I am currently home from a road trip to the state of Minnesota, having traveled there to see a new grandson. In so doing, I have noticed interesting differences in the states along the way and what we like to call our great state of California. Some of the important differences are the roads are better, roadwork goes on weekends and at night, rest stops are beautiful and staffed as information centers. State budgets are smaller, yet more efficient, graffiti is minimal, religion is prominent and most of the farm labor I talked to are documented.
California just approved a $140 billion budget and our roads are worse than the nine states I have traveled through. I’m not saying a little worse, I’m saying terribly worse. Doesn’t it make you wonder why that is? It does me. I have traveled I-5 and 99, as well as a variety of other California interstates, county and local roads and in comparison they are desolate, barren, dirty and generally not fun. In my own Nevada County the situation is similar and that is the fault of the Board of Supervisors and the DOT directly. Likewise, the blame for State Highways and roads falls on the State legislators and Cal-trans. In many of the states I’ve been through, highway construction and repair is contracted out to private companies who are in the business of making a profit and are given incentives for early completion and penalties for failure to meet deadlines. Thusly, they and their crews work weekends and nights with what seems to be greater efficiency. Can you imagine the brouhaha that would ensue if Cal-trans workers were asked to do that on a regular basis? Now, admittedly, these states don’t have the population or traffic use, but they do for the most part have more severe weather and significantly smaller budgets. Kind of makes a person wonder where our money is being wasted. One legislator told me there are billions of dollars of waste in our just passed budget of $145 billion dollars.
Following the same theme, who in their right mind would want to stop at a California rest stop unless it was a dire emergency? Not me. They are dirty, poorly landscaped, they smell, appear foreboding, and short of gangrene of the bladder, it’s a pass for me. Conversely, when you leave our fair state, just the opposite is true. Clean, pleasant, inviting and staffed for the most part during the daytime with friendly people who supply information to the person on the highway. To quote, “Why is that? Intelligent people want to know.” The reason is that no one appears to care. This is a liberal state controlled by a liberal legislature and a liberal governor. I would like to remind you readers that it wasn’t too many years ago that we threw Gray Davis out of office for, amongst other things, his runaway budget of a mere $93 billion dollars. All of the budgets, of all of the states I drove through, added together don’t top $20 billion dollars! For all the money we give the state we have the right to expect at least good roads and clean toilets
Finally, roadside trash. Have you noticed the abundance of it along our roadways? Not so in other states. Do they simply clean more often or do they have less trash? Or, here’s a thought, maybe they have more respect for their environment than we do here. Our environmentalists talk the talk but take no responsibility for the results. Also, I did not see one purple spiked haired kid all across the mid-west. All the Hispanics spoke excellent English. There were no chains around the neck and very few pierced body parts. All were respectful and could kid and fool and make change and carry on a conversation. It kind of makes you wonder what our Democrat controlled legislature does with all that money.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Right Simply Because It’s Right - Part II
Recycling
Most would identify recycling with the left side of the continuum. Not so. It is neither left or right, conservative or liberal. It is simply the right thing to do, it is simply common sense. We as a people do in fact, have a very large waste issue. It is not as large as some would have us think, but it is large enough to support a thriving industry, if the powers that be would just get out of the way.
As I see it, there is nothing that we use today that could not be recycled. Let’s start with the house we live in. It is made of concrete, wood, tin, wire, steel, porcelain, glass, other man made products and plastic. Concrete can be ground up and used for a variety of products. So can the wood. Steel and tin can be melted down and remanufactured. Wire can be stripped and the copper re-used, the wire insulation, mostly plastic, goes into the plastic category. Glass, porcelain and cultured marble get ground up and used for abrasives, if nothing else. Insulation causes the most difficulty, but even it can, theoretically, be washed and reused as insulation. Even the roofing. mostly tar, could be used as, well, re-manufactured roofing.
The automobile is no different, steel, wire, fabric, glass, synthetic rubber and plastic. Household waste, mostly the same products as above can be similarly recycled. Former unregulated dumpsites as well as the new highly regulated sites produce methane gas that is a source to be tapped as a source of energy. I’m not a scientist so I can’t say for sure that it pollutes more or less than fossil fuels. What I do know is that it is escaping into the atmosphere anyway and it seems only logical to get some use of it while on its way.
Finally, the very sensitive subject of the use of human waste. For centuries we have been using animal waste as fertilizer for our farm produce and while I am not suggesting that we do the same with human waste, I am reminded that in the Eastern part of the world and in the Orient the same was used to grow rice under the name of “night soil”. Years ago I had the opportunity to discuss the purity of human waste water returned to the creeks after processing as well as the use of solid waste processed at a local sanitation plant. The answers I received did not surprised me. The wastewater returned to the creeks was 98% pure and cleaner than standard drinking water. The solid waste after treatment was free of dangerous biohazards and used in the landscaping of some of our road projects.
So the question is, if my logic is correct and this is all possible and would help with our energy difficulties, relieve the pressure of the waste problem and promote new businesses, then why are we not full throttle into it? I suggest several possible answers; government interference, environmental organizational interference, over-regulation from both of the above and the failure of recycling programs in the past, again because of the above. In my opinion neither the government nor the so-called environmentalists have ever solved a problem. Rather they have both stood in the way of solutions by the entrepreneurial spirit of this great nation. It is time for us to stand up to both and reinstate common sense to the solutions of the issues of our time. It’s right simply because it’s right.
Most would identify recycling with the left side of the continuum. Not so. It is neither left or right, conservative or liberal. It is simply the right thing to do, it is simply common sense. We as a people do in fact, have a very large waste issue. It is not as large as some would have us think, but it is large enough to support a thriving industry, if the powers that be would just get out of the way.
As I see it, there is nothing that we use today that could not be recycled. Let’s start with the house we live in. It is made of concrete, wood, tin, wire, steel, porcelain, glass, other man made products and plastic. Concrete can be ground up and used for a variety of products. So can the wood. Steel and tin can be melted down and remanufactured. Wire can be stripped and the copper re-used, the wire insulation, mostly plastic, goes into the plastic category. Glass, porcelain and cultured marble get ground up and used for abrasives, if nothing else. Insulation causes the most difficulty, but even it can, theoretically, be washed and reused as insulation. Even the roofing. mostly tar, could be used as, well, re-manufactured roofing.
The automobile is no different, steel, wire, fabric, glass, synthetic rubber and plastic. Household waste, mostly the same products as above can be similarly recycled. Former unregulated dumpsites as well as the new highly regulated sites produce methane gas that is a source to be tapped as a source of energy. I’m not a scientist so I can’t say for sure that it pollutes more or less than fossil fuels. What I do know is that it is escaping into the atmosphere anyway and it seems only logical to get some use of it while on its way.
Finally, the very sensitive subject of the use of human waste. For centuries we have been using animal waste as fertilizer for our farm produce and while I am not suggesting that we do the same with human waste, I am reminded that in the Eastern part of the world and in the Orient the same was used to grow rice under the name of “night soil”. Years ago I had the opportunity to discuss the purity of human waste water returned to the creeks after processing as well as the use of solid waste processed at a local sanitation plant. The answers I received did not surprised me. The wastewater returned to the creeks was 98% pure and cleaner than standard drinking water. The solid waste after treatment was free of dangerous biohazards and used in the landscaping of some of our road projects.
So the question is, if my logic is correct and this is all possible and would help with our energy difficulties, relieve the pressure of the waste problem and promote new businesses, then why are we not full throttle into it? I suggest several possible answers; government interference, environmental organizational interference, over-regulation from both of the above and the failure of recycling programs in the past, again because of the above. In my opinion neither the government nor the so-called environmentalists have ever solved a problem. Rather they have both stood in the way of solutions by the entrepreneurial spirit of this great nation. It is time for us to stand up to both and reinstate common sense to the solutions of the issues of our time. It’s right simply because it’s right.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Showing Signs of Weakness
Remember when you were a kid, in your formative years, in grade school right on up through high school? Who was it that the bullies, be they male or female, always picked on? It was never the strong guys or girls, it was always the weaker ones or the ones that appeared weaker. Showing signs of weakness seemed an open invitation to the bullies to engage you for their pleasure at your expense. Those who appeared strong and gave the impression that they would stand up never seemed to have difficulties with bullies. It is human nature to force your will, if you are so inclined, on those who are easy targets.
I remember while on the basketball team in high school, I was 6’3” and 180 and my nemesis 6’4” 210. Generally he pushed me all over the court and was bigger, stronger, and more experienced. The day came that he pushed my button and the fight was almost on until the coach jumped in between us, and saved me from my inevitable ruin. The point is not that he would have won the altercation; frankly he would have mopped the floor with me. The point is he learned that I was willing to defend myself. He was not a bully, just a big guy wanting his way. Afterwards we did not become friends, but we did have a different, mutual respect. Sometimes in life you have to risk personal safety to protect your personal space. We have all grown up, but the rules haven’t changed, there are still bullies in the world and what is at stake now is our very way of life.
Showing weakness to our enemies is the surest way to invite them to push further and further and further, until we stop and push them back. When I drive around town I see a variety of bumper stickers; Mothers for Peace, Grandmothers for Peace, Support World Peace, and many others in the same vain. My question would be at what cost? The present enemy has publicly stated that it is their intent to take over our country and convert, subjugate or kill us all. Any sign of weakness enables their cause. One of their methods of operation is to talk and gain concessions, bit by bit, until they are in a position of strength and we are weak. At that point their law becomes our law and we become theirs. There is no doubting this strategy. It is in play all over Europe and the Middle East. It is in play here in this country. We have faced bullies before; Hitler, Stalin, Khrushchev and more recently Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. All engaged us because they thought that we were weak because we created that impression.
In some cultures politeness is seen as a sign of weakness. Particularly in gang cultures here in the United States where strength is all that is respected. They never attack people straight up; it is always via drive- bys or in groups and never anyone who appears to be able to defend himself. Pacifism never begot anything but more oppression. So, we must look at the signals we are currently sending to our enemies. We are unwilling to stay the course. We will play by their rules, i.e. no bombing of mosques, even though they are armed, and absolutely no collateral loss of life. No aggressive interrogation of enemy combatants even though it is all right for the enemy to murder captured members of our armed forces. Yeah, that’s in the Geneva Convention. These and more are all signals of defeat and only encourage the enemy to hold out until the Americans go home. We are showing our enemy nothing but signs of weakness and as long as we do he will exploit them.
It is time we change our approach, not only to our enemy abroad but here at home. It is time to change the rules of engagement in the war. It is time to shut the borders and Mexico and Canada can snivel and whine all they want. It is time to allow our police here at home to do their jobs where gangs and organized crime are involved. It is time to put an end to this politically correct nonsense, junk science, environmental fanaticism, et al, and get down to the real business of National security and preserving our way of life.
I remember while on the basketball team in high school, I was 6’3” and 180 and my nemesis 6’4” 210. Generally he pushed me all over the court and was bigger, stronger, and more experienced. The day came that he pushed my button and the fight was almost on until the coach jumped in between us, and saved me from my inevitable ruin. The point is not that he would have won the altercation; frankly he would have mopped the floor with me. The point is he learned that I was willing to defend myself. He was not a bully, just a big guy wanting his way. Afterwards we did not become friends, but we did have a different, mutual respect. Sometimes in life you have to risk personal safety to protect your personal space. We have all grown up, but the rules haven’t changed, there are still bullies in the world and what is at stake now is our very way of life.
Showing weakness to our enemies is the surest way to invite them to push further and further and further, until we stop and push them back. When I drive around town I see a variety of bumper stickers; Mothers for Peace, Grandmothers for Peace, Support World Peace, and many others in the same vain. My question would be at what cost? The present enemy has publicly stated that it is their intent to take over our country and convert, subjugate or kill us all. Any sign of weakness enables their cause. One of their methods of operation is to talk and gain concessions, bit by bit, until they are in a position of strength and we are weak. At that point their law becomes our law and we become theirs. There is no doubting this strategy. It is in play all over Europe and the Middle East. It is in play here in this country. We have faced bullies before; Hitler, Stalin, Khrushchev and more recently Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. All engaged us because they thought that we were weak because we created that impression.
In some cultures politeness is seen as a sign of weakness. Particularly in gang cultures here in the United States where strength is all that is respected. They never attack people straight up; it is always via drive- bys or in groups and never anyone who appears to be able to defend himself. Pacifism never begot anything but more oppression. So, we must look at the signals we are currently sending to our enemies. We are unwilling to stay the course. We will play by their rules, i.e. no bombing of mosques, even though they are armed, and absolutely no collateral loss of life. No aggressive interrogation of enemy combatants even though it is all right for the enemy to murder captured members of our armed forces. Yeah, that’s in the Geneva Convention. These and more are all signals of defeat and only encourage the enemy to hold out until the Americans go home. We are showing our enemy nothing but signs of weakness and as long as we do he will exploit them.
It is time we change our approach, not only to our enemy abroad but here at home. It is time to change the rules of engagement in the war. It is time to shut the borders and Mexico and Canada can snivel and whine all they want. It is time to allow our police here at home to do their jobs where gangs and organized crime are involved. It is time to put an end to this politically correct nonsense, junk science, environmental fanaticism, et al, and get down to the real business of National security and preserving our way of life.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Right Simply Because It’s Right
Everyday I hear things that make me wonder what we, as Americans, hold dear. It seems that most of the time there isn’t a nickel's worth of difference between the way Republicans act and the actions taken by the Democrats. One party would take everything away from us and the other would give everything that is ours away. And, there isn’t any consistency as to which party is which. I happen to be a pro-choice Republican. Not that I think abortion is right, I don’t, but I believe in the sanctity of a person's body and the decision making process belongs to the individual. I must answer to my God for my actions, not yours. That is your responsibility. Pregnancy occurs in this day only for four reasons; force, stupidity, want or God's will. In only force or mother’s health, do I support abortion as a solution. Society offers too many alternatives. Still, it remains the woman’s right to choose her course of action. Some things are right simply because they are right.
I am also very pro 2nd Amendment. I believe, as did the founders, that it is my right to defend my family and myself if necessary from my enemies and my government. The founders felt the same way. (Am I smart or what?) An individual's right to self-defense is not to be tampered with in any fashion. Some things are right simply because they are right.
The same truth can be applied to our border situation. Closing it to unwanted or undocumented is right simply because it’s right. No country with an open border policy ever held its sovereignty for long. Furthermore, dangerous people are coming across our borders by the hordes and the current administration is doing nothing about it but talk. But alas, both sides of the isle are leery of touching such a hot button issue for fear of offending someone. I can only surmise that popularity in the polls and desire to win their next election, trumps doing what is good and right for our country. Just once I would like to hear a politician of either party stand and support the closing of the border because it is the right thing to do and if Canada and Mexico are offended, oh well. Maybe they should control their people and offer them a reason to stay in their own country. How long would you put up with me if I moved into your house, spread my political rhetoric, religion and ill will about your property? How long would you put up with me if I complained about the way you treated me, if I demanded that you share your income with me, give health care to me and my extended family, educate me, cloth me and tolerate the way in which I attack the standard of living you provide for me. If you would do that for me or anyone else, then open the door, here I come.
Recently I spoke with some southern California Republicans about supporting the idea of a resolution demanding that our leaders close the border. Most did not return my calls, a few wanted to see the Resolution and a couple wanted nothing to do with it. The reasons given were without a doubt the lamest I have heard in a while. "Closing the border at this time will hurt business in my county. We hire a lot of Hispanics to fill our labor force. Such a resolution would offend our Hispanic workers", and the most absurd of all, "we are trying to build the Republican Party here in this county and that Resolution would hurt our efforts." Where did love and loyalty to country go? What happened to intestinal fortitude? Spine? Backbone? Grit? If this had been the attitude during the Second World War, we currently would be speaking a different tongue. Oh, excuse me, we already provide for that.
Close the Border Now. Demand this of your politicians. Join others who love this country, across party lines. Write letters, insist on a response, and insist on action. It is our country. We are the people. Make this an issue and hold feet to the fire. Let’s take back this country. Let me know what you think while you still have free speech.
I am also very pro 2nd Amendment. I believe, as did the founders, that it is my right to defend my family and myself if necessary from my enemies and my government. The founders felt the same way. (Am I smart or what?) An individual's right to self-defense is not to be tampered with in any fashion. Some things are right simply because they are right.
The same truth can be applied to our border situation. Closing it to unwanted or undocumented is right simply because it’s right. No country with an open border policy ever held its sovereignty for long. Furthermore, dangerous people are coming across our borders by the hordes and the current administration is doing nothing about it but talk. But alas, both sides of the isle are leery of touching such a hot button issue for fear of offending someone. I can only surmise that popularity in the polls and desire to win their next election, trumps doing what is good and right for our country. Just once I would like to hear a politician of either party stand and support the closing of the border because it is the right thing to do and if Canada and Mexico are offended, oh well. Maybe they should control their people and offer them a reason to stay in their own country. How long would you put up with me if I moved into your house, spread my political rhetoric, religion and ill will about your property? How long would you put up with me if I complained about the way you treated me, if I demanded that you share your income with me, give health care to me and my extended family, educate me, cloth me and tolerate the way in which I attack the standard of living you provide for me. If you would do that for me or anyone else, then open the door, here I come.
Recently I spoke with some southern California Republicans about supporting the idea of a resolution demanding that our leaders close the border. Most did not return my calls, a few wanted to see the Resolution and a couple wanted nothing to do with it. The reasons given were without a doubt the lamest I have heard in a while. "Closing the border at this time will hurt business in my county. We hire a lot of Hispanics to fill our labor force. Such a resolution would offend our Hispanic workers", and the most absurd of all, "we are trying to build the Republican Party here in this county and that Resolution would hurt our efforts." Where did love and loyalty to country go? What happened to intestinal fortitude? Spine? Backbone? Grit? If this had been the attitude during the Second World War, we currently would be speaking a different tongue. Oh, excuse me, we already provide for that.
Close the Border Now. Demand this of your politicians. Join others who love this country, across party lines. Write letters, insist on a response, and insist on action. It is our country. We are the people. Make this an issue and hold feet to the fire. Let’s take back this country. Let me know what you think while you still have free speech.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Mayday-May Day
Fact: There was a May Day event at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles.
Fact: The Police are responsible to keep the peace and have a presence at any major event that includes patrolling the event with uniformed police officers.
Fact: A large portion of the crowd this day was of Mexican decent, anti-police, anti-America and illegally in this country.
Fact: Los Angeles is a sanctuary City.
Fact: The crowd instigated an incident by throwing rocks, bottles and debris at the patrolling police officers.
Fact: The police responded as they were trained to do; gain control, clear the area and make arrests.
Fact: To accomplish these goals they used tear gas, rubber bullets, batons and a show of force.
Fact: No deaths, few injuries and some arrests.
Opinion: Police do not start incidents, they respond and keep the peace. That’s their job. They do this to so that the social fabric of our society is maintained. If it weren’t for the police, no law abiding citizen could have an outing anywhere. The police are trained to deal with the unlawful in a manner determined not by the police but by the criminal. When you are asked to disperse by a police officer, you have two choices. First, disperse as a person wanting not to be involved in the incident would and should do; second, defy the order and confront the police, in which case you buy into the results of your actions.
There are numerous civil remedies if you believe your civil rights have been violated. These can be executed either singularly or in a group after the fact. Resisting arrest or resisting the lawful order of the police is fool hardy and unnecessary given the previously mentioned civil remedies.
Society demands of its police that they keep the peace, catch bad guys, keep our streets safe from the criminal element, protect our women and children from rape, pillage and plunder and do all this without making it look messy or hurting anyone. Unless you have been there you have no idea what an impossible task this is. It is not and never has been the police officers' decision whether someone gets hurt and/or things get messy. The person who is the recipient of the police presence always makes that decision.
Given the current situation with terrorism, immigration and gangs, just what would you have the police do in the future? At MacArthur Park one person with a heavy Hispanic accent said to the police, “We have a right to be here,”. That is untrue, particularly after the police have given you a legal order to leave. Furthermore, if this person was illegal as I personally suspect was the case, she had no right to be in the country, let alone MacArthur Park.
So what would you have the police do: leave and go back to the station, take it, stand by and let innocent people get hurt, set a perimeter and contain the violence inside that perimeter? What if it spills over, what then? Talk to the bad guys, yup, that’s a winner. Who determines the level of escalation of force? Not the police; they react to the level of insurrection confronting them. When they react, the people involved can reduce the response simply by doing as they are instructed. What a novel concept, doing as a lawful protector of society instructs us.
The people involved in the incident at MacArthur Park wanted not reason and lawfulness. They wanted insurrection for the sole purpose of making the police look bad and gaining our sympathy and a free ride in the press. It is time all lawful and law abiding Americans step up to the plate and tell our elected representatives that we are tired of this nonsense by activists and they’re anti-American attorneys. It is time that we impeach activist judges who go afoul of the law and that we recall our legislators who condone this riotous activity. Let’s send a message that our country is not for sale to the highest bidder and that this is not a partisan issue. If our representatives can’t do the job or don’t have the stomach for it we will replace him/her with someone who will.
Fact: The Police are responsible to keep the peace and have a presence at any major event that includes patrolling the event with uniformed police officers.
Fact: A large portion of the crowd this day was of Mexican decent, anti-police, anti-America and illegally in this country.
Fact: Los Angeles is a sanctuary City.
Fact: The crowd instigated an incident by throwing rocks, bottles and debris at the patrolling police officers.
Fact: The police responded as they were trained to do; gain control, clear the area and make arrests.
Fact: To accomplish these goals they used tear gas, rubber bullets, batons and a show of force.
Fact: No deaths, few injuries and some arrests.
Opinion: Police do not start incidents, they respond and keep the peace. That’s their job. They do this to so that the social fabric of our society is maintained. If it weren’t for the police, no law abiding citizen could have an outing anywhere. The police are trained to deal with the unlawful in a manner determined not by the police but by the criminal. When you are asked to disperse by a police officer, you have two choices. First, disperse as a person wanting not to be involved in the incident would and should do; second, defy the order and confront the police, in which case you buy into the results of your actions.
There are numerous civil remedies if you believe your civil rights have been violated. These can be executed either singularly or in a group after the fact. Resisting arrest or resisting the lawful order of the police is fool hardy and unnecessary given the previously mentioned civil remedies.
Society demands of its police that they keep the peace, catch bad guys, keep our streets safe from the criminal element, protect our women and children from rape, pillage and plunder and do all this without making it look messy or hurting anyone. Unless you have been there you have no idea what an impossible task this is. It is not and never has been the police officers' decision whether someone gets hurt and/or things get messy. The person who is the recipient of the police presence always makes that decision.
Given the current situation with terrorism, immigration and gangs, just what would you have the police do in the future? At MacArthur Park one person with a heavy Hispanic accent said to the police, “We have a right to be here,”. That is untrue, particularly after the police have given you a legal order to leave. Furthermore, if this person was illegal as I personally suspect was the case, she had no right to be in the country, let alone MacArthur Park.
So what would you have the police do: leave and go back to the station, take it, stand by and let innocent people get hurt, set a perimeter and contain the violence inside that perimeter? What if it spills over, what then? Talk to the bad guys, yup, that’s a winner. Who determines the level of escalation of force? Not the police; they react to the level of insurrection confronting them. When they react, the people involved can reduce the response simply by doing as they are instructed. What a novel concept, doing as a lawful protector of society instructs us.
The people involved in the incident at MacArthur Park wanted not reason and lawfulness. They wanted insurrection for the sole purpose of making the police look bad and gaining our sympathy and a free ride in the press. It is time all lawful and law abiding Americans step up to the plate and tell our elected representatives that we are tired of this nonsense by activists and they’re anti-American attorneys. It is time that we impeach activist judges who go afoul of the law and that we recall our legislators who condone this riotous activity. Let’s send a message that our country is not for sale to the highest bidder and that this is not a partisan issue. If our representatives can’t do the job or don’t have the stomach for it we will replace him/her with someone who will.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tragedy Strikes
On April 16th tragedy struck Virginia Tech in the form of a deranged gunman who, for whatever reason, killed 32 innocents and himself. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims. In no way can we get even a slight sense of their loss. By the time you read this, more information will have become available as to the reasons for this senseless killing rampage. Unfortunately, there will also be those who call for more gun control. And, it is just that faction of our society that I wish to deal with here.
The initial reports indicate that the lone gunman was of Korean origin, in this country on a permanent visa. Further, the first two killings, a man and a woman in a dormitory, were reported to involve a domestic dispute. From there the killer went one half mile across campus were he proceeded to kill another 30 and wound 15.
What kind of gun control would have prevented this tragedy? Certainly the recent ban of all guns on the campus of Virginia Tech did not. Nor did the prohibition of foreign nationals possessing firearms. Where this killer got these arms, from whom and under what circumstances are questions that need answers. It is foolish indeed for any of us to entertain the notion, even for a moment, that our police, as good as they may be, can be everywhere at once. By their very nature police are reactive, responding to crimes after they occur and attempting to apprehend the perpetrator. Gone are the days of proactive policing when officers stopped and questioned suspicious people in areas of high crime. Our litigious society and unscrupulous attorneys have seen to that. No police officer, in his right state of sanity, would attempt to thwart crime before it happens. Much safer to handle the radio call, take the report and let the detectives do their job of catching the bad guy.
So we are left with the question, who protects us? The police no longer can for fear of suit and job loss. It is not the function of our military. Our elected officials? Nope. Neighbors maybe, under some circumstances, but don’t count on it. There is only one person you can count on to protect you and that person is you. It seems that our elected officials are bent on removing that right. There are thousands of laws on the books controlling guns. I doubt that anyone reading this can give me an example of a situation regarding firearm misuse that is not covered currently. Yet our legislators will soon be demanding more as a result of the Virginia Tech shootings. To answer my earlier question, what kind of law could have prevented this tragedy? A Right to Carry law. Realistically, I doubt that it would have prevented the first two killings although it may have. I am sure, however, that an armed person could have prevented the other thirty. Now before you go all bonkers about people carrying guns and the attendant hazards involved, Right to Carry permits require extensive training, background checks, periodic qualification and considerable commitment to the responsibility of such permits. There are over thirty states with Right to Carry laws and in each one crime has been reduced significantly.
Ultimately, we will get the type of society we demand, be it one where we live in fear of gangs, terrorists, or lawsuits from ambulance chasing attorneys, or one where we take back our streets by giving latitude back to our police in dealing with criminals and gangs. We need to allow our police to be pro-active as in the past. Our border guards need protection from frivolous criminal charges and when criminals are sent to jail, it should not be fun. Convicted criminals should not have more rights than honest citizens or for that matter, live better.
Finally, we need to be responsible for ourselves. We need to demand from our legislators that they correct the mistakes of the past and acknowledge that we have the right to own, carry, and protect ourselves with a firearm.
The initial reports indicate that the lone gunman was of Korean origin, in this country on a permanent visa. Further, the first two killings, a man and a woman in a dormitory, were reported to involve a domestic dispute. From there the killer went one half mile across campus were he proceeded to kill another 30 and wound 15.
What kind of gun control would have prevented this tragedy? Certainly the recent ban of all guns on the campus of Virginia Tech did not. Nor did the prohibition of foreign nationals possessing firearms. Where this killer got these arms, from whom and under what circumstances are questions that need answers. It is foolish indeed for any of us to entertain the notion, even for a moment, that our police, as good as they may be, can be everywhere at once. By their very nature police are reactive, responding to crimes after they occur and attempting to apprehend the perpetrator. Gone are the days of proactive policing when officers stopped and questioned suspicious people in areas of high crime. Our litigious society and unscrupulous attorneys have seen to that. No police officer, in his right state of sanity, would attempt to thwart crime before it happens. Much safer to handle the radio call, take the report and let the detectives do their job of catching the bad guy.
So we are left with the question, who protects us? The police no longer can for fear of suit and job loss. It is not the function of our military. Our elected officials? Nope. Neighbors maybe, under some circumstances, but don’t count on it. There is only one person you can count on to protect you and that person is you. It seems that our elected officials are bent on removing that right. There are thousands of laws on the books controlling guns. I doubt that anyone reading this can give me an example of a situation regarding firearm misuse that is not covered currently. Yet our legislators will soon be demanding more as a result of the Virginia Tech shootings. To answer my earlier question, what kind of law could have prevented this tragedy? A Right to Carry law. Realistically, I doubt that it would have prevented the first two killings although it may have. I am sure, however, that an armed person could have prevented the other thirty. Now before you go all bonkers about people carrying guns and the attendant hazards involved, Right to Carry permits require extensive training, background checks, periodic qualification and considerable commitment to the responsibility of such permits. There are over thirty states with Right to Carry laws and in each one crime has been reduced significantly.
Ultimately, we will get the type of society we demand, be it one where we live in fear of gangs, terrorists, or lawsuits from ambulance chasing attorneys, or one where we take back our streets by giving latitude back to our police in dealing with criminals and gangs. We need to allow our police to be pro-active as in the past. Our border guards need protection from frivolous criminal charges and when criminals are sent to jail, it should not be fun. Convicted criminals should not have more rights than honest citizens or for that matter, live better.
Finally, we need to be responsible for ourselves. We need to demand from our legislators that they correct the mistakes of the past and acknowledge that we have the right to own, carry, and protect ourselves with a firearm.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Right of the People
When our form of government was established at the Constitutional Convention one of the points of contention was the people’s rights. It was agreed that one of the first orders of business for the first Congress would be the passage of a bill identifying the rights of the people regarding their government. This was done with the passage and ratification of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. This block of amendments is known as the Bill of Rights. The Founder’s insisted on a Bill of Rights because they deeply believed that the basic rights of the citizens needed to be written down for all to see. These rights were not to protect the government from the people, but rather the people from the government. The Founders were very much concerned with excesses of government, as we should rightly be today. Thus the Bill of Rights establishes our rights as people and citizens of the United States. These are individual rights, for you and for me. Webster’s Dictionary defines Bill of Rights as “the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” The point to all this is the Bill of Rights is a package of rights that cannot be separated.
Acknowledging then, the Bill of Rights was assembled and passed as a package for you and I as individuals, it follows that all ten amendments apply to us, as individuals. Logic dictates that you cannot have it both ways. If the first ten amendments, labeled the Bill of Rights, were established to identify the individual rights of the people, then you cannot take any one of them and make a case that it doesn’t. The same logic applies to wording. For example, the phrase “the right of the people” appears in three of the amendments and the term “no person” appears in one. Both of these phrases either apply to you and I, as individuals, or they don’t. Again you can’t have it both ways. The right of the people in the 1st amendment, for instance, means you and I. It cannot, therefore, mean something other than that in the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, “the right of the people” in the 2nd amendment refers to the very same people it does in the 1st. To attempt to take that right away is to put in jeopardy the rest of the Bill of Rights. If the right of the people in the 2nd amendment means only a government controlled militia, such as the National Guard, then logic follows that the same phrase in the 1st protects only the speech and religion of government officials; freedom of the press is only a government press and the right to peacefully assemble is only for government persons. The 4th amendment protects only government facilities and the 5th only government affiliated people.
By now it should become clear where I am on the issue of the 2nd amendment to our Constitution. You may not like that particular amendment, for what ever reasons, and isn’t it wonderful that you have that right. But, you only have that right as long as you can defend it. As soon as you lose the basic right to defend yourself by arms, if necessary, how long will it take for other rights that we all cherish to become null? It has been said the 2nd amendment is the “first freedom”, that without it all the others are just words on a paper to be trifled with by any politician or government. Think about it, seriously, what kind of rights do the people have in Iran, North Korea, China, under the former rule of the Taliban, or the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren?
With freedom comes responsibility and that involves the willingness to defend that freedom. Our young need to be taught that our “rights of the people” have been secured, not without a heavy cost. You may not like the 2nd amendment. But, thanks to many who gave their all, it is still there. Think before you act; the freedoms you save may be ours.
Acknowledging then, the Bill of Rights was assembled and passed as a package for you and I as individuals, it follows that all ten amendments apply to us, as individuals. Logic dictates that you cannot have it both ways. If the first ten amendments, labeled the Bill of Rights, were established to identify the individual rights of the people, then you cannot take any one of them and make a case that it doesn’t. The same logic applies to wording. For example, the phrase “the right of the people” appears in three of the amendments and the term “no person” appears in one. Both of these phrases either apply to you and I, as individuals, or they don’t. Again you can’t have it both ways. The right of the people in the 1st amendment, for instance, means you and I. It cannot, therefore, mean something other than that in the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, “the right of the people” in the 2nd amendment refers to the very same people it does in the 1st. To attempt to take that right away is to put in jeopardy the rest of the Bill of Rights. If the right of the people in the 2nd amendment means only a government controlled militia, such as the National Guard, then logic follows that the same phrase in the 1st protects only the speech and religion of government officials; freedom of the press is only a government press and the right to peacefully assemble is only for government persons. The 4th amendment protects only government facilities and the 5th only government affiliated people.
By now it should become clear where I am on the issue of the 2nd amendment to our Constitution. You may not like that particular amendment, for what ever reasons, and isn’t it wonderful that you have that right. But, you only have that right as long as you can defend it. As soon as you lose the basic right to defend yourself by arms, if necessary, how long will it take for other rights that we all cherish to become null? It has been said the 2nd amendment is the “first freedom”, that without it all the others are just words on a paper to be trifled with by any politician or government. Think about it, seriously, what kind of rights do the people have in Iran, North Korea, China, under the former rule of the Taliban, or the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren?
With freedom comes responsibility and that involves the willingness to defend that freedom. Our young need to be taught that our “rights of the people” have been secured, not without a heavy cost. You may not like the 2nd amendment. But, thanks to many who gave their all, it is still there. Think before you act; the freedoms you save may be ours.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
On Immigration and Closing the Border
Ask yourself this question, Why haven’t either the Clinton Administration or the current Bush administration dealt with illegal immigration by simply closing the border? After all it is just a large construction project. More importantly, it is one of the primary duties of the Federal Government; providing for the domestic tranquility, securing the border and preventing invasion. I don’t believe the last two administrations or the last three, for that matter, would get high scores in these areas. But why? The answer appears to hide under the radar in Public-Private Partnerships (PPP’s) at the highest levels of the Business/Government relationship. Now wait, before you role your eyes and cast aside this article as just another wild conspiracy from a foaming conservative, read on.
In the early part of the first Clinton Administration the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed and signed into law. Its purpose was to reduce tariffs, promote trade and facilitate the movement of goods, services and some people across the borders of the three North American countries; Canada the U.S. and Mexico. NAFTA is a very complicated program that, according to some, has not helped the U.S, has generally been positive for Mexico, except for Mexican Agriculture, and positive for Canada. In 2000, then Mexican President Vicente Fox put forth the idea of an open border between the U.S. and Mexico “as a second phase of NAFTA which would be completed in ten years.” This brings us to the more current Securities and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Published by the White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 23, 2005, the SPP contains a Partnership agenda, a Prosperity agenda and a Security agenda. The Security Agenda opens with the following statement. “We are launching the next generation of our common security strategy to further secure North America and insure the streamlined movement of legitimate travelers and cargo across our shared borders. To this end, Canada, the United States and Mexico will work together to ensure the highest continent-wide security standards and streamline risk-based border processes are achieved in the following areas:” Notice that this statement is about North America and not the United States of America. Further, who defines legitimate cargo and travelers? Dare I say it won’t be an elected official organization but rather a bureaucrat in some NGO.
This brings us to the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) and its extension, the NAFTA Super-highway. The TTC, which is scheduled to start this year and parallel Interstate 35, would bisect Texas from its southern border with Mexico to Oklahoma. It is expected to be ten lanes, five in each direction three for cars and two for trucks. In the center is space for utilities and rail. Required in this plan is the taking of 584,000 acres of privately held land by eminent domain. The southern extension of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Superhighway goes from the southern border of Texas to the Mexican Ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas. The northern extension goes through Oklahoma City, Kansas City, splits and continues to Montreal, Winnipeg and on to Vancouver. Kansas City is scheduled to become a port of entry with customs officials from the three nations stationed there. Interesting is the ongoing debate as to whether this customs area will be the sovereign soil of Mexico. Some say yes.
All of the above leads to the establishment of The North American Union. This Union modeled after the European Union is fundamentally designed to erase the borders between the countries, create a “common security perimeter” and harmonize Visa and Asylum regulations. It is hoped that all of this will be up and running by 2010. Refer back to the statement at the beginning of this article with Vicente Fox expressing his wish for open borders within ten years. Under the North American Union we would still have our President as would Mexico and Canada its Prime Minister, however, they would answer to Business elite who will be advisors to each country’s leaders. Behind the scenes are organizations like The Council on Foreign Relations and the U.N. George Bush the current President is not a member of the CFR, but his father, George Bush 41, is.
It seems then our President's refusal to close the border has more to do with the North American Union than any other reason. However, I challenge you not to believe me. Go to your own search engine and type in the words North American Union and see for yourself. I would be interested in your comments regarding what I perceive as a threat to our nation.
In the early part of the first Clinton Administration the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed and signed into law. Its purpose was to reduce tariffs, promote trade and facilitate the movement of goods, services and some people across the borders of the three North American countries; Canada the U.S. and Mexico. NAFTA is a very complicated program that, according to some, has not helped the U.S, has generally been positive for Mexico, except for Mexican Agriculture, and positive for Canada. In 2000, then Mexican President Vicente Fox put forth the idea of an open border between the U.S. and Mexico “as a second phase of NAFTA which would be completed in ten years.” This brings us to the more current Securities and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Published by the White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 23, 2005, the SPP contains a Partnership agenda, a Prosperity agenda and a Security agenda. The Security Agenda opens with the following statement. “We are launching the next generation of our common security strategy to further secure North America and insure the streamlined movement of legitimate travelers and cargo across our shared borders. To this end, Canada, the United States and Mexico will work together to ensure the highest continent-wide security standards and streamline risk-based border processes are achieved in the following areas:” Notice that this statement is about North America and not the United States of America. Further, who defines legitimate cargo and travelers? Dare I say it won’t be an elected official organization but rather a bureaucrat in some NGO.
This brings us to the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) and its extension, the NAFTA Super-highway. The TTC, which is scheduled to start this year and parallel Interstate 35, would bisect Texas from its southern border with Mexico to Oklahoma. It is expected to be ten lanes, five in each direction three for cars and two for trucks. In the center is space for utilities and rail. Required in this plan is the taking of 584,000 acres of privately held land by eminent domain. The southern extension of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Superhighway goes from the southern border of Texas to the Mexican Ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas. The northern extension goes through Oklahoma City, Kansas City, splits and continues to Montreal, Winnipeg and on to Vancouver. Kansas City is scheduled to become a port of entry with customs officials from the three nations stationed there. Interesting is the ongoing debate as to whether this customs area will be the sovereign soil of Mexico. Some say yes.
All of the above leads to the establishment of The North American Union. This Union modeled after the European Union is fundamentally designed to erase the borders between the countries, create a “common security perimeter” and harmonize Visa and Asylum regulations. It is hoped that all of this will be up and running by 2010. Refer back to the statement at the beginning of this article with Vicente Fox expressing his wish for open borders within ten years. Under the North American Union we would still have our President as would Mexico and Canada its Prime Minister, however, they would answer to Business elite who will be advisors to each country’s leaders. Behind the scenes are organizations like The Council on Foreign Relations and the U.N. George Bush the current President is not a member of the CFR, but his father, George Bush 41, is.
It seems then our President's refusal to close the border has more to do with the North American Union than any other reason. However, I challenge you not to believe me. Go to your own search engine and type in the words North American Union and see for yourself. I would be interested in your comments regarding what I perceive as a threat to our nation.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Head in the Sand
I know that I am not the only one out there that sees the handwriting on the wall regarding the future of our country. What I cannot wrap my mind around is why we continue to squabble amongst ourselves over superfluous issues while we are losing the battle over our property rights, as well as other rights, bit by bit. Not only do we squabble incessantly, but, it seems, that is all we do.
I know that no group agrees all the time on all the issues. However, I’ll bet that if we all put our top ten issues on the table, at least seven of them would be the same. Our solutions may be different, but generally we all want the same thing. Why then do we sit idly by while those who would change the entire landscape of this great nation have their way? It’s not like the assault on our rights is clandestine or hidden in back rooms; no, it is right there for all to see. In order not to see it we have to bury our head in the sand and deny what is right in front of us. Maybe that’s the reason we refuse to recognize our peril; the war on terror, the liberal media, recent Supreme Court decisions, the failure to close the border, or locally, the Fire Plan, the BID in Nevada City, etc. If we admit that any of this is real, or a threat to our way of life (and it is, all of it) then we would have to do something about it. That would take commitment on our part and God forbid we would have to take a stand.
There is a saying and I’m not sure I am quoting correctly but you will recognize it. “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”(for the sake of those P.C. people out there, the quote says men, but it is an old quote and masculine included feminine. So to update “good men and women to do nothing).
Let me pose some questions: Is the war in Iraq really going as bad as the media would have us believe? Is the media really liberal or just not telling the truth? Do recent decisions by the Supreme Court really affect us? Why haven’t we closed the border, what about the North American Union or The Trans Texas Corridor or the Nafta Super Highway? If your answer to these is “HUH?”, then you are to whom I’m talking. If your answer is “I’m too busy”, then you are to whom I’m talking. If your answer is “I work all day and I’m tired” then you are to whom I’m talking. We are all busy and tired and we would all just like to relax, do our own thing and trust in our government to do right by us. This would be the most dangerous of all actions. NO! Now is the time to get involved, take action and make your opinions known.
Organizations throughout the country need and want your involvement and support. It is probably the only way we can effect change from the local level to the federal level. I don’t always agree with some of the positions of the organizations I support, but most of the time I do and that’s what is important. If I don’t like a particular policy, then I can get more involved and maybe influence some of the policy decisions. Everybody has at least two hours a week they could spend working for the good of their community and country. To those who say otherwise, I say nonsense. You just don’t care. Think of what we could accomplish if we all gave 8-10 hours a month to seeking truth, supporting our country and demanding that our elected officials be responsive to our wishes? Our opponents are doing just that and more and they are unchecked because we squabble amongst ourselves while our fundamental freedoms are being challenged at every level.
There are currently some very dangerous threats to our property rights, our ability to protect ourselves, our personal freedoms and the very sovereignty of this great nation. The time is now for all of us to get active. There are a number of groups that have the best interest of our country and community in mind. If you agree or disagree, let me know what’s on your mind. You can reach me through e-mail at mcw@wildblue.net. I look forward to your views and ideas. Talking, it’s the first step to getting involved.
I know that no group agrees all the time on all the issues. However, I’ll bet that if we all put our top ten issues on the table, at least seven of them would be the same. Our solutions may be different, but generally we all want the same thing. Why then do we sit idly by while those who would change the entire landscape of this great nation have their way? It’s not like the assault on our rights is clandestine or hidden in back rooms; no, it is right there for all to see. In order not to see it we have to bury our head in the sand and deny what is right in front of us. Maybe that’s the reason we refuse to recognize our peril; the war on terror, the liberal media, recent Supreme Court decisions, the failure to close the border, or locally, the Fire Plan, the BID in Nevada City, etc. If we admit that any of this is real, or a threat to our way of life (and it is, all of it) then we would have to do something about it. That would take commitment on our part and God forbid we would have to take a stand.
There is a saying and I’m not sure I am quoting correctly but you will recognize it. “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”(for the sake of those P.C. people out there, the quote says men, but it is an old quote and masculine included feminine. So to update “good men and women to do nothing).
Let me pose some questions: Is the war in Iraq really going as bad as the media would have us believe? Is the media really liberal or just not telling the truth? Do recent decisions by the Supreme Court really affect us? Why haven’t we closed the border, what about the North American Union or The Trans Texas Corridor or the Nafta Super Highway? If your answer to these is “HUH?”, then you are to whom I’m talking. If your answer is “I’m too busy”, then you are to whom I’m talking. If your answer is “I work all day and I’m tired” then you are to whom I’m talking. We are all busy and tired and we would all just like to relax, do our own thing and trust in our government to do right by us. This would be the most dangerous of all actions. NO! Now is the time to get involved, take action and make your opinions known.
Organizations throughout the country need and want your involvement and support. It is probably the only way we can effect change from the local level to the federal level. I don’t always agree with some of the positions of the organizations I support, but most of the time I do and that’s what is important. If I don’t like a particular policy, then I can get more involved and maybe influence some of the policy decisions. Everybody has at least two hours a week they could spend working for the good of their community and country. To those who say otherwise, I say nonsense. You just don’t care. Think of what we could accomplish if we all gave 8-10 hours a month to seeking truth, supporting our country and demanding that our elected officials be responsive to our wishes? Our opponents are doing just that and more and they are unchecked because we squabble amongst ourselves while our fundamental freedoms are being challenged at every level.
There are currently some very dangerous threats to our property rights, our ability to protect ourselves, our personal freedoms and the very sovereignty of this great nation. The time is now for all of us to get active. There are a number of groups that have the best interest of our country and community in mind. If you agree or disagree, let me know what’s on your mind. You can reach me through e-mail at mcw@wildblue.net. I look forward to your views and ideas. Talking, it’s the first step to getting involved.
Monday, March 5, 2007
It’s Tough To Be A Patriot
It is tough to be a patriot. By definition a patriot is one who loves and loyally defends his country. That definition I believe includes defending our Constitution and National Sovereignty. It also includes defending and protecting our way of life against all enemies and our boarders against invasion. How many people who fit this definition do you know? A patriot is not afraid to put his hand over his heart when the flag passes by, he is not afraid to recite the Pledge of Allegiance loud and proud. He is not afraid to tell a passing soldier, “thank you for your service to our country”, and he is not afraid to support our President in his efforts to protect us from terrorists. Yes, it is tough to be a patriot when all around you to be so is considered out of step, when the Hollywood elite gaze down their supercilious noses, when the Constitution is considered old and outdated and when any expression of Patriotism is considered immature and lacking sophistication.
Well, I am a patriot. Jane Fonda is not, John Murtha is not, John Kerry is not, Ted Kennedy is not, Bill and Hillary Clinton are not, the Hollywood elite are not and those who sit idly by while their country is at war are not. A patriot takes time to check facts rather than believe the talking heads on the television or the pre-programmed major media who by the way are owned by the liberal establishment.
My question to you the reader is where are you. Are you a patriot, or are you one of those who believe we are the bad guys and that this country is way passed its best years?
Well, I am a patriot. Jane Fonda is not, John Murtha is not, John Kerry is not, Ted Kennedy is not, Bill and Hillary Clinton are not, the Hollywood elite are not and those who sit idly by while their country is at war are not. A patriot takes time to check facts rather than believe the talking heads on the television or the pre-programmed major media who by the way are owned by the liberal establishment.
My question to you the reader is where are you. Are you a patriot, or are you one of those who believe we are the bad guys and that this country is way passed its best years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)