Wednesday, November 3, 2010

What is wrong with the left coast?

Well, as good a day as it was for the conservative cause, I still find a few glaring errors in judgment committed by the people of California and Nevada.
One:  California re-elects Jerry Brown to be Governor.  Yep, the very guy who back in the 1970's took Ronald Reagan's state and began it's transformation into the socialist utopia we can all be proud of today....entitlement driven and debt ridden, the state is bankrupted by the very policies began 35 years ago by then Governor Jerry Brown...and the people of California elect none other than Jerry Brown to be governor yet again.  Way to go!  You apparently aren't broke enough yet.  And whatever happened to Linda Ronstadt?  I had the biggest crush on her in grade school.

Jerry Brown, busily driving small businesspeople out of California, and killing his constituents individual initiative, back in the 1970's.
Two:  I guess skyrocketing unemployment (16 percent at last count), record foreclosures, vacant neighborhoods, a housing market where a great majority of the people now owe more on their homes than they are currently worth, and a populace fleeing the state, are no reason to make any changes.  Harry Reid has been involved in politics since the 1970's, he has presided over the biggest expansion of Federal government power and Federal spending in the history of the United States, while back at home his state burns, and how do the people of Nevada punish him?  Not with the walking papers he deserves, but with yet another term as their Senator!  Good on you, Nevadans!  You have now shown the rest of the nation how tough you really are! Don't let the worst economic conditions in the nation faze you, heck no! Your votin' the same fella back in so he can keep up the good work!

How can you tell when Harry Reid is being obnoxious?  His mouth is open!
All I can say is that California deserves what they get, and Nevada is populated by far too many former Californians.


Sunday, October 3, 2010

Albuquerque city council narrowly defeats banning Kirtland Air Force Base nukes.

I could only laugh out loud when I was in Albuquerque on Friday, October 1st, and heard on the radio that the city council had "narrowly" rejected a measure which would have asked the Federal government to remove and dismantle possible nuclear weapons stored at Kirtland Air Force base, which borders the southeast part of Albuquerque.  The air force has never confirmed, nor denied, that nuclear weapons even exist at Kirtland.

The measure was sponsored by Albuquerque City Councilman Rey Garduono, who was quoted as saying: "I hope (the munitions) will never explode or have anything disastrous happen, but I don't understand why people are so reluctant to discuss the issue and deal with it. We need to."

Predictably, the 4 Democrats on the city council voted for the measure, while the 5 Republicans on the council voted against it.

Never mind that in the early days, the reason Albuquerque had grown into the city it is today is precisely because of the presence of the base, which today brings over a billion dollars a year into the area, and directly provides nearly 30,000 jobs, not to mention many thousands of ancillary jobs.

Never mind that there have been rumblings of a possible closure of Kirtland Air Force Base over the last decade, which periodically cause local politicians to spring to life as most vocal proponents of all of the benefits to the community, and state of New Mexico, provided by the base.

It would appear that the Democrats on the Albuquerque city council once again showed their true stripes by welcoming the jobs and revenue provided by the Air Force, while at the same time proposing and voting for a ridiculous measure that would essentially be a "kick in the teeth" to the very mission of the U.S. Air Force, which is to protect our nation using the most state of the art methods available, including modern nuclear weapons.

Some politicians truly do want to have it both ways, loudly proclaiming to want jobs, jobs, and more jobs, especially in today's era of high unemployment.  But then they will condemn the very creators of those jobs through nonsensical, (and incidentally non-binding) actions such as this.


Friday, September 10, 2010

New Mexico Gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez says she will revoke illegal's driver's licenses.

During a press conference I attended in front of the Motor Vehicle Division in Farmington, New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez called for an end to the state's policy of giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, and went one step further in saying that as Governor, she will do all she can to revoke those driver's licenses already issued to illegals.

When asked by a reporter how the state of New Mexico would be able to afford revocation of possibly thousands of driver's licenses issued to non-citizens, given the state's current budgetary concerns, Martinez replied that the actual mechanics of would be simple, done merely through the MVD's computer system.  Then a notice would be mailed to those who's licenses were revoked.

She went on to say that as Governor of New Mexico, she would do all she can to provide extra support to the Sheriffs of New Mexico's counties that border Mexico in order to fight crime committed by Mexican nationals who are in the U.S. illegally, as well as to help stem the flow of illegals coming across New Mexico's border with Mexico.  She stated more than once that this would include supporting the use of unmanned drone aircraft, and creating an environment of greater co-operation between sheriff's departments and the Federal Border Patrol.

Martinez also alluded to the fact that Arizona's controversial immigration law will likely drive many current illegals from Arizona to New Mexico, since currently New Mexico has the reputation of being a sanctuary.

She also stated that she would seek to ensure that every person who is arrested and goes to jail in New Mexico would have their resident status checked, and that those found to be in the U.S. illegally would be reported to Federal Authorities.

Martinez stated that not only is New Mexico's current illegal immigration policy dangerous to the people of New Mexico, but is also dangerous to citizen's of the entire United States, since once an illegal alien is provided a state issued New Mexico driver's license, that person has ID that can be used in all 50 states.

Martinez responded to several question from reporters with quick, direct, and pointed answers, and showed a command of the subject.  It is my belief that Susana Martinez's tough stand on illegal immigration is only one of many ways her "Bold Change" can help New Mexico become a leader in policy that can benefit the entire nation. 

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls for investigation into "Cary Nickel's Worth" blog.

Well, not exactly.

What Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi actually said was:  “I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.”

On Monday, August 16th, I wrote an entry concerning President Obama's voiced support of the Islamic Mosque at "Ground Zero", where thousands of innocent Americans died in an attack by radical Muslims.  In that entry, I also voiced my opinion against the construction of said Mosque.  An opinion a majority of Americans agree with.

So, does Nancy Pelosi actually want to investigate how my blog is being funded?  Well Speaker Pelosi, you don't have to investigate me..I'll just tell you right here, right now:  My blog has yet to be funded at all, and I've been spouting off here since April, so if you've got any stimulus money laying around, please shoot it right to me, o.k.?

"Code Enforcement" and "Planning and Zoning", threats to private property rights.

I live in San Juan County, New Mexico, way up in the rural Four-Corners region where wide open spaces and vacant land far exceeds any urban sprawl or development.  Minimally maintained, and even non-maintained, dirt roads outnumber paved routes by hundreds of miles, and where some folks are stuck at home after heavy rains or snowstorms because the county simply doesn't have the resources to be everywhere at once with their graders or snow plows to re-open those routes blocked or washed away.

Recently, what appeared to be a small rainstorm completely washed away a bridge that served as the only crossing of a very large "wash", known locally as a "arroyo".  Several families were temporarily cut off from "civilization" until a temporary road could be built pending repairs.

Just yesterday (8/17/10), New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson declared Farmington a "disaster area" due to flooding which occurred two weeks ago.  (Incidentally, I drove through some of the affected "disaster area" the day after the flooding, and there was no "disaster".  Farmington merely was seeking, and will receive, a state "bailout").

On the very same day the area was approved for it's government bailout, the County where I live, despite supposed "disaster", held a meeting of the county commission and approved the creation of a "Code Compliance Department", with a quarter million dollar per year budget, a new full time employee, and the approval of the use of expensive-to-operate heavy equipment to "help" the county's new department accomplish it's goals.

And what are those goals?  No one really knows yet.  The county enacted a trash ordinance, but did not act on any other matters that require a Code Compliance Department.  As far as I can tell, they are planning to spend $250,000 a year to hire someone to drive around and tell people they can't burn their garbage, but must have it hauled to the local dump or a waste transfer station.  I guess they plan to use the "heavy equipment" to help haul that trash if a landowner cannot, or will not, do it him or herself.

I've lived here 8 years, and have yet to see a burn barrel  (They were a standard fixture in the back yards of homes when I lived in southern Illinois 25 years ago), or anyone burning their garbage. Awareness of the possible negative environmental results of burning such things as plastics have pretty much taken care of such issues.

So, like most governments, it would appear that they plan to spend a lot of tax dollars stretching an already stretched budget,  to address a nonexistent problem.  And they are doing it during a time when that very same government is professing to be broke, and is supposedly scrambling to find ways to raise taxes or fees to cover current revenue shortfalls, and existing problems such as the "disaster" of a few washed out roads.

However, as onerous as that is, the bigger issue here is the creation of a "Code Compliance Department" in the first place.

Private property rights have always been one of the main tenets of our free society.  People who own land have traditionally been able to do with that what they wish to do, within reason.  As long as those actions do not negatively effect their neighbors.  And there are limits to even this.  Obviously, some uses of land, such as for agricultural purposes like farming the raising of livestock, are going to effect the neighbors through increased heavy equipment traffic, or the associated odors or dust that occur.  Allowances are usually made for such things, as they are merely unavoidable aspects of such industries, and have been proven relatively harmless.

Health and sanitation codes already exist in most developed areas, which cover things such as sewage disposal, garbage and refuse, etc.

When cities and counties create "Code Compliance Departments", they are usually created to address the merely visual aspects of peoples private property.  Just like with any other government agency, it is always first created with the idea of benevolence and advertised as a way of "helping" people achieve some goal.  But helping them do what? In reality, what happens is someone, usually a government entity, must set "standards", and then force everyone to live within those standards.  And therein lies the danger:  Who creates the "standards"?  And what limits will be put on them?

Does government merely say "clean up your land" and then go away?  No.  What usually happens is once government gets their foot in the door, in it's every increasing desire for authority, government will gradually increase and tighten those "standards" until like in many cases, the citizens become servants of government, rather than the other way around.

First, they will regulate common sense issues like accumulated refuse such as household trash.  Next, someone decides it would be a good idea to pass an ordinance against weeds growing on private property. Never mind that the very same government might never mow the weeds along road "rights of way". (I've lived in the same house in my county for 8 years, and the county has NEVER mowed the weeds along the dirt roads in my neighborhood.  I've taken care of them myself)  Next thing you know, you cannot leave your shovel and rake, or lawnmower sitting outside where people can see them.  Then it escalates into the government telling you what color you can paint your fence, or your house.  And then they tell you you cannot keep a vehicle on your property unless it is "operational", and being "operational" includes being registered and insured to drive on a city street, not merely a vehicle capable of starting up and driving.  Eventually, the code enforcement inspector becomes bold enough to start interpreting the rules him or herself.

I once lived in a community where a Code Enforcement Officer told me it was illegal to change the oil in your own car, on your own property.  The reasoning?  She said inoperable vehicles were not allowed to be stored on private property, and during the time the oil was drained from the vehicle, the vehicle was inoperable, thus, the land owner could be cited for having an inoperable vehicle on his or her property.  I seriously doubt that when the ordinance was passed which outlawed inoperable vehicle on private property, that the folks who wrote the law, nor the folks who voted to pass it, had any idea that the law would one day be twisted like a pretzel into something that would make it illegal to do routine auto maintenance on one's own property..but so it goes.

In that same community, I used to hang my laundry up on an outdoor clothesline because the weather was so hot in the summer that clothes dried as fast outside on the line as they did in an automatic dryer.  Drying your clothes using completely solar power sounds like an environmentally responsible act, right?  Well, I was once cited by the city Code Compliance Officer for keeping a "dish full of miscellaneous objects" on a table in my carport.  The "dish" was a stainless steel hubcap, and the "miscellaneous objects" were clothespins used to hang up my laundry.  Not only was I utilizing solar power to dry my clothes, I had recycled an old hubcap into a rust free container for my clothespins, but that was not allowed.  I wonder what the city would have thought about one of those cloth hanging bags for clothespins that you hang right from the line.
It is ridiculous stuff like this that makes "Code Enforcement" so dangerous to private property rights.  What starts out as regulating what should be common sense issues, which can be taken care of with existing sanitation ordinances, eventually grows to become some bureaucrat's excuse to perpetuate their own job. After all, it's tough to find a reason to maintain a quarter-million dollar per year "Code Compliance Department" once everyone has taken out the trash.

Beware of out of control government.  Beware of "Code Enforcment" Officers, who come to your home and say "We're from the Government, and we're here to help you."  Once the government tells you how to live on your own property, is your home really your own?

Monday, August 16, 2010

A Mosque at "Ground Zero". Did the United States vote for this?

Exactly how long can President Barack Obama expect to continue to have the support of anyone if he continues to make decisions that are opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people?

President Barack Obama's support of the controversial Mosque at the "Ground Zero" location of the Muslim terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001, is only the latest in a long string of support for measures unpopular with a majority of U.S. citizens.

Is this what the United States voted for in 2008?  A President that is so disconnected with his constituency that he feels he can do anything he wants, regardless of what is right for the United States?

It's almost is if President Obama wishes to go down in history as the most contentious person to ever hold the office.  He campaigned to be a  someone who would "fix" whatever supposedly ailed us after 8 years of George W. Bush, what the radical left calls the worst 8 years of leadership ever seen in America.  Acting as the ultimate snake oil salesman, "Barack Obama and his traveling Medicine Show" went from town to town proclaiming the virtues of some ethereal "Hope" and "Change" to an audience apparently hungering for whatever "Hope" and "Change" they could envision within their own minds, and slightly over half of the voters fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

The result has been the most leftist surge in Federal policy since the Roosevelt Administration of 70 years ago.

From almost the start, a juggernaut of titanic proportions leaped forward with it's own version of "Hope and Change", beginning almost immediately with a hefty tax increase, when President Obama signed the largest tobacco tax increase in history, breaking a pledge he repeatedly made during his campaign that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not pay "one dime" in increased taxes.  The average smoker's household now pays and average of $630 a year in taxes, which is heavily weighted toward those who make far less than $250,000 a year, as lower income people smoke more.

Then came ObamaCare, which has stubbornly clung to a 60 percent disapproval rating from it's inception, yet was passed by the Reid/Pelosi congress and signed into law by President Obama regardless.

Then there was the outrage over the Obama administration's decision to haul 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed before a civil court in New York City, which angered Americans nationwide.

Add to that the Obama administration's battle with Arizona over illegal immigration, despite the fact that fully 60 percent of Americans, and 70 percent of Arizonans, support the state's efforts to curb it's own immigration problem, after decades of Federal failure to properly address the issue.

And then there is President Obama's history of statements that appear to have been intended to invoke racial tension, intentionally or otherwise.

And now, President Obama's vociferous support of radical Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's plan to build a Mosque at "Ground Zero" in New York City has sparked public outcry, after the proposed Mosque itself has been soundly denounced by a large majority of Americans as a "slap in the face" to both the victims of the Muslim terrorist attacks and their families, and to the United States at large.

How can President Obama expect to effectively lead the nation after fracturing it's population into so many different opposing factions?  As someone who promised unity after the supposed "divisive" leadership of President Bush, it would seem Obama, through either bungling and inexperience, or by design, is taking the nation even further into chaos and discontent, building upon his administration's failure to make any headway in improving the economy.

