The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part 2 of 2 Parts

Today is Thanksgiving, and we, as citizens of these United States of America, have a lot for which to be thankful. First and foremost are our protections under our Constitution. With that in mind, let's pursue Part 2 of my topic. (This blog is not meant as the "be all and end all" for firearms. Rather, it is an introduction covering only the basics.)

We've established that you have a "right to keep and bear arms", and that you may have determined you need to exercise that right by legally purchasing a firearm for home defense. Again, there are significant variations in state laws regarding such purchases, and the storage and use of a firearm, so be familiar with the laws of your state prior to buying a gun.

Let's begin by exploring the question "How much gun do I really need?" There are so many to choose from - long guns, handguns, shotguns, rifles, revolvers, auto-loaders, single-shot, high capacity - sometimes just the thought of selecting can be mind-boggling. As far as caliber goes, currently there's everything from a .22 caliber to a .50 caliber, and pricing runs the gamut from dirt cheap to ridiculously expensive (the main thing to keep in mind is to always buy the best you can afford). As with most things you buy, you pretty much "get what you pay for". Dirt cheap. more often than not, is unreliable and frequently may be downright dangerous. Quality can be had - inexpensively - if you know how to shop.

For a home defense long gun, I would recommend the Mossberg 500 in 12 gauge in any of its variations. They are reasonably priced at $250-$350 - if you shop around, and are as reliable as a Remington 870 costing $330-$1,100. You may feel that the recoil generated by a 12ga is too much to handle though, so don't be afraid to consider a 20gauge. One of the most intimidating sounds in a darkened house, is the unnerving sound of a pump action shotgun having the slide "racked", and an intruder can't tell the difference between the sound of a 12ga or a 20gauge slide being activated. Personally, I have a Mossberg "riot gun" that's 35 years old, and still works like the day it was new. Quality does not have to bankrupt you, and a short-barreled shotgun is excellent in a confined space, such as the hallways and rooms of a "normal" household structure. The main advantage of a shotgun over a firearm using a metallic cartridge and a solid projectile, is the dispersal of the pellet payload, and a minimal chance of over-penetration. One doesn't have to be an expert marksman to hit a target within 30 feet. A carbine length rifle also handles fairly well indoors, but the condition of over-penetration still exists. The "Glaser Safety Slug" offers a solution to over-penetration. This excellent round uses a copper jacket and it is filled with a compressed load of either #12 or # 6 lead shot. It is then capped with a round polymer ball that enhances feeding and reloading. It is now available in four rifle calibers from .223 to 30-06. The Glaser Safety Slug is recommended for the urban dweller and anyone who is concerned with over penetration.

The handgun for home defense has the advantage of being the easiest to handle in a confined space, but requires more practice and skill to use effectively than does a shotgun. A handgun also shares the rifle's potential for over-penetration. However, Glaser has handgun calibers available from .25 auto to 45 Colt. Handguns are available in calibers from .22 to .50, and the recoil increases with each upward step. Personally, I feel that any handgun of less than .38 Special caliber is "iffy", and I do not recommend the .25 auto or the .32 caliber handguns simply because they are generally considered ineffective. Although I own a few 1911's in .45acp and a couple of .357 magnums, my personal preference is for what I refer to as the "mid-class" handguns - chambered for the .38 Special and the extremely popular 9mm. The lighter recoil of the mid-class rounds facilitates quicker recovery on-target, and placement of a slightly quicker, more accurate second shot if needed.
Felt recoil is a combination of several factors - the caliber and weight of the handgun, the weight of the projectile, the amount of powder in the case, etc. Since most people buy their ammunition "off the shelf", as opposed to loading their own, they have no control over the amount or type of powder in their ammo. They do, however, have control over three factors: the caliber and weight of the handgun they choose, and the weight of the bullet in the ammo they choose. Generally speaking, the larger the caliber the greater the felt recoil; the lighter the gun weight the greater the felt recoil; the heavier the bullet, the greater the felt recoil. And, in the case of a firearm, the word "magnum" means even bigger felt recoil. The best handgun for home defense is one with which you can consistently hit a target within 30 feet. Some people find the recoil of even a mid-class round to be intimidating, while others can easily deal with the recoil of a .44 magnum. If you believe you would be bothered by the perceived recoil of a .40 caliber (or larger) handgun, then buy in the .38 Special/9mm class, and get something with a 3"-4" barrel length (a bit more weight, a bit less recoil than those cute little snub-nose revolvers).
Who makes the best guns? Ask that question in a room full of gun enthusiasts and you will start a never-ending discussion. We all have our personal likes and dislikes for rifles, shotguns and handguns. In sporting rifles and shotguns, the most popular names are Mossberg, Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Savage and Marlin in no particular order. In tactical rifles and shotguns, you have the same popular names (and throw in Kel-Tec, who is coming on strong) - plus 100 or so others, most of whom are "custom builders").
The list of leaders in handgun manufacturing is a bit longer and introduces some other names. Glock, Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, SIG, CZ, Heckler & Koch, Taurus, Kahr and on and on. A handgun must fit your hand properly! If it doesn't feel comfortable in your hand, or if it doesn't point naturally, you may as well be holding a brick. A relatively recent innovation in handgun design is the interchangeable grip/back-strap, which can resolve fitment problems for almost anybody, no matter what size your hand.
I own 15 handguns from 8 different manufacturers, and enjoy them all, but... I have a personal preference for the Glock pistols. They fit my hand, they point very well, they consistently hit where they are pointed, and Glock pistols are virtually indestructible: dropped from an airplane at 500ft into a field recovered and fired; run over by a truck picked up and fired; buried "naked" in soil for 2 years, dug up, hosed off and fired; and 1,000 rounds put through one in 14 minutes and it never failed to fire. G L O C K - that's how I spell dependability.
But, the bottom line is - get what works for you. Fit, function, and affordability... those are the key considerations.

The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part I of 2 Parts

And now for something completely different...

Most Americans with any interest in their Constitutional rights, are at least familiar with the wording of Amendment II. It's pretty straight-forward: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Today there are those who would argue the semantics of the Second Amendment, while ignoring its intent. How does one define a "well regulated militia"? That depends upon where one looks for their definition of the word "militia" (the "well regulated" part could easily be construed as a reference to the inclusion of prunes in their diet)...

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Definition of MILITIA

1

a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

However, current federal law defines "militia" thusly:

USC TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The government therefore basically defines the "militia" (after cutting through and eliminating all the political smoke) as being composed of: "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." and blah, blah, blah. Paragraph 311(b)(2) essentially says the "unorganized militia" are those able-bodied males, ages 17-45 whose only other qualification is that they are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Ageism aside, today that's roughly 61 million males that qualify as "militia"!

The Japanese had no real desire to invade the United States during WWII. Why? Because, as Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II, said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." His statement was an acknowledgment that because of the Second Amendment the American people are well-armed, and we have significant experience in the use of firearms. The Second Amendment is also the only one that insures we retain all the other freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights! But, enough about the Constitution. Just believe, as I do... that, if the Second is modified or repealed, all the others will be in constant jeopardy. Here's what the U.N. thinks about our "right to keep and bear arms":

"As you enter the Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel."

The Second Amendment fits hand-in-glove with the Fourth 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."

Now you have not only "the right to keep and bear arms", but also "the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects", but the Fourth is primarily a prohibition of government searches and seizures. Logically extending that prohibition, if the government can't do it then neither can some crack-head burglar! So, what do you do to protect yourself and your family? To insure a level playing field, and perhaps gain a lifesaving advantage, you may buy a gun. But, before you do that, there are a few questions you need to answer:

1. Do I have the mindset necessary to actually use a gun, in an action that - quite possibly - could result in my taking the life of another human being? (If you cannot truthfully answer Yes to this question, do not buy a gun. Go to your local Big 5 sporting goods store and buy a Louisville Slugger baseball bat.)

2. If I must use a gun in the protection of myself and/or my family or others, am I willing to face the consequences of my actions? (Once again, Yes is the only acceptable answer to this question. There probably will be some consequences. How many, and exactly what those consequences may be will vary from state to state. Expect, as a minimum, some intensive questioning from one of your local law enforcement agencies. At the other end of the "scales of justice", expect long-term housing to be provided for you by the state, and possibly an early death by execution.) The laws vary from state to state as to what constitutes "appropriate and necessary use of deadly force". Be very familiar with the laws of your state of residence!

If you answered No to either of the above questions, you may stop reading now and go hug Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. The rest of you may now move on to a few practical questions.

What type of gun do I need? There are several types of guns from which to select the one that's right for your intended purpose. The fall into two general categories: "long guns" - which are rifles and shotguns, and "handguns" - pistols and revolvers. What you need is entirely up to you, but it must be a gun with which you are comfortable, and one with which you can repeatedly hit your intended target. Here are what I consider to be the main characteristics of firearms...

For use as in-home defense, either a long gun or a handgun will do the job. There are also advantages and disadvantages to all of them. Rifles and shotguns weigh considerably more than most handguns, and may prove to be unwieldy in confined spaces such as hallways. Generally speaking, rifles are also more powerful than most handguns, and over-penetration may result. That means that, even if you hit your intended target, the projectile may pass through and strike someone not involved in the burglary/robbery/home-invasion. If you miss your target, the projectile will, in all probability, penetrate one or more walls, increasing the possibility of striking an innocent bystander. For home defense maneuverability, a carbine-length barrel (generally accepted as a rifle barrel under 20" in length) will improve maneuverability. However, caliber-for-caliber the potential for over-penetration remains the same. Long-barreled shotguns present the same problem for maneuverability in tight areas, but less possibility for over penetration. A short-barreled shotgun (also known as a "riot gun"), loaded with almost any upland bird shot would be a good choice for in-home defensive use. The unnerving sound of a shotgun chambering a round is almost universally recognized, and may make an intruder decide upon an immediate departure from your premises. Using pellet-filled shells, the need for precise accuracy is eliminated, and due to their dispersion pattern the potential for "collateral damage" is minimal. Most shotguns produce significant recoil, which some people find disconcerting, if not injurious.

