H/t to Red Ink Texas
China to count abortions as "carbon credits"
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Got published again
My letter about the state's attorney not enforcing un-Constitutional laws got published - on the same page as an editorial about the same issue:
Another prosecutor pursues a personal agenda.
WELL, AT LEAST it can be said that when district attorneys lose their legal bearings about enforcing the law, it’s a bipartisan exercise.
First it was Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth, a Republican, who warned schools that criminal charges might be lodged if the details from the state’s new sex education plan became part of the curriculum. Southworth argued that instructing students about condoms and contraception, prior to the age of consent, could put teachers on the wrong side of the law if the kids subsequently engaged in relations.
Now Jackson County District Attorney Gerald Fox, a Democrat, has drawn his own line in the legal sand. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s gun decision last week, Fox says he no longer will enforce any Wisconsin gun laws.
WHAT DOES the district attorney mean? According to the Associated Press, his statement said Jackson County no longer will prosecute violations of Wisconsin prohibitions on concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns — even carrying switchblade knives.
Fox says the high court ruling makes all of Wisconsin’s gun laws unconstitutional.
“These so-called public safety laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over,” Fox said.
He closes his statement: “Let Freedom Ring.”
THAT’S A POLITICAL argument, not a legal analysis. Ditto the earlier foolishness from DA Southworth.
In the first place, as legal analysis, Fox’s stand would be wildly wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling was an extension of an earlier decision, originating in the District of Columbia, which had established that the Second Amendment included an individual right to own firearms — not just that states could maintain an armed “well-regulated militia.” Last week’s ruling affirmed that the right exists in all 50 states, not just the federally-controlled D.C. zone.
The decision did not strike down, as Fox seems to believe, any and all gun regulations across America.
In fact, sorting out exactly what the ruling really means may keep lawyers busy for years.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, such rulings should not give license to politically-motivated prosecutors to superimpose their personal beliefs on the law.
We have no doubt the good voters of Wisconsin put prosecutors in place with the expectation they will enforce the law, not reinterpret statutes to suit themselves.
The simple fact is, though, mischievous prosecutors can pursue their own agendas with relative impunity. Under Wisconsin law, elected district attorneys have wide discretion when it comes to charging. The intent is to permit prosecutors to assess individual cases and proceed in a manner aimed at delivering justice to all parties. But it also can allow an unscrupulous prosecutor motivated by politics or a personal agenda to, essentially, distort the law.
The remedy rolls around every Election Day, when fair-minded voters can send these rascals packing.
I just sent Mr. William R. Barth of the Beloit Daily News this:
Dear Mr. Barth,
It was interesting to see the juxtaposition of your editorial "Just enforce the state laws" and my opinion piece "Go after the real criminals". Thanks for posting my letter.
I think, however, that you have a problem with history and the role of the people and the courts in our society. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, first off, and any law in conflict with the Constitution is null and void. That is fact.
The courts are not pro-active - they don't rule on Constitutionality until a suit is brought challenging a particular law. One might wish for a pro-active court system, but that could cause mischief in the other direction, depending on the political leanings of the judge involved, so I would advocate leaving bad enough alone there.
Anyway, the purpose of a state's attorney, as I see it, is to bring charges against people who are causing injury to the community by their actions, and to use common sense to prevent prosecutions based on faulty laws that would likely cause problems such as large payments of taxpayer's money to people harmed by the attempted enforcement of those faulty laws. I can see why Mr. Southworth warned against schools following the new sex-education law, since its literal interpretation would be corrupting the morals of minors, a crime. Perhaps this was a subtle hint for the Wisconsin legislature to revisit that law and re-write it to eliminate any possibility of teachers being charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor by attempting to follow the law.
The Supreme Court recently incorporated the Second Amendment, an action quite long overdue. This places it on the same level as the First Amendment, which prohibits the government, state, local, and federal, from infringing on the freedom of speech and the press. I am sure you would agree that any governmental agency attempting "speech controls" would and should be slapped down quickly and solidly.
The same concept is now attached to the Second Amendment. True, there will be thousands of lawsuits, each aimed at one or more of the 20,000-odd now un-Constitutional laws on the books. The courts will have to try each and every suit and render decisions, which will probably be appealed by officials fearful of losing power, however meaningless and petty that power is.
