14 October 2010

Check it out

Outstanding blog. Check it out:


15 August 2010

Islam a Religion of Peace?

Hell no! While I have long defended people of all religion and their right to practice their faith freely in this country I can no longer ignore the glaring differences between Islam and nearly every other major religion on the planet. People have done terrible things in the name of Christianity, but that occurred centuries ago. The religion is modernized and has under gone reformations. The occasional nutjobs make headlines, but they are a fringe. Islam receives every excuse. The media gives it a pass. History books used in schools give it a pass. It is supposedly such wonderful religion of peace. No it is not. Muslims supposedly contributed so much to the world in math and science. Perhaps some did, but this was in spite of the Islamic faith and not due to its teachings. There are probably some good practitioners of the faith that are conforming to their own version of the faith devoid of its inherent violence and lack of civility. They need to be more vocal and demand an international reformation of the faith. Unfortunately they'd probably have their throats cut by the more orthodox muslims.

In New Jersey a woman was repeatedly raped by her ex-husband. He said that it was her duty. He was her husband and under Islamic law she must submit to him. Well what does Islam have to say about this?

Qur'an 4:34 states:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854). (From Jihad Watch)

So the woman seeks a restraining order. She would like to be protected from her husband who brutally raped her on multiple occasions. The judge said NO. Apparently if rape is okay with Islam it is ok with him.

We are supposed to be a Republic. A nation of laws. Our laws are supposed to protect OUR rights. The government's one and only legitimate function is to protect the people and maintain maximum liberty consistent with civil society! If we have descended to this degenerated state then there is little hope. This is unacceptable. Have we so weakened our nation and its institutions? This is sad. What is happening to this country? Political correctness is a cancer that is destroying our culture and society. Where is the outrage? Moreover, where is the media? Maybe I missed it, but have you seen this reported ANYWHERE?? If a  Christian or Catholic man tried to use his faith to justify such a despicable act people in the media would demand he be strung up and his faith criminalized (I may be exaggerating only slightly). There would be justifiable outrage. Why the double standard?

The ones who want to build that mega-mosque right next to Ground Zero should be told to piss off. If a Greek Orthodox church can't get their existing facility rebuilt in its original location at Ground Zero why the hell are we fast tracking this mosque? Unacceptable. This is only meant as a finger in the eye of America and salt on the wounds of the victims' families. It is the equivalent of the muslims destroying the Temple Mount and then building the Dome of the Rock on its old foundation. Islam is about conquest and forcing others to submit. There can be no peace. Not until there is a fundamental transformation of Islam.

Please checkout http://www.jihadwatch.org/ .

07 July 2010

ESSAY 1: Religious Freedom in America

I have not posted in a very long time. I am trying to change that. This is the first in a series of essays I am going to post on this blog. I hope I can post more regularly.

Those who migrated to America from 1629 to 1775 were not “paradigms of diversity” as we would define it today. Almost all came from the same part of Europe, spoke the same language, and believed in the same God. However, there was plenty that they disagreed on. There were serious cultural differences among the people who colonized America. The people of colonial America all sought to worship God in their own way. In England the Anglican Church was not going to allow this to happen. Interference from the State into religious affairs was a fact of life. Puritan reformers wanted to “purify” the Anglican Church of some of the practices and customs that were deemed to be too much like the Catholic traditions that the church was supposed to have abandoned. The Puritans wanted the Anglican Church to be “more Protestant” and the Stuart Kings, as head of the Church of England, did not like this criticism. Many feared that the monarchy was increasingly influenced by the Catholic Church.

The formula for religious freedom in America looked something like this: Suspicion + Dislike = Liberty. Each group, whether they were Puritan, Quaker, Catholic, or any of the other various Christians migrating from Europe to America had a fundamental disagreement with their country of origin. The State regulated religious affairs to a high degree in Europe. There was an official State religion. If you did not practice that religion in accordance to law, or more likely royal decree, you were likely persecuted. Now, these differing groups shared two things: they disliked each other, and they were suspicious of government involvement in religious affairs. Quakers in colonial America disliked Puritans, and that dislike was mutual. To Quakers the Puritans were stuffy and misguided. The Puritans saw the Quakers as licentious and strange. There were even instances of Quakers causing a ruckus in Puritan towns. They would disrupt Puritan church services, and in at least one instance, strode about the pews naked in the middle of a sermon. These groups disliked and distrusted each other. They all distrusted State involvement in religion. So, these groups made it a point in every colony to protect their right to worship as they please. The best way to ensure this right was to make freedom of worship a fundamental right not subjected to the whims of the rulers or colonial assembly. Each religious denomination in every colony was vigilant against interference from others in their personal religious affairs. The sentiment among the colonies was that each should mind their own business, and more importantly so should any governmental element.

