Don’t use “roads” in Oklahoma to make your case for big gov’t…. you only look more stupid.

    I’ve made no secret that I’m for SMALL gov’t. (Not NO gov’t) I get a lot of the “you must not like having clean water, good roads, fire and police depts, etc.” nonsense and it got me to thinking…. so I started looking at the “rules” for my little corner of the world called Del City. And after finding all the connection fees, deposit fees, re-connection fees if something gets cut off, the late fees if the mail runs slow (another dysfunctional gov’t agency), the fines attached to your water bill and the threats to cut that human necessity off if you fail to pay, the liens put on your property and homes for failure to follow “the rules”, the signs all over city hall that say “we don’t accept the following forms of payment…. but late fees still apply” and “disrespect to city employees will NOT be tolerated”, the rules regarding when, where, how long you can speak and what you can say when bringing a grievance to your gov’t, (a basic human right) and all the rigidity, bureaucracy and callousness attached to these things…. if proponents of big gov’t think that being this overbearing, arbitrary, heartless and GREEDY is necessary to have roads, firemen, etc., I’d rather do without. And not only will I survive, but THRIVE without a municipal scrooge nickel and diming me to death.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Marriage Equality and Bigotry or DiscriminatOR or DiscriminatEE?

    I’m sure you’re all aware of the wedding cake baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding based on their religious beliefs and the resulting lawsuit in which a activist judge decided they would FORCE said wedding baker to bake the cake anyway. Then we have the cases of Hobby Lobby not wanting to provide the “morning after” pill and Catholic Charities that don’t want to hand out free birth control due to their religious convictions. And I’m sure you’re all aware of the resulting legislation that popped up in red states “to protect the religious freedom” of business owners who don’t want to “violate their conscience” also known as “discrimination laws” by pro-gay marriage advocacy groups and George Takei. Oh MYYYYYYY! (Sorry, I had to.) From Hobby Lobby to Phil Robertson to the NFL threatening to boycott Arizona and every republican who listens to Rush about to boycott the NFL (like THAT’LL happen…) to those on the left singing “we shall overcome” and calling anybody who doesn’t agree with them a zealot or a bigot, this has gotten WAY out of hand. We all need to stop, take a breath, and ask ourselves on BOTH sides of this issue some questions:

    Why do gay people want to get married? If you have any gay friends or family who want to get married, ask them that. Is it because they believe that marriage is a holy sacrament? Are they looking for tax breaks? Do they want to have rights to pull the plug if their spouse is on life support and be able to execute their last will and testament? There are many answers to list but these are the most common I have heard and currently only ONE of these answers is solvable without the state being involved, and THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM. We have taken a ceremony that’s as old as 5,000 B.C. in damn near every culture on this planet, full of vows, pledges, oaths and promises and given the power to say who can practice it and who cannot to a bunch of inept idiots that make laws and push agendas for a living. Unfortunately, this has reduced the validity, the supernatural nature and the value of marriage into the same bureaucratic act of going down to an office, paying the state a “fee” and walking out with a driver’s or fishing license. In other words, we’ve taken the holiness out of marriage by giving the state the power we used to reserve for God (or whichever representative of whatever religion you may be) thereby letting bureaucrats play that same role and now we see why it was a stupid idea.

     Many gay couples want to get married because they DO recognize marriage as a holy sacrament. As I stated earlier, marriage is a rite or sacrament that has been held sacred for several millenia in most every culture. It was a HOLY rite that was usually consecrated by a HOLY man or woman with vows taken before a HOLY deity. Once we gave that power of deciding who should marry and who shouldn’t to gov’t, we’re basically giving them the power of that rite, yet they are NOT a deity, no matter how much they try to make themselves so. Their involvement, their fees, their inclusion and exclusion of one people or another, one faith or another, their arbitrary rules over the years have cheapened what was once sacred. Solution: Take the gov’t OUT of marriage. Your faith and who you LOVE should be the deciding factor in who you should marry and how that marriage should be carried out. The ONLY time gov’t should be involved is in the enforcement of a contract involving marriage such as a pre-nuptial agreement or a divorce. That was one of the FEW roles our gov’t had to play at the founding of this nation (the enforcement of contracts) and it should be returned to that role as far as their involvement is concerned. With gov’t out of the way, the only time you have to worry about holy-rollers not allowing you to marry is in their own church. There are plenty of other churches who gladly welcome all lifestyles and you’re free to pick and choose whichever one suits your lifestyle best. I know a few gay couples who are perfectly happy with the church they attend and their churches are likewise happy to have them. On the flip-side, Christians who are Biblically based don’t have to worry about activist judges forcing you to recognize a marriage exists by baking a cake or forcing your priest, pastor, etc. to perform a wedding ceremony or even recognize a gay couple as married. Sure, some marriages will be recognized by some faiths and some won’t, but that’s the FREEDOM we have with personal choice and those situations of “discrimination” existed CENTURIES before the marriage equality debate was ever heard of. Here’s my own personal example: I’m Roman Catholic yet my denomination does not recognize my own marriage to my own wife because she’s a Baptist and we were married by a Baptist preacher. I disagree with that tradition due to scripture but they have their reasons, so I don’t seek out legal retribution and fascist activism trying to FORCE them to “accept” me. Why would I even want to do that and have so much hate directed at me when I go to Mass? I simply choose to go to a different church. Can you imagine the fiasco if the state were involved in this? We already left behind the centuries of Catholic vs. Protestant warfare, no need to repeat it on my account….

