Concerning us all

If you’re not familiar with the economic events of the recent past, I would urge you to investigate them from the information source of your own choosing. If you’re not sure where to look, I’ll help at your request.

Once you’re familiar with the context, I’d ask you to consider the solution proposed by our elected representatives: full text here - http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/economy/treasury_proposal/index.htm :

• The Treasury Secretary (who is unelected) is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means that you and I (taxpayers) are on the hook for loans on property that may lose or have already lost most of its value.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." Obviously, taking over and running formerly private companies is NOT a Constitutionally delegated power of the federal government. Consider the precedent that is being set.

• "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process – not the courts, not anybody.

Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. I don’t care what your political persuasion is. If you value the Constitution and ultimately your own freedom, I urge you to get informed about what’s going on. Other than that, what can you do? Let your congressperson and senators know how you feel. Phone is best, but anything is better than nothing. To get their contact information, visit: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Posterity will thank you for your concern.

Lastly, I want to thank you for at least reading this far. It is my sincere hope that we will all weather this storm safely, and it is only out of my concern for our mutual well-being that I write. I hope this letter finds you all well.

The Dali Lama on self-defense

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would
be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a
fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.

Well, I'd say he's on the right track. Now, if you're willing to shoot at someone (no matter what you're aiming at), you're saying that you're willing to risk killing him to keep him from killing you. There is no such thing as a guaranteed incapacitating, but non-lethal gunshot.

So, if you're okay with that, then you might as well play the better odds and shoot for center mass. And if you want to be effective, you'd better practice. And for any of it to matter, you have to be "allowed" to carry a gun for self-defense.

Economic SHTF around the corner

Another relevant quote, for today:

"If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

Thomas Jefferson

We're about to plunge into stage one of that process.

Smoking Bans

I'm sure you can figure out what I think about smoking bans, but just in case, here's the quote of the day:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best." ~ Thomas Sowell

Wanna rate your local LEO? Sorry, it could be dangerous.

So, somebody had the great idea to put up a website where I could rate my cop. It only lists publicly available names of officers (no undercover agents, no other personal information). It allows local people to rate their LEO's. Pretty cool, watchdog-ish idea, huh?

Well the po-po don't think so, and neither did the sites host, godaddy.com. The coppers come out with the usual "fears":

"Having a website like that puts a lot of law enforcement, in my eyes, in danger because it exposes us out there," Officer Hector Basurto, vice president of the Latino Police Officers Association, told ABC television affiliate KGO.

Gosh, wouldn't want anything being "exposed" would you? You know what they say about US when we talk about our privacy? "What do you have to hide?"

Vote 2008

Or do something useful with your time, like taking a nap.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But underthe name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialistprogram, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, withoutknowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of AmericaSource: 1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,

[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist PartyCandidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republicanand Democratic parties by 1970 had adopted every plank on theCommunist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platformon which to run.]

Stuff I've been thinking about

• The Coming Election Cycle: If you don't like Ron Paul, I'd like to know what you don't like about the Constitution.
• The Only Ones: If you're not reading TWOG every day, you ought to be. If you haven't seen the video of the Missouri kid getting told by the pig that he'd make up 9 reasons to take him to jail, for goodness sake go watch it!
• I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t more than a little concerned about our monetary policy leading to currency debasement and the ultimate collapse of our economy.
• Prayer: I’m still studying why we do it and more critically, what it does and who affects.
• Hunting Season: Dove season was a let-down this year, but I’m gearing up for deer (shotgun) season.
• I’m pretty well convinced that a North American Union is just around the corner, especially if the Lizard Queen is “elected.”

What to expect when you call 911

If you think you'll call 911 if you've got a home intruder, you'd better think again. Only you can be responsible for the security of your family.

Summary:

"Hello, 911?"
"Somebody's breaking into my house!"
"Are you sure, how do you know?"
"I heard breaking glass! All kinds of noise!"
"Sure it's not your roommate who forgot their key?"
"BANG!"
"Leroy just shot him."
"Does your husband have a gun?"
"Yes he has a gun, he just shot the man!"
"What kind of gun does he have?"

That's enough to give you a flavor.

What if...

All blonde-haired, blue-eyed men named Nicolas are to be made slaves to the State. We will not be harmed, so long as we cooperate. We will have our basic needs met, and even our families will be cared for. We just won’t be free.