The common thread for all of these groups was the desire to live their lives and practice their faith without interference from outside groups or the State. In colonial America this was possible. Primarily due to the sheer distance separating them, the colonies were relatively free from the dogmatic influences of their country of origin. The Atlantic was a buffer between the colonies and the religious turmoil back home. So these groups that escaped persecution in England, or elsewhere, were successful in achieving the religious freedom that they sought to establish. The colonies became progressively less European as time went on. They established their own culture, religious traditions, and legislative assemblies and laws. They gained a measure of self government that was impossible to achieve in the highly hierarchical European monarchies. This translated into, if not tolerance, an acceptance of other religious practices. People did not want other groups or government meddling around in religious affairs. So they protected all faiths by ensuring that the colonial legislatures could not regulate the religious affairs of any group.

The “wall of separation” (as Jefferson would later describe in private letters) was not designed to cut religion out of government affairs. It was designed to keep the government from meddling in the affairs of the faith. In fact many colonies had an official religion even at the signing of the Constitution, and it was wholly compatible with the letter of the Constitution as understood by the Framers. The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from interfering in the religious affairs of the states. It is important to understand this distinction if we are to understand what religious freedom is all about. The Constitution is designed to guarantee that religious establishments are safe from outside interference from the government. The “separation of church and state” is a phrase not found in the Constitution, or in any of the colonial charters or state Constitutions. Today when federal courts strike down religious expression within the states, they are perverting the meaning of the First Amendment. The Founders intended NO federal intervention in religious issues of any kind. It is therefore my contention that the colonies were successful in establishing freedom of religion, and furthermore we have lost much of that freedom today. Every time some federal judge or some bureaucrat insists that a local courthouse or school purge all symbols of religious expression we are destroying that freedom. All of the colonies protected religious freedom and individual rights while still displaying the symbols of the prominent faith in the colony. In today’s world we have perverted the meaning of religious freedom to mean absolutely no religious expression. While in general we are still free to worship as we choose, there are those who are trying to take that freedom away. In colonial times, such usurpations would not be tolerated. While there have always been elements that have exploited religion and wielded it as a tool to get what they wanted, the story of colonial America is one of unprecedented religious freedom. While this term has changed in meaning somewhat over the last 200 or so years it still retains its relevance today. This adherence to individual rights, and the right to pursue a faith as one pleased was the cornerstone of the struggle for independence that would culminate in the founding of the greatest beacon of liberty the world has ever seen.

01 May 2010


James Madison once said: “Enlightened statesman will not always be at the helm.”

 He was definitely correct.

14 April 2010


"The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of “loyalty” and “duty.” Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute--get out of there fast. You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed."

-Lazarus Long

29 March 2010


“Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom" --Ayn Rand

I won't be posting anything for a while. Started a new job. Things are hectic and I won't have much time. So I will occasionally post quotes that I feel are relevant to current events.

Today's quote is regarding the 'hellthcare' [sic] bill recently signed into law. It is a fitting quote indeed.

17 March 2010

More 'Hellthcare' Reading

1/3 of Doctors Say 'I Quit' If Obamacare Passes:
From CNS News:
"Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
The survey, which was conducted by the Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, found that a majority of physicians said health-care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to “deteriorate” and it could be the “final straw” that sends a sizeable number of doctors out of medicine.
More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent."

Premiums Will Rise Under Obamacare

New Poll Confirms Once Again that Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Obamacare

New Study Shows that Obamacare Will KILL 700,000 Jobs

Physcians Against Obamacare!

Wednesday Hero

Cpl. Charles Aldieri(Ret.) & 1st Lt. Jack Jewell(Ret.)
Cpl. Charles Aldieri(Ret.) & 1st Lt. Jack Jewell(Ret.)

