Campain Button or Reset Button ... the choice won't be yours for long

A few years back, Robert H. Bork penned a bit of non-fiction, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah". One of the most interesting thrusts of his book, as bought up in a review by Diane West at Public Interest, in it's entirety here, reads as follows:

In a concise, illuminating critique, Bork explains how the Founding Fathers, in their pretensions to near-infallibility, overlooked the fallibility of human nature. That is, while granting the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all men, the Founders took for granted their own inherited moral capital - i.e., the Judeo-Christian tradition and classical thought - and made no provision for its perpetuation.

Indeed, we some twelve years after the books release, continue to bear witness to this. Look at the hoops those who are avowed statists/progressives/marxists, go through in order to get (the collective) us to become more accommodating of diversity for diversity's sake, tolerant accepting of all "faiths", the dumbing down/indoctrination of our future generations in the schools/colleges, and finally, (because of the above marginalizing of religions) the bowing to the State as the one supreme entity.

However, it doesn't end here, with the hubris of so called leaders from either side of the political spectrum demanding "We The People" humbly bow down before them, excepting their view of what's best for us. No, both sides (though perhaps arriving at it from different directions) have a much larger vision of what needs to be done. They, quite simply, are planning and perusing nothing less then the "globalization of humankind".

It is not some conspiracy lurking in the dark shadows of some one two kings shy of a full deck. Nor the wishful thinking of an Illuminati fearing anti-mason nutjob. Noted author Jerome R Corsi's May 19, 2006 column for Human Events gives a brief but enlightening synopsis of what has already happened, and what, most likely is to come.

This is nothing really new, President Bush's lack of success with his (supposed) immigration reform and securing of the borders, give credence to Corsi's work. And now there is this. Yes, the GOP candidate for president, Senator McCain, looks to be wanting to change the paint job on the 'ol "Straight Talk Express" to "The North American Union Express."

McCain proposed a new organization, the League of Democracies, to "harness the vast influence of more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests."

"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed," the presumptive Republican nominee told the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. "We need to listen - we need to listen - to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."
Source: Foon Rhee - The Boston Globe March 27, 2008

Why stop at the new borders of the Unión Norteamericana ... err ... I mean, North American Union? When we can, according to John McCain, (Are we going for the "third time is a charm" thing here?) form yet another League of Nations... ahhh ... United Nations ... damn ... "League of Democracies" ... yeah, that's the ticket!! After all we are the little kids on the block age-wise. All those Euro-pee-ans are soooo much more sophisticated and cultured then we is and all. It might be best if we just get rid of that pesky constitution once and for all. Lets get on board this one world thing. We can still have our own "nation" (note those were finger quotes around nation). But on the oft chance we happen to elect a leader that gets a bit too uppity, why the "real leaders" will be able to slap em down.

And make no mistake, tho they may be fools, these are not idiots. It will be done using the tried and true tools the libs (and their masters, the communists) have used for years . Incramentalism. First comes the various "U's" (European. Asian. North American), eventually to be followed by one big (not so) happy Union, Federation, Republic ... whatever is decided on at the time.

You believe in the constitution as written? Forgettaboutit! It will have been gutted (if not out rightly removed in toto). You believe in God? Not a problem, just don't expect any of the moral framework we hold to be based on what has been observed of the human condition over the past couple thousand years to be of worth... and as long as YOU don't force your moral guidelines on us, then you can keep your religion ... but we will be watching.

Guns????? You MUST be kidding!!!

Education??? The best and brightest will get a shot ... the rest of you ... eat your alloted caloric intake, drink your happy juice, and be quick about it! Your shift starts in 15 minutes.

America? "I remember gramps talking about that ONCE ... just before he went to "the home".

As for the here and now. We don't have the options the founding fathers (and a generation or so afterward) had. There is no place else to head off to ... to start over. We have only two choices.

Drink the kool-ade, while mentally and physically masturbating our freedoms away, and of course enjoy the ride.

Or

Hit the reset button.

I am ready for the button. What say you??

The Maverick from Arizona

Senator John McCain. First, let me get this out of the way, Senator McCain was a POW, and served Honorably in the United States Navy. His service to his country is not now nor has ever been in question by me. And I flat refuse to go there. . The man is as dangerous to this country as any Democrat, and as disingenuous towards the Constitution as Mike Huckabee would be...