Shall I fight? Will you fight on my behalf?

I wonder.

My life is not threatened. My family’s life is not threatened. Only my freedom is to be dispensed with. The Bible allows me to kill in defense of my life or the life of another, but slaves are commanded to obey their masters, even abusive ones.

Perhaps under these circumstances, the right thing to do would be to submit, knowing that my life is temporary and has been bought with a price. It belongs to my Creator.

What if it were not me? What if it were blonde-haired, blue-eyed men named Adam? It would seem noble to fight on their behalf, for their freedom and natural human rights.

But is my freedom, or anyone else’s for that matter, worth the price of a life?

The Cart Before the Horse: IL Receipts Tax Coming?

What is a receipts tax? Well, instead of (or in addition to) taxing the income of a company, they'd just tax the gross receipts of the company. What's the difference? If you already know, move on to the next paragraph. If you don't... The difference is that you'd be getting taxed on every dollar you take in as a business, regardless of whether or not you're actually making any money at all.

Of course it's terrible. Of course it's wrong. What else would you expect from Blago?

But here's what's really wrong. It's what's wrong with IL and most states, along with the federal gov. They've got the cart before the horse. They sit down and think of all the things they want to spend money on. Then they try to figure out how they can steal enough of your money get enough to cover their expenses. Sometimes (most of the time in the case of the feds) they just spend away, regardless of whether or not they expect to take enough money in.

When I want a new car, I don't go to my employer and tell him to give me a raise.

Blago wants healthcare for everybody. When the Lizard Queen is elected, we'll all get it. More accurately, none of us will get quality care.

Oh well... One step closer to the end times.

Thoughts on investing

Disclaimer: Do your own research and think for yourself. Assume I’m an idiot and I don’t know what I’m talking about. You still might come to the same conclusions I do, but at least you’ll know why you believe it.

Let’s talk about saving for retirement for a bit. Everyone seems to ask, “How much should I save?”. The answer is simple. Half.

HALF!?!

Yes, half. Well maybe a third. Okay, let’s think about it. First and foremost, a key assumption here is that whatever you save will grow at about the rate of inflation. The bottom line is that the money you put away doesn’t REALLY grow when you take inflation, fees, expenses, and capital gains taxes into account. The only way around this assumption is for you to beat the masses. Clearly, everyone can’t beat everyone else on their rate of return. You can’t count on somehow beating the odds.

So what does that mean? Well, in the words of the Mogambo Guru, "Mathematically, with real (inflation-adjusted) net gains of zero, to get a hamburger in the future, you have to save a hamburger today."

If you work it all out, you’ll come to the conclusion that if you live on half of what you take home, you can have a day of retirement for every day of work If you’re going to work twice as long as you plan to spend in retirement, then you can afford to live on 2/3 of what you take home.

So, if you’re in your 20’s and plan to work for 40 years and retire for 20 (and you want to live like you do now in retirement), you’d better be socking away the equivalent of 33% of your “spending budget” every month. If you want to work for 30 and retire for 30, your retirement savings better be equal to half of what you spend. Make sense?

Now hopefully you’ll have your house paid off before you retire, so that’ll free up some cash, but chances are you’ll be replacing that expense with old-age related expenses so don’t get too excited.

So I guess we'd better either get saving, or come up with a way to beat inflation and taxes.

Senate Bill 1 (S. 1) 'Victory'

From the GOA:

Friday, January 19, 2007

Congratulations! You have, once again, whupped the anti-gun zealots!

As Constitution-hating senators like California's Dianne Feinstein whined and complained, the Senate -- by a narrow largely-party-line vote of 55-43 -- struck language which would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members and friends (like you).

GOA has heard reports that there was an outpouring of calls against this anti-speech language on Capitol Hill, and that it made a huge difference. In addition to the massive wave of grassroots opposition, GOA was also working in concert with key Hill players (many of them trained by GOA) to hammer out a legislative strategy that would either result in the death of the entire bill or, at a minimum, kill the dangerous Section 220.

The good news came late on Thursday night when the Bennett amendment-- which deleted this unconstitutional "grassroots lobbying" reporting language contained in S. 1 -- was adopted by the narrow margin mentioned above.

