The RIGHT to bear arms.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

The Declaration Of Independence
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Supreme Court Rulings
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

The Constitution of the United States
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Arkansas Constitution
The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense.

The Alaska Constitution
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

The Arizona Constitution
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

The Alabama Constitution
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

The Colorado Constitution
Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

The California Constitution
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.

The Constitution of Connecticut
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

The Constitution of Delaware
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

The Constitution of Florida
The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

The Constitution of Georgia
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

The Constitution of Hawaii
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution of Idaho
The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm.  No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition.  Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

The Constitution of Illinois
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution of Indiana
The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

The Constitution of Iowa
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.

The Constitution of Kansas
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

The Constitution of Kentucky
The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

The Constitution of Louisiana
The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

The Constitution of Maine
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

The Constitution of Maryland
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.

The Constitution of Massachusetts
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

The Constitution of Michigan
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

The Constitution of Minnesota
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.
The Constitution of Mississippi
The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

The Constitution of Missouri
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

The Constitution of Montana
The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

The Constitution of Nebraska
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.

The Constitution of Nevada
Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

The Constitution of New Hampshire
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

The Constitution of New Mexico
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.  No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution of New York
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.

The Constitution of North Carolina
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.  Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

The Constitution of North Dakota
All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

The Constitution of Ohio
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

The Constitution of Oklahoma
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

The Constitution of Oregon
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power

The Constitution of Pennsylvania
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

The Constitution of Rhode Island
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution of South Carolina
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly.  The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

The Constitution of South Dakota
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

The Constitution of Tennessee
That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

The Constitution of Texas
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

The Constitution of Utah
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

The Constitution of Vermont
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

The Constitution of Virginia
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The Constitution of Washington
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

The Constitution of West Virginia
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

The Constitution of Wisconsin
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

The Constitution of Wyoming
The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

Newtown.

Please pray for the friends and families of the Newtown victims. I highly recommend watching this video, especially what is said beginning at 9 minutes 13 seconds.

Obamanomics - The ruining of America.

After I read this article: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/11/15/half-your-paycheck-government-2013 I just have to say “thanks” to all those who voted for Obama. You've made it even more difficult than it already is for families to get by. But, many of you are fine with that because you don’t have to pay those taxes.

What you’re not understanding is that deficit reduction by higher taxes doesn’t solve the problem. First of all, very little of the money will go to deficit reductions. In fact, it is projected that the Obama administration will continue to have trillion dollar deficits for the next 4 years making the national debt over $20 trillion by the end of his second term. Most of the increased tax money will go to more entitlement programs. Giving more money to the government so they can have all these entitlement programs for people that don’t pay taxes does not stimulate the economy. It stifles it. It causes more people to have to need entitlements, because they lose their jobs and can’t support their families.

You see, what’s going to happen with all these taxes and government mandates like Obamacare is that they’re going to lower profit margins for businesses, especially small business that employ the majority of Americans. When a business loses profit, they have less money to pay employees. Many will have to lay off employees. Thus more unemployment and more people on government entitlement programs.

What you’ve guaranteed us under another Obama administration is this (we’ve already seen this beginning in the first administration):

• Higher taxes on middle class families
• Higher taxes on small businesses
• Higher taxes on the wealthy
• Higher unemployment
• Lower personal wealth
• Lower GDP 
• Lower GNP
• Less liberty and more government control over our lives (Obamacare, anyone?)

Obama says the wealthy need to pay more taxes to help reduce the deficit. The wealthy can afford it, he says. But, history has shown that when the wealthy get hit with higher taxes, they take steps to mitigate the impact on their wealth. States that raise taxes on the wealthy see them leaving their states. Same goes for businesses. They either uproot from where they are and move to more hospitable states or they lower their costs (aka employees).

I have never been employed by a poor person. I’ve either been employed by a wealthy person, ie. a small business (remember, according to Obama, wealthy people are those that make $250,000 a year) or by a company. Making it harder for businesses to hire people is not how you stimulate the economy.