U.S. Army

Lt. Col. David Hurley, commander of Schweinfurt, Germany's 15th Engineer Battalion, presents unit coins to two 9th Infantry Division World War II veterans -- Charles Aldieri, a former corporal with the 746th Tank Battalion (shaking hands) and Jack Jewell, a former first lieutenant with Company B, 39th Infantry -- during a March 8 ceremony honoring the division's efforts in capturing the famed Remagen Bridge in the closing days of World War II. The commemoration took place in the Remagen Bridge and Peace Museum now housed in the remains of the span, which collapsed 10 days after its capture on March 7, 1945.

Photo Courtesy United States Army

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.

We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can gohere.

< img src="http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1184/whl2xp5.jpg" border="1" alt="Wednesday Hero Logo">

13 March 2010

College Educators, Elected Officials FAIL Basic Civics Exam

From the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI):
Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.

I missed 1. That's a score of about 96%. That means I scored 40 points higher than the average college educator. Elected government officials who took this exam averaged a score of 44%! WTF!

12 March 2010


Daniel Webster wrote,

 "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

11 March 2010

A Stroll Down Memory Lane...

I recently rediscovered the old blog. I had not posted on it for about 4 years, and I had forgotten about it. I thought it had been deleted long ago. I stumbled on it accidently while doing some research and browsing other blogs. The original Epler-Effect was shut down after an incident in 2005 that I might go into later on. I started another blog called Effective Archive where I salvaged some of my old posts and continued to blog for several months. I quit blogging for several reasons. I was let down by Bush's lackluster second term and I had to weather a personal storm during 2005-2007. A couple of attempts at starting a new blog never really took off. At the Effective Archive, and the orignial Effect before that, I had one or two additional contributors. I am thinking about adding some people to contribute to this blog as well. Let me know if you are interested. I don't post as often as I should, but with the way things are now I really ought to. So anyway, feel free to swing on by the old site. I even published a few posts that were saved as drafts. It was a fun trip to see all the old school blog postings and such. Interesting perspective to see how much things have changed. I have changed, America has changed, and blogging has changed since that time. Stop on in for some nostalgia: http://effectarchive.blogspot.com/

10 March 2010

Wednesday Hero

Cpl. Jason L. Dunham
Cpl. Jason L. Dunham
22 years old from Scio, New York
Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, FIRST Marine Division (Reinforced)
April 22, 2004
U.S. Marine Corps.

For The President of the United States of America, in the name of Congress, takes pride in presenting the Medal of Honor (Posthumously) to Corporal Jason L. Dunham, United States Marine Corps, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, FIRST Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

All Information Was Found On And Copied FromMilitaryCity.com

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can gohere.
< img src="http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1184/whl2xp5.jpg" border="1" alt="Wednesday Hero Logo">

06 March 2010

Fact Checking Obama

"If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan" The President Himself Previously Admitted That “Some Of The Provisions” In The Senate Bill "Violated That Pledge"

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan. If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor." (President Obama, Prepared Remarks, 3/3/10)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Some Of The Provisions” In The Democratic Health Bill “Violated That Pledge.” "We said from the start, that it was going to be important for us to be consistent, in saying to people if you can have your – if you want to keep the insurance you’ve got, you can keep it. That you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge." ("Obama's Planned Medicare Cuts Distress Some Democrats," Bloomberg, 12/3/09)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Eight To Nine Million People … Might Have To Change Their Coverage." "Well, let me, since you asked me a question, let me respond. The eight to nine million people that you refer to that might have to change their coverage, keep in mind, out of the 300 million Americans that we're talking about.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, 2/25/10)

Contrary To The President's Assertion, CBO Says Long Term Deficit Projections “Would Not Be Meaningful Because The Uncertainties Involved Are Simply Too Great"

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Our Cost-Cutting Measures Mirror Most Of The Proposals In The Current Senate Bill, Which Reduces Most People’s Premiums And Brings Down Our Deficit By Up To $1 Trillion Over The Next Two Decades." (President Obama, Prepared Remarks, 3/3/10)

CBO: "A Detailed Year-By-Year Projection For Years Beyond 2019, Like Those That CBO Prepares For The 10-Year Budget Window, Would Not Be Meaningful Because The Uncertainties Involved Are Simply Too Great." (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Harry Reid, 12/19/09, P. 15)

"Bring Down Costs"
The President's Own Actuary Says Health Expenditures "Would Increase"

