Property Rights?

May 10, 2009

Not in our nation’s capital:

But, you can LEASE your front yard from the government for only thousands per year!

When will it end?


Wanting a Parent

April 22, 2009

When we were small children, our parents provided for us, fed us, told us what to do, and kept us safe from ourselves by yelling at us if we did something which may have led to injury. If we did something we had been told not to do, we got punished in some manner. For us nearing middle age, it was probably a spanking. For the slightly younger readers, it might have been a “time out.” There were certain things which our parents didn’t think we were ready to handle, so they were made “off-limits.” Gen X-ers and Y-ers were probably forced to wear helmets and pads when they rode their bikes so they wouldn’t hurt themselves during the inevitable fall. Playgrounds were filled with rubber, to prevent skinned knees, and “monkeybars” were all but banned, because they were “too dangerous.”

Everyone felt safe and protected, secure in the knowledge that someone loved them, cared for them, and protected them. In other words, life could be carefree and worry-free, because parents took care of those things.

Fast forward to adulthood: People get out on their own after leaving their parents’ house, and find out that there are all sorts of things to worry about that they never even seriously considered before, like paying bills and having enough left over with which to eat. In addition, they have all the usual choices about every single aspect of adult life, and they are unprepared, or unwilling to take this responsibility for their life. It was much more comfortable and secure having a parent to make all of these decisions. They don’t WANT the choices. So, they find someone to take the “choice” out of every decision of day to day life, and the logical group to remove choices is the government. In this quest, they can almost always find some special interest group who would profit by expanded governmental powers, so even in this endeavor they don’t have to go to a lot of trouble beyond asking someone to help them.

A good example of this is the issue of seat belt laws. When you are a child, your parents insist that you always wear you seat belt when in a car, and you are left with no choice in the matter. If you don’t put it on, you get yelled at, grounded, refused permission to use the car, or whatever punishment you parents mete out. Suddenly, as an adult, you find yourself faced with the dreadful and weighty decision of whether or not to wear a seat belt. So, you find a group who would profit from a law which would require seat belt usage, and they get laws passed, by the typical means that special interest and lobby groups use, so that there is no longer a choice.

Let me say that I am not ranting about using seat belts. I am a firm believer that seat belts can save lives and prevent some injuries. My own life was probably saved on one occasion by a seat belt. But, I believe that legislating their use is beyond the scope of legitimate government, and falls more properly under the heading of “common sense” and “good decision-making skills instilled by parental upbringing.” It is government forcing people to do something “for their own good,” and is but one example of government acting like a parent. How did that particular law come about? Insurance companies! When someone is in a car accident, they are more likely to be injured, or more seriously injured if are not wearing a seat belt, therefore, insurance companies would have to pay more money for medical bills. The insurance companies looked for a way to get around this they found a group of citizens who wanted a parent to look out for them to ask the government to force them to do what they should be doing anyway. The insurance lobby then throws a lot of money toward legislators, and the next thing you know, a law is born.

Along the same lines, there are unfortunately a lot of citizens who don’t want to be exposed to anything which makes them uncomfortable. They then ask the government to restrict what others can say or do (or think!), so they won’t have to be exposed to ideas or situations which they want to avoid. Is it because they don’t want to be exposed to anything with which they disagree, or is it because they fear that if they are exposed to new ideas they may have to actually think for themselves with nobody to tell them what their opinion is? I don’t know, but the heart of the matter is that they must not trust themselves to make decisions, therefore, they don’t trust anyone else. They want a parent to not only tell them what to think, but also to tell everyone else what to think so they can avoid having to critically examine new ideas.

This could be the most insidious result of the Nanny State. People come to rely on it for not only keeping them safe and forcing them to do what they should to begin with, but they also come to rely on the state to tell them what to think. This has resulted in the state being able to foist its intentions upon the citizens, and the citizens assume that those are the intentions that they, the citizens, desire. Is it possible that a citizen in New York REALLY cares whether a citizen in Montana owns a black military-style rifle? I hardly think so. Is a citizen REALLY offended that someone in Texas defended themselves against a rapist or murderer by drawing their own handgun? I suggest that anyone who does not want a woman to defend herself from a rapist is the worst sort of sexist, but more than that, anyone who is offended that someone can defend themselves from physical attack wants us all held hostage by the fact that any of us, at any time, could become the victim of a violent criminal, with our only recourse being to ask the government to “help” us. It’s the only way that the state can create a population of mewling, subservient citizens.  In other words, a population of people who act like small children in need of parenting.

A Great Quote

April 21, 2009

I am re-reading the Federalist Papers, and came across a great quote by Alexander Hamilton. I don’t much care for Hamilton usually, but this is too good to pass up:

From Federalist 25

“For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”

Consider how many people truly believe that the government is the one who defends their rights, and would never dream that it is the people who must defend their rights against infringement by the government!

For once, Hamilton said a mouthful.

What Now?

April 20, 2009

Well, we all had a good time at our local Tea Parties, right? I saw some nifty signs, great costumes, and good t-shirts. We all listened to some speakers tell us what we already knew, got some new bumper stickers, and are feeling pretty darned good about ourselves because we “did something.”

The question we have to ask ourselves now is: “Now what?”

In case you haven’t noticed, nothing has changed since 4/14/09. The same unConstitutional laws are still on the books and being enforced. The same unConstitutional taxes are being extracted from us by force. We are still spending billions of dollars (and thousands of lives) on an unConstitutional war. Local SWAT teams are still armed and dressed like a crack SS unit, and they still breaking down doors (sometimes, even the right door) to enforce unConstitutional laws.

For some reason, it doesn’t seem like our one-day party changed much.

Maybe it’s because all of the party organizers got all the right permits beforehand (got the King’s permission). Maybe those groups who got fined for “polluting” when they dumped tea in the rivers and lakes have all paid their fines. Maybe it’s because all of the party-goers were so thoughtful and kind that no traffic was obstructed and no hallways were clogged by protesters at statehouses around the country. In short, maybe we were too polite. Maybe, by getting our permits and paying our fines, we are showing the tyrants that we are willing to submit to whatever restrictions they place on us – even those limiting our free speech! What would be our situation if the protesters at the REAL tea party had asked King George for his permission first?

What do we expect to have changed from our one-day event? Now that it is over, the media hype has died down, the statist pundits have had their fun trying to marginalize anyone who dares to object to any government program. Those in government can relax, knowing that they will never again hear from 99% of the people who participated, and that if they offer a few sound bites before the next election, most of those people will still vote for them and they will be re-elected.

Those in government know that most of us will go back to watching Americans Idle, and most won’t lift a finger to put any pressure on government officials. Legislators know that they can pretty much do anything they want, and the vast majority of the American public won’t even KNOW, unless the government-sanctioned media shines a light on it, which is unlikely. They know from experience that there are few citizens who will take the time to read the bills introduced; fewer still will make the effort to watch the legislature, either in person, or on CSPAN (or the local equivalent). The few mass mailings of form letters they get from special interest groups can be easily ignored – unless of course, they happen to agree with the position of the legislator, in which case they will be heralded as “proof” that ‘something needs to be done.’ Individual handwritten letters will only be scanned for keywords, and a form letter reply will be mailed back to the citizen, and half the time the keyword scanner will get it completely wrong. Your letter will simply be marked into either the “for” or “against” column for a particular bill.

What if a certain number of people showed up at their state house nearly every day, without warning? What if they refused to leave until their “representative” listened to their grievance, AND reasons? On “Tea Party Day,” everyone knew exactly when citizens would be there, and so it was possible to simply be “out of the office” during those hours? What if every day, as they drove to their office (which is really OUR office), they wondered how many people would be in the waiting room, in the halls, on the sidewalks, and waiting on the phone? Do you think it would be harder for them to put us out of their mind on a daily basis?

As long as they continue to ignore us, they will just do as they please – which is to increase their power and keep their job. When they find out that people are watching what they do, and that people CARE, maybe they will think twice before succumbing to lobbyists and special interest groups.

Are we a “special interest group?” You bet! Our interests are the Constitution, rule of law, and the resulting liberty.

Don’t let them forget it.

Eric Holder Promises New Gun Bans

February 27, 2009

Eric Holder promises that the Obama administration is going to reinstitute the so-called “assault weapon ban” that Clinton signed into law, and which was allowed to lapse. Oddly, the primary justification he gives for infringing the rights of American citizens is that “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

Violence and corruption has become so bad in Mexico that the US State Department issued a travel warning, stating that: “Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,”

Obama/Holder want to ban semi-automatic firearms in America because corrupt factions in Mexico use automatic weapons and hand grenades?

Where in the Constitution is the government granted the authority to infringe OUR rights to make a foreign government safe from that same foreign government’s citizens?

Since the anti-rights crowd always claims that crimes are committed in this country by automatic weapons, maybe we should demand that Mexico ban the sale of automatic weapons.

Is this the “New World Order” Clinton always touted? Are we to be subjected to unConstitutional laws in order that some foreign dignitary will be pleased? Is there any hint of justice in submitting to a ban on semi-automatic firearms because violence in Mexico is committed with hand grenades?

When King George declared that firearms should be confiscated in the Colonies, the citizens were reluctant to submit. Are we expected to be more compliant when Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico requests it, or when his lackie, Eric Holder demands it?

Is Eric Holder going to write an edict that he expects to be viewed as a legitimate law? The last time I read the Constitution, laws were crafted by the Legislature and put to a vote, then signed into law by the President.  Eric Holder is not a member of the legislature, nor is the position of  ‘Attorney General’ in the legislative branch of the US Government.

If Eric Holder imposes a law on the citizens of this country, it would not only be an unConstitutional law, but would have been created in an unConstitutional manner, and as such, should be soundly ignored, as it is a sign of abject tyranny.

To submit to tyranny is as unpatriotic as it is foolhardy.

10th Amendment Bills

February 26, 2009

Various states have introduced bills which re-affirm the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Oklahoma even passed theirs (HJR1003) by a huge margin, so there’s hope.

Indiana’s version (Senate Resolution 37) appears to be identical to others introduced around the country. It is nothing except a confirmation of the U.S. Constitution and the principles upon which our country was founded. There is no controversial language. In other words, there is NO REASON that this bill should not pass with a unanimous vote.

Keep an eye out for your state’s version of this, and write to support it. Make sure that your “representatives” don’t tack a bunch of objectionable garbage onto it in order to kill it (a favorite tactic of the statists).

Here is an article about this, but the article is 20 days old, so it’s already outdated.

Get on the phone – write letters and emails.

Chicago Tea Party?

February 20, 2009

Have you seen this??

Maybe people ARE paying attention. Maybe people are even thinking, even though the government doesn’t want anyone engaging in independent thought. When the government wants us to have an opinion, it will have the media tell us what it should be.

But ultimately, there has to come a time when people decide that things have gone far enough. When a situation gets far enough out of hand that you just have to finally say “No. Not any more.” People pay lip service to the Constitution, yet worship the government which is willing to use that Constitution as a doormat. Maybe it is finally time to decide which more closely reflects values which guided our country for 200 years, and to reject an ideology which seeks to ignore the blueprint which laid the groundwork. For far too long, people tried to “pick and choose” which rights they thought were important, and tried to look the other way when the government trampled the others.

For some people, it may be 1st Amendment issues with post 9/11 laws. For others, it may be 2nd Amendment issues. For still others, it might be 4th Amendment issues. Several states are apparently becoming concerned and are raising 9th and 10th Amendment issues. And now, there is the acceleration of the Fascist ideology taking over our country that many are suddenly realizing and becoming concerned with. Those who are concerned over any or all of these issues, I applaud you.

There have been serious problems with our government for years. UnConstitutional laws resulting in the infringement of the rights of tens or hundreds of thousands of people’s lives, which has also resulted in a huge prison population, with an ever-increasing financial burden on society, not to mention the ruination of hundreds of thousands of families. The enforcement of these unConstitutional laws is carried out by a police force which resembles a “police force” in name only. Today’s law enforcement agency more closely resembles a military Special Operations unit, complete with assault rifles, armored personnel carriers, black masks, and night vision goggles.

For most of this time, however, there were groups who were only concerned with one or two of these areas at a time. The government (and its propaganda branch: and media) were able to marginalize whichever group was dissatisfied by portraying them as crackpots. A prime example is that anyone who spoke out about the violation of the 2nd Amendment by the government was labeled by that same government as a “right-wing gun nut.”

This situation has been going on for decades, but is now accelerating, and drawing attention to itself. People have realized that the recent push to socialize our country punishes the responsible and diligent among us in favor of the crooks, the greedy, and irresponsible. The end result will be that some will get to remain in their homes briefly, at the expense of taxpayers. Another result will be the inflation, which will act as a secondary “tax” by raising prices on everything. The only people who benefit are the bank executives, who took their multi-million dollar bonuses out of the first bank-handout package.

With increasing joblessness, and our reduced buying power due to inflation, crime is rising. When you are in bed at night, and hear someone crash down the front door, you will have to wonder if it’s just the militarized “police” on yet another warrentless no-knock raid on a wrong address, or if it’s one of the increasingly more popular home invasion robberies. Ultimately, there’s little difference, as both will result in death or bodily injury to you, damage to your home, your property stolen, and your family terrorized. The only real difference is that if it’s civilian criminals who steal your stuff, your home owner’s insurance will reimburse you for the loss. Not so if they turn out to be government criminals.  Officer Friendly is a concept of the past, and Barney Fife no longer keeps his bullet in his pocket – instead, he keeps his M-16 trained on your son or daughter while they cower in the corner screaming for their mommy, who is probably laying handcuffed naked in the yard, being groped at gunpoint by the local gestapo.

It’s no wonder the government wants to disarm us by institution ever more draconian gun control laws. It has NOTHING to guns, and EVERYTHING to do with control. The government wants to enforce their monopoly on force in their newly instituted police state. They wish to make the country safe for criminals, whether those criminals draw a government check, or are the civilian kind.

So, for the past 25 years or so, there has been one group upset about one particular government action or another, and another totally different group concerned about something else. Those groups as often as not didn’t agree with each other about much of anything. A good example would be 1st and 4th Amendment issues were a rallying cry for the ACLU, while 2nd Amendment issues were the concern of the NRA and GOA. The ACLU traditionally “doesn’t like guns,” and the NRA didn’t like the mostly “left-wing” leanings of the ACLU. If the ACLU would have been willing to defend ALL of the Bill of Rights, then they could have gotten along great and accomplished much more. The government WANTS us to remain divided among ourselves. We are much less efficient if we constantly squabble among ourselves, and we are less of a threat to the government.

We have come to a unique period – one in which EVERYONE is becoming concerned at the same time. Even if it’s about different issues, we much recognize AND SUPPORT those who speak out. When there is open talk of a “Chicago Tea Party” on CNBC, and nobody calls them a “right-wing crackpot,” you can tell that something is in the air.