In fact, just the opposite is true. Lower taxes on businesses would enable them to hire more people. More people with jobs means more money being paid out. More money being paid out means more spending. More spending by individuals, NOT by the government, is what stimulates the economy. More spending by individuals is also the best way to lower the deficit. Our government wouldn’t have to borrow from China to pay for all these entitlement programs, and people spending their paychecks would increase sales tax and other revenues.

Obama has it backwards, and it’s going to make living in this country very difficult for the  next 4 years. But every time he talks about the economy, he’ll just keep blaming the Bush administration, “Look what we inherited!!”

I fear for what our children are going to inherit.

Cutest puppy EVER.

This here's the cutest puppy EVER:

And this here's his sister. She's cute too.

47%

One of my Facebook friends recently wrote "I AM part of the 47% that Romney has said don't matter, as are most of the people I count as friends." I don't know her situation, and I respect her right to say that. But I must say that this is NOT what Mitt said. Here's a quote and reference to the comment, which Romney himself said was not elegantly stated.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney could be heard saying. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

Romney added his job as a presidential candidate was "not to worry about those people." 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/romney-sticks-by-victims-comments-but-calls-them-off-cuff/#ixzz26usmE1mu

He said as a presidential candidate, his job was "not to worry about those people". That sounds crass and uncaring, unless you look at it in the light of a candidate in an election. He did NOT say these people do not matter. What he said was, as a presidential candidate, he's not worrying about convincing these people to vote for him. And that makes a lot of sense if you really think about it. He's accurate when he says that most of the people getting government assistance of some sort are dependent upon the government. People who are dependent upon the government are going to vote for the candidate that will continue to give them unhampered assistance. Currently that candidate is Obama. Of course they’re going to vote for Obama and that’s why Mitt is not worried about them “as a presidential candidate.” Many of these people should not be getting government assistance. Many are able to work and pay taxes, and they SHOULD be working and paying taxes.

Government assistance should be limited to those who, due to legitimate physical or mental disability, are unable to work or can work to some degree but don’t make enough to live on. I know several people who fit that description and I fully support them getting the government assistance that they get.

Unemployment assistance should be limited. People who can work but who are having difficulty finding jobs should get assistance for a limited time, and they should have to prove that they are attempting to find work. I’ve heard many stories of people who got laid off from their job and have been looking for work, but are not taking available jobs because they think the job is ‘too low’ for them. They’re holding out for a job similar to the one they lost. In the meantime, they are living off of our tax dollars. These are the people that should be cut off.

And of course there are those who are completely cheating the system and defrauding the government and taxpayers. These should not only be cut off, but they should also be incarcerated. How about the lady that won $1 Million in the lottery and continued to collect welfare? “The 24-year-old also says she deserves the financial aid because she's now saddled with expenses related to two houses.”

Our government assistance programs need to be majorly overhauled to limit who gets assistance and for how long. There should be strict requirements for qualification and more checks to ensure that people are not cheating the system.

47% of the population is not unemployed (although with Obama in office, we might get there!) 47% of the population is not physically or mentally disabled to the point that they can not work. This means that of the 47% of the population that don’t pay taxes and get government assistance, a good chunk of them are cheating those of us that do work and do pay taxes.

2 Thessalonians 3: ⁶ In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching^[a] you received from us. ⁷ For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, ⁸ nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. ⁹ We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. ¹⁰ For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

Yet another 'radical' muslim uprising

Another 'radical' muslim uprising is in progress. Libya, Egypt, Yemen. It will likely spread to other dominantly islamic countries. They are attacking American Embassies. "A mob of Libyans also attacked the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi on Tuesday, killing American Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans." ~Here's a Fox News article about the current uprising.