In America, our citizens are empowered to decide the law as jurors. Sadly, this power has been ignored and actively denied by judges in their instructions to juries. The power of nullification means that the people can effectively overturn a stupid or illegal law without waiting for the courts to rule. I see the actions of Mr. Southworth and Mr. Fox to be similar to this principle. Mr. Fox may be a bit gung-ho about this particular Supreme Court decision - I can understand that, since our Second Amendment rights have been systematically infringed upon starting with the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War, and continuing with New York's Sullivan Act, the federal National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (copied from 1930's German law), Illinois' FOID Card law, Wisconsin's Handgun Hotline, and all the rest.
Mr. Fox can see clearly that the Supreme Court's decision has effectively nullified every gun-control law now on the books, even if the courts have not yet ruled on those individual laws. He is trying to prevent his county from having to pay tax dollars to plaintiffs who successfully contest, say, concealed carry in his county. This also has the side-effect of preventing the suit that may well overturn Wisconsin's concealed-carry ban from being tested in courts in his county.
(Looking at it that way, perhaps Mr. Fox did us freedom-lovers a disservice by refusing to prosecute people for violating the useless and un-Constitutional laws on the books - because someone who is not prosecuted for exercising an inalienable right has no standing to bring suit to overturn the law he has not run afoul of.)
The Supreme Court decision does indeed strike down all of Wisconsin's present gun-control laws, but they will not be removed until each and every one is tested in court. There is nothing to fear from these laws being removed from the books - ask yourself, honestly - how many crimes have been prevented, say, by preventing a handgun transfer to someone who already owns six handguns until a waiting period expires, or by requiring federal background checks on law-abiding people before they can buy a gun from a dealer. The honest answer is zero. All these laws have ever succeeded in doing is preventing good folks from defending themselves. Criminals will always ignore the law. Our prosecutors should be lauded for attempting to prevent lawsuits that will cost us money, and should concentrate on prosecuting those who are actually harming others.
By the way - what's with the 'even carrying switchblade knives' comment? You do understand that the only reason for laws regulating knives was politicians in the 1950's getting all worked up over movies like "The Asphalt Jungle" - Google 'The Asphalt Jungle switchblade laws" turns up one typical comment near the top: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=298931 . You do understand that simply carrying something does nothing to harm society - until you pull it out and commit a crime like robbery, rape, or murder with it, right? Sort of like all those shootings in Beloit and Chicago that would never have happened is "gun control" actually worked.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
EDITORIAL: Just enforce the state laws
WELL, AT LEAST it can be said that when district attorneys lose their legal bearings about enforcing the law, it’s a bipartisan exercise.
First it was Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth, a Republican, who warned schools that criminal charges might be lodged if the details from the state’s new sex education plan became part of the curriculum. Southworth argued that instructing students about condoms and contraception, prior to the age of consent, could put teachers on the wrong side of the law if the kids subsequently engaged in relations.
Now Jackson County District Attorney Gerald Fox, a Democrat, has drawn his own line in the legal sand. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s gun decision last week, Fox says he no longer will enforce any Wisconsin gun laws.
WHAT DOES the district attorney mean? According to the Associated Press, his statement said Jackson County no longer will prosecute violations of Wisconsin prohibitions on concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns — even carrying switchblade knives.
Fox says the high court ruling makes all of Wisconsin’s gun laws unconstitutional.
“These so-called public safety laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over,” Fox said.
He closes his statement: “Let Freedom Ring.”
THAT’S A POLITICAL argument, not a legal analysis. Ditto the earlier foolishness from DA Southworth.
In the first place, as legal analysis, Fox’s stand would be wildly wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling was an extension of an earlier decision, originating in the District of Columbia, which had established that the Second Amendment included an individual right to own firearms — not just that states could maintain an armed “well-regulated militia.” Last week’s ruling affirmed that the right exists in all 50 states, not just the federally-controlled D.C. zone.
The decision did not strike down, as Fox seems to believe, any and all gun regulations across America.
In fact, sorting out exactly what the ruling really means may keep lawyers busy for years.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, such rulings should not give license to politically-motivated prosecutors to superimpose their personal beliefs on the law.
We have no doubt the good voters of Wisconsin put prosecutors in place with the expectation they will enforce the law, not reinterpret statutes to suit themselves.
The simple fact is, though, mischievous prosecutors can pursue their own agendas with relative impunity. Under Wisconsin law, elected district attorneys have wide discretion when it comes to charging. The intent is to permit prosecutors to assess individual cases and proceed in a manner aimed at delivering justice to all parties. But it also can allow an unscrupulous prosecutor motivated by politics or a personal agenda to, essentially, distort the law.
The remedy rolls around every Election Day, when fair-minded voters can send these rascals packing.
I just sent Mr. William R. Barth of the Beloit Daily News this:
Dear Mr. Barth,
It was interesting to see the juxtaposition of your editorial "Just enforce the state laws" and my opinion piece "Go after the real criminals". Thanks for posting my letter.
I think, however, that you have a problem with history and the role of the people and the courts in our society. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, first off, and any law in conflict with the Constitution is null and void. That is fact.
The courts are not pro-active - they don't rule on Constitutionality until a suit is brought challenging a particular law. One might wish for a pro-active court system, but that could cause mischief in the other direction, depending on the political leanings of the judge involved, so I would advocate leaving bad enough alone there.
Anyway, the purpose of a state's attorney, as I see it, is to bring charges against people who are causing injury to the community by their actions, and to use common sense to prevent prosecutions based on faulty laws that would likely cause problems such as large payments of taxpayer's money to people harmed by the attempted enforcement of those faulty laws. I can see why Mr. Southworth warned against schools following the new sex-education law, since its literal interpretation would be corrupting the morals of minors, a crime. Perhaps this was a subtle hint for the Wisconsin legislature to revisit that law and re-write it to eliminate any possibility of teachers being charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor by attempting to follow the law.
The Supreme Court recently incorporated the Second Amendment, an action quite long overdue. This places it on the same level as the First Amendment, which prohibits the government, state, local, and federal, from infringing on the freedom of speech and the press. I am sure you would agree that any governmental agency attempting "speech controls" would and should be slapped down quickly and solidly.
The same concept is now attached to the Second Amendment. True, there will be thousands of lawsuits, each aimed at one or more of the 20,000-odd now un-Constitutional laws on the books. The courts will have to try each and every suit and render decisions, which will probably be appealed by officials fearful of losing power, however meaningless and petty that power is.
In America, our citizens are empowered to decide the law as jurors. Sadly, this power has been ignored and actively denied by judges in their instructions to juries. The power of nullification means that the people can effectively overturn a stupid or illegal law without waiting for the courts to rule. I see the actions of Mr. Southworth and Mr. Fox to be similar to this principle. Mr. Fox may be a bit gung-ho about this particular Supreme Court decision - I can understand that, since our Second Amendment rights have been systematically infringed upon starting with the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War, and continuing with New York's Sullivan Act, the federal National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (copied from 1930's German law), Illinois' FOID Card law, Wisconsin's Handgun Hotline, and all the rest.
Mr. Fox can see clearly that the Supreme Court's decision has effectively nullified every gun-control law now on the books, even if the courts have not yet ruled on those individual laws. He is trying to prevent his county from having to pay tax dollars to plaintiffs who successfully contest, say, concealed carry in his county. This also has the side-effect of preventing the suit that may well overturn Wisconsin's concealed-carry ban from being tested in courts in his county.
(Looking at it that way, perhaps Mr. Fox did us freedom-lovers a disservice by refusing to prosecute people for violating the useless and un-Constitutional laws on the books - because someone who is not prosecuted for exercising an inalienable right has no standing to bring suit to overturn the law he has not run afoul of.)
The Supreme Court decision does indeed strike down all of Wisconsin's present gun-control laws, but they will not be removed until each and every one is tested in court. There is nothing to fear from these laws being removed from the books - ask yourself, honestly - how many crimes have been prevented, say, by preventing a handgun transfer to someone who already owns six handguns until a waiting period expires, or by requiring federal background checks on law-abiding people before they can buy a gun from a dealer. The honest answer is zero. All these laws have ever succeeded in doing is preventing good folks from defending themselves. Criminals will always ignore the law. Our prosecutors should be lauded for attempting to prevent lawsuits that will cost us money, and should concentrate on prosecuting those who are actually harming others.
By the way - what's with the 'even carrying switchblade knives' comment? You do understand that the only reason for laws regulating knives was politicians in the 1950's getting all worked up over movies like "The Asphalt Jungle" - Google 'The Asphalt Jungle switchblade laws" turns up one typical comment near the top: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=298931 . You do understand that simply carrying something does nothing to harm society - until you pull it out and commit a crime like robbery, rape, or murder with it, right? Sort of like all those shootings in Beloit and Chicago that would never have happened is "gun control" actually worked.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Here we go again!
Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it...
Dow Repeats Great Depression Pattern
With Mr. Barack Hussein Osama playing Herbert Hoover...
Dow Repeats Great Depression Pattern
With Mr. Barack Hussein Osama playing Herbert Hoover...
Sunday, July 4, 2010
A question
I have a question for anyone who knows something about paved roads and their maintenance. My daughter, the civil engineer draws a blank on this.
So far as I know, south central Wisconsin is unique in "maintaining" the asphalt paved county and township roads around here by spreading a nice thck coat of tar or oil, then a nice thick coating of fine pea gravel. The oil gets on anyone's vehicle who is unlucky enough to have to use the road, and the pea gravel is a special treat to two-wheeled traffic. My daughter came out today on her bike and had to negotiate some curves on a county road so treated - luckily she knows how to ride.
Is there actually any benefit to this technique, aside from making some politically connected people's brother-in-laws rich? It certainly ought to make the greenies happy, spreading all that oil to leach into the ground...
So far as I know, south central Wisconsin is unique in "maintaining" the asphalt paved county and township roads around here by spreading a nice thck coat of tar or oil, then a nice thick coating of fine pea gravel. The oil gets on anyone's vehicle who is unlucky enough to have to use the road, and the pea gravel is a special treat to two-wheeled traffic. My daughter came out today on her bike and had to negotiate some curves on a county road so treated - luckily she knows how to ride.
Is there actually any benefit to this technique, aside from making some politically connected people's brother-in-laws rich? It certainly ought to make the greenies happy, spreading all that oil to leach into the ground...
Appropriate for the Fourth of July!
Just saw this:
Felony charges for reporting within the Gulf spill zone
Just as we are celebrating our country's birth, our Glorious Leader's government does this. Somehow, it's appropriate.
Another link: Gulf of Mexico censorship
Felony charges for reporting within the Gulf spill zone
Just as we are celebrating our country's birth, our Glorious Leader's government does this. Somehow, it's appropriate.
Another link: Gulf of Mexico censorship
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Texas to shutter a bunch of refineries
EPA closes refineries due to some bullshit rule that got bent. Big Dick's Place has the link...
Common sense in a county prosecutor-and stupidity elsewhere
Article in the Beloit Daily News:
Prosecutor says he won't enforce state gun laws
Jackson County, Wisconsin District Attorney Gerald R. Fox is a very intelligent man. He has read the Supreme Court's ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, and has done the right thing - he refuses to prosecute people in violation of un-Constitutional state laws.
Contrast this with Little Dick Daley in Chicago, who in response to the same ruling, rushed through new restrictions on an unalienable right.
Lots of lawyers are going to get rich, and the taxpayers of Chicago are going to get poorer. Finally, the people of Chicago will be free - but it's going to take years, and Daley getting ridden out of town on a rail, dripping tar and feathers.
I can dream, can't I?
Just sent this to the Daily News letters:
Jackson County District attorney Gerald R. Fox is the kind of public official we need more of in Wisconsin. He has announced that, in accordance with the highest law of our country, he will no longer prosecute people for exercising their God-given right to self defense under the Second Amendment.
We now need to get our legislators to do the correct thing, and repeal all the un-Constitutional gun laws on the Wisconsin books. The useless 'handgun hotline', the waiting period for gun deliveries, the ban on concealed carry - all of them.
We need more people to take a stand like this. How about Rock County's district attorney being the next to announce he will follow the highest law of the land and ignore laws in violation of it?
Our prosecutors and police should be going after people who are committing real crimes, with or without weapons. Possessing an object should never be a crime. It's what you do with that object that matters, and only the action of harming another person should be prosecuted as a crime.
Prosecutor says he won't enforce state gun laws
Jackson County, Wisconsin District Attorney Gerald R. Fox is a very intelligent man. He has read the Supreme Court's ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, and has done the right thing - he refuses to prosecute people in violation of un-Constitutional state laws.
Contrast this with Little Dick Daley in Chicago, who in response to the same ruling, rushed through new restrictions on an unalienable right.
Lots of lawyers are going to get rich, and the taxpayers of Chicago are going to get poorer. Finally, the people of Chicago will be free - but it's going to take years, and Daley getting ridden out of town on a rail, dripping tar and feathers.
I can dream, can't I?
Just sent this to the Daily News letters:
Jackson County District attorney Gerald R. Fox is the kind of public official we need more of in Wisconsin. He has announced that, in accordance with the highest law of our country, he will no longer prosecute people for exercising their God-given right to self defense under the Second Amendment.
We now need to get our legislators to do the correct thing, and repeal all the un-Constitutional gun laws on the Wisconsin books. The useless 'handgun hotline', the waiting period for gun deliveries, the ban on concealed carry - all of them.
We need more people to take a stand like this. How about Rock County's district attorney being the next to announce he will follow the highest law of the land and ignore laws in violation of it?
Our prosecutors and police should be going after people who are committing real crimes, with or without weapons. Possessing an object should never be a crime. It's what you do with that object that matters, and only the action of harming another person should be prosecuted as a crime.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Osama wants immigration reform?
Another sent to the usual cretins:
NO. We do not need Mr. Obama's version of "reform" - we need the federal government to enforce the LAW as it is written.
What would actually be a true reform would be a law cleaning up the concept of "anchor babies" to limit automatic citizenship to babies born here to parents here legally who have previously expressed a real commitment to becoming citizens themselves.
Why not propose such a bill while telling Mr. Obama to quit fooling around when he's got real crises to deal with? Getting more Democratic voters is not a crisis to be addressed - it's a disaster for our country.
NO. We do not need Mr. Obama's version of "reform" - we need the federal government to enforce the LAW as it is written.
What would actually be a true reform would be a law cleaning up the concept of "anchor babies" to limit automatic citizenship to babies born here to parents here legally who have previously expressed a real commitment to becoming citizens themselves.
Why not propose such a bill while telling Mr. Obama to quit fooling around when he's got real crises to deal with? Getting more Democratic voters is not a crisis to be addressed - it's a disaster for our country.
Kagan nomination
Sent to the usual suspects:
Vote NO on Ms. Kagan. She does not understand, nor does she respect the Constitution of the United States.
She also cannot answer a direct question directly. We've way too many shady politicians in Washington now, without appointing one to life tenure in our highest court.
Vote NO on Ms. Kagan. She does not understand, nor does she respect the Constitution of the United States.
She also cannot answer a direct question directly. We've way too many shady politicians in Washington now, without appointing one to life tenure in our highest court.
Monday, June 28, 2010
McDonald ruling due today!
Like many, I hope for a clear victory - but will not be surprised by a weaselly refusal to act in the best interests of the people of America.
Update: Kinda a victory. More lawsuits to come, but the foot is now in the door...
Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms
Update: Kinda a victory. More lawsuits to come, but the foot is now in the door...
Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms
Hitting close to home
Hot Air has this:
I hope we can change the direction our country is being driven in without bloodshed.
Update: Sent this to the usual suspects:
GO here and see what our "president's" wishes, combined with your aid, have done to our state.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/27/obamas-promise-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-to-cost-1000-jobs-in-upper-midwest/
How about fighting for US here in Wisconsin, as we hired you to do, and not for the "new world order"?
Obama’s promise to bankrupt coal industry to cost 1,000 jobs in upper Midwest
Hope and change?I hope we can change the direction our country is being driven in without bloodshed.
Update: Sent this to the usual suspects:
GO here and see what our "president's" wishes, combined with your aid, have done to our state.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/27/obamas-promise-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-to-cost-1000-jobs-in-upper-midwest/
How about fighting for US here in Wisconsin, as we hired you to do, and not for the "new world order"?
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Nanny state protectionism
I've been thinking about laws meant to protect people from themselves in one way or another. The July 4th holiday always brings this to mind with the obligatory front-page warnings in the local paper about the dangers of fireworks.
How does any government that claims to be supporting freedom get off making any law aimed at forcing anyone to do something or not do something strictly for their own safety? The very idea ought to be anathema to a freedom-loving "legislator".
The only laws that should ever be passed are those which further the overall freedom of the people - and not "freedom from", ever. Americans should always be free to experience the consequences of their own actions, for good or bad. The only time the government should step in is if one person's actions cause injury to another or to some others property - and then only at the complaint of the injured party or a witness to the injury.
If children are shielded from all danger while growing, they will never mature as fully-functioning citizens of a free state. Of course, such defective children are key ingredients of a true nanny state. Without a cowering populace, the nanny state could not survive.
How does any government that claims to be supporting freedom get off making any law aimed at forcing anyone to do something or not do something strictly for their own safety? The very idea ought to be anathema to a freedom-loving "legislator".
The only laws that should ever be passed are those which further the overall freedom of the people - and not "freedom from", ever. Americans should always be free to experience the consequences of their own actions, for good or bad. The only time the government should step in is if one person's actions cause injury to another or to some others property - and then only at the complaint of the injured party or a witness to the injury.
If children are shielded from all danger while growing, they will never mature as fully-functioning citizens of a free state. Of course, such defective children are key ingredients of a true nanny state. Without a cowering populace, the nanny state could not survive.
Yet another futile attempt at controlling my employees...
Sent to Kohl and Feingold...
We do not need, nor do we want, a "kill switch" for the Internet.
We do not need, nor do we want, a "Disclose Act" that would infringe the freedom of political speech. It was tried once with McCain-Feingold, and rightly was struck down by the Supreme Court.
We DO need to allow the Gulf States the freedom to defend their own shores from the oil mess gnereated mainly by federal regulations that forced drillers into unsafe waters.
We DO need the federal government to either properly police our borders, as the law requires, or for them top get the heck out of the way and allow Arizona to do the job the federal government obviously will not or cannot do.
We DO need you guys to stop spending our distant descendants' life's savings on unicorn fart programs like ObamaCare and bailouts of companies. Let people take responsibility for their own lives, and let big corporations live or die based on their own actions and mistakes.
We DO need the size of the federal government reduced by about 90%. Now.
We DO need federal legislation prohibiting anyone paid in any way from taxes taken from the American people from joining or organizing a union. Anyone taking a federal paycheck who does so should be immediately fired.
We DO need an immediate cessation in the printing of money without a corresponding increase in our national product.
We DO need an immediate reduction of federal taxes - and no new taxes unless an equal amount of existing taxes are removed. You want to pass a VAT, well, disband the IRS and remove all income taxes, personal and corporate. One or the other.
Do what we want, don't do what we don't want you to do. It's really simple.
We do not need, nor do we want, a "kill switch" for the Internet.
We do not need, nor do we want, a "Disclose Act" that would infringe the freedom of political speech. It was tried once with McCain-Feingold, and rightly was struck down by the Supreme Court.
We DO need to allow the Gulf States the freedom to defend their own shores from the oil mess gnereated mainly by federal regulations that forced drillers into unsafe waters.
We DO need the federal government to either properly police our borders, as the law requires, or for them top get the heck out of the way and allow Arizona to do the job the federal government obviously will not or cannot do.
We DO need you guys to stop spending our distant descendants' life's savings on unicorn fart programs like ObamaCare and bailouts of companies. Let people take responsibility for their own lives, and let big corporations live or die based on their own actions and mistakes.
We DO need the size of the federal government reduced by about 90%. Now.
We DO need federal legislation prohibiting anyone paid in any way from taxes taken from the American people from joining or organizing a union. Anyone taking a federal paycheck who does so should be immediately fired.
We DO need an immediate cessation in the printing of money without a corresponding increase in our national product.
We DO need an immediate reduction of federal taxes - and no new taxes unless an equal amount of existing taxes are removed. You want to pass a VAT, well, disband the IRS and remove all income taxes, personal and corporate. One or the other.
Do what we want, don't do what we don't want you to do. It's really simple.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Jews in the attic
How do you determine a law is tyrannical? Joe Huffman has a test.
"Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?"
The Jews in the Attic test
Worth passing around. Check out his blog: The View from North Central Idaho
Chuck
"Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?"
The Jews in the Attic test
Worth passing around. Check out his blog: The View from North Central Idaho
Chuck
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Email to NRA-ILA
Re: H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT -
How can you in any way support this? I did not send in all that money to the NRA to become a life member so that the NRA-ILA would be a party to un-Constitutional infringements on the First Amendment.
It's bad enough to have a state senator - Feingold - who thinks the First Amendment is not a restriction on the government - but to have my NRA aid and abet the loss of freedom is unconscionable.
What's next? Are you going to send money to the Brady Bunch? They are hurting financially, I hear, and I bet they would love help getting their message out!
How can you in any way support this? I did not send in all that money to the NRA to become a life member so that the NRA-ILA would be a party to un-Constitutional infringements on the First Amendment.
It's bad enough to have a state senator - Feingold - who thinks the First Amendment is not a restriction on the government - but to have my NRA aid and abet the loss of freedom is unconscionable.
What's next? Are you going to send money to the Brady Bunch? They are hurting financially, I hear, and I bet they would love help getting their message out!
Another nail in the national coffin
Feingold and Kohl both voted to let the EPA keep the power to regulate human exhalations and volcanoes.
Again, I send email to these idiots. Am I just a glutton for disappointment, or what?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you insane, sir? Giving the EPA the power to unilaterally "regulate" substances that have no possible effect on our "climate", and that have no possibility of control by humanity?
Carbon dioxide is a vital nutrient, the vast majority of which is produced by natural sources. Man-made CO2 emissions contribute less than 10% of the total atmospheric content of this gas.
Allowing an unelected bureaucracy to have the power to control something that all living creatures exhale is totally crazy. The opportunities for mischief are endless.
I won't even get into the fact that our whole economy, and our standard of living - not just for America, but for the entire planet, depends on the burning of so-called "fossil fuels", and will be so dependent for the foreseeable future, despite any claims of "alternative energy". We must, as a species, someday wean ourselves off coal and oil, but to do so in a totally unscientific and illogical manner is a form of slow national suicide.
NOTHING America can do unilaterally will have the slightest effect on the climate of this planet. It is the height of arrogance to even think this is possible. All this power given to the EPA will cause is further destruction of our economy, more unemployment, and a further proof to the other nations of the world that the USA is no longer a power to be reckoned with.
In your last few months of service to the people of Wisconsin, could you please help rein-in the insanity of the environmental religion? At least show some guts and character, so when you are dis-elected, you will go out with a few good marks on your record!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
CO2 comprises less than 1/3 of 1% of our atmosphere. The probability of a given photon hitting a molecule of CO2 is minuscule, and actual scientific measurements have shown that CO2 is much less effective in trapping heat than water vapor, which is ten to one hundred times as common in the atmosphere. But, when has common sense and intelligent thought EVER figured into the antics of our politicians?
Again, I send email to these idiots. Am I just a glutton for disappointment, or what?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you insane, sir? Giving the EPA the power to unilaterally "regulate" substances that have no possible effect on our "climate", and that have no possibility of control by humanity?
Carbon dioxide is a vital nutrient, the vast majority of which is produced by natural sources. Man-made CO2 emissions contribute less than 10% of the total atmospheric content of this gas.
Allowing an unelected bureaucracy to have the power to control something that all living creatures exhale is totally crazy. The opportunities for mischief are endless.
I won't even get into the fact that our whole economy, and our standard of living - not just for America, but for the entire planet, depends on the burning of so-called "fossil fuels", and will be so dependent for the foreseeable future, despite any claims of "alternative energy". We must, as a species, someday wean ourselves off coal and oil, but to do so in a totally unscientific and illogical manner is a form of slow national suicide.
NOTHING America can do unilaterally will have the slightest effect on the climate of this planet. It is the height of arrogance to even think this is possible. All this power given to the EPA will cause is further destruction of our economy, more unemployment, and a further proof to the other nations of the world that the USA is no longer a power to be reckoned with.
In your last few months of service to the people of Wisconsin, could you please help rein-in the insanity of the environmental religion? At least show some guts and character, so when you are dis-elected, you will go out with a few good marks on your record!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
CO2 comprises less than 1/3 of 1% of our atmosphere. The probability of a given photon hitting a molecule of CO2 is minuscule, and actual scientific measurements have shown that CO2 is much less effective in trapping heat than water vapor, which is ten to one hundred times as common in the atmosphere. But, when has common sense and intelligent thought EVER figured into the antics of our politicians?
Saturday, June 5, 2010
White House Press Corps Head Speaks!
From Helen Thomas, a good pal of The Won, President Osama:
Not much for history, this ugly broad...
Not much for history, this ugly broad...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)