Awesomely Funny Video

The song is catchy, but the point is... guns are not evil. It's not the guns, it's the people who are using the guns that are the problem.

This is from Australia, which has tighter gun laws than the US.

Why the West is Slowly Sinking

Why is the Western world slowing losing influence globally? The short asnwer is an over-reliance on large regulations to "fix" everything. In this article from the Wall Street Journal, Mark Steyn discusses the trend in more detail. The book he references, Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift, is now on my reading list.

It's interesting to me the idea of men giving up their freedom of choice is not a new idea. The books author Paul Rahe references thinkers almost two hundred of years old, yet still relevant. What we see in the West is a soft slide to more state intervention and control. No major event or revolution, just an apathetic slouching towards control by the few.

Seems Devo was right, "Freedom from choice... It's what you want."

The Health Care Bill is not About Choice

The following video is a great summation of why the healthcare discussion currently in Congress is so important. Remember, any 'public option' healthcare program will have "changed [our nation] in damaging ways."



It is obvious the Obama administration is interested in a full single payer system. One thing to keep in mind is that any plan with a public option will not increase choice, but decrease it. It will do this by squeezing out the small companies first, as Democratic Representative Schakowsky from Illinois pointed out.

SO, can the president please explain how attacking smaller businesses and forcing them to close (with a large number of lost jobs) will "help increase competition" in the healthcare insurance market? It won't. Further, he knows it won't. He knows the "public option" plan is just a step towards fully socialized healthcare.

Call your Senators or Representatives and tell them to vote against a "public option" in healthcare.

Hat Tip - Hot Air

Can We Opt Out of Socialism, Please?

What is Socialsim? A short answer can be found in Wikipedia, where they define Socialism as "Any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of good." So, in Socialism, the State controls businesses, either in part or in whole.

Keep this in mind as you think about how Obama's Federal government tries to get its hands in everything. Government tries to manipulate the economy, with questionable effects. Government intervenes in previously private businesses and banks that are "too big to fail."

Now, even though Obama's budget deficit will be historically high, Obama wants to step in, spend even more money and muddle about with our private health care system. An aside: How does government interference help restore or rebuild our economy? Answer: It doesn't.

This scares me more than most of the other systems, since it has the potential to do several things, none of them good. I've listed some of the effects below.

First, it will INCREASE the cost of care, not decrease it. We would have to fund the system twice, both as patients and as taxpayers. When we go to the doctor, most Americans would still have to pay money out of pocket for service. In addition, taxpayer money would have to go into paying for the administration of this system. And we all know how efficient government administered programs are.

Second, there will be fewer doctors and fewer specialists to treat everyone. Don't believe me? Then quickly review this New York Times article about how the current government run healthcare system, Medicare, is working.

The recommendation from the article seems to be that individuals should find "Concierge Medicine" in their area. The anecdote provided at the end illustrates how coverage in concierge medicine, coverage for services not covered by government funding, saved a person's life. Would a government paid doctor answer the phone after business hours to offer life-saving services? As mentioned above, even with "Government Healthcare," individual spending for appropriate, necessary, life saving care is necessary.

Finally, we would have face a shortage of service. This is the really scary effect, one that will kill people. With fewer doctors and specialists, rationed health care is garunteed. Look at the evidence provided by this video.



With all of these effects of Socialism, why is Obama pushing us further in that direction?

Memorial Day Reminder

For those who have given their all, we thank you.

Check out this Medal of Honor Web site.

Fact Vs. Emotion in the Credit Card Debate

Obama's administration, including many Democrats in Congress, wants to force the credit card industry to cap their percentage rate at a ridiculous 15% (blocked, luckily). However, it looks like the bill they're putting together would reward bad behavior and punish good behavior.

I think the Democratic Congress and Obama are stepping in over their heads, trying to tackle credit card companies during a recession. As this article from the Motley Fool details, there are some major problems when government tries to regulate an industry. In this case, the government meddling and populist backlash against credit card companies will only hurt the industry, and ultimately, all consumers. Even NPR, normally a 'progressive' station, is reporting the regulation could backfire.

The sad thing is, responsible spending and paying attention to your credit card statements, two basic principles of correctly handling a credit card, seem to be lacking in those crying loudest for credit card reform. The example Obama cites for 'unfair practices' is: 

"One... woman saw her credit card interest rate jump to nearly 30 percent because she mistakenly went over the card's limit." (Emphasis mine.)

Okay, so the woman makes a mistake... and it's the company's fault for raising her rate? Somehow this just defies logic.

More personal responsibility and less whining to the government for regulation, please.

Gangster Government on the Rise

The United States is supposed to be a Republic. Our nation was founded on the rule of law, to help protect smaller and less popular ideas from being snuffed out by the rule of the mob, which we would see in a Democracy. In a Republic, laws and contracts apply to all individuals equally. However, our new Federal government seems to be changing that.

This article outlines how Obama's leadership is "undermining the legal and financial stability of the United States." And it's not the only article to notice our President's disdain for the rule of law. The articles touch on some major ways in which Obama's organized labor friends are receiving preferential treatment, instead of being treated equally under the law. Of course, influence pedaling and corruption is the Chicago way.

In addition to issues relating to Unions and other cronies , the Obama administration is interfering in our open banking system. This includes forcing certain private banks and financial organizations, such as Citibank, to take TARP money. This, in turn, gives the Federal Government a say in how these companies are run. This is not open business.

So far, with Obama's administration, we've seen bigger government being more intrusive in our businesses and everyday lives. Couple this with some of the losses of freedoms from Bush's push against terrorism with the misnamed Patriot Act and it's a dangerous mix. This is not how we made this nation great.

The recent tea parties, far from being partisan protests, show more that people are ready for the Federal government to step back out of our lives. If we are to succeed as individuals and as a nation, we need the Federal Government to get out of our way instead of laying down road blocks.

I believe it was Thoreau who said, "That government is best which governs least." On that note, I think we need a better government.

Hat Tip - Hot Air

Friday Funny

Here is an article about one dedicated soldier. When duty called, he didn't even take the time to pull his pants on. Instead, Spec. Boyd put on his helmet and body armor, then ran out the door.

Someone needs to give this guy some serious recognition for his dedication to duty. Even if the pink underpants are a little tacky. 

Hat Tip - Little Green Footballs

America, the Republic... Thankfully

Contrary to popular belief, America is not a Democracy. Thank God for that. Instead we have a Republic, based on a body of law that keeps everyone in check, including our political leaders and popular individuals. Because we are in a Republic, Senator Ted Stevens was indicted. Because we are in a Republic, some of Obama's origial cabinet choices were rejected for not following the law. The law works to restrict the power of government and gaurantee our individual rights.

This video offers a great definition about the American form of government.

The scary thing about this video is the details about the Fall of the Roman Republic. It happened when some of the rulers started disobeying the law for their own, and their constituents', benefit. This eventually led to Mob Rule (Democracy) and eventual Oligarchy.

As Benjamin Franklin stated, we have "A Republic... if you can keep it." Let's hope we can do the work necessary to keep it. This includes being informed voters and letting our elected Representatives know we want less government interference and the rule of law. Let's hope that's enough.

Can Gun Control Work? Probably Not.

I recently read a blog post a friend forwarded to me. The post text is not nearly as important as the video. In the video, ABC News interviews the author of the book Can Gun Control Work?, Professor James Jacobs from New York University. 

I was very interested in what Prof. Jacobs had to say about gun control. I thought his interview would include more emotion and rhetoric than reasoned discussion. Prof. Jacobs approached the subject rationally, with an open mind when he wrote the book. Of special interest is the fact that he's not a gun owner himself.

His answer to the question? "I think it's not possible to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people." You can tell this is not the answer the hostess wanted to hear. She tries to qualify his answer by talking about "trying" gun control if it will save one life. Prof. Jacobs rightly points out, however, the cost of that law would be more than most of society would be willing to bare. Jacobs states that the number of gun deaths each year (almost 31,000 in 2006*) is the cost we pay for gun ownership.

As an example, Jacobs points to the known statistic of traffic fatalities (over 45,000 in 2006**). If we wanted to save one life, we could definitely enact more traffic laws, or even ban all private cars and make everyone use public transportation. Would these laws save more lives? Yes, undoubtedly. However, whether society would actually be willing to do this is another question. 

This interview happens without even touching on an important point, however, the constitutionality of more gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment gives individuals (i.e., "the people") the right to have guns. Any laws developed have to be balanced against this fundamental right.

*This number includes ALL gun related deaths, including accidents, sucides, homocides and officer involved shootings. Numbers based on information from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

**As indicated by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

What the Tea Parties are all About

Unless you've been living in a cave with no TV or internet access, you've hear about the recent collection of "Tea Parties" happening all across the country. But what are all of these people saying? What are these protests about? 

This video addresses the root issue, although it comes at the topic from a non-tea party way.

The reason we have so much unrest is because we have such a powerful government that is redistributing our money. People are becoming more and more upset about government intrusion in our lives, both through intrusive laws and high taxation. There is a strong movement against more government.

Call your Senators and Congressman. Tell them that Washington's excessive interferance in our lives is what people are upset about. We want LESS intervention and more reliance on local and individual authority. After all, Amendment IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 

This means we, the people hold all of the rights. Our government should work to ensure we can exercise our rights to the utmost.

Something to Watch Out For

I recently watched a video that made my blood chill. Seems that a group of Foreign Nationals have started setting up training bases... in the US.

Watching the video just made me mad. Here are people taking advantage of our government's protection to plot against, and carry out attacks against, our government and our country.

It seems this is a group that the US Federal Government should watch closely.

Justice is Served... Common Sense is Saved

Remember this case? Well, it seems that the decision came out in favor of common sense. The illegal aliens (and their lawyers) did not receive near the amount of money they were asking for. Instead, they were told, "You have to prove your case, and you didn't"

I also like the fact the attorney defending Mr. Barnett feels strongly that the amounts awarded can be overturned on appeal. Just looking at the basic facts, I tend to agree.

Read the entire article and review the photographic evidence from the link. Kind of hard to make a case against the legal US citizen.

Lunch Hour Reading

Go read this article right now. Call your Senator and your Congressional Representative and tell this is the stimulus you want, not the BS package that went through the House and is Currently being debated in the Senate.

This bill is a real stimulus package. It doesn't have the immense amounts of pork in the current Senate bill. It also includes language that points to a temporary solution for a temporary problem.

One thing that's nice to note, at least not all Democrats are crazy.

Will They Ever Learn?

Why are the Danes even pursuing a case against Geert Wilders for expressing his opinion and telling a story, based on actual facts and quotes? Do they not believe in the most basic freedom, freedom of speech? This case is based on their somewhat odd idea that you can legislate what will "insult... Muslim worshipers." Unfortunately, this case insults me. Where an I to go for redress?

Fortunately, Mr. Wilders has support from many Europeans who are tiring of being told they have to bow down to Islam's ideas and not insult Mohamed's followers. If you've watched "Fitna," you know that Wilders simply interspersed quotes directly from the Muslim holy book with images, news pieces and quotes from Muslim speakers. This is the truth. And as one speaker said, "The truth is sometimes offensive... but it doens't make it any less true."

And remember, the group forwarding the prosecution of Mr. Wilders is the same group that held violent riots and demonstrations because someone drew this:




When all men are free to speak their minds, then will we truly have freedom of speech. Noam Chomsky said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." I agree. In America we quote Voltaire and say, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Hat Tip Jawa Report for getting me started.

We Need New Rules for Dealing With Al Qaeda

We can't treat AQ operatives as criminals. They are an international organization that is outside US law. They are not US citizens, they do not have the same rights under our nation's laws. They are enemy combatants and should be under the regulation of military justice, not civilian courts as some think. This might be tough on them, since they do not abide by the Geneva conventions.

And even when the rule of law is followed, the enemies we capture seem to take advantage of this. Some of those freed from Gitmo have even returned immediately to their active participation in a group that seeks to destroy the western way of life.

Of course, now we have a president who has decided we don't need special circumstances to deal with Al Qaeda. With a stroke of his pen, he has removed many of the tools Bush put in place to combat terrorism. How asinine!

This is not developing a strategy that will help defeat terrorists. This is similar to the actions of the last Democratic president who showed America as a "Paper Tiger" that Al Qaeda need not fear.

Reasons We Don't Need Universal Healthcare

Universal Health Care seems to be in vogue again, even though the Democrats tried this before and it failed to pass. Part of this may be because the President Elect stated health care was a "right" of all Americans. However, I have to disagree with the constitutional scholar. No where in the Bill of Rights or Constitution do the Founding Fathers indicate that access to the best medical treatment without regard to cost is a fundamental right of all Americans.

In Mr. Obama's argument, he even qualifies the right because we live in a "rich" nation. How does he think we got rich? It's because we had free enterprise and freedom of choice.

There are three major problems with any Universal Healthcare System we may implement. It would increase overall healthcare costs, it would degrade the quality of service, and it would take away our freedom and limit choice.

Contrary to popular belief, a government run health care system would not be any less expensive than our current private payer insurance system. When the need for a universal healthcare system is put forth, usually there is an anecdote of someones mother or grandmother having a hard time paying for something. However, anecdotal evidence does not mean the conditions are universal.

Instead of having privately run institutions with limited boards, we would instead have to develop a large bueracracy at the Federal, state and local level to manage our hospitals and clinics. The higher taxes needed to fund this additional bueracracy would come from our taxes, which are already stretched to pay for current government projects. With both the out-of-pocket expenses we would have to pay and the higher taxes needed to fund the the bueracracy, the American public would indeed end up paying more.

Another consequence of moving to a universal healthcare system would be a degradation in service. Other countries with universal healthcare have slow ambulance response times and long waiting periods for treatment. Now why would we degrade a life saving system just to save a portion of the US population a little money?

Finally, have the Federal Government involved in making decisions about our healthcare and lifestyle will take away choices from Americans. According to 2006 numbers (some of the most recent), 38% of America's uninsured population earn $50,000 or more. That's almost 18 million people who have decided, on their own, that they want to spend their money elsewhere. How can the Federal Government suddenly decide that these people can't make that choice for themselves any longer?

Taken to it's absurd limit, the American public would lose lifestyle choices because of perceived problems from some lifestyles. This means that, even though McDonalds may still offer french fries, you may not be able to eat them. Of course, managing these 'waistline cops' would simply add to the cost of the healthcare budget.

All three of these problems relate to the fact that, in the United States, government was not meant to take the place of businesses. Government should have a limited role in our daily lives.

Hat Tip to Carpe Diem for the uninsured statistics.

The Federal Government Needs to Tighten Uncle Sam's Belt

This article at the National Review Online clearly highlights the financial problems hanging over the heads of the US. We need to tighten our belts and start reducing the deficit. We should have been doing this during the "good times" of economic abundance. We need it more than ever during these times of financial stress.

One of the big things to do to keep the budget in check is to stop giving bailouts to failing businesses. The American people have to live with a limited budget and manage their money well. Why shouldn't businesses be the same?

Like Walker, I also think Obama is on the right track. Limiting earmarks projects or "pork" in the federal budget will do more to help limit spending than most people know. I, for one, would like to see less government spending and less government intrusion in my life.

I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Help... Part III

It seems like every time there is an economic downturn, some people start clamoring for government support of the economy. Unfortunately, from a logical, historic perspective, more government interference does nothing to actually rebuild the economy.

See this video to learn more about the theory of "More Government Assistance will Help the Economy."



The reason this is important is because Obama is about to take office. The US economy is at it's weakest level in years. We have already had a spate of "bailouts" for private firms, with talk of more to come. Unfortunately, these government interventions do not truly fix the problem. Without some time to 'reset,' the economy will continue to falter and flail.

We need more common sense and less use of tax payer money to try and make politicians look good.

The First Amendment Means You Can Be Annoying

Well, the folks in Brighton, MI don't think so. Apparently, freedom of speech is only for acceptable speech. Huh?? The whole reason we have a First Amendment to the Constitution is to protect speech that others might find offensive or unacceptable.

The Ban takes effect January 2nd. How soon do you think it will take before someone challenges this and gets it taken into the courts? Once that happens, the ban will have to come down, as it is patently unconstitutional.

(Hat tip to Hot Air for the news link.)