Common Sense, isn't

I've seen a couple of my FB friends who 'liked' the Common Sense Coalition. So I went and looked at what they are about. I looked at what they listed as their principles. Among them was Personal Freedom, a concept my readers probably know is dear to my heart. It goes; Protecting individual rights from over-zealous government is a fundamental principle of our democracy. The virtues of individuals — self-reliance, responsibility, ingenuity, entrepreneurialism – these are the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights, our culture and our strength as a nation. While we are a nation of individuals, we have a history of working together to help those in need. I'd tell them we don't live in a democracy, but rather a representative republic. Hmmm, maybe they weren't in class that day in school, so I'll let it slide for now Another one is labeled 'Efficient Government' color me shocked, but somehow when those two words are paired together, rents in the fabric of spacetime occur somewhere. When we entrust our government with our money, we impose upon them an obligation to behave responsibly and efficiently. Government should have clear goals and metrics for the programs they invest in and should change or repeal those programs that are ineffective. Government should also aggressively root out waste and hold itself to the highest standard of accountability. Decision-making should also occur at the right level of government. State and local governments, who are closer to the people and problems at hand, are often better suited to solve problems than the federal government. I really like the idea that state and local government understands what folks at those levels need, rather than some politician in Washington D.C. So far, with a couple small details, they sound like a rather 'common sense' bunch. The next principle I'd like to examine is what they term 'justice and fairness. A government that indiscriminately favors one group over another does so at the expense of justice. A government that exempts a select few from its laws or regulations does so at the expense of fairness. Pay attention to that first sentence in the above paragraph, cause I am getting to my point in this whole exercise. And look at the next paragraph. Fairness dictates that the costs of government be borne both broadly and disproportionately by those who have benefited the most from our economic system. This means our tax system should be simple, progressive, and that all citizens should bear part of the burden. So by having high income earners pay more, the government is discriminately favoring one group over another. But how is that fair, to discriminate against a very productive part of the tax base? The answer, it isn't fair. A much more sensible, fair policy would be a flat tax. Thanks, but no thanks, common sense, isn't.

QOTD - Ken Trainor

The only citizens — non-law enforcement/non-military — who are mentally stable enough to carry a loaded gun in public are those who refuse to do so.

But not even the military can carry their guns in public.  When was the last time you saw a service member on U.S. Soil with a loaded weapon on their person?

Ken Trainor can go and just fuck off.  The only people mentally stable enough to carry a concealed weapon are those willing to do so.

Let me count thy cliches

It's time for a little fisking here at Top of the Chain. What appears is an ill written, even less thought out diatribe on everything evil about guns. Oh wait, that's the one thing the article failed to mention, and that is that guns are evil. They emit mind control rays that cause people to go on murderous rampages. Good thing though, as myself, I only buy defective guns, that don't have operating mind control rays.

During that national tragedy was when a clearer, more focused debate over stricter gun laws needed and should have taken place but since Giffords has recovered, left rehab, let’s have the debate now.

I believe what the author is trying to convey is, let us dance in the blood of those affected and enact infringements upon peaceably armed citizens rights to bear arms.

For all the gun enthusiasts who get the Second Amendment wrong by ignoring “a well regulated militia…” portion of the amendment thinking that all Americans have the right to bear arms and that anyone can get a gun without a waiting period or a back ground check or who can just buy a clip that was intended for hunting, maybe hunting people, which is what Congresswoman Giffords’s assailant was aiming for.

Now that is a run on sentence. Were I the author, I'd slap my English teacher for failing to convey a proper sentence structure. But I digress. I truly love when anti's pull up the 'well regulated militia' Sorry there skippy, but way back in 1791, 'well regulated meant well functioning. And a militia at the time consisted of abled bodied men between certain ages. Sorry there Bobby W., that argument doesn't hold water. And clips for hunting? Well, I suppose someone could go hunting with their M1 Garand. And the en bloc clip could be thrown at your prey. Personally, I'd rather pull the trigger and shoot the animal. It's much more efficient that way. Oh, and Jared Loughner, went through a background check, filled out a 4473 and everything.

For the most part, the Obama administration has been silent on the issue of gun control and the Supreme Court has consistently voted for individual rights to own a gun over stronger gun control laws.

And they'd do well to keep their mouths shut. See the Fast & Furious aka Gunwalker scandal. It truly is a shame that innocent people have died due to uncaring bureaucrats.

Obsessed and trigger happy gun enthusiasts like Sara Palin hold onto the notion that owning a gun is the best defense. During the Cold War, the policy between the United States and the Russians was termed Mutually Assured Destruction where each country matched the other weapon for weapon. The acronym MAD fits perfect with the argument and applies to the gun lobby and the NRA.

As far as Sarah Palin holding onto that notion that a gun is the best defense. There's a piece of wisdom that says never bring a knife to a gun fight. The MAD analogy, I am not quite certain and the logic escapes me? Is it that I should match gun for gun every criminal out there? Or the criminal should match me? hmmm.

These gun nuts believe Jesus was packing before he blew away the Gays and Democrats, ascending to the “right” hand of the father giving us the Ten Commandments, the Constitution and anointing Ronald Reagan and George Bush as Arch Angels of truth, justice, the bullet and the ballot.

I was always taught that God said to hate the sin, but love the sinner. However, go ask the Pink Pistols how they feel about their Second Amendment rights. Oh and not being a biblical scholar, but the Ten Commandments were handed down by God, not Jesus in the Old Testament. Jesus is the new testament. The rest of the sentence doesn't bear commenting on.

Ridiculous, but seriously for the gun enthusiasts, the framers of the Constitution never intended that Americans arm themselves to the teeth. In fact, any group that hides behind the barrel of a gun and the skirts of the Bible must have a deep sense of inadequacy. A gun after all is a powerful phallic symbol.

No, but they never placed a hard figure as to what a person might own for self defense either. Oh, and I know Pagans, atheists and animalists that all believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And what about women who keep and bear arms, are they compensating for what? A lack of a penis?

llic symbol.

Hand guns, assault weapons, AK-47s easily attainable are a Constitutional right some might argue along with Freedom of Speech and the right to Assembly.

No argument, recently SCOTUS affirmed in Heller V D.C and McDonald v Chicago that the individual has a right to keep and bear arms. Oh,and the Second Amendment has been in the Bill Of Rights for like 200 plus years.

Vehemently up holding the right to bear arms, without thought, rhyme or reason kills Democracy every time someone steps up to defend this particular right.

Oh, I totally agree, Democracy should be stamped out wherever it rears it's ugly head. Mob rule is never pretty and always ends in bloodshed. The United States is a Republic.

Is there any more cliches that this particular author failed to include? All of the same old rhetoric they spew without thinking a wit about the logic involved. I guess that is what makes it so easy to beat them. I think I'll grab a beer.

What they say and what they mean

this is from a recent news article in regards to a shooting in *SHOCK* East St. Louis.

"There is so much more we need to be doing in terms of getting guns out of the hoodies and from under the t-shirts and out of vehicles," said East St. Louis Mayor Alvin Parks. "In Illinois, we don't have a carry and conceal law and there is no one who should have a gun in their possession that is loaded except for the police. What's troubling me is that these guns keep getting in the wrong hands.

This is what I hear from these bleating sheep. Bold emphasizes my selective BS hearing.

"There is so much more we need to be doing in removing peoples natural right to defend themselves" said East St. Louis Mayor Alvin Parks. "In Illinois