Building a Mosque at "Ground Zero", where thousands of Americans died at the hands of Muslim terrorists, IS a slap in the face to both New York City, and the U.S. at large, and flies in the face of the supposed "peace" and "unity" that Islam would like to project to the world.  The mere idea of it raises the ire of patriotic Americans.  And it should.  Other than putting up a monument praising the 9/11 terrorists themselves, I can think of no better way to permanently rub salt into the wounds opened in the United States by the worst terrorist attacks in the nation's history.

That our President should support such a move is a further indication of exactly how President Obama is leading us in exactly the wrong direction.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Florida: The next immigration battle.

Florida has become the next state to introduce a tough illegal immigration bill, following Arizona's early lead which has led to stern rebukes from President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, overwhelming public support for Arizona, and a lengthy court battle as the Federal Government attempts to exert it's power over the state.

Kudos to Florida for standing up for the law, let's hope the bill moves swiftly through the Florida legislature, and that other states soon follow.

In an interesting turn of political events, the bill pits Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is running for Florida's governorship, directly against turncoat former Republican and current Independent Governor Charlie Crist, who is running for U.S. Senate, and who has expressed a more liberal opinion on illegal immigration, including stating that illegal immigrants should be counted in the U.S. Census as a means of getting more "pork" out of Washington, D.C.  It will be interesting to see what Crist's reaction will be.

Florida introduces tough immigration law.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Arizona: The Federal Government vs. the People of the U.S.A.

Yet again, the Obama administration has forced an issue in direct opposition to the will of the majority of U.S. Citizens.

Well over half of all U.S. Citizens support the State of Arizona's right to defend itself from the illegal alien invasion coming across out southern border.  In Arizona itself, 70 percent of the population support the Arizona Immigration Law.

Yet our Federal government, ignoring the general population yet again, has taken Arizona to court to block the implementation of state law.  And on the surface, it appears the Federal government has won, at least for now.

But in a time when it already looks like Democrats are losing their "mojo", is it wise to continue to anger the electorate, particularly this close to an election that is going to decide the fate of the supposed "Obama Mandate"?

In short, has the Federal government really "won" anything?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has already stated that Arizona would take their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, thus guaranteeing the agitation of an already open wound as the the battle over the "rights" of illegal aliens remains in the forefront of America's minds through election day.  Governor Brewer re-confirmed this intention to Sean Hannity on his Fox News Channel television program just hours after U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton struck down much of Arizona's law.  The Arizona Governor is overwhelmingly popular in her home state, and enjoys an over 20% lead over her opponents in the political race to hold on to her job.

It's also clear the people of the United States want our borders under control.  Illegal aliens, coming to the United States with relative impunity, present a problem that is overtaxing the economies of many states, not to mention their bringing in dangerous drugs, and criminal activity including the outright murder of U.S. Citizens.  The Obama Administration, by actively seeking to thwart any and all attempts to control our border with Mexico, has shown it's utter disdain for the United States and it's people.  Every poll shows U.S. Citizens are fed up with the Federal Government's unwillingness to handle our southern border situation.

It would seem that the current administration has just handed it's political opposition another political weapon to use against it in the few short months leading to election day.

In a personal experience, As the manager of a rental firm, I once had an employee, who already had years of service with the U.S. Coast Guard under his belt, apply for a position with the U.S. Border Patrol.  I fully supported his decision, and he kept me informed during the lengthy process so that I could be prepared to replace him when the time came.  Finally, after some time, he got "the call" and reported for training.  After all of the effort involved in obtaining the job, it took less than a year for him to leave the position, disillusioned over the fact that it appeared every roadblock was put in the way of actually enforcing border security.

Though I was sad to see such a fine person, who put so much effort into obtaining the position, leave the Border Patrol in what amounted to complete disgust, I wasn't surprised.  The stories he told concerning some of the border security situations he was involved with while patrolling the California coast in the Coast Guard appeared to be precursors to the bureaucratic nonsense he experienced during his short time with the Border Patrol.

Invaders climbing border fence
It's become obvious, through it's actions, that the Obama Administration, and the Federal government in general, expresses open contempt for the idea of "rule of law", or any semblance of border security.  In less than 20 pages, Arizona's immigration law practically mimics Federal law concerning immigration policy, Federal law, which by the way, the Federal government refuses to enforce.  And though the State of Arizona must bear the burden of illegal alien invasion in not just economic terms, but in actual physical harm done by criminal activity of illegal aliens, including the murder of Arizona's citizens, and the destruction of lives through drug use, the Federal government appear to be willing to allow a certain amount of murder and mayhem in it's quest for power it itself refuses to use.

Like most U.S. citizens, I'm 100 percent in favor of LEGAL immigration to our country, regardless of race. Members of every nationality have something to offer the United States.  However, national security dictates that the flow of immigrants be controlled, monitored, for health, economic, and national security reasons.  The uncontrolled flow of people into the United States at our southern border presents problems in all three categories.

The only way, it would seem, to force Federal government action on the border, is to create a massive shift in power at the ballot box this November.  It's more than apparent, as shown by their very arrogance, that our current group of do-nothing representatives at the Federal level are more interested in maintaining their level of personal power and comfort, than they are in creating an atmosphere where U.S. citizens can experience any semblance of the same comfort.  It's doubtful that many congresspeople, or even the President himself, has ever had to experience the results of their policy of inaction on the border.  And it's doubtful, in their insulated lives which revolve largely around around the D.C. political scene, that any of them will ever experience the level of anxiety felt by the average citizens in our border states due to the out of control illegal alien presence. Indeed, no less than President Obama himself refused the invitation of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to actually visit the southern U.S. border with Mexico, instead preferring to lecture Governor Brewer about how the southern border with Mexico is the "most secure it's ever been".
Murdered Arizona rancher Robert Krentz

Tell that to the family and friends of longtime Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, who was shot dead, along with his dog, by an illegal invader from Mexico, while riding an ATV around his ranchlands earlier this year.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

"Yes, Virginia, Democrats are hypocrites...."

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts recently took delivery of a 76 foot, 7 million dollar yacht.  The boat, christened "Isabel", was designed in the U.S., but built in New Zealand.  This has raised the ire of U.S. boat builders, particularly in Kerry's own "backyard" states in New England, as local yacht builders struggle to survive the current economic climate.

As Jane Wellahan, President of the trade group "Maine Built Boats" told the Boston Herald newspaper: "Darn, that would have been a wonderful job for a Maine builder.  If someone comes to build a $7 million boat, that would employ half the population of some towns for a year or two. Boat building is such a critical component of our coastal economy."

Kerry has also raised eyebrows by docking the good ship "Isabel" outside of his home state of Massachusetts, thus avoiding sales and excise taxes totalling over half a million dollars.  Kerry's office, in a press release, claims the boat is being birthed in Rhode Island for "long term maintenance, upkeep, and charter purposes".  If a yacht is birthed in Massachusetts within six months of purchase, sales tax is due, according to the state of Massachusetts.

Senator Kerry, to the Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue.
When asked about his purchase, and the fact the yacht is being docked in tax-free Rhode Island, Kerry said:  ""It's being worked on.  It's under warranty down there. It's being worked on and it will come to Massachusetts and I look forward to that."  When asked "Did you berth the boat in Massachusetts?" he dodged, "That depends on who owns it."

Then, he turned to his driver and exclaimed, "Can I get out of here please?"

Since "Newport", a popular Rhode Island yacht port, is emblazoned on the stern, one wonders if it will take six months to redo the paint scheme.

Kerry, who as a U.S. Senator has repeatedly voted for tax increases upon the people of America, appears to be confirming the very premise that Democrats always like to hang around "Rich Republican" necks:   Rich people looking for tax loopholes really is "The American Way".  It's particularly hypocritical of the Kerry's to dodge their home state's taxes, consdering Theresa Heinz-Kerry has a net worth is in the neighborhood of 1 billion dollars, and can well afford to pay whatever taxes would be due to cash-strapped Massachusetts if they docked their boat at home.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Report: Mexican drug cartel seizes U.S. ranches.

It is being reported that the Mexican drug cartel "Los Zetas" has seized at least two U.S. ranches near Laredo, Texas, in what has been described by a local Laredo area law enforcement officer as "an act of war".

Laredo law enforcement officials have requested the help of Federal law enforcement, and the U.S. Border Patrol is conducting aerial surveillance to determine the best course of action to regain possession of the ranches.

Information is sketchy, as there is an apparent "news blackout" concerning the takeover, ostensibly to allow law enforcement to co-ordinate their activities and decide what course of action is to be taken.

According to Kimberly Dvorak, of

"The Los Zetas drug cartel is an offshoot of the elite Mexican military trained in special ops. The mercenary organization is said to include members of corrupt Mexican Federales, politicians as well as drug traffickers. The group was once part of the Gulf cartel, but has since splintered and now directly competes with the Gulf cartel for premium drug smuggling routes in the Texas region."

Check the following links for updates:

Mexican drug cartel takes control of two U.S. ranches.

Multiple U.S. ranches taken over by Mexican "Los Zetas" drug cartel.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Obama's "Assassination Program" targets American citizens without due process, hardly a "right wing radical" site, is reporting on President Obama's "Assassination Program", which targets American citizens for killing, by order of the President, based only upon suspicion of terrorism.

That's right.  No conviction, indictment by a court of law, no legal charges by law enforcement, no military activity.  If President Obama merely suspects a U.S. citizen of terrorism, he can order a "hit" on that person.

How's that for "Change you can Believe In"?

Remember way back when leftists were howling mad over President George W. Bush's supposed "illegal wiretapping" of terrorist phone calls?  What a travesty it was that ole' Dubya might have been listening to your private phone calls!  Remember every mainstream media outlet harping ad-nauseam over the unmitigated gall of our President because he might be violating some one's right to chat nonsensically about absolutely nothing?

Ah, for the good old days.

Where's the mainstream media now that it's been learned that President Obama can order a bullet through the head of an American citizen on his authority alone!!

Well, Lindsey Lohan is going to jail, ya' know....

The administration defends it's assassination program.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Federal Government killing wild horses in order to "save" them.

In yet another example of the Federal government's ridiculous mismanagement of taxpayer money, and with a blind eye towards anything that can remotely be considered humane, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has made the decision that rounding up wild horses in the summer desert heat of Nevada is somehow necessary to "save" them.

Using a helicopter to stampede entire herds of wild horses, young foals and pregnant mares included, the BLM is capturing hundreds of wild horses this month, in Elko County, Nevada, by stampeding them over the desert at breakneck speeds, with no water, until the horses are eventually worn down and corralled.  In one case, the horses were run over 8 miles in 100 plus degree heat. Some of the young foals had their hooves literally "run off" over the rocky ground, leaving them crippled. Many pregnant mares have miscarried due to the stress of roundup.

In the past year, over 160 horses rounded up by the BLM have died from exhaustion, stress, dehydration, and injury brought on directly by the inhumane treatment involved in helicopter roundups.

Hundreds more wild horses, who manage to survive the roundup process, are being held in BLM pens awaiting shipment to yet-to-be-acquired holding facilities in the Midwestern U.S.  The BLM considers this to be an acceptable alternative to leaving them on the wide open range. Over $75,000 per week in taxpayer money is being spent to hold these horses in "facilities" that amount to mostly overcrowded open corrals very near the open range the horses once roamed, for free.

The BLM has hired Dave Cattoors to round up wild horses.  This despite the fact that Cattoors has a Federal conviction for "aiding and abetting" the theft and sale of wild horses for slaughter.

Spokespeople for the BLM claim that the horses are in imminent danger of starvation and dehydration if left in the wild, insisting they are overpopulated, yet the same spokespeople assure the public that the vast majority of horses are in "good shape" after their helicopter stampedes, claiming the death tolls are low, and apparently acceptable.  Other BLM spokespeople have said that the horses must be moved to due damage to livestock fences.  The "Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 16 U.S.C. §1331 et seq." states that the BLM is to protect wild horse from "harassment", "capture", and "death", maintaining them as free roaming components of public lands.  The law also requires wild horses and burros to be treated humanely.

Critics of the BLM horse round up program wonder why the Federal government sees the need to stockpile wild horses in the Midwest, stating there is no real imminent danger to the animals in the wild. Indeed, wild horses, more correctly termed "feral horses" because they are descendants of domestic animals, have through natural selection been bred into wily and capable animals, quite able to adapt to varied environmental conditions. It has been

A lawsuit has been filed by horse enthusiasts in an attempt to stop the BLM's disastrous roundup procedures, and a judge did halt the roundups, only to be overruled in the government's zeal to continue what they call benignly call "gathering".

The BLM has a long history of "over managing" (and in some cases, mismanaging) our public lands, which has included the destruction of historical sites, volunteer operated recreational facilities, legally owned and operated mining claims, including the harassment of claim owners, along with the mismanagement of wildlife exhibited by the current handling of our wild horse herds.

Current Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has stated that wild horses do not belong on public lands.  The BLM is part of the Department of the Interior.

 Wild Horse Facts (Courtesy of IDA):

- The Obama Administration plans to remove 12,000 mustangs from their Western ranges in FY 2010. Most of these horses will end up in government holding facilities.

- The number of wild horses in government holding facilities (35,000) now exceeds those left in the wild (33,000 by BLM estimates).

- The wild horse population today is smaller than in 1974 when the BLM conducted its first census after Congress protected the horses due to their dwindling numbers.

- Wild horses comprise a minute fraction (0.5 percent) of grazing animals on public lands, where they are outnumbered by cattle at least 200 to 1.

- The BLM manages more than 256 million acres of public lands. Cattle grazing is allowed on 160 million acres, while wild horses are restricted to 26.6 million acres of land that is shared with cattle.

- Since 1971 when Congress protected wild horses as “living symbols of freedom” and important parts of our national heritage, the BLM has removed over 200,000 horses from the range and taken away 20 million acres of wild horse habitat.

- The BLM frequently increases livestock grazing allotments after removing wild horses. Horses are also displaced for the benefit of other commercial users of public lands, including mining, oil/gas and other extractive industries.

- The Obama Administration proposes to spend up to 500 million tax dollars to purchase private lands in the Midwest and East to warehouse wild horses removed from public lands (which the taxpayers already own) in the West. In response to IDA’s lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled that these holding facilities are likely illegal.

- The mustang has spent hundreds of years acclimating to the arid, rocky terrain of the west and their presence on that landscape is part of our national heritage. Not only are they ill-suited to the wet, lush Midwestern climate but their absence from the west is an affront to our cultural history.

For more information concerning the issue of wild horses in the west:

Saturday, July 17, 2010

U.S. authorities order the shutdown of over 73,000 public websites.

Using vague language concerning "abuse" of some sort, in an unprecedented move of censorship, U.S. law enforcement officials have apparently ordered the shut down of a free website hosting service called "". The shutdown involves over 73,000 websites and blogs, primarily opinion sites run by private citizens. has been hosted by BurstNet for the last 7 months.

On Friday, July 9th, disappeared from the internet. On the following Monday, received the following email:

"Due to the history of abuse and on going abuse on this ‘bn.***********’ server.

We have opted to terminate this server, effective immediately. This termination applies to:

Abuse Department
BurstNET Technologies, Inc"

After further communication with BurstNet, Blogetery received the following:

"Bn.xx*********** was terminated by request of law enforcement officials, due to material hosted on the server.

We are limited as to the details we can provide to you, but note that this was a critical matter and the only available option to us was to immediately deactivate the server."

And then, even later, a supposed "clarification":

"Please note that this was not a typical case, in which suspension and notification would be the norm. This was a critical matter brought to our attention by law enforcement officials. We had to immediately remove the server."
BurstNet has responded to requests for further info with the following:

“We notified him [the Blogetery owner] when we terminated it [the server], and we refunded him his money to his account, because he has other servers with us If he wants the refund to his card, we can easily do that. However, it should be the least of his concerns,” A BurstNet representative later confirmed.

“Simply put: We cannot give him his data nor can we provide any other details. By stating this, most would recognize that something serious is afoot.”
Is this to become a "test case" in a wider crackdown on opposing opinion by the Obama administration?  One seriously doubts that the current White House, given it's penchant for acting without actually doing even minimal investigation on a subject, would have taken the time to monitor all 73,000 websites before they decided to have them shut down on a wholesale basis.

It has long been reported that President Obama wants the power of an internet "kill switch", with the ability to shut down the internet in the United States in the case of "national emergency".  The current political climate in Washington, D.C. is apt to give him just that power, given the amount of power they have transferred from private to government hands in the mere 19 months Obama has been in office.

Those who attempt to access, or any of the thousands of hosted websites which use Blogetery, are treated with the following cryptic message:

"After being BurstNet customer for 7 months our server was terminated without any notification or explanation.

We're trying to resolve the situation.

You can find details in this thread on webhostingtalk forum."

Thanks to "" for contributing to this article.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Obama fomenting race war on several fronts.

Remember when Barack Obama was elected President, and the fawning mainstream media proclaimed a new "post-racial" age for the United States?  How did we go from "post racial", to the highest racial tensions in decades, in only 19 months of Obama's leadership?

Barack Obama's entire adult history has been spent as a professional political agitator.  It's no surprise then, that once Obama was elected President, his political machine would kick in, using the only tactics they know, to effect his their version of "Change".

Against the will of the American People, the Obama administration has repeatedly condemned the State of Arizona's new immigration law, which mirrors the unenforced existing Federal law.  Now the Obama Justice Dept., headed by Eric Holder, has officially filed a Federal lawsuit against Arizona, in a move to invalidate Arizona's state immigration law, apparently because they feel Arizona might actually enforce a law the Federal government has ignored for years.

Fully 70% of Arizona residents, and over 60% of U.S. citizens across the board, support the State of Arizona's attempts at controlling the exploding illegal alien problem in their state.  Several other states are considering similar laws, and one state, Rhode Island, already has an active, and enforced, law similar to Arizona's on the books.

Perhaps Obama's Dept. of Justice doesn't see Rhode Island as a state worthy of mention?  Or perhaps it would simply be more difficult to exploit Rhode Island's law for political gain, what with it being so far from the border with Mexico and all.

Either way, 2 out of 3 Americans see the Justice Dept. lawsuit against Arizona as politically motivated folly. Yet the Obama Administration apparently sees the entire situation as a political opportunity to whip up racist sentiment among both whites and Hispanics, as it would appear their actions are carefully designed to do just that.

Radical groups such as La Raza, which believes that the entire southwestern United States was stolen from Mexico, and should be returned by force if necessary, have been emboldened by President Obama's siding with them over the citizens of the United States, who overwhelmingly believe in a common sense, law and order immigration policy, and a secure border.  Is this by design, or through incompetent leadership?  Very few can make the case that Obama is stupid.

Consider also the explosive revelation, ignored by the mainstream media, that attorneys for the Obama Justice Dept. were told that the Justice Dept. would not go forth with cases against blacks brought by whites.  This apparently had a lot to do with the dropping of charges against New Black Panther members who dressed in paramilitary garb, carried night sticks and billy clubs, and stood at the entrances to polling places in Philadelphia, in a show of force apparently designed to suppress white voter turnout during the 2008 elections, when Obama was on the ballot.  This despite the fact that the case had already been won, a default judgment entered, and the case merely awaited sentencing.  One of the New Black Panther members who was involved in the voter suppression has recently been taped spewing racist hatred towards whites, declaring that for blacks to obtain freedom, they are going to have to "kill some crackers" and "their babies".  It would appear that the actions of Obama's Justice Dept. has given rise to black hatred against whites, rather than bringing peace and love to the world, as promised on election day.  Again, by design?

To those who have studied Barack Obama's history as a political agitator, nothing here comes as a big surprise.  Agitation is how they attempt to accomplish their goals.  Rather than bringing people together, which perhaps is far to slow and far too full of compromise, agitation seeks to foment "Change" through lawlessness and civil disobedience.  And, considering Obama's silence on the issue, perhaps the killing of some "cracker babies" as well.

Friday, July 9, 2010

Seven concepts too difficult for liberals to understand:

(1) Supply and demand.

(2) Interest rates should not be left to the government or central banks to “manage”.

(3) Government intervention distorts any market, is inefficient, and counter-productive.

(4) Liberty means personal responsibility.

(5) Coercive collectivism negates freedom.

(6) A spending and debt problem cannot be solved by more debt and more spending.

(7) No person should be born into a world with a legally enforceable obligation to take care of persons other than their own children.

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Thoughts on Freedom: Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address, February 1861

Gentlemen of the Congress of the Confederate States of America:

Called to the difficult and responsible station of Executive Chief of the Provisional Government which you have instituted, I approach the discharge of the duties assigned me with an humble distrust of my abilities, but with a sustaining confidence in the wisdom of those who are to aid and guide me in the administration of public affairs, and an abiding faith in the patriotism and virtue of the people. Looking forward to the speedy establishment of a provisional government to take the place of the present one, and which, by its great moral and physical powers, will be better able to contend with the difficulties which arise from the conflicting incidents of separate nations, I enter upon the duties of the office for which I have been chosen with the hope that the beginning of our career as a Confederacy may not be obstructed by hostile opposition to the enjoyment of that separate and independent existence which we have asserted, and which, with the blessing of Providence, we intend to maintain.
Our present position has been achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable. Of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereign, were the final judges each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge the sincerity with which we have labored to preserve the government of our fathers, in its spirit and in those rights inherent in it, which were solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which have been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Bills of Rights of the several States. When they entered into the Union of 1789, it was with the undeniable recognition of the power of the people to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of that government whenever, in their opinion, its functions were perverted and its ends defeated. By virtue of this authority, the time and occasion requiring them to exercise it having arrived, the sovereign States here represented have seceded from that Union, and it is a gross abuse of language to denominate the act rebellion or revolution. They have formed a new alliance, but in each State its government has remained as before. The rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agency through which they have communicated with foreign powers has been changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.
Sustained by a consciousness that our transition from the former Union to the present Confederacy has not proceeded from any disregard on our part of our just obligations, or any failure to perform every constitutional duty -- moved by no intention or design to invade the rights of others -- anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations -- if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it. We are doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others. There can be no cause to doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to any measure of defence which may be required for their security. Devoted to agricultural pursuits, their chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country. Our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between us and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northwestern States of the American Union.
It must follow, therefore, that mutual interest would invite good will and kindness between them and us. If, however, passion or lust of dominion should cloud the judgment and inflame the ambition of these States, we must prepare to meet the emergency, and maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have now entered upon our career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued.
Through many years of controversy with our late associates, the Northern States, we have vainly endeavored to secure tranquillity and obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled. As a necessity, not a choice we have resorted to separation, and henceforth our energies must be devoted to the conducting of our own affairs, and perpetuating the Confederacy we have formed. If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. But if this be denied us, and the integrity and jurisdiction of our territory be assailed, it will but remain for us with a firm resolve to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence upon a just cause.
As a consequence of our new constitution, and with a view to meet our anticipated wants, it will be necessary to provide a speedy and efficient organization of the several branches of the executive departments having special charge of our foreign intercourse, financial and military affairs, and postal service. For purposes of defence, the Confederate States may, under ordinary circumstances rely mainly upon their militia; but it is deemed advisable, in the present condition of affairs, that there should be a well instructed, disciplined army, more numerous than would be usually required for a peace establishment.
I also suggest that for the protection of our harbors and commerce on the high seas, a navy adapted to those objects be built up. These necessities have doubtless engaged the attention of Congress.
With a constitution differing only in form from that of our forefathers, in so far as it is explanatory of their well known intents, freed from sectional conflicts which have so much interfered with the pursuits of the general welfare, it is not unreasonable to expect that the States from which we have parted may seek to unite their fortunes with ours under the government we have instituted. For this your constitution has made adequate provision, but beyond this, if I mistake not the judgment and will of the people, our reunion with the States from which we have separated is neither practicable nor desirable. To increase power, develop the resources, and promote the happiness of this Confederacy, it is necessary that there should be so much homogeneity as that the welfare of every portion be the aim of the whole. When this homogeneity does not exist, antagonisms are engendered which must and should result in separation.
Actuated solely by a desire to protect and preserve our own rights and promote our own welfare, the secession of the Confederate States has been marked by no aggression upon others, and followed by no domestic convulsion. Our industrial pursuits have received no check; the cultivation of our fields has progressed as heretofore; and even should we be involved in war, there would be no considerable diminution in the production of the great staple which constitutes our exports, and in which the commercial world has an interest scarcely less than our own. This common interest of producer and consumer can only be interrupted by external force, which would obstruct shipments to foreign markets -- a course of conduct which would be detrimental to manufacturing and commercial interests abroad. Should reason guide the action of the government from which we have separated, a policy so injurious to the civilized world, the Northern States included, could not be dictated even by the strongest desire to inflict injury upon us; but if otherwise, a terrible responsibility will rest upon it, and the suffering of millions will bear testimony to the folly and wickedness of our aggressors. In the meantime there will remain to us, besides the ordinary remedies before suggested, the well known resources for retaliation upon the commerce of our enemy.
  Experience in public stations of subordinate grade to this which your kindness has conferred on me, has taught me that care and toil and disappointments are the price of official elevation. You will have many errors to forgive, many deficiencies to tolerate, but you will not find in me either a want of zeal or fidelity to a cause that has my highest hopes and most enduring affection. Your generosity has bestowed upon me an undeserved distinction, one which neither sought nor desired. Upon the continuance of that sentiment, and upon your wisdom and patriotism, I rely to direct and support me in the performance of the duties required at my hands. We have changed the constituent parts, not the system of our government. The constitution formed by our fathers is the constitution of the "Confederate States." In their exposition of it, and in the judicial constructions it has received, it has a light that reveals its true meaning. Thus instructed as to the just interpretations of that instrument, and ever remembering that all public offices are but trusts, held for the benefit of the people, and that delegated powers are to be strictly construed, I will hope that by due diligence in the discharge of my duties, though I may disappoint your expectations, yet to retain, when retiring, something of the good will and confidence which welcome my entrance into office. It is joyous in perilous times to look around upon a people united in heart, who are animated and actuated by one and the same purpose and high resolve, with whom the sacrifices to be made are not weighed in the balance against honor, right, liberty and equality. Obstacles may retard, but cannot prevent their progressive movements. Sanctified by justice and sustained by a virtuous people, let me reverently invoke the God of our fathers to guide and protect us in our efforts to perpetuate the principles which by HIS blessing they were able to vindicate, establish and transmit to their posterity, and with the continuance of HIS favor, ever to be gratefully acknowledged, let us look hopefully forward to success, to peace, and to prosperity.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Beginning today, our nation inches closer to Fascism.

Notice anything different today?  Most folks probably won't.  Such is the way with creeping totalitarianism.

What's different today from yesterday?  June 30th, 2010 was the last day it was legal in the United States to ship cigarettes by mail.  Yet another freedom lost...a completely legal adult product is no longer able to be purchased online, by phone, or through a catalog, to be delivered to you in the comfort of your own home.

Why, you might ask?  Here's your answer:  When President Barack Obama signed into law the SCHIP expansion as one of his first acts in office, increasing tobacco taxes by up to 156%, he not only broke his campaign pledge that he would not raise taxes on anyone who made less than $250,000 a year, he also wanted to make sure you didn't have a legal way to avoid paying his tax increase.  Thus, our current Democrat controlled congress went to work writing another bill...and another bill means another law...and another law generally means someone is going to lose another freedom.  Voila!  In March of this year President Obama signed the "Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking" Act.

You see, the Federal Government always thinks that when there is a completely legal way to avoid paying their onerous taxes, say through the mail ordering of cigarettes from a business located on a tax-free Native Reservation, you are somehow depriving our elected "leaders" of money they feel should rightfully be theirs.  So, they must find a way to "close" that "loophole", so you can be gouged just like any other schmuck who walks into any convenience store in your town.

Oh, you can still drive out to any smoke shop on pretty much any Indian Reservation and buy your smokes tax-free.  So far, I guess our Federal government hasn't figured out a way to make that illegal without putting thousands of natives on the warpath.  Rest assured, the money hungry "powers that be" in Washington D.C. are working on it.

In New York State, a new law levying taxes on the walk-in sale of tobacco to non-natives is scheduled to go into effect September 1st.  J.C. Seneca, a Seneca Nation Tribal Councilor, has declared the state law "an act of war". The last time New York threatened to tax tobacco on tribal lands, there were threats of violence, and a state Thruway across tribal lands was closed after it was blocked with burning tires and debris.

According to the Seneca Tribe, the new Federal law banning mail-order cigarette sales which goes into effect today threatens up to 1000 jobs on the Seneca Nation alone.

Thus, another job and freedom killing measure from our Democrat leadership is in the books.   Native American rights are again trampled.   And the citizens of the United States don't even wince.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Regardless of outcome, Elena Kagan not likely to change balance of Supreme Court.

Despite serious misgivings about the possibility of judicial activism on the part of Elena Kagan should she be confirmed to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, it is likely that the outcome of future Supreme Court cases would not be much affected.

It is not surprising that President Obama would elect someone with a liberal activist mentality to the Supreme Court.  Obama and his Democrat congress are perhaps the most activist legislative body since Lyndon Johnson's Presidency in the late 1960's, and look to surpass Johnson's legacy if Obama's agenda continues to roll through the legislature regardless of public sentiment, which has been against Obama for quite a while.

Justice Stevens has become increasingly liberal over the years.  As a dubious choice by then President Gerald Ford in 1975, Stevens has often been on the wrong side of Constitutional issues, up to and including one of the last acts of the current court.  Justice Stevens wrote the lengthy and seriously flawed dissent to the recent Supreme Court decision that 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights are for everyone in the nation, and cannot be restricted by regional governments.  Stevens insists that such rights are to be held collectively, and are not for the individual, as other Constitutional rights are commonly interpreted.

Elena Kagan, based upon her history of siding with liberal causes, up to an including ignoring established Federal law, would likely have agreed with Stevens.  Thus, as a replacement for Stevens, her opinion would have still been in the minority, and the 5-4 outcome would not have changed.

When Elena Kagan was the Dean of Harvard Law School, she deliberately ignored the Solomon Amendment, which made it illegal to keep military recruiters off of college campuses.  Her personal stance against President Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy concerning gays in the military, even though she worked for the Clinton White House when the policy was enacted, came before her adherence to the law.  She supported a challenge to the Solomon Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against her opinion. It took the threat of the withholding of Federal funding to Harvard Law School to force Kagan into compliance.

At the same time, there is some question as to what involvement Elena Kagan, as Dean of Harvard Law, has had in the withholding of Barack Obama's Harvard Law transcripts.  For some reason, Obama has continued to keep the world in the dark concerning his real achievements at Harvard Law. (His achievements at Columbia are a mystery as well, as his transcripts from that university are also sealed.)  Her rise to prominence within the Obama Administration, culminating with her nomination to the Supreme Court, has been the subject of much conversation.

Kagan has also argued before the Supreme Court that the distribution of political pamphlets should be regulated by the Government.  Her opinion would guarantee that government would have a hand in maintaining it's own authority, as any dissent could be quashed by government itself.  Such an opinion is a serious violation of the First Amendment Constitutional right of free speech.

Just as when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demonstrated her blind allegiance to the Obama agenda, when on the eve of the passage of ObamaCare, she stated "you must pass the bill to see what is in it", Kagan's confirmation is likely a forgone conclusion.  Considering the current political climate in Washington D.C., with the Democrat majority probably voting "en masse" for the President's pick despite her questionable legal judgment, the confirmation hearings currently going on are likely to amount to much political grandstanding, with no real effect on the actual decision making process.  

Monday, June 28, 2010

Supreme Court upholds the U.S. Constitution: The right to keep and bear arms is for every citizen.

The United States Supreme Court has once again had to tackle and affirm a Constitutional right that has existed for 219 years:   A ruling affirming the individual right to keep and bear firearms has just been handed down by the highest court of the land.

Why the Supreme Court has to constantly reconsider what has been common law in the United States for hundreds of years is beyond the understanding of a simple fellow like me.

There can be no plainer words than "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."  The Second Amendment is written in plain English, doesn't use any "5 Dollar Words", and is easy to read and understand.

U.S. citizens are guaranteed the right to own guns, and use them when legally justified.  Period.  End of story.

The real question is why cities like Chicago, Illinois, and ironically, Washington, D.C. have been allowed to violate the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens for, in some cases, decades.  Chicago's gun ban has been in effect since 1982.  The people of one of the worlds largest cities, right here in the United States, have had their rights violated by their own local government for over a quarter century!  Today's ruling effectively strikes down the Chicago gun ban, and thwarts any effort by state and local governments to enact similar restrictive and un-American legislation.

It is heartening to see the U.S. Supreme Court continue to set precedent by upholding the United States Constitution, and I applaud their decision.  Now, if we can only get them to overturn governmental power grabs like arbitrary zoning laws, government bailouts and takeovers, ObamaCare, and other equally unconstitutional government encroachments upon private life, we can get back on the path to the freedom and prosperity our founders intended.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

After the "primary bounce", TEA Party Candidate Sharron Angle still leads Reid.

While a lot of people wished to "spin" the fact that Sharron Angle opened the general election season well ahead of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid as a post-primary "bounce", in reality, it appears her lead is quite firm.  The most recent Rasmussen poll gives her a 7 point lead over the longtime Nevada politician.

Harry Reid has been troubled politically ever since his bitter and divisive comments concerning then President George W. Bush, calling him a "liar" among other things.  He compounded his troubles when he stated that the Iraq war "is lost", and that Barack Obama was well suited to run for President because he was a "light skinned" and had no "negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Reid long ago became enamored with the aura of Washington, D.C. politics and has lost touch with the citizens of Nevada.  As someone who actually voted for Reid when I lived in Nevada 20 years ago, I've seen his image go from one of sensible conservative values, to one of hard-line leftist rancor.

While Reid has moved left, his constituency has remained firmly planted in the middle.  Nevada, once a hard line conservative/libertarian state full of miners, ranchers, and the free-wheeling gambling industry, has become saturated with displaced Californians fleeing high real estate prices, exploding crime rates, and government over-regulation.

With Nevada's unemployment rate currently the highest in the nation at 14%, and Reid's only answer to the situation appearing to be his full support for Obama's economic policies, which have done absolutely nothing to shore up skyrocketing joblessness, it would appear that Reid is destined to join his fellow unemployed come November, albeit with a much better severance package.  President Obama's repeated use of derogatory comments to describe Las Vegas, and Reid's lackluster response, haven't helped Reid's image back home either.

A recent CBS news article has Reid's favorable rating at a dismal 8%, which is lower than that of Nancy Pelosi, and his unfavorable rating at 23%.

On the other hand, Sharron Angle, as the TEA Party's candidate, was once considered to be the weakest candidate to face Reid.  However, her strength as a candidate has surprised many.  Despite attempts to paint Angle as an extremist, she's been able to portray herself as someone with common-sense limited government ideals that play well with rural Nevadans, and her pro-business stance encourages Las Vegans who want to work, but cannot find jobs in today's stifling climate of job-killing government regulation.

Harry Reid has come to represent the big government status-quo in Washington, and the failed policies of the past, and Sharron Angle represents a positive future with people who increasingly see the growth of government power as the one threat most responsible for killing the "American Dream".

As a side note, Rory Reid, who is running for Nevada Governor, and happens to be Harry Reid's son, has dropped the use of his last name from his official campaign website.  This hasn't seemed to shore up his campaign much, as the most recent Rasmussen poll has Brian Sandoval ahead of Rory Reid by 22 points in the Nevada Governor's race.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Did General McChrystal figuratively "fall on a grenade" in order to save the men and women under his command?

Today, while driving back from Albuquerque, New Mexico, I was listening to Jim Villanucci on the radio. Villanucci is a popular radio talk show host.  In listening, I was presented with an interesting scenario concerning this weeks events surrounding General Stanley McChrystal and the Rolling Stone article that cost McChrystal his military leadership job in Afghanistan.

What if General McChrystal had run into a "brick wall" with the Obama Administration?  Unable to change Obama's mind on the course of the war, which hasn't been going well, what if McChrystal purposely put forth the article, knowing that he would be fired, and that General Petraeus would be put in charge?  Obama would be then forced to follow Petraeus' advice, lest Obama look like he is interfering too much in military activity.  It is being reported that one of General Petraeus' first acts as commander in Afghanistan is going to be the rescinding of the Obama administration's very restrictive "rules of engagement", which currently have our fighting men and women walking on eggshells, unable to fight back if fired upon unless expressly ordered to. Many are reporting that those current rules have led to the deaths of many American soldiers in Afghanistan.

All indications are that General McChrystal is nobody's fool.  He's a smart, efficient, badass soldier who knows exactly what he is doing.  He got the position in Afghanistan for a reason, and that reason is that he was best qualified for the job.

However, in describing his meetings with President Barack Obama, in which he described the President as "uncomfortable and intimidated" by top military leaders, it would appear that General McChrystal was not impressed by Obama.  There were many other sources of friction between McChrystal and top Obama Administration officials, particularly Vice-President Joe Biden, who had his own plan for the Afghan war, one which did not garner General McChrystal's good will.

It is my belief that war should be left to the military.  President Obama and Vice-President Biden are particularly inexperienced in the handling of the military situation in Afghanistan.  The Obama Administration, thinking they know best, did not give General McChrystal neither the manpower, nor the battle plans, requested by the General.

Perhaps McChrystal, rather than allowing more soldiers to die under Obama's rules of engagement that McChrystal himself could not change, felt it would be best to "fall on his sword" in order to create a situation where another General could take charge under his own terms, which would be better for the fighting men and women on the ground.

Just a crazy thought.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Blast from the past: The Carter "Malaise Speech".

I don't remember seeing this speech on television on July 15th 1979.  I was just two months into my 15th year when then President Jimmy Carter went before the American public nearly 31 years ago.  Being 15, I was likely too busy with the important matters of being 15 to pay much attention to what Carter had to say that particular night.

I do, however, vividly remember the feeling of July 15th, 1979.  In my house there had likely been a split vote in 1976, as my parents had somewhat differing political views.  By the middle of 1979, however, there was definitely a concerted feeling in our household that the nation was simply on the wrong track, and that our country was lacking the kind of leadership we desperately needed at the time.  We were still about 4 months away from the Iran Hostage Crisis, in which 52 U.S. Embassy staff in Tehran would be held hostage by Islamic militants for 444 days, but Iran was already a looming crisis in the news almost daily, as a once pro-U.S. government had already been toppled by Muslim extremists in January of 1979, after President Carter had refused to support the pro-U.S. Shah of Iran through the turmoil of the time.  Unemployment in the U.S. was inching upward of 7%, but the fiscal crisis' of the day were inflation, which stood at a whopping 11.3%, and interest rates, which hovered around 20%. The overall economic situation resulted in unprecedented "stagflation", a term coined by economists which described the combination of climbing prices and stagnant economic growth.

Probably the most visible sign that "all was not well" in the United States, were the skyrocketing gasoline prices and long gas lines caused by supposed "shortages" that were more the cause of distribution problems than any real oil shortage.  In the United States, we were already importing a good percentage of our petroleum from overseas sources, and in an effort to hold the U.S. hostage financially, the OPEC nations decided to "flex their muscle" in an attempt to boost oil prices, thus increasing their profits.

While many of the negative forces that shaped the Carter Presidency were out of his control, as the economic groundwork had been laid by previous congressional meddling in the free-market system, the response to those forces could be laid directly at his feet.  Carter's weak and waffling foreign policy, which was all his, allowed nations, which if not friends of the U.S., were at least respectful of U.S. power, to feel the urge to confront America in a variety of ways, both directly and economically.  Carter's attempt at "detente" with the Soviet Union, which showed hard-line leaders in Moscow that the U.S. was weakening it's firm stance against Communism, led to the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet forces in 1979.

Carter also often governed against the will of the people. Moves such as the Panama Canal giveaway, proposed fuel rationing, increased taxes, and his previously mentioned refusal to support the Shah of Iran, were unpopular with the American citizenry.  Overall, Carter's domestic and foreign policy blunders led to an impression among U.S. citizens, and the world, that America was a nation in decline.

Carter created both the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education, which were seen by many as great expansions of Federal power over areas where the Feds had no business.  What's more, he did it during a time when the nation's economy was floundering, and the public saw expansion of government, and increased government spending, as contrary to prudent fiscal policy.

All of this led to a dismally low 28% approval rating for President Carter one month before he made what he called the "Crisis of Confidence" speech, but which came to be known as the "Carter Malaise Speech".  Let's head back to July, 1979:

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The Oil Spill Address: Barack Obama again runs for.....President.

If the American People wanted answers.  They didn't get any.  If the American People expected solutions.  Sorry, no such luck.  If the American People hoped to hear how the Obama Administration, in partnership with British Petroleum, was going to solve the oil spill crisis in the gulf, and clean up the mess.  Nothing doing.

What the American People got was another campaign speech.

President Obama gave an 18 minute address to the nation last night, and it was merely a re-iteration of some of the the same rhetoric that we heard from candidate Obama when he was running for the office of leader of the free world.  The only difference was that back then, it was fresh and new.  Last night, it sounded old and re-hashed.

What we did learn is that the arrogance and thuggery that is becoming synonymous with this administration was fully present, in that President Obama declared that he was going to "make" BP put money into a slush fund administered by a third party, money which is to be used to clean up the oil and compensate those who are losing their livelihoods due to the spill.  Sounds like tough talk from a man who is working hard in the interest of the people of the gulf region.  The only problem is:  President Obama simply doesn't have the power, under the Constitution, to do it.

The reality is, BP is legally bound to pay only the amount of damages up to the cap set by the U.S. Congress, which is currently $75 million. This does not mean that BP won't pay more, as anyone affected by the spill, including an entire state, can file a civil lawsuit which can be legally decided outside the scope of the Federal legal liability cap set by congress.  And BP itself has stated that they intend to do as much as possible to clean up the mess they've created, which includes spending well more than the $75 million cap.

We also learned, in President Obama's address, that he intends to use the oil spill situation as a campaign issue to press for all sorts of new regulation, new and increased taxes upon the American people, and subsidy for ethereal alternative forms of energy, none of which is a solution for the problem at hand. In other words, President Obama's insatiable drive to grow government is wholly intact.  And we leaned, through the absence of specifics, that the spill in the gulf is currently unstoppable, and it appears it will remain so for the foreseeable future.  Apparently the best we can hope for is for a better "mop up" effort in an attempt to soak up the continuous spillage of oil which is currently taking place.  But no details were forthcoming about how either BP, or the Federal Government, intended to improve what has been universally declared a dismal clean-up effort.

Basically, what we were offered last night was nothing more than a commonly vague political speech which gave us no real details or solutions for the problem today, and no real solutions or details for solving anything tomorrow.  It was a speech reminiscent of empty campaign promises, and as such, was utterly forgettable.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Muslim extremists hang 7 year old boy for spying. Anyone still think they are "just like us"?

Taliban militants have executed a 7 year old boy in the the Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, after accusing the boy of spying for the Afghan government.

After all of the documented atrocities committed by Muslim extremists over the decades, how anyone could still believe these barbarians are simply "patriots" or "freedom fighters", who are merely reacting to so-called "U.S. Imperialism", is beyond me.  As if the killing of thousands of innocent people around the world wasn't enough, many in the United States still ignore the simple fact that Muslim extremism is a true "culture of death", which threatens the very survival of the free world.  In short, these people want to either convert you to Islam, or kill you.  And they will not allow anyone to get in their way, and that includes their own children.

From terrorist acts against innocents, to the flogging and honor killings of women and girls who do not submit to Islam's Sharia law, to the stringing up of old people and kids, radical Islam has a message for us:  Submit or die.

Taliban executes 7 year old for "spying".