This means they are attacking America itself, as embassies are considered to be US soil. Even though it is happening in countries on the other side of the world, America is under attack. Again. Obama won't see it that way, though. His administration's response to the supposed reason for the uprising was an apology! Unbelievable. Well. Not really considering if Obama himself isn't a closet muslim, he's definitely a muslim sympathizer. (Read my previous posts on this topic: Is Obama A Closet Muslim? and  Told Ya So!)

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

(Yes, I know the apology was communicated before the attacks happened, but the Obama administration, which from what I just heard on the news approved the communication, didn't retract it for something like 9 hours after the attacks began.) According to the Obama Administration, which the Cairo Embassy represents, the movie (which I have not seen) is an "abuse of the universal right of free speech". So, they're saying expressing your opinion about islam is an abuse of the 1st Amendment. I suppose that means this post is an abuse of the 1st Amendment too. Typical liberal mindset: "You have free speech as long as you agree with what we think, otherwise you're an abuser!"

I put the words 'radical' in quotes because they are the furthest thing from 'radical' muslims. They are exactly what islam teaches them to be. The radical muslims would be those that claim peace and tolerance. I say claim because I think they are deceiving. Here's a post that I wrote 2 years ago, almost to the day, about another muslim uprising. It explains in more detail WHY our government, in fact most of the world, has islam backwards. Those being called radicals are more true to islam than those that are called mainstream.

You are witnessing jihad. Did you know that muslims are calling for the criminalization of speech that criticizes islam in the United States? From what I understand, Obama supports it! Throw the First Amendment out the door!

Islamic jihad is only going to get worse as time goes on, especially if we have a President that does not stand up for his country and offers appeasement to those that attack us.

Democrat voter fraud on International TV

"Well isn't THAT special?" ~The Church Lady

Have you been watching the DNC? I have, some. It has cemented my opposition to Obama and the Democratic party. It is proof that the democrats will use blatant lies, deceit, trickery, falsehood, cheating. Even against their own.

Let me say up front that not ALL democrats are this way. Not all are liars, cheaters, socialists, etc. Not all are atheists. Not all are against God. Not all are for the false notion of the separation of Church and State. Not all are against Israel. In this post, and any other post I make regarding politics, if I say 'Democrats', it means the general, national Party and their published platform and beliefs.

But, the leaders of their party, and clearly at least 50% of their delegates don't think that God has any place in American culture. They obviously have not read the writings of our Founding Fathers. They want to change history and the meaning of our Founding Documents, which they say are outdated and flawed. The Democrats have shown their true colors in regard to religion and their stand towards Israel as an ally of the United Sates.

The 2012 Democratic National Platform originally stated:

We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.

The ORIGINAL 2012 Democratic Platform did not mention Jerusalem at all.

I found the original text here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php. It has changed already on the Democrat's web site, so I downloaded it to my dropbox and local machine so I could maintain a copy of it.

The 2008 Platform stated:

We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

and

All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. 

The 2012 Platform has now been amended, improperly I might add, to state:

We must keep moving forward and doing the hard work of rebuilding a strong economy by betting on the American worker and investing in a growing middle class. We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

and  

Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

This is no error or oversight or mistake as the Dems are trying to spin it now. This is deliberate omission. They had to vote Tuesday to approve the platform. I presume they read it. But maybe not, since they didn't allow people to read the Obamacare law before they shoved it down our throats.

CBN News has a great article about this.

Here's their 2012 Platfom, as amended yesterday (9/5/2012): http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

Photo from Foxnews.com

These amendments only happened after media commentators on various news channels (Primarily Fox News, I suppose!) began asking WHY did the Democratic party remove the text about God and about Jerusalem being the Capital Israel.

