December 2009

I was listening to some talk radio this afternoon and found a statement quite disturbing. A female guest on the show suggested that people would have to get used to the idea of full body scans.
NO. We. Don’t.
The politically correct incompetent scanning at the airports simply needs to apply what I do whenever I fly. I scan over the passengers and look for any muslim. That’s because if there is to be a problem on the flight, it won’t be granny sitting there with her crochet hook trying to take over the plane. It won’t be the 20-something mom two tics from the stress limit watching three kids under the age of six. It won’t be the civilian clothed military on route to wherever.
There is ONE group that has done hijackings, bombing, terrorizing.
muslims. PERIOD.
Why do I look at the passengers at the terminal for a muslim? The reason that the Northwest flight passenger, Jasper Schuringa, acted. A muslim was trying to kill them.
If the agency charged with protecting the public would do its job, all muslims would be scrutinized. If they don’t like it fine. Stop your com padres from terrorizing and we’ll stop the profiling. Until that time, if the stereotype fits. Wear it.
Lastly, note that at any given opportunity, the proper action is avoided by the government and the action that is more invasive of the average citizen is adopted. After all, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”


but enjoyable nonetheless.

Engaging in a Battle of Wits With an Unarmed Opponent
By John Ross

baby picture
When a baby is born, emotions travel from fear, pain, excitement to joy, and anticipation. The new little person comes with three basic needs: love, food, cleaning. Total dependency is the name of this game. Twelve, two, and four-o-clock feedings may space out to three, four, and then five hours until finally a night’s sleep has been experienced again.
The baby grows, learns, interacts with others, and begins to formulate scripts with which the new person will interact with the world. With each new ability, the individual is charged with expectations – you are now expected to put your waste products into that porcelin chair. Your pants are no longer the acceptable location for those excretions.
This formulation is continued until the person is considered an adult: responsible for their own behaviors. The plus side of this equasion is that the person is now free to make his/her own decisions. The freedom of becoming an adult has grown with the responsibility. My contention is that the two are inseparable: freedom means responsibility. When one is responsible for a decision, they are free to make that decision. When one is not responsible for a decision, they’re not free either.
If a government wants to remove freedom, that government couches its intentions in a coat of “you’ll not have to worry about this (insert whatever) any more.” Once that (whatever) has been taken care of by the government, the person is no longer free in their decision.
Health care. We are responsible for our own health care and have the freedom to choose an employer with healthcare benefits, or pay ourselves. We have the ability to forgo the insurance altogether and pay cash when needed. I have been without health care insurance many times in my life. I have had to pay cash for the appointment as well. Once government gets their paws on this, we have lost freedom, because we are no longer responsible for our care.
Our light bulbs have a limited life. Last year, the feds passed a bill to take them off the shelves and force us to buy the much more expensive flourescent bulbs. They are now responsible for the type of bulbs in our lives. We have lost freedom as the feds took away the responsibility.
Each time an official tries to take on an aspect of our lives for which we will no longer be responsible, realize that the official is taking freedom.

I’m dreaming. (There is a really good read called “God of the Machine” that describes the formation of our government and compares it with others historically.) One game I’ve played is, “if I was president…” to which I have come down to a couple of basics. Get rid of the department of education to force education back to the states, and repeal of the 17th amendment to force senators to be selected by their respective state legislatures.
The initial change would take over a generation to cause effect – parents being much more responsive to the education of their kids. Which would be faster than the removal of the same – which started in the early 1800’s. (please refer to “The Underground History of American Education.)
The return of the senators would place the states back in the federal government and remove incentive for certain behaviors that have been exhibited recently. This would further cause, or at least encourage the contact of citizens with their state legislatures as that would be the senator’s boss. Imagine the difference that this present debate would have had the senators been appointed, not elected. Had the senators been required to answer to the state legislatures for their jobs, not trying to buy votes with tax money. Our founding fathers had a much better idea with that design.
Other items I would consider are the elimination of social security, removal of welfare – any form – including business and farming and repeal of unconstitutional mandates: toilet flush volume, car mileage standards, etc.
Bottom line: There is no way I could get elected. But, it’s a dream.

This takes the present political battle to its roots. I remember the quote – if the best man won’t rule, then he will be ruled by someone lesser than himself.

Staver’s position already has been supported by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who also cited the simple unconstitutionality of the health care plan in his opposition.

In a recent commentary, he wrote, “We swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to bear true faith and allegiance to it. The Constitution prescribes a very limited role for the federal government. There is not a word in our oath, or in the Constitution, about most of what we do.”

He continued, “There’s not a word in the Constitution about the government deciding what medical tests private health insurers should pay for. Nothing about the government deciding how much executives on Wall Street should earn, or what kind of light bulbs and cars we should buy. There’s nothing about the thousands of parochial earmarks that fund local bridges to nowhere, golf courses, bike paths, sewer plants, and tea pot museums.

“There’s nothing about these or many other things in the Constitution because they have nothing to do with the proper role of a federal government in a free society. But these are exactly the kinds of things our government spends its time and money on, and we don’t even question anymore why that is,” he said.

Read the rest.

Next Page »