Single Issue Voters

I don't normally link other bloggers, but this is a convincing argument, and an example of a damn fine blog post.

Phil writes:

The unmistakable lesson here is that, to secure liberty and civil society, the first Americans had to become laser-focused on their right to possess firearms. But are we to believe that the same approach is somehow required today? In this year of burgeoning government, political corruption, and shrinking personal freedom, the answer is yes. As Charlton Heston explained in his speech to the National Press Club in 1997: “The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows rights to exist at all.”

Until Second Amendment rights gain full and irrevocable standing in 21st century American law, we remain in the lingering shadow of General Gage and his tyrannical strategy of public disarmament. In 1775, we quickly became a “one-issue organization” to preserve freedom. Today, the remarkable degeneration of our free society demands the same unique focus.

Go read the rest, it's worth your time.

MA vs. CA, Round 1

I grew up in California and for about 60% of my life, I was interred, detained, forcibly held, tortured, a proud citizen stuck behind the wire. I grew used to the nanny state looking over my every action. When smoking was banned in restaurants I thought it was awesome. But little did I know that was only the beginning, but I learned from the errors of my ways. Because of my California Conservative upbringing I had a steep curve to the top. I tell you this because Jay G of Marooned fame has gone on a rant discussed a new proposed bill that would force MA restaurants to be more diligent about food allergies.
The point is that they are trying to avoid ER visits by listing the ingredients that are in the dish and/or in the kitchen. Jay G says it better than I could:

"Look, if you have a food allergy so severe that mere contamination from preparation will pose a life-threatening risk, it is incumbent on YOU to be informed about the culinary practices of any restaurant you visit. If you are so susceptible to allergens and do not perform due diligence in checking out that your food is not properly prepared to avoid a reaction, then I'm sorry but you've earned the ride in the back of the ambulance."

One of the adverse developments to my wife's illness is some pretty nasty food allergies. The smell of Guacamole causes her throat to swell; touching bananas causes instant irritation, swelling, and redness. These are just two of many examples. My daughter is allergic to fish, so allergic that she had a reaction simply visiting the Long Beach Aquarium (btw, great place, go if you can). This precludes me from two awesome things while out to eat with the family, fish and fajitas. Seriously, fajitas with the itty-bitty shrimp, chicken, steak, a good spanish rice and fresh guacamole-pure heaven.
A simple word to the server is generally all it takes. Do I think that the government should force restaurants to list all this stuff? Nope. Do I think that the restaurant is responsible if my wife passes out on the floor because I ordered a steak burrito with extra guac? Nope.
People, we all have to be aware of our situations and deal with them accordingly. Government interference or forced compliance is no substitute for what should be your responsibility. You know what you can do and what you can't.

Those Who Came Before Us

Bitter over at Snowflake in Hell got me thinking with this quote:

If you ever find yourself in Western Mass, go spend a day in Amherst. It’s a town that has its own foreign policy and a weekly anti-war protest that was happening years before I ever arrived and we were years away from Iraq & Afghanistan. But if you spend part of that day at a bar on the outskirts of town, you’ll see the transition first hand. Go in around 4:30 and you’ll see blue collar workers coming in to have a drink after a hard day of work. They clear out by 7 and then the college kids come in and the hip hop comes on. Talking to some of the students, you’ll find they have no clue about who was sitting in their seat an hour before, nor do they have any interest. You could argue it’s that way with all kids, but the difference is that in Massachusetts, those kids stick around as part of elite liberal crowd and they never learn to care about the guy who was sitting in their seat an hour before.

When I was in the Army, I was stationed inside the Beltway at Ft. Myer, Va. A mile or so off post there was a little cafe in Arlington. The food was awesome, and I swear they had the best corned beef hash in three states. But that wasn't the true appeal of this cafe. The people were. At 6am you had blue collar workers having breakfast. 8am was suits and ties, all reading the New York Times. This process was repeated all day, every day. They were(or are) a 24 cafe, and it was a great place to go grab a bite at midnight if you felt so inclined. The people always got along, even to the point of the punk rocker having a discussion with a suit, or a soldier with a hippy. This was all normal behavior, and I enjoyed watching (and some time participating in) the discussions taking place around me. It never became heated, or overly loud, a respectful atmosphere was always around. And this was inside the beltway! Now, I wonder if all that has changed, or if I'm just not hanging out in the right places.

Caledonian Crisis

The Indian War Chiefs sat stoically as they pondered the implications of what they were about to do. No longer would they let the white man impede upon there lifestyle. "We must fight!" One chief exclaimed, most nodded their agreement. "We shall drive the white settlers from there homes, burning and pillaging!" More people nodded their heads, "When they see that we are fearsome warriors, they will leave and never return!" The Chiefs were decided, it was time to fight. They all rose and headed out of the building, one yelled, "Hey, Jerry TwoFeathers, don't forget to turn out the lights." Another remarked, "Lets take my truck, there is room for all of us."

This isn't some twisted Dan Brown story, this is real life. I understand that with a name like Caledonia, and in Canada to boot, the story is less than plausible. I assure you that this really occurred and has yet to be settled. My good friend Des turned me onto this story yesterday. A revolt in Canada, so bad that the police will not even protect it's own citizens. Now I don't think that police should be held responsible for your own personal protection, and U.S. courts feel the same way. But what do you do in Canada? A place where people do not have the right to self defense. A place where gun ownership is severely restricted and to defend yourself with one would bring untold scrutiny to you and your loved ones.

What started all of this? It appears that the natives (they really call them that in Canada, what happened to PC?) sold off some of their land to the government in 1841, with the understanding that the profit would be invested by the Crown for the Six Nations. Jump ahead to 2006, and the land is sold, by the Crown, to a development firm, who promptly build a housing division on it. The Six Nations go into an uproar and say that they land was only leased to the government. It all goes before a judge who sides with the development company. Needless to say, the Indians go on the war path. They blockade streets, burn down bridges, rob peoples homes, beat up innocent people, generally riot and cause as much discontent as possible. The police do nothing to protect the innocent, except charging them with crimes. David Brown may have acted out of line, but what he did was in reaction to the criminal acts taking place against his home and his family. Yet the government decides not to pursue the true criminals, Indians, scoundrels, ruffians, terrorists that have caused all of the problems.

From wikipedia:
Since the occupation began, many Caledonia residents have complained that they have been subject to threats and violence from Native protesters and that the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) failed to take any action to protect them. David Brown, who lives with his wife near the disputed area, stated in court testimony in November 2009 that he was required to carry a native-issued passport and needed approval from the protesters to enter his own house. He also claimed that after arriving "after curfew" one day, he was denied entry and jailed by the OPP when he caused trouble by ignoring the natives. Brown alleged that Native protesters threatened and harassed him repeatedly and that rocks and mud were thrown at his family and their home. Brown and his wife are seeking $7 million dollars in a civil lawsuit against the OPP on the basis that the police did nothing to protect him and his family during the occupation.[25] [26]

In response to Brown's claims, Crown lawyer David Felicient stated that the situation "must be understood against the backdrop of the unique character of aboriginal occupations and protests" and that the OPP were prevented from taking action due to "policy implications."[25] Felicient also suggested that Brown had fabricated portions of his testimony to draw attention to his lawsuit. When Felicient asked why Brown kept a loaded shotgun, Brown responded that "We were doing what we had to do to stay alive. I had no protection from our government. I felt that I needed to protect my wife and my family."[27]

In court testimony, OPP Inspector Brian Haggith stated that the Native protesters "set up a checkpoint... Almost like they were entering another country," and that community lost confidence in the OPP's ability to protect them. Haggith also testified that when natives set fire to a wooden bridge in town, the fire department withdrew from fighting the blaze when confronted by shouted death threats from the protesters. The fire chief told the OPP he did not believe they would protect him or his men if they went against the natives' wishes. In addition, a electrical substation was then destroyed, causing more than $1 million in damage and a blackout, when a truck crashed through its gates and was left ablaze. Once again, Haggith stated that there was little response from the police. Inspector Haggith also testified that he asked for a change in policy at a subsequent meeting he had with his OPP superiors but that his request was denied

So here is the real issue, and it has nothing to do with the uppity Natives. Do you have a right to self defense? Are the police required to protect you? If the answer to the first question is 'no', than the answer to the second question has to be 'yes'. This is not some third world country we are talking about here, this is Canada, land of beer and hockey. Our slightly frigid neighbors to the North that talk funny and use words like 'eh' and 'oi'. And yet this travesty continues.

I encourage you to research all the links I left for you here. It truly is an interesting story that shows how these things can happen anywhere.

California Places Increased Burden on SubjectsCitizens

I have just heard that on November first, California increases it's income tax with holding by 10%. The LA Times reports. Please note that this is not a tax increase, just a forced loan to the state. And it is only a 10% increase on the taxable amount. So roughly the same amount as your cable bill. John Marshall said that "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Many people are already plagued by wage cuts and other employer cut backs that put more burden onto the employees. The state of California has decided that they will not roll back all the expensive programs that they have enacted over the years. They will take more money from the people to cover their shortfall. 1.7 BILLION dollars in an interest free loan strong armed from already strapped California citizens. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." How many will be destroyed so that California can maintain their socialist policies?

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

Wading in The Health Care Pool

I wasn't going to get involved, I wasn't going to comment, I wasn't even paying close attention. But I was struck by the debate that health care 'reform' has stirred. Let me set the record straight; I buy my own insurance. Every year my employer gives me a large stack of plans to choose from. I glance at them, ponder a little and choose one. I base my choice on two factors. 1) How much health care do I think I'm going to need this year, and 2) how much health care can I afford this year. I have been wrong on both counts before, and paid for it, literally.

I realize that some people get healthcare at tax payer expense. I do not see why that means we should all have healthcare at each others expense. My employer and I enter to an agreement as to who pays what, and I find that acceptable. I personally bear alot of responsibility for how much I pay. I also decide what I have done and what I don't. How can I make those decisions if someone else is paying for it?

What to do? What to do? I wrote a letter, to a politician whose stance I was unsure of, but no longer. Here is her response on health care reform:
Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

According to the United States Census Bureau, 45.7 million people, or 15.3 percent of the total population, were uninsured in 2007. The number of uninsured Texans is even higher. Recent statistics show that one in four Texans is without health insurance.

Rising insurance premiums have become an obstacle to accessing medical care. Compounding the problem is the fact that fewer employers are offering any health insurance at all. In Texas, only 52 percent of employers offer health insurance. As a result, nearly half of our state’s citizens must purchase their own insurance in the private market. More and more Texans are choosing to remain uninsured because the cost of private insurance is just too high.

We can and must do more to address this trend. Nationalized health care is not the answer. We must make it more affordable for those who are not covered through their employers to purchase their own health insurance. Tax benefits are given to employers for providing health benefits, so I believe that they should also be available to those who purchase health insurance from the individual market.

You are among thousands of concerned Texans who have written to express their views on this topic. You may be assured that as issues regarding health care reform and health insurance come before the Senate, I will keep your views in mind. I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Let me translate for you. You are special if you have insurance, everybody must have insurance. Let us force your employer to give you insurance(with tax breaks) instead of the Government giving it to us. Why do I think it would cost the same in the end?

I will leave you with this pearl of wisdom from a conversation with a Canadian friend.
"What is so bad about nationalized health care? I've had two shoulder surgeries and there was no cost to me."
My reply, "I think that the cost to you came in the form of a nanny state with gun control so extreme that you might as well not be able to own a gun."
"Wellll,"
I cut him off in retort, "Keep your free medical, and I will keep my guns."

This is a gun blog, you knew I would get there somehow.

Presented without Comment

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress has voted to allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The House approved the measure, 279-147, on Wednesday, one day after the Senate acted.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which would restore a Bush administration policy allowing loaded guns in national parks. A federal judge blocked the policy in March, and the Obama administration did not file an appeal.

The gun amendment was attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies. The measure now goes to President Barack Obama, who is expected to sign it.

Okay, I lied. Hip, hip HOORAH!

Worth a look

I found this article today and it gave me a moment of pause.

Victor Hansen writes:
We are in a weird age.

Do the smart thing, we were told, and invest in a 401(k) retirement account. Buy into the American dream and own your own home. But lately it seems that those who put their money in low-earning passbook savings accounts or rented rather than buying may have been better off.

How true this is. What does it mean to be an American anymore?

In our Orwellian world, borrowing to spend what we don’t have has been renamed “stimulus.” Those who pay no federal income taxes — almost half of Americans — can somehow be promised an income tax “cut.” In the new borrowing of trillions of dollars here and trillions there, billions of dollars now sounds like pocket change.

And yet the bank wont loan me money that I can't pay back?

When Americans turn to their political parties for answers, they are even more confused. Populist Democrats such as Sen. Chris Dodd and Pres. Barack Obama took more AIG campaign cash than did pro-business Republicans.

Wait....They took what? Sounds like a bribe to me.

Yet conservative Republicans during the Bush administration ran up the debt and increased federal spending far more than did liberals under Bill Clinton. A Republican president has not balanced a budget since Dwight Eisenhower did it over a half-century ago.

Where are all the good answers?

When our president references the 19th and 20th centuries, he apologizes for American sins but stays silent about the United States’s defeat of the Nazis, fascists, Japanese militarists, and Soviet Communists. The world hears contrition about Americans dropping the bomb to end World War II but never remorse from those responsible for Darfur, Grozny, or Tibet.

What happened to focus on the good, not the bad?

Here comes the hook:

There have been a few crazy years like 2009 in American history — 1860, 1929, 1941, and 1968. And given what followed all of them, it might be wise to prepare for even crazier times for us ahead.

Read the whole thing, it is contemplative, stirring and moving at the same time.

h/t to Stormbringer

Amarillo Tea Party

Why Tea Party? This is a important question. I struggled with it for many days before deciding that I was going to go. My motivation? I am not a fan of large government. I believe that the federal government should not be overly intrusive. I believe that if the government spends money that it does not have, they should face financial ruin. Just like I would if I did it myself.

Onto the important stuff. Twelve o'clock tea party in downtown Amarillo, outside the Potter county courthouse. I would say, conservatively, that there was 500 people there. People from all walks of life, bankers and bikers, judges and janitors. The police presence was light and the crowds mood was almost jovial.
The media was extremely well represented, every network and newspaper was showing in force. A few media members were obviously not supportive. I did not see any members of the media being unprofessional. I did not have the opportunity to hear much of the speakers, the sound was horrid and did not carry very well. I'm sure that the forty mph winds thru downtown did not help matters. I personally refused three television interviews, I did grant one to the local newspaper. Perhaps I missed my opportunity to speak my mind, or more likely, I avoided have the MSM twist my worlds into something else entirely.

Final thoughts, today I exercised my rights as an American citizen. I have never before peacefully protested. I am glad that I did. My voice alone may not have been heard, but I was part of a larger group, a group who stood tall and proud. A group who stood together and let their voice be heard. We are Americans, and we love the country that our fore-fathers fought and died for. A country created by the people, for the people. No matter what may divide us, we are all Americans, and we wouldn't have it any other way.

Diversity

Infighting has been notorious throughout history for destroying great nations. Perhaps if you break it down in the simplest of terms, it is the destroyer of nations. On September 12, 2001 we were one nation, one people, like minded, with a common resolution. We are still those people, we are still that nation. Diversity is what makes us a great nation, diversity is what makes us a nation of the people.

But great people know that there is a time to come together, a time when infighting causes harm rather than a reasoned debate. Sportsman and shooters have always had differing goals, often at the expense of the other. Recently the National Park Service has decided to ban lead in all park grounds. The fisherman, hunter, and target shooter are all affected by this ruling. I have many hobbies, I feel as if I belong in the outdoors. With this ruling I am affected on all three counts (where do I find non-lead fly line?). I am not going to preach about calling your congressman, I am not going to tell you to have a protest. I am simply saying that it is time to stand together. I do not think that there will be a frontal attack on our gun rights, but lead may be a good place to start. From sinkers to bullets, we are all affected. Let us stand together and strong, the price will be high if we do not.

On a lighter note, I would like to thank Brigid for allowing me use of her picture. She is a charming lady, her writing is stirring and witty, I cannot compete with that, nor do I try, instead I copy her pictures.

Wherefore art thou, American values?

Ignatius Piazza had an interesting blog post about a young authors definition of conservative values. It could be summed up into four of them:
Respect for the Constitution
Respect for Life
Less Government
Personal Responsibility

Glenn Beck has the same thing going with his 'We surround them' campaign:
Honesty
Reverence
Hope
Thrift
Humility
Charity
Sincerity
Moderation
Hard Work
Courage
Personal Responsibility
Gratitude

They all center on one common theme. It is a theme that I personally believe in. You are responsible for your own life, you have the ability to make it whatever you want, and that you can do it with a minimum of government interference. It seems that these thing are slowly being whittled away. I did not ask for a bail out when my wife became gravely ill, some say that I was entitled to one. If offered one, I would have refused. I would rather try and fail honorably than to have something handed to me for nothing.

I have been working on personal responsibility with my children, and sometimes I feel as if I don't have the support of the school system. I don't believe that they have the desire to hold other children, and parents, personally responsible.

I have also been working on charity. I have always been against it. If you won't take care of yourself, why should I? I have learned that can't and won't are not the same word. If you can't take care of yourself, I will help. If you won't take care of yourself, your fate is of your own making.

Humility? Hopefully that comes with age, I'm not there yet.

These are a few values that I believe makes The United States what it is. I do not know what it will be. If we teach our children, and ourselves, to be better people, to be productive members of society. We will remain the best Naiton on Earth. A group of people that work towards a common goal, the goal that by working together, anything is possible.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
If it has been awhile, read the whole thing, remember why we, as a country, became great.

Appropriate definition of wherefore can be found at the Munchkin Wrangler

Obama opposes Fairness Doctrine

Fox News is reporting that President Obama is upholding his campaign promise to oppose any attempt to bring back the fairness doctrine. I truly hope that this is a sign that Obama is willing to stand behind what he says. Of course, that can also mean a return of an assault weapons ban.

Economy Enhancement

I found these two posts today from:
1. A blogger
2. A newspaper article at http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11444354?_requestid=7527720"(sorry, blogger didn't like the link)
They both cover the same thing, the eminent collapse of the Mexican government. I can see why our military considers it something worth watching. It also reassures me that our government considers it to be worth watching.

My thoughts are muddled about these articles. They talk about the possibility of a sudden collapse of Mexicos government creating a failed state. Yes, things can always get worse, however, think about it from a United States economic standpoint. How many people would we have to put on our border to protect it from a failed Mexican state? Alot. How many people are currently unemployed in the U.S.? Alot. Am I the only one that is seeing this correlation? It could be like the new new new deal, only more productive. We could stop all kinds of bad things from coming over our very porous border.

I realize that I am probably going off on a very weird tangent with this article. What kind of effect would a failed state have on our economy? Would it be a lasting drain on our already tenuous budget? Would it force the recall of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to protect the motherland? I'm not entirely sure what the outcome would be, however I don't think it would be good. But it's probably as likely as Mexico trying to reclaim Texas.

My line in the sand

Sebastian had a blog post yesterday about some people discussing civil unrest if there was to be another assault weapons ban. I left this comment on his forum and wanted to expand upon it:

These are perilous times, yes, but I believe that this is all saber rattling from all sides involved. Do we need to prepare for a fight to defend our Constitutional rights? Absolutely. Do we have to exhaust every avenue available to us before we even consider violence? Absolutely. Imagine the news if the pro 2A people took to the streets and marched in their mall ninja tactical gear and tricked out AR's and SKS's. It would be a PR disaster. We should behave like civilized human beings and use the system that our forefathers left for us.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to have a line in the sand. I have mine, I'm pretty sure that I know where it is. I prepare for the worst possible outcome and hope for the best one. However, hope is not enough. Action has to be taken in order to affect the result. You cannot just sit there and expect your desired result by doing nothing or issuing veiled threats.
Over two hundred years ago many smart men came together and after much discussion, agreed on how this civilized country was going to be run. They put safeguards in place to prevent the immediate removal or violation of our rights. We should fully explore all options available to us. It's not truly about guns, it's about the constitution and all that it stands for.