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Finally, My Proposal Would Bring Down The Cost Of Health Care For … The Federal Government." (President Obama, Prepared Remarks, 3/3/10)

CMS On Senate Bill: "This Bill Would Increase [Health Expenditures] By An Estimated Total Of $222 Billion"

CMS: "…We Estimate That Overall National Health Expenditures Under This Bill Would Increase By An Estimated Total Of $222 Billion (0.6 Percent) During Calendar Years 2010-2019…" ("Estimated Financial Effects Of The 'Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,' As Passed By The Senate On December 24, 2009," Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services, P.4, 1/8/10)

"Current Law Baseline, Total National Health Expenditures (NHE)… Total, CY 2010-2019… $35,253.3 [Billion Dollars].” ("Estimated Financial Effects Of The 'Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,' As Passed By The Senate On December 24, 2009," Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services, P.36, 1/8/10) "Proposed-PPACA, Total National Health Expenditures (NHE)… Total, CY 2010-2019… $35,475.6 [Billion Dollars]." ("Estimated Financial Effects Of The 'Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,' As Passed By The Senate On December 24, 2009," Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services, P.36, 1/8/10)

"Impact Of PPACA, Total National Health Expenditures (NHE)… Total, CY 2010-2019… $222.3 [Billion Dollars]." ("Estimated Financial Effects Of The "Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act," As Passed By The Senate On December 24, 2009,” Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services, P.37, 1/8/10)


CBO: "Under The Legislation, Federal Outlays For Health Care Would Increase During The 2010–2019 Period, As Would The Federal Budgetary Commitment To Health Care. The net increase in that commitment would be about $200 billion over that 10-year period, driven primarily by the gross cost of the coverage expansions (including increases in both outlays and tax credits)." (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Harry Reid, 12/19/09, P. 18)

Hat tip to Marathon Pundit for this post

More 'Hellthcare' Reading

This nightmare really must end. The people do not want this healthcare reform legislation. We know it is a scam. We have spoken on this matter. By an overwhelming margin the American people said "NO!"

Mark Steyn explains why the dems are pushing forward even though they know it will cost them at the polls:

"Why is he doing this? Why let “health” “care” “reform” stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how many stakes you pound through his chest? Because it’s worth it. Big time. I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible."


"Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever expanding number of government jobs will be statists — sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily “compassionate” statists, but always statists. The short history of the post-war welfare state is that you don’t need a president-for-life if you’ve got a bureaucracy-for-life"

Larry Kudlow explains how Obamacare is a giant step in the wrong direction.

"One of the most galling features of this plan is a taxpayer-subsidized government-insurance entitlement for people earning up to 400 percent above the poverty line, or nearly $100,000 for a family of four. In other words, a middle-class health-care entitlement that will add millions of people to the federal dole. It’s all too reminiscent of the political dictum of the old New Dealer Harry Hopkins: tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect."

Thomas Jefferson Was Right

"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves."

-Thomas Jefferson

"I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

-Thomas Jefferson
...and so was George Washington:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

~George Washington~

02 March 2010

Conservative Revolution

Something came up in a discussion a few days ago on another blog. Someone called the Constitution a "progressive" document. Now I may be wrong about what that person meant by the word "progressive". When I hear the word I think about the early 20th century movement by the same name. In this context the word does not mean "progress." It does not mean "to make things better." Progressive politicians of the early 20th century decided that the Founding Fathers were wrong. They decided that the Constitution was an archaic document that would not function in the modern world. They wanted to 'progress' away from the Constitution. They wanted an active and powerful federal government. This was the antithesis of the Constitution.

If you mean to say that the Constitution was divinely inspired, then I apologize. If you meant that the Constitution was the work of truly enlightened men, then I agree.

The commonly held perception about the American Revolution and the Constitution was that it demonstrated a radical and fundamental societal change. It did not. The American Revolution was nothing like the French Revolution. It was not like any other revolution in history. It was a Conservative Revolution. I don't mean that the Founders were all conservatives as the word is defined today.* Our nation's First Principles were Libertarian principles. Many of the Founders were Classical Liberals. Of course, liberal does not mean the same thing today in America. Classical Liberalism and modern American liberalism are essentially opposite philosophies. Classical Liberals were more in line with Libertarianism.

Anyway, the American Revolution was about preserving the traditional rights that the American colonists had enjoyed as British citizens. They were not radicals. Glenn Beck keeps calling George Washington and other Founders 'radicals'. He says that we must choose between radicals like Van Jones or radicals like George Washington. The Founders were not radicals. They protested the British Parliament's encroachments on colonial liberties. They were in favor of limited government. They thought that they should be protected by the unwritten English Constitution that solidified the rights of British citizens.

The action of the British parliament to enact the Stamp Act, and other taxation, was against the English Constitution in the colonists’ view. The American colonists thought that they could count on the Magna Carta of 1215, the Petition of Right established in 1628, and the British Bill of Rights written in 1689. These documents, along with some English common law, formed the basis of a British “constitution” that the Founders first appealed to in order to solve the dispute with the British. The colonists even appealed to the King of England to step in on their behalf against the British Parliament. It was decided, however, that parliament was sovereign. Sovereignty rested with the parliament and not the British people, and certainly not the American colonists. This outraged the colonists.

The British Constitution, because so much of it was unwritten, was very flexible (today the left calls this a ‘living’ constitution). Parliament used this to their advantage. When faced with crippling debt after the Seven Years War (also known as the French and Indian Wars) Parliament enacted a series of revenue generating policies aimed primarily at the American colonies. Now the American colonists had long enjoyed a large degree of self-governance. They were ruggedly independent. They did not like the encroachment on their self-rule. In 1765 American colonists issued a joint statement of grievances against the British Parliament and the Stamp Act. The colonists protested that their “ancient chartered rights” were being violated. The colonists held the position that their own colonial legislatures should be the only body with the power to tax them. The colonists were not seeking to completely transform their society. They were used to self-governance and felt that it was their right under the British Constitution. They simply wished to retain self-rule. Captain Preston, a veteran of the Battle of Concord in 1775 said it best. He was asked by Judge Mellen Chamberlain in 1842 why he fought the British. A 91 year old Captain Preston replied “Young man, what we meant in going for those redcoats was this: We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.”

The American Constitution was written in the spirit of the American colonists’ desire for self-rule. The Constitution was written to prevent the federal government from ever taking too much power and encroaching on the rights of the states or that of the citizens. However, the Constitution distrusts the people almost as much as it distrusts the federal government. The people can be easily misled by a particularly capable orator or skillful politician. The Founders knew that democracy was a dangerous and temporary form of government that usually led to tyranny. Thus, the Founders intended the United States of America to be a Republic. That is why in the original Constitution the highest office that the people could vote for was the House of Representatives. Each state was a sovereign nation. When King George signed the Treaty of Paris ending the American War for Independence, he recognized 13 individual nations, not one big one. The Constitution was meant to set up a federation of nation-states. The states were to retain local control and were only agreeing to delegate certain powers to the federal government. Today our federal government is in direct violation to the principles spelled out in the Constitution. It has been so for about 100 years now to varying extents.

Like the American colonists before us those in the Tea Party movement, the 9-12 Project, and other grassroots movements based in Conservative-Libertarian ideology are not extremists. They are not radicals (though you can find a few nuts in every crowd.) They simply want a return to self-governance. I want to see a politician run on this platform: Low taxes, minimal regulation, and maximum freedom. I should throw local control in that mix as well. These are the principles of liberty the Founders meant for our country. This is what the Constitution was designed to preserve. The Founders were certainly not progressives. Progressives assume that mankind can be perfected. They assume that government can bring about this perfection and we can live in a fantasy utopia. The Founders understood that Man is flawed. People, governments, companies, etc. will always make mistakes. They will always fail to do the right thing at least some of the time. Government fails almost all of the time. The key is to strike a balance. The key is to limit the power of government, or individuals, to do damage to the rest of society. That is why we have are supposed to have a limited government with enumerated powers, rather than an omnipotent government with unlimited powers.

*Many of the Founders were Conservatives. Many were Classical Liberals, some may have been anarchists, most were deeply religious, one was an atheist (Paine), at least two were deists, some wanted a nationalist government, and some were monarchists (Alexander Hamilton gave a passionate speech at the Constitutional Convention in which he called for establishing a monarchy with George Washington as the first king.) That’s the greatness inherent in our Founding Fathers. They came from different backgrounds and believed in different ideologies, but they came together on the notion of liberty. They built the greatest bastion of freedom in human history.

27 February 2010

Send in the Clowns

I just got back from taking the kids to the circus. I was delighted to hear that global warming has now become a punchline for a clown skit. The clowns were trying to get a comical clown car to start and it backfired on them. Flames shot out and one of the clowns blamed it on global warming. Hilarious.

26 February 2010

Well Said

"If eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, incessant distractions are the way that politicians take away our freedoms, in order to enhance their own power and longevity in office. ... Few distractions have had such a long and impressive political track record as getting people to resent and, if necessary, hate other people. The most politically effective totalitarian systems have gotten people to give up their own freedom in order to vent their resentment or hatred at other people.... We have not yet reached these levels of hostility, but those who are taking away our freedoms, bit by bit, on the installment plan, have been incessantly supplying us with people to resent. One of the most audacious attempts to take away our freedom to live our lives as we see fit has been the so-called 'health care reform' bills that were being rushed through Congress before either the public or the members of Congress themselves had a chance to discover all that was in it. For this, we were taught to resent doctors, insurance companies and even people with 'Cadillac health insurance plans,' who were to be singled out for special taxes. Meanwhile, our freedom to make our own medical decisions -- on which life and death can depend -- was to be quietly taken from us and transferred to our betters in Washington. ... The more they can get us all to resent those they designate, the more they can distract us from their increasing control of our own lives -- but only if we sell our freedom cheap."
--economist Thomas Sowell

Just a Word

Okay, just a word on the healthcare summit:


Obama and his democrat cronies have overplayed their hand. It will probably cost them dearly at the polls, but if they can force this healthcare bill through, against the will of the American people, it won't matter. The damage will have been done. This summit was a sham. Obama and the dems clearly were never considering any form of bipartisanship. It is the dems who have been partisan from the beginning. They continue to arrogantly flaunt their utter contempt and disregard for the American people (whom overwhelmingly reject Obama's 'hellthcare' proposals) and their obvious disrespect for the Constitution's limitations on federal power. There is still a good chance that the healthcare bill will go down in flames. The dems still might not have the votes. This has been a democrat problem from the beginning. They never needed a single republican vote all year last year. The opposition came from within the democrat party. They still might lose a couple more democrat lawmakers who have principles, or are just worried about getting reelected. Either way I welcome their opposition to this healthcare overhaul that puts the federal government in charge of a good chunk of the American economy. Centralized planning fails everytime it is tried. When will we learn from the mistakes of the past? We are either going to let freedom prevail and let the American people solve these problems, or our nation will end up just another mediocre quasi-socialist totalitarian nightmare smoldering in the ash of history.

AWWW! Global Warming

Since I have been away for a while I am catching up on reading some of the other blogs. Here is a good piece on the recent global warming scandals.


PS, most of the last three months here at my house we have have about a foot of snow and temps averaging about 5-10 degrees BELOW normal. I sure could go for some of that global warming now. I wish there was some way to speed this thing up.

12 February 2010

I am Back...

...but I am not sure how long I will be back, and I do not know if I will have a lot of free time to devote to the blog. I have posted the comments that were pending on some old posts. Sorry for the delay folks. I made some brief replies, but since the threads are old I don't see reason to spend a lot of time on them. I hope to stop by the other blogs when I have time to see how everything is going. Thanks for being patient.

25 January 2010

I Apologize for the Disappearing Act

Some things have come up in the recent weeks that required my immediate and undivided attention. I apologize for ignoring the blog lately. I am very busy right now, but I want to make sure no feels like I have forgotten them. I know there are some comments that I haven't looked at or replied to yet. Sorry for the delay. I am not trying to be rude or anything. I simply have had little time to be on the computer. I have a lot to say about recent events. I will try to post in the near future and reply to any comments that I have not yet read. If you commented and it hasn't posted yet it is because I have not read it yet. The blog comments are moderated so that I remember to read and reply to them. As soon as I get time I will reply to any comments still OTF. Hang in there folks. If things slow down in the next couple weeks I will be back to the blog more consistently.

15 January 2010

Finally Someone Calling Terrorism "Terrorism"

An administration official has finally called the Ft. Hood Terrorist Attack a terrorist attack.

A senior Obama administration official, speaking on background Friday to a group of reporters, characterized the Fort Hood shooting as "an act of terrorism,"

My favorite part of the story was this:

Hasan is in poor condition; he's paralyzed from the chest down and suffers from incontinence.

The perfect fate for a deluded jihadist.

14 January 2010

Now Our Rights Come from Government

This is scary. This video is from last month, but I wanted to post about it. First of all I am ashamed that there is an idiot like this in the senate, but I am not surprised. He is laying out exactly what I predicted. The progressives are passing this healthcare bill just to get the structure in place and later on they will add to it and engineer a more complete government takeover of the healthcare system. The most shocking thing is that he says that government can grant rights to the people. He says healthcare is an inalienable right now. He says that whenever "we" (meaning the senate) pass a right "we" always "build on it." So now the government grants us our rights. Not God or nature. So our rights are subject to revocation from the government now. This is very telling. Whenever they slip up like this it speaks volumes about their intentions. This may be the beginning of some very frightening stuff.

Housing Collapse

This is from a previous post I made back in June. The housing collapse recently came up in another discussion so I am reposting this portion:

Many people have expressed a lack of understanding on how we came to be in this economic mess in the first place. I did some reading and here is some of the factors that caused the meltdown. First there was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This created an "affirmative obligation" that banks had to give more loans to poor people and minorities. In 1989 Congress changed the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and made banks record racial and other personal data on mortgage applications.Then in 1995 the Clinton Treasury Dept. began tracking loans by neighborhoods, income groups, and races. They used this data to rate the performance of banks. These ratings were used to determine if bank mergers, acquistions, or new bank branches would be approved. So the government encouraged banks to give more loans to poor and minorities. Groups like ACORN and other community activists began extorting banks and pressured them into making more bad loans. With all of this going on banks were forced to abandon traditional underwriting standards. Otherwise the government would not allow the banks to expand. This government interference created the subprime mortgage market. Then in 1992 the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development created government corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up bundles of these sub-prime loans.This diversified the risk and made more money available for banks to make more risky loans.Then Congress passed something called the Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act. As with most legislation the title did not match the bill. This essentially mandated that companies had to buy 45% of all loans from people of low to moderate incomes. In 1995 the treasury dept. established the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund and provided banks with tax money to encourage even more high risk subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie were not regulated or forced to adhere to standard business and oversight practices. When people called for them to open up their books and comply with ethical and financially sound regulations top congressional allies of Fannie and Freddie, including Barney Frank Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and others resisted all efforts of reform. Meanwhile Fannie and Freddie executives cooked the books and awarded themselves millions in bonues. Government interference and social engineering created the derivatives market. Deriviatives are contracts. One bank would sell the risk associated with a mortgage to another company in exchange for payments based on the loan's value. It was kind of like buying insurance. People were gambling. They were betting on which mortgages would be foreclosed and which would not. This practice spread and multiplied the risk of bad mortgages to other parts of the economy. The last factor that played a huge role in the economic crisis was the Fed. From Jan. '01 to June '03 the Fed slashed interest rates from 6.5% to 1%. So the Fed imposed an easy money policy that artificially manipulated the housing market, interfered with normal market conditions, and destabilized the economy. When everything began to crash the government started spending money like crazy. First it was TARP at the end of '08. This program alone might exceed $1 Trillion. or 7% of our GDP. $350 billion of that TARP money is currently unaccounted for. The Fed also began bailing out companies like Bear Stearns and AIG, and of course Fannie and Freddie got $200 billion. The Fed all together gave out $7 trillion. Then of course there is the so called stimulus package which has also been a staggering waste of money. Thus far it has been a slush fund wrought with corruption and fraud. All of this spending has slowed economic recovery and will cause a lot of pain in the future. This thing is not over yet. So all in all there are a lot of culprits responsible for this economic meltdown. Its origins are further back than people realize. This storm has been coming for a long time and there are no clear skies in sight. So cheer up the worst is yet to come! ;-)

13 January 2010

Wednesday Hero

11 January 2010

Brrrrrr! It's Cold!

Yeah, I think we can move on from this global warming nonsense now.

30 years of global cooling?

Do the math.

Florida wildlife is dying from record COLD temps.

I have done a lot of reading about global warming and climate change. The numbers that the left likes to crank out do not add up. When it comes to climate the only constant is change. Where I live I am facing record cold temps and record snow fall amounts. Now warmists will say "short term trends don't mean anything!" My point exactly. Most of the global warming research is based on about 120 years of temperature data. A mere moment in time compared to the age of planet earth. The earth has been much much warmer than it is now. It has been much colder. It will get much colder and then maybe much warmer in the millenium to come. There is no climate change or global warming crisis. It is the invention of the political left for the purpose of seizing power and wealth. I have said before that there are serious environmental issues facing us. The global warming alarmism is undermining any common sense efforts that could be made to improve the environment. The engine of economic growth will fuel the creation of new technologies that would be beneficial to the planet in the long run. Perhaps a new eco-friendly energy source. But the solutions proposed by the left will only prevent or delay such progress. You see the left is not about progress. Progressives are anything but progressive. They are about tearing people down and lower expectations. Global warming solutions being proposed will lower our standard of living. The left wants to make everyone equally poor while securing wealth for themselves through the brute force of government.

06 January 2010

Wednesday Hero

For today's hero click on the link below to RW & RM:                
Cpl. Carlos E. Gil Orozco 

Several Obamacare Provisions Unconstitutional?

From YID With LID:

Section 3403 of the Senate health bill, establishing a commission to cut Medicare spending, says the law can't be changed or repealed in the future. This whopper shows that Congress thinks its work should be set in stone. Wrong. The people always have the right to elect a new Congress to change or repeal what a previous Congress has done.

A Senate health-bill amendment mysteriously allocates $100 million to an unnamed facility that "shall be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States that contains a state's sole public academic medical and dental school" (Sec. 10502, p. 328-329). Why not name the facility?

This pork deal was arranged by Sen. Chris Dodd for the University of Connecticut Health Center, although 11 hospitals in the nation technically meet these specifications. If Congress wrote the provision in Polish or Russian to keep the public in the dark, it would be unconstitutional. The language is a deception. The fact that legislators commonly do this makes it more damaging, not less so.

The bills require you to enroll in a "qualified health plan," whether you want it or not. Forcing people to buy insurance obviously reduces the number of uninsured. But Congress doesn't have the authority to force people to buy a product.

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Nev.) said on the Senate floor, "If Congress may require individuals to purchase a particular good or service . . . We could simply require that Americans buy certain cars . . . for that matter, we could attack the problem of obesity by requiring Americans to buy fruits and vegetables."

Some Congress members claim the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution empowers them to impose a mandate. But they're taking the phrase out of context. The Constitution gives Congress power to tax and spend for the general welfare, but not to make other kinds of laws for the general welfare.

The Senate bill (pages 320-324) claims the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution gives Congress this authority. But for half a century, states have regulated health insurance. In fact, individuals are barred from buying insurance in any state except where they live, the antithesis of interstate commerce.

Congressional majorities have frequently resorted to the commerce clause to justify their lawmaking. In FDR's first term, Congress cited it to pass the National Industrial Recovery Act, which gave the federal government power to micromanage local businesses, setting wages and hours and even barring customers from selecting their live chickens at the butcher. Two Brooklyn brothers, owners of Schechter Poultry Corp., a kosher chicken business, challenged that interference. In 1935, the US Supreme Court ruled the NIRA unconstitutional.

In 1995, the high court again admonished Congress against using the commerce clause as a basis for expanded lawmaking, even when the purpose is as worthy as keeping handguns out of a school zone (US v. Lopez). The court ruled that Congress must stick to its enumerated powers and leave states to police school zones (and, perhaps, mandate health insurance).

Never before has the federal government intruded into decisions made by doctors for privately insured patients, except on narrow issues such as drug safety. Nothing in the Constitution permits it. But the Senate bill makes you enroll in a plan and then says that only doctors who do what the government dictates can be paid by your plan.

"Qualified plans" can contract only with a doctor who "implements such mechanisms to improve health-care quality as the [current or future] secretary [of Health and Human Services] may by regulation require" (Sec. 1311, p. 148-49). That covers all of medicine, from heart care to child birth, stents to mammograms.

Finally, the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment bars government from taking your property without compensation. It should protect everyone, no matter how unpopular -- even insurance companies, but Congress ignored it in writing the health bill. The Senate version goes beyond reining in insurance-company abuses, a just cause, and actually caps insurance-company profit margins at well below current levels, robbing shareholders. Next year, Congress could impose similar caps on profit margins of bodegas, pizzerias and grocers, by arguing that food -- also a necessity -- is too expensive. Your business could be next.