The war is not over. The House has yet to produce its bill in this area -- and no one is betting that the House will "do the right thing." But we have won what perhaps will be the most important battle.

My Hero

His name is Ed Brown. He was just on Fox News. He’s got “many” armed supporters with him barricaded in his home, but he’s talking to the press. He just said “somebody’s got to stand up to these government oppressors, and it’s going to start with me” or something like that. “Federal marshals have no plans to storm his home.” We’ll see how long that lasts. My guess is it’ll come down to a siege.

Oh, and the article I linked refers to his house as a "compound". That pretty much seals the deal.

Update on Senate Bill One (S.1)

It's not just the AFA that sees a problem with this. Here's what the GOA had to say (in an email to me:

"The legislation (S. 1) would regulate "grassroots lobbying" by requiring groups like us to monitor and report the amount of money we spend to exercise our First Amendment rights on behalf of gun ownership.
Suffice it to say that a government which can force us to monitor and report on our "grassroots" activity could just as easily force us to provide even more sensitive details of these efforts.
This could include demands for our membership list -- that is, attempts to get REGISTRATION lists of gun owners' names -- and the specifics of communications with our friends!!!"

ACTION: Contact your two Senators and ask them to support Senate Amendment #20 to S. 1. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
---- Pre-written letter to your Senators ----
Dear Senator:
S. 1 is an effort to intimidate organizations, like Gun Owners of America, that work with members and friends to encourage Congress to support the Second Amendment. Thankfully, Senators McConnell and Bennett are offering Senate Amendment #20 -- to be voted on later this week -- that will knock Section 220 out of S. 1.
I urge you to support that amendment. And if the amendment is defeated, then I would strongly urge you to oppose the underlying bill. Gun Owners of America will be rating both of these votes.
Just as the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, the First Amendment protects our rights to petition the government for redress of grievances. And the power to regulate and monitor our grassroots activities on behalf of gun ownership is, ultimately, the power to destroy those rights.
Please know that this is as much a Second Amendment issue as direct efforts to seize our guns from our hands.
Sincerely,

A nice church to visit

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the White Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

Actually, that's Barack Obama's church. Oh, and I replaced "black" with "white". Think anybody with a "white" church like that could ever get elected?

Update:
Just made the title a link to the church's website.

For what it's worth

For reasons unknown, I happened to listen to Dobson on the way to work this morning. He was pissed. Mind you, I normally take the upsettedness of the AFA with a grain of salt, because I find them just as likely to advocate government intervention as freedom, but this morning's alarm was different.

He's pissed about Senate Bill number one (S.1). He and his panel agreed that it was unclear as to how the bill might be applied, but when a bill is unclear you can expect the feds will use it to take as much power as they possibly can. Okay, okay, what's it all about?

Well, according to Dobson and co., there's a provision in this "ethics reform" bill that will require groups like the AFA (and likely NRA, GOA, JPFO, and a host of other grass-roots organizers) to report quarterly any contact with its members on the subject of pending legislation (be it email alerts, speeches, radio shows, whatever). What it amounts to (according to Jim) is a muzzle on groups who specialize in mobilizing regular folks to call their congresscritters. So much for free speech. So much for keeping track of what's going on on the Hill.

I looked at the text, and had a hard time making a lot of sense of it because it's a lot of "replace this with that" and I couldn't find the revised code all put together.

So, if Dobson's alarm is valid (and I certainly wouldn't put it past the Senate), the ol' bus analogy may prove true. The Democrats have been revving the engine, and with their first bill they're going to dump the clutch. Buckle up, cause this buss is headed for trouble.

What to think

For reasons unknown, I happened to listen to Dobson on the way to work this morning. He was pissed. Mind you, I normally take the upsettedness of the AFA with a grain of salt, because I find them just as likely to advocate government intervention as freedom, but this morning's alarm was different.

He's pissed about Senate Bill number one (S.1). He and his panel agreed that it was unclear as to how the bill might be applied, but when a bill is unclear you can expect the feds will use it to take as much power as they possibly can. Okay, okay, what's it all about?