       Another answer I hear often is to be recognized with the same tax breaks as married couples get. And honestly, I can’t think of a more STUPID reason to want to get married. So you can get some extra dough from the state? Really? Could you BE any more petty? Why don’t you just adopt a kid and get a tax credit which is a HELLUVA LOT HIGHER than the tax break some people get for being married!!! Our society LOOKS DOWN on those who run foster homes and have children bouncing in and out of their homes just for the extra money they get by abusing the system and getting married simply for a tax break is abusing the system just the same. Also, in many states, there’s actually a marriage penalty, so good luck, depending on where you live. If taxes were FAIR or even non-existent to begin with, if the states involvement were removed from the situation where it doesn’t belong, this wouldn’t even be an argument, much less a stupid one.

      Which brings us to the last and most solid argument I’ve heard, being able to make end-of life decisions and executing a will. This is where the state SHOULD be involved and they’re not doing a very good job of it if they’re not allowing someone with specific instructions outlined in a Living Will or in someone’s Last Will to carry out those wishes. Yet, the solution doesn’t lie in getting married, as the state should ALREADY be carrying out those instructions regardless of whether the executor is a lesbian life partner, a parent, a spouse, a son or daughter, or Moe from the Three Stooges. After all, this is a LEGAL document we’re talking about, and for a state to say that a parent who hasn’t spoken to their gay daughter for 20 years has more say in pulling life support than their partner who is LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to make that decision is absolutely preposterous. The gov’t should be enforcing the contract, not making arbitrary rules based on blue laws but this is the result you get when you give the gov’t more leave to be involved in matters like these than they should have. They are not God. They cannot bless a marriage. Once again, reduce them to their intended role, problem solved, state-sanctioned marriage not required.

      Marriage is not just a status. It is a state of mind. It is full of ups and downs, joys and disappointments and there’s no way to emphasize this next statement enough: it takes a lot of hard work, compromise, love, and swallowing your pride to keep it going. There are plenty of straight couples who don’t take marriage seriously, who take advantage of their spouse, who use kids to influence and punish their spouse, who cheat on their spouse, waste money, get abusive and so on……. in other words, there are plenty of people out there who are STRAIGHT that have made the sanctity of marriage a joke. But allowing gay couples to marry can’t destroy the sanctity of marriage any more than the past few generations of straights can’t destroy it either. Keeping marriage sacred is a personal choice made by individuals, not society as a whole. If just one group of people could destroy that, marriage would have died out long ago and I and my wife would not hold our own marriage sacred, blessed by God and would not work so hard to keep the sanctity there. WE make the choice of whether or not our marriage is sanctified. In doing so, we get to experience the joys and blessings we get out of it and that FAR outweighs anything the state can grant us. I would do it again even if they gave me more benefits for staying single. I hope everybody, both gay and straight, that are getting married are doing so for the right reasons. If you are, you don’t need the state to consecrate your union, the love and work you put into it will be a testimony of whether it’s sanctified or not.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pagans: What Have You Done for Me Lately or Practice What You Preach, Hippie.

   The past several weeks have been full of the left vs right, Christian vs Tolerance crowd on several issues and I’ve had a belly-full. There’s this thing about “religious freedom” going around Oklahoma between those belligerents and a statue of the 10 Commandments and what we SHOULD believe and what we SHOULDN’T believe and what’s “fair” and what’s “tolerant” and “equal” and blah, blah, blah. First, we have this story of satanists wanting a statue of THEIR 10 commandments alongside the Christian statue at the capitol.  In it, there is a quote from said story:

”constitutional scholars and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) agree, if faith-based displays are to be allowed in public spaces in Oklahoma, then a multitude of faiths must be represented, even if that faith is considered repugnant by a majority of the state’s citizens.”

They can agree all they want, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed back in 2005 in Van Orden vs. Perry:        

In this ruling, a state CAN promote an idea or monument that is religious in nature if it has historical and social context. It just can’t prosecute people or tax or otherwise persecute them based on religious differences. Nor does the definition of the 1st amendment mean that each religion gets equal representation in the state. So if Oklahoma puts up a statue of the 10 commandments on public property and refuses to put up a statue of a pentagram or a statue of “do what thou wilt” or Zeus or Ganesh, it may not be “fair” or “equal”, but it’s ABSOLUTELY CONSTITUTIONAL. By the way, on practically every Oklahoma license plate there’s a picture of an American Indian shooting an arrow into the sky to bring the rain which is from local American Indian religious beliefs. That’s not an endorsement of that particular belief system, but reflecting historical context. In addition, I just got back from a viking runestone in a (until recently) state run park. Vikings MAY have been here and rune-stones were part of their religious beliefs, but there seems to be no issue from the satanists about that particular faith being represented by the state. Sorry, but I don’t recall in my Oklahoma History classes anything about satanists being part of the indigenous species or pioneers here. Nor are those same people that are SO upset about the 10 Commandments memorial suing the state over a license plate or a rune-stone so all the Christian-haters (which is what they REALLY are) can go screw on that one…

Next, we have the new-found Pope-lovers. These folks should be included in the category of “Cafeteria Catholics”. (Those who pick and choose what to follow based on what they do and do not like, such as in a line at the cafeteria.) I have had SO MANY left-winging , evangelical-hating hippies come up to me and tell me how much they just LOVE this new Pope, how the Pope is liberal, how they’re so glad this Pope hates capitalism, the Pope is a socialist, “just like Jesus was”, etc just to see if they can get a rise out of me….

Here’s my response, commies: THE VATICAN HAS ALWAYS PROMOTED SOCIAL JUSTICE, BEING GENEROUS TO THE POOR AND DENOUNCED GLOBAL CAPITALISM AT THE EXPENSE OF HUMAN LIVES regardless of who the Pope is! Greed has been one of the seven deadly sins since the beginning of the Church. But you “tolerance buffs” were SO DAMN BUSY ragging on Christians, looking for pedophile priests and trying to bring the ENTIRE Christian faith to it’s knees the past 20 years, you were just too distracted to hear what was actually being preached. Not to mention the fact that he is decidedly AGAINST women priests, gay marriage and the usual issues that keep you from hearing anything else other than what you want to hear, so I highly doubt those new “converts” will be adoring Pope Francis for too much longer or going to Catechism class anytime soon…

Last but certainly not least, there was a report read in Parliament yesterday talking about how Christians may be the minority faith in the world but we are the most persecuted.

An estimated 200 million will be persecuted this year alone and where’s the “tolerance” that is preached at Christians from the left-wing, the atheists, from the pagans and Wiccans? NOWHERE! You people (that’s right, I said it) hate being preached at, yet return that same preaching of “tolerance and love” platitudes at Christians before you turn your heads and spout the vilest crap when you’re in your own little corners. That may come back to bite you in the ass if you really believe in that whole “three-fold” thing….

Both sides of the aisle are full of hypocrisy. I’ve been a hypocrite many times myself, nobody’s perfect. As a Christian, I tend to notice when people I identify with get butt-hurt about something. After all, we share some of the same beliefs. That being said, I’ve tried to be more “tolerant” than others of my faith, hate the sin but love the sinner and so on. I’ve written e-mails to Pres. Bush asking him to allow pagans or Wiccans to have their own headstone for servicemen and women who are buried in Arlington after they gave their lives for this country, which he ordered the D.O.D. to allow. I’ve stood in a circle of many different faiths to pay respect to a Wiccan woman who was the epitome of kindness. I’ve defended Muslims who were being attacked after 9/11. I’ve befriended atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and even a guy that follows the Temple of Set. I may have a long way to go on the “love thy neighbor” front, but I dare ANYONE to say I haven’t made the attempt. My question to you Wiccans, atheists etc. now is: where is YOUR attempt to support  people of MY FAITH? Where is YOUR “tolerance”? I think I’ve done enough to keep you people from being tied to stakes with kindling under your feet. Time for you to step up and return the favor. If not, please don’t utter the word “tolerance” in my presence anymore, it just makes you look stupid.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

American Islamic extremists? HOW CAN THAT BE???

I’ll tell you how: We’ve ALLOWED it to happen…..

The mall takeover in Kenya has had plenty of coverage over the past several days and I’ve noticed a trend on every news story. They keep repeating that there are 2-3 Americans among the terrorists. The main angle of news reporting has an under-lying sense of “How can that BE??? This is America! We’re awesome! Why would anybody in America grow up to be an Islamic extremist?” Now don’t get me wrong, I’m acquainted with a few reporters, and God love them but they are some of the most out of touch people I know once you force them to think about anything outside their little bubble.


                                     “Hey baby, can I borrow your teeth whitener?”


As to the answer of “how can that be in a country that’s so awesome-sauce”, there are many factors we can point to such as open borders or foreign policy in the mid-east. I think if you corrected those two things you would still have extremism. I think the biggest obstacle in tackling Islamic extremists is political correctness. We’re afraid to shame (I use that word a lot in this post) or ridicule anything that has to do with Islam (even if it’s COMPLETELY outlandish and violent) for fear of being called racist, Islamophobic, etc. Yet, we have no problem humiliating other groups that are considered “extreme” such as the Westboro baptists or PETA or the Tea Party. Hell, people consider ME extreme when it comes to some of my views on liberty and gun rights and such. I’ve got enough of a sense of humor about myself when some fifth-columnist hippie calls me a “tea-bagger” to not behead them on Youtube. (Instead I make sexually suggestive gestures) But most extremists don’t. They are people who take themselves waaaaayyy too seriously. In response, we relegate them into a stereotype with humor and ridicule until they’re only a footnote in history. This is what needs to happen to Islamic extremists. The more people see them as ridiculous, the more they are shamed for their belief in violence to propagate their views, the sooner they will lose the grip of fear they have all over the world and be relegated to something we joke about. For proof that it works, let’s look at a similar group that started out strong and has finished last: the KKK.

The klan of the early 20th century was a powerful organization of extremists which operated with the full knowledge and sometimes cooperation of the state. They operated with impunity for a little over 100 years planting bombs, hanging, killing, etc. not unlike the Islamic terrorists we see beheading and bombing people today. They went from this:


Make no mistake, the klan was a full-blown terrorist organization which caused a lot of strife and tension for many generations. In the early 60’s, these people could’ve killed you for making fun of them and gotten away with it. Fast forward to today…. If you saw a KKK rally at the steps of your state capitol, would you fear them? Treat them like a joke? Even PITY them? These people went from an image of fear and power to one of insignificant, ignorant trailer park dwellers. Their power and influence diminished as people first began to grow tired of tolerating their crap, then they grew the courage to begin discrediting and humiliating them until they’re nothing but a joke from one ocean to the other. It’s okay to shame the klan because they’re politically incorrect. They preach violence against those that are different from them. They blame others for the state of their well being or their nation. In a nutshell, they hate and spread that hate. Now, take those descriptive factors of the klan and apply them to Islamic extremists. Are they any different? NO!!! So why is it STILL frowned upon for fear of seeming racist or offending a Muslim to ridicule the same beliefs we already ridicule with the klan?


                                          “We hang taffeta, not people…”


These extremists need to be put in their place. Their beliefs need to be discredited, their actions shamed. As people grow the courage to stand up to them and call them out on their violence, their power will diminish until hopefully, one day we can turn on a TV in Saudi Arabia and see what’s left of al-qaeda throwing a chair at the hosts’ head.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Syria question….

Several people have asked me my opinion on Syria and whether or not we should help the rebels oust Bashir Assad from power. I honestly didn’t have an answer at the time but after a bit more research on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that we should leave it alone. Here are my reasons:

1. Assad is pro-West

Syria is one of the few places in the Levant where you have a melting pot of all types of people of all kinds of faith. There are no laws making Islam greater than any other faith. At Christmas time, you can see many nativity scenes, Christmas lights on houses and businesses, Menorahs at Hanukkah and such as well as Islamic holidays like Ramadan. The gov’t of Syria has long encouraged a secular approach to faith and mixing of cultures. The rebels they are fighting are most certainly NOT…. Women aren’t forced to cover themselves at beaches or forced to wear a headwrap, they aren’t convicted of a crime if they get gang-raped like in other Muslim countries where extremism is prevalent.

2. Al Nusra is Al Qaeda!

    Al Nusra is the biggest rebel faction in Syria at the moment. They are a direct affiliate of Al Qaeda, the same people we’ve been trying to blow the crap out of for the past 10 years in Afghanistan. For us to turn around and SUPPORT the same kind of extremism that caused 9/11, youtube beheadings, the beating of women for reading books or not completely covering their bodies, etc. makes the sacrifice of every single soldier who gave their time, their limbs, even their lives a complete joke. Either we’re FIGHTING Muslim extremism or we’re NOT. How can Obama claim to be fighting Muslim extremists when he’s giving those SAME extremists guns and money and now talking about lending them military assistance? An act, by the way, which violates every anti-terror law he’s enforced… In my opinion, after supporting Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and now Al-Nusra in Syria, maybe Obama needs to check himself in at the Hotel Gitmo to get his head on straight…. but that’s another story….

3. Let Russia fix it!

    Russia has backed Assad just like we backed Saddam in Iraq. You might even call Assad a puppet of Russia because when Putin yells “jump”, Assad jumps. Just like it was our responsibility to keep the clown we backed in Iraq in check, it’s Russia’s responsibility to keep this clown in check. We needn’t get involved. I’m sure many of you will immediately jump on the “but JEFF! You said we needed to stop Saddam because he was a tyrant and had WMD’S!” Yes, I did. As for the tyrant bit, I remain skeptical. Assad and his wife live a lavish lifestyle as MANY people in MANY pro-West middle-eastern countries do. To jump all the way to comparing him with Saddam Hussein who was PROVEN to have used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, who we WITNESSED ordering the wholesale slaughter of ethnic Shiites after the Gulf War was over, who put people in plastic shredders, massacred entire cities, condoned his sons using “rape rooms” for unsuspecting women just walking down the street, killed his own brother for power, etc. is comparing apples and rocketships. As for Assad using chemical weapons, I’m not sure……

4. WMD’s used by Assad…. or the Rebels?

    I have seen several news links and reports that Assad is most assuredly using chemical weapons on his own people in Syria. Yes, tried and true news reporters with NO BIAS towards the Obama administration such as CNN, CBS, and NBC… you know, those paragons of integrity that tout administration policy to the point of either downright lying, doctoring video/audio or just completely burying any story that proves the opposite… Anyway, these “news” networks have had talking head after talking head on the tube, you know the type: retired generals whose foreign policy experience includes trying to figure out a way to get out of paying child support to some Filipino mama-san with a blue-eyed kid he met in some “sailor wanna hump-hump bar” all the way up to senators whose total foreign policy experience was smoking a joint on a river boat in ‘Nam. Either way, every single one is 99% sure, ALMOST undoubtedly that Assad is the bad guy gassing his own people. (No PROOF has ever been brought forward, mind you, only speculation.) NOT ONE dissenting opinion on ANY of these so called unbiased news outlets. Meanwhile, every obscure website that even carries a SCRAP of news including the Associated Press on the internet has stories of the REBELS TAKING CREDIT for chemical weapon attacks. Google it if you don’t believe me. Until we catch one or the other with their finger on the trigger, it’s all just hearsay anyway.

I was never EAGER for war in Iraq, and I’m sure as hell not eager for it now, especially in  the middle-east. Fighting wars in that region is pointless, asinine and just bat-shit crazy. Given that, I’ve become a bit isolationist over the past several years. But the last reason I have for not going to war with Syria is this: If you’re going to fight a war, fight it to WIN. Our military leaders and congressmen think wars should be fought to eventually change the other guys’ mind. You can’t do that with candy and toys. You have to DEFEAT your enemy. Get them to unconditionally surrender. Period. THEN you can make the world “safe for democracy” or whatever. This “hearts and minds” crap didn’t work in Vietnam, didn’t work in Iraq or Afghanistan and it won’t work here. Whether Obama is right or wrong, I can guarantee winning a war won’t be the end goal and that in itself is reason enough for me to say stay the hell out of Syria.


What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations. -Sun Tzu


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My hiatus from politics and so on……

I haven’t blogged in quite some time. After about the 5th scandal in a week showing the flagrant disregard for the law and the Constitution by the Obama administration, I figured if anybody doesn’t see it by now or can still excuse that sort of behavior by our “leaders”, then there’s no point in continuing a political blog. I lost faith in ANY and EVERY politician there is on any level. I still have no faith in THEM, but I have faith that there are enough of us who still believe in freedom, still believe that the Constitution is the law of the land, that we have unalienable rights, regardless of how often or how hard those same politicians try to alienate those rights from us, that we can continue to live in a nation that is FREE, that doesn’t give in to mob rule, that roots out corruption in our leadership, that holds those people accountable who would sell those rights and freedoms down the river for their own personal gain.

No surveillance should take place without a warrant, period.
The government has gathered millions of phone records and now they claim they have thwarted 50 attacks. I think that number is exaggerated and so is the story. There’s NO WAY they thwarted 50 attacks or ANY attack by fishing through phone records alone. There was other intelligence involved, the best being trained personnel, on the ground who speak the language, know the culture and can infiltrate those cells. It’s how we thwarted terrorists BEFORE we had things like satellites, GPS and cell phones and it worked just fine for us then. You can have a camera on every corner like 1984, you can have tiny listening devices disguised as flies on the walls of Taliban caves, you can collect all the phone records of every citizen in the nation, that will STILL not be as good as trained field officers who are dedicated to rooting out and stopping terrorists. Regardless of whether this fishing through phone records stopped 50 attacks (which is highly unlikely) or 5000 attacks, the 4th amendment exists for a REASON. It is a basic human right enumerated in the Constitution and should not be sold out for the illusion of safety. I would personally rather live right next door to a terror cell and be able to exercise my God-given rights fully than to have TSA pat me down at airports, the FBI listening to my phone calls and tracking my internet history, a camera on every corner watching my every move so that we can stop some terrorist attacks.

No police should enter your home without a warrant, period.
Someone brought to my attention a case in Las Vegas where the police entered a home without probable cause in order to do surveillance on the house next door where a domestic violence dispute was taking place:
The police had NO probable cause that this homeowner was committing a crime, yet they battered down his door in order to watch the crime taking place NEXT DOOR. If the homeowner refuses to cooperate with the police so they can catch their man, then the police need to come up with a different plan or a more convincing argument to let them come in and set up their stakeout. What they did was flat out wrong, DOES violate the right that a person should feel safe and secure in their own home, and the actions of this police department and those who gave the orders should be shunned by both the general populace and other cops alike. There’s already a divide in this nation between cops and citizens and that divide grows worse with police forces who employ guys who choose to enforce the law with creatine shakes and battle dress uniforms instead of brains. This isn’t East Germany, people. “No-knock” warrants should be eliminated from police policy entirely or at least used only in such extreme situations where the police entering or the surrounding neighborhood is in some sort of immediate danger. For those of you who say, “but that’ll give drug-dealers time to flush the drugs down the toilet!”, I say: That’s what you want, isn’t it???

We should not give up our rights, period. If you’re willing to “compromise” your rights for the illusion of safety, you should know that historically, no government ever stops asking for more. This government is no different. You give an inch, they WILL take a mile. At this point, with all that we’ve given since 9/11, the amount of criminals taken off the streets, the few terrorist attacks that have been thwarted are WAY out of balance. As many rights have been given up, don’t you think that by now crime should be practically non-existent and terrorism a bad memory?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MSNBC, gun control and nullification

This is a great article from the 10th amendment center on why nullification works, even for gun laws and how when Rachel Maddow tells you how the system is supposed to work, it’s usually the opposite:


86241by Michael Boldin
I get it.  I really do.  But that doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore it.

It seems obvious to me that in order to hold a place of prominence at MSNBC you either need to be a partisan hack, or totally clueless of history.

Probably both.

So when MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show producer Steve Benen shares his opinion, it’s usually just best to turn a blind eye to his idiocy.

But, sometimes it’s important to pay attention to what they say because it can actually give us insight on just what we should do for liberty.  In fact, if you believe in the right to keep and bear arms and wonder what to do to support that right, you’ll get all the advice you need in Steve’s recent Maddow Blog article, “Pointless Nullification in Kansas.”

Surprised?  Read on.  It’s true.


This month, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law the “Second Amendment Protection Act,” a bill that reasserts the state’s role in protecting the right to keep and bear arms of those living there.   The bill reads, in part:

“Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”

In conjunction with the above clause, the bill defines what is meant by “the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision by the Supreme Court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

By definition, state and local agents cannot enforce any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”  Based off this text, the state of Kansas now cannot participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood when Kansas became a state in 1861.

I happen to think such a state law is a big deal.   In Steve’s blog “report” on the issue, he quoted me as saying that this bill is “potentially the most important state level bill passed in modern American history.”

He didn’t take too kindly to that opinion, though, and spent some time talking about my “hyperbole” and the “cause for alarm” over the fact that Brownback signed this bill into law.

In fact, Steve spent quite a bit of time explaining how such an act is a waste of time.  He even said the law doesn’t make “any sense at all.”


So here’s some sense for our propagandist.  According to Steve, the courts, and the court only, determine what the constitution actually means.  But that flies in the face of what James Madison had to say.  You know Madison, the guy referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.”   In his own words:

“The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

No tribunal above the authority of the states?  Hmmmm.  That doesn’t jive with Steve’s version.

In Federalist #46, Madison also told us how to deal with things that the States determined were unconstitutional.  He wrote:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Steve Benen’s Constitution:  The states have no role in determining Constitution.  If they don’t like a federal law, they can “challenge the law in the courts.”  In other words, they should ask a branch of the federal government to limit the power of the federal government.

Yeah, OK.  Right.  We’ll get right on that, Steve.

James Madison’s Constitution:  The states have “no tribunal above their authority” to determine when the Constitution has been violated.  That includes the “supreme court” tribunal.  And, when states determine the Constitution has been violated, they should use “legislative devices” to create “very serious impediments” and even pass laws that would be a “refusal to cooperate” with agents of the federal government.

In fact, that’s just what Brownback signed into law.  The Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act follows Madison’s advice.  It’s a state legislative device which not only codifies into state law that virtually any and every federal “act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation” regarding your right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional, it also bans their enforcement by referring to them as “unenforceable.”


Steve spent time and energy, plus the space on Maddow’s MSNBC website, to convince you that the Kansas law is “pointless.”  If it were so pointless, he wouldn’t be wasting time on it.  Period.  So if you support the Second Amendment, this should serve as a serious call to action.

When Steve, Rachel, or anyone else at MSNBC wants you to stay away from doing something to protect the right to keep and bear arms that James Madison advised, you should take that as a big, green light to double-down and push that direction even harder.

Become a member and support the TAC!

As Judge Andrew Napolitano said recently, such widespread noncompliance in the states will make federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce.” (video here)

Madison and Judge Nap are good enough for me.  But it’s even more important to recognize that we should treat everything from MSNBC as if it’s opposite day.  When they tell you it’s a waste of time, you know it’s already having effect.  And you know it’s going to work.

So get out there and nullify gun control.  Support the right to keep and bear arms, and convince your state, county, city, or town to pass the Second Amendment Preservation Act today.

They don’t want us doing this.  We’re doing it anyway.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do we have rights or do we not? There is no middle ground.

I follow the ACLJ or American Center for Law and Justice. I agree with a lot of the work they do because they help get political and religious prisoners who are wrongfully imprisoned free again in places like Iran and Egypt, Cuba, etc. But I recently saw a couple articles surrounding the Boston bombers and I have to wonder about an organization which has Law and Justice in the title but advocates denying rights to people, even American citizens. The ACLJ put an article up when the first firefight took place and the world found out that the suspects were Chechens. This is going to be a somewhat lengthy blog post, so I’ll just post the link to the article: (don’t worry, it’s only a few paragraphs long.)

Now notice what he says in the last paragraph:
4. Because we know so little, and because the stakes are so high, it is imperative that the remaining suspect — if caught — should not be permitted to “lawyer up.” Were they an isolated pair, merely inspired by foreign terrorism? Did they have links to al Qaeda? Did they have links to Chechen terror groups? Were they even inspired by jihad or something else entirely? Did they have help? Foreign terrorists with potential links to our deadliest enemies do not have the right to remain silent.

For those of you who think you know me, you know I’m not adverse to war nor an apologist for evil people. That being said, I couldn’t disagree with the author more. There’s a line in the Declaration of Independence that states that ALL of us are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. You either believe it or you don’t. There is no middle ground. Now remember, the very premise of this organization is to help free people who have been imprisoned for their beliefs in nations where people’s rights are granted and taken away by the state, where rules of warfare are used against their own people to keep them powerless and at the mercy of tyrants or fanaticism, where prisoners are denied their basic human rights. So it boggled my mind even further to read a second article outlining the legal reasons of why this kid can be held as a belligerent, saboteur and a terrorist.:

In the article, ACLJ clearly states how we can hold this kid as a “belligerent” under the Geneva convention and deny this kid his basic HUMAN rights to things like: having an attorney present, having the right to remain silent, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Just because it’s legal, doesn’t make it right. Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve followed the events of the Russian-Chechen war since the wall came down and the Chechen terrorists are some of the hardest, coldest, most vicious actors on the planet. They were behind the Moscow theatre takeover in 2002 http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisisand the horrible school massacre in Beslan in 2004 in which almost 400 people were killed, including 186 children.
I have no sympathy for his politics, his motivations, his beliefs, and I certainly will never condone acts of hostility against innocents and soft targets. But I do have a problem with us becoming like the very countries the ACLJ fights against to give people their basic rights and terrorist or not, murderer or not, until he’s found guilty, THIS BOY HAS RIGHTS THAT SHOULD BE HONORED. He hasn’t even been convicted of a crime yet! Besides, treating him like he has less rights because he’s a suspected terrorist doesn’t put us on any better playing field in fighting the war on terror. After 9/11, we formed DHS, we appointed an intelligence czar, we threw all kinds of resources and training at counter-terrorism. The FBI is GOOD at counter-terrorism. Let them conduct a thorough investigation. Let them follow the money and leads. Given time and resources, they will come up with a good idea of who these boys were, the motivations behind the attacks, whether they were financed by another country or Al Qaeda, whether they’re part of a bigger cell and so forth. Granted, the info won’t come as fast as if we strap the kid to a plank and waterboard him but we will get objective, unbiased intelligence you can’t get from torture and most importantly, we won’t compromise the soul of our nation which is based on liberty, rights and freedom. Either way, whether the kid is “lawyered up” or not, if the state builds a rock-solid case against him, he’ll be found guilty. There won’t be any doubt about what happened, who’s responsible and we can sleep better knowing that justice was done and we didn’t sell our souls to fanaticism to do it.

This is not a G.I. Joe cartoon from the 80’s, I’m not gonna spout off about “if we did that, we’ll be just as bad as THEY are”, or some cliche’ platitudes. But the ACLJ condoning denying basic rights to this suspected terrorist is just completely contradictory to what they claim to stand for. That’s not what America is about and until their attitude changes, they won’t see any support from me either by word or financially.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A great sentiment from a NC gun blog….

Amen to this…….

Time for the next phase in the Leftist attack on America

Because America is always and forever wrong, the Left will have to execute a big pivot on the Boston bombers. Frustrated in their hope that the killers would turn out to be fat, middle aged white Christianist hatriots, the Left will have to find something new to blame us for.

Chicago Muslims on Friday condemned the Boston attacks and said they hope anti-Muslim sentiment doesn’t rear its ugly head.

Yeah, because that’s how we Hatriots roll. We see two Muslim killers and we start burning down mosques and running wild in the streets hitting hijab wearing women with bats.

For once, I wish the story wasn’t about me and people like me. For once I’d like to be left alone. They should at least have the decency to accept that it wasn’t a white militia member waving a Gadsden flag without blaming me for some mythical backlash too.

But as surely as night follows day, now that the last bomber is caught, tomorrow the airwaves will be filled with Leftists “hoping” that we unwashed racists can hold in our prejudices long enough for the oppressed Muslims in our society to get to safety.

Me? I just want to know if they worked alone or had help.

UPDATE: Right on schedule

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Lies, intolerance, and NPR….

For a week now, we’ve heard folks from NPR and MSNBC practically drooling over the idea that the Boston Marathon bombers were right-wing militia, pro-gun, white male, Christian, etc. Sadly, one could almost hear the collective sigh of DISAPPOINTMENT to come out of the mouths of the far-left when it was released that the bombers were Chechen in origin. Check out this terrorism “expert” from NPR:


What a stupid cow! Listen to the recording! She’s almost GLEEFUL in her “assessment” of what the bomber “probably” is. Will NPR or she in particular come out and apologize for the false painting of white-male Christian conservatives as the bombers? I highly doubt it, even though the shrill harpy cries from those like Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher would be deafening if the roles had been reversed and a Muslim person was blamed for a week on a CONSERVATIVE news network.

     I’ve been accused of racism, hate, being volatile, etc. simply for being white, male, owning guns and conservative. I’ve got news for you, boys and girls: If we were even HALF as racist, bigoted, and dangerous as liberals made us out to be, why are there still gay pride parades? Why do black people still exist? Why are there still Mexicans who speak their native language in public without being beaten and told , “WE SPEAK ‘MERICAN HERE!” Why are there still abortion clinics and college professors who indoctrinate our kids into their agendas? Why do left-leaning celebrities and reporters not hide under their beds at night in fear of assassination? In short, why do liberals still exist? BECAUSE WE’RE NOT THE ONES FULL OF HATE, NUMBNUTS! During the recent gun debate, it was LEFT leaning newspapers that “outed” people with gun permits in the hopes that they get robbed or assaulted or at the very least, “shamed” by their community. It was LEFT leaning reporters who called for the outlawing of the NRA and members to be incarcerated. My favorite was the celebrities who came up with interesting ways gun owners should be killed, like tied to a truck bumper and dragged to death.

     The most bigoted and intolerant views that I’ve personally witnessed are the tired, clichés used by liberals to assert their intellectual superiority over anybody from a red-state or an R next to their name. If I tell a lib that I used to live in Arkansas, or that my family is from there, I pretty much expect the smirks and the looks on their faces as their mind races through a litany of pre-concieved notions they have about me just from that one sentence. We’ve been defiled by images of being under-educated and inbred, we’ve been accused of intolerance and bigotry for decades….. and now we’re being accused of terrorism. We’ve even seen memos coming out from the administration and DHS saying how returning conservative veterans are more of a potential terrorist threat than al-Qaeda or Muslim affiliated organizations. Need I remind you idiots that the Columbine killers were raised by very active liberal parents? Or that Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, cop-killer Chris Dorner were all diehard, active LIBERALS and registered democrats?

     We’ve been MORE than tolerant and ever-so-friggin’ patient watching our rights being taken away, our beliefs spat upon, our liberties and even our lives threatened by people who claim to HATE VIOLENCE and INTOLERANCE! It’s obvious to me that the average vitriol-spitting liberal is very ballsy yet very stupid to target an armed population with ridicule and violence, then have the audacity to accuse those same people of not just intolerance, but of being potential terrorists. How can we be as intolerant and dangerous as they claim to be when they are STILL AROUND to continue to taunt and threaten us some more?

     Speaking of threats, Maybe NPR would be better served to look at themselves in a mirror and ask their inner child if they feel like blowing something up in order to “stop the hate.” Hell, maybe the FBI should start asking them in an official capacity, just to be on the “safe” side. After all, it’s for the children.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment