for the right level of government.


What part do people not understand about "shall not be infringed"?  Does that mean outlaw certain guns?  Does that mean regulate how many rounds a magazine can hold?  No and more no.  It means HANDS OFF.  The federal government, who by the way has a standing army, has no Constitutional power to infringe on my right to "keep" (own and have possession of) and "bear' (carry on my person) arms.   If you accept that all these federal laws are legitimate you are a fool.  The Supreme Court of the United States that does not regret these laws prima facie are liars, traitor, and fools.  Gun Control is an issue for the States and lower level governments.  That being said, I believe any level of government that puts any restrictions on where guns may be carried is asking for mass killings.  Also any government that does not make sure a crazy person cannot legally get a gun is also crazy.  Now am I against the federal government maintaining a database for the States to use for background checks? Not at all.  The federal government does have access to nationwide criminal records and since people migrate, it would be helpful.  Make the database and charge the states for access and that charge can be passed on the purchaser.

Many other issues such as legality of drugs, health care, welfare programs, etc. should all be state-level issues.  For me this is why I am vehemently opposed to any federal legislation on these issues.  I certainly don't want people starving or dying from lack of health care, but even more important to me is my liberty and checking the power of a vast massive government that cannot balance a checking account and holds a standing army.  A government by the way known to selectively discriminate, prosecute, help rig elections, kill citizens without due process, abandon military members overseas, lie, spy, and cheat.

Be for liberty when you should.  Be Christian when you should.  You can do both without offending either.  Just follow what the Constitution tells you and everything else will fall into place.

God Bless America.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Shut-down for Dummies

The President has due date every year for submitting his budget proposal to Congress.
President Obama has submitted the past four annual budget proposals after the required date.
Congress then negotiates with itself and the President and attempts to pass a budget.  If the
budget fails to pass what occurs is stop-gap appropriations are passed to fund government
programs.  The current spending legislation that includes funding the Affordable Care Act is occurring because the President once again submitted a proposed budget that could not pass Congress.  In fact, a budget has not passed Congress in several years.

The President's budget failure stops at his desk and his desk alone.  Obama's 2012 budget was defeated in the Democrat controlled Senate 97-0.  Not one Democratic Senator voted for it.  That means the proposal was horrible horrible horrible.  The 2013 budget proposal was defeated by Republican controlled House 414-0.  Not one Democratic Representative voted for it.  Again...horrible, horrible, horrible.

The budget continues to fail because it will add $1.5 trillion by the end of 2014 to the federal debt held by the public as we top a roust 77% of GDP.  Obama's idea for debt reduction included smoke and mirrors such as

  • A cap on the extent to which deductions and exclusions can reduce a income tax liability
  • A change to the way tax provisions and major benefit programs are indexed for inflation
Running in huge uncontrolled debt is loaded with massive consequences.

  • Increased borrowing by the government reduces private investment in productive capital, because the reduction of savings used to buy government securities would not be available to finance private investment. The result would be a smaller stock of capital and lower output and income. 
  • Federal spending on interest payments rises, requiring larger changes in tax and spending policies to achieve reduction in budget deficits and debt.
  • The government would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected economic downturns or wars.
  • The risk of a fiscal crisis—in which investors demanded very high interest rates to finance the government’s borrowing needs increases.

  • From 2009-2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the economy since the end of World War II cause the debt to soar.  The debt as a percentage of GDP is twice as high as it was at the end of fiscal year 2007.  If current laws remain in place, deferral debt held by the public will reach 100% of GDP by 2038.  This by the way is the doing of one Barack Hussein Obama anyone thinking otherwise and blaming George W. Bush is a fool.

     If the laws remain as they are now,  federal spending on the government’s major health care programs is expected to rise substantially relative to GDP. Specifically, net federal spending for those programs would grow from an estimated 4.6 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2013 to 8.0 percent in 2038.  This increase is due to the aging population massively increasing (baby boomers) and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  Now other health care programs, Social Security, and
    net interest payments will decline to 7% of GDP (-4% of average), but the net interest payments would grow to 5% of GDP compared to the current rate of 2% because of the large federal debt.

    All of these figures and much of the verbiage are from the CBO, OMB, and GAO.

    Garden Plot and the UN plot to take all guns worldwide

    Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
    The suspension of habeas corpus is what we would call "martial law".  Unless there is a declared rebellion by one of the 50 states or a territory OR the country is invaded by a foreign enemy AND public Safety may require it, habeas corpus shall not be suspended.  Mexico cannot invade a empty parking lot in San Diego and the government suspends habeas corpus in New York.

    Martial law was declared in New Orleans after Katrina in 2005.  This was an illegal act by the federal government whom also illegally deployed 15,000 federalized troops and went house to house and forcefully disarmed the public whom were protecting their properties.  Let me say that again, the government illegally prevented the public from the means to protect their property.

    This is a blatant and clear violation of Article: 1, Section 9.  House by house using what the normal personal calls SWAT tactics the military stacked on a door and breached by force and took the building then proceeded to search for and confiscate any weapon.  Those that resisted where physically taken down, restrained and arrested.  Here are some sample videos about this.

    To make matters more frightening, the Department of Defense has a complete plan laid out since 1961 for taking our weapons and instituting martial law nationwide.  The plan is called Operation Garden Plot.  It goes into great detail in that way that the military prefers.  It even includes a system
    known as CIDCON  - Civil Disturbance Readiness Condition.  Similar to DEFCON that we are all familiar with from the years of being protected from the evil empire of the USSR, but apparently the
    People are the other evil empire and we never knew it.

    The problem is Garden Plot is more than just military overkill, the military actively sends its leaders to the United States Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan for Course # MP1005 Civil Disturbance Operations.  So what is the citizen to do?

    First, know the law.  Citizens subject to illegal martial law have a legal right to protect themselves.
    However, your Joe Biden double barrel against a squad of soldiers, armed with fully automatic machine guns and 80 rounds of ammo each, does not have much hope of success.  If we had a U.S. Congress, perhaps they would address the issue about violating the Constitution. 

    I know what I will do.  No federal soldier is going to tread on me with me treading right back.  I'm old enough and proud enough to die for my country even if it is just so my fellow citizens wake-up
    to the fact that we are in more danger from our own government than we have ever been from a foreign power.

    Challenging the false liberal sense of entitlement

    The nature of humans is to want.  We are born with a sense of entitlement crying from birth demanding to be comforted by our mother.  Continuing on through childhood we cry when we are hungry or scared, demanding immediate attention.  The newest of parents run immediately to stop the crying thus reinforcing the entitlement no-strings attached, feeling good in the skill of their parenting.
    It is about age four that grandmother takes over and corrects this feeling of entitlement by letting them cry and stand on their own feet.

    The evil that runs through that woman is infuriating to both child and mother.  How can she do this to poor lil Barry?  Well experience taught her while it may be difficult for her to stop every instinct to comfort the boy time and again it is for his own good that she stand back and let him gain self-reliance, a healthy and truthful viewpoint of the big world in which he will soon be navigating alone.
    Offering entitlements whether as a mother or as lil Barry's favorite Uncle Samuel has consequences for the boy and for the rest of society.

    Soon Barry will be proudly getting on the school bus for the first time learning he may not be entitled to sit in the seat he wants.  The mean older boys in the back hold him off with just a scowling glare.
    The teachers always reinforced the independence and individualism of young children when we grew up.  Over the past few generations there has been a revolution in public education.  You see while Joe, Senator Joe McCarthy hunted for the red infiltrators in Hollywood that were poisoning our cinemas, they fled and hid throughout the outskirts of our society. 

    The teachers union is one of the hiding spots of the progressive and through their collective power to influence government they have firmly entrenched themselves so much that for thirty years they have turned from the government goal of developing good Americans and indoctrinating the young ones to our cherished rights and ideals to developing young socialists demanding entitlements like the Bolsheviks that tore down the agriculture power of Russia turning demands for entitlement into a virtual house of slavery extending from Stalingrad all the way to the Berlin wall.

    Now CommonCore...the "common" core is in place.  A virtual guide to being a good "com"rade.
    You won't find anything about Jesus in this common core only the unproven evolutionary theories
    of Darwin and extensive attempts by scholars to prove his theories.  It is common to learn of unproven sciences like global warming and the evils of men, the goodness of mother nature, and the Constitutional right of Equity while we learn how the old white rich men that founded this great nation mistakenly added a 2nd Amendment and forget the 1st Amendment should apply to only those
    that agree with the "common" group think.

    In groves, responsible Americans began a homeschooling revolution since the 1970s.   It is no wonder homeschooling has enjoyed a 20% annual growth rate in some years and these students outperform their public school piers by a staggering 37% on standardized testing.  Americans do not
    want schools taught by under performing socialists brainwashing their children into not being exceptional and that the government is the only parent they need.  Public schooling, like all governmental institutions has become intrusive and homeschooling is the solution.  Teachers spend much more time on a daily basis with children offering a chance to overwhelming influence a child. 

    We all know the saying that one who is young an conservative has no heart and one who is old and liberal has no brain.  This saying while always holding some truth has become a virtual fact thanks
    to the federal Department of Education.  The truth in this statement speaks volumes of what it means to live in a society and the balancing of desires and realistic outcomes.  We all have heartfelt compassion for the elderly, sick, and hungry. Not a person I know wants a child to go without medicine or food.  The sadness of seeing a child in need is enough to break any one's heart.  That being said as we are older we realize our obligations to ensure the survival of the society outweighs our obligations to ensure the survival of the individual.  Spock would agree, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.".

    More importantly, I do not believe that liberals and conservatives are on the same understanding as to the roles of government.  The Constitution clearly outlines the simple reason we formed a common government:

    Establish Justice
    Don't oppress the minority, the weak, the individual, protect all parties equally.

    Insure Domestic Tranquility
    Regulating the relationships between the States.

    Common Defence
     Over 35 States have either directly border another nation or an ocean.  These states are in danger
    and in need of defense more so than others.  Thou the danger may be in different degrees, it is common.

     Promote the General Welfare
    The importance of the collective and permanent welfare of the country relies on the succession
    of measures which have a long-term operation beyond the normal terms for elected officials, or in the case of the professional legislator, perhaps not.  The remedy is for the legislature to define additional
    bodies that remain regardless of elected officials.  Enter the bureaucracy.  The most essential of these are the Cabinet level departments.

    Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
    Keep liberty for ourselves and future generations.  Our emotions of a child's death or witnessing a flag burning, must not influence our desires to protect and pass-on liberty.

    Two days ago Hannity held a college student forum and bless her misguided socialist heart, this young progressive from Penn State would not give Sean a number when he asked at what percentage does tax become too much.  She suggested if we get the benefits from it 100% is fine.  What?????

    Any nation that is one of excessive entitlement is doomed to implode.  To illustrate the problem, we
    will use the Penn State suggestion that every American give 100% of their pay to the government.  We will ignore the obvious problems with this notion such as no incentives, etc.

    Now the government will have to provide us with everything we need.  Transport, Food, Clothing,
    Furniture, Housing, Medicine, Burial, etc.  Everything we need to survive, forget living, we are in a survival only mode as slaves to the government.  At any time if we have more people out of work than are working we are immediately in trouble.  Our payable exceed our receivables.  That is we give away more in entitlements than we receive in taxes.  Policy must change, if you are not working you will be restricted access to certain entitlements. Immediately the desire for equity and equality of economics has eroded the society and jealously and anger appears.  Now the government must quell the tide of impending violence and becomes a police state.  Apathy and rebellion occurs, but the government took our weapons because they knew for a fact this would occur thirty years ago and planned for it.  A scapegoat is developed, Jews always work well.  Next phase is we begin genocide.

    If you think this is bullshit you never read about the revolutions in Russia.  Clearly their sense of entitlement is highly distorted and they are long on opinions and short on work history.  The Democrat party knows the math and the problem with entitlements which is not being exacerbated by the baby boomer generation retiring.  This generation is much larger than any that follows which means the entitled versus worker ratio is scheduled to take a nose dive.  The Democrats plan to hide the stupidity of their past 30 years of giving away the kitchen sink, is to grant citizenship to between 11 and 30 million illegal immigrants and thus balance out that ratio.  The Democrats are long known to be heavily racists and
    have no desire but to exploit the illegal immigrant work for to their own ends by dangling citizenship.

    For most of us we believe the government should simply:

    1. Protect us from invasion and administer foreign policy
    2. Build our inter-state infrastructure
    3. Promote tranquility between states so we may interact with uniformity in business and legal matters.
    4. Collect taxes needed to perform these functions; award the excess as bonuses to discourage the common practice of self-expanding bureaucracy.

    No reason for HUD, Social Security, Health care, flying to Mars.  Americans that take home 95% of their pay will more than take care of those in need of food, shelter, and medicine through charities.  I remember my first job after graduating college. I immediately began giving 5% to the UnitedWay each pay.  Like most people, I was and still am sure the UnitedWay can do more with a dollar than the federal government.

    Young Americans take the time to visit your elders in nursing homes you will gleam a wonderful picture of the greatness of America and how our country used to be and needs to be again.  Tell them the truth about what you think about entitlements, abortion, feeding the children, and free health care.  They won't bite or be mean, but they will surprise you with how they already know that
    you can only do so much for others in society before you have to let them do for themselves.

    Wednesday, October 2, 2013

    Obama using advertising agencies to save his legacy

    Erica Burnstein of the New York Times is one of many journalists turned advertising copyright that is being used to spin the benefits of the new health care law and save President Obama from fading into American history.   Burnstein reported "Millions of Americans visited new online health insurance exchanges as enrollment opened on Tuesday, suggesting a broad national appetite for the affordable coverage that President Obama has promised with his health care law."  Burnstein also writes that "Federal officials said more than 2.8 million people had visited, the federally run exchange that serves residents of more than 30 states". (

    The truth is that unique visitors to was only at 829,000 for September 1, 2013 and is easily verified by sites long used by webmasters for analytics.  The queen of these sites is Alexa. So why would a the federal government lie about such a mundane issue? I mean adding 2 million to a number is not very good math, especially when that number more than triples the actual number. More importantly, how does the New York Times continue to call itself a newspaper when that implies reporting factual information.  Is it not the duty of the journalist and the editor to fact check information before they publish?

    The answer is the New York Times is a laptop for the democratic party and by default so are the journalist it employs. The truth is the administration, that is to say all the employees of the executive branch, pushed spin to the New York Times knowing full well it would be reported as is without further questioning as a feel good story meant to bolster the democrats position that part of the Republic Party in party of one house of Congress are anarchists and to save face for the President. I mean imagine reporting that in reality if each person in the nation representing a the universe of possible unique visits, only 0.00258934169279 % of the population bothered to even visit the federal portal t look into the details of this new health care revolution. 

    Rather than suggesting their is a "broad national appetite" for the new health care law; perhaps Burnstein would have been better served by questioning the plausibility of these claims knowing full well that  many large national polls showing that 70% of the American people want no part of this law.  If Ms. Burnstein would work on less fawning and more research, she could have further enriched her article by including the fact that  the marketing company has been hired by the federal government to market the wholesome goodness that is Obamacare to the American people.   After google search, this company is responsible for driven the most visitors to the new portal.  

    I wonder how much money I am paying an advertising company to market to me about the healthcare program I don't want.  That makes as much sense as your wife performing a lap dance for you knowing full well she will run off to bed with a "headache".

    Tuesday, October 1, 2013

    why did this truly happen Mr. President?

    The House is required to originate appropriations bills to fund the government.  The House is not responsible for how the Senate chooses to vote on bills.  Since November 2012, 70% of Americans have decided they want nothing to do with Obamacare.  Accordingly, the House submits a appropriation bill which defunds Obamcare, on behalf of  their constituents.  The Senate rejects the submitted bill and begins character assassination and by extension calling 70% of America ‘anarchists’.

    The Sore-Loser of the United States, SLOTUS, remarks that the Affordable Care Act would take effect regardless of appropriations, saying ‘ You can't shut it down. This is a law that passed both houses of Congress, a law that bears my signature, a law that the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional, a law that voters chose not to repeal last November’.

    So why did this truly happen Mr. President? The answer is as of "last November" the people still did not know the details of the law.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi played games telling America the bill needed to pass so we can see what is in it.  The DNC spin machine was in full motion along with the pocketed media outlets.  And now after the bill has finally been read in it's entirety, 70% of America called bullshit on the Democrats and Obamacare.  We are truly sorry it is your landmark legislation and you feel it will be your enduring legacy, but perhaps you can still be known as the Golfing Clown of DC or the Cry-Baby of Washington?