The GOP's common sense approach to healthcare reform.

The dirty little truth is, we didn't need the government to take over one sixth of our economy to improve access to healthcare. We didn't need to be told what policies we could keep and which we couldn't. We didn't need lie compounded upon lie about how our premiums would decline or that we could keep our plan if we liked it. Period. Nope, we didn't need any of that to improve healthcare in America. Even to this day, the President keeps saying that if the GOP has any better ideas, he hasn't heard them. Another lie. He just doesn't want to hear them. When he was running for president in 2008, Mr. Obama admitted he "would probably go ahead with a single-payer (government only)system" if he was "designing a system from scratch." It's no surprise that he professes not to have heard any good ideas from Republicans.  But for those of you who think like the President, here are just a few ideas on how to improve healthcare that don't require a massive government intrusion.

1. Competition. You can buy your car and home insurance from an out-of-state insurance company, why not your healthcare insurance? Currently, that's illegal. But wouldn't it make sense to have competitors from 49 other states? Of course it would. This is basic stuff, people. We're not reinventing the wheel here. Remember, once the government runs healthcare completely, there is NO choice.

2. Teaching Hospitals & Clinics. 40 - 50 years ago, young doctors were given experience by working at hospitals and clinics. These clinics via teaching hospitals, gave free healthcare to those who didn't have insurance or couldn't afford the specific procedures. In return, those young physicians gained experience in treating patients. It was very cost effective. Need cataract surgery? No problem, we'll see you Thursday. But over-regulation has made these facilities non-feasible. Maybe it's time to take a giant step backwards.

3. Low premium/high deductible plans. If you're 23 years old, you don't need a plan with all the bells and whistles. You just require a catastrophic healthcare plan. Low premiums with a higher deductible are uncomplicated and affordable. This should be available to everyone. The government now dictates what plans are good enough for you and which ones aren't. Surprising that the party which touts a woman's "choice", doesn't want to offer you any.

4. Small business group plans. Allow small business groups to merge so that they can have access to plans with reduced premiums. Large pools with more healthy people in them keep costs down. Yeah, some things are just that simple.

5. Tort reform.  ObamaCare doesn't address Tort reform (frivolous lawsuits) at all. Who do you think actually pays for all those lawyers and big settlements? You, through higher and higher premiums. Would have been nice to take a look at this, don't you think? But virtually ALL Senators are lawyers, so...

6. Health Savings Accounts - Maybe you would prefer to keep all that money you might have spent on a healthcare plan. But you would still like to have money put aside for a medical emergency just in case. HSA's offer that. But ObamaCare drastically reduced the tax benefits and availabilities to HSA's. Again, your "choice" has been taken away from you. Nice, huh.

These are just a few common sense approaches to reforming healthcare in America. And we could still have portability and allow children to stay on their parent's policy to age 26 without the massive intrusion that is Obamacare. Those specific items could have been addressed. Instead they were the carrot designed to entice people. (Along with free birth control) Now those same people will feel the stick. Hope you enjoyed that carrot.

The $15.00 an hour question.

On Friday, fast food workers protested in favor of a minimum wage of $15.00/hour. Well, some were fast food workers but many were union organizers ginning up the crowd. Currently, the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. While true, that someone would be hard pressed to keep ones head financially above water with that wage, much less raise a family - very few people actually work for the $7.25 wage. Nationally only 4.7%. (U.S. Dept. of Labor) And the majority of those workers are under the age of 20. The problem with mandating a minimum wage of $15.00 an hour such as the fast food workers are demanding, is that at that rate, profit margins for fast food restaurants drop tremendously. Companies like McDonald for instance, would have two choices. Raise prices or fire workers. Since a large segment of fast food is sold to lower income people, the effect would hurt them the most. Firing workers hurts even more.
Fast food restaurants are a good place for many young people to get their first work experience. But if you plan on making it your career, maybe you shouldn't be blaming McDonalds for your problems. Most people want to move up the ladder of success. But removing access to the first rung on that ladder isn't going to help anyone.
But let's assume the $15.00/hr. rate goes into effect. How does that play to non-commercial food workers? I can hear the howls from a lot of other workers  not employed by fast food restaurants complaining to their bosses that they are worth more than just a few dollars an hour more than the guy who chose to make flipping burgers his career. And they'd be right!
If you are a good employee worth having, your boss will pay more than $7.25/hr. to keep you. That's why 95.3% of workers earn more than the minimum. Quality workers will always be able to bargain for higher compensation.
My first job paid me the then minimum wage of $2.25/hr. Yes, that was some time ago. Of course, gas was about 60 cents a gallon and a Whopper, fries and Coke could be had for under $2.00. Still, I wasn't getting rich on that $2.25 every hour on the hour. After two weeks, my boss came up to me and gave me a 50 cent an hour raise. I didn't even ask for it. I must have been worth keeping around, I suppose. Paying me more than the minimum was a way to keep me from seeking employment elsewhere. That's how the system is suppose to work.
Bottom line - you are worth what someone is willing to pay you. No more, no less. Competition for quality people with skills will drive up wages. However, if you are in a work pool that doesn't compete for quality skilled workers, you are likely to remain at the low end of the wage scale. It really is that simple.

An open apology to everyone under 40.

It's great to be young, isn't it? Well, mostly. But the truth is, you wont be young forever. In fact, you wont be "young" for the majority of your life. Of course, young can be a state of mind as well. I've seen a lot of "old" people under 30 and a lot of "young" people approaching 60. I should know. But that aside, let's talk about one factor of age you can't deny. "Chronological age".  Sooner and not so later, you will achieve adulthood. And the thing about adulthood - it just keeps going. 25 turns into 30. 30 into 40 and so on and so on. And boy does it come quick. And here's where the apology comes in.

As a baby boomer, I want to apologize for the massive debt you're about to inherit. My generation and the one that preceded us, voted ourselves huge benefits which we called "entitlements". In conjunction with a government that was all-too-happy to see the good times roll while guaranteeing themselves re-election after re-election, we stole your comfortable future. As you may know, the current national debt resides at $17 trillion. The year I was born, the national debt stood at $274 billion. The yearly interest on the current national debt is almost double that figure at $412 billion. That's just the interest. Considering we run a $1 trillion annual deficit, forget about paying off the actual debt itself. Such debts and deficits will gobble up capital that should be available for private ventures that create jobs and wealth. But instead, the federal government will require that money to pay for such items as Social Security and Medicare payments along with everything else. We are the largest retired population that will have their benefits paid for by the smallest working population ever. (See: Pyramid scheme) Some will attempt to tell you that Social Security has a surplus. They're lying to you. At one time SS did have a surplus courtesy of a large working population and a rather small retired population. The federal government "borrowed" money from SS to fund other programs. The problem is, these other programs never budgeted money to pay SS back. Currently SS has $2 trillion in I.O.U.s in it's coffers. Essentially worthless pieces of paper that are promissory notes with no financial backing... at all. But the generations before you are going to demand their benefits. And you're going to pay for them. Medical expenses for an aging population are expensive as well. We'll want that too by the way. Sorry if that doesn't leave much left over for your needs.

There are many to blame here - from both political parties. But the current administration and his party have shown absolutely no interest in controlling spending and debt. If Conservatives show a desire to do so, they are labeled as being hateful and charged with attempting to starve old people, deny young people an education and generally destroy the planet by their very existence. But if we're to spread the blame around here - some of it belongs on your doorstep as well. In recent elections, the youth vote has gone to the Democrats just as it has for the last 20 or so years. I have to admit it, the Dems have done a masterful job of enticing you. They offer the promise of everything including free health care. But they neglected to tell you about the part where you're going to eventually have to pay for it. By contrast the GOP offers you opportunity, liberty and personal responsibility. I guess that doesn't have quite the impact as "do what you want and pick up your free contraceptives as you exit the voting booth".
Eventually, someone has to be the adult in the room and tell you what you need to hear rather than what you want to hear. Take a look at the protesters against big government in Washington. Most of them are older. They're willing to make sacrifices for the future. Your future. We could stand back and just wait for our goodies to kick in. But we see the peril in doing so. America wasn't built to last 100 or 200 years. It wasn't set up to be a buffet of benefits to be paid for by the next two generations. It was designed to be the best hope on Earth for personal liberty and a template for success. And if kept true to original design, it cannot fail. We have drifted far from our founders' intent and the culprits are many. But now is the time to embrace and follow a particular ideology. One will shape your future, the other will dictate your future. Which will you choose?

Who decides what's "Hate Speech"?

Recently, Humbolt State University professor, Monica Stephens developed a Geography of Hate map of the United States. By monitoring tweets that include the words that include homophobic, racist, and disability, Ms. Stephens says she can tell us where the most hateful places in America exists. Uh huh. Allegedly, the areas designated in red and the most hateful places, the blue the least hateful. Notice how the heartland and south are just a sea of vitriol according to Professor Stephen's investigation. Yet the east and west coasts are much more enlightened. You know, the liberal bastions.

I can't help but notice that Ms. Stephen's definition of hate is specifically targeted and somewhat limited. For instance, while she considers gay bashing tweets to be hateful, she provides no similar option for tweets that mention the word "Bible thumpers". Of course, she rightfully included racial tweets but does not allow for the phrase "Teabaggers". Both hateful against Christians and those who proclaim Conservative values. Her exercise was not intended to identify all hate speech, just hate speech one might use against specific categories of people. Therefore, she alone identifies what constitutes hate speech and who the victims of hate speech are. Ms. Stephens mapping of hate made no effort to mention anti-religious tweets nor those who regularly offend those who proclaim right wing principles. It would appear the absence of such groups is by design. And apparently, if you are among either of those groups, your sensitivities are irrelevant. In fact, you can't be a victim of hate. She has not only minimized you, she wont even recognize you. Perhaps that's the real hate speech at work here - words that don't even qualify.

How to win the Obamacare war.

                                                                

This past week, the GOP controlled House of Representatives voted to keep funding the federal government, minus Obamacare. While efforts are underway to convince the Democrat held Senate do likewise, it will fail. Even if some miracle occurred and the Senate mustered 51 votes to go along with the House vote - the President would use his veto power - as the Senate wouldn't produce a high enough veto proof number. End of discussion. Sure, the House could fail to raise the debt limit and even a Senate filibuster may happen. But in the end, Republicans will get the blame for shutting down the government even though they would insist on continued funding for such necessities as Social Security, Medicare and the military, to name a few. Sometimes facts don't matter as much as rhetoric. Sad? Yes. But also true. Our line against Obamacare must be drawn, but not here and not now.

Elections have consequences. We've all heard that ol' chestnut before. But it's worth repeating because it's true. At this point in time, there is nothing Republicans can do to slow down much less impede, dismantle or outright halt Obamacare. To think otherwise is pure self indulged folly. Our focus and energies must be redirected where they can do the most good and have the most results. And that is the midterm elections of 2014 and the General elections of 2016. Yes, I know. That's a long time to wait. But I believe time is actually on our side.

Obamacare becomes less and less popular with most Americans as time goes by. The latest polls show dissatisfaction in the program at or nearing 60%. When the unions are complaining about a Democratic President and his policies, you know they've really got problems. This past week, corporations such as IBM and Walgreens have announced they will no longer be directly providing their employees with coverage and instead will dump them into the Obamacare health exchanges. Other companies have previously announced similar intentions. So much for 'keeping the health care plan you already have' as El Presidente' promised back in 2009. Within the next year, the list of companies both large and small who will follow similar paths will continue to grow. At some point, the avalanche of companies ditching their employees plans in favor of the exchanges will hit critical mass - just as the Obamaites wanted. But what they may not have foreseen, was the uproar this will cause at the polls. The public knows that the Democrats will never undo Obamacare - only the Republicans are capable of producing that result. It must be the main focus of our platform in the next election cycle. If you want this massive intrusion into your life and business gone, you have to vote it gone. In 2010 we saw a 65 seat swing in the House to the GOP. A lot of that was due to the opposition of Obamacare. With a more energized Republican base, we may have actually gotten rid of the King himself in 2012. But that's another argument for another time. With our energies refocused to individual races next year, we could swing enough Senate votes to make the 2016 Presidential race irrelevant when it comes to revoking Obamacare. At the very least, it will set the table for a 2016 GOP Presidential victory and with it, the power to get rid of this monstrosity.

Listen, I know it's tempting to flex our Conservative muscle in a feel good move such as the one Senator Ted Cruz and others are promoting. But it is doomed to fail. And in the end, we gain nothing. Let the Democrats have this one. They own Obamacare. It's theirs. All we need to do is to keep reminding voters of that fact. We have to fight the battles we can win so that ultimately the war is won. It does us no good to wage war upon ourselves when the battle must be brought to the shores of our opposition instead. From this point forward, we must keep reminding the American voter, which party brought this plague upon their houses. And which party is committed to seeing it dismantled.

Syria. Obama's mouth puts our ass in danger.

Red lines ain't what they used to be. Back in the day, when you drew a red line, it meant something. Nowadays, you have to go running behind Congress's skirt after making that ultimatum. Obama draws the red line then embarrasses himself when the heat in the kitchen gets too hot. Makes you wonder if he ever really wanted to take any action against Assad. I could argue that he doesn't have the authority to launch an attack - as there is no discernible "imminent danger" from Syria. But that aside, the President seem to be waffling on what he really wants to do.
What happens if the Senate and House don't approve his planned action in Syria? What does he do if the Senate votes to authorize but the House votes no? (Which is what I believe will happen) Does one legislative house give him the authority or does he require both? Well, if both houses are required for the passage of bills, etc. it stands to reason that both would be required when seeking authorization for military actions. It's even possible neither the house or Senate will give him a thumbs up. Should Obama decline to take military action based upon a legislative vote, he will look weak. Not the image we want presented to such bad guys as Iran and North Korea, let alone the Russians and Chinese. He has painted himself into a corner and now wants Congress to bail him out. Perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut from the beginning and not drawn brightly colored lines.

Assad is a nasty guy for sure. His regime is every bit as bad as Saddam's was. Both gassed their own people for starters. But like many Americans, I don't believe there is much of anything positive that can be achieved by attacking Syria.  If we attack with just enough power to weaken Assad, the rebels may use that to their advantage and make inroads in toppling the government. But Obama says that wouldn't be his goal. Rather he just wants to punish Assad by bombing his Air Force's runways, planes and military assets. And what if Assad is toppled? Who or what replaces him? Some of the rebels have strong ties to militant Muslim extremist groups. Are these the people we want in charge of Syria's chemical weapons? Bombing a Muslim country - any Muslim country, is not going to endear them to us. What if Syria uses their chemical weapons again after we attack? Do we bomb em' some more? How much more?

I'm sympathetic to the plight of innocent civilians. They don't deserve this. But why does it have to be us to take action? Why not let the countries in that regions use their own military to keep Assad in line? America only has one true friend in the Middle East. Israel. Jordan gets the silver metal for second place. After that, it's just a matter of how less than the next country they hate us. Does anyone really think the Saudis like us? Really like us? They, like the Turks and Pakistanis are just looking out for their best interests. Perhaps it's time that we do the same. But Obama has put all of us in a unique situation. The risk is now having America look weak and confused. I fear we may have to cover the President's ass and launch some sort of limited attack just so we don't look so ineffective and stupid. No, I'm not happy with that decision. I hate it. But Barack's mouth got our ass in trouble. This is what happens when you elect a Community organizer to the Presidency. Twice.

Are Starbucks coffee shops the safest on the planet?

Imagine you're a criminal intent on robbing a store. What kind of store? Well, for today's lesson let's make it a coffee shop. Now, coffee shop "A" refuses to allow guns of any kind by anyone on it's premises. While coffee shop "B" actually encourages law abiding individuals to enter and enjoy their beverages while armed. Even though you may have the intellect of a Moldavian Slime Rat, you would probably choose to rob coffee shop "A". With little or no resistance and zero chance of being confronted by an equally powered individual or individuals, you would rather avoid any confrontation that might land you injured, dead or in prison. Simple? You bet. But there are those out there who have the attitude that guns are bad no matter who has them. Better to be disarmed and at the mercy of those who have no qualms about using said gun for illegal and with potentially deadly results. If that's your stance, fine. It's not mine.

Starbucks Coffee is generally considered to be a Progressive leaning company. And I disagree with some of their stances. But there is one issue that I stand shoulder to shoulder with and that's Starbuck's decision to allow the legal carrying of guns into their establishments. This Saturday, there is a national movement by the anti-gun crowd to boycott and in some areas, protest Starbuck's policy.
Starbucks spokesman, Zach Hutson said, he doesn't want either side to use Starbucks as a staging ground for either side of the issue. But added, " our policy is not changing." Kudos all the way around, Zach.

Opponents of Starbucks policy have said they don't like being in an environment where a gun may be present. I've got news for you - you have been in such an environment many times and just didn't know it. And not only at Starbucks. Many states like mine (Pennsylvania) have Concealed Carry Weapons permits issued by your County Sheriff. This permits individuals who have had their backgrounds checked, to carry a concealed weapon on their person. I am one such person. And yes, I have visited Starbuck numerous times while carrying a weapon. Nobody ever knew it. They just enjoyed their lattes, keyed through their laptops and got on with their lives. I even clean up the counter where the cream and sugar are just before I leave. (What a right wing nut!)

There are horrific crimes being perpetrated out there. Some are being committed using guns. But almost none of them are being done by law abiding citizens. The idea of disarming the good guys while the bad guys ignore the laws, is an alien concept to me. I fail to see it's logic or merit. More people will be murdered this year by an assailant using a hammer. Yet I see no outpouring of contempt of hammers or proposals to require licensing hammer ownership. Perhaps we need "Hammer-Free" zones around schools. Maybe construction workers shouldn't be allowed to bring their hammers inside Starbucks.

We live in a free and potentially dangerous society. All one has to do is read the national and local news to see mindless violence rules the day. Recently a man was murdered by youths who were "bored". Yes, they used a gun. An illegal gun used by young men too young to legally obtain one. Yet, they possessed one. The gun control laws that make law abiding citizens jump through hoops, have no effect on those intent on mayhem. Starbucks is a privately owned company and they can make up their own rules regarding guns, hammers or G.I. Joe action figures on their premises. But you may feel a little more secure in knowing that a bad guy looking for a quick score, will probably pass the Starbucks you're enjoying you coffee in. I wonder what Dunkin' Donuts policy is?

Sorry, but Detroit got what it deserved.

Detroit is defaulting to which I say, "Boo Hoo".  What?  Not sensitive enough?
Well, how many times do you have to hit your thumb with a hammer before you recalculate your actions? Detroit hasn't had a Republican Mayor since 1962. And the city council has been in GOP control only once in that time. The city's population has dwindled from 1.8 million in 1950 to 1.2 million in 1980. Then it got much worse. Down to 1 million in 1990.  951,000 in 2000. Today, the population stands at 700,000 - lower than it was in 1920. Things got so bad, the city just starting razing abandoned homes. It you look at Google Maps, locate the Tiger's stadium. Next to the baseball field is the home of the NFL Detroit Lions. But across the street and for blocks to follow, are empty lots where homes once stood. We're not talking about an area at the edges of the city. We're talking about the edges of downtown. Sad. As with most tragedies like this, there are numerous villains. But with Detroit, it's easier to spot the responsible (or irresponsible) parties.
Detroit has over $3 billion in unfunded public employee pensions. In fact, even while the population declined, the number of city employees expanded - as did the generous pensions and benefit packages. Sadly, Detroit isn't alone. New York, San Francisco and Washington D.C. lead the way to financial disaster. Not surprisingly, the top 10 cities on the verge of default are headed by (drum roll please) Democrats! If you think a city on the brink of financial ruin is bad, what about a state? California will probably be the first state to go bankrupt. But that shouldn't come as a surprise when you realize that in Cali you can retire as a firefighter or policeman at age 52 with 80% of your salary and full health benefits. Teachers have it almost as good. Who do you think pays for all that sugar? THE STATE! Funded by personal and business taxes. That might explain why Californians are leaving the Golden State in droves. So are businesses. Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown wants to tax California to prosperity. Sounds like a plan! If you wanted to operate your business, where would you choose to locate? California with taxes a plenty? Or say, Texas with low taxes and a business friendly environment. By the way. Texas is doin' just great! Probably just a coincidence that California has been led by Democrats and Texas, Republicans. Also a coincidence that of the 20 most prosperous states, 18 are firmly in the hands of Republicans. But enough about them. Let's get back to Detroit. The motor city is an American tragedy. But it wont be our last. Detroit is just the canary in the mine. And the mine has been bored deep for decades. But like everywhere else, Detroit got what it voted for. Just like Texas.

Thankfully, I'll be dead when it happens.

 

The Immigration Reform bill is yet another sign of the impending American apocalypse. While (almost) everyone agrees the border needs to be secured before any legalization takes place - the bill in it's current form allows the Dept. of Homeland Security head, Janet Napolitano to simply declare the border secure and dismiss the construction of any walls, electronic or physical, from being deployed. Does anyone really think Janet or any other Democrat installed head of the DHS has any interest in securing the border? Of course not. The Dems are real big on telling Republicans that they must change and embrace the illegals. In fact, Dems are more than eager to instruct the GOP on how to remain a relevant political party and get votes. Hmmm. I don't think we should be taking advise from the opposition. They may not have our best interests at heart. The GOP has been losing the Latino vote every year since Ronald Reagan's ill fated 1986 Amnesty program. Although well intentioned, the promises of securing the border after the Amnesty never materialized. Hence, the problem we have today. We're told that legalizing the law breakers is the only way they'll like us. Well, that tact hasn't worked so well for us in the past. And it's not likely to make much inroads into the Hispanic vote these days either. Although most Latinos are Conservative on social issues, they also embrace big government solutions the Dems love to employ. My life experience tells me that money issues are usually the winning issues. The Dems know that if they can get the Latinos, especially the new immigrant Latinos on their side, they'll vote Democrat and all but insure that we will never see another Republican President. In that scenario, the GOP could only hope to have power in the House of Representatives. Forget the Senate. We can be obstructionists but never the party that sets the agenda. If Texas is turned from a red state into a blue state - game over. And it could happen if the American southwest is flooded with Democrat voting Latinos. Should that occur, say hello to an even bigger entitlement demanding and receiving America. And the enormous debt that will go along with it. I hear people say that the Immigration bill wont allow citizenship for many years. But once this bill grants them "legal status", it wont be long before the Dems will insist their new found legality should permit them accelerated citizenship and the voting rights that go along with it. The good news for me at least, is that the changing demographics probably wont have their full effect for another 40 years or so. By then, I'll be in my mid-nineties or... dead. So I wont have to witness the death of my beloved country. America will continue but not the America I knew. Not the America as our founders envisioned. Not the America worth saving. We will follow the path that previous superpowers have. The rise, the glory, the apex, the greed, the decline, the fall. If we're to avoid this path, we must be vigilant and vocal while we still have time. Otherwise, by 2045, you'll be asked to Press 2 for English. If you're given that choice at all.

An open letter to the NSA

Dear NSA,
  How are you? I am fine. But I guess you probably already knew that. After all, I learned that your organization has been collecting information on Americans phone calls, Internet searches, emails, photographs and social media entries. There are 310 million Americans nowadays, so that's got to consume a lot of your time. Keeping track of our phone calls and checking how many times someone types "Tea Party" on facebook must really be arduous. So to make your investigative lives a tad easier, I've decided to get you caught up about me.
  I am a conservative Republican. I love America, believe in the Constitution, personal responsibility, liberty and the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment. In other words - an enemy of the state. Googling my name will show that I write letters to my local newspaper in favor of conservative candidates, ideals and philosophies. I am Christian. I am white. I am male. I am straight. I don't dislike people who don't fall into those categories but I make no apologies for any of them either. Searching my emails will show that I mostly forward funny pictures with odd captions. But you probably already knew that. I have this blog and a facebook version of it. But you probably already knew that. And last week I made sarcastic remarks about the IRS on both. But you probably already knew that too. All my bills are current and I cut my lawn at least once a week. I fly the American flag from my home every day and send donations to the USO and DAV.
  I'm not a terrorist. I have never searched the web on how to make a pipe bomb. Although I just typed terrorist and how to make a pipe bomb - so I guess that probably showed up. Just for fun I'll type Tea Party Patriot and Constitution a lot next week so you have something to do. (I hear the IRS just hate those two phrases.) I don't advocate the violent overthrow of the current government, I prefer to change the regime through education and the ballot. But I will keep my arms in defense of my country against all enemies, foreign and domestic - just like the oath the President takes upon his swearing in.
I do not consent to this invasion. We are not accountable to you. You are accountable to us.
Perhaps you think gathering all this information on Americans helps keep us safe from terrorists. And there may be a need for some level of information gathering. But I also fear how such information can be used against us.  I fear my government as much as any terrorist. After all, a terrorist cell may be able to inflict bodily damage on any given day. But they can't violate my constitutional rights including the right to privacy - every single day.

The 4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

IT'S OFFICIAL! You no longer need to pay taxes!

I was having a conversation with liberal on the Huffington Post today. I know, I know - what the hell was I thinking? The genesis of the conversation had to do with taxes. The only things libs love more than taxes is deciding where they should go and who isn't paying enough of them. But this particular conversation had to do with the budget deficit and the national debt. The CBO estimates the current budget deficit to be $680 billion this year. When Mr. Obama ran for President in 2008, he vowed to reduce the budget deficit by half by the end of his first term. The reality was it increased from $480 billion to $1.1 trillion. In fact, it's been over a trillion every year of his administration. The $680 billion figure represents an increase in taxes and the reinstatement of the Social Security payroll tax this year. But they only averaged it out to represent 7 months of a fiscal year. When you factor in a complete year - it will be yet another trillion bucks added to our tab. Even with the rosiest of forecasts, the CBO still expects at least another $6.8 trillion added to the debt over the next decade, with an explosion (their words) to occur within 10 years due to the costs associated with an aging population. But don't worry, because my friends at the Huffington Post agree with liberal economist, Paul Krugman - debt and deficits don't matter - only spending. They cite the fact that most of our debt was accumulated after WWII and will probably never be paid off. If that's the case, then why am I paying taxes at all? If the government can just print money, go in debt and never be expected to pay that debt, why do you need my money? The reason? Because they DO need our money. The interest alone on the debt will be enough to fund the Chinese military soon. And our creditors want the interest paid. We sell Treasury bills to pay for our debt. We have to pay interest on that debt. We pay about $190 billion a year just on the debt's interest. About $4.6 trillion of the total debt is money that the government has borrowed from itself, by writing IOUs for huge sums taken from Social Security and Medicare surpluses which no longer exist. Unfunded liabilities now stand at $66 trillion which represent the entire world's wealth. But Paul Krugman and his like minded lemmings say it doesn't matter. So stop paying your taxes. The government doesn't actually need it. They'll just keep borrowing and printing more unfunded paper money. After all, what's the worst that could happen?

Julian Bond says it's legitimate for the IRS to target the Tea Party.

Let me be the next to say it, cause I'm certainly not the first. Julian Bond, Director Emeritus of the NAACP is a racist socialist. That would be bad enough, but he goes on cable network television and states without flinching - that the Tea Party is a self proclaimed racist organization. (Do a Google search, no one ever associated with the group ever uttered or would utter those words) And is therefore deserving of IRS scrutiny because they oppose President Obama. I thought political discourse was healthy to political debate? Then he states that the Tea Party is the "Taliban of American politics". Even when the moderator (of MSNBC of all places) gives him the opportunity to rephrase if not recant his words, he doubles down on his rant. Julian Bond represents everything wrong with the left in America today. He associates disagreeing with the current administration as an attack upon the American system. Funny, huh. As if he actually appreciates the American system. In fact, he along with his like minded drones would love to dismantle as much of the American system as possible. After reading his comments and viewing the video, I feel as though I need to take a shower. I often wonder what the repercussions would be if a conservative icon would utter such hateful things publicly? But hey, it's Julian Bond! To disagree, much less confront him with his hate filled diatribe would be racist! (Notice how anyone who confronts a true racist is a racist?) I'm sick of Julian Bond and his ilk. It's time, in fact well beyond the time, when we confront those who spout such outright stupid  and evil lies. And when they legitimize the overt and illegal actions of a federal agency (IRS) in targeting a political action group, you know how fearful they are of it. And you know how far removed from the original idea of the American ideal they are.

What if God was pointing back?

Derrick Hayes ran the last leg of his high school's track meet - winning the meet and moving his team into the Texas State High School Championship. Only one problem. As Derrick crossed the finish line, he pointed upward towards the Heavens giving thanks to God. Big mistake. The athletic body that has jurisdiction over such things in Texas, considered Derrick's gesture excessive celebration and "taunting". And disqualified him and his team from the track meet. So now, pointing upwards to God is taunting. Exactly who was Derrick taunting? Satan? In case you'd like to voice your displeasure regarding this lunacy, you can fire off an email to the appropriate clueless partys.
Make a difference & write these people: Executive Director: Dr. Charles Breithaupt Department email: director@uiltexas.org Department fax: 512-471-5908 Deputy Director: Jamey Harrison Email: info@uiltexas.org Chief of Staff: Kim Carmichael Email: cos@uiltexas.org - See more at: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/05/track-team-disqualified-over-runners-gesture-to-godc/#sthash.e97Jz8Fx.dpuf

The flag.

It's Spring. And with every Spring I take it upon myself to perform a very simple task. A pretty mundane task to be sure. It only takes a few minutes to accomplish and I'm certain few even notice the results. This Winter in Pennsylvania was pretty mild again this year. Not as mild as last year's but still relatively mild. There was only one day that it was necessary to use the snow blower. Still, the wind blew and ice formed on more than one occasion taking it's toll upon Old Glory posted near our front door. The blue Union was faded and more than one row of stripes were torn and ripped. With near 70 degree temperatures, it was time for the annual changing of the flag. You don't realize how dull the colors become till you replace the flag, then it becomes quite apparent. Maybe a few people will notice.

I've always flown the flag on important days such as Independence Day, Memorial Day and the like. But it wasn't until September 11, 2001 that I flew the flag every day. And it has adorned my home every day since that fateful day. On that day I flew it as a sign as unity, defiance and national pride. I still fly it for those same reasons along a few others. It was almost impossible to find a home that didn't display a flag back then. It may have been a large one hung from a pole or a simple one on a stick stuck in a flower pot. Some just displayed the simple cardboard one in their front window that our local newspaper gave away. But as time passed, the flags became faded, worn and tattered. They were eventually taken down but sadly, not many were replaced. I'm not suggesting those neighbors of mine didn't care anymore or that they weren't sympathetic to the tragedy of September 11th. Nor am I suggesting they forgot those who died that day. I know they supported the troops who fought to rout the Taliban and Al Quida from Afghanistan. And whether they were for or against the invasion of Iraq, they were proud of our military personnel. But for whatever reasons, the display of flags never returned in the numbers they had been. Maybe people figured they were moving on. Maybe they just thought it was okay to let it go or that they had healed sufficiently. I don't know.

I'm not suggesting that I am somehow a better or more patriotic American or person in general than those who didn't display the flag anymore. After all, it's the simplest of gestures one can make. It's not like I volunteered to join the Army or anything. I certainly didn't storm the Helmand province of Afghanistan or rescue a comrade while liberating Fallujah. But I am proud to pay homage to those who did - along with all those who make the sacrifice to defend us every day. And I fly it to honor those who sacrificed what Lincoln called; "the last full measure of devotion". 

Yes, it's more than a combination of colors and geometric shapes that make up our flag. It's been raised at Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima and the Sea of Tranquility on the lunar surface. And perhaps just as importantly, my front door. Maybe yours as well. It's not a decoration or appendage to the house. It stands on it's own. It always has. All I know is it looks majestic even beautiful as it catches a light breeze and slowly floats on the current of air - almost alive. And perhaps it is.

It's open season on Christians. Happy Easter.

The Easter season is upon us. For Christians, it celebrates the resurrection of our savior, Jesus Christ. The belief in a life after this one. The gift of Christ's sacrifice and a promise of eternal life. To the haters, it simply offers another opportunity to take a crack at those Bible thumpers. While attacking Christians at Christmas seem to be the optimum time to display their hate, apparently Easter is too big a target to let pass by as well. I recently viewed posts on a website that displayed anti-Christian photos and vile attacks upon believers. I have never understood the passion of non-believers. Why dedicate so much time, effort and energy to protest something you don't believe exists? Seems to be a terrible waste of their time if you ask me. Perhaps they should take up a hobby. Butterfly collecting perhaps. I don't care if someone is a non-believer. Their lack of faith doesn't impact me. But apparently they are set into a frenzy by believers - Christians mostly. Ever notice how silent the religious haters are when Islam and the Jewish faith are concerned? The silence is deafening. And there are reasons for that. Of course, America is mostly a Christian country where faith is concerned. That makes us the biggest target. But that's not the only reason. Those who practice the Jewish faith respond to hate when it's spewed their way. They have quite a lot of experience in being oppressed. To paraphrase Dee Snyder "they're not gonna' take it". Plus even atheists will give Jews a pass every now and then. Islam is  NEVER a target of the non-believers. There's a good reason for that as well. Mostly, the haters are afraid they'll  be targeted by Muslims of shall we say - intense belief. Hey atheists! If you want to show how tough you are, draw a picture of the Prophet Mohammad and stick that in a jar of urine, like you did to the Virgin Mary in an "art exhibit". You wont though, will you? No. Gutless pussies. Because you only go after low hanging fruit. Christians seldom fight back. We hold our tongues not wanting to be confrontational, less we be portrayed as being rigid and intolerant. But you revel in being confrontational. It's not enough to disagree with our faith, you must attempt to ridicule it. In doing so, you show your lack of humanity, compassion and kindness - actual tenants of the Christian faith. Generally speaking, I have never met a more miserable and intolerant group of people as non-believers are. They act as though our beliefs disgust and somehow endanger them. But in reality, I believe they secretly wish they had such a liberating support system Christianity offers. And of course, they can. Christianity has no entry exam. You don't have to be sponsored to be saved in God's love. But I find many atheists unable to see an entity larger than themselves. They see themselves at the top of the Universe's food chain. So be it. Enjoy. But I cannot imagine the emptiness they must feel. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect Americans FROM religion. It protects the freedom OF religion.  It guarantees the expression and practice of religion. The liberals have twisted the real intent of the 1st amendment  for their own agenda and purposes. And they have been able to get away with it in part, due to the mis-education of the Constitution and a complicit media. But you need not worry. We will pray for you anyway - whether you like it or not.

Concealed carry is good for business.

I've seen numerous posts lately regarding specific business's that do not allow concealed carry of firearms. I have no idea how true some of the claims are. Certainly there are specific businesses that don't allow concealed carry on their premises. I try not to patronize them. But beyond being able to show my dissatisfaction with their policies via my wallet, I have to question the logic in their decision. I recently read another bloggers post on the subject. He was in a jewelry store which he patronized many times. Only this time, the front window had a "No firearms allowed on premise" sign in the window. Politely, he questioned the reasoning behind their new policy. The manager told him that they wanted to be as safe as possible, so not permitting firearms in the building seemed to make sense. He asked the manager if she didn't think the sign invited robbery, as now any potential robber knew for a fact that they wouldn't meet any resistance?  According to her and her boss, they felt it would be too dangerous to allow weapons in the store. He then presented it to them in a different way. He told them that as a jewelry store, they were probably a big target for thieves, she agreed. She also agreed that a criminal is going to ignore that sign and the only people who would follow it are law-abiding citizens. He followed that up by saying that if a criminal was going to rob the place, they’d look at the “no weapons” sign in the window, and they’d know that none of the customers in the store would be carrying, giving them an easy target. He said that if there was not a “no weapons” sign in the window, then the robber would need to think twice about robbing the place because there is at least a chance that a customer is carrying a firearm. She agreed with him and about 10 seconds later that sign was out of the window.
If a business isn't smart enough to figure that out for themselves, I'd have to question other decisions they may be making. However, there are some business owners who get it from the start. Last month a pizza shop in Virginia Beach offered a 15% discount to anyone who placed an order in his restaurant who openly carried a firearm - which is legal in Virginia. Business took off! So much in fact, the temporary promotion may become permanent. Business at the shop was busy and safe. In fact, I'd have to imagine it was the safest business in Virginia Beach. The sight of all those legally carrying  law abiding citizens assured it.

The next Revolution. Are you part of it?

A couple of hundred years ago, give or take 30, a group of powder wigged guys thought it would be  a grand idea to revolt against the most powerful country on Earth. Nobody gave them much of a chance. Who would have? After all, this rag tag group of rebels were on King George's most wanted list. Not the list you'd want to be on back in '76. His Army and Navy dwarfed the colonies defenses. And before long, he unleashed them upon the colonists who dared defy him.  But a funny thing happened on the way to a Royal rout. Those pesky Americans fought. And fought. And fought. There was the horror of Bunker (Breed's) Hill. The suffering of Valley Forge. The embarrassment of abandoning the rebel capital, Philadelphia. But there was also the victory at Trenton. At Princeton and the ultimate - the British surrender at Yorktown. During the eight long years of war, defeat was only a battle away. Collapse of the cause was always within sight. And yet, despite such odds - they fought on. Now, we face another foe.

I hear talk of desperation among some conservatives. I hear how the mainstream press is against us - a tool of the administration. How difficult it is to get the message of limited government across to the masses. How to cling to a more traditional view of American values is difficult and ridiculed - the demographics of America are changing and the odds are stacked against us. We wont play Santa Claus to those who want and demand more unaffordable entitlements. Personal responsibility isn't as attractive as Big Daddy government. And who needs a gun with more than 7 rounds anyway? To which I say - buck up!

Nobody is asking you to pick up a musket and storm an enemy encampment. No one is requiring you to march 20 miles through a snowstorm with rags as shoes, then fight the enemy on their turf. And nobody demands you sacrifice your livelihood as you battle the enemy. But you are required to be a participant in your own revolution. You can write letters to the editor in your local newspaper. You can be vocal about your views - express them politely but with passion. You can post stories and images that espouse the opinions, beliefs and agenda of the conservative movement. We're on the right side of history. Use the tool of undisputed logic. Unlike our forefathers who sacrificed everything, you only need sacrifice a little time and a bit of effort. We may be marching uphill at the moment. But make no mistake - we are marching. Are you in step?

A gun control lesson for Liberals

I've tried so many times to try and explain to liberals why their views on gun control are so misguided. But I just don't seem to be making much headway. Perhaps I'm using too many big words. So for those of you who have a similar problem educating your libtard friends, I'm going to try here just one more time.  If you're going to make an argument with a lib about gun control, it's best to come well armed. Pun intended. Try these next time.

"People are being killed by guns."

Yes, they are. (Then again, even more people are being killed by cars.) But ask yourself, who is doing the killing? Mostly people who didn't get their guns legally. Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Is it working? Nope. Last year over 500 murders were committed in Chi-town.  Chicago Police say the influx and usage of illegal guns is of "epidemic proportions". Their words. Those murders aren't being committed by legal gun owners. Why aren't the gun laws there working? The criminal element doesn't care about laws. That's why they're criminals. Heroin, pot, crack and prostitution are also illegal. Yet in most places you can get all of them in about an hour from your home. Prohibition was illegal too. How'd that work out?

"A child is more likely to die or be injured by a gun when it's in the home."
Uh huh. And you're more likely to fall down stairs in a split level home than a ranch home. But the number one cause of children's death in the home is accidental drowning. That includes drowning in bathtubs, pools, toilets and buckets. Yes, buckets. On average, 87 children a year will drown in a bucket. Do you want the government dictating bucket diameter and liquid capacity? The number one place children die is in an automobile accident. We've got plenty of laws regarding cars. Of course, we could ban cars, then no child would die in a car crash.

"But if only the military and Police had guns, we'd be safer."
Britain banned private ownership of guns in 2005. Gun crimes increased 500%. Again, the criminal element will always get their hands on guns just like illegal drug, etc.  All this does is disarm the law abiding public. Does that make you safer?

"Nobody needs a 30 round gun magazine."
Says who? Nobody needs a large V8 engine or motor home. Nobody needs a 60 inch plasma TV.  Nobody needs a 3000 sq. ft. home either. For that matter, no one needs a plethora of specific things. Who gets to decide? A large capacity magazine can be used in hunting or self defense. Besides, a 30 round magazine in the hands of a law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone. A 7 round magazine in the hands of a criminal or nut job is quite dangerous. I can fire my personal 15 round magazine, drop the empty, reload a second 15 round magazine and empty that one in about 25 seconds - on a bad day. That's "30" rounds. But I'm no threat to anyone whose not a threat to me.

"Assault rifles should be banned."
Good News! Assault rifles are banned for private ownership. The fact is the rifles you see depicted in the news (AR-15's) are not Assault Rifles. (And no, "AR" does not stand for "assault rifle". It stands for Armalite, the company who developed the piece) A true assault rifle would have to be a fully automatic weapon. Meaning if you keep the trigger depressed, the rifle keeps firing. (Think machine gun) Those weapons have been illegal for private ownership since the 1930's. You must pull an AR-15's trigger every time you want to fire a round - just like every other firearm.

"But those assault rifles look so intimidating."
So does the hot blonde at the end of the bar. So? You can paint racing stripes on a Pinto but that doesn't make it a race car, does it. The so-called assault rifles you speak of just have the look of a true military assault rifle. A black plastic stock vs. a walnut one doesn't make the rifle anymore murderous.

"The 2nd Amendment is antiquated. You don't have to hunt for your dinner anymore."
Read virtually anything by the founding fathers regarding private gun ownership. Washington, Mason, Madison, Jefferson. Not once do they mention hunting quail. They were very adamant - guns in the hands of the people keep them safe from both criminals and a tyrannical government. They mistrusted government which is why they wanted it to be limited. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'm not sure why that's so difficult for some people to grasp?

"But the founders never imagine multi-round magazines"
They probably never imagined rocket propelled grenade launchers, tanks and drones at the government's disposal either. So what's your point?

"There are just too many people killed by guns."
The number one manner in which people are killed in the U.S.is car accidents - 40,000 a year. Over 3500 children are aborted every day. Nobody can defend themselves with a Chevy Malibu or aborted fetus. But I can defend myself with a Ruger 9mm.

"Wouldn't limiting magazine capacity make sense?"
New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo seems to think so though. Magazine capacity there is now limited to 7 rounds. I'm sure the wack jobs and criminals will pay heed to that new regulation. Right? What happens when someone is killed by a 7 round max firearm? Do we reduce capacity to 5? Then 3? How about only allowing single shot muskets?

"Why does the NRA fight these regulations? They appear to make sense."
Things aren't always what they appear to be. Laws designed to keep us safe, usually don't. They just restrict us and create the illusion of safety. What happens after magazine capacity is reduced? The anti-gun crowd is already targeting specific firearms. It wont be long before they'll want to restrict certain caliber guns. South American countries do. They don't allow calibers higher than what the military uses. Say good-bye to .45, .40 and 9mm guns. Before you know it, we'll only have guns powerful enough to kill backyard rabbits and that's about all. Though the bad guys will still be able to get all the firepower they want. Gun confiscation will not come in one swoop. It will be incremental. And every right lost will be a right lost for good.

Maybe none of these arguments will work. Libs are like Windows 8. They come pre-loaded and it's difficult to uninstall certain programs. If nothing else, you'll enjoy that stupid look on their face when they have no legitimate comeback.













 

Send money, guns and lawyers. But mostly the first two.

Today former Senator and Lerch impersonator, John Kerry brought a welcome basket of goodies to the Egyptian leader, Mohamed Morsi. First he tucked a check for $250 million in Morsi's pocket. And as if that weren't generous enough, the Obama administration is giving (yes, giving, not selling) 20 F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abram tanks. Hey, Libs! Just think how many poor Detroit kids we could send to new schools with that money? Yeah. So, we give money and arms to a Islamic - Fascist regime with strong factions who hate us, Israel and virtually everyone else who don't require their women to cover their faces in public. What could possibly go wrong?
Seems to me I remember the Democrats talking big chew about how the weapons we gave Saddam Hussein in the 1980's could be used against us during the Gulf War. Suddenly an epidemic of amnesia sweeps Washington.
Now, admittedly I don't possess the incredible intellect of our Commander-in-Chief, but for the life of me I can't see the advantage of arming a country with an extremely shaky government with modern weapons of war. Plus I don't think the new tenants care much for the neighbors named, Israel. So, we're arming a potential adversary of our best friend. Could someone please explain it to me?  And isn't this kinda' like nation building?
 Apparently Barack and his Democratic party henchmen don't trust you with a 15 capacity magazine for your 9mm handgun, but thinks it's all lolly pops and sunshine to give the Muslim Brotherhood tanks. The President and his allies wants a national background check on any American who purchases a gun. Seems to me they neglected to do a proper background check on the new Egyptian regime.

These are the people Obama DIDN'T trot out when discussing gun violence.

If you want to make a political point, there's no better way to do so than by parading victims in front of the cameras. At least that's what Obama thought tonight during the "annual reading of the TelePrompter". Parents of children who were killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting were trotted out to elicit sympathy for the President's gun control plans. While everyone sympathizes with the grieving families, this sort of theater has no place when discussing serious legislation regarding the 2nd amendment. But if you are going to have a serious discussion, and if you are going to use people as props, why not include people who have had all kinds of experiences with guns and violence?

For instance, we didn't see 71 year old Samuel Williams who defended himself and everyone in an Ocala, Florida Internet Café on July 18, 2012, when two thugs stormed in, brandished a gun and attempted to rob patrons at gunpoint. Mr. Williams withdrew his legally concealed pistol, fired at the armed intruders and potentially saved lives. (The goons ran out of the establishment like scared rabbits) They were later apprehended.
Nor did you see Debi Keeney, 47 of Highland, Missouri. She shot an intruder who forced his way into her apartment at 3 a.m. and threatened her 55 year old wheelchair bound sister. Debi didn't much enjoy watching her sister turn blue as the assailant choked her sister while demanding money - so she shot the SOB. Must have come as quite a surprise to the guy.
You also didn't see the Loganville, Georgia woman whose house was invaded by 32 year old Paul Slater. Mr. Slater, who has been arrested 6 times since 2008 and was recently released from prison, thought it would be a good idea to use a crowbar and break into the home's front door. He was mistaken. The woman had her two small children at home. She withdrew to a home office area in an attempt to hide from Slater. He entered the room and she promptly fired 5 shots, several of them entering Paul's face. Oooh! Unless you're Superman, that's gotta' hurt!
Last June in Phoenix, Arizona a 14 year old boy who was babysitting his siblings ages 8,10 and 12 shot a home intruder. The 37 year old intruder was armed but never got a shot off. The teen grabbed his father's 38 revolver and shot the scumbag as he charged the boy. This happened in an upper-middle class neighborhood at 4:30 in the afternoon. The youngster didn't appear during the State of the Union address either.

In all of the above mentioned instances, the potential victims used guns to save either themselves, loved ones or innocent strangers from imminent carnage. But such usage of legally owned firearms wasn't even mentioned. This President much prefers the adoration of victim hood. Those innocents in Connecticut last December were victims. But he wont discuss the non-victims I just did, because they don't fit into his arguments and ideology. Facts be dammed. While we mourn the loss of innocent life, we apparently don't celebrate the saving of innocent life when a gun is involved. A gun is a tool, nothing more. Yes, it can take a life. But so can a hammer. And last year more people were murdered by hammers than so-called assault rifles. Yet no one is considering limiting the sale, size or weight of hammers. Well, not yet.

Think your vote counts? Think again.

 

The Electoral College. It's suppose to give the appearance of an obvious winner by way of awarding states in total to the Presidential candidate who manages to get one more vote than the other guy. My state, Pennsylvania has recently begun discussions about awarding our electoral college votes proportionally. A few states currently do this. And I've come to think it makes a lot of sense. The map above represents the county by county votes for Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Gov. Romney is represented in red. If you didn't know any better, you might assume he won handily. He didn't. Although he won the majority of counties, we don't award electoral votes by winning counties. Neither am I suggesting we do. But if you live in Pennsylvania like me and you voted for Mitt Romney, your vote was ignored. Never mind that millions on Pennsylvanians voted for Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor was awarded "0" electoral votes. In other words, our votes were ignored. There's no other way to look at it. Had votes been awarded proportionally, Barack Obama would have received 12 electoral votes and Mitt Romney, 8. Sounds fair to me. Mr. Obama didn't earn 100% of the votes, so why should get them?

Republicans have virtually no chance of winning states like California and New York. These two electoral laden states give Democrats a tremendous advantage in national elections. It's no wonder the Dems don't want to make any changes. They're already calling possible proportional distribution of electoral votes "vote rigging". Uh huh. What they really mean is, the system as it currently works to their advantage. So why would they want it changed? As it now stands, Florida and Ohio usually decide Presidential elections. Virtually every other state is pretty much spoken for. So why bother voting if you don't live in the Sunshine or Buckeye state?

Even if proportional votes were awarded in every state, Barack Obama still would have won in November - though it would have much closer and more accurately represented the voting wishes of the American populous. Plus every voter in every state would have their vote actually matter. So proportional voting isn't about changing election results, it's about registering and making every one's vote count. That's usually the Democrat's rally cry. But not in this case because it doesn't work to their advantage. I could make the argument that NOT to enact proportional distribution of electoral votes is racist. (There's that word) Think about it. Philadelphia has a large black voting population. Pittsburgh is overly represented in a similar way. Blacks vote consistently and overwhelmingly Democratic. Because of a large population in those two cities, as they go - Pennsylvania goes. Since Republicans do quite well in the state outside of those two regions, white votes go unrecognized and therefore - unrewarded. Philly and Pittsburgh essential decide who gets all 20 electoral votes. Hardly seems fair, does it? Proportional votes would solve this problem.

The status quo in politics usually wins. So I'm not optimistic these changes are on the verge of happening. Still, the GOP currently holds the Governor and state assembly's in the Keystone state. So if it were ever to happen, now would be a good time. And if the Dems have taught us anything, it's that once you obtain political advantage - use it!

Is it finally time to ban cars?

Carnage. There's no other word to describe it. Each year 40,000 Americans lose their lives on America's roadways. Approximately 95 every single day. Of that 95, at least 5 are children under the age of 15. That means that the death total of the Newtown school murders is achieved every single week via an automobile. Yet there are no protests to ban cars, limit the amount of cars a person could own or reduce the number of cylinders a car should have. After all, who really needs a 350 horse power engine, right? I checked the Constitution. There is no mention of the right to keep and bear a motorized vehicle. A ridiculous comparison? Well, you may think so but if the real reason behind gun control is to save lives and not disarm a responsible gun owning populous, we should be seeing massive protest in favor of "car control". But we're not.

An adult or child is far more likely to be injured or lose their life in a car accident than by a firearm. That's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact. So if the fact that a child is more likely to drown in a bucket in their own home, than injured by a gun. 30 children a year die this way. What are we to do? Limit the width and liquid capacity of buckets? Almost 1000 kids a year will drown in various ways. Most within their own home. Tragic? Of course. But we already have a ton of federal, state and municipal laws enacted to keep children and adults safe from drowning. Laws don't save lives. Only common sense and personal responsibility can do that.

Some are willing to accept the fact that accidents do happen. And that no matter how hard we try, innocents will die in car accidents, boating accidents, drownings, falls and various other ways. I'm one of those people. We can and must try to limit such deaths. But we must also admit there is a limit as to how much success we'll have. Common sense and acts of God cannot be legislated. Dissolving or altering the Constitution cannot wipe away human error or change the human heart. We have to live in the real world not a theoretical one. The theoretical world would tell us that banning all firearms would make us safe from gun violence. But reality would suggest that banning or making certain activities illegal don't work. Prohibition failed miserably. Even today, though cocaine, marijuana, heroin and prostitution are all illegal - all of them can be had within and 20 minutes of where you live, no matter where you live.  Laws? Those who engage in such activities don't give a damn about laws. You think they're going to follow gun laws?

We live in a dangerous world. Acts of insane violence cannot be stopped by well meaning, though ineffective laws anymore than speed limits or stop signs reduce car accident deaths. Human nature and human error will interfere with the best of our intentions. Just as selfish drivers will blow through stop signs, exceed speed limit or tailgate at high speeds - so will those bent on destruction use a firearm to inflict carnage. It is not popular to use these analogies, but it is correct to do so. And because I know there are those who will use such weapons in their efforts of destruction, I choose to remain armed. For the same reason I purchase car insurance hoping that I never have to use it, I buy guns. Disarming or limiting my capacity to defend myself does not keep you safer. But going after those who would be dangerous to both you and I, would. That is where our efforts must be focused. Happy motoring.

The Constitution: Is it outdated for the 21st century?

Liberal "nut wank" Bill Mahr notwithstanding, some have questioned the relevance of the U.S. Constitution in modern times. After all, it was written by men (and only men) at a time when the populous was mostly uneducated and unsophisticated about matters of government and individual rights. (some things haven't changed much). While the Declaration Of Independence is the flowery manifesto of American independence, the Constitution is the user guide how to make the American experiment work. Written at a time when the leading technology was bees waxed candles, the nuts and bolts workings of the constitution are timeless. Sadly, I've even heard a few conservatives question the relevancy of the constitution these days - to the point of suggesting it may be time for a new U.S. Constitution to reflect the changing times. They are wrong.

We need not attempt to create it's successor. The constitution is the blueprint for national and individual success. But the constitution is not a "living document" as some would have you believe. It is stone. It cannot be re-interpreted for the convenience of the moment or partisan political whims. For instance, the founders knew the failings of human nature. That's why the 1st and 2nd amendments are what they are. Freedom of speech (and religion) along with the right of free men to bear arms, are the two most important amendments. They knew that a free society, a Representative Republic as we are, would require individual freedoms to protect its longevity. And they feared that a tyrannical government, even a freely elected one, could run roughshod over the people. The people would need the tools to make certain that didn't happen. And if it did, the people would have the means to throw off the shackles that enslaved them. Those two amendment guarantee and make certain that ability lies with the people.

The problem isn't with the Constitution. It's with those who find the Constitution too restraining. Well, it's supposed to be restraining. While it allows for new amendments when required, it has rock solid purpose and clearly definable law. Amendments are not to be added or changed willy-nilly. That's why it requires the government to run the gauntlet of procedures in order to change or add an amendment. The Constitution is specifically designed to restrain government, not promote it's expansion. It exists to limit the power, size and scope of the federal government. Hence, the 10th amendment which reserves significant power to the states - which the federal government has usurped in the last 100 plus years. Take some time to read the 10th amendment, then tell me if you think the federal government has overstepped it's intent. Uh huh.

Unlike other country's constitutions, ours doesn't approach the rights of the people as being granted by the government. The founders recognized that any right that can be granted by the government, can be taken by that same government. They understood that rights granted by God, cannot be taken by man. Hence the phase unalienable rights. The approach was different from anything prior. The constitution also lays out the format for electing officials, which branch of government has what powers and the mechanisms for a functioning republic. It is often clumsy but it does work. And it would work much better if certain people would let it alone. The current President uses Executive Orders as a way to bypass congress which is clearly the legislative branch of government. The President's ability to use Executive Orders and actions were never intended to circumvent congress and create defacto law. Sadly, he's not the first Chief Executive to do this.

We have been given a great gift. That gift must be protected from those who would use it for partisan purposes. And to do that properly, it must be understood. I'm not a constitutional scholar. But you don't have to be one to appreciate the simplicity and grandeur of our constitution. It's really quite a simple read. The founders meant what the said and said what they meant. It's written in ink and paid for in blood. And designed for a free people who will cherish and protect it. It will endure long after you and I are gone just as it was intended. Written for the ages, it requires no rewrite. It just needs to be followed.

7 is the new 30. At least where guns in N.Y. are concerned in New York

New York state Governor, Andrew Cuomo (D) announced sweeping new gun control laws in his state. Among the new laws was one that limits a gun's magazine capacity to 7 rounds. If you've been wondering what the "safe number" of rounds in a gun is - apparently it's "ten" - at least according to the New York Governor. Empire State residents can now rest easy. Your neighbors will no longer be menacing you with a 30 round magazine in their rifles. Of course, this new law doesn't apply to the criminal element of New York seeing how they have been very disrespectful to gun laws to date.

My semi-auto Ruger 9mm handgun holds 15 rounds in it's magazine. If I wanted to, I could fire those 15 rounds, drop the magazine, insert another and rip off another 15 rounds in about 2 seconds longer than a full 30 round magazine could. This legislation was intended to make citizens feel safer. Well, do you? Of course not, because its all window dressing. A law abiding citizen with a 30 round magazine is a threat to no one - except someone intent on harming him. However, a criminal with a 5 round magazine is a threat to all of us. Then again, so is a criminal with a knife, harpoon, bowling pin, coffee grinder or spatula. There is no safe number of rounds in a magazine in the hands of a demented person, gangbanger or punkass criminal. Your elected officials would have you think otherwise.

Along with some states, the Obama regime will attempt to force more gun laws in an attempt to reduce violent gun deaths. Unfortunately, the overwhelming amount of these new regulations will be aimed at the law abiding gun owner - not those who are actually committing these deaths. Chicago had over 500 gun related deaths in 2012. How many do you think were committed with legally owned firearms? Very, very few because gun laws in the windy city are among the strictest in the nation. Its the criminal element that is causing these deaths. And so-called high capacity "assault weapons" account for less than half of 1% of ALL gun related deaths. Yet you would be led to believe its astronomical. Why are they so focused on these weapons? Facts are stubborn things, seldom reflecting the viewpoint of the anti-gun lobby. But they are facts non-the-less.

Some don't understand why a large capacity magazine is necessary. For me, the argument is simple. If 30 round mags are made illegal, gun deaths wont go down because as stated prior, criminals don't obey laws. Limiting people to 7 round mags wont help either for the exact same reason. Eventually some well meaning liberal politicians will suggest that only 5 round magazines should be legal - with the same results. When these efforts fail - and they will, what will they want next? I shudder to think. And that's why the line must be drawn here.

Its been estimated that criminal activity is thwarted anywhere from 1 to 2 million times a year in the U.S. just by an armed citizen presenting a firearm in their defense. Liberals will say that number is grossly exaggerated. Fine. Then even if we use the "official" number that law enforcement uses, we're still approaching 500,000. (The discrepancy is that often people don't "report" their experiences to law enforcement) You may wish to remain unarmed and that's fine with me. But I will not surrender my constitutional rights - none of them and especially the 2nd amendment. It is the one that assure the others will survive. Nor will I rely upon the reaction time of the police to come to my aid should I need them. The amount of time it takes the Police to respond to a 911 call is 14 minutes. My bullet travels at 1200 feet per second. When time is of the essence, which one would you want to rely upon?

Senator Obama voted against the 2006 debt ceiling. Cites "failed leadership"

A long, long time ago  (2006) in a galaxy... well right here, Senator Barack Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt limit. But it gets better. He cited the "failed leadership" of the current administration. You can't make this shit up. Fortunately, we don't have to. Barry keeps forgetting that the Internet forgets nothing and we have access to it. But also voting against it back then were a couple of rodeo clowns with the last names of Reid, Biden and Schumer. Their reason? We just can't keep spending above our means. Then they vote for any and all kinds of spending when one of their own gets in the big house. But a trillion here a trillion there, next thing you know we're talkin' real money.

Now Obama uses fear (yes, again) to get what he wants. And what does he want? Spending. More spending. He's as predictable as he is consistent. At today's press conference he tells America that if the debt limit isn't raised, seniors may not get their Social Security checks and veterans may not have access to the care they deserve. At no time did he say that he and members of congress wouldn't get paid. (Gotta' have priorities)  The GOP offers to raise the debt limit but they want some spending cuts. Barry says "oh noooooooo". Can't reduce spending now. Millions of non-tax paying Americans are depending on him spending money we don't have. We have a $16.3 trillion national debt. A $1.1 trillion budget deficit and he says we can't cut a dime. Nope!

In government's infinite wisdom, departmental spending is automatically raised 5% each year. Do you get a mandatory 5% raise every year? The GOP wanted to reduce the mandatory increases. The big "O" said NO. The federal government just can't do without that additional yearly increase. Nope! They just can't! Not that they tried, mind you. Obama will demonize anyone who wants to reduce spending and who else would that be besides those dastardly Republicans. I still can't believe more than half of America voted to re-elect this train wreck. But from what I've heard, there's a coronation, err, uh inauguration next week. And you're paying for some of that too. Hey, it's only money.

Liberal hypocrisy finds a home in suburban New York.

Two New York county suburban newspapers decided to get cute last week and post the names of legal gun permit holders. Fabulous. They article was named "The gun owner next door. What you don't know about weapons in your neighborhood". 44,000 people are licensed to own handguns in the three counties mentioned. (Permits are not necessary for shotguns and rifles there) This was done in an effort, so the story goes, to make Putman and Westchester county residents safer by being more knowledgeable about who has guns in their neighborhoods. Of course what would really make those residents safer is to know who the illegal gun owners are. But alas, illegal gun owners, i.e. gangbangers, rapists, thieves, carjackers, convenience store robbers and home invasion perpetrators don't register their guns. (That's why they're called "illegal". See how that works?) 

This was an effort to embarrass and expose people who have committed no crime other than legally exercise a specific constitutional right - which apparently annoys these two suburban newspapers. But these papers actually put every non-gun owner in Putnam and Westchester counties at risk. Now the criminal element knows exactly which homes and families are not defended. Should any of these non-gun homes be robbed or homeowners attacked, I hope the homeowners attempt to sue the newspapers for putting them at risk. As for me, I wouldn't mind at all if my local newspapers printed my name as a gun owner. In fact, they could print that I also have a concealed carry weapon permit. That way the vermin out there would know I'm not an easy mark. I might be armed today. Or perhaps I'm not. They've got a 50-50 chance against me. And should they attempt entry into my home, their ratio at success drops considerably.

These newspapers would find it insulting if an organization of an opposing viewpoint were to list the names and addresses of citizens whose activities they opposed. But in a moment of ultimate hypocrisy, the newspapers have employed armed guards to protect them since the names were listed. Even though no actual threats were made. Liberal hypocrisies. They're everywhere. You don't even have to look hard.