Monday's Quote of the Day

'Nuff said.

Wild Bill: The "Lesser of Two Evils" Foolishness

Bill O'Reilly on the Oregon Shooting

Wild Bill: "Jade Helm Panic Attack"

She Says What We're All Thinking

Quote of the Day

Try to halt violence by restricting gun ownership and you won't halt violence. But you will create entire classes of new criminals – people who make paperwork errors, violate technical specification of the law, or rebel against the new restrictions. And you'll create new bureaus, new enforcement arms, new prisons to punish them. You'll make hordes of lawyers and bureaucrats very happy. Organized criminals will be grateful to the naive moral crusaders ("useful idiots") as they profit by selling an illegal product. And ordinary street criminals will bless fools, legislators, and "leaders" for making their job so much safer.

~ JPFO's "Bill of Rights Sentinel", Fall 2001

"Public Enemies 1, 2 & 3"

"Leaping Liberals"

China just cracked down on 20,000 corrupt politicians, why don't we do the same? (And I'm guessing the presstitutes in the mainstream media won't mention it ...)

Common Sense Isn't Dead

Many of you will remember the story of how when Sarah Palin became Governor & took on a group of Alaska legislators who called themselves the "Corrupt Bastards Club". Several of them eventually went to jail. At the same time, the FBI investigated several cases of bribery involving legislators and an Anchorage engineering firm which has since gone out of business.

One of the legislators who was convicted of accepting bribes recently ran for a seat on the Wasilla City Council (apparently there's no law against a felon holding elected office).

The voters showed good sense & defeated him.

On a side note, I'm thoroughly tired of legislators (at ALL levels of government) whose only discernible skill is running for, and being elected to, public office. At least for now, it's not just me.

Well done, Valley voters.  Well done!

"Exporting California"

"I don't think even North Korea would take California: it would probably lower their standards."

~ gigglesnort! ~

Seen on Facebook

I spend little time on Facebook these days, but saw this one today:

Tim McArdle "The only time liberals don't use children to further their agendas is at pro-choice rallies..."

Word.

Alaska Bill Would Let Teachers Pack Guns at School

By BECKY BOHRER — Associated Press

 

JUNEAU, Alaska — A proposal from an Anchorage lawmaker would allow for teachers or other permanent school employees to carry concealed guns on campus "for defensive use."

HB55, from Republican Rep. Bob Lynn, would allow public districts and private schools to adopt written policies spelling out the circumstances under which firearms could be possessed and used. The proposal, released Friday, would allow for permanent employees, such as teachers and administrators, to carry concealed weapons if they have a permit and have completed training.

Click on the link to read the whole story. Sounds like a darn good idea to me!

Quote of the Day

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." 

~ President Ronald Reagan

Too Good Not to Share

Engineering Johnson has written well, today.

Yet somehow, a new beast has emerged, or rather, wedged itself into the role of government.  I'll call it the caretaker.  It is different from the soldier, the judge, the policeman, and the lawmaker.  They are actually needed to govern a country, or in more precise terms, to regulate it.

The caretaker serves a different purpose.  He does not concern himself with what is just, but what is needed.  This may seem innocuous enough, but then comes the question of whose need is to be served.  Whats more, one must then decide what actually comprises a valid need.  When elected officials are allowed to make these decisions, people who wish to be elected to an office are naturally inclined to define need in a way that will secure the most votes.

I suspect many people understood this first half of the caretaker system, from the onset of our current form of government.  What seems to be less understood is that the elected caretaker does not provide for the needs of any citizen without first taking from another.

You should read, as they say, the whole thing. Look for the post entitled, "And I approved this message." As of this posting, it's his most recent article.


h/t Brigid

What Were They Thinking? (Pt. 3)

Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776) on passivity in the face of depredation:

Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain, and still hoping for the best are apt to call out, "Come, Come, we shall be friends again for all this." But examine the passions and feelings of mankind: Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land?

If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time, fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have.

But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.

I'm sure that, if you have any imagination and have been paying even the slightest attention to the news, you will see some parallels here. Most of us have not had our homes burnt by Leviathan (of whatever stripe), nor our family members murdered, but consider the relationship being discussed herein, and think. Ask yourself whether Paine is saying anything to us today, however hypothetically. IS he saying anything to us? It's not the enemy outside the walls that we're talking about. Consider that a clue.


This post in the series is presented for purposes of enlightenment and discussion regarding the purposes behind the provisions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, using the words of those who debated them.

Previous posts:
Part 1 here
Part 2 here

Re-Written Deadly Force Bill Clears First Committee

From a copyright Associated Press story in today's Daily News:

JUNEAU -- A rewritten bill expanding the right to use deadly force in self-defense cleared its first committee Monday. That's over the objection of the Department of Law, which maintains it will encourage unnecessary violence. Current law authorizes use of deadly force in self-defense to stop a few specific crimes, including robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping and murder. But if someone can safely withdraw, he's obligated to do so. That duty to retreat doesn't apply at home or the workplace.

~snip~

... After clearing the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, the bill now goes to the Finance Committee.

Read the rest here.

Common Sense

Over at Washington Rebel, there's a "must-read" about the political climate today. Excerpt:

Glenn Beck is rapidly emerging as the most polarizing figure in American culture. His speech closing last week's Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C. brought down the house, inspiring an ovation even for his ubiquitous blackboard. Tracing the history of "Progressivism" in American political thought, Beck didn't spare Republicans, making it clear that the 20th century had a long and shameful record of the adoption of the the "principles" of Karl Marx, all in an attempt to curry favor among those who would be rescued by Government. The spectacle of a Conservative crowd erupting in applause at criticism of Theodore Roosevelt's contention, that wealth should be judged according to its demonstrated social value, amounted to cognitive dissonance. Are there really that many people willing to re-examine the positions of the hallowed Bull Moose?

Republicans are these days exhibiting what amounts to schizophrenia regarding their principles. On the one hand are those who would have it that winning is everything; on the other there are an increasing number of people who would appear to be asking with St. Mark, "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" The "pragmatists" fear that the splintering of the Right will lead to the inevitable triumph of madness, while the popular movement exemplified by the Tea Party activists views the current uproar as the first evidence of a return to sanity, and the healthiest development in the national dialogue in over a century.

~snip~

The triumph of the greatest unknown ever to gain the Oval Office has been almost universally regarded as a mandate by the Enlightened. The pundits of the world-wide Left continue to congratulate themselves on their prescience, and glory in the long-delayed vindication of their ideals. Their suicidal embrace of both Communism and Islam is dismissed with the justification "We won." In their hasty celebrations, they now expose themselves to a degree previously unthinkable to their greatest tacticians. By so doing, they have put the essential corruption that is Leftist politics on daily display, manifestly convinced that no one is listening. The resounding embrace of Glenn Beck should be sufficient evidence that the overstep may prove fatal.

For the first time in my life I regret not being younger. This will probably not play out in my lifetime, but it seems unavoidable that politics has been changed forever.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

A Time for Careful Thought

(I've tried very hard to take an even-handed approach, and not to let any personal bias show through in this article. I hope I've been moderately successful. I also know this is NOT a comprehensive listing, but just some of the issues that would be faced.)
************************************************************

Many words are being said in the ongoing discussion of state sovereignty, states' rights, and the actions of Congress, some 4,000 miles from here. I find this discussion fascinating; it's a chapter of American history playing out right before our eyes.

To give you an idea of how passionate this debate is becoming, here are the words of an Anchorage resident*:

"The United States has broken every treaty they have ever signed including the Alaska Statehood Act of 1959 that theoretically gave Alaskans the right to control their own destiny as free citizens of an independent state. Instead of granting us freedom from the tyranny of an occupying force, Washington turned Alaska from a Territory into the National Park of Alaska and stripped Alaskans from any control over basic rights such as hunting and fishing, berry picking or where we can drill for oil that Alaskan's own in our own State. The U.S. Government has more federal employees per capita in Alaska than anywhere else in the country because they own and control Alaska."

* Part of a review on Amazon by one J.G. of Anchorage, regarding "Snowflake Rebellion", a fictional work about an independent Alaska.

Some argue that there's no way that anyone, however homespun or elitist, can understand Alaskan issues unless they live here. In many ways, this may be true.

Some argue that we should become a separate and independent nation.

Some say that Alaska already has too many people, and even look forward to some unspecified event that might cause "transplants" to move back to the Lower 48. It's true that some would be unnerved or made uncomfortable by any move toward secession, and might voluntarily relocate.

Others argue that the federal government has imposed too many restrictions on us, and are choking the life out of this state with its abundant natural resources. Why, they ask, can't we drill for & pump the oil and gas that we have? This would not only generate and maintain jobs, and create wealth, but also reduce the country's need to import foreign oil. (This argument often precedes a discussion of how to peacefully secede from the Union. That's assuming the feds would consider a peaceful secession, which is not at all certain.)


I think we all need to take a deep breath and think about this; there are many, many factors to consider.

• One of the most obvious points is that Alaska has been a recipient of many Federal dollars over the years. An argument can be made that it was necessary; a state with 600,000 square miles and far fewer people needed a lot of help to establish a decent infrastructure. Can we maintain that infrastructure on the money we generate on our own? Perhaps not, although freedom to explore & drill for new oil and natural gas would generate a lot of new money.
• 
  
• Nearly one-third of the local economy is Federal dollars, including salaries. The sudden withdrawal of that money would make an awfully large hole.
• 
  
• There are a lot of military bases here; what about them? What about the payroll dollars, many of which are spent in the local economies of the communities near the bases?
• 
  
• We have more miles of coastline, counting our islands, than the entire Lower 48. Our population isn't large enough to adequately provide a defense force.
• 
  
• Some have proposed that we offer the U.S. government free rent & long-term leases on those bases, in exchange for a protection treaty.
• 
  
• Nearly one-third of Alaska is federal land; some say that is an unlawful seizure of state property. Others point out that it's a done deal. Either way, would the federal government willingly give up its claim on that land?
• 
  
• Alaskans have good ideas about federal tracts like ANWR, and I assure you it is not what the greenies would have you believe. Drill, baby, drill!
• 
  
• Alaskans could be asked to continue paying the same level of income tax they currently send to the federal government, but would then send the monies to Juneau, instead. This would be a big step for a state with no current income tax.
• 
  
• What would the relationship between Alaska and the other states look like? Don't answer that question too quickly. Much would depend on the federal government's response, and many states might have to recognize Alaska as a "foreign" trading partner, requiring new treaties and arrangements.
• 
  
• The U.S. government might, again depending on the nature of Alaska's withdrawal, put embargoes in place. This would force Alaska to increase its trans-Pacific trade, and also to seek more active trading arrangements with Canada and Mexico.
• 
  
• What about travel? Would Alaskans be able to visit families in the Lower 48? Would the U.S. recognize an Alaskan passport? There's no provision for a State outside of the Union in the current federal system.
  

There are many other points which would require much thought, and careful deliberation, before any serious secession proposal (say that three times, fast!) is put forward. I only hope that calm, deliberative thought is applied to the matter, and that many voices are considered, before such a precipitous step is taken.

Friday - the conversation

We now join a conversation with my friend D, in Missouri, already in progress:

Me: Why is it that every program from the new administration must have the big "O" on it? Isn't this president the one who said, "It's not about me?"

D: True.

Me: It's not like he invented healthcare. That's like Algore claiming to invent the internet.

D: Give Algore a break. He did invent global warming.

Can't argue with that.

RRR: Palin Rocks on Fox

Did you see Governor Palin on Sean Hannity's show last night? Check it out here, courtesy of Reaganite Republican Resistance.