The funny thing is, they disenfranchised their own. Voter fraud on international TV. It was clear that there was not a 2/3 majority in the vote to amend the platform. The Chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa,  clearly is confused about what to do. Then he disenfranchises what sounds to me like more than 50% of the delegates by, in his opinion that the ayes have it, passing the amendment. I don't think either vote had a 2/3 majority, but it clearly was close to 50/50. If I understand the convention rules, if the voice vote was not clear, as it was not, he should have moved to a ballot vote. (Note: After I posted this, I found extended video of the incident where, prior to the vote on the amendment, they voted to suspend the rules. Typical democrats. They have rules to follow but choose to over-rule them and do what they want instead.) Instead, he over-rode the clear voices of "NO" and forced adaptation of the amendment. Democrats have a long history of voter fraud, but I never thought I'd see it plain as day on international television.


Matthew 10:32 "Therefore, everyone who will acknowledge Me before men, I will also acknowledge him before My Father in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. 34 Don't assume that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Dems are showing their true colors. Then trying to hide them by being politically correct. Failing miserably. They dont want God part of this country! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/05/jerusalem_and_god_get_booed_at_dem_convention.html

This further proves that the Democrats will do whatever they want to get whatever they want, despite the will of the people. They did it with Obamacare too.

---

For comparison, here's the Republican 2012 platform: http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

Mentions of God? 10.

Supporting Israel and Jerusalem as the capitol? yes.

Convention Fact Checking

Here's a couple articles about fact checking the RNC and DNC.

RNC ("Mitt Romney avoided major falsehoods in making his case to the American public while accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention."):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-31/mitt-romney-fact-check-republican-convention/57467252/1

DNC ("a number of dubious or misleading claims on the first night of the Democratic National Convention"):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-09-05/fact-check-democratic-national-convention/57596574/1

This one it particularly scathing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-bill-clintons-speech-and-other-democrats-at-the-convention-in-charlotte/2012/09/06/55b9df68-f7e1-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html



Neither party is perfect, but the democrats have a long history of "dubious", "misleading", "gimmicky" and underhanded tactics.

Obamacare in 1 sentence

I have not heard anyone put it so perfectly. So succinctly. This lady hits a home run with her description of Obamacare.

Very interesting!!!!!!

Check out this web site that is showing the prominent words spoken at the RNC. Click a word bubble to see quotes of where the word was used and who spoke it. You can even enter a word in the search box if it's not already listed. It's going to be a fascinating comparison between the RNC and DNC once they publish those results.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/28/us/politics/convention-word-counts.html

I keep hearing news people say that the Dems have taken the word God out of the platform. God was mentioned 95 times at the RNC according to this site. It will sure be interesting to see the results of the DNC.

How I vote.

I have 3 main criteria I use to determine who I vote for.

1. Morality.
    -I can not support anyone who's OK with killing babies. NO ONE has the right to take the life of an unborn baby. It's not a woman's right or anyone else's.

2. Fiscal Policy
    -I have never worked for a poor person. Poor people don't employ other people. Every place I've ever worked, it has been for a successful business person or successful company. I can't support anyone that wants to punish success and make it harder for businesses to hire and retain employees. Further, I can't support someone that wants to redistribute the earnings of people who work hard for a living and give it to people that refuse to work and live off government handouts. I can't support someone who removes the work requirements from government assistance. I can't support someone that believes government spending and trillions of dollars in debt is the way to stimulate the American economy. Tax & Spend has never worked and never will. The way to improve employment conditions in the US is to make it EASIER for employers to hire, not harder! This will help both the middle class and help give the poor a boost by providing more jobs!

3. Foreign Policy
    -I can not support anyone that does not support Israel. I can not support anyone that bows to other countries and apologizes for the United States of America being the greatest countries on earth. I can not support anyone who will stand by and allow evil to prosper on this planet.

I can't support anyone who's agenda is to destroy this country. To lower it to the status of countries like Cuba and Venezuela. Instead, we need to work to help raise other countries to be better, like us.

I can't support anyone who does not believe in our Constitution and thinks it's outdated and flawed. It may not be perfect, but it's the foundation of the greatest country that was ever on this planet.

I can't support anyone who continues to blame their predecessor for ongoing problems, heck, worsening problems, when they've had plenty of time to affect change for the positive and fail to do so. I hope you understand.

Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? Heck no. Here's a post I made in 2008 (http://bit.ly/PHkiY8). Things are worse now than the statistics I mention in that post. Food prices are higher. Gas prices have fluctuated, but are higher. House values are in the toilet. Unemployment?? I'll let this chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics speak to that (click the picture to link to the web site):

Obama gets elected and BAM! Unemployment skyrockets.

Just today, the National Debt has reached $16 TRILLION dollars. Under Obama, the debt has increased more in 4 years than it did under President Bush in 8 years. "If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/)

Who's better off?? I'm not. I could expand on each of those 3 points above, but what I've posted is sufficient.

I can not support Obama. He fails the test.

The POWER of Social Media

I used to hate social media. I still hate some aspects of it (all those dang Facebook game requests!). I use Twitter more than any other social medium, but I have it post to my Facebook status sometimes (I use Selective Tweets). I sometimes blog on this blog, and my other blog about music. I just checked in on Foursquare (which I just started using last week) in my neighborhood and stole the mayorship. Yes, folks, I'm now the Mayor of Stonehaven. I'm learning about a couple new services that look interesting. One is Medium and the other is Branch. Both are 'invitation only' right now, but I'm sure after they see I mentioned them in this post they'll extend my invite. :)

I'm starting to really like social media. I've learned about the POWER of social media, for both good and bad. It's amazing the reactions people have to a Twitter or Facebook post. It's also amazing what companies will do when you post about them.

I once heard a story about a woman who posted something rather unpleasant about her boss on her Facebook  status. Her boss promptly commented that she must have forgotten that she friended him on Facebook. She was summarily fired. I've seen a lot of good and bad happen on Facebook. It's a great way to catch up with friends and family, but you really better be careful about what you post, cause you know the person that would be offended by it is sure to see it! Other social media platforms can be dangerous too. Better be careful what you tweet about your job or family or friends! I don't really like Facebook much, but I use it anyway. Good things come from Facebook too. For example, I was in a restaurant about to pay for our dinner when I noticed a sign that said if you check in on Facebook and like their Facebook page, you get a discount. 10% off, baby! (Disclaimer: this restaurant may or may not be currently offering this or other discounts, you'll have to check for yourself). I think Foursquare sometimes has the same type of deals... I dunno, I haven't really used it much yet.

Twitter, however has been my friend. I got into Twitter because I saw this story about a journalist named James Buck who got arrested during a protest in Egypt and had time to tweet only 1 word: Arrested. His friends and family saw it and knew something was wrong and was able to immediately start working to help him. Awesome.

I've had a lot of good come from some of my tweets.

We currently use AT&T for our wireless service. Honestly, they've hacked me off quite a bit, especially their customer service. Really the only reason we are still with them is we are 'grandfathered' in on their old unlimited data plan. I think they are really trying to get rid of customers like me, or at least they are trying to force us to change data plans. Apparently they don't like unlimited data users. Just recently they announced that they will not allow FaceTime to work on these older data plans. You have to move to their more expensive Mobile Share plans to be able to use Facetime. I think that sucks. But what sucks more is what I think is deliberate harassment of their unlimited data plan users. Back in December 2011, I got a nasty-gram from AT&T telling me that they would throttle my data speeds if I kept using so much data! This was news to me. I'd never used more than about 1GB of data in a month. Suddenly my data usage was at an amazing 8GB! Check out this usage chart from my account:

Uh....say what?? Data usage inexplicably jumps from 1.1GB or less per month to a whopping 7.9GB! I can assure you that my phone usage did not change at all. No new data-sucking apps or media streaming or anything out of the ordinary.

I contacted AT&T. They said I use too much data and they can throttle me if they want. I could not get them to cooperate with me to figure out what the heck happened. WHY was my data suddenly so HUGE?? Since AT&T would not cooperate with me and assure me that my data would not be throttled, I decided to become somewhat vocal about it. Hello, Twitter! I posted several posts expressing my displeasure at the situation. I searched the net for other people experiencing the same issue. Guess what I found? I found this article about a guy that sued AT&T for throttling his data. Guess who won? The guy. Not the mega-huge communications corporation. I started tweeting and posting about this relentlessly. AT&T responded a couple times, basically telling me if I didn't like it to change data plans. But then I think they got tired of all the negative publicity.... check this out:

Uh...say what? Data usage inexplicably DROPS from 7.9GB to... is that for real? 0.6GB. Yup. back to pre-December levels. What gives? I guess AT&T was starting to feel the pressure of negative publicity?  

I've used Twitter against them for another problem. When I signed up for U-Verse, they promised me all these discounts. Those discounts never happened. That is until I tweeted about it and their Twitter customer service people picked up on it. They contacted me, and to their credit, made it right.

That's not the only thing that's happened for the good after I tweeted something. Here's some other examples:

Back in July was my #4th birthday. I decided to do an experiment. I tweeted the following 2 tweets to see what would happen:

"Lets see if I can get any celebrities to wish me happy birthday..." (including the @ of celebrities I follow)

"Hmm....Wonder if I can get any companies to send me a b-day gift?" (including the @ of the companies I follow)

This experiment had AMAZING results. You can read all about it on my Twitter Experiment post on my other blog. In summary; several celebrities responded, and I got nice gifts from a few companies as well. It was a great birthday! (I think I'll try it again next year! Or maybe for Christmas! Hmmmm....)

The reason I'm writing this post, however, is due to what happened today.

In May 2012 I bought a new Ford Focus. With my lovely new little car came a Sirius satellite radio. When I called Sirius to activate the radio, the dude told me I was getting 15 months free trial. Cool. My dealer said 6 months, but this dude is telling me 15 months. I kinda argued with him some but he insisted that there was some special promotion or something going on for new Ford owners. 15 months. Cool.

I got some mail from Sirius the other day telling me to call them and they'll upgrade my trial to their Premium package for 6 months. Premium. Cool. So I called and inquired about it. While I was talking to this different dude, I asked when my current subscription would end (I didn't have the papers in front of me and I couldn't remember.) He said November 12, 2012.

Uh....say what? I can count pretty well and that's not 15 months. Not cool.

Dude says he sees that I had a 15 month trial but that it had been cancelled. I sure as heck didn't cancel it. He says that only myself or my dealer can cancel it, so it must have been the dealer. He also said only the dealer can change it back. I called the dealer. They said that they don't do anything with anyone's Sirius account. Once you drive your car off the lot, the deal is between you and Sirius and they're out of the picture. So I call Sirius back. I won't tell you about the conversation, because it was unpleasant. Basically they kept telling me only the dealer can change it. Dealer says they have nothing to do with it. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Twitter to the rescue!! I posted the following tweet earlier today: "@SIRIUSXM is losing a customer in me. I don't like being lied to!"

Almost immediately I get a reply from them. Here's the ensuing Twitter conversation:

I sent them an email explaining the situation. A couple hours later I get a call from another dude. I like this dude. Didn't like the other dudes. Cool Dude apologizes and says they're leaving the 6 month trial in place, but then adding 12 months of free PREMIUM service starting the day the trial ends. Check out this email I got from Cool Dude: "Thank you for taking the time to speak to me today. As we discussed I have added a 1 year follow on plan to start on Nov.12/2012 and will run until Nov.12/2013. At that time you will receive an invoice in the mail letting you know that your service is up for renewal and the cost."

Dang. That there, my friends, is what you call good customer service. Cool Dude even gave me his direct contact information and said if I had any further problems to contact him directly and he'd help. Follow-up tweets:

I'm now a happy Sirius customer, and I'm much more likely to renew the subscription once my free trial ends. This is how companies should treat their customers.

Social Media. Power. I never really expected these things to happen, but it's fascinating that these situations turned out the way they did. Companies clearly don't like negative publicity, even from a nobody like me. You can use Social media for good or for bad. You can get results. You could even save your life. Just ask Buck.

Now they're trying to take our guns.....

Obamacare Upheld. Sorta. November just got a lot more interesting.

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax." ~Chief Justice John Roberts

"The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it."


This statement makes this ruling a victory for those against Obamacare. This was the most critical point. For this to be ruled a TAX is a huge blow to Obama who stated that it was "ABSOLUTLEY NOT A TAX".

EDIT: Here's the video: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/#.T-xtyHsqo_Y.twitter

Here's an article about an interview with Obama and George Stephanopoulos (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/28/read-obamas-2009-abc-news-interview-health-care-law-is-not-a-tax/) Obama said,

OBAMA: ...for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is ***absolutely not a tax increase.*** What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs....

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Brilliant move on Robert's part.


Edit:
The following portion of the decision is the crux of the issue and Roberts really did a fantastic job explaining it:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30. (a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated.This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerceCite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 3 Syllabus power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce."

I say Roberts was brilliant because I believe he voted on the side he doesn't necessarily agree with so that:

1. He could write the majority opinion himself, and, 
2. He would have the more liberal justices 'on his side'  in the majority which, to the American people who largely don't understand how this stuff works, it will appear as if they agree with his opinion.

Wikipedia gives a good description of the Chief Justice's power and duties. Check this out (emphasis mine):

Despite the seniority and added prestige, the Chief Justice's vote carries the same legal weight as each of the other eight justices. In any decision, he has no legal authority to overrule the verdicts or interpretations of the other eight judges or tamper with them. However, in any vote, the most senior justice in the majority decides who will write the Opinion of the Court. Being the most senior member, the Chief Justice—when in the majority—decides who writes the Court's opinion. This power to determine the opinion author (including the option to select oneself) allows a Chief Justice in the majority to influence the historical record. Two justices in the same majority, given the opportunity, might write very different majority opinions (as evidenced by many concurring opinions); being assigned the opinion may also cement the vote of an Associate who is viewed as only marginally in the majority (a tactic that was reportedly used to some effect by Earl Warren). A Chief Justice who knows the Associate Justices can therefore do much—by the simple act of selecting the justice who writes the Opinion of the Court—to affect the "flavor" of the opinion, which in turn can affect the interpretation of that opinion in cases before lower courts in the years to come. It is said that some chief justices, notably Earl Warren^{[citation needed]} and Warren Burger, sometimes switched votes to a majority they disagreed with to be able to use this prerogative of the Chief Justice to dictate who would write the opinion.^[5]

This is exactly what I think Roberts did today, "It is said that some chief justices...sometimes switched votes to a majority they disagreed with to be able to use this prerogative of the Chief Justice to dictate who would write the opinion."


Roberts ensured that the decision would cement the fact that the Commerce Clause could now never be used to allow Congress to mandate that individuals purchase something (which is what this whole law was about to begin with, not healthcare). He also ensured that the decision revealed the intent of the democrats for what it is, a new, HUGE tax on the American people. Further, he ensured that it appears that the liberal justices agree with his opinion.

This is a HUGE Constitutional victory. **The whole issue was not about healthcare.** Democrats pushed this under the guise of healthcare, but it really was about control. The whole issue was whether or not Congress can mandate that an individual purchase a certain product. Had this been upheld under the Commerce Clause (which the decision very pointedly stated it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL) then Congress would have the precedent and could then mandate that an individual purchase anything they saw fit. Roberts was brilliant. He ensured that this did not get passed under the Commerce Clause and also showed that this really was a tax, which Obama very specifically stated that it is not, thus this decision hurts his campaign by showing that once again he was not truthful with the American people.