Well, according to Dobson and co., there's a provision in this "ethics reform" bill that will require groups like the AFA (and likely NRA, GOA, JPFO, and a host of other grass-roots organizers) to report quarterly any contact with its members on the subject of pending legislation (be it email alerts, speeches, radio shows, whatever). What it amounts to (according to Jim) is a muzzle on groups who specialize in mobilizing regular folks to call their congresscritters. So much for free speech. So much for keeping track of what's going on on the Hill.

I looked at the text, and had a hard time making a lot of sense of it because it's a lot of "replace this with that" and I couldn't find the revised code all put together.

So, if Dobson's alarm is valid (and I certainly wouldn't put it past the Senate), the ol' bus analogy may prove true. The Democrats have been revving the engine, and with their first bill they're going to dump the clutch. Buckle up, cause this buss is headed for trouble.

Hiatus

In case you haven't noticed, I'm taking a little break.

A good reason to live in Utah

"In a ruling that legal experts say could threaten the autonomy of public universities and the safety of their students, the Utah Supreme Court ruled Friday that the University of Utah cannot bar guns from its campus."

This is NOT another "Property Rights vs. Individual Rights" case, which I've talked about before. This is a public University which takes it out of the "private property owner" realm. If it were my property, I could make the rules. I could say you're not allowed to enter with a gun, or I could say you're not allowed to enter without a gun. But this is a tax-payer funded university, owned by the State and my constitutional rights need not be sacrificed to enroll.

Guns don't make anyone safer

This may be a long one...

Here is all of the background information concerning William Morva, the suspected shooter of a law enforcement officer, and how VA Tech was frozen in fear due to his being "on the loose" in or near the campus.

The incident spawned a series of arguments related to gun regulation. One example was the editorial I responded to last week. Now, another editorial comes out supposedly putting to rest all of our silly "gun rights advocate" ideas. He's responding to a submission by Bradford Wiles titled Imagine if Students Were Armed.

"In my 55 years I've read a lot of newspapers and watched a lot of news on TV, and I just have not seen many reports of incidents where private citizens packing handguns have defended themselves or prevented crimes. I'm sure those incidents do occur, but I'm equally sure they don't occur in meaningful numbers."

Well, I guess that settles that, right? I mean, since you don't hear about it on CNN or EVEN FOX NEWS (*gasp*), it must not ever happen, right? Well, not in meaningful numbers, surely. Let's see... You can pick up an American Rifleman and read about half a dozen or so such incidents every month. You could check Keep and Bear Arms for daily reports of citizens lawfully defending themselves. You could even (and I know this is hard) do your own Google search to find examples of this. Of course, that still won't find all the occurrences because many, if not most incidents where a law-abiding citizen uses a gun (most often not even firing it, let alone killing anyone) go unreported. The Gary Kleck study showed that there are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. Would you consider that a "meaningful number?" [Update: Check out Clayton Cramer’s Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, for near daily uses of handguns for self-defense. Hat tip to SayUncle.]

"In contrast, we read every day of incidents where private, usually law-abiding citizens use too readily available guns with tragic consequences -- emotionally charged domestic disputes, alcohol-related disputes, road rage and, rarely, misguided attempts at private law enforcement."

Since you read about it every day, I'd like a half dozen examples each of where otherwise law-abiding citizens (especially concealed carry permit holders) use their firearms unlawfully and with tragic consequences in road-rage incidents, domestic disputes, and (where did this come from?) "misguided attempts at private law enforcement". I won't hold my breath.

"In response to Wile's implied question: Yes. I do expect you to rely, as everyone else does, on trained law enforcement rather than on yourself, with a gun."

I don't really care what you "expect" me to do. I know my rights. You just keep telling yourself that the police will always be there to protect you. Don’t bother to read about all of the unanswered 911 calls [2] [3], dismissed as prank 911 calls, or the court’s upholding the fact that police do not have an obligation to protect individuals.

"I feel better knowing that my daughter, a college student, does not have a gun and does not need a gun largely because her college, like Virginia Tech, prohibits them on college grounds."

I don't care how you "feel", and it is just plain stupid to think that VT's prohibition of guns would keep someone (by definition a criminal) from using one to harm your daughter.

"As soon as you put any person on that prohibited list, you're recognizing that the Second Amendment cannot be an absolute unbridled right for every individual to 'bear arms.'"

That's the first quasi-logical thing you've said. That's why I agree with those who believe that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian.