|  Spirit of '76 Gun Page  Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers  Spirit of '76 Shooting Page  Spirit of '76 Hunting Page  Spirit of '76 Reloading Page
| ||||
  to my SoapBox Page Here's an analogy that I thought of one day while driving home from work. You may use it on liberals, the liberal media, etc... whenever they WHINE about the popular vote vs. the Electoral College vote: "The Electoral College was set up specifically to NOT be a popular vote. It is analogous to the World Series in baseball. The winning team must win 4 games out of 7. Total runs, total bases, batting averages, etc... at the end of the Series is irrelevant. A team may win the Series by scoring only 4 runs, by winning 4 games 1-0. The scores in any of the other games, even if they are blown out 10-0 in each one, are meaningless. Each game, like each State, is a fresh start and a separate event."-- Spirit of '76 Greg .The Fall(??) of the 9th and 10th AmendmentsEver since the "Civil War" (a.k.a. The War of Northern Aggression or The Second American Revolution), the several States have given up a tremendous amount of power to the Federal Government. According to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government has a few clearly delineated powers (see Article 1, Section 8). The 9th Amendment basically says that 'just because we didn't list any specific right of states or the people doesn't mean that it does not exist'. Further, the 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." This means that the Federal Government has well-defined and limited powers, and it may not 'overstep its bounds'. It also means that the people have innate rights which cannot be arbitrarly taken from them, and that the Federal and State Governments must follow the rules set forth in the Constitution - Article 6 : "shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Fortunately, Federal Government encroachments (or attempted eradication) of rights have been challenged lately. I don't know if it is due to an increased awareness of the importance of the ninth and tenth Amendments, or the people who are doing the challenging feel that at this time they have a reasonable chance of winning, or there is some other reason. The point is, we should ALL remain on guard against all infringements on our rights AT ALL TIMES. Perhaps the several States should collect all of the federal income tax money from the people residing in that State. The State would then forward the appropriate amount of money to the federal government. This way, the States would regain their rightful sovereignty. The federal government could no longer force it's will upon the States by holding (or threatening to hold) the people of that State's money hostage for not abiding by its arbitrary and illegal mandates. Read the U.S. Constitution, and the next time you hear of a proposed piece of legislation, be it Federal, State, or Local, ask yourself "is this proposal Constitutional?" "Partisan" PoliticsYep ... those left-wing spinmeisters are good. When they win - they have a 'clear mandate from the people' and they will 'obey the will of the people' and 'do the people's work'. When they lose - they claim that the people don't want 'partisanship and gridlock', they want us working together toward common goals. It's not surprising that the worst that the DEMs want is a tie (who doesn't?), and all too interesting that they seem to GET IT. I have concluded that my (for those of you who agree with me - our) politics of conservatism and adherence to the Constitution are, at BEST, a TIE for us and at WORST a loss of liberty and wealth. At the same time, at WORST it's a tie for the political left, and at best further encroachments on our liberty and wealth. Conservative politics strives for "what's morally right", while Liberal politics strives for "what's best for ME". It seems we're starting the 'tug-o-war' from the MIDDLE, and doing everything possible to stay in a very narrow middle ground - never veering far to the right, while our opponents pull like h*ll to the left. This is what makes it so very difficult. We don't want to "win" at the expense of others ... we want everyone to enjoy liberty. Making it Safer for the CriminalsWhy in the world have we created "criminal safety zones"? You know, places where criminals are practically assured safety, while they perpetrate heinously brutal crimes against the good people, especially our children? Whose 'brilliant idea' was that?! Criminals just love 'em. They know that they can walk into Federal Buildings, Schools, and Houses of Worship and murder as many people as they please because our legislators have decreed that NO law-abiding person shall possess a firearm in these places. It didn't take the criminals long to figure this one out. Think about it - where has most of the slaughter recently taken place? I'll give you a hint : Federal Buildings, Schools, and Houses of Worship! Isn't it interesting that the President of the United States and a group of our Federal Legislators have not acted to correct this problem by removing the restrictions that they have illegally placed on the good people of this country concerning their self defense? They continue, in fact, to make it easier for the criminals to slaughter innocent people. One must 'wonder' if the safety of the public really is their concern, or if they simply (for whatever reason) want to remove firearms (a very effective means of defense from enemies, both foreign and domestic) from the hands of the American public. They look 'very sad' on TV when one of these incidents occurs, but continue to use these terrible crimes as tools to promote their agenda, which is actually part of the reason that they can occur, and certainly the reason they are so devastating (nobody is able to fight back) and why they continue to happen. One must wonder if they really want the brutality to stop, since it serves their purpose so well. Bill Clinton continues to object to the charge that he uses tragedies for political advantage. However, he was quoted in the Rocky Mountain News on Wednesday, 4/12/00 as stating, "Our cause has been aided by the deaths of all these children in all these schools, and in other settings." One of the deep perversities of 'gun control' is that it is most likely to keep firearms away from people who wouldn't misuse them and it is least likely to affect the behavior of people who are truly dangerous. By depriving law-abiding folks of the best means for self-defense, gun restrictions unquestionably make life safer for the violent criminals. Gun Control - a Simple Solution for Simple Minds. What are the effects of 'gun control'? On a recent note: It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government (that's the TAXPAYERS, folks) more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." C'mon now ... don't you understand? If 10 leeches aren't helping the patient, there's only ONE SOLUTION -- ADD MORE LEECHES !!! What's scary is that people are being fooled into falling for all this. The politicians who lust power DON'T CARE ABOUT CRIME. They care about control. They won't get any opposition from the criminals - they're a bunch of cowards. We must understand that 'they' are not worried about criminals, they are worried about the good, honorable citizens. Learn about JURY NULLIFICATIONAs a juror, you are in a position to judge both the law and the facts of the case - in spite of what the Judge or anyone else tells you. You'll learn that YOU can find a defendant NOT GUILTY if you believe the law to be unjust -- say, for instance, the case of a respectable person brought up on "gun possession" charges. The nullification principle involves the power to say no to the excesses of government, and thus serves as a final defense against tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Here's some information from Civil Liberties (topic on left sidebar) and FIJA - The Fully Informed Jury Association. What are "Hyphen" Americans?I don't care for anyone who uses a hyphen to describe themselves in terms of being an American. Hyphens are used to emphasize differences, and solicit special treatment and consideration, like quotas and such. Some people try to use their 'hyphen status' to demand respect, rather than earn it, or intimidate others, with the implied threat of "discrimination!" if you happen to disagree with them or dare to oppose them. Hyphens used to drive a wedge between people by those who benefit from such adversity (some sensationalists use 'hyphens' to stay in power). We should all be content to be good Americans, and we should treat each other as Americans. We shouldn't treat others in certain ways (better or worse) based on their heritage. It is interesting to me that while the liberals and democrats are supposedly striving for a "color-blind" society, they are the ones who promote this nonsense, while the conservatives and republicans treat others based on their merits. It is ironic that those who claim that they are 'color blind' always seem to be those who are quickest to point out our differences. The liberals seem to want to pick a minority whom they deem 'competent' to fill positions (right or wrong). The conservatives seem to try to get the best person for the job - regardless of race, gender, or whatever. How are we supposed to make things better if we DON'T fill the position with the best person? If you don't, you are doomed to, at best, mediocrity. Who really is color blind? "When a Negro girl learns to cook, to wash dishes, to sew, to write a book, or a Negro boy learns to groom horses, or to grow sweet potatoes, or to produce butter, or to build a house, or to be able to practise medicine, as well or better than some one else, they will be rewarded regardless of race or colour. In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants." -- Booker T. Washington, 1901, a mere 35 years after emancipation from slavery "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism... A hyphenated American is not an American at all... Americanism is a matter of the spirit, and of the soul... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans... each preserving its separate nationality... The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American." -- President Theodore Roosevelt The Media SlantI would say "lies" instead of "slant", but I'll be nice until I post actual facts on that matter. The media is obviously biased. I believe something on the order of 80% of those in the 'major media' voted the Democratic line in the last election. They also, in the vast majority of cases, support gun snatching. Here's a pretty good exposure of their liberal bias. TV news segments on firearms policy have shown the following:
Opinions that Opinions that
Opposed more Advocated more
Gun Control Gun Control
Morning News 15 193
Evening News 20 164
Combined 36 357
(source: Media Research Center)
I don't know why the combined for the 'opposed' column are off by one. However, the bias is TEN to ONE in advocating restrictions to firearm ownership - a clear violation of our rights !! Here's some more evidence ... RATHER Biased. On Being a Liberal DemocratHere are pretty good exposures of the contradictions of liberal beliefs. I thought they were funny at first ... until I realized a moment later that there is AN AWFUL LOT of truth here. On Being a Liberal Democrat. Here's another good one - It's Amazing What One Has To Believe ... To Believe In Gun Control, and yet another, by Kim Weissman. Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, Paxil and their Role in the Carnage According to a "Health & Healing" letter from a Dr. Julian Whitaker, "O'Neill Furrow Jr. walked into the North Valley Jewish Community Centre in Los Angeles and, without a word , fired 70 rounds with an Uzi-type gun, wounding five people. A month earlier, Mark Barton murdered his wife and two children [ he bludgeoned them with a hammer and then finished them off by drowning them, by the way ] and then methodically and dispassionately gunned down 2l people in two brokerage firms in Atlanta, killing nine. These and virtually all of the gun-related massacres that have made headlines over the past decade have had one thing in common: they were perpetrated by people taking Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox Paxil or a related antidepressant drug. These drugs can cause akathisia, mental and physical agitation that sparks self-destructive behavior. They can also induce dissociative reactions, making those who take it insensitive to the consequences of their behavior. This is the type of drug that Eric Harris was taking when he walked into the Columbine High School and massacred his fellow students. Folks, guns and movies don't cause these tragically frequent episodes of inexplicable violence. The real reason is written out on prescription pads by psychiatrist and doctors all over the country - these monstrous acts were done not by criminals, but by ordinary people high on prescription drugs. Yet the overuse of Prozac-like drugs is not even part of the national debate, and those who sound the warning against them are ignored. I can only surmise that the reason the FDA continues to disregard these mounting SSRI-related casualties is because of this agency's close alliance with the multi-billion-dollar drug companies." Backup:
Election Reform - Eliminate "Spoilers"Did you know that William Clinton was the only President ever to be elected twice to the office of President of the United States without a majority vote? Do you know how this was possible? The answer goes beyond the Electoral College - it is basically because we sanction the ability of "3rd party" spoilers to siphon off votes. Many have written in defense of the Electoral College, including Jude Wanniski and William C. Kimberling - Click on "A Brief History of the Electoral College". It definitely has its merits - no doubt about it. Due to its structure, it gives the States power (an important principle embedded in our Constitution), and ensures that rather than let the most populous States control the elections, it demands a country-wide broad-based support for the winning candidate. It also favors a two-party system, which may or may not be good. The two-party system has been likened to a 'family' with a mother and father (I guess that would be a traditional family rather than our 'new' liberal-endorsed "family") having the final word, yet allowing the children to have the ability to sway family opinions. Also, since changing this system would require an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, don't think that the majority of the States, which benefit from this system, will vote to change the system to one of a popular vote. However, there is still the real problem of a candidate with viewpoints similar enough to one of the two major party candidates taking enough votes to substantially 'tilt' the election, 'family votes' notwithstanding. A technique has been put into practice, of late, that uses a non-viable candidate who could take more votes from your opponent than yourself. That non-viable candidate acts as a "spoiler", increasing (or assuring) your chances of winning an election. This is bad for the country, as it runs counter to the spirit and essence of free elections. While most of the votes would be cast for the similar candidates, the one who differs the most out the the top few is the one who gets elected. This makes no sense. This is what happened in the 1992 and 1996 Presidential Elections, and we have Ross Perot to thank for it - BOTH times. Think about it - more people DID NOT want Bill Clinton than DID want him!! Even without a "spoiler", on at least one occaision, the USA has elected a President who did not get the majority of votes. This should change. Now that we can run an election in one day with the help of modern technology, there is no reason why we can't modify the system to remove the spoilers before the FINAL election so that winning candidates should be required to capture the majority ( greater than 50% ) of the votes cast. If this requires a runoff between the two candidates who receive the most votes in a State, then the States should do it. Otherwise, it is conceivable that our next President could receive a small minority of the popular vote, if enough candidates are running for that office. If this change took place, I am SURE that we'd see the Libertarians and Independents making a much better showing at the polls because it would allow people to REALLY vote their concience without the fear of 'throwing away their vote'. Do you think the 2 major parties will allow this to happen? Will WE MAKE IT HAPPEN? I don't know. Read about the Electoral College:
Polling's Dirty SecretPolls typically have response rates as low as 20% and also oversample:
All these people tend to favor the LEFT LIBERAL vote-buying "welfare programs" sponsored by the democrats. #1 wants all those good state-sponsored child care programs. #2 and #3 want all sorts of 'government assistance' (that money comes from the working people, folks) in the form of 'free' money (unemployment payments, welfare, and Social Security), medical care, and 'free' prescription drugs. The nation's wealth producers are either too busy to answer their questions or are never reached at all. No wonder the results are often skewed! My main objection to polls is that the pollsters try to turn their "survey" into a "push poll" - designed to FORM public opinion, rather than reflect it. I tend to regard Zogby and Portrait of America as more accurate. The real question is ... who cares? I guess the candidates care - so they can "modify" their platform, or "re-invent" themselves (for the 5th time). Perhaps the sheep care, so they know how to stay within the safe confines of the flock. As long as we have weak-minded people who want to be 'in the majority', people will exploit this weakness and, unfortunately, have a certain degree of control over elections. Buying Votes with Our MoneyDid you ever notice that there are politicians on the federal level who stay in power by constantly promising to give one or more groups of people other people's money in exchange for their vote? The reason that they get away with it is that they are allowed to violate the Constitution. They have invented charities which would be run by unconstitutional agencies in the federal government. These charities are a means to redistribute wealth in America by confiscating it from those who have the initiative to earn it, and giving it to those who did NOT earn it. If this was done on an individual level, it would be called stealing. Why do some think it is acceptable for our government to do this? Frederic Bastiat addresses this issue in an excellent work, The Law. I use to think that decisions to OUST socialists was a no-brainer ... now I see it is only an easy choice for those of us who value self-determination over socialist hand-outs. Here are a couple of interesting statistics that will explain a lot regarding support for socialists like Bill and Hillary: (from an article by Neal Boortz) The top 5% of income earners pay 52% of the taxes, while earning 31.8% of the income. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. This leaves a 4% 'tax burden' for the other 50%. (Wow.) Now maybe we can understand why a lot of people are VERY INTERESTED in the survival of "government programs" and aren’t supporting any tax cuts or reductions in SPENDING. Hell, THEY AREN'T PAYING ANYTHING!! In fact, they're busy lining up for what they probably believe is "their fair share" of the loot - stolen from their neighbors. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." -- Alexander Fraser Tytler 1748 - 1813, while writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Then see : Babylon, a Prophesy . "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -- Voltaire Civil Forfeiture Laws(Nov. 1999) Among others, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) is trying to pass a law to protect the public from some of the outrageous abuses of government confiscation of personal and real property under current civil forfeiture laws. Civil forfeiture is based on the legal myth that the government action in taking a person's property is really taken directly against the property, and not against the person. This concept was originally formulated and adopted in order to conficate property seized from those involved in the illegal drug trade. The idea was to confiscate the often hi-tech and expensive equipment (electronics and vehicles, such as high speed boats and aircraft), and give it to law enforcement to use combating this criminal activity. Unfortunately, abuses of these laws have been widespread. However, since the national "take" by various government agencies for this year alone is $449 million, there is a strong incentive to make sure the "myth" underlying the concept remains intact and secure. Add to this the fact that many, if not all, of the law enforcement agencies who conficate property under these laws get to keep a portion of the booty! This is a clear conflict of interest! Current civil forfeiture law places the burden on the owner to prove that the property taken is not the result of a crime or used to commit a crime. This is literally attempting to prove innocence. Since this is often impossible to prove (as are all negatives), in addition to being prohibitively expensive to prove, an innocent owner is often unable even to attempt to recover his property. Unlike government action against a person, civil forfeiture (against the property) is done without a warrant, without a hearing, without a criminal conviction, and even without a criminal charge. This "twist" in our laws is possible because it has been successfully argued that "property" does not have the rights afforded to our citizens. This is a sham, as we all know that the "property" is not suffering, the innocent owner IS. For instance, there have been cases of people having large tracts of land confiscated because they could not prove that a drug deal did not take place on their land. Whether they had anything to do with it is irrelevant, because they are not being charged with a crime - their property is! We need to stop this abuse of civil forfeiture that recklessly tramples on the property rights of innocent Americans. Forfeiture of property involved in criminal acts can be done fairly, without making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution and our legal system. We need laws that would require the police to prove criminality by clear and convincing evidence (beyond a rerasonable doubt) instead of the current minimal requirement of "probable cause". Forfeiture of property should only be possible after a criminal conviction, and proof that the property in question was, in fact, involved in the relevant criminal activity. Here's more information about Property Rights, from 'The Republican' Site IncrementalismUntil such time as ALL essential rights can be snatched away at one time, they will be incrementally taken - actually, stolen. Incrementalism is political or social change by degrees - gradualism. You see, as evidenced here by a few posters, some people (maybe most people) don't mind if you 'only' take a little. The problem is that a lot of 'littles' ADDS UP over time. Here's an example: If you drop a frog in a pot of hot water, he'll jump out - the drastic change in temperature distresses it. However, if you put it in cool water and gradually heat it up, it will cook. One of my bosses years ago asked me, when we were faced with a seemingly impossible task, "Greg, how do you eat an elephant?" Hell if I knew WHAT he was talking about. His answer was, "ONE BITE AT A TIME." Those who seek power, those who seek to control, UNDERSTAND that if they go too far in step, THEY WILL MEET RESISTANCE. However, if they are "reasonable" about it, eventually they will get everything they want. "... shall not be infringed." Those words were put there for a REASON. Infringed means 'to encroach upon'. SOUND FAMILIAR? Those old, dead white guys were smarter than a lot of people think. They UNDERSTOOD that rights are taken away gradually, and so they used these words to PREVENT INCREMENTALISM. Among the tactics used by the gun snatchers is EMOTION. In fact, it is one of their most powerful tools. Who here "hates handguns"? Why? I've read about firearms owners who have lost somebody dear to them due to the misuse of a handgun. I am sure that nobody will deny that those event were tragic. There is, however, a benefit to all firearms ownership that outweighs the cost. Many more people are SAVED due to the proper use of firearms than those who are killed due to their misuse. That's a fact. The pain of losing a loved one is emotion - and it hurts like hell. Don't let it cloud your thinking. The fact of the matter is that handguns are a valuable self defense tool. Don't let the gun snatchers divide those who understand and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms. 'Divide and Conquer' is an age-old - and very effective - tactic, if we're dumb enough to allow it. COMPROMISE - that's when two parties are in dispute and they settle their differences by mutual concessions. Usually, the dispute is not clear cut, so middle ground is reached. According to the gun snatchers, compromise is when we come halfway across the table ... TODAY. Unfortunately, they expect us to do it again tomorrow! WHAT CONCESSIONS HAVE THEY MADE?!! None. This is like a criminal holding your family hostage for $100,000 -- and you reach a COMPROMISE at $50,000. Unfortunately for YOU, he doesn't let 'em go after he receives payment! Now he wants the other $50,000. Again, you COMPROMISE at $25,000. See? Soon he'll have ALL $100,000. He just has to be patient. The gun snatchers have been VERY patient. Why not? They're not giving up ANYTHING, and eventually they KNOW they'll get ALL THAT THEY WANT. The war for American independence was indeed triggered by the attempt by the British to confiscate arms at Lexington. The reasons for the revolution centered on FREEDOM. By confiscating the colonists weapons, resistance would not have been possible and the revolution would have been pretty much squashed. The freedom to own firearms secures 'the freedom to live life like a human being'. Words are nice, but in the real world, force is required to back 'em up! If anybody wants the facts regarding murder by government and the role of firearm confiscation - read it here - Murder by Government. The murders are not caused by firearm confiscation -- they are made possible by it. This sort of oppression is still going on in the world - in places like Cambodia. To those who think that the firearms and hunting industries are too valuable in terms of taxes collected to destroy -- I am SURE that the gun snatchers will simply increase existing taxes - like sales, property, and FICA - or invent new ones - like maybe an INTERNET tax ... Personal Responsibility on the way OUT, Greed and Envy are INA major problem with this country today is that people are not willing to take responsibility for themselves. Somebody else is always to blame. We see this attitude in ourselves, and it is unfortunately being nutured in our children. Part of the cause is our court system, part of the cause is plain old-fashioned GREED, and part of the cause is a bad attitude toward people who have what you DON'T (envy). Believe it or not, some people Do deserve their wealth. But you can sue anybody for anything, so why not take from somebody else what you are not willing to earn for yourself? People have got to come to the realization that sometimes good things happen, and sometimes sh*t happens. That is why some unfortunate occurences are called accidents. People living in more modern societies seem to be somehow insulated from the realities of life. They live with indoor plumbing, electric lights, and air conditioning. Infant mortality is about as low as it's ever been. The quality of our healthcare is better than ever. a lot of people have been conditioned by our government to give up liberty in exchange for safety, that they may avoid 'risk'. However, risk is one thing that you simply can't escape. Life is full of risk, plain and simple. Of course, in instances of RECKLESS BEHAVIOR or NEGLIGENCE, the court system can serve to administer JUSTICE. For some outrageous examples of frivilous lawsuits (not to mention a 'Dumb Crook Lineup'), check out Jerry Constantino's 'For Your Information' column in Shooting Times Magazine. Selling our Souls ...There are those among us who have actually soul their souls and they probably don't even realize it. They bow before the 401K and mutual fund gods. The SUV and personal electronics gods. The 3500 square foot home gods. The daycare gods. Do you understand what I'm talking about? I'm talking about those who put their wealth, financial security, personal comfort, grades in school, etc... ahead of doing what is right. I see it firsthand every day. I may not have totally escaped it myself -- but realizing the danger is the first step to escaping. I have argued with people who wanted Ken Starr, Congress, and others to "leave Bill Clinton alone" in the impeachment investigation, sexual harassment suits, etc. because - now get this - "their 401K, mutual funds, stocks, and the economy in general are doing so well". I've argued with people who want Bernard Schwartz (CEO of Loral Space and Communications Corp.) to get off scott free because they own stock in Loral and they fear the stock price will drop. They apparently feel, first of all, that the good economy is Bill Clinton's doing. First of all, I'd say it has a whole lot more to do with the Republican Congress, advances in technology, and the relative cheapness of energy than the present administration consisting of spoiled children currently occupying the White House. But that has nothing to do with it anyway. The issue is what is right? -- not what is best for ME!! People vote for whomever promises them the most of other people's money -- the most 'free' programs, the most taxes on 'the rich' (why is it OK to steal from somebody just because you think they can "afford it"?) - not for the people who will do what is just. Here's another example - to a lesser extent - but self-interest above what was right was evident. I knew somebody who did not want our school to go to the "plus/minus" system of grading. Now, this would give students a grade which is much more indicative of their actual performance, give much more resolution to their actual performance, right? Who can argue with that? Well, this person seemed to always 'just make' the grade. He/She did not want an A-, when an A could be had - not considering what was fair or just, not considering those who just MISSED the A and had to settle for a B. Have you been trapped? Think about it. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May our chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams at the Philidelphia State House, Aug.1,1776 What's wrong with our Children?What's going on? Why are we seeing a lot of people in our society acting amorally? - And really, this problem generally includes people under 50 -- basically the "Baby Boomers" and younger. Well, these people (or their parents) are the product of the school systems of the 1960s and 1970s. This was a time when liberalism literally took over our society. This was the beginning of the removal of standards, responsibility for one's actions, morality, religion, and expectations of top performance. It was the era of "if it feels good, do it", the "don't be judgemental" attitude, and "do your own thing". Now, "everybody is a winner" - whether you have worked, strived, and earned it or not - rendering motivation, the desire to excel, and personaly responsibility and accountability meaningless to many. Here's something written by a Columbine High School student, addressing what the author terms 'The Paradox of our Time in History'. How did it get this way? "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW". Why is it that ...
Our Education SystemInstead of lowering our standards so kids 'feel good about themselves', let's raise our standards so our kids can actually GROW and LEARN and ACCOMPLISH good things. Then not only would they 'feel good about themselves' for good reason, but we would all 'feel good about THEM'. Lowering standards for ANY GROUP is an insult to their abilities. We are, in effect, saying "we know that you are not capable of doing it on your own, so here's a bone". (feel good about yourself - for no good reason) Here are 'The Man in the Arena' (by Theodore Roosevelt), the Bill of No Rights, Ten Rules for High School Students, A Student's Prayer, Instructions for Life, Rules for Being Human - just for "attitude's sake", and a letter read by Paul Harvey - 'It must have been the guns'. Here's a good book - "the deliberate dumbing down of america" by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. Cost is $29.95 plus $4.5 shipping and handling. ( www.jbs.org/aobs ) Education Links
The Criminals are Dictating To UsThink about this. The behavior of criminals causes our legislators to take more freedom from honest citizens in an attempt to either control criminals or placate us. Since the criminals didn't obey the law in the first place by hurting or cheating somebody else, what makes our legislators think they will obey the new laws and restrictions set forth ?? Does this make sense to you ? Why should our freedom be taken away because of the behavior of the criminals ? Why don't we just punish the criminals ? The sad irony is that our representatives are actually allowing the criminals among us (that prey on us, by the way) to dictate policy. The representatives (of OUR choice) should be taking a tougher stand against criminals. Think about it. People whom we don't even want as part of our society and who themselves obviously don't want to be members of our society have as much as, if not more, influence than the good people in establishing the laws and punishments for breaking the law. They must be thinking (or NOT) : Just take away all the 'bad guns'. Then all the violent crimanals will magically become good people, and they'll stop hurting us. Right. If you believe that, I've got some oceanfront land in Colorado to sell you.Here's a good article on freedom and personal rights - The Inmates are Running the Asylum, by Sarah Thompson, M.D. "Jane's Counter Terrorism"Jane's Counter Terrorism ( $395 in paperback, $1075 on CD-ROM, $1135 online) lists the following pro-Constitution groups in it's 'patriot group' appendix:
Are YOU a terrorist? According to Jane's, you are if you belong to one of the above patriotic groups. Invest for Your FutureDid it occur to you that for those of us under the age of 45, Social Security, may not be available when we retire ?? Even if it is, it will be offered at a later age and/or a reduced rate. There used to be about 16 people working for every person collecting. Now there are about 3. When our children are working, there will be about 2. When our children are ready to retire, there will be about 1.1 . Clearly, this tax program (and all it is, is another tax on working people) cannot continue in its present form. It also cannot be altered to unfairly impact those who have paid into this system for many years of their lives. However, experts estimate that by 2012, the money coming into the system will NOT match the amount needed to make benefit payments. Then, the system will need to redeem bonds to make up the difference. If nothing changes, by 2029 the system will run out of money. This means that anybody who was born after about 1959/60 would not collect a penny of Social Security money. Currently, there is a 12.4 % Social Security payroll tax (even though Congress promised it would MAX OUT at 3%), 2.4 % of which goes to pay disability and survivor's benefits. There are plans to change the system, some of which propose to delay benefits, reduce increases in benefits, or raise taxes to increase Social Security funding. This program was supposed to be a supplemental income, NOT an ENTIRE income. Read a good essay on The Social Security Scam. Bankruptcies in America : 1984 - 300,000 1998 - 1.4 Million Now, here are interesting tax statistics. It states, in a nutshell, that the top 1% of income earners pay 33.2% of the taxes, while earning 17.4% of the income. The top 5% pay 52% of the taxes (while earning 31.8% of the income), and the top 50% (don't know how much of the income they earn) pay 96% of the taxes. This illustrates a basic problem we have in the USA - literally half the people pay the bills,with the other half voting themselves more of these people's money! The way I see it, There's hardly an excuse for anybody under 60 NOT to have some sort of nest egg. We all KNOW that we're getting older. We must take RESPONSIBILITY for ourselves. Money, a little at a time, over the long haul adds up! Also - too late for some - but the EARLIER THE BETTER. OK, let's take care of the old people under the old system (and people who've had plain BAD luck) - but let's fix it so it will work in the future. Also, the families and communities of the old people should be there for them, too. I think those in the government have done a good job conditioning us all to rely on them (giving them their power base) rather than on our family and community. If they'd stop taxing us into oblivion, we'd be better ABLE to help each other. See the Catch-22? This help is supposed to come from the LOCAL LEVEL. Here's ANOTHER twist. I've "throttle back", so to speak, on my tax-deferred contributions (I did NOT eliminate them). I diverted money to outside funds, which I dollar-cost-average every month. Why? Because I have this serious concern that when I am ready to draw that money out, I will be literally PUNISHED for being smart, far-sighted, and making the sacrifices I made in order to sock that money away. I think it's quite possible I could be facing 50-70% taxes on that money. My wife and I are frugal with our money. We replaced a 13 year old VW with a new 1998 Chevy minivan, and an 11 year old VW with a Saturn. we expect 10+ years out of each vehicle. We have ONE TV in the house (we just replaced the old one - had it for 16 years). ONE (rather old - most of the components, anyway) stereo. We just replaced our ONE 15 year old VCR. We still have the only microwave oven we ever bought - it's about 12 years old. Our vacations, when we take them, are modest. No boats, no SUVs, no fancy clothing, no waste. We have been putting money into funds for our children. I don't know if it will totally pay for college, but it will surely HELP. I am THANKFUL that my wife and I have good jobs (she works part time so she can spend more time with the boys) -- but we DID work hard to get where we are. We have been fortunate - we were blessed with abilities, and haven't hit any major walls. We realize this, and help others all the time - in fact, we donated both of those old cars, cut checks, and bring food and toys to the local church and other organizations. Now, how many of us know people like this? : Parents who both work full time. Their jobs aren't great, and they barely make a decent income. Their children don't have them around, so guess what? They run wild and get in a little trouble now and then. Guess what else? They have a fairly large house, a couple fairly new cars, an SUV, a boat, snow-mobile, ATV, and/or one of those "3rd wheel" vacation trailers. Vacation? About 2 per year. They vote for the democrats because "they're for HELPING the working guy". Where do the democrats get the $money to buy their vote? You got it. So, GUESS who is going to be supporting THEM when they get old? And they're probably an "average" case. Take responsibility for your own retirement. If you're not already investing for your retirement (or children's education), start now. If you're already investing for the future, good for you ! Maybe it's time to re-assess your investments and do some re-allocation. Check out these financial resources ...
Roth IRA Information
Here are some agencies and organizations to check out ...
General Links and InformationThese links to various sites may be fun or useful (or both) for you or other members of your family or friends:
If you have any questions or comments about these pages, e-mail |
Return to the SPIRIT OF '76 Home Page
Political Links
Fight Back for the Constitution
me