WHO ORDERED THE GRUEL?

Unlike most other nations today, in the United States there exists considerable controversy surrounding income-tax. It is asserted to be unconstitutional by some. The 16th Amendment, which created income-tax in 1913, is said to have never been ratified. And, there has even been reference to taxes in this country amounting to extortion. Without addressing the constitutional or Amendment issues here, let’s assume for the following presentation that income-tax is lawful; that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I’m not trying to assign legitimacy where, perhaps, there is none. I’m only trying to show that no matter what one’s position is, that these other arguments may be moot by present circumstance.

What brought this to my attention in the first place were interviews between the press and some of our legislators of late. When asked if taxes essentially amounted to extortion, these legislators, obviously not having a grasp of law and Constitution, stated that in this nation taxes are voluntary. But when prompted, that if a citizen were to voluntarily ‘not pay their taxes’ they would be subject to fines and incarceration, these officials respond “Oh sure, you have to pay your taxes, but it’s voluntary.”

Since there obviously exist some systemic ignorance here with respect to taxes, both on the part of the citizenship and our legislators, I thought perhaps, some clarity should be brought to the matter.

I would explain it like this. Paying one’s taxes would be similar to taking your significant-other out on the town for some dinner. You and your beloved stroll up and down Main Street and end up at Jean Pierre’s Restaurant. You’re met at the door by the maitre-de, who politely shows you to your table and hands you your menus.

Upon his return, you take the lead and order for both of you. You order the fine Bordeaux; ‘crystal glasses please.’ And for the main course, you order the Chateaubriand for two. Naturally, you wind it up with the Grand Marnier Soufflé for dessert.

Now, after you and the beloved have enjoyed a pleasant evening and a fine dining experience, the maitre-de inquires if there will be anything else. You tell him no and here’s the punch-line.

Paying your taxes in a free society, such as the United States provides, is no more extortion than the maitre-de expecting that you will now pay for the dinner that you have just ordered and consumed.

No one made you enter his restaurant. You could have picked from an assortment of others. No one put a gun to your head and demanded that you order the most expensive wine, dinner and dessert. You exercised your free will. Therefore, it can in no way be construed as extortion, when you are expected to pay for the services you ordered and received.

Where we get confused in this nation today, especially for those of us born on this ship-of-state, is that we don’t even realize that we’re on a ship; one of the freest body-politics in the world. There is no one holding us here. We are free to go at any time we wish. And, should we see another ship-of-state (i.e. England, Zimbabwe, Australia, etc.) more to our liking, then we are free to ask them for permission to board their ship; and then become subject to their laws (taxes). But as long as we’re on this ship-of-state, then it is expected that we should comply with its laws.

And here’s the rub. As long as we get: the fine wine; crystal glasses; tender steak with all the trimmings; soufflé; served in a pleasant environment by a cordial and accommodating staff; then we have gotten precisely what we ordered. Hence; it’s time to fork over the dough, as it were. But what if we didn’t get, or more accurately, aren’t getting what we bargained for. You see, in the United States of America, we are supposed to have the most delicate balance of liberty and governance. Our Constitution guarantees us the heartiest of protections of our individual liberties. And although there’s no guarantee of soufflé, hard work and said protections can and usually do afford us some of the greatest opportunity for sweet individual happiness.

Now here are the cold hard facts. What we are actually getting today in terms of rights, liberties and protections, in this body-politic formerly known as the United States of America, figuratively speaking, is a glass of dirty water, a tepid bowl of gruel and a mint-flavored tooth-pick. So, unless someone ordered gruel, we have a problem here. The menu (Constitution) clearly articulates; fine wine; tender steak; and a selection of excellent desserts. So, when Jean Pierre (IRS) shows up with his bill, belligerently demanding payment for such swill, while your greatly dissatisfied significant-other is stabbing you violently with her mint-flavored tooth-pick under the table, then you can see how such demand for payment can be construed as extortion.

Today we Americans, whether we realize we’re on a ship-of-state or not, are literally imbibing dirty water, choking on cold gruel and constantly waiting for the dessert we have been promised, but never shows up. Rights have been relegated to the privileged; Liberties are being removed by the day; and those Protections granted us under our Bill of Rights, given this government’s tyrannical nature, are non-existent. But just like clockwork, this government demands payment with no regard for services rendered; or in this case, denied.

If one is unawares as to what they ordered versus what they’re getting, then out of their own ignorance, they are simply being taken advantage of. A fool and his monies are soon parted! But for those of us who recognize the old ‘Bait & Switch’ scam, we have been defrauded.

This brings us to the obvious. What free man would pay for services or commodities he knows he’s not getting or going to get? The answer: None! Which begs the follow-up question: Why are we continuing to pay taxes at all?

Irrespective of taxes’ constitutionality or the legitimacy of the 16th Amendment, to continue to pay monies without regard for the ‘Quid Pro Quo’, what one is supposed to receive in return, is to give up one’s hard-earned monies, not to mention liberty (time), for no expectation of anything in return at all. Further, to knowingly submit to such oppressive taxation just because one is threatened with incarceration, is to legitimize both the fraud scheme and the criminal act brought to insure it; extortion. Yes, in the eyes of the Law, when an individual acquiesces to such extortion, they are creating tacit ex-post facto law; assigning retroactive legitimacy to what previously was unlawful. How? Because, by continuing to pay said extortion, we are willfully granting the tax, extortion itself and the resulting loss of our own free-will, our silent consent.

It takes but a cursory examination of the menu, our Constitution, to see the extremes to which this government has violated it. Likewise, it takes no effort at all to see the rapidly diminishing liberties and monies that we the People are experiencing today. To an ever increasing extent, both the apparent and hidden taxes that are propounded upon us, are placing an ever greater demand on the hours in a day and the days in the week that we work to afford them; government that is. Costing us, the people this government was supposed to serve; not only the monies necessary to enjoy our freedoms; not just the limited time in our lives with which to enjoy them; but freedom itself!

So, if you’re going to continue to be extorted, I need to know:

WHO ORDERED THE GRUEL?

Brian Kilcullen
Enemies in War,

When it comes to Governors never back an attorney for the office. To be blunt, they kiss butt way too much. Wyoming Gun Owners points out the obvious with a very informative piece that outlines the threat to states rights, as well as the federal mandate based in mysandry and ex post facto law.

While Wyoming did go a long way toward correcting a fundamentally flawed law it did not go nearly far enough. Nor do I see any way that the law that was passed could, or would, be recognized by other states. Or that a person that had been convicted in another state could use Wyoming residency to have their rights restored in Wyoming. Read on, and I hope that Wyoming Gun Owners start allowing comments at some point. At least from dues paying members such as myself.

By Anthony Bouchard
The headline should read “Gun owners beware of formers U.S Attorneys”. But it’s best that you decide…

In 2004, The Sovereign State of Wyoming enacted legislation that established a procedure to expunge misdemeanor convictions “for the purposes of restoring any firearm rights lost”.

This was specifically to aid Wyoming citizens in restoring gun rights if they had a misdemeanor such as domestic violence on their record. The NRA backed Lautenberg legislation bans gun ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Wyoming legislators recognized there was nothing to protect individuals that were erroneously convicted.

Full Story HERE

I’m sure all the legal scholars populating the ranks of the Teabag movement will fully appreciate congressman Nadler’s objection to the prohibitive Congressional initiative regarding proposed suspension of funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”) that unfortunately violates Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

I’d be highly amused to see the result of rounding up a hundred (a thousand or even 1.8 million) “teabaggers” who are endlessly nattering on about the Constitution and asking them to explain what a bill of attainder is…

I’m a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, and while I do support what follows in the you tube presentation? I’ll take this a bit farther. Call your mayor, and ask why they support ex post facto law. Call your N.R.A. delegate, and ask them why they support ex post facto law. Ask all of them why they support the taking of unalienable rights for life for less than felonious acts, or sever mental disability. If they are not pounding the ears of Senators and Congress-persons about this issue then they are supporting it in a de facto manner.

Ask those same people why American citizens have to pay a tax in order to possess or purchase effective weaponry when dealing with gangs and other assorted types of bad people. Slingshots are a poor choice when facing full auto weapons.

Join, and support Gun Owners of America. They don’t trade away your rights for political expediency!

As I have posted elsewhere, Ken Salazar is a nice guy. He appears to work very hard at pleasing as many people and causes as he possibly can. That, however, is not leadership. Leadership is about making hard choices based upon personal beliefs and solid ethics. It’s decidedly not about pleasing groups or popularity. That is “leading” by way of polls and political correctness. Soon, the impostor in chief will submit a nominee for the Supreme Court. The obama has a lot of political debts left to be paid off. Not the least of which is the Latino contingent. So will obama toss the Latinos a bone or continue to hold them out in front of a bus where they will be easy to toss under as a matter of political expediency? The obama also has some real serious debt politically in Colorado. Two birds with one stone perhaps? As much as I disagree with obama I’m not about to call him stupid when it comes to obfuscation and related “skills.”

I’m thinking that the heavy hitters in Colorado may have hit a home run on this one. After all, being a Justice on the Supreme Court isn’t at all about intestinal fortitude, and hasn’t been for quite some time, if indeed it ever was. It is about turning any argument away from the true issue at hand. Witness the recent decisions in the Heller case, and another having to do with domestic violence that was really about ex post facto law. The Supreme Court was at best disingenuous, and in the worst sense kowtowing to political correctness.

Based upon the preceeding realizations of truth I whole heartedly support Ken Salazar for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He would fit right in.

As I opened up my email this morning I saw where Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed a new law that would have allowed CCW permit holders to forgo yet even more background checks. The article in the Denver Post is surprisingly balanced. A very rare thing for that organization these days. So rare in fact that I have to believe that the Commissars playing at the propaganda, I mean editing game, must have been off sipping lattes as they listened to their fearless leader address the folks at Harvard University when this story hit the wire.

That said, any time that I see Tom Mauser praising something red flags immediately go up the flagpole. He is, after all, a convicted criminal, that supports the taking of civil rights for others convicted of misdemeanors and infractions. As well as ex post facto law. He’s a hypocrite at best, and full blown immoral if taken in the worse sense. His debate against Ari Armstrong on television one night that I watched about a related issue was an eye opener to just how warped his thinking truly is. The comments from his allies on this blog and others over the years reveal just how ill they all are with the affliction of Hopolophobia.

I found the most interesting, and enlightening aspect about this particular issue not so much in the article, but in the comments. Be sure to link over, and read through them. One method of spotting “plants” that I have developed over the years is the phrase “While I generally support…” Insert the right to bear arms, abortion, small government, freedom of speech, and myriad other positions what those people really are is the exact opposite. Hence, I call them plants. Their only reason to being a part of any discussion is to camouflage their true, anti freedom, anti Bill of Rights positions.

This entire argument is not, I repeat not, about Gun Control. That is, at best, a Red Herring. It is about the Bill of Rights, the Colorado Constitution, and Unalienable Rights. Take any part of the package from the whole, and what you have left is a pathway to tyranny. The Democrat / Socialist strategy is the “Death of a thousand cuts.” Bill Ritter just rubbed salt into many of those cuts that have already been inflicted upon the American people, and the people of Colorado in particular. Greg Brophy, and others tried to apply a bandage to the bleeding, and I applaud those that at least tried to help staunch the flow of life from the tree of liberty.

RITTER VETOES GUN BILL

Today, The New York Times published a well-written and lucid resignation email from Jake DeSantis, Executive Vice President at AIG Financial Products, to AIG’s CEO, Edward Liddy. 

DeSantis’s letter is the cold water of reason that Congress, the White House and the mainstream media should have been pouring on the raging fires of populist anger over the AIG bonus issue, but did not. 

FOLKS, THE BONUS ISSUE IS A DISTRACTION.  GUESS WHAT?

YOU’RE FALLING FOR IT.

The money that made a great big sucking sound as it flew out of collective your 401(k) plans did not turn into bonuses for AIG FP executives.  It actually went into the coffers of a select few hedge funds and other sophisticated traders (the so-called “smart” money) who have played this market so well that if stockpicking were craps, you would swear they were using loaded dice.

The country should be furious about the persistence of naked shorting (technically illegal but not enforced), unchecked insider trading and rumours of market manipulation, among many, many other things.

The rage over the AIG bonus issue has spawned all kinds of stupidity, from the asinine tours of AIG executives’ homes to more pernicious violations of constitutional rights, such as the House’s 90% bonus tax  bill (see for yourself–it violates Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution). 

Seriously–with just that one bill, the House of Representatives morphed into the Argentine Congress, circa 2001.

This nonsense does accomplish three things–none of which are good for the country:

1.   Focusing collective wrath on a handful of executives shifts blame over the economic crisis away from Congress and, to a lesser extent, the White House to “rich bankers” (whom everyone already hated anyway) and executives (whom everyone hates except when they deify them, a la Jack Welch).  This takes the pressure off the government to effect meaningful reforms.

2.   Public grandstanding and hearings on the bonus issue distract the public from discovering some of the larger systemic issues that are at the root of our problems–for example, as Jon Stewart suggested, that the capital markets as currently played by the “smart” money are a lot like a Madoff-Ponzi scheme (check your 401(k) statements if you doubt me).  This is key because Congress, at least, lacks the political will and intelligence to address the real problems anyway.

3.    Taking action on the bonus issue lets the victims of this crisis vent their anger in a safe way.  Once the bonuses are returned or otherwise neutralized, and the beast of public opinion feels content and appeased, it will return to its lair of ignorance for a nap, when the public should be out rioting in the streets forcing Washington to address the real issues.

Looks like it’s working.

By now you probably have heard all of the uproar over the bonuses paid within AIG.  Did the individuals deserve bonuses of that size – I can’t say.  I do know that financial derivatives are extremely complex and asking someone not involved in setting them up to close them down would be an unwise business decision.

Another unwise decision is the appalling rush in Congress to tax the “ill-gotten gains” by passing a confiscatory tax of between 75 and 90 percent.  I’m not a lawyer but I do remember learning in my high school civics class about Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.  Whether or not Congress can legally tax the bonus is not the major concern.  The major concern is the chilling effect their actions will have on businesses and financial institutions who might have considered asking for bailout funds.

As a small business owner and as an individual who has been reasonably high up the corporate food chain, I can tell you that I would be reluctant to take funds knowing that my business decisions would be placed under a magnifying glass by individuals who in many (most?) cases have never made a true business decision in their professional lives.  They don’t understand what it takes to make a payroll and certainly have little experience in recruiting and retaining qualified employees.

While they have caused many a layoff they probably have never had the responsibility for carrying one out.  They have rarely if ever been to a job fair to see the look of a hungry job seeker.  But yet they consider themselves to have the knowledge and “expertise” required to say who should be compensated and how.  This is the “benevolent uncle” offering on Monday to bankroll your clothing store and then on Wednesday saying that you sold a yellow tie last month and therefore he’s taking over the store.  If you considered that possibility you would never have taken the help.

Another chilling story has to do with apparent plans by the Obama Administration to try to set executive pay for comanies that DID NOT accept bailout monies.  Fox News reports

“The regulations would reportedly cover all financial establishments, not just those receiving federal bailout aid and would likely work to ensure executive pay was in line with the financial interest of the company .” Also, “The changes could go into effect through regulations, not legislation … .”

So the Administration is now considering setting pay scales via fiat without any public discourse, debate, or input.  And consider the necessary bureaucracy to determine what constitutes pay “in line with the financial interest of the company.”  If this happens, it will be an unnecessary and dangerous precedent and does harken to socialism.  One prays this is NOT the change we hoped for … .

kab

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/03/21/bank-ceos-push-legislation-tax-bonuses/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/21/aig.dodd/index.html

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/banks-brain-drain-bonus-tax-law/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/03/22/report-obama-administration-seeks-regulate-executive-pay/100days/

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Top Wall Street executives reacted harshly on Friday to proposed legislation that would punitively tax bonuses awarded to employees at firms receiving federal assistance.

Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Ken Lewis issued strongly worded internal memos about the proposed tax legislation, according to the online edition of The Wall Street Journal, while J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon sought to reassure his top executives that the firm is engaging with lawmakers on the matter.
The legislation, passed by the House on Thursday, would impose a 90% tax on bonuses for employees making over $250,000 a year at companies receiving at least $5 billion in federal aid under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
Citi’s Pandit criticized the proposed legislation in a memo to employees on Friday, arguing that it could result in the firm losing top talent.

Original movie poster.

“The work we have all done to try to stabilize the financial system and to get this economy moving again would be significantly set back if we lose our talented people because Congress imposes a special tax on financial-services employees,” he wrote. [Pandit's full memo]

…snip…

Bank of America’s Lewis, for his part, said that he’s written to lawmakers about why the proposed tax legislation “is of such grave concern to us,” adding that it has “the potential to damage the ability of the government to engineer a financial recovery.” [Lewis's full memo]

The tax legislation emerged in reaction to news earlier this week that employees of insurance giant American International Group Inc., which has been propped up by heavy government assistance, received $165 million in bonuses.

The legislation was introduced by House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

From Trading Markets:

The U.S. Senate will take up bipartisan legislation the week of March 23 crafted by top members of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee addressing the issue of bonuses at American International Group Inc. and other firms receiving federal assistance, after an attempt to push a bill passed March 19 by the U.S. House through the upper chamber failed to clear a procedural hurdle.

Just hours after the House adopted H.R. 1586 by a 328-93 margin, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., attempted to have the bill adopted by the Senate under a procedure known as unanimous consent. The bill would levy a 90% tax on bonuses given by companies that have received at least $5 billion in federal assistance, including not only AIG but also such firms as GMAC LLC, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America.

…snip…

However, the vote was derailed by an objection from Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who suggested the bill might run afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibitions on ex post facto laws — those that apply retroactively to behavior before the law existed — and bills of attainder, those that target specific individuals for punishment.

The upper chamber will instead take up the Compensation Fairness Act, introduced by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Co-sponsored with Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, S. 651 would impose a 35% excise tax on bonuses granted by employers who received at least $100 million in funds from the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program. A separate 35% tax would be applied to those receiving the bonuses. Small banks would be exempt from the rule.

…snip…

Meanwhile, the House Financial Services Committee will mark up legislation calling for even more stringent restrictions on compensation at bailed out firms. Introduced by Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., the would prohibit “any bonus payments by companies who have received capital investments under the TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] program and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act until these investments are repaid in full.”

…snip…

The measure would prohibit payment of any bonus to any employee, including those agreed to by contract prior to federal assistance, as well as prohibiting “unreasonable or excessive” compensation, as defined by the Treasury Department. It also would prohibit any supplemental payment to an employee that wasn’t set in accordance with “performance-based standards.”

Both [Federal Reserve Chairman Ben] Bernanke and [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner have been under fire in recent days about whether they knew, and failed to disclose or prevent, AIG from providing hundreds of millions in bonuses to company executives, including $165 million in retention bonuses to those at the company’s Financial Products unit. AIGFP was a unit that wrote credit default swaps and other derivatives that ultimately imperiled AIG’s solvency when it was unable to meet tens of billions of dollars in collateral calls following a series of rating downgrades in September 2008.

Geithner, who has said he would deduct the $165 million from a new $30 billion standby equity capital facility the Treasury agreed to provide the company earlier this month, also has been facing questions about his role in altering an amendment to the $787.2 billion stimulus package passed by Congress last month that would have capped compensation retroactively at firms receiving more than $500 million in government assistance.

The amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act initially was proposed by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., based on a similar amendment by Snowe and Wyden. However, Dodd altered language in the final amendment so that it only applied prospectively. Recently, he has claimed the change came at the behest of Geithner and the Obama administration, who were concerned about litigation and potential constitutional challenges.

With his cabinet secretary under fire, Obama has looked to absorb some of the blame from Geithner, telling a town hall meeting in California “we’re going to do everything we can to deal with these specific bonuses.”

On March 19, AIG turned over details of bonuses it has paid to New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who had subpoenaed the information.

…snip…

Similar subpoenas were handed down by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, where AIGFP’s U.S. operation was based, and 19 other states joined New Jersey in filing requests for the details. In March 18 testimony before Congress, Chief Executive Officer Ed Liddy related physical threats he has received in the past week, and was reluctant to provide Frank with the information without a promise of confidentiality.

Wyoming took a giant step forward by changing the effects of a law that was passed without a vote, in the dark of the night by the forces of mysandry and political correctness. Just this past week the cowards of the Supreme Court failed to address the immoral as well as blatantly un-Constitutional ex post facto Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act.

CHEYENNE — Wyoming residents accused or convicted of domestic violence may find it easier to regain their federal gun rights thanks to recent action by the state Legislature.

~snip~

Freudenthal said he’s comfortable that judges will be able to review people’s conduct for five years after a conviction before considering their expungement requests. “I think that gives you a pretty good chance to look at it, and evaluate their conduct,” he said Thursday.

Full Story

As always, the devil will be in the details. The much hailed Heller verses D.C. Supreme Court ruling was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as I posted about at the time. The last paragraph of the ruling has opened up more onerous attacks on the Second Amendment than has generally been seen in the past. The latest ruling utterly denied the ex post facto aspects of the non-felony Domestic Violence lifetime gun ban, and now the political shenanigans of Speaker Pelosi will again thwart the Constitutional protections granted to all Americans in the Bill of Rights.

Senate Repeals D.C. Gun Ban By Large Vote
– But the fight in the House is just beginning

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Monday, March 2, 2009

By a resounding vote of 62 to 36 last week, the U.S. Senate has approved
an amendment, offered by Senator John Ensign of Nevada, to repeal the
D.C. gun ban.

Congratulations!

But the battle is not over.

This week, the House will take up the D.C. voting legislation. And
anti-gun Speaker Nancy Pelosi is angling to impose a “gag
rule” on the
House, so that D.C. gets its unconstitutional representative, while
continuing its draconian anti-gun laws (like microstamping).

So here’s the deal: The House will be asked to consider a
“rule” which
establishes the time for debate and provides for which amendments may be
considered — and which may not.

It is expected that the Pelosi rule will seek to deny the House any vote
on the D.C. gun ban and thereby strip the repeal of the ban from the
House bill.

So what we are asking you to do is to write and/or call your congressman
and demand that he oppose any rule that strips the D.C. gun ban repeal
from the D.C. voting bill.

Just to remind you of how draconian the D.C. gun law is:

* Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller declaring the law to
be unconstitutional, D.C. made a few cosmetic changes which will, as a
practical matter, allow it to continue to deny its citizens the right to
keep and bear arms.

* Then, the City Council passed a whole series of new anti-gun measures.
These include a requirement that most guns used for self-defense
“microstamp” fired casings in two places with a “unique
serial number.”

Aside from being ineffectual with respect to stolen guns or crimes where
the brass has not been left behind, this microstamping provision is
intended to make guns so expensive that they won’t be available anywhere
– including your state.

ACTION: Write your Representative and urge him or her in the strongest
terms to oppose any rule which will strip the gun ban repeal from the
D.C. voting bill.

You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the
pre-written e-mail message below.

You can also call him or her toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Representative:

This week, when the House takes up the D.C. voting legislation, please
vote against any rule that strips the Senate’s pro-gun language and/or
imposes a “gag rule” on members of the House.

Just to remind you of how virulently anti-gun the D.C. gun law is:
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller declaring the law to be
unconstitutional, D.C. made a few cosmetic changes which will, as a
practical matter, allow it to continue to deny its citizens the right to
keep and bear arms.

But, in addition, the City Council passed a whole series of new anti-gun
measures. These include a requirement that most guns used for
self-defense “microstamp” fired casings in two places with a
“unique
serial number.”

Aside from being ineffectual with respect to stolen guns or crimes where
the brass has not been left behind, this microstamping provision is
intended to make guns so expensive that they won’t be available anywhere
– including my state.

I urge you, in the strongest terms, to oppose any rule that makes it
impossible for you to vote on the D.C. gun ban repeal.

Sincerely,

The Brady Bunch once again shows it’s colors with it’s latest press release. The usual ballyhoo of self aggrandizement as well as hypocrisy. The National Rifle Association jumped right on it as might be expected. What the NRA failed to recognize as usual, is their own failings when it comes to really supporting the Constitution of the United States. In any case enjoy the dog and pony show that follows.

source

It is a simple matter of fact, beyond dispute, that for years prior to passage of the Brady Act, the organization now known as the Brady Campaign called for a waiting period on handgun sales and vigorously opposed the establishment of the National Instant Check System (NICS). The anti-gun group, when known as Handgun Control, Inc., ranted and raved against instant check legislation proposed by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) in the late 1980s, and by Rep. Harley O. Staggers (D-W. Va.) in 1991.

While NRA strongly opposed the Brady Act because of its five-day waiting period, when Congress passed the Brady Act in 1993, it contained a provision authorizing its waiting period on dealer handgun sales only until a NICS could be established (applicable to all dealer firearm sales). The final bill required that the NICS become operational within five years. As it turned out, Brady’s prized waiting period, which Brady claimed could reduce so-called “crimes of passion” (though by the group’s own admission no data existed to support such a theory) was abolished after only four years and nine months, having taken effect in February 1994, and having been replaced by the NICS in November 1998.

President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Act in November 1993, however, so in November 2008 the Brady Campaign released a 15-year anniversary propaganda paper praising itself and–you guessed it–calling for a federal law prohibiting private sales of firearms, not just those at gun shows, but all private sales. What they don’t say, of course, is that if private sales are prohibited, they will immediately call for the FBI to retain records on all firearm transactions run through the NICS.

The title of Brady’s anniversary propaganda? Get this: “Brady Background Checks: 15 Years of Saving Lives.” Brady checks? These are the same instant checks that Brady has opposed for 20 years, and which have been conducted for the last 10 years, instead of the waiting period that was in place for less than five years before! Barack Obama is not the only one who has “audacity.”

Adding to their lie, Brady claims “the National Rifle Association (NRA) fought long and hard to block Brady background checks.” While NRA opposes waiting periods, it supported NICS, and Brady worked hard to block it. And in the end, NRA’s proposal carried the day.

Adding further to the lie, is Brady’s pretense that the Brady Act is the reason that violent crime has declined in recent years. The Act “has been a resounding success by stopping more than 1.6 million potentially dangerous people from purchasing a gun from a licensed gun dealer,” the group claims.

The reality is something much different. First of all, as the FBI states in its annual national crime report (www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/about/variables_affecting_crime.html), a variety of factors determine the type and volume of crime, and none of these factors is guns, gun ownership, or gun laws. And the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, National Academy of Sciences, National Institutes of Justice, and others have studied gun control and found no evidence that it reduces crime at home or abroad.

Secondly, the nation’s violent crime rate began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act took effect. And violent crime committed with weapons other than guns has declined, as well as violent crime with guns–the only weapons requiring a background check. This is largely due to tougher criminal justice policies imposed in the states during the 1990s, such as mandatory sentencing and reduction of probation and parole of violent criminals–precisely what NRA has advocated for years.

Thirdly, Brady incorrectly assumes that denying gun sales must necessarily decrease crime, because it believes guns are the cause of crime and it opposes the use of guns for defense against crime. However, since 1991, the number of new guns sold to private citizens has increased by 70 million, and total violent crime has decreased 38 percent, including a 43 percent decrease in murder. Let’s not forget also the deterrent factor posed against criminals by the Right-to-Carry laws now in effect in 40 states.

Brady also claims that before the Brady Act, “gun traffickers had it easy” with “new handguns bought easily over-the-counter in states with weak gun laws.” The fact is, however, that prior to the Brady Act, the 18 states and the District of Columbia that already had Brady-like laws delaying the acquisition of firearms–including waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, and license requirements–accounted for 63 percent of the nation’s violent crimes. Therefore, the Brady Act–particularly during the waiting period phase favored by the Brady Campaign–never had an effect on jurisdictions where most violent crimes occur.

Naturally, the media have reported Brady’s claims as gospel. But otherwise, the anniversary propaganda is little more than a pathetic attempt by a decreasingly significant group whose agenda has been rejected time and again, and whose views are ever further removed from the mainstream of public opinion.

Although there is little chance that an American student will ever hear anything other than approval from their teachers in regard to the legal procedures at the War Trials held at Nuremberg, the fact of the matter is that they were contrary to our own system of law and the general thrust of Anglo-Saxon law, as it developed in the United States of America. You won’t hear that from your law professors at any law department at any university or college in America–except soto voce. Here, then, is the truth from unimpeachable sources. Please consider:

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, one of America’s most respected ‘liberal’ thinkers had harsh words for the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials: ‘I thought at the time and still think,’ he wrote, ‘that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created expost facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.’

“U.S. Rear Admiral H. Lamont Pugh, a former Navy Surgeon General and Commanding Officer of the National Naval Medical Center thought likewise. He wrote: ‘I thought the trials in general bordered upon international lunacy. I thought it particularly unfortunate, inappropriate, ill-conceived and dupably injudicious that the United States should have been in the leading role as prosecutors and implementators of the trials of German participants or principals.’ “    [THE FACTS--AND THE MYTHS--ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST, Andrew F Carter, p.18]

I thought that it would be useful to associate the phrase “international lunacy” and “international communism.” The admiral, here cited, may have had that in the back of his mind. Be that as it may, let’s proceed with this citation. Attend:

“Even Robert Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal told President Harry Truman in a letter dated October 12, 1945 that: [The Allies] ‘have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of  [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggrssive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.‘ “    [supra]

It is instructive that our leaders always use words such as “French” and “Russian” (as do the media), when the impelling agent and/or controlling element driving the vengeful, hateful, destructive and often criminal actions are Jews. Be that as it may, these are not the last words on Nuremberg by a long shot. Consider:

“Although the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials have become a mammoth event in history, not all of those who participated came away impressed with the execution of ‘justice.’

“For example, Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as the presiding judge in the trial of German generals told the Chicago Tribune on February 23, 1948, ‘If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here. The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident.’

“According to the judge, ‘The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome…Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.

” ‘Most of the evidence in thr trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.’

“Wennerstrum left Nuremberg ‘with a feeling that justice has been denied.’ “    [supra]

Now, the judges reference could hardly be to any other newcomers to America than to Jews. I assume that his reference to the  “imbedded hatreds” is a rather cryptic reference to the torturing of German prisoners, including the breaking of teeth, bone and bursting of soft tissue associated with male genitalia. Those who doubt that those “wonderful, sweet , intellectual people” could do such things are so ignorant and naive as to warrant the assignment of a chaperone to keep them from misguided disaster. Please pay careful attention to the following citation:

“Is it just possible that the American investigators during the Dachau war crimes were somewhat biased and had their own agenda?

“The legal advisor to the court was Col. A. H. Rosenfeld. The chief of the War Crimes Committee was Lt. Col. Burton Ellis. His assisstants were Raphael Shumaker, Robert E. Byrnes, William Perl, Morris Ellowitz, Harry Thon and a Mr. Kirschbaum. Of these individuals–all with the exception of Byrne–have identifiably Jewish names.

“No wonder that Justice Wennerstrum, president of one of the war crimes tribunals, resigned in disgust and later charged that the prosecutors, ‘instead of trying to formulate and reach a new guiding legal principle, were moved only by personal ambition and revenge…[and that most of the court personnel] consisted of biased persons who, either on political or racial grounds, furthered the prosecution’s case.’

“Earl Carroll, an American attorney on the war crimes tribunal, went so far as to allege that sixty percent of the prosecutor’s staff were German Jews who had left Germany prior to the war, suggesting, obviously, that these German Jews were incapable of carrying out an unbiased inquiry and prosecution. Carroll’s allegations are significant, of course, if only because the German Jews, in particular, had an obvious bias that would undoubtedly have affected their approach to their duties.” [supra, p.19]

To me the sadest part of the whole business is that our judicial system has come to reflect this same Jewish “scholarship.” Increasingly, we see what appears to be ex post facto laws applied to cases. Congress at this time will past any legislation that jews demand, especially if it can be buried in some other bill. The Justice Department has been imbedded with singular units, such as the Office of Special Investigation (“OSI”), typically staffed by Jewish attorneys and supporting cast, to chase down “Nazis” and the like. Jorge W. Arbusto reigns over an administration which not only justifies torture but employs it with alacrity. “W,” having neither feel nor knowledge of anything legitimately American, throws captured “enemies” into concentration camps in the Caribbean for indefinite confinement. His wife assures those that are concerned with the loss of fundamental principles of liberty and property: “They hate us.”

Is this not the classic plea of the “persecuted Jew?” Indeed!

Further, this same people are now directing the Department of Justice and leaning on State Attorney’s offices to prosecute people once again-and still again–and still again–until conviction is obtained. The fact that a jury trial has found someone not guilty carries no weight anymore. New charge–after new charge–after new charge are presented by fedlaw agents, until a guilty verdict can be had. If not had by one jury panel, denounce it and demand another–and another–and another. Typically, such matters are meant to “send a message.” The new “law of symbology” is meant to “educate” all “retrogressive” forces that “intolerance” (or some similar Masonic and Jewish “watchword”) will not be tolerated.

Certainly, Germans got the message, shut up for the most part, and put their backs to the hard task of creating a livelihood in a devastated land, thereby allowing themselves the privilege of paying reparations to the Jews and their “state” perpetually (it seems). Jews have never been ones to deny themselves the “goodies’ that come from tribute. By skillfully reinvesting German marks paid as reparation, Jews have undoubtedly taken quiet control over significant areas of the German economy. “What’s not to like?” they gloat.

Downnlaced, 2008.

So I was just watching FOX News, and apparently in Waycross, Georgia, there were 9 3^rd graders who plotted to kill their teacher.  The 8- and 9-year-olds from Center Elementary School plotted to kill their male teacher because he yelled at a girl for standing on her chair.

The plot was discovered when another girl saw a steak knife in a girl’s backpack and told teachers.  The girl was talked to and spilled the plot.  Each student had a roll to play in the plot, one of which was to clean up the blood.  All the students have been talked to and suspended.  Other parents are pushing for expulsion of the 9 students.

Although it’s not certain, I’d say that these kids would’ve tried to kill the teacher, not just injure him.

Now, here’s the insane part: under Georgia law, kids under 13 cannot be charged with a crime, so the most that could happen to them is expulsion and then spending time in a juvenile facility up until they’re 18.  So a 12-year-old can kill somebody and not be charged?  Like a 12-year-old doesn’t know that murder is wrong.

And here’s proof that the kids knew what they were doing was wrong: They HID the knives and other plot components (gloves, duct tape, hand cuffs, etc…) in their backpacks.  They didn’t just carry them in.  They didn’t BROADCAST their plot – they kept it SECRET.  They KNEW what they were doing is wrong.  If it were up to me, I’d never have had this law and would charge the kids with conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon.

What would the teacher have done if 9 of these kids ganged up on him?  Sure he could’ve taken on 1, 2, 3, or even 4 of them, but if NINE gang up on him, what’s he going to do?  Shoot them?  It’s not like he’d be allowed to have a gun in the classroom (although I’d say he should at least be allowed to have a TASER after this – especially if the kids are only suspended and not expelled).

These laws that protect children because they’re children are just plain stupid.  Once you reach the age of 8 or 9, there are certain things that you know not to do.  They know that murder and rape are wrong (and believe me – these kids know what sex is too – I remember last year 2 5^th graders were caught having sex.  How can 5^th graders even HAVE sex?  It’s nearly physically impossible).  Do they know that all things are wrong?  No – they probably don’t know anything about fraud or perjury, but they know basics like murder, assault, robbery, etc….

This law needs to be overturned so that when things like this happen in the future, kids can be punished (and these kids wouldn’t because you can’t pass an ex post facto law).

All I have to say is, this is one of the many reasons I’ll never be a teacher.  I know I’m going to take a lot of heat for this post, so let the hateful comments begin.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::