(Saturday's) Friday Night Quote....

Sorry I didn't get this out yesterday. I'll make it up to you by providing insight from my absolute favorite author:

(I love this photo)

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

(C.S. Lewis)

Jobs Saved or Created?????

I always laugh when I see the government brag about the jobs they claim to "create and/or save". According to the White House today, about 650,000 jobs have been saved or created because of President Obama's economic stimulus plan. This is right on track with the president's goal of 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

New job numbers from businesses, contractors, state and local governments,
nonprofit groups and universities were scheduled to be released publicly later
Friday. White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein said the figures will show that, the stimulus plan has created or saved more than 1 million jobs.

"It's a great example of the unprecedented transparency, where the American taxpayer can point and click and see their taxes creating jobs," Bernstein said.

I can't believe they would bring up transparency after creating a new health care bill that's 1,900 pages long, weighing over 19 lbs, and written in legalese hieroglyphics (but that is a subject for another post).

The number of jobs created by government spending is an impossible thing to measure. It is not a recorded statistic, nor is it accepted by any economist who's not working in the White House.

Government Derangement Syndrome

Politicians, Especially Liberal Democrats, do everything in their power to seem as if they are solely responsible for making goods and services more affordable. They want the voters to believe that they have some mystic control of the free-market, and go about imposing that belief by promising the world to the unsuspecting American voter. Free health care, cheap housing, cheap food, cheaper energy, cheaper gas and everything else they sell to the people they “serve”. They do these things because they need to sell the illusion of importance in order to hold onto their power. They need to make people dependant. The cold hard reality is that the government can’t make anything less expensive than it is. All they can do is lower the taxes and regulations that drive costs on private business (large and small).

They have no power over supply and demand, nor do they possess the power of mass persuasion that would change behavior in the market. Not only are they unable to do the things they promise for their constituents, often government programs aimed at “fairness” have the opposite effect of their stated intention.

Rent controls lead to less available rental units. Price controls lead to less available goods, and minimum wage laws lead to less available low wage employment opportunities. The government cannot make an employees’ production more valuable simply by mandating it. They can’t make a rental unit more affordable by setting the maximum price. However. they can encourage people to hold on to rent controlled apartments. They can impose disincentives for the creation of competing apartment buildings. They can watch, as brand new apartments become urban trashcans - ruined by lack of care from landlords and owners. Why would the owner spend anything to make it better? He can’t charge any more. He’s essentially a non-profit. All these things the government does out of a sense of fairness create incentives for LESS effort, LESS production and WORSE conditions for those already in the lowest percentages of income.

Why I don't watch the news

There are a couple of clips from South Park that pretty much make my point regarding the quality of modern news. People seem to believe that the news is filled with important information pertaining to real life. I hate to break this to you, but news shows are just that, Shows. They say what they think people want to hear, or what they think will keep people watching. South Park illustrates this point extremely well in one of their greatest episodes "The Quest for Ratings". The first clip shows the kids brainstorming for ideas, the second shows the result. Very funny, very accurate

If your a fan of the news I'm sorry to say, this is what your watching. It's Panda Bear Madness!!!

Give Up Meat, Save The Planet!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

Here we go again with environmental zealots shoving their faith down our throats. The newest target: Meat. According to Climate Chief Lord Stern of Brenford, eating meat will need to become socially unacceptable in order to save the planet.

“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

It makes me wonder what other uses of water will be deemed unacceptable, being that we can’t even justify its use to feed people. Stern was backed on this issue by Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society:, who said;

One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”

Stern went on to say:

“I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating. I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

You see; drinking and driving is far less harmful then say, eating a cheeseburger. Cheeseburgers turn cows into commodity’s and ruin the atmosphere. They may provide people with food, but at what cost???????

"a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,”

I couldn't agree more. People have no idea what we are asking for.

They came for the smokers by faking the data on second hand smoke. Then the SUV became public enemy number one because it's heating the planet (says the liberal from his gulf stream jet). They waste billions of dollars on mass transit when less then 5% of people use it. They've abolished the creation of new coal fired power plants, and suddenly America's most abundant energy resource is off limits. They outlawed the creation of new Nuclear power plants, which are the cheapest and CLEANEST source of energy in existence. They even banned certain light bulbs, and tried to persuade people to paint their roofs white (to reflect light, absorb less heat). Now, they are coming for your food.

Where does the Liberal thinking go wrong?

As a conservative, I find the liberal ideas to be incorrect. What about it is incorrect?

Liberals (for the most part) are good people. They really have the best intentions in mind and they really want to make the world a better place. The next question one must ask is, "What about their thinking is flawed?"

I think the answer is Hubris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

In Ancient Greece, Hubris was the very peak of human pride. Usually, this referred to feelings that a Greek is greater than the Gods.

I submit that if Al Gore were to show up in Ancient Greece, he would probably put on trial for Hubris. I think the Greeks would consider a man who feels that he can control the weather, clearly has the idea in his head that he is a god.

Take it a step further... Hubris not only refers to someone who uses the greatness of others to boost their own reputation. For example, the act of Al Gore claiming to be the inventor of the Internet, that would also be Hubris.

In order to be Liberal, one must have enough pride to think that nobody knows what to do better than me. Nature cannot regulate itself, the sun doesn't cause heat, the globe heats when people drive cars. How silly!

One must forget all history to become liberal. Or, you must look at history and say "Stalin was not as wise as me, he didn't get the communist thing right. I will show you how to do it!" Once again, this is outrageous pride, and Hubris.

To be a liberal you must look at ancient history and say "The capitalistic system that brought us out of the dark ages and into the greatest country of all time is bad. I know more than the founding fathers and we must regulate capitalism so that everyone gets health care!"

I think the corner stone of Liberal thinking is the highest form of pride called Hubris. You must abandon all concept of history, science, God, logic, and freedom to declare yourself (and other current humans) as the greatest power on earth.

To be a conservative requires a humbling of ones heart. You must understand that there are forces out there greater than a human, a car, or even Obama. You do not have to be Christian or even religious at all to be a conservative. As a conservative, you can understand that Nature, Science, and history, show us that in fact have much more impact on current time than carbon credits or hummers. Your respect for the facts of history becomes your strongest power, not your liberal thinking.

I encourage all of you to humble your heart, think logically, study history, study science, and convert to the higher thinking of conservatism!

Top Weekend Headlines

The first headline is particularly worth reading. How is it possible that ACORN could be any part of our Government process after multiple fraud indictments, and being caught on video assisting in the creation of sex rings with 13-year-old girls? This is truly disturbing. I don't understand how an organization with such a disgusting moral compass, and low level of credibility, is going to regulate other groups, especially the financial Institutions. This is beyond ridiculous. It is an entire new level of insanity from our corrupted politicians.

Just click the headline to read the stories.

1) Democrats seek to give regulatory Authority to ACORN over Financial Institution

2) House health care bill over $1 trillion

3) Obama hits out at climate 'naysayers'

4) Bogus Death Statistic's Continued in Gov't Scare Tactics

Friday Night Quote...

Today's Friday night quote comes from the senior thesis paper of the President himself, while finishing up his (re) education at Harvard. It it a statement that is quite revealing and disturbing. Makes you wonder where the media was on this one back in November.

"The Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy." (Barrack Obama)

Too Funny...

I know that this isn't exactly great insight, but I couldn't stop laughing at ol' Bob Hope...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4

Washington Wants More of Your Money, that you haven't earned yet

The taxpayers of the United States are already facing massive amounts debt. As I've previously mentioned, our interest only payments on the national debt, are going to consume nearly half of our Gross Domestic Product each year. We are bankrupt as a nation. And yet, the government is looking to increase their ability to spend and borrow in order to create a new America, dependent on the "mercies" of our government.

The politico has the story.....

Dems seek cover to boost debt limit

By MANU RAJU | 10/22/09 1:48 PM EDT

The Senate must soon increase the national debt limit to above $13 trillion — and Democrats are looking for political cover.

Knowing they will face unyielding GOP attacks for voting to increase the eye-popping debt, Democrats are considering attaching a debt increase provision to a must-pass bill, possibly the Defense Department spending bill, according to Democratic and Republican sources.

Adding it to the defense bill would allow Democrats to argue that they voted for the measure to help troops in harm’s way — and downplay that their vote also expanded the limit for how much money the country can borrow.

The strategy has not yet been finalized, aides and senators said. The House already approved a debt limit increase of $925 billion — above the $12.1 trillion ceiling Congress approved as part of the economic stimulus package last February — but Democrats may seek to increase the limit further so they don’t have to revisit the politically treacherous issue until after the 2010 midterm elections.

read the rest by clicking the hyperlink below

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28586.html

Obama Jumps in on Fox News

Obama has now personally taken on the fight against Fox news. This guy is like a China doll who breaks under the slightest touch on his policies. Any criticism at all, and he runs crying to his liberal journalist buddies, to make sure that these issues don't make him look bad. The White House is now openly attacking the only News organization that questions them on any issue. A year ago dissent was patriotic. Now its propaganda, slander, terroristic, racist, and unpatriotic. I've already written about this so I won't go into it too much; but why is the White House going after the Fox?

President Obama:

If media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another"

Here are his advisors:

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod said this weekend that Fox is "not really a news station." That echoes similar comments made by White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The press was given the constitutional obligation to be a watchdog on government for the people. Fox is obviously more conservative then objective, but he's on MSNBC for crying out loud! They are more extreme towards liberal perspective's then Fox is to conservative. It is just insane what the other media outlets are letting him get away with. If you don't know what I mean by that, remember, Obama ran as a moderate.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Judicial Activism, What is the problem?

Many of us have heard the term "Case Law". Case Law is essentially using prior rulings of a court to dictate future issues of similar type. Many have a problem with this. Are they wrong to have a problem with case law? Wasn't this in the constitution?

By request, I have decided to wrestle with one of the oldest disputes in America... Judicial Review.

While framing the Constitution, the founding fathers had to consider much. They specifically "Separated the powers" of the United States Government to prevent over reaching. If one branch of the government were to do something evil, another branch could swoop in and stop it. This system of "Checks and Balances" was set up to prevent corruption as well as prevent an oligarchy.

The founding fathers were fearful that once again, the government would become the tyranny they fought so hard to free themselves from. A difficult process of passing bills, laws, and enforcement of them was set into place to disable the government from ruling the people.

Judicial Review (Case Law, Judicial Activism) began in Feb. of 1803 with the land mark case of Marbury vs madison. I highly recommend that you read the case in full.

There were 2 competing ideas in the case:


1. How do you expect the Judicial Branch (the courts) the interpret law if nobody will do what they decide?


2. How can the Judicial Branch (the courts) make law? That was not a constitutional power granted.

The result of Marbury Vs. Madision was a decision in favor of the courts. The decision granted the Judicial Power the ability to create law. But not just any law... They gained the power to rule over the states through the power of the federal government.

For example: let's pretend that the State of Wisconsin made it illegal to poop on the side walk. The Supreme Court, without the consent of any other branch, would have the power to declare the pooping on the side walk is "Free Speech" or protected under "The Right To Bear Arms" or any other clause of the constitution and thus making that law unconstitutional. The law in Wisconsin, and any other state, would have to change their laws to comply with the Supreme Court Ruling.

Of course, none like our silly example have been passed.

What this law of Judicial Review essentially does is makes it so that the Supreme Court can make law for any state and the federal government, change the law, and demand the Executive Branch enforce it. Rather than the system of check and balances, our good friends the Legislative Branch get cut out and ignored.

How is this wrong (besides being down right unconstitutional)? Let's take the most popular court case in America... Roe V. Wade.

Many think this law "made it so that women can have the choice of abortion". Although this is slightly true, the dark underbelly is the fact that it deprives state the right to make it's own law.

Before Roe V. Wade, if Minnesota wanted to outlaw abortions, and Wisconsin wanted to make them legal, they could! States Rights win! All of the pro-choice people could move to Wisconsin or try to change Minnesota law. All the pro-life people could move to Minnesota or change Wisconsin law. The right of the people win! They actually have a choice in the matter! However... here comes our Supreme Court... The Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota, Wisconsin, or any other state in the union don't deserve a choice. In fact, neither do any of the people in those states. By the power of the Supreme Court, Abortions no longer a choice that states or people can vote on, but a Federal issue that a few Lawyers in Washington decide for you.

What would you do without these people? Think for yourself? Let your state make its own rational choice? SCARY!

However, it wasn't just one of the writers of "The 57th Signature" that think that Judicial Review is unconstitutional... Let me show you what other people have been saying...

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." —Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

This plaque says it all... Clearly the judge who posted this thinks that it is the judges job to declare what the law is... If that is the case, why even have a Congress or States for that matter? Clearly they know more than you.


The Judicial Activism portion refers to Judges who use this law to impose their own agendas without regard to the Constitution. Many people think that decisions like Roe V. Wade are NOT mentioned in the constitution, and should be dealt with by The States and the People in them.

Do you think it is right that judges can usurp the power of the other branches of government to make decisions?

To this writer, the answer is a strong "No!"

A lack of Sense in Creative Ownership

Republicans and Democrats have lost all sense of creative ownership and property rights. I was reading an article in Tuesday’s St. Paul Pioneer Press, about the Bipartisan effort to stop the tax penalties that are going to be imposed on Medical Technology manufacturer's. While I agree with their goals, I was absolutely floored by the arguments for and against it.

The companies, whose products range from $3,000 heart stents to $30,000 implantable defibrillators, refused to offer direct financial concessions this year to help pay for health care reform, unlike drug makers, hospitals and other health care players.

Greedy Fatcats!

The move angered Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, who view the industry as a key contributor to soaring health care costs, and led the panel to approve a $40 billion fee on device makers over the next 10 years.

Adding to expenses by creating insanely advanced medical equipment, how dare they!

The article goes on to point out that there is an “unlikely alliance” between liberal and conservative members of the government because of large lobbying and political donations on the part of the companies in question (Specifically Medtronic, St. Jude Medical and Boston Scientific). Which is not surprising, as politicians are always acting in their own self-interest. The issue has brought together the likes of Al Franken and Amy Klobuchaur with conservative Republicans, in effort to reduce or eliminate the tax. That would be the smart move, and some of their reasoning is sound. Not only will the tax cause a huge reduction of jobs in these companies, it will also limit the amount of product and future innovation in these fields. These are products that save the lives of many, and increase the standard of living fof many more.

"The issue here is that these are very good jobs in our state and in our country," Klobuchar said. "You want to be very careful when you start assessing taxes on an industry like this."

Well said Senator, although I would say that about taxes on every industry. I would bet that the issue from her standpoint is more about Minnesota tax revenue and political pressure, but who am I to say?

While I found the article to be written from an extremely liberal perspective (shocking); I also found it funny that between Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar, and Republican Congressmen Erik Paulsen; not one of them mentions the fact that these products are created and owned by private companies and investors. They are the sole property of the people who took the chances necessary to make their ideas a reality.

Where do we as a country find the right to punish the success of these companies through progressive taxation? The materials and resources that are required to create new medical devices are not just something found lying around for anyone to take. They are the creation of people who have invested their time, money, and resources in hopes helping other people. And yes, they happened to have made money doing it. But what is wrong with that? The medical advances produced would not exist without their work. Investors take significant risks financially in unknown technologies. When they succeed, we all benefit from the product. How are we to go about claiming any part of their profits when we had no part in the risks and effort that made it possible for these devices to come to the market?

Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott stated: "We kiss a lot of frogs before we get to the prince," Elliott said. "If we didn't fix people's hips and knees, we'd all be in wheelchairs."

But I think Ayn Rand said it best, and I’ll leave on her note.

“Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property - by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort. These items are produced by human action and do not exist without it. What exists in nature is only the potential. Without the mind that generates production – on our present level of knowledge – these materials are of no practical use or value to anyone.”

Mockton on Global Governance

Lord Christopher Monckton has lead several campaigns against the scientific fraud of Global Warming, and is a key figure in exposing the human tragedies that have taken place in wake of Al Gore's Crusade against humanity.

Last week, Monckton spoke at Bethel University in an event hosted by the Free Market Institute of Minnesota. He went spoke in detail about the problems created by environmentalism and, the junk science that has made it possible. But one thing he talked about which really caught my attention, was the immediate dangers coming in the next global climate deal. He describes these issues better then me So I will let you watch from here. This is a 4 minute clip of his presentation focusing on the creation of an unelected world government.

If you are interested in the scientific side of the Climate change issue, Lord Monckton goes into it with great detail throughout entirety of this presentation.

The full presentation will be linked under the short clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

Silencing Dissent

The White House administrative staff is continuing with its non-sensicle attack on Glenn Beck and his employer Fox News. The fact that this administration finds it necessary to critique the only cable news channel that expresses disagreement with them is not only stupid, it's congruent with totalitarian regimes the world over.

The freedom of the Press was established in the constitution to be a "check" on Government, to be the civilian's oversight. They were given access to the inner-workings of Gov't with the freedom to say what they wanted about elected officials and their policies. It was another way to keep tabs on what is being done "for the people". The fact that the White House staff would even consider trying to convince other news agencies to put a kibosh on Fox, is an indictment of new journalist who have allowed their oversight of government operations to take a backseat to their own personal politics. To the credit of some left leaning journalists, this time, Fox's rivals found their backbone, but I personally doubt it's because of journalistic integrity.

The question you have to ask is why are they doing this? Anita done, the idolizer of mass murdering communist revolutionaries, stated anger over Chris Wallace's fact checking of administrative officials. She said she had never even heard of a Sunday News show fact checking a public official. Really? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Chris Wallace had this to say:

She criticized 'Fox News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check.

She also claims Fox ignores Republican Scandals, specifically sighting a lack of coverage on the Senator John Ensign scandal. However, once again encountered with the truth, it seems fox was on par with other news agencies in this arena. Anita Dunn does not seem to be finding much support in her crusade. Then again, even MSNBC would have a difficult time defending the worship of a person like Mao.

From the Fox News Website

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."

David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile." Gergen added that White House officials have "gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest."

"The faster they can get this behind them, the more they can treat Fox like one other organization, the easier they can get back to governing, and then put some people out on Fox," Gergen said on CNN. "I mean, for goodness sakes, you know, you engage in the debate. "

"What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett."

Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Zedong, the founder of communist China, was one of "my favorite political philosophers." "Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not...a small thing; it's a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she's deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that -- I mean, that is crazy."

Crazy like a fox, in her opinion. Anita Dunn is not alone in her idiotic attacks on the fox news network. Rahm Emmanuelle and David Axelrod have both been quoted this week in attempts to persuade other media outlets to disenfranchise fox to the level of a tabloid or op-ed journalism (as if they weren't all that). Whatever you think of Fox is not the issue. I personally, think its a republican news network. I also think that almost everything else is heavily democrat.

The White House administration has been under a greater focus since last week when the Communications Director was recorded bragging that they own and control the news. Then again, they are probably victims of a vast Right Wing, Fox News, conspiracy.

The point is not that Fox news is objective, I don't think they are. I don't think any of them are. But, I have a serious problem with the government attacking a free business enterprise. I have a problem with the public image of the president being more important then our constitutional rights. I have a problem with the white house attacking the thoughts and opinions of American citizens without ever responding to the claims they call "outrageous". It's not a long jump from what's going on here, to a Venezuelan style stifling of dissent. It's very disturbing and it should bother people at every level of the political spectrum. Oddly enough, it probably won't bug Fox News Shareholders, as their viewership and advertising dollars have benefited quiet well from this idiotic exercise in totalitarianism.

Another Offensive American Flag?

This is really strange to me. I should clarify that the hanging of the American Flag is not really a hot button issue with me. I just don't understand how it can be viewed as a controversial, or politically offensive symbol in America. I find it to be an extreme over-reach by those of a politically correct mindset; and I think it is something that leads to a focus on non-offensive speech and expression, instead of freedom of speech and expression.

The latest development on this issue is found on Philadelphia's NBC affiliate website. The Pennsylvania Fire Department suspended a fireman, without pay, for refusing to take down a 2 inch sticker of the American flag. The really odd thing about this, is that fire departments generally have the flag stitched on their uniforms, and almost always fly the flag outside their buildings. How can the flag be controversial in terms of its message if everyone working their is already required to wear it? It's just strange to me, but maybe there is more to the story then what I know of. I have pasted the entire article here, along with a link to the site it is published on.

Firefight Over the Red, White and Blue

Firefighter suspended for refusing to peel American flag sticker from locker

By VINCE LATTANZIO
Updated 10:38 AM EDT, Mon, Oct 19, 2009

Chester, Pa., firefighter James Krapf wants to know what's wrong with Old Glory. The 11-year veteran was suspended without pay Thursday after he refused to peel a sticker of the American flag from his locker.

"It's pride…it's a matter of pride," Krapf said.

A new department rule mandates that all stickers and statements – union, cartoon and political – be stripped from lockers after several offensive and racist images showed up in the firehouse. But Krapf figured the red, white and blue was safe.
It seems he was wrong.

"The chief came out and said 'You have to remove your
stickers,' I said 'No disrespect chief, but I'm not taking the flag off,'" Krapf recounted. He says the officer then asked him to leave.

Fire Commissioner James Johnson, who served in the Marine Corps, vows the symbolism of the decal is not the issue.

"We wear the American flag on our uniform…it's flying outside that station," he said. "It is not about the American flag or patriotism."

But Krapf refuses to give up and he's not alone. The firefighters union plans to negotiate with the department on the issue.

"We applaud Jim Krapf because these colors don't run," said union prez Stacy Landrum.

Krapf, who was turned away from the station again Friday, plans
to stand his ground. "It's the American flag, we should be able to fly it
wherever we want…I don’t believe it's offensive to anyone," he
said.

The issue and Krapf's fate is scheduled to be discussed at a
meeting on Monday.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/Firefight-Over-the-Red-White-and-Blue-64647657.html

Dueling Amendments - 4th vs. 16th

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.

The framers of the constitution believed strongly in the idea of property. The concept of "Life, Liberty, and Property" is an old mantra that was one of the key stones in the formation of America. In fact, the idea of property was one of the reasons they no longer wanted to be attached to any country in Europe any longer.

Property was a particularly important one (the 3rd amendment speaks strongly to this also). America was unique because for the first time on earth, people could own something without the government having a claim to it at all. America was Tax Free for about 120 years before the first concept of Income Taxes were imposed. In Europe, and just about every other place on earth, everything was subject to taxes and property controls. Many of you have heard of the old English law of needing to pay for a permit to breed even. This type of law was completely offensive to the American framers so much that they put in the 4th Amendment.

The 4th Amendment makes the promise that Government will never have the power to take your property without due process. This means that the high level of proof system would have to find you guilty of a crime before your property could be taken. The "warrant" and "Oath of Affirmation" portions speak to the courts. A judge would have to believe the word of your inquisitor before you or anything you own could be seized.

If you are like me you are now wondering, "How the heck can they take 40% of my pay check without charging me with a crime?"

The answer is they can't. It is 100% unconstitutional. However... if you CHANGE the constitution, then you can make all sorts of crazy laws.

Many times states tried to tax people, and had many problems doing so because it was a obvious and harsh violation of rights to do so. Several times the issue went to the Supreme Court. Decision after decision said, "What are you nuts? You can't take peoples stuff! These ain't subjects, they are people!".

Too bad for you, because in 1913, the planets aligned and the 16th Amendment was passed. This Amendment literally brought the concept of Biblical "Original Sin" back. No longer did the blood of our framers mater, you are now all born criminals. How do I mean this exactly? Well, previous to 1913, the government could only take your money or property if you were a criminal. So now that they took your property from you without a violation of the law, you were in essence a criminal just for existing in this country and the government could take your stuff.

Amendment XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

My favorite parts of this tyrannical amendment are "from whatever source" and "without regard". This dark and evil Amendment to the greatest document ever created sprung us back into the tyrannical shackles that we fought to get out of for so long.

You once had to pay the government if you were a criminal, now you are only not a criminal if you pay the government.

Friday Night Quote

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry

Glenn Beck Exposes Radical Views of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn

Glenn beck is a bit emotional and theatrical for my taste. But as far as holding the government accountable for their actions/statements, he is top notch. The praise of a Communist, Mass Murdering thug like Mao Tse Tung, is a true looking glass into the liberal perspective on history. Anita Dunn, along with many other White House staff members, have gone all out after Glenn Beck. They call him a liar and an extremist. They create a White House blog full of false information to attack his show and the guests on his show.
He is a private citizen, I don't understand why they would respond to him at all. Let alone lie about what he says to discredit his radio and TV show.

Glenn Beck vs Anita Dunn: Who among the two is actually promoting extremism?

A look at the National Debt

One of the greatest problems facing the American economic recovery is the growth of the National Debt. Unfortunately, it also seems to be the issue that no one wants to think about, at least not since Bush left office.

As of January 2009, the national debt became a forgotten issue, something easily blamed on greedy free-market right-wingers and the Bush administration. Which is not a bad place to start. Increases in Government spending under Bush we're horrendous, and the republicans’ willingness to go along with him strips them of any credibility on this issue. This is why it's so strange to look at current fiscal policy. Not only are we continuing the economic policies of George Bush, we are betting the future of our country on them.

The spending policies of the current administration have increased the debt more then every President in American history, combined! More then 43 cents of every dollar spent by Washington is borrowed or printed. This devalues the dollar, (as we are already seeing) and increases the risk of destroying the savings of American taxpayers. Because politicians refuse to act on this by reducing there spending habits, the current $6 trillion debt is projected to double by 2012 and triple by 2019! The Obama administration continues to claim that they will be able to cut the deficit in half by 2013, but their policies have already quadrupled the debt in only 9 months. This is excluding Health Care and Cap and Trade legislation, which would add more than $2 trillion more in immediate government spending. It is important to point out at this juncture, that the government doesn't make any money, nor any profits. They can only detract from the private sector, or attempt to encourage growth through economic development (which they are terrible at doing). They rely completely on the success of businesses and individuals outside of their own function to pay off debt they created. An article in the Wall Street Journal this week illustrates the main points on the debt rather well.

"As of Sept. 30, 2009, the national debt was almost $12 trillion and interest on that debt was $383 billion for the year, according to the Treasury Department's Bureau of the Public Debt. The Congressional Budget Office on Oct. 7 estimated the 2009 budget deficit to be almost $1.4 trillion (about 10% of GDP). In August, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated total government revenues at about $2 trillion. The revenue estimate included $904 billion from individual income taxes. This means the cost of interest on the debt represented more than 40 cents of every dollar that came in from individual income taxes."

"The OMB projects deficits of about $9 trillion over the next 10 years. If that occurs, the national debt will be almost $21 trillion by 2019. However, the actual amount could be much higher. The OMB also optimistically projects $13.5 trillion of revenue increases over the next decade, while minimizing the inevitable rise in interest rates that will come with an expanding national debt."

In my opinion, these estimates are extremely unrealistic, and far too optimistic They assume government spending won't increase above current inflationary levels and that the health care bill will reduce the deficit. This is a ridiculous and absurd assumption. The current disregard for our economic future on the part of elected politician (who care only about the next election) is as near a criminal offense as any "legal" action could be. The wall street Journal article is linked below. It was written by Lawrence Kadish and titled: Taking the National Debt Seriously

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704429304574467071019099570.html

Freedom of Speech and Old Glory

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 Decision ( U.S. v. Eichman 1990 ) ruled that the government’s interest in protecting the flag’s “status as a symbol of our Nation and certain national ideals” was related “to the suppression of free expression” and did not justify the infringement on Free Speech. What this means in short, is that Flag burning is a free expression constitutionally protected in the first amendment.

While many people may disagree on this issue, I happen to side with the court. The protection of Free speech was specifically created to defend "offensive speech". The application of this has never been more important then today. Politically correct media outlets, social organizations and advocacy groups, have done more to attack free speech and expression then at any other time in American history ( with the exception of the Woodrow Wilson era) . Offensive speech is now one of the most "hot button" issues in our culture, and in an attempt to protect certain groups from being offended, we are dividing our nation and alienating our freedoms.

I came across a story today that epitomizes this mentality to the fullest degree, and also illustrates the backwards thinking of the PC culture. Residents at an Oregon Apartment building we're officially banned from displaying the United States Flag in any area around the complex. This includes inside apartment windows, on or inside cars, on doormats, or hanging outside doors. This was not a rule previously defined in the Apartment lease agreements and was a shock to many residents. The comments from the the Apartment manager were a tell tale sign of the PC takeover of common sense.

Owner Stan Keller said: "I'm trying to avoid any conflict," "I have a problem when tenants' rights to free speech come into contact with other tenants' rights of peaceful enjoyment.

I could go a hundred different ways with this issue, but I will focus on this: a person does not have any right to go through life without being offended. It is an un-enforceable standard that precludes the rights of others. In this Country, we will either have free speech or not. And seriously, how is flying the American flag with pride not protected expression, while desecrating it is? I guess protection of offensive speech is only protected when your bashing America, Christians, or Republicans.

The story is linked here at two sites: Enjoy! Welcome to the Brave New World.......

http://www.katu.com/news/local/64059697.html

http://democratherald.com/news/local/article_d7d3c902-b4ee-11de-b11b-001cc4c03286.html

Fascism? What the heck is that?

Fascism is a word we all hear on a regular basis. We hear it in the news, we hear it on the streets, we hear it from the talking heads on the news. What exactly does it mean? We hear about how Hitler was a "Right Wing Fascist" and Stalin was a "Left Wing Fascist". Does that even make sense?

We at the 57th Signature find it very important that things are defined correctly. I would much rather prefer clarity over agreement (to quote the great Denis Praeger). So what exactly is Fascism?

Fascism is defined here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism


1.
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

The root of the word is often disputed, and there are two good Etymological explinations of the word. The first is "Bundle" fascio.

The Second root is fasce, Latin for "Stick".

The basis of Fascism is to "Rule by Force". Using our Etymological data, we can refer to it by our first root as "Rule the Bundle" or "Rule by the Stick". Either way, Fascism is bad news.

So how is Fascism manifesting itself in today's world? Is there Fascism in the common era?

Yes, there is. You must look at what groups of people or countries are trying to "Rule by The stick" or "Rule the Bundle". If congress passes a law that says you have to wear a seat belt while driving a car, is that fascism? Indeed it is. If they did pass such a law, it would be the governments way of using force (or using the stick) to control the people (or the bundle). If you refuse to obey such a law because you think that the people of a society should be free to make their own decisions, (no matter how foolish) then the government will use force to punish you. You may be pulled over, fined, or jailed depending on what the laws are.

An law of this kind would be a act of Fascism. Even though it is a small version of Fascism, it is Fascism none-the-less.

I would submit to you all: Watch your rights carefully, or you will lose them!

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.