The Blame Game

I have a very serious question to ask. If you didn't know, thanks to the media telling you over and over how the government was shut down, would you feel any repercussions from it personally? It's a serious question, not one that requires any answer to me, personally, but one that you have to answer for yourself. Once you've answered that question for yourself, then you have to decide whether or not to do something about it.

The media is full of blame, the politicians are full of blame, the American people are all taking their sides on who is to blame for this shutdown. The main streamers seem to want to blame the Republicans, shouldering the burden of blame fully on them for responsibility for this latest (I shudder to use the word that has been so overused the past several years) crisis. According to Media Research Center, the main stream media was blaming the pending shutdown on Republicans for two weeks before it even happened. There seems to be a trend to this, we'll discuss that at another time.

Who do we blame, who do we blame, who do we blame and pile heeps of shame? The real answer to this question is no further away than your bathroom mirror.

I'll let that soak in for a moment while posting a picture of a random Kardashian, Rob, who doesn't care about "keeping up" with the rest of the family, to distract you, main stream media style, from the real problems and events of the day:

I'm not here to play the blame game with anyone, I'm not here to play he said/she said. I will point out that the federal debt limit has been raised under el Presidente Obama. I will also say that we, the citizenry of the United States, do not do our own research on our candidates, but will instead let the media present our politicians to us like a pig at a luau. We the people do not participate in our government, as responsible citizens, such as were our founding fathers. We participate in keeping up...be it with the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus, or who George Clooney is being seen with this week. Distraction is the game of the day, and until the government shuts down, we don't really pay that much attention, and as a result we do not send the best and brightest to Washington, or even to our state or local governments, to represent US. When we do pay attention, such as in the case of the current shutdown, the main streamers do what they can to hype it up into an evangelical frenzy, only instead of preaching about the Grace and Wrath of God, their subject is how you should be afraid, be VERY afraid, that your nanny state isn't able to watch over you...

Just a thought.

Sic vis pacem parabellum.

Mike Tippitt

Damned Thieves Partially Return Money to Victims

I love when the government starts talking about giving people money. I LOVE the concept of this freshly hatched "stimulus package" to boost the economy. I especially love it when government plays Robin Hood and tries to convince everyone that it's a good thing...

House leaders and the administration reached agreement today on a roughly $145 billion economic stimulus package that would quickly send payments to poor and middle-class workers while offering businesses one-time incentives to invest in new equipment and write off tax losses.

In formally announcing the deal this afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. hailed it as a bipartisan effort that would help stimulate the economy by spurring consumer demand and creating new jobs.

Under the plan, as many as 117 million people would get rebate checks. Individual income tax filers would receive up to $600, working couples would get up to $1,200, and those with children would get an additional $300 per child.

"First and foremost, the stimulus package will put money in the hands of hardworking Americans," Pelosi told a Capitol Hill news conference. "This is a middle-class initiative to strengthen the middle class and to those who aspire to be in the middle class. It will be in the form of tax rebates and a child tax credit."

Right. We're supposed to think that $300 a head is going to strengthen the middle class? Bolster the economy? THIS WAS YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH, AMERICA!

It blows my mind how that we allowed, as a nation, President Woodrow Wilson to totally and completely disregard the United States Constitution by empowering the Federal Reserve Bank to be the authority over our nation's economy. It further blows my mind how that our nation willing AMENDED the Constitution to include the income tax in 1913. Of course, I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised, after all, that was the era that gave birth to the Bolshevik movement, which was alive and well in American politics and economics as much then as it is today.

"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

Never have bought that, because it means that someone else determines what my needs are. That's MY call, not the call of someone else. Especially not someone in the government.

Take a moment, if you will, and consider the things you pay taxes on: income taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, wheel taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gift taxes, luxury item taxes, tobacco and alcohol taxes, firearms and ammunitions taxes, death taxes (yes, you can be taxed for dying), business taxes, fuel taxes, (in Tennessee) entertainment taxes...

ENTERTAINMENT TAXES?

I THOUGHT that this nation rebelled against England over taxes, did we not? Wasn't there a party in Boston Harbor involving tea? "No taxation without representation" has become "I am your representative, and I'm going to pay lip service to making sure you aren't overly taxed."

If Congress and the White House TRULY want to benefit the American people and promote true economic stimulation, they should begin working on eliminating government wastes, earmarks, pork projects, and begin working towards repealing the 16th amendment, or at least coming up with something that isn't overburdening any ONE segment of the American public.

Because the middle class is getting hosed. They always do.

Let me give the rest of you a little advice for what to do with your economic stimulus checks, when you get them. Are you listening? Look around and make sure no one is eavesdropping, this is going to be our little secret, okay? Take that money that the government is sending to you and go straightaway to the financial institution of your choice and invest it, or at least a portion of it, into an account where it will make you more money...

And then call your Congressman and tell them THANK YOU for playing Robing Hood with other people's money, stealing from the American People and then giving a little back so we all "feel good."

AND THEN, next time your representatives come up for reelection, DON'T DO IT. Put someone else in their office and demand that they work for the people, not for bigger government.

Oh yes, and one more twist of the blade. Some will be getting money back who don't pay INTO the income tax system...

Economic incentive my leathery arse.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Assaults on the Second Ammendment - NRA update 2DEC07

From email:

OUTRAGE OF THE WEEK!

Brady's Shamelessness-Will They Ever Learn? This week's outrage comes, not surprisingly, from the Brady Center. You may recall back in May, we reported on the Brady Center prescribing its remedies for the horrific Virginia Tech slayings well before any of the facts were known. Not content to stop there, they even sent out an extremely distasteful fundraising solicitation seeking contributions in the amount of $32-one dollar for each of the Virginia Tech slayings.

You'd think the Brady Center would have learned its lesson after being pilloried for this stunt by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (among others), who said, "People who want to take this (the Tech shootings) within 24 hours of the event and make it, you know, their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them. To those who want to, you know, try to make this into some little crusade, you know, I say take that elsewhere. Let this community deal with grieving individuals and be sensitive to those needs."

Once again, though, the Brady Bunch has proven it has no learning curve.



Boston Gun Search Policy Raises Concerns: Boston police may soon begin asking parents to allow searches of their homes and children's bedrooms for firearms-without notice or warrants.



STATE ROUNDUP (please click to see any updates on states not listed below.)

COLORADO: BLM Plans to Close Canyons of the Ancients to Recreational Shooting: The Bureau of Land Management has released a draft management plan for the 164,000-acre Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in southwest Colorado. All four management alternatives would close the entire Monument to recreational shooting. The BLM cites vandalism of cultural and natural resources and visitor safety as the reasons for closure. For more information about the plan, please go to http://www.blm.gov/rmp/canm/. Comments from the public are being accepted until January 25, 2008. It is critical that gun owners and sportsmen take an active role in this process!

BLM Plan Will Set Game Retrieval Restrictions: The Bureau of Land Management has released a draft management plan for travel routes on lands it administers within San Luis Valley, Colorado. The proposal will limit the retrieval of game off designated routes except to a perpendicular distance of 300 ft. from the edge of a route. Comments on the plan are being accepted until December 31. The document can be viewed at http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/slvplc/Travel_Management.html. For further information, please contact Mark Swinney, Project Lead, by phone at (719) 655-2547, or by e-mail at mswinney@co.blm.gov. Once again, it is critical that gun owners and sportsmen take an active role in this process!

ILLINOIS: Continue to Express Your Opposition to Proposed FOID Card Regulations! As we have previously reported, the Illinois State Police has proposed enacting an age limit to obtain an Illinois Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card. This is apparently in response to an editorial by Daily Southtown columnist Howard Ludwig, who wrote an article about obtaining a FOID card for his ten-month-old son. Illinois law does not set an age requirement for issuance of a FOID card with a parent's consent, but imposing one could have disastrous effects on Illinois' rich hunting heritage and would endanger the lives of children. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) will determine if this rule will be enacted, but you can still submit comments in opposition to the proposal. Please address your comments to: Mr. John M. Hosteny, Interim Chief Legal Counsel, Illinois State Police, 801 South 7th Street, Suite 1000-S, P.O. Box 19461, Springfield, IL 61794-9461. Please be sure to ask Mr. Hosteny to share your comments with the members of JCAR. You can also send your comments directly to the JCAR at 700 Stratton Office Building, Springfield, Illinois 62706 or email jcar@ilga.gov.

VIRGINIA: Hunting With Hounds Under Review: The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has launched a review of hound hunting in the Commonwealth. Virginia Tech is conducting focus group meetings around the state during November and December. Trespass complaints from property owners have sparked this review. The Department's goal is "To provide diverse opportunities for hunting with hounds in Virginia in a manner that is fair, sportsmanlike and consistent with the rights of property owners and other citizens." The process includes many avenues for hound hunters to participate, such as focus group meetings with individual stakeholder groups, a survey conducted through the Department's website, opportunity to review all developments, public meetings, and by letter or e-mail. About half of the focus groups will be comprised of bear, deer, fox, and raccoon hound hunters. The remainder of the focus groups will be populated by landowners, government representatives, other hunters and outdoor enthusiasts. If you are a hound hunter, make your views known during this public process. Go to www.dgif.state.va.us/hunting/hounds for more information about how you can participate.

WISCONSIN: Vote Scheduled for Critical Emergency Powers Legislation! Assembly Bill 581 is likely to be voted on Tuesday, December 4. Sponsored by Assemblyman Scott Gunderson (R-83), AB 681 would prevent the state of Wisconsin from restricting the possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during a declared state of emergency. Please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness and respectfully urge them to pass this important legislation. Contact information for the Committee can be found by clicking here.

I ask again, what part of "...shall not be infringed" do these people NOT understand?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

What Part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Needs Clarification?

The Supreme Court has chosen not to address the Second Amendment case concerning the rights of gun owners in Washington, DC. They have chosen, instead, to wait until after Thanksgiving to address the issue, if they choose to address it then.

No Decision Yet From Supreme Court on Washington, D.C., Second Amendment Case

Tuesday , November 13, 2007
By Lee Ross

WASHINGTON —
The U.S. Supreme Court held off Tuesday on deciding whether to take up a high-profile case on killing a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns, leaving observers guessing what the court would do next.

The court has not heard a case involving the Second Amendment — which covers the "right to bear arms" — since 1939.

Four justices must vote to grant an appeal that would allow the high court to hear the case. The justice don't always reach a decision the first time they consider taking a case. The next time the court could announce its decision about hearing the case is Nov. 26.

The case, District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller, pits Washington, D.C., city officials against a resident, fronting a group of individuals, who sued the city over its 31-year-old ban on weapons in- and outside the home.

The group, all of whom are D.C. dwellers, won a major victory in March, when a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of overturning the ban. A full panel of the court later decided against reconsidering the panel's decision, setting up the high court battle.

Court observers expected an announcement Tuesday on whether the justices would agree to hear the case. The court does not have to stick to its norms for announcing cases, and this was one of those times.

The Second Amendment simply reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The meaning of this 27-word sentence has been the subject of countless discussions over the decades but as of late, not inside the high court.

The District of Columbia's entrance into the debate began soon after gaining the right to establish its own laws, free from direct congressional review. In 1976, the District of Columbia passed one of the nation's toughest regulations on guns: no handguns for anyone who isn't a retired police officer.

Furthermore, the district's law does not allow the possession of any "long gun" — for instance a shotgun or rifle — that isn't unloaded, disassembled or immobilized with a safety lock.

The law's advocates say it's necessary to protect the citizens from gun-related violence. But opponents point out the strict prohibition didn't prevent Washington, D.C., from once being dubbed the nation's "murder capital" because of the significant number of gun-related homicides, which in the early 1990s soared past 400 in one year.

Opponents also contend the law is contrary to the Second Amendment's language providing for a right to bear arms...

So what, exactly, does the Second Amendment to the Constitution say, exactly?

Amendment II

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.

Does that say "the rights of the militia to keep and bear arms?" No, it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's pretty cut and dry in my opinion. Who are the people? YOU are the people, and so am I.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Those on the left can offer whatever arguments that they wish to offer, but the words are there in black and white in the National Archives for all to read.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

From the Rocky Mountain News (and I don't agree with everything the writer of this op ed piece says, for instance, I would NEVER live in a "zoned" community).

The most cursory glance at crime statistics shows that the ban - which was imposed to reduce violence - has been an abject failure. As recently as 2002, D.C. had the nation's highest murder rate; last year it was ranked seventh among major metropolitan areas.

But the court's role is not to determine whether a law has been effective. The justices must decide whether D.C.'s gun ban violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding residents.

In March, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that the ban violates the Second Amendment, which "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." The court noted that if the Founders intended the Second Amendment to protect the rights of states rather than individuals, they could have said so directly, as in "Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias" or "States have a right to a well-regulated militia."

They didn't, so it's logical to conclude that the Constitution confers an individual right to own firearms.

If the justices uphold the D.C. Circuit's decision, it will not pre-empt all local firearms regulations. For example, even most Second Amendment advocates have little problem with laws that prevent convicted felons or the mentally disabled from owning firearms. Possession and sale of automatic weapons have been strictly regulated since 1934 - before the Miller decision.

Let's say this again, one more time, the words of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Exactly what part of that is unclear?

Here's are a few more questions for you. Why would anyone WANT to take firearms away from the general public? What is the ultimate agenda of an organization that wants to disarm the American people? If they first go after your rights to own firearms, what rights will they attack next?

Think me paranoid if you will, but if you look, the evidence is there. There is a clear assault on our Constitutional rights being waged under the guise of Political Correctness.

Make no mistake about it, Political Correctness is Marxism in a more modern guise.

"Political Correctness is inverted McCarthyism." Dennis Miller

"I'm NRA, and I vote."

I'm also a very strong Constitutionalist. Our Nation exists because of the blood shed by Americans willing to fight for our rights to be free and to live freely. The Second Amendment is one of those rights men and women have died to preserve.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Philadelphia Punishes Boy Scouts of America

I was a Boy Scout. When my son entered Cub Scouts, I took on the mantle of Cub master, and later held other positions with Scouting while he was involved with the organization. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, Scouting, as a private organization, is protected by the Constitution of the United States to screen it's membership, i.e. leadership, and bar membership to whomever they see the need to bar.

Obviously, the "City of Brotherly Love" has taken on a new meaning in Philadelphia, where the city has taken punitive action against Scouting for their stand on not allowing homosexuals into their ranks. Hat tip to Miss Beth's Victory Dance for this one:

Boy Scouts' Rent Skyrockets in Philadelphia to $200K Over Gay Ban

Friday, October 19, 2007

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

The Boy Scouts' anti-gay policy is turning out to be a pricey proposition for its Philadelphia chapter — one that will cost about $200,000 a year, to be exact.

The city has ordered the organization to pay a fair-market rent of $200,000 — $199,999 more than its current $1 annual rate — to maintain its longtime offices in a landmark Philadelphia building because of its refusal to allow openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders.

City Solicitor says Romulo L. Diaz Jr. contends that Mayor John Street, City Council and the Fairmount Park Commission (which oversees historic properties) have been asking the Scouts for the past year to submit a clear-cut anti-discrimination policy, and they haven't done so. In order to comply with Philadelphia laws, he said, he has given the Scouts a choice: agree definitively in writing to stop discriminating, or pay a new rent at market value.

"They had been put on notice over the last year by the mayor, the City Council and the Fairmount Park Commission that they had a choice to make," Diaz said in a phone interview. "They need to provide evidence that they would not engage in discriminatory practices against gays as either Scout masters or Boy Scouts. .... They have either not responded or essentially played the victim."

The Boy Scouts' Philadelphia branch, called the Cradle of Liberty Council, argues that its hands are tied because of the national chapter's refusal to reverse its anti-gay policy — even though, it says, it tried to fight it a few years ago.

The city Scouts say they agreed on a compromise with the prior solicitor — which involved the adoption of a promise not to engage in "unlawful discrimination" similar to one the New York chapter has — and claims the current solicitor has an ulterior motive because he himself is openly gay.

"We adopted a non-discrimination policy in 2005 with the city's help, which is ironic now," said Cradle of Liberty spokesman Jeff Jubelirer. "Since that time, there's been no one challenging the policy, no reports of discrimination. Nothing has come to the public's attention. And yet the current solicitor thinks this language is not clear enough.

"It's been reported that the solicitor is openly homosexual — and who cares — but I wonder if it's something that he and members of the activist gay community want: to kick the Boy Scouts out of their building."

Diaz declined to answer questions about his sexual orientation, but said it was irrelevant because his job was to enforce what the city has voted and agreed on.

"I'm doing my job," he said. "I'm taking it on because I was directed by the mayor, City Council and the Fairmount Park Commission..."

Methinks some people take great pleasure in doing their jobs. I doubt very seriously Mr. Diaz ever uttered THESE words that I will now post because I know them so well by heart, having learned them long ago: "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the scout law; to help other people at all times, and to keep my self physically straight, mentally awake, and morally straight." For those of you unfamiliar with that oath, that's the Scout's oath. Those who know me best will tell you I'm still a Boy Scout to this day. I don't take that as an insult, nor do I find that oath in conflict with the oath I took when I became a soldier.

Run over to Miss Beth's site and click on the link to contact the City of Philadelphia.

Boy Scouts of America

Girl Scouts of America

Support Scouting. It's an organization that really IS for the children.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

So much for it being a conspiracy theory...

For those of you who have read me saying that we're heading back into grounds we have visited before, grounds that have not been visited since the middle of the 19th century, and have dismissed my words as being "conspiracy theory," we have this story out of my home state of Tennessee today:

Secessionists Meeting in Tennessee

By BILL POOVEY
Associated Press Writer

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions - New England and the South - are sitting down to talk.

Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.

That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.

"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South.

Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.

They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government.

If allowed to go their own way, New Englanders "probably would allow abortion and have gun control," Hill said, while Southerners "would probably crack down on illegal immigration harder than it is being now."

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, but few people think it is politically viable.

As I've said before here, on this blogsite, my work involves a LOT of traveling during the day. During that traveling, I have seen more Confederate flags flying in the past two years than I can remember seeing at any other time that I can remember.

Having said that, I'm going to say this. I have my own views on the secession question, my own theories on what the outcome of the War Between the States SHOULD have been, and I definitely have my views on Reconstruction. That being said, I'm not ready to commit to a new movement for secession. There are a great, GREAT many things that need to be considered before making such a move, and it can not and SHOULD not be based simply on a few loose reasons. Nor can it be based heavily, to my fellow southerners, on Rebel Pride, which so many of us still do have and cherish as a part of our heritage. There are MAJOR ramifications to be considered, financial, economic, political, governmental, social, militaristic...the list goes on and on.

For now, this bears further watching, and a LOT of heavy thought. We are a nation divided. But we are a NATION, a country, a people. Our history has been one of being able to pull together and depend upon each other AS a nation, as a great nation. That, too, needs to be one of the many things to be considered.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man.


.