Handguns for in-home defense have the advantage of high maneuverability, and work very well in confined spaces. They do, however, present an entirely different set of problems. There are two divisions of handguns; the auto-loading pistol (popularly, but incorrectly called "automatic pistols"), and the revolver. Auto-loaders have the advantage of increased ammunition capacity per load. Generally, an auto holds from 7-19 rounds of ammunition per magazine, whereas most revolvers hold 5-6 rounds of ammunition per cylinder load. Handguns take significantly more practice in order to gain marksman-like proficiency, than do a rifle or shotgun. Auto-loaders may be almost impossible for people with weaker hands to actuate the slide, which is necessary to make the pistol ready to fire. Many women, and men with arthritis (or even relatively minor hand injuries), find this to be true - after they have purchased an auto-loading pistol. Auto-loaders also have somewhat of a reputation for being less reliable than revolvers, although if properly maintained today's quality auto-loaders are extremely reliable. On the other hand, revolvers, if properly maintained, have fewer moving parts to fail, and are at least theoretically more reliable.

Think about these things while I work on Part Two - How Much Gun Do I Really Need?

THE "RIGHT" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

There has been much discussion over our Constitutional guarantee, as explained in the Second Amendment, of the "right to keep and bear arms". The divergence of understanding of this right is not one of language, but rather one of reader intent. In our Constitutional Republic, unlimited power is not automatically bestowed upon the government to cavalierly change those first ten amendments - also known as "The Bill of Rights". According to the Constitution, which at least for the time being is - ostensibly - the supreme law of the land, our government gets its power from the consent of the people! And, how do we exercise that "consent"? By way of elected "representatives". These "representatives", for more than a century and a half, have represented their own best interests... which are determined by a minuscule (but wealthy, influential, and therefore powerful) portion of their constituency. Can we correct this gross deviation from the intent of our Constitution? Idealistic desires aside, my answer is probably not.

Corruption is self-propagating, and corruption is rampant within our government. Not just in the present administration, but most likely in all administrations since our founding. In the beginning it may have been just a few minor officials who were corrupt, but corruption spread like a cancer to all levels. Today, our elected officials are simply better at concealing their corruption than were their predecessors and foreign counterparts. They are like rodents, in that for every one that is exposed for corruption, there are ten others that haven't yet been discovered. There are few persons of true "honor" left in the world of politics. Why would I say such a thing? Because in today's world it takes many millions of dollars to mount an election campaign. and where do politicians get that money? For the most part from donors. Oh, sure, you donated - but your ten, twenty or even one thousand dollar donation is insignificant. If you are lucky, you will get a letter of thanks from the campaign headquarters, complete with an electronic signature from the candidate. "Every man has his price", is a well-known quote from Robert Bolt, author of "A Man For All Seasons", referring to Thomas Cromwell's corruption in the service of his King. Cromwell's price - power - was met by the King, and to fail the King would result in the removal of Cromwell's power... and his head. The less obvious, underlying tenet in that quote was a reflection of Sir Thomas More's philosophy: "The integrity of oneself should be one's major goal. Without it, life is really not worth living. Death is unpleasant, but losing that part of oneself that guides our actions on the path that we deem to be correct would be unbearable." A philosophy in which principles cost Sir Thomas his own head. Politics is ruled by the fear of possible loss... loss of stature, loss of reputation, loss of position, loss of power, loss of money, and in extreme cases, the possibility of loss of life, etc. But, I digress...

The First Amendment requires that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It establishes basic individual freedoms concerning religious belief (or non-belief), the freedom to speak against those things we determine to be inimical (even within our government) to our Constitutional freedoms, it protects the left-wing media as well as the minority right-wing media, and our right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (such as forcing Obamacare upon us, and the so-called "Patriot Act", which identifies military veterans as "potential terrorists", etc.). The Second Amendment received the prestigious second spot because it insures the citizens right to protect all the other rights and freedoms established by our Constitution. A citizenry, disarmed, are called subjects. They cannot protect themselves, or their countrymen, from the whims of those who would rule rather than govern. It was said in "Cato's Letters" (England, early 1720s) that "Power is like fire. It warms, scorches or destroys, according as it is watched, provoked or increased." Power, when not watched and controlled, is also all-consuming. The more power an individual (or government) has, the more they want.

A government that is unanswerable to its people is a dictatorship. Ours has not yet reached that stage of development. They are still technically answerable to the people... they just choose to ignore our inquiries and our expressed desires! Why? Because Big Brother knows better what is right, fair and just for its people, and they will determine what rights and freedoms are appropriate for those of us with less intelligence than they, and relatively little power to change things. We have three choices: vote for a different, but no less corrupt replacement, at the ballot box; reinstate the same corrupt individual at the ballot box; or, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." As unpalatable as the third option may be to Americans, is it not better than the loss of our Constitution, our freedoms, and the consequent subjugation and enslavement of a free people? (The downside to a second American Revolution would be that all those who envy and despise us [i.e. - the 191 "United Nations"] would seize such a discordant opportunity to conquer, subjugate and enslave the survivors of such an action, and then divide the spoils among themselves.)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF "HOMELAND SECURITY"! Without it, we have none. The current administration (Obama, Clinton, Holder, et al) has designs upon dismantling as much of the Constitution as meets their desires to rule. Should they be successful in infringing upon our Second Amendment rights, all the other rights will fall like standing dominoes.

But, that's just the way I see things. Perhaps my world view is naive... idealistic... perhaps it is "radical"... or perhaps it is realistic. No matter... it is what it is. And, at least for the time being, my world view is protected under the First Amendment, which is protected by the Second Amendment. I do not encourage a second American Revolution, but I do see it as a possibility when individual freedoms are infringed upon or removed by any government.

D.C. Just Gets "Curiouser and Curiouser"

Lesbos and Marxists and fags... OH MY! Has anybody else noticed that the Obama administration seems to be loading the federal government with radicals of various and sundry bents, or am I the only one paying attention? In his efforts to destroy the American Republic as we knew it, he has done everything in his power to create irreparable harm within the federal infrastructure. There is at least one Hispanic/gender radical on the Supreme Court (Elena Kagan), an "I'm here and I'm queer" (Kevin Jennings) "Safe Schools" czar, and Obama's latest federal appointee, (Amanda Simpson, Obama’s Transgender Appointee) who proudly proclaims "...as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds". Now there's something to which we can all look forward, eh?

Okay... time to play "Did you know?" Did you know that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition), underwent a "text revision" (known as the DSM-IV TR), in the year 2000? Granted, the DSM-IV (and all of it's predecessors) is a relatively obscure publication to most (99.999%) of us - not nearly as well-known in the general public as any of Stephen King's works - it is, nonetheless, the premier volume relied upon by mental health professionals around the world. You may be muttering to yourself, "Get back on point, Gil... what did the text revision do?" What DSM-IV TR did was remove from homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, trans-gender, and virtually all sexual lifestyle choices, the heading of "Sexual Deviations". Suddenly, after 47 years of documented case studies, indulging in aberrant sexual behavior is no longer "deviant". What happened to cause this reversal? It is not that the behavior is no longer deviant... it is that it is not officially classified as such - thanks to pressure from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gender alliance. (Enter the Democratic Representative from Massachusetts Barney Frank - who probably spends more time on his knees than the Pope. Not praying... playing!)

Barney Frank, the Flaming Fag From the Fourth (Congressional District, MA), sponsor of the "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009" (HR2981 ). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of ENDA. Everybody should be allowed an opportunity to work in their chosen field. HOWEVER - it is the employer who should determine what is or is not appropriate dress and behavior while on the job, not the applicant or the government. The employer is, after all, the sole entity responsible for production and marketing, establishing and maintaining a harmonious working environment, and providing appropriate compensation/benefit packages for their employees. What would be the outcome if say 65% of the sworn officers of the San Francisco Police Department decided they should be able to wear colorful dresses to work instead of those boring blue uniforms with badges on them. And, although those 4" heels would be a bit more difficult to run in while pursuing a fleeing suspect, the more fashion conscious officers may feel compelled to wear them. Should they be denied that "right"? At the risk of repeating myself from earlier blog postings - DAMN RIGHT THEY SHOULD BE DENIED! Employers must have the right to determine what type of person can best represent their company's interests in an appropriate manner - but only during working hours. When the employee is on his/her own time "he" can dress like the Queen of Sheba, and "she" can dress like a lumberjack if they so desire. But, at work... if you take the man's money, you must play by the man's rules.

"Equal protection under the law" is the main thrust of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for special protections for any individual or group, yet the Obama administration is working hard to establish special protections for radicals of any and all stripes, and he (and/or his minions) are unceasingly chipping away at the foundations of our Republic. THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!

First Amendment Assaulted At Alaska State Fair!

Jackbooted Rent-A-Thug Security morons assault more than simply one man at the Alaska State Fair in August 2010... they assaulted the United States Constitution. The individual in question was - apparently peacefully - exercising his Constitutional right under Amendment I. The following YouTube video shows how respected that right is by those in positions of "authority"... INCLUDING one Alaska State Trooper. Many voices were raised in objection to the way "Security" handled this matter. Fewer than a handful took any physical action in support of this man's right, and even then it was more of a whimper than a bang.

http://www.infowars.com/man-arrested-at-alaska-state-fair-for-impeach-obama-sign/

THIS NEEDS TO BE SEEN - IF IT CAN HAPPEN TO ONE, IT CAN HAPPEN TO ALL! Today your neighbor, tomorrow your friend. Your day will eventually come. The longer we stand in silence, the more power is gained by those who pose this great threat to our freedoms... and to our Constitutional Republic.

"IF WE DO NOT HANG TOGETHER, WE SHALL SURELY HANG SEPARATELY!" ... Thomas Paine

Mexico anger high as US Border Patrol kills teen...

So reads the Associated Press Headline. The News article seems to be attempting to report the facts without editorializing - which is highly unusual for the lamestream media. Among those facts is the following "U.S. authorities said Tuesday a Border Patrol Agent was defending himself and colleagues when he fatally shot the 15-year-old as officers came under a barrage of big stones while trying to detain illegal immigrants on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande."

As sad as the unnecessary loss of any life is, the unnecessary loss of a life not yet lived is even worse. But... here's the "bottom line" as I see it, based upon the information contained in the AP article:
a. The young man was with a large group attempting to violate our southern border and enter the country illegally.
b. The group did breach our border and was in the United States of America without undergoing due process.
c. When confronted with Border Patrol Agents, the group chose to hurl "big stones" at the officers.
d. Flying stones are potentially impact weapons, and impact weapons striking a human being in the right place with enough force can kill a person just as dead as a rifle or pistol round. The bigger the stones, the greater the impact.
e. The Border Patrol Agents were in fear of their lives. At least one officer fired his weapon rather than wait and see if he - or one of his fellow agents - was killed, maimed, blinded or otherwise seriously injured before opening fire.
f. A young Mexican was mortally wounded, and the group of illegal entrants retreated to the Mexico side of the river.

TOUGH!

Could this tragedy have been avoided? How?? Quite easily... Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka could have stayed in Mexico with his loving family and friends, and awakened in his bed on Tuesday morning, rather than lying dead on the banks of the Rio Grande River Monday evening.

To make matters worse, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said Tuesday that his government "will use all resources available to protect the rights of Mexican migrants." Here's the deal Felipe - if you want to protect the rights of Mexicans keep them on your side of the border! And they are not "migrants". Once they enter the USA illegally they are CRIMINALS! Build a fence on your side of the river Jefe. Put your soldiers along your side of the border, esse. Keep your citizens within the confines of your country and they will remain as safe as they can be... considering they're still in Mexico.

Hey, Felipe... stop your whiny-ass fault-finding in our actions and ask yourself one question - "Why do my people keep trying to leave our country and sneak into the USA?" Make your own country a better, safer place to live, you hypocrite, and then...

LEARN TO MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, VATO!

I'm sure that your criticism of our country is emboldened by our own "president's" lack of respect for his Constitutional responsibility to protect our country and it's citizens. But, most people over the age of 6 years in this country understand the meaning of the word "illegal", and that illegal acts are punishable. Assaulting a federal officer is just one of those punishable acts.
a. It is not our fault that your economy is in the dumper even deeper than our own.
b. It is not our fault that your government is even more corrupt than our own.
c. It is not our fault that your people would rather risk death sneaking into the United States than live in the squalor of Mexico.
d. The blame for the mass exodus from Mexico lies not with the people of the United States, but with the non-responsive U.S. government, which continues to turn a deaf ear to the demands of it's citizens to SECURE OUR BORDERS!
Never fear though... Emperor Obama will probably have the Border Patrol Agent executed for protecting our border. He certainly wouldn't want to do anything to upset the 12,000,000-
20,000,000 of your countrymen living here illegally that might vote for him in 2012.

ARIZONA TAKES STEPS TO PROTECT ITS OWN - FEDS UPSET!

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law, legislation making it a state crime, as well as a federal crime, to enter the state of Arizona if you are not a legal resident of the United States! All of our southern border states should follow Governor Brewer's lead and enact similar legislation. It is the only way we can stop the illegal invasion of foreigners into our country from Mexico.
The problem is magnified when, as in Arizona, American citizens have been murdered by illegal aliens. Arizona is not the first state to suffer from homicides committed by those who were in our country illegally. There have been dozens, perhaps hundreds, of murder, rape, arson, kidnapping, and robbery cases throughout the country - all perpetrated by illegal immigrants - that did not receive national coverage.

The federal government is remiss in its duty to protect our southern border. The Obama administration is counting on those illegal aliens and their liberal supporters to place illegal votes in order to maintain the socialist-progressive momentum his administration has created. Amnesty for 12 million lawbreakers is NOT what our country needs. They have demonstrated their desire to thwart our most basic law of residency, and if they are rewarded in that action, they will be emboldened to disrespect other laws within our borders. We do not need more scofflaws... we have plenty of the homegrown variety. We do not need to import them from other countries! Rewarding illegal behavior simply encourages more illegal behavior.

Who are the supporters of illegal residents? Their legal and illegal friends and families, our own expansionist tax-and-spend government which needs them to complete creation of a socialist environment within our previously Democratic Republic, and those who believe that Obama's socialist-progressive, Marxist-Communist, giveaway and redistribution agenda is something other than the key to the ruination of our once-great nation. This may well be THE turning point in American history. The erosion/elimination of the freedoms we citizens are guaranteed by the Constitution, and the decline of our economy until we are on the same level as Zimbabwe, which has a hyperinflation rate loom on the horizon. The last time inflation was officially recorded in mid-2008 it had soared to 231 million per cent. Today, using some kind of voodoo mathematics, it is reported to be approximately 5.5%. (There's a n old saying, "Figures can lie, and liars can figure." The issuance of a $50 TRILLION ZD banknote is a good indication that all is not yet well in Zimbabwe.)
The "entitlement whores", who have received multiple mentions in my blog, are all for whatever the government wants as long as the government continues to care for them as if they were dependent children. Who are these people that I refer to as "entitlement whores"? They are those whose way of life is to work the system's social programs. Their main product is children, which they produce in quantities significant enough to insure they themselves do not have to work. They get financial assistance (welfare), housing assistance (HUD), virtually free medical assistance (MedicAid), government food programs, etc.. All the things that the majority of us labor for in order to provide for ourselves and/or our families are provided to them by the government! Naturally they want to see government expand, because by that expansion the government creates more giveaway programs for them to work to their advantage.

We the People - the entrepreneurs, the craftsmen, the technicians - all those who perform labor for the rewards it provides, deserve those rewards. WE HAVE EARNED THEM! There should be no thought of "redistribution" of the fruits of our labors by the government. The government does not have that Constitutional right. If the government wants to "help" the needy, the government should provide them with one free thing - JOB TRAINING.

How did most of "the needy" become that way? By dropping out of school, thereby eliminating their first free service... a free education. Add to that the abuse of drugs and alcohol, and the adornment of their bodies with tattoos and piercings (which makes them less attractive to potential employers), the adoption of a gang mentality, and the seductive siren's song of the welfare program, and they create their own condition of neediness. Being needy is - in a general sense - a self-inflicted condition.

You may be thinking to yourself "This guy is one heartless son-of-a-bitch!". But it has nothing to do with heartlessness. It has to do with reality - the "hosts" reality versus the "parasites" reality. The condition of the needy in this country is truly a shame, but the shame is not mine. I have been given nothing in this life for which I have not labored and thereby earned. I finished my basic government-funded education (luckily, I did so before it became government-funded indoctrination). I served my country in our military, and have held numerous jobs within our society - some relatively menial, and others of relative importance in "the grand scheme of things". I am a "host", and I don't appreciate "parasites". Since the age of 17 my function has been to make my own way in the world, dependent upon the fruits of my labors to provide for my needs. I was successful because I was raised not to burden society with my care.
America is the "land of opportunity", but only for those who wish to take advantage of the opportunities America offers. The opportunity to take advantage of 12 free years of education, the opportunity to learn a trade, the opportunity for advanced education and training, the opportunity to earn a living, and the opportunity to become a responsible, self-supporting, contributing member of our society. There's an old saying, that goes like this" "There's no such thing as a free lunch." And it's true. If you get something for "free" from the government, there are always strings attached, even if those strings aren't visible. What you get costs you either in taxes or freedoms. Government dependency erodes one's freedoms, for in order to continue to receive, you must also continue to support the government's growth.

I could be wrong about all this... and Osama bin Laden could be America's best friend. What are the odds...

VIOLENCE AND SEDITION - What Will The Left Think Of Next?

Interestingly, the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats in government have labeled those of us who attend TEA Parties as "inciting violence" and "seditionists". Obama finds us "amusing"... your President finds concerned Americans who disagree with the direction in which he is sailing our "ship of state" to be "amusing"!

I have attended two Tea Parties locally, and have yet to witness any acts of violence, and have not yet heard a call to commit acts of violence. In fact, the only acts of violence I have even heard of are those committed against the TEA Party attendees by supporters and sympathizers of the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats. A cowardly demonstration of attempting to provoke peaceful TEA Party attendees into acts of physical violence against the socialist turncoats.

Sedition is defined thus - "Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason." I don't know that there have been any acts of sedition associated with the TEA Party movement. If so, they were not sponsored or condoned by the TEA Party movement. But, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, in spite of the fact that the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats wish to deny that Constitutionally protected right to those who voice disagreement with them.
Perhaps they have an understandable guilt created by diverting our government from its intended course, and an attendant fear that they will someday be held accountable for their treasonous acts by We the People.

The last statistic I heard regarding the Constitution dealt with the Tenth Amendment (States Rights), which states in plain English - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The statistic I refer to reported that 33 states had reaffirmed their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Now that may just be "window dressing" - like a couple reaffirming their marriage vows -, or it may be a precursor to secession. Could secession be considered an act of sedition? I suppose it could be if it were left up to some radical left-winger to define. But the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines secession to be - " 1 : withdrawal into privacy or solitude 2 : formal withdrawal from an organization." In other words, it's a simple statement saying, "I refuse to play your game any more because you want to change the rules the game was established with." If you can understand that then you have a grasp of the meaning of secession. It means a state - or states - chooses to remove itself from the Union of States.

Washington has turned a deaf ear to the conservative voices in this country... and THAT is the worst possible action the government could take. George III failed to hear the voices of the American colonists until December 16, 1773 - the night of the original Boston Tea Party. The rebellion against tyranny is not only expected of free men, it is required of them when rebellion becomes necessary to maintain that freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Jefferson was also - by today's definition - a "seditionist", condemned to be so by his own words. Read carefully and thoughtfully... "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." He suggested that the people take arms against any tyrannical ruler. Along that same line, his view of the Second Amendment (Keep and Bear Arms) was quite elegant - "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." And - "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Attempts to erode and subvert the intent of the United States Constitution. Seditious speech? It would only considered as such by those who fear a free people.

Surprisingly, Jefferson also had views on government bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare and national health care, even though he had no exposure to such things -
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. "
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

The seeds of violence and sedition have been sown by those who thought it wise to blame the conservative right for such actions on nationwide television and radio. There were no such acts supported, coordinated, or condoned by the conservative right prior to April 18, 2010. There may be random acts of individuals here and there, but violence and sediton is not the goal of the conservatives. On the other hand, I once saw a bumper sticker that read "WHEN REASON FAILS, FORCE PREVAILS", which seems to be the motto of all international negotiators.

I wonder how "amusing" Obama will find the TEA Party movement in November...

Conservative Kiosk Not Allowed At Mall

Here's an interesting story from WCNC in Charlotte, N.C.. The upshot of this story is that a man opened a kiosk in the Concord Mills Mall in the spring of 2009, only to be told that he would not be allowed to renew his lease upon expiration the last day of July 2009. What was he making available to the public that was so horrific the mall no longer desired his business? Was he selling pornography? Drugs? Alcohol without a license? No, he was offering none of those things.

Loren Spivack, the owner of the kiosk, was selling items critical of King Barack Obama's administration. Among the items he offered for sale were poster and bumper stickers bearing slogans like:

"Impeach Obama."

"Al Qaeda's favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/04/08."

"Work Harder. Obama needs the money."

At least one passerby found them racist and bigoted, and took time to tell the mall in a letter and a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer. Racist?? I don't see anything racist in those political statements. There is no use of the of the dreaded "N" word, nor is there any reference to Obama being half white or the first gray president of the USA.

What I do see is an expression of disagreement with the outcome of the 2008 election and with the extravagant disbursal of taxpayer money by an administration too stupid to put any restrictions of use on the bailout contracts - if the government lawyers even bothered to make contracts! Perhaps that was just payback for financial support during the campaign...

I love our Constitution, because it guarantees us protection from so many things... and guarantees us protection of many other things. In fact, our founders felt it was so important to protect our RIGHTS to freedom of religion, freedom of speech (and by extension, freedom of expression) and freedom of the press, that they guaranteed those freedoms in the very 1st Amendment! I used to work in Concord N.C., 40-odd years ago, and I recall those folks as being God-fearing, freedom- and Constitution-loving Americans. Looks like they all died or moved away... and were replaced by yellow-bellied, left-wing, California Democrats. (We have America's left-wing, liberal, public education system to thank for those attitudes.)

For all the things our Constitution guarantees us, nowhere does it guarantee - or even suggest - that we have a right to never be offended. Here's an unusually clever idea - if you find things in a store that you find personally offensive... DON'T SHOP THERE! Organize a boycott, picket the store - exercise your 1st Amendment right to express your feelings about their products. In a free market economy, you have choices as to where you wish to spend your money. If enough people share your point of view, then the issue will become self-correcting when the store goes out of business in 6 months. Don't go whining to daddy about, "How dare they sell something with which I disagree... oh yeah, and I find it offensive as well!" As a margin note, I should also mention that the owner of the mall group, Mel Simon, is known as a generous contributor to Democratic causes and politicians, including Barack Obama.

Personally, I hope that Loren Spivack gets a first rate attorney, and sues the mall ownership into bankruptcy. For the complete story go to (copy-n-paste):
http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-072109-mrn-freemarketwarrior. 63b5b ce2.html

It's All A Matter of Perception - We Tend to See What We Expect To See

Here are two web headlines from two different news organizations talking about the same situation. First, on the positive side we have the Associated Press with:
"Bank of America earns $2.4B, ahead of estimates" Good job AP, you've given a lot of people hope for an improving financial picture!

And then we have Reuters News Service with this negative take on the same bank:
"Bank of America credit losses soar, profit falls". What are you trying to do, Reuters?? Are you trying to scare people into a "run" on our already weakened banking system?

Is this simply a case of "the glass is half full" vs. "the glass is half empty" - optimist vs. pessimist? Or, is it a cultural matter... one of American perceptions vs. essentially European perceptions of the same events?

Reporters are no different from the rest of us, in that they tend to see what they expect to see.
The true difference is that reporters can only report an event in the manner which their publisher (owner) sees that event. And most publishers have strong political connections. Why? Simply because they do have the power to control the determination of that which is considered newsworthy, and that which is not. Our job is to then determine which of the reports is lying to us... the least. Chances are that neither of them is giving us an unbiased view of the situation.

I don't think that's what our founding fathers had in mind with the First Amendment's right to "freedom of the press". I'm sure their idea was to insure the press was free to report the truth, as opposed to some modified version of "the truth". But, that's what we get when we address things in a general sense, instead of being specific about our desires.

I could be wrong about this... and Barack Obama could be a "natural born U.S. citizen". What are the odds for either statement being true?

"Government of the Wealthy, By the Wealthy, and For the Wealthy"

Recently, I was moved to re-read some of the founding documents of our great Nation, among which were the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in those documents are the wealthy excluded from seeking the various offices of government - nor is government set aside as the exclusive milieu of the wealthy. Abraham Lincoln, during his oft-quoted Gettysburg Address said, "... That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. ..." (At this juncture Bill Clinton may have injected, "It depends on what your definition of 'people' is.") Granted, the wealthy are, by definition, (for the most part) "people".

How did the wealthy become that way? There are several roads leading to the streets of gold:

1. Some achieved wealth by the sweat of their brow, fulfilling "the American dream".
2. Some inherited their wealth, never having done an honest days' work in their life.
3. Some made their fortunes by creating misfortune for others, which qualifies them as either wealthy predators or wealthy carrion eaters ... or both.
4. Some married into wealth - and, possibly, a few even for love. The wealth was just a bonus.
5. Some were just astute businessmen and investors, who availed themselves of every opportunity to increase their portfolio, their holdings, and their market share.

It makes no difference how the wealthy became wealthy, the difference is in perspective. I know that generalizations have a very good chance of being wrong, so I won't use the word "all", or even imply "all", but in general the wealthy tend to have a very different perspective on life, and a totally different set of values, than those of us who have worked for wages all our life. The wealthy drink Dom Perignon, and the "worker bees" see movies with Dom Deluise in them. The wealthy have their huge yachts, and the workers have their seventeen foot bass boats. Dinner out for the wealthy means a trendy high-end restaurant, and for the worker it may be Olive Garden or KFC. The wealthy have their Rolls Royce, and we have our "rolls downhill". Don't misunderstand though - I don't begrudge the wealthy any of their sensory pleasures.

The wealthy seem to live in a parallel universe - a universe of expensive excesses. Should we "redistribute the wealth"? Not on my watch! What's theirs is theirs - as long as it was acquired through legal means. Well, if that's not the point of this post, what is?

The wealthy have bought our government. Over 40% of our Congressmen and Senators are millionaires ... and the rest are very comfortable. Their personal and/or family wealth, and their wealthy connections, PACs, etc., have been buying elections for the past 60 years or more. Others, like the Kennedy's and the Dodd's have turned government into a family business. For me, the question that comes immediately to mind is, "How did they get that much money as servants of the people?" From a job that pays less than $175,000 per annum? And if they are "independently wealthy", they don't need the money, so why not refuse it and really DO a public service?

What happens when people of great wealth are put in a position where they actually make the laws of the country? The same thing that happens when they are permitted by law (which their predecessors created) to vote on their own pay raises - they will create laws that benefit themselves and their associates. It's not exactly an unnatural act! You've probably heard that variaton on the "Golden Rule" - "Those that have the gold, make the rules." Well, here you are - validation and proof-positive of that claim. And then there's "Birds of a feather flock together." Money supports money! People who have either never had to hold a work-a-day job for wages, or who have forgotten what it's like to have done so, are now making the laws by which the rest of us have to abide.

Is it possible to vote them out? Technically it certainly is ... but in a practical sense it can't be done under the present system. We can replace the incumbent, but only with another of the same kind offered by the wealthy leadership of either of the two major political parties. How do we create change? Petition our Congressmen and Senators to change the law? Not a snowballs chance ...

What needs to be done?

1. Reduce Congressional compensation by 50% - making it a reasonable living wage of $87,000 per year for rank and file, Majority and Minority leaders would get $96,700, and the Speaker of the House would receive $111,750 - and cap them all at that level with a fixed 2% COLA adjustment annually.
2. One term only. Eliminate the entrenchment of those whose who would dole out political favors - and NO "Grandfather" clauses!
3. Publicly funded campaigns with a set limit. Eliminate private donations, and demand accurate records be made available to the CBO for review.
5. In other words, make the process of government less attractive to the moneyed interests of our country, and return it to the status of "public service" so that good people, well-intentioned people, people with the best interests of our country in their hearts and minds stand a chance of winning an election.

There would be other necessary adjustments that would have to be made as well - the above is just a jumping off point.

Have you never asked yourself, "Why in the world would people spend $3,000,000 to capture a job that pays $174,000 a year??" Doesn't that raise a flag for you? If Congress is that bad at math, do you want really them deciding what to do with our tax dollars?

If you think there's something wrong with that approach, you're a bigger leftie than Obama. And, if you have a better idea, leave a comment.

LEFT-WING LIBERAL SOCIALIST ASSAULT ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT BEGINS!

Not being satisfied with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, upholding a citizen's "right to keep and bear arms", left-wing liberals in the U.S. Congress have launched an oblique campaign to severely restrict, if not eliminate, that guaranteed right.

Knowing there would be strenuous and forceful resistance by "We The People" against their designs to create the Socialist States of America, the Dumocrats have initiated several bills designed to abridge and/or curtail that right. The Dumocrats current gun ban wish list proposal includes virtually all semi-automatic rifles, by virtue of the following wording: "The Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

Obama's Attorney General appointee, Eric Holder, once wrote a brief supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. Federal officers and the military have used ,and still use bolt action rifles for certain specific tasks, so that eliminates bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles, leaving us with what ... muzzle-loading rifles, paintball guns, and Nerf balls?

Their proposed handgun blacklist in not nearly so inclusive - only 11 makes/models - but it is nonetheless invasively unconstitutional! The handgun list seems to be based on appearance and reputation of use (i.e. - a favorite weapon of gangs), rather than actual function.

The semi-automatic shotgun list is even shorter ... which leads me to wonder if the real motive of such proposed legislation is to eliminate "We The People's" access to firearms with an effective range of more than 50 yards. Is there another yet undisclosed agenda?

How much confidence do investors have in Obama's administration? A look at the Dow-Jones, NASDAQ, and S&P should tell you that. They're all in the dumper!

If you own firearms, and value your freedom to do so, contact your Congressmen and demand they vote against any such proposed legislation. If you do not own firearms, and value your other freedoms, do likewise. Our right to keep and bear arms is the one that insures we keep the others.

I suppose that in some parallel universe I could be wrong about this. (That would be the same parallel universe where politicians always tell their constituents the truth!)