Thursday, May 29, 2008


Well, I've decided that The Subversive has run its course. Also, it was poorly named to begin with.

Subversion is the clandestine act of working against the establishment. My inspiration for the name of the blog came way back in college. My then-girlfriend (now wife) and I thought it would be grand to publish a newsletter under that name, with the express purpose of exposing the leftist, liberal, socialist moonbats who ran the college for what they were (still are.) The idea never got far, but the name stuck with me.

The problem with "The Subversive" as it applies to life in the US is that the cause which I represent (The Constitution) is the establishment. To assert otherwise is to acknowledge defeat. In other words, calling myself a subversive is stating that the Constitution is no longer really the authority, and that I must use acts of subversion to promote the truth. That of course is untrue.

Adding to my motivation to change was The Subversive's rather closed format. I rarely strayed from a particular template (liberty.) Certainly, I expect posts of the same nature to dominate the content of my new blog, but I'm hoping to also include more general commentary on life, faith-based posts, and maybe just stuff that is fun to me.

So if you liked The Subversive, I encourage you to click on this post. (The whole thing is a hyper link.) It will take you to my new blog...

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The Only Ones Plumbing Enough...

There will be no link to this posting, as it is born of my own personal undocumented experience. This is really more of a rant than anything. We're selling our house, having found a larger more suitable abode in which we would very much like to reside. We got an offer on our house soon after it was on the market with one unusual stipulation.

Our washing machine drains into an old non-functional toilet. (All in the basement.) This was to be brought up to code by a professional plumber. I asked my realtor if there was any reason I couldn't just do the repair myself. She said that normally we could negotiate that point, but since this buyer is using FHA as a lender, they would require a "certified" repair. I gutted through my disapproval, wanting to sell, and thinking that would be it. Little did I know.

Along came the actual whole house inspection. Now we've been asked to hire an electrician to cover some open junction boxes in the basement and a roofer to install flashing around the chimney and (drumroll please) re-roof the garage. My wife said my face, ears and neck all turned red when I read the addendum they submitted.

Here's my beef: my dad and I rewired 99% of the house - to code, mind you - and what they're asking for is essentially clean-up of the remaining old wiring that we didn't get to. Had I remembered that there were two open junction boxes, I would have taken care of them myself, and nothing would have been noted. Had I known the washing machine "drain" would be an issue (since most people are sooo picky about the route their gray water takes to the sewer) I would have called my grandpa and we would have fixed it in half a Saturday morning. But now, because the buyer has a picky lender, I have to hire professionals to do something that I could capably do myself, or with the assistance of family (in the case of the plumbing stack.)

We're trying to negotiate just who does the work on the garage roof. The jury is still out, and I'm worried that they're going to walk if we don't hire someone. As my realtor points out, "Roofing isn't exactly rocket science." No offense to any professional roofers out there, but as roofs go, this one's as easy as a dog house.

Beyond the face-reddening frustration due to the extra money we'll have to spend (to SELL our house!!!) I'm angry at a deeper level. I think this sort of crap is symptomatic of the larger ills of our society. Gone is the pioneer spirit of independence, self-reliance, and resourcefulness. Gone is a fearless can-do attitude that faces down problems with a toolbox and a little advice from your elders. Instead, we have a culture that increasingly welcomes total dependence upon the expertise of others to fix anything and everything. Of course, that's because we live in a remarkably prosperous society. If you don't have to spend all weekend figuring out how to change your brakes, why bother when you can spend $300 to have the pros do it in a few hours?

Before I go too far down this gripe-train, I should point something out: I don't think everyone should be a handyman. Certainly not everyone is gifted with mechanical abilities (some would probably argue that I'm not, although I try), and I don't expect someone to change their own oil just because I do. I know plenty of good men who never turn a wrench.

However, what has really chapped my rear-end is that this dependence has now been inflicted on me. Everything electrical that wasn't cited by the inspector was what my father and I did! And yet we have to hire someone to cover a damn junction box? Come on!

This mind-numbing "leave it to the professionals" attitude is permeating every pore of American life. Of course the first example that comes to my mind is the responsibility for your own safety. Dare to carry a gun in your own defense? "Vigilante! Rogue! Cowboy! That's why we have police!"

Dare to take responsibility for your kids' own education? Fundamentalist! Cult follower! Heck, in some places they won't even let you anymore.

Want to improve your own house? Well, get ready to buy permits just to make sure it's OK with the government.

And want to sell your house? Get used to hiring people to do things you could do yourself. Heck, I wonder if they're going to make me get a janitor to vacuum before we leave...

Sunday, April 06, 2008

The next Waco?

This is low-hanging fruit for the proponents of the police state. You have morally repugnant behavior coupled with a guy who wears thick glasses. What's not to hate about these people? Isn't it about time somebody does something? Send in SWAT and kill 'em all, right?

Well, let's back up a step. I'm just going to note everything that I think is wrong with this picture:

1. The government has defined morality. Believe me, I have a problem with polygamy, but is it the .gov's job to tell you 'no'?
2. Here we have yet another example of a person or group of people's lives being turned upside-down based on hearsay. No hard evidence (at least not cited by the article), just a "she-said." You know, like an anonymous tip line. Want to get back at your neighbor? Just "take a bite out of crime" and call in (anonymously of course) that they're cooking meth and you know they have lots of guns. Be sure you're up at 3AM to enjoy the dynamic entry tactics employed by the death squad that will visit them.
3. The guy who did the supposed abusing is reportedly in Arizona, and the raid is taking place in...Texas. Makes sense, don't you think?
4. Eighteen girls taken into state custody - and yet no mention of charges against their parents. Here we have a state agency with the god-like power to kidnap your children when they deem it's necessary.
5. The secret police descending on these folks summarily deny access to the press. Don't get me wrong - the mainstream media does a piss-poor job of providing any sort of watchdog oversight to the government's activities anyway, but doesn't this strike anyone as Stalinist? I mean, shouldn't the activities of the government be so far above reproach that it would be a no-brainer to allow everyone to see what's going on? After all, they constantly assert that invasions of your privacy shouldn't bother you. It's always the same police state logic when they want to search us - "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind." Apparently they have something to hide.
6. The media coverage of this event is just atrocious. The CNN story uses the word "sect" and calls the group a "rogue" branch of the Mormon Church. So I guess that's objective journalism for you - making judgment calls about the legitimacy of a religious group. You have to read and re-read to figure out what the heck is really going on. They just throw enough negative and condemning peripheral information into the mix that the reader will surely form the opinion that these sleaze balls need to be taken out. They rape kids for heaven's sake. Never mind that the accused is apparently not even present. Again, I should clarify - I think this is a sick bunch. But the clear objective of the story is to get the reader to that conclusion, so that they won't mind the eventual outcome, as foreshadowed by #7...
7. I saved this for last. It's so Orwellian that it almost gave me chills. The story opens by stating that ambulances were rolling onto the property in anticipation of "a negative reaction." Good grief, why don't they just give the public what they want and dispense with the Newspeak? Just say up front, "We're going to waste these ******s. It'll be a freaking bloodbath, and we really should be bringing in hearses instead of ambulances."

For the love of liberty, no one cares anymore. We've known for 15 years now that the government can massacre - wait, let me bold that - THE GOVERNMENT CAN MASSACRE MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND GET AWAY WITH IT. The victims just have to be creepy enough, and preferably be willing to defend their own lives with firearms.

Next up: homeschoolers. I know, I know. Take off the tinfoil, Adam. I say take off the blinders. Whatever department "took custody" of those kids can decide - at will - that your kids are in danger and kidnap them. If you don't think removing your kids from the government run propaganda camps that we call schools and teaching them as you see fit is a big enough offense...

Well, just wait. It will be. It's just a matter of time. One of the last powers of the people to wrest power from The Beast is to raise God-fearing kids that can handle a rifle. I very much plan to do that.

Friday, March 21, 2008

DC v Heller

Disclaimer: I haven't thoroughly reviewed the information in the title link. It looked like a pretty comprehensive overview of the case and its history, so I included it for anyone interested in a little background info.

I decided that I have to blog about this case. I don't know exactly where this post is going to go, but I have a lot of thoughts rattling around, and I need to get some of them into cyberspace.

I think this is an exciting possibility. For the first time in my lifetime (indeed in my parents' and for the second time in my grandparents' lifetimes) we have a chance to see real change affected in the arena of gun control. What change could occur? More on that later. First, let's have a look at where things are at right now, in 2008.

We have a lot of gun control on the books. The first thing you hear any gun control advocate screaming is that our "streets" are flooded with guns and that buying a gun is easier than buying a book. It's hogwash of course. Until we have complete gun bans on the books with confiscation police going door-to-door, the moonbats will keep screaming about how easy it is to get your hands on a gun.

The truth is that it's not easy to get a gun (at least not legally). We have federal laws regulating who may sell guns, from where they may sell them, how old you must be to own/buy a gun, what types of firearms you may own, and how you may ship, transport, or sell them. Then there are countless state laws, which vary widely in their degree. Some states have effectual bans in place on certain types of firearms, while others don't even require a permit to carry a concealed handgun (*gasp*).

The next thing you hear the confiscation advocates screaming about (that is, if you haven't lost your hearing from their shrill pitch) is that anyone can buy an "assault rifle," walk into a mall and mow down eight million people in a half a second.

Next you'll hear them crying and dancing in the blood of every child who had died as the victim of gang violence or in a gun accident. After that comes the pants-wetting that accompanies any debate over concealed carry or self-defense.

I could engage each of these arguments, but it's pointless. They are all without merit or supporting facts, but that's beside the point.

The bottom line is this: The intent of the founding fathers was that a well armed population would have the power to hold its own government in check.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with crime. It has nothing to do with hunting or recreation. It doesn't even have anything to do with self-defense, at least not self-defense against street thugs. It has everything to do with preventing tyranny.

How often have you heard the antis complain that the Second Amendment is no longer relevant because weapons technology has changed? They make inane comparisons between flintlock muskets and AK-47s, and bed-wettingly whine that one couldn't kill his fellow man nearly as efficiently in 1792 as he can now. Someone needs to point out to such folk that governments could not kill their citizens nearly as efficiently back then either. That is the point. Since 1792, governments have killed 170 MILLION of their own citizens. Anyone who contests that "This is 200 years ago, and the government isn't going to take your other freedoms" has their head in the sand and hasn't studied history very much, if at all. Governments do this all the time in this present age. The Founders recognized that this would always be the natural course of governments, and so they set up the Constitution to specifically prevent such abuses. The Second Amendment is more relevant than it has ever been.

So what weaponry should common, ordinary citizens be able to buy? Well, as uncomfortable as it makes so many people, the truth is that any gun that's good at killing is good at guaranteeing liberty. Anything the military has (and especially anything the police have) the citizenry should have. Sawed-off shotguns? Yes. Silencers? Why not? Machine guns? Hell yes.

...which brings me to the "what could change?" question.

The answer: hopefully everything. All the major gun control laws we have on the books are unconstitutional abominations that have crept their way into existence little by little. Bit by bit, we've given ground, and now we might be able to take it back.

I don't realistically expect to see the National Firearms Act of 1934 overturned, nor the Gun Control Act of 1968. Those are the two big ones, of course. NFA makes it a crime to own several types of easily-demonized weapons (most notably machine guns) unless you pay an exorbitant tax and register yourself like a sex offender. GCA establishes a licensing system for dealers and gives us the groundwork for the BATFE, perhaps the most Gestapo-like "law" enforcement agency the United States has ever had the displeasure to endure.

I could post an entire book on the thug tactics employed by BATFE, but I won't, mainly because others already have. If you're genuinely interested in learning more about these worst of the secret police, check out:.

At the best, we can hope for an overturning of these laws and an abolition of the ATF.

At the worst, a "collective rights" ruling that will legitimize Nazi-like gun control. (And if you think I'm gratuitously throwing the word "Nazi" around for emotional appeal, you should do a little research on the Third Reich and how exactly they gained unresisted control over Germany.)

Most realistically, I predict a ruling that will affirm the individual right, but with a caveat that "some reasonable restrictions" must be applied. Of course, a right that is subject to restriction is no right at all, but rather a privilege granted by a government that views its citizens as subjects.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Gun Free Zones

No link is necessary. Everyone knows that there was a shooting at NIU this week. 5 victims dead plus the shooter.

In a country where you must submit to a Federally mandated background check to purchase a gun. (He did.)
In a state where you must have a Firearm Owner's Identification card to own a gun. (He did.)
In a state where no one may legally carry firearms (no one in the classroom did.)
On a "gun free campus." (It apparently was...)

So are those "Gun Free Zones" working for you? Wow, everyone seems to be following the policies to the letter. Cho managed to kill thirty+ classmates - all of whom were in strict compliance with the "no guns" policy. This latest killer offed five and wounded like eighteen or something. So he was in a room with somewhere around twenty-three (+) compliant victims.

And administrators, law enforcement, politicians and the antis all scream "LUNACY!" when we suggest that maybe, just maybe an armed good guy or two is the only answer that will actually make our students safer.

No, I'm not talking about armed campus security or campus police. I'm talking about armed students. And goodness, those words barely escape the lips before the bed-wetting begins. You want to send a disarmament advocate into hysterics? Just suggest that a college student shouldn't have to sit there and get shot. Suggest that forcible submission to massacre is outrageous. They'll go into hysterics. You'll be so barraged with emotionally driven baseless arguments devoid of any supporting facts or logic that you'll think you've been transported onto the set of "Bowling for Columbine."

"How will more guns make anyone safer?" This is one of the classics. The shooter was using a gun, so the emotional response is that no good can possibly come of guns. Guns are the evil, guns are the enemy, we must eradicate guns, lest the problem grow. Never mind the fact that a single gun in the hands of one of those students could have kept the body count at ONE. (The would-be killer.)

"You want to arm students??! They're so YOUNG." My gosh, you'd think you just suggested handing out Claymores at day care. Yeah, I guess 18 is too young to be responsible for your safety or anyone else's safety. Too young to be trusted with a gun. I mean, you're only a legal adult...only the same age as most of the guys (and gals) in Iraq. Only the same age as a lot of brave MEN who stormed Omaha beach.

The answer is as plain as the nose on your face, but it comes at a price. And the price is high for those in power: it is the admission that the individual- and not the government - is best suited to be the party responsible for safety and self-preservation.

Sadly, the government, institutions like colleges, and a disgusting portion of the general populace recoil at the notion of anyone daring to defend themself. They prefer disarmed submission.

They prefer massacre.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Why Hillary CAN'T be trusted with health care...

The title of this post is a link to a video. Watch it first.

Okay, so let's get the facts straight here - the facts as presented by Hillary's own ad.

1. A man could not afford an operation for his son.
2. He called Hillary's office.
3. Hillary's office calls him the next day and tells him that the hospital will eat the cost of the operation.

So...we are to conclude that because Hillary acted like the mafia that we can trust her? Health care is a service, and like any other good or service, it must be paid for. Hospitals are businesses that exist to make money. So when we don't like or can't afford the costs, we're supposed to rely on the government to use thug tactics and strongarm the private industry into taking a loss?

So how do you think the conversation between Hillary's office and the hospital went?

"Hi, this is Senator Clinton's office. I'd like to call your attention to the matter of this marrow transplant."
"It would be in your best interests to pick up the tab."
"Well, we really can't do that. We have a policy that unless..."
"No, I don't think you understand. Let's say that it would be like health insurance for you if you went ahead and absorbed the cost."

I can't imagine the pain of not being able to pay for a life-saving operation for your child. I really can't, and I'm sorry this guy had to go through that. But using the government to bully the private industry is not the answer.

The unfortunate truth is that our socialist program-bred entitlement attitudes have led us to buy into the lie that health care is somehow not a good or service for which someone deserves compensation. Hillary & Co. apparently believe that doctors, surgeons, nurses, pharamacists and everyone else in the industry will have their financial needs met through the warm fuzzy feelings they get when they work for free.

This commercial - straight from the horse's mouth mind you - exposes Hillary for what she is - a thug who will use the power of the government to control people as she sees fit. In this case, "as she sees fit" happened to benefit this man and his son. But what did it cost the hospital? Oh, hell, what does it matter? They're a corporation and they deserve to be punished, right?

I attempted to post a very brief synopsis of this post on YouTube. I got an instant, "Comment Pending Approval" message, and then when I refreshed it disappeared. I'm sure it won't make it on. She probably "suggested" that YouTube review all comments posted in response. Does anyone really believe this mafiosa promotes a free exchange of ideas?

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Kill a Baby, Save the Planet

After reading this article I'm torn between outrage, disgust, disbelief and sadness. I've never seen a more direct contradiction to everything that is true and good in this world than the attitudes, beliefs and actions displayed by the people in this article. Can there be any doubt that the lie which is "global warming" or "human induced climate change" is indeed a pagan religion? To the list of religious-like activities that characterize the bizarre behavior of this camp - which includes zeal, faith, worship (of the earth), and lifestyle change - we can now add child sacrifice.

How horrific that an innocent life was violently snuffed out in the name of a lie. This behavior is so horribly barbaric, and these beliefs are so positively rooted in evil that I sincerely hope these folks take their thought process one step further and off themselves. I mean, really - if you're willing to kill your own kid over this, why are you still here?

The one comfort I take out of the whole situation is that although these nut jobs kill their young and encourage all of like mind to not reproduce, I plan to have lots of kids. Hey, they're not reproducing, right? So they have to rely on propaganda and lies to bring more people to their side. On the other hand, one virile couple over the course of - oh let's say three generations - could conceivably (pun intended) add to the world (through their lineage) an exponentially greater number of well-adjusted conservative Christians than these two wackos could hope to brainwash in a century.

So you keep going to your marches, Toni. You keep lying down on the sidewalk and protesting meat and fur and cars and people and doing whatever else it is you lunatics do when you get bored. In the meanwhile, the wife and I will be propagating, which is hard work. To fuel our efforts, we'll be eating red meat and drinking milk. As often as possible, I'll kill that meat myself, with a gun that puts carbon into the atmosphere. And I'll teach my progeny to hunt and shoot. And they'll teach their kids. And in a hundred years when we're both dead and gone, maybe my great grandkids will be sitting around a fire after a long day afield (that means hunting) and one of them will mention in passing that great-grandpa used to write a little on the internet. And they'll break out the archives of this blog and all have a good laugh at the fact that people used to believe in something called "global warming."

Good grief.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

A Treatise on the Police State

I recently made a statement in another forum to the effect that I was disgusted by the Police State that America has become. I was challenged on the comment with the following:

2 problems... 1. would you like to be the police? 2. you cannot assume that everyone will make the same decisions as you would especially in dire situations. 3. perhaps you are talking about something else... because it is hard to get on an airplane. in which i agree with you. you cannot make rules against unknowable or on paranoia.

I think these questions provide an especially good opportunity to record some of my thoughts regarding this issue. The Police State has been (and will continue) to be on my mind - probably as a result of the ever-worsening conditions and our ever-eroding liberty.

I'll start with the third point. No, I wasn't referring to some particular symptom of the Police State. I am referring to American society as a whole. We are living in a Police State. There is plenty of opportunity for things to get far worse, but the present reality is that we are not free, and indeed we are increasingly less free. The observation about getting on airplanes is well put. Consider that air travel is merely a template for the rest of society, and you can see where we're headed. Cameras, checkpoints, random searches, biometric IDs, databases, surveillance. I don't think it's really necessary to belabor the point that things are getting worse.

The first numbered issue poses a question: "Would you like to be the police?"

I have two ways in which I will answer this question. Let me first state that I understand that the implied context of this question is, "The job of the police - to serve and protect - is dangerous and requires sacrifice. Would you really want a job where you put your life at stake every time you punch the clock? If you're not willing to do this job, why are you disgusted by those who are?"

Unfortunately, there is no short way to answer this question. I'll begin by stating that the stark reality is that the idea that it is solely the responsibility of the police to protect society is actually a very recent (and most unwelcome) development. (By recent, I mean 'within the last 50 or 60 years.) It's a direct result of the feminist movement's attempt to make the male obsolete. Protection used to be the job of the man. As part of the attempt to prove that the man is unneeded, the feminists have (successfully, I'm afraid) reassigned this responsibility to the State. Whereas it was previously common, accepted, and expected that men would be responsible for the protection of their families and those around them, it is now common, accepted, and expected that everyone should assume complete powerlessness in the presence of any threat and dial 911. Anyone who does otherwise - that is, anyone who takes responsibility for their own safety and well-being - is immediately suspect, subject to investigation for their actions and often labeled a vigilante. The State (by which I mean the police) always officially recommends that the public behave this way (helpless - dial 911), they always discourage the individual from taking responsibility for their own safety, and they always proclaim that they are the Only Ones qualified/properly trained/professional enough to bear arms and protect the people.

And day after day after day they disprove this ridiculous lie.

The underlined text in the above sentence is a link that will provide you hundreds and thousands of pieces of evidence that dismiss the absurd notion that the police are somehow more qualified than you or I to exercise the rights of self-defense and others-defense. These are everyday real-life documented stories taken from the news all around the country. The link will provide you with search results within a specific blog - The War on Guns. David Codrea - the blog's author - keeps a daily eye on the news and reports on these matters. He files each story with the key words 'Only Ones' because that's what the police purport to be - the only ones qualified, trained, etc.

With this in mind, I'll restate (several times) the question - "Would you like to be the police?"

- Would you like to enjoy special rights and priveliges not afforded to the general public?
- Would you like to truly enjoy the right to keep and bear arms - to be able to always carry a gun - especially in situations where the average joe is specifically prohibited from doing so and is therefore specifically vulernable to violent crime?
- Would you like access to firearms, armor, surveillance equipment, non-lethal self defense tools, knives, vehicles, and communications equipment not available to the public?
- Would you like to be exempted (by law) from virtually every prohibition that applies to the public?
- Would you like to have the guarantee that if you engage in criminal activity; negligently kill, injure, harass, intimidate or abuse an innocent person; negligently lose a firearm purchased with public tax dollars, or accidentally kill a co-worker that your name will be withheld from the public?
- Would you like to know that in any of the above situations, you will most likely be 'punished' with a paid vacation known as 'administrative leave.' Further, would you like to enjoy the guarantee that such violations will only be investigated by the same agency that employs you and not by an uninterested third party?
- Would you like to know that if anyone dares cross you, the full fury of the State will come down upon them?

These are just off the top of my head. The Only Ones archives are chocked-full of stories illustrating the fact that the police exist as a separate class of citizenry - above you and I, and not subject to the same laws or restraints that we are. Each story that illustrates the set-apart and protected nature of the police first illustrates that despite all their bluster and claims, they are no different than you or I. In fact, they are statistically far more likely to commit offenses/accidents/suicide with the same firearms that they so fiercely inisist we mere citizens are not qualified to wield.

To address the 2nd enumerated point, "You cannot assume that everyone will make the same decisions as you would especially in dire situations."

I guess my initial reaction is a shrug of the shoulders. Because one citizen cannot adequately protect himself is not a reason to deprive another citizen of his rights. Or perhaps you're wondering, 'But what about the man who is trying to stop a burglar and kills an innocent bystander?' In the first place, the police do that all the time. If you don't believe that statement, I challenge you to take a cursory survey of the link that I provided. It is quite common for the police to accidentally shoot an innocent. In the second place FREEDOM IS NOT SAFE. If we gave unrestricted access to firearms to all individuals who are not locked up in prison (which I strongly advocate) you would still have accidents, suicides, and "gun crimes." I think in the long-run society's restored ability to protect itself would drive down violent crime, but there is no denying that a certain portion of society will always abuse or mistreat the rights afforded to them. But that is not a reason to enslave everyone else.

The cold, harsh, slap-in-the-face truth is that we can trade away our freedom and sacrifice our liberty and give up our rights and we will never be one bit safer for it. The choice is not between freedom and safety.


We are moving rapidly toward the latter option.

Saturday, September 08, 2007

We're the Only Ones Being Picky Eaters Enough

The worst part about this story is that it's not listed as a Ridiculous Item of the Day or soemthing like that.

So if they served the burger to you or I, and we complained to the police, they would have still arrested her, right?

Stark, horrid evidence that there is no doubt - WE ARE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE.

It all makes me sick to my stomach...

Monday, September 03, 2007

This is for YOUR protection...

Alright, so I haven't posted here in months, but this seemed really post-worthy.

I have recently been pondering the unfortunate trend of our country towards a socialist police state, and as a result, I've been more tuned into things like this. Although, let's be honest - with headline coverage on, it was hard to miss. Edwards' genius plan to "fix" everything that's "wrong" with America is mandatory socialized health care, the costs of which get strapped on the backs of upper middle-class Americans as punishment for their success in life. (After all, they have to "do their part," right?)

So we're going to make it a crime to not go to the doctor? Lovely. I thought it was really nice the way he first states that the coverage is mandatory for everyone, and then he states that, "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK." If you are going to be in the system? You mean the mandatory system? I guess he really means, "If you are going to be an American."

Not to wish the years of my life away, but I can't wait until the baby-boomers are all dead. Ok, let me qualify that with the clause, 'in a political sense.' My parents and a lot of good friends are baby-boomers, and I'm certainly not wishing for the speed of their departure. But I heard it said the other day that the Boomers are going to whine, complain and moan all the way to the grave, and I think it's true. In fact, it's that very entitlement attitude that makes traitors like Edwards and Clinton viable candidates in a presidential election. There was a day when Americans would have laughed in the face of such tyrannical assertions as Edwards has just made. Prior to an election, such arrogant statements would have been political suicide. But the Boomers believe that it's the government's job to provide for them, and they are more than willing to sacrifice all their liberty (and everyone else's) to that cause.

I hold out hope that my generation and those after us will not accept tyranny. The state of public schrewls and the "accept the police state" mindset they push on our kids (see "lockdown drills" for evidence) robs me of some of that hope. Even so, I know several men who won't stand by and idly watch the US become what Great Britain has.

One day the Boomers will keel, and our country will be in ruins from a hundred socialist entitlement programs that will have sucked the people dry in the name of fairness, and the abusive police state will have assumed full control in the name of protecting us from ourselves. On that day, those of us who are left standing in the aftermath must have some plan to recover our country - some plan to take it back from the evil statists, collectivists and socialists who so seek to enslave us at every turn.

Start thinking.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Where the hell is the ACLU?

One more example of the Youth Reclamation Project enforcing their agenda to the point of prohibiting free speech.

Seriously. Where in the hell is the freaking ACLU on this? Oh, that's right - they're more like the Anti Christian Liberties Union.

Reverse the phrase on the kid's shirt to "Be gay, not happy," have a school ban that, and I'd bet my last dollar that the ACLU would be there.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

No Dissent Allowed

This article really just highlights the problem with the very notion of public schools.

The bottom line is that the Youth Reclamation Project (or Public Screwels, as Rush calls them) will not tolerate anyone deviating from their lefty propagandist agenda. I don't know that I would agree with what this guy was teaching, but I think it's interesting that the main thrust of the charges against him (at least as far as the article goes) is that he referenced the big bad Bible!

Homeschool, homeschool, homeschool is the answer I keep coming back to. The evil tyranny-enabling life forms that run the public education system in this country simply will not allow the truth to be taught, no matter what the subject. The way I see it, the only answer is to teach our own kids. It's one giant step we can take to reclaim the youth for our side.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Chalk One Up...

...for the good guys.

Finally the government takes a step in the right direction.

Someone I know postulates that this will go to the Supreme Court because there is a conflicting ruling from the Commies over in the Ninth Circuit.

Here's hoping. An individual interpretation of the 2A by the SCOTUS would be a landmark and could go far in reversing some of the unconstitutional garbage we've got on the books.

This is one tally mark on the wall...for now.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Pay up, Subjects

A California school district is trying to bill parents for each day that their kids miss school. The idea is that the schools miss out on funding when the kids are absent.

Good! Maybe they'll get bled dry and someone will have to develop a Constitutional education system.

Sometimes my wife tells me I should run for office. I figure the only logical starting point is city government, right? I don't have any connections. So let's say I could get elected to a city council - just for kicks.

I'd never get any farther than one term at the local level, because every week I'd be proposing that we shut down every public school in the town.

I think public schools are a horrible idea, and I think the end result (ignorant, troubled kids) proves it. I get pretty riled up every time some politician starts talking about public school teachers being "heroes." But I digress. I loathe every aspect of the Youth Reclamation Project, and the despicable, pretentious attitude exhibited by this group of California wardens is just one more log on the fire.

We're The Only Ones Who Can Deprive You of Your Property Enough

To review:
1. They pull him over going 111 mph.
2. He has some pot in the car.
3. He has some guns in the car.
4. They arrest him, confiscate the pot, and confiscate the guns.
5. No mention is made of the weapons being either illegal in nature or illegally obtained.

So why did they take his guns? And why does the MSM report it like it's a normal, healthy thing to do? The guns had nothing to do with the crime, nor were they illegally possessed (according to the article.)

Why? Because they can. And no one will stop them. After all, they're the Only Ones.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

"We Don't Really Like Guns"

I have some good friends who are in the process of adopting a child. During a recent interview, they were being asked a series of general questions. One was, of course, "Do you have any firearms in the home?" The answer was no, to which the woman replied, "That's good - we don't really like guns anyway."

Why not? Is she afraid an adoptive parent might try and protect their adopted child from any one of several threats which could assail them? Or is she just so cowed with fear because of all the horse**** propaganda that she's been fed that her brain Pavlonianly responds with "BAD" every time someone says "GUN"? (Is Pavlonianly a word?)

Anyway, I thought it was terribly sad that a senseless, emotionally generated response that is in no way supported by any facts, evidence or logic can be used to potentially restrict good, decent people from adopting. A cursory internet search turned up pretty much what I suspected - this is a fairly standard treatment of the issue.

It really makes me wonder how I would respond should my wife and I ever try to adopt.

"Your damn right I do. I've got lots of 'em. And I keep the 1911 on the night stand loaded with Hornady XTP hollowpoints. Don't worry - the kid will be safe here. Any dirtbag that breaks in this house will be carried out full of forty-five caliber holes and less a little blood and soft tissue. And when the kid gets bigger, I'll teach him how to do the same thing."

Ann Coulter

No link necessary. She called John Edwards a faggot, and now she's getting raked over the coals once again. Rather than delving into semantics, I'd like to offer a much deeper insight that my wife provided while I was ranting about this to her.

The scary thing - and it's really chilling once you think about it - is that The Standard by which the media now judges public figures is that person's views on homosexuality. Think it's a sin? You're a hate monger. Dare to call names? You may as well be marching Jews into an oven.

What's worse is that we've noticed this behavior creeping into the world of private interactions. We were recently talking to someone about our church. The denomination is entrenched in a controversy over gays. The first thing this person mentioned was that our denomination was dealing with the gay issue and that he wanted to know what we thought. He said he (of course!) had no problem with it. And the implied message is that there is a problem if we do think it's wrong.

This attitude, coupled with laws like Chet Culver's anti-bullying-piss-upon-the-First-Amendment effort are laying the groundwork to outlaw ANY expression of an opinion that could be labelled "anti-gay."

Think it's a sin? Call it a sin? Have fun in jail.

If something doesn't change, the above three sentences will come to pass.

Hometown Trifecta

Story one: Iowa Governor Chet Culver signs Anti-Bullying Law

Great. Real great. Get the Hitler Youth all nice and conditioned-like so they're willing and ready to do your bidding later in life. Make sure they understand from an early age that the government owns every aspect of their life - even how they interact with classmates. Instilling a healthy sense of fear and getting them used to goose-stepping is important, unless you want them doing something radical later in life - like starting a revolution and wrenching power from your evil hands.

Culver has, in one fell swoop, proven himself to be the snivelling dictator-wannabe I suspected from the start.

Story two: The same moron believes the government should have a heavy-handed presence in private health decisions.

It's the same old story from the same old liberal bag of tricks. Want to control the people? Do it through taxes. Crap like this makes me want to take up smoking just to flip the bird to Police-State politicians like this jackass. I love it how they use the very words, "...saving lives." Sure thing. Seat belt laws, gun control, cigarette taxes, socialized health care, regulated speech, regulated religion, regulated press. You can make any given one of those rights-violations (and believe me, the ones that are not yet fully accomplished are on their to-do list) into an issue about "saving lives."

Governor Culver, freedom isn't safe, you traitorous moron.

And finally, story three proves that it's no better on this side of the river: Mike Boland proposes a law making it illegal to smoke in a car where a child is present.

Bottom line: We don't trust you to make your own decisions as a parent. And in fact, we think it's better for your kid to deprive them of a parent for a month than it is to allow them to be exposed to second-hand smoke.

I've gotta hand it to them - these anti-smoking Nazis have done a really good job of conditioning the American public to accept a looming government presence in their private lives - just so long as it saves lives.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Hilarious Hypocrisy

I will, of course, jump all over this one, since it discredits that moron Al Gore.

I personally believe that the disproven lie that is referred to as Global Warming is an important tool in the kit of those who would control us. And the fact that Al Gore is a talker but not a walker further illustrates his self-serving agenda. Position the populace for control, and enjoy your comfortable lifestyle while you're at it.

As we were wasting a few hours of our lives on Sunday night watching the Oscars, I asked my wife if she thought he drove to Hollywood from Tennessee in a Prius. This article gives a pretty good indication what the answer to that question might be.

Self-loathing of the human race is integral to the liberal/Nanny-state mindset. If we're not a blight on the face of the planet, indeed the very cause of it's imminent and unstoppable demise, how can they generate enough guilt to use against us when they need to steal more of our freedom?

First Amendment Flush

Not that this sort of thing is unheard of, but it's always good to bring attention to Rights violations. Note that the city uses something reasonable sounding like a "sign code" to urinate all over the Bill of Rights. Such an ordinance blatantly violates the First Amdendment, but everyone accepts it as par for the course, and no one gets too upset.

If it goes to court, some Constitution-violating precedent will be cited if they decide to take the city's side (which I anticipate if it gets that far.)

Would you like your neighbor painting slogans all over their house? Me neither, probably. Then again, the Libertarian in me might rejoice, despite the ugliness.

Since no one cares about this, and no one cared when they declared free-speech blackout dates, will anyone care when they say it's hate speech to say that Jesus is the living Son of God?