This is more of a rant then a political blog, but I am getting fed up with this sophomoric behavior of these sniveling little liberals. I came home the other night to find my new McCain/Palin sign smashed and bent into the ground. I picked it back up and bent it back into shape and put it back in the ground.
Again tonight, now it’s missing, and so is the original McCain sign that I had set on my front porch. Word has it the Democrats in the area are on a little campaign to snatch and destroy yard signs. Apparently a large McCain sign down in Hagerstown was butchered and burned…
People have cut me off and flipped me off in traffic "McCain sucks!"... "Vote for someone better you idiot". One of them was even kind enough to leave a Obama sticker on my windshield which I gladly left in the parking lot in the puddle.
Tonight at work someone brought up politics because of my McCain sticker. They gave me the whole “Bush lied, people died” liberal chant that they are always on about. They rambled on about Enron, Bush’s oil cronies and how this was “daddies” war. This is all crap that has been thoroughly debunked. They wouldn’t even listen to me and laughed at everything I attempted to say. It got old real quick.
The Democrats are supposed to be the party of tolerance? Oh wait, only if you're not a conservative...
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
I thought you wanted "Change" Obama?
So Sarah Palin was the VP pick for John McCain, and if I may add a fine looking one too. The liberals claim her experience doesn't compare to Joe Biden, who has been a Senator for many decades... I thought the Obama people wanted to get rid of the beurocrats in Washington? I thought we needed a fresh face in Washington. We need "change" not the same old crap. Palin is young and energetic, she will be a nice addition to our government in Washington.Palin has proven herself in many ways. One she is not involved in big government, the same government that has lost touch with its constituents back home. Palin will be a welcome fresh face in Washington. She will clean house if you will. Look what she did in Alaska as governor. Her first act as governor was to sell the governor's jet on ebay and vow to fly commercial. She reduced general fund spending by $124 million in 2007. Basically she is against pork barrel spending. Something Obama is NOT for.
She is Pro-life an family values... I know, I know, her daughter is pregnant. I'm sure that's not anyone's dream for their children. unlike Obama's view, if that happened to one of his daughters, he would want an abortion for that "mistake". Palin's daughter is doing the responsible thing...marrying the father, and having the baby. Besides, I'm not sure with Obama's family tree and upbringing the way it is, you really want to get into this discussion?
Palin is better prepared, and has more experience to bring to the presidency than then Obama. He only has 2 years of experience in the U.S. Senate before he started running for president. Only 2... Palin at a minimum has experience in the executive branch, and how it works. She is pro-life, against pork barrel spending, drilling OUR oil, and not to mention a life member of the NRA.
She gets a lot of crap about taxes, but as both mayor and governor she cut property taxes & increased sales tax to compensate (You know sales tax is constitutional while property tax isn't). She repealed many "nuisance taxes" including the tire tax and other little taxes on things that are just ridiculous. She promised tax cuts, and as Mayor Palin largely delivered on her promises.
Palin was a smart move on McCain's part to seal the right wing vote. He would have done himself in with a Liberman or Romney pick. The reason so many Democrats attack Palin is because they know she is ultra-conservative, and they are scared of her. I can't wait to see the debate between her and Biden.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Providing the general welfare...
....The preamble to the US constitution says nothing of the sorts. Liberals over time seem to have reversed what is says."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
No where does it say we have to provide the general welfare, all it has to do is promote it. Basically encourage private charity. Thats about it. The only thing the government provides is the common defense... i.e. the Military. You liberals really need to read the constitution, and more importantly, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. The founders were CRYSTAL clear on their intent.
I believe and always believe in private charity. People will donate their time and money. There are good people in this country. Orgnizations like the Red Cross are good because people will give. It gives them a good feeling. Think about when you do something for a good cause, you get a warm feeling deep down. You know what you did, and what you gave was for a good cause.
When the iron fist of government strikes down and demands money from the people you get resentment and negative feelings. The government then gives it to others who don't deserve it, and they generate animosity among the people. Animosity towards the government, animosity towards social programs, and animosity for welfare. People are less inclined to donate to good causes like churches, the Red Cross and the like because they are forced to do it thru the government.
I believe in "welfare" but it shouldn't be mandated by government. People who are genuinely disabled after exausting private contributions should be entitled to government welfare. Everyone else... get a job. I have two, you can't get one?
No where does it say we have to provide the general welfare, all it has to do is promote it. Basically encourage private charity. Thats about it. The only thing the government provides is the common defense... i.e. the Military. You liberals really need to read the constitution, and more importantly, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. The founders were CRYSTAL clear on their intent.
I believe and always believe in private charity. People will donate their time and money. There are good people in this country. Orgnizations like the Red Cross are good because people will give. It gives them a good feeling. Think about when you do something for a good cause, you get a warm feeling deep down. You know what you did, and what you gave was for a good cause.
When the iron fist of government strikes down and demands money from the people you get resentment and negative feelings. The government then gives it to others who don't deserve it, and they generate animosity among the people. Animosity towards the government, animosity towards social programs, and animosity for welfare. People are less inclined to donate to good causes like churches, the Red Cross and the like because they are forced to do it thru the government.
I believe in "welfare" but it shouldn't be mandated by government. People who are genuinely disabled after exausting private contributions should be entitled to government welfare. Everyone else... get a job. I have two, you can't get one?
Thursday, August 7, 2008
For all Pennsylvanians who care about their privacy rights
There is a class-action lawsuit underway against PennDot for stealing your identity. We are currently in the beginning stages, trying to get as many plaintiffs on our list as possible before filing this lawsuit.
In the words of Rep. Sam Rohrer, from his press conference:
"Exactly two years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania entered into a $45 million contract with Viisage Technology, self-described as 'the industry leader in instant issue digital driver's licenses.' Viisage, later renamed L-1 Identity Solutions, became responsible for issuing Pennsylvania driver's licenses.
Under the authority of Governor Rendell, Viisage and PennDOT launched a new program in June 2006 known as FaceEXPLORER to be used in conjunction with the issuing of driver's licenses. This program uses an upgraded, high-definition photograph taken at a driver's license center to create a facial recognition template, or 'faceprint,' similar in purpose and uniqueness to a fingerprint. This faceprint is a form of biometrics based on the measurements of a person's unique, personal facial geometry. The faceprint goes beyond such easily recognizable physical features as haircut, glasses or facial hair and into an analysis of one's unique facial structure. Once this personally unique faceprint has been created, it is stored in a database to be used to compare against the faceprint of others. By these means, PennDOT and Viisage hoped to reduce identity fraud and theft. In reality, FaceEXPLORER has been a 'back-door' means to implement the REAL ID Act of 2005 without the consent or knowledge of either the legislature or the people."
Rep. Rohrer goes on to say that " . . Neither PennDOT nor Viisage has inherent authority nor have they been granted any exception to take biometric information from the citizens of the Commonwealth. . .The actions allowed by Governor Rendell further violates statutory law. . .Significantly, this issue constitutes a major Constitutional violation. . . "
Your biometric faceprint can be picked up by surveillance cameras to track your every move. This has to be stopped. Our biometric data must be destroyed/deleted!
We need to join together. This is a crucial moment that we cannot let slip away.
If you want to be part of this lawsuit, contact Renee' Baumgartner by email at real.idlawsuitpa@gmail.com, or call her cell (sparingly) at 717-286-8042.
She is a state co-coordinator of Pennsylvania for Restore the Republic and a member of the Campaign for Liberty in Lancaster County.
Email your: Name, Physical Address, phone number & email address
(This information will be kept strictly with her and the attorney that we retain for the lawsuit. Updates will be available as we move forward.)
In the words of Rep. Sam Rohrer, from his press conference:
"Exactly two years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania entered into a $45 million contract with Viisage Technology, self-described as 'the industry leader in instant issue digital driver's licenses.' Viisage, later renamed L-1 Identity Solutions, became responsible for issuing Pennsylvania driver's licenses.
Under the authority of Governor Rendell, Viisage and PennDOT launched a new program in June 2006 known as FaceEXPLORER to be used in conjunction with the issuing of driver's licenses. This program uses an upgraded, high-definition photograph taken at a driver's license center to create a facial recognition template, or 'faceprint,' similar in purpose and uniqueness to a fingerprint. This faceprint is a form of biometrics based on the measurements of a person's unique, personal facial geometry. The faceprint goes beyond such easily recognizable physical features as haircut, glasses or facial hair and into an analysis of one's unique facial structure. Once this personally unique faceprint has been created, it is stored in a database to be used to compare against the faceprint of others. By these means, PennDOT and Viisage hoped to reduce identity fraud and theft. In reality, FaceEXPLORER has been a 'back-door' means to implement the REAL ID Act of 2005 without the consent or knowledge of either the legislature or the people."
Rep. Rohrer goes on to say that " . . Neither PennDOT nor Viisage has inherent authority nor have they been granted any exception to take biometric information from the citizens of the Commonwealth. . .The actions allowed by Governor Rendell further violates statutory law. . .Significantly, this issue constitutes a major Constitutional violation. . . "
Your biometric faceprint can be picked up by surveillance cameras to track your every move. This has to be stopped. Our biometric data must be destroyed/deleted!
We need to join together. This is a crucial moment that we cannot let slip away.
If you want to be part of this lawsuit, contact Renee' Baumgartner by email at real.idlawsuitpa@gmail.com, or call her cell (sparingly) at 717-286-8042.
She is a state co-coordinator of Pennsylvania for Restore the Republic and a member of the Campaign for Liberty in Lancaster County.
Email your: Name, Physical Address, phone number & email address
(This information will be kept strictly with her and the attorney that we retain for the lawsuit. Updates will be available as we move forward.)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The IRS = crooks
The definition of robbery is "The act or practice of robbing; specifically: larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat". Pretty much sums up the IRS doesn’t it? I just got done watching a documentary by Aaron Russo called “America – Freedom to Fascism” Here is a trailer:
Many Americans do not realize that the income tax we pay is illegal, and there is NO LAW what so ever saying you have to pay the tax. The 16th Amendment of the constitution was never fully ratified. A lot of states (PA comes to mind) did not ratify the income tax amendment. Also the Supreme Court in two cases struck down the 16th Amendment as unconstitutional. Go Google it if you don’t believe me. They said if you weren't taxable before the 16th you aren't taxable after the 16th. The constitution is very clear on who and what can be taxed.
The IRS was set up in 1913 I believe to start collecting taxes on the wages of citizens. The government per Article 1 section 8 and 9 can tax people and companies based on gains on profits. Not income. The sales tax is legal, the gas tax is legal, and these are what are known as excise taxes. They are avoidable taxes, or indirect. The government can legally tax corporations based on profit. Let’s say XYZ company makes 50 Billion a year. And they use 40 Billion of that to pay employees, create new product etc… that would leave 10 Billion in profit. That legally could be taxed. The government cannot tax the whole 50 billion because that is total income. It’s the same if I worked for someone. If I make $500 dollars a week for trading my work for money, that’s not profit, that’s income. I’m giving something for something. If I won the lottery for example that is profit. That legally can be taxed.
Just remember this… our nation made it from 1776 to 1913 without an income tax. We won many wars and created this great nation without robbing the people of this land. Why do we need to do it now? Also note that half a dozen or so states have no state income tax.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Why the Gun Is Civilization
I read this a while back and wanted to get peoples take on it... It's a good powerful article. Being someone who take self defense personally this article moved me. I carry a handgun daily... I hope to god I never have to use it, but if I'm put in a situation where its me or them... its going to be them.
Link
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Link
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Iran is saber rattling, or so it seems
Opps... It looks like Iran can't photoshop... It looks as though Iran is acting big bad and tough again. It seems as though Israel and Iran are about to become unhappy with one another. Both sides have been flexing their muscles in preparation of a possible war, just like Israel did to Iraq when they found out about their nuclear plant being built a little too close to Israel. One thing I noticed though about Iran... If they can't even Photoshop a picture correctly, what makes you think they'll win a war? I bet any money the secret police in Iran gave the guy that made this picture the boot*, and I'm even willing to bet there wasn't any severance pay.Either way Iran has another thing coming if they decide to attack Israel, or if Israel has reason to believe Iran is hiding something... oh I don't know, say like nukes. It's funny the left always believes insane dictators like Amhedinejad... but question our own President and own CIA about what Iran has.
This is how I think it'll go down...
1. Israel bombs the hell out of Iran before Bush leaves office. Israel knows if they do this afterwards there is a chance that the U.S. won't back an attack on Iran *Cough*cough* Obama...
2. Iran retaliates by blocking the Strait of Hormuz (40% of the worlds oil supply) and the U.S. Fleet blocks that attempt.
3. Iran makes the fatal move of attacking the U.S. fleet and by sending missiles off to Israel and to U.S. forces in Iraq. The attacking force is annihilated.
4. Al Queda cells execute terrorists attacks such as car bombs and dirty bombs in the U.S. Israel and Britain.
5. Israel and the U.S. decimate Iran.
The days of $4 dollar gas will seem like the good ol' days after all is said and done. No matter what happens with Iran, if anything happens in this country, I have my guns, canned food, water and a lot of ammo. Open season on those sand monkeys I say.
*Boot in Iran means a 9mm to the back of the head after a few days in a holding cell with no water or toilet, another few days of torture and all this for displeasing the dictator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