Taken from "State of the Union and Primary Pleasantries"

I have posted about McCain and his less then stellar actions in the past. And on my opinion(s) of the man. Being he is in the running (and currently tied for the lead in the Florida Primary) for the Republican nod for President, perhaps a look at a couple or three posts from the past would be in order. This man is not to be trusted! His only saving grace, and it is questionable as to whither or not he will stay the course, is his supposed stand on the War on Terror.

With all the war of words about the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and their ad depicting Kerry in a less than favorable light (Truth hurts don't it Kerry). Aside from the whining and pseudo legal garbage put out by the DNC (and others for the Kerry Konvoy), one voice spoke out, which judging by his past actions isn't too surprising at first look. Yes, I am talking about Arizona's own Senator John McCain.

There has been talk over the years about his checkered political past (Keating Five ring a bell?), including the election ads cure-all (that didn't)which bitch-slaps ignores that pesky first amendment, the CFR. But, his statements concerning the ad placed by the Swifties, is not really about his being a "maverick", or even being an independent thinker.....it goes deeper.

As most folks know Senator McCain was a POW during Viet Nam. There have been other sites and other comments, over the years, suggesting he got the majority of his wounds by not following procedure upon ejecting from his aircraft over the middle of Hanoi. I would humbly suggest until you have done the same, you might want to pipe down about that....ejecting from an aircraft even in optimal conditions is not failsafe....and though I have concerns about the Senator, that isn't one of them.

He landed in the middle of " the Western Lake" and was removed from it by one Vietnamese. Thus started his 5 1/2 year stint as a prisoner of war.
And, on his fourth day of captivity and believing he was going to die, McCain chose instead to deal with his captors. I said, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."**. Even this almost failed to work, until the Vietnamese realized he was the son of a senior Naval Officer. Now, only those who have been in that part of hell experienced by POW's of Viet Nam, would have any honest insight to what McCain was exposed to....the rest of us can imagine...based on what we have read or heard from other POW's. Is he a turncoat to his fellows based on his own admissions in so far as he claims to have freely violated the Code of Conduct all service members are bound to? I don't want to address that concern...indeed it is not as important as another question I do have.

Was Senator McCain broken so hard that he can never exorcise the demons his actions past and present would indicate he still faces? If he were just a small town mayor, or a little bureaucrat in a dimly lit office, that may not be much of a concern...certainly others have matters of self worth and conscience they must face constantly...But how many are US Senators....and past (and possible future) contenders for the highest office in the land?

Fact: McCain actively sought to dismiss and marginalize attempts of finding out whether there were American POWs/MIAs still alive in Viet Nam and possibly neighboring countries

Fact: After keeping his distance from Massachusetts Senator John Kerry for a number of years, obstinately due to Kerry's well documented anti-war stance, He has been alleged to have "Made his peace" with Kerry while on a trip to Kuwait.

Fact: The very enemy which caused him physical and mental damage, became the beneficiary of his actions in bringing about more open trade as one of a number of US Senators seeking to help open relations with Viet Nam.

Fact: When fellow vets attempt to present their side of the ongoing saga that is the Kerry attempt to rewrite (Kerry's) history of the Viet Nam war, he summarily dismisses them and calls upon the Bush administration to do the same.

The bottom line is there is more to Senator McCain then meets the eye. Based on what has appeared in print (US News and World Report, Congressional Record[s], McCain's own statements, "The Nightingale", etc) he is a man who seeks to put Viet Nam well behind him....even if the costs are far greater than just the personal well being and mental health of one Senator John McCain.

It is one thing to allow Kerry to dodge and weave as he puts on his "Visions of Viet Nam Heroics Pornshow ™" and attack those without credentials or affidavit's to back up their accusations. But the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are NOT in that group Senator McCain. They have the poof, they have been there, been wounded, and seen their comrades in arms die there.

You have talked about courage. You have talked about falling short of what you would consider to be honorable conduct. You have the chance here to do what would be considered to be the honorable thing, in really listening to what the Swift Boat vets have to say. And, in doing all of what is in your power to ensure the current Commander in Chief is returned to office for another four years. We are at war Senator, and though he is not perfect, President Bush has the clarity of vision to recognize the evil we are fighting for what it is. Perhaps, in finding the courage within yourself to drop the blinders and see the truth, you will be able to eliminate some of the demons who dine on your soul daily.

"John McCain, Haunted by Demons?" August 12th, 2004 - Snugg Harbor

This was followed by this(which referred to the blockquote above):

I received more than a few comments about this post when it appeared a number of months ago. The major piece of legislation co-authored by the good Senator has been in the news and making major waves throughout the blogsphere over the past few weeks. Perhaps it is as good a time as any to take a walk down memory lane...The main point of my post still stands. Senator McCain in all good conscience needs to step down from his senate seat and retire. I have the greatest respect for the senators Naval service, and for his time spent as a POW. But, I posit his time in hell, has at the very least affected his powers of reasoning. It's not his fault, and it may not be fair (as things in life often are) but his actions as a Senator, and the legislation he has backed or sponsored, as well as his actions as a member of the Senate fact finding committee on the issue of POWs/MIAs are questionable at best.

"Revisiting Senator McCain"- March 3rd, 2005 Snugg Harbor

And finally, there is this:

I have been following, with interest, not only the hub-bub about the BCRA and the FEC as it relates specifically to blogging and bloggers at large, but about the exploits of it's more notable author, Senator John McCain.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has been on this item and the Senator like a good hunting dog...ferreting out bits and pieces of the truth along with giving us larger swatches about one of the main players in this madness.

But I am noticing something else here.

Yes there was the Keating Five scandal, and though he came out of it with little more than a slap on the hand (and a hope that the voting public has short memories), McCain did admit he was wrong. This major incident was spun over the years as his main personal reason for the BCRA. That, there exists a possibility legislators could become corrupted by the large amounts of money out their in corporate coffers and PAC land. The average voter across the nation (assuming McCain's ambition for power and the presidency are as strong as they ever were) could, if spun right, believe McCain has learned his lesson.

But wait you say, what about information currently being brought to light about his ties with Cablevision and their contributions to the Reform Institute. In fact looking at the cronyism prevalent at the Reform Institute, and McCain's ties to same, if this is the actions of an active "reformer", one might wonder when wolves became just another subspecies of chicken.

Okay, lets not look at the above. After all it's been many years since Keating...and one can't fault a fella from back sliding. Oops, it seems Mark R. Levin, dug up a bit more about McCain getting monies from outside sources at different times from 1989 through 2002.

So, what is the big deal here? To me it is simple, and Mr. Levin brings it to light in this fashion:

"Of course, I don't believe the mere receipt of campaign contributions is corrupting. In fact, it's evidence of representative government at work. The public has every right to try to influence the direction of their government. But McCain believes this activity to be corrupt, yet he took the money anyway."

And that appears to be McCain in a nutshell....the man is a hypocrite.

This brings me back to McCain's recent statements about the FEC and the BCRA not effecting, or having any effect on, individual bloggers. Judging on how the man is able to apparently talk reform out of one side of his mouth while feathering his campaign coffers or providing "capital" shelter for his cronies. You have got to wonder not only about John McCain's ability to prevent the erosion of YOUR first amendment rights, but his willingness to do so as well.

March 10th, 2005 -Snugg Harbor

Is this the man you want to see as Commander-in-Chief ? He is nothing more then a liberal in GOP clothing on every issue other then (perhaps) the War on Terror. At least with Obama, you know what you are getting. Senator Obama is upfront about what he is and what he stands for. (Though I can't see myself voting for him either. Not even close to my political stance.) But with McCain ... only John and God know what is going on in that muddled mind of his. If he gets the nomination, be afraid, be very afraid.

** original link no longer exists...updated with a more current item from Newsmax.com archives-Harbor Master

Are You Ready To Make A Choice?

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. Second Amendment-United States Constitution

We all have choices to make. Some are simple, daily, repetitive ... what to wear to work, what's for dinner tonight, is there anything worth watching on the boob tube.

At other times we face decisions of a bit more complex nature. Is this really the right car for me and my family. Who "is" the best person for the job. Should I stand (and maybe "die"), metaphorically, on this hill, or concede to the wishes of my wife.

Then there are the occasional really tough choices. Like; Should I risk losing the best friend I ever had by telling them what they really need to hear, or just agree with them and keep their friendship (assuming they are in some sort of self destructive state/situation).

Then there are the real life or death kinds of choices. And not just in a physical sense. The ones that can spiritually wound or even kill (or lead to the death of your soul)

We all make choices.

I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The Oath of enlistment/re-enlistment of the Armed Forces

Some of us feel that this oath, once taken, is taken for life. That our sacred oath demands we are duty bound to the oath even after enlistments and office holdings have expired. That one is honor bound to it ... for life. That there are ideals and beliefs which once realized, are worth the total investment of self. Even to the point of "that last full measure of devotion".

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Oath of Office

Some of us don't. They take political gambles with your first amendment rights, and lose. They allow for the further encroachment of our property rights. Seek to obliterate our borders, sovrenty, and national security. And now, an out and out attack on the linchpin of the Constitution, the Second Amendment..

And Some of us plan on supporting the Constitution as it was originally intended, especially if elected to higher office.

In one respect, the cave dweller over in Afghanistan has it correct. We are comfortable here in the west, especially in America. We have been blessed with a prosperity and abundance of riches, and standard of living, no other nation on earth as realized. And (the collective) we have come to expect our government to take appropriate action when needed. That the government will take care of what ever needs to be taken care of. It can mass an army large enough to meet our defense. It can through sanctions, diplomatic meetings, behind the scenes arm twisting, bend the rest of the world to our ends (or come up with a mutually agreeable compromise). But what this has done, over the course of the past 60-70 years, is to accelerate, in a negative way, a shift in personal responsibility.

It's easier to let someone else do it. To defend you. To pay a larger burden of the expense of running the government which is providing you with welfare (tax the rich make em bleed...I don't have enough...they have too much). To let the police take care of all vestiges of crime. (We don't NEED guns....that's what the cops are for anyhow.)

No it isn't! With perhaps one exception. It is quite possible that in the process of defending you ...your son/daughter/husband/wife will pay for your comfort. This would be perhaps the only legitimate extension to the federal government. But as to the others. Living off the dole, due to the (successful) efforts of others? Granting the police more and more power to battle crime when the moral code(s) used to define just what constitutes *a crime* become more and more nebulous, to the point where even ones thoughts are suspect? All the while, you are asked (cajoled, scared, lied to) to give up (some, and only for a short time if possible) personal freedoms to achieve these ends.

I guess it is at least partially due to human nature things are as they are. But ask yourself this ... at what price freedom?

At what point do I ... must I ... make a choice to let things continue in the direction they are going. At which personal line in the sand, after many such lines have been drawn, and crossed, do I say "that's it, that's enough. You have gone too far into what is MINE by divine right (or natural law if you prefer). I don't know what the answer is for you. Never the less, the time is fast approaching when a choice (or choices) will have to be made.

Are you ready? Will you be ready? To Make A Choice? Or will you let others make it for you?

Update changed the link to "the Second Amendment" above and moved other link to end of post. -Harbor Master.
Update2Seems someone in Congress also gets it. Head on over and add your two cents... A choice in the right direction

Don't Smoke em' If You (Still) Got em'

"We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience."

-- Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the state of Virginia, 1782)

Hi, My name is Guy, and I am a smoker. I have been dancing with darling nicotine since 1971. Should I stop? Perhaps. For a fact it would allow my lungs to operate in a (much) more efficient fashion. It would allow for a sharp drop in my over all chances of succumbing to either lung cancer and or a heart attack in what ever alloted time is left me on this earth. My clothes (and I) would generally smell a whole lot better. The actions taken by my state (and 23 others ... if one believes the propaganda) would not directly effect me as I would no longer feel the need for a smoke while having an adult beverage at a bar or after a meal (or cup of coffee) dining out.

Everything stated in the above paragraph is true ... except for the last sentence.

The actions taken by the Peoples Republic of Illinois does effect you wheither or not you smoke or have never seen tobacco in its processed state in your life.

Some religions in their doctrine condemn/forbid/strongly admonish the use of intoxicants (of which, tobacco is one). That is their belief/choice. If I belong to any one of those, I have the choice to either follow said doctrine or not, and suffer the consequences for doing so.

For reasons of safety, smoking is prohibited in certain businesses/areas. If you deal with oxygen, for example, it is not a bright idea to be smoking in the general area. In the military you do not smoke while on watch (that lit butt makes a great target).

Courtesy/civility/rules of decorum dictate, if one has any social etiquette/manners at all, that you refrain from smoking during a number of social gatherings/occasions. As a rule, one does not smoke in church (at the very least during services/mass). At formal gatherings of civic/fraternal organizations you will not be allowed to puff. It is polite to ask (or it was, when you could still smoke in restaurants) the patrons next to you, if they mind if you smoke. It was not required, but was the civil thing to do.

In short, the almighty state has decided for you, what is not only in your best interest, and by implication, that it knows better then you do what is best/socially acceptable/morally-ethically correct. That you do not have a choice as an individual to manage your affairs be they physical/social/mental/moral/business related/leisure related.

No, smoking in and of itself, may not be the best thing one can do. But it IS a legal substance (for adults). The state is hypocritical enough to realize this and tax the substance accordingly ... to make a tidy profit off the sale of same.

I am more concerned about the precedence set here. (And a strong argument could be made this was already started with the helmet/seatbelt laws of years past.) We all are, as fully functioning adults allowed to make choices. Some may not be the best (no seatbelt for example) but the bottom line is we as citizens of a supposed free society are supposed to be able to make these choices... and then live with whatever consequences are the result of these actions. This is not, nor has it ever been, the responsibility of the state to make these choices for us. Or why even establish a legal majority (the age of 18 or 21 depending on location) if the state seeks to be the final abater in all matters.

For the sake of this post we will stick to smoking. If I am an owner of a bar and I decide to restrict smoking on my premises, then I should be able to do so and financially live or die with that choice. My patrons will dictate as to wither or not it was a smart business move. Conversely, if I elect to allow smoking the same should apply. If enough people are going to frequent my establishment to drink and smoke, then I will make money. If not, then perhaps I need to back up and regroup... re-think my business plan ... and go from there. But (assuming it isn't illegal) it is not any of the states business to tell me how to run my business. And this goes for all laws which dictate (short of those dealing with safety issues ... fire codes/food prep/storage and the like) same.

The more we allow for the state to intrude into our personal affairs, in the long run, the less freedom we will have. The less freedom of choice. The less we will be able to be adults. We will become wards of the state. Bowing to their will.

The first of this year the bar was lowered, yet again, regarding personal freedom. Another of your choices as to how you desired to live (enjoy?) your life was taken from you. It may have been for all the best intentions. But the next time the state cares to intrude (and rest assured there WILL be a "next time") it has become that much easier for the state to do so.

Need an example:
"I am sorry Mrs. Smith, I would love to sell you the super size fries with your order, but your body fat card says you don't qualify for them." No, the state would never go after over weight people ... would they????

Tis The Season

"It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship."

-- John Adams (Thoughts on Government, 1776)

This quote, courtesy of The Patriot Post, along with the fast approach of the holidays, got me to wondering ... wondering what was said word for word in the Constitution regarding "religion". So to refresh my five active brain cells, I looked it up. Couldn't have been easier, the first line of the first amendment and all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

- First Amendment to the United States Constitution

So, in plain English, it states the legislative branch can't make any laws in respect to ANY religion, in placing it above (or by my reckoning, below) any other, in the eyes of "the State". They also cannot prohibit anyone from practicing their faith ... the exception to this being when the practice of same places another's life/liberty/property in jeopardy.

Indeed, even the ersatz religion of submission, otherwise known as Islam, by the first amendment, is allowable. However, (and this will cause the progressives to get their knickers in a knot for sure) being we are "at war" with (at the very least) the more extreme practitioners of said "faith", perhaps it is time to take some much needed and stronger measures regarding Islam.

Can we do this? Yes, we have the technology. Should we do it? Sure! Precedence has been established regarding groups who have posed as potential threats, while still affording them the right to peaceful assembly, (assuming they haven't broken existing laws) and freedom of speech. As has been done to various Communist, neo-nazi, and supremacist groups, perhaps monitoring of Mosques and other meeting places of said Islamists, would not be beyond the pale. (If, upon further review, said Mosque and attendees were found to be free of ties to terrorists/terrorism, and or were morphing into something more benign then any of the current forms of Islam, they would be left alone.)

Practice/follow what you will, but allow me the same opportunity. This is what Adams was saying above, and what the first amendment seeks to grant. So why do the atheists take offense to the majority of this country seeking to follow their respective flavors of Judaism/Christianity? Most people in any given town accept Christ as their savior and seek to celebrate his birth in late December. This used to result in there being decorations of the season (of both a secular and sacred nature) placed through out said town, usually with a nativity scene placed in the town square. It was a nod to the majority ofcitizens of said town ... of their shared commonality in faith. It was NOT meant to be a statement of "Our faith is better then yours" (or better then your desire to involve yourself in no faith at all). A good case in point? Well, a number of years back, I happened to the good people of Skokie, IL. had a large menorah, off the main drag in town, lit up during the Season of Hanukkah. Being there is a large (if not majority) in town that are of either Jewish lineage and or practice said faith, it shouldn't be surprising. And it is as it should be. (Nor can I ever remember a group of Christians massing around the Skokie city hall demanding the removal of same.)

The followers/practitioners of those religions/faiths/philosophies which are in the minority have the right to practice same (as stated above). What they don't have (although it has been accorded to them because of progressives agendas) is the right to restrict the majorities acknowledging what part their respective faiths have played in the development, and implementation of, the foundation of this great nation.

Crossposted at Cigar Intelligence Agency

Tired Of The Progressives? It's Our Fault! .

Was watching a video clip from yesterdays "Youtube Debate" over at the Rott. My first thought was Senator Biden is yet another of the kool-aid drinking, "the State knows what's best for you", I'm gonna make this MY err ... a perfect world even if I have to ram it down your throat and or (have someone ELSE) take out the whole lot of you, in order to do so, asshats. And that he is. And he is a danger (as are most all other liberal/statist/progressives ... but that is a story for the not to distant future) to most, if not all, of our Constitutional guarantees.

But upon a bit of reflection. Mr Biden (he ain't my Senator ... not that the ones I have are any better ... and trust me they are not!) is not the only one at fault here. Because a large part of the blame for what we have to put up with in Congress, the Senate, the White House (and by extension, the Supreme Court) is our fault!

When did this country or more correctly, the majority of it's population, forget or chose to ignore, our responsibilities?

We complain about the erosion of our rights and liberties. Yet we not only continue to elect people who spend an ever greater part of their time in elected office stripping them away. We bemoan the fact with each passing day it seems there is a new attack on our "rights", yet at the same time we collectively sit in the comfort of our homes, mentally (if nothing else) saying; "Ok, you just crossed the line, and this really torques me off!!" (Or language a tad more salty then that.) But within a day or two (Letters written to the non-listening elitist cadre otherwise known as the Senate/Congress, or phone calls to same being used if we REALLY get riled.) do nothing more then make yet another line in the sand a bit further out then the last. And I don't single myself out for any exemplary treatment, I am as guilty as the rest.

Why?

1. We are too comfortable. We have it pretty damn good (and the left knows it). My generation (the baby boomers) and the one immediately following, have had the highest standard of living of any group of peoples on this earth. This leads to the second point

2. We don't want to really rock the boat. We (despite the left and the media remarks to the contrary) are all social creatures and we want to co-exist with our fellows as much as possible. And life, despite the occasional spikes, is good. (Or so we are constantly reminded by the media ... look how bad the rest of the world is ... see how much America wastes compared to them?)

3. We are getting older. Yeah, I know that 50 is the "new 35-40", would someone tell that to my knees and other joints, they seem to be still on the old time table. Fact is, we might have the wisdom/maturity/experience level which can, to some degree, compensate for the seemingly endless energy and drive of youth. But knowing all that we amassed/built up/saved up for would most likely be gone if we elected to "push the reset button", is a very sobering thought. We need to remember the founders of this country gave their all to secure the liberties we see eroding before our eyes. Can we, as those who inherited these birthrights do no less?

4. We are Nice Guys - When we should be Adults (part 1)
When times are good in this country, we are more then willing to try and figure out if there is a way to share the wealth with those less fortunate. Especially if we have been in difficult straits ourselves. Again, human nature plays a part. We are a charitable people. And so, over the course of the 60's, 70's and some of the 80's we collectively allowed for vast sums of monies to be used in what was known as "the war on poverty" or "The Great Society". It was an honorable thing to strive for and based on good intentions (yeah, I know where that road goes). But we were nice guys ... when we realized the war on poverty turned into nothing more then the creation of a welfare state/class (Whom the progressives use as yet another group of victims needing to be "protected" ... for their own good of course.), we should have stepped in and put a stop to it then and there. We didn't. Not until the 90's was any substantive changes put in place to stop the monies going out.

5. We are Nice Guys - When we should be Adults (part 2)
The liberal mantra, often said before, is that we only do things because we are "meanspirited", "evil", or just our and out corrupt. When in reality our actions are based not on personal gain, or because our strings are being pulled by some mysterious cabal/military-industrial complex, or religious zealotry, or for you lefty bigots out there- "those evil Zionist joooooows". Rather we do them because they must be done. This is true on a personal level. In the raising of families. It is true on the local level, in the desire to live in a healthy vibrant community. And is also true at the National level. Wither it is fighting a war, cutting wasteful spending, lowering taxes, or trying to get government out of the home and business. (Sadly, that is what the Republican party used to stand for. It seems to have morphed into something altogether different over the past 8 years. But that is a story for a later date.) As reasoning, thinking, adults knowing this to be true, we do our best to act accordingly, in any given situation, no matter how hard it may be to do so.

Yet, as a political entity (the GOP), or as a philosophical point of view (conservatism/moralistic/some neo-libertarian), we often refuse to face our adversaries directly and call them on points of contention. We accept diversity for diversity's sake. Forsaking the ideal of accepting an individual as just that... an individual who should be held accountable for their actions (for good or ill) and not based on their gender/race/color/creed. We have allowed for the beginning (or at least the ground work) of the balkanization of America. With the liberals bringing about the constant formation of new classes/types of victims, and the acceptance of allowing every class/race/ethnicity their own hyphen before "American". "American" should be all you ever need to say when someone asks "Where you from?" period. And English should be the first language spoken (at least in the school or when conducting business with the public at large) when spoken to. Yes there are, and perhaps will always be, "Little Italy's, "Greektowns", Chinatowns, ect. And one should not be surprised to hear the native language of those who live there being spoken. Or their culture being proudly on display. This is all part of assimilation in to the melting pot which is America. But at the end of the day English first, Spanish, German, Chinese, Polish or which ever your flavor is, second. But we let this go to the wayside. Out of a misplaced sense of "fairness" perhaps, but that "being a nice guy" attitude seems to be the driving force behind it.

6. We are shrinking in numbers. Those who hold our countries original ideals and form of governance (the Constitution, rule of law, a country composed of Americans - not hyphenated sub groups of various origins), due to the tactics of progressives and their harlots in the main stream media, though still formidable, are shrinking in size. And yes, there will be those in the next generation who will carry the torch, but unless they can out procreate and then instill with in their progeny their same beliefs, they will be an even smaller percentage. As brought up at Personal Effects we may soon be nothing more then the remnants spoken about. "Jobs" don't come along all that often. Making the task of keeping the spark alive, until such time as humanity is ready to light the torch of liberty and freedom once again, all that much harder.

Reconstitute the Constitution

The Constitution has been wounded. The most recent and grievous by SCOTUS in the last week. If people are willing, it can be healed. And applying new laws or amendments to buttress the old is not the answer.

When it was crafted, the language used was simple, direct, and straight forward.

What is so hard to understand about:

Congress shall make no law!!

The President shall...

The Supreme Court will do no more then....

and on and on.

But in looking at an "anointed version" of the Constitution put out by the GPO (Government Printing Office), we can find the following

"The Senate’s role in appointments and treaties checks the President. The courts are assured independence through good behavior tenure and security of compensation, and the judges through judicial review will check the other two branches. The impeachment power gives to Congress the authority to root out corruption and abuse of power in the other two branches."

"Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution
Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States Senate Document No. 103-6"
1992 Edition Hereafter referred to as "The Anointed Constitution"

If our Congress would act within the existing boundaries as set up by the Constitution, those who arrived at this decision, would be brought to task as to what damage they have (or potential damage) done to the very body of work they are sworn to protect and defend. As with the thousands of gun laws on the books...yet there is a push at least once a year to add even more. When enforcing straight forward law, and consistently arriving at decisions would send a much clearer message to the public at large along with the transgressors out there.

"...some of the Federalist judges who were propagandizing the country through grand jury charges and other means. The theory of extreme latitude was enunciated by Senator Giles of Virginia during the impeachment trial of Justice Chase. ‘‘The power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House of Representatives; and the power of trying impeachments was given equally without limitation to the Senate. . . . A trial and removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any criminality or corruption in him. . . [but] nothing more than a declaration of Congress to this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are suffered to carry them into effect you will work the destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better.’’ 772 Chase’s counsel responded that to be impeachable, conduct must constitute an indictable offense. 773 Though Chase’s acquittal owed more to the political divisions in the Senate than to the merits of the arguments, it did go far to affix the latter reading to the phrase ‘‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’’ until the turbulent period following the Civil War. 774"

"Page 588 Anointed Constitution"

If recent actions of a large number of our Supreme court Justices does not qualify for "High Crimes and Misdemeanours" (and that would include those who ruled for McCain-Feingold), then one would be hard pressed to find an instance where this criteria could ever be met.

No, no amendment is needed. No beating of breast, as to what to do next, is required....it is, in fact, already established within the existing rulings and history of this great document. All it takes is a strong cry from the ones who really *are* the Republic.....We the People....to those in whose trust we placed our faith to carryout the affairs of state.

"The King Is Dead..."

"...Long live the King!"

You might want to get used to hearing those words....because the Supreme Court Of The United States, for all intent and purposes, declared the Fifth Amendment "null and void" today. The complete SCOTUS decision can be read here.

At first glance, it appears to be a reasonable decision. After all, the public at large will, in theory, benefit from the proposed "economic development plan" put forth by the city of New London, and or it's approved agents.

But, in taking time to read the dissenting arguments, you will see what really happened today. In short today the highest court in the land effectively "killed" the Fifth Amendment. Don't believe me? Read on...and read the whole Court Document above.

..."Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."....

..."Theirs is an objection in principle: They claim that the NLDC’s proposed use for their confiscated property is not a “public” one for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. While the government may take their homes to build a road or a railroad or to eliminate a property use that harms the public, say petitioners, it cannot take their property for the private use of other owners simply because the new owners may make more productive use of the property."

From: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; no. 04–108

SUSETTE KELO, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT [June 23, 2005]

JUSTICE O’CONNOR dissenting

In Defense Of The Second Amendment

Erick is hosting the "Carnival of Cordite" this week, and has asked for submissions. He unknowingly tossed the gauntlet out. It was too tempting not to pick up this time...

At one time, years back, I once owned a gun, and had many occasions to interact with others who did as well. For various reasons (none of them of a legal nature, for those looking for dirt) it is not a viable option at this time. This will more then likely change at some point in the future. For I believe, responsible gun ownership is not only a right, but as many others have noted, should be considered ones duty as an able bodied citizen. (The caveat being, you are willing to shoulder the responsibility, and effectively use same, should the need arise. If you can't meet the above, then by all means do not put yourself in a
position you would possibly regret later.)

That, is what the second amendment offers to all Americans. You have a choice whether or not you want to bear arms. Short of a criminal record which would (or should) preclude you from doing so, by the Constitution, the "State" has no constitutional right, to deny you from bearing any arms as you see fit. You want explosive ordnance, fully automatic weapons, plus regular side arms, shotguns, and rifles, already on the market, there should not be any hindrance for you to do so, what so ever. (Yes, I know there are laws on the books at the federal, state, and local levels to prevent you from owning some or most of the above. That doesn't mean the Constitution, in it's original, form prevented you from owning any of the above.)

Before the hordes jump down from the rafters, there is some common sense here. You cannot, have a suitcase nuke or some such. And other WMD's are equally prohibited, with just cause....there is no justifiable need to have such, on hand, to defend hearth and home, or to become part of a "well regulated militia".

But why should we even entertain allowing for returning to the original intent of the Second Amendment? (Besides the obvious "Cause of what is written there, no more no less".) Read on for this ol' retired Sailor's take.

First off, there is the misguided notion those in law enforcement are going to be able to be everywhere and anywhere a possible life or property threatening situation is taking place. Folks, there is not enough local, state, and federal agents to be able to provide this kind of "security blanket". Nor was that ever the intent of said agencies. (Does a return to the old "cop on the beat" help to promote a safer environment? Yes, it does, and there are more mid-sized towns and larger cities at least giving it some thought, if not actually implementing same. But, not all cities and towns have the money or the will to see their taxes go up to support a return to this.)

In short, if you have to call 911 in a life or death situation, involving the commission of a (potentially violent) crime against you, your family, or your property, it is probably going to be the last call you ever make. And it is not the fault of law enforcement. Because the first line of defense, traditionally, has always been the individual. It has only been within the last 40 years where this basic concept (part in parcel with taking personal responsibility for yourself, family, and property) has been challenged and subverted. In a truly free society, it is not up to the state to protect you on a daily basis. The state, to remain a viable and recognizable force, needs to ensure it's national sovereignty (when threatened), but that is as far as it goes.

Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (#29) When talking about "the common defense", stated: " ...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. "

The Second Amendment in allowing for an armed citizenry, was intended, not only as the keystone, keeping the other Amendments protected, providing for a source of manpower should the need arise to activate the militia (at the local level), and order would be maintained, understanding the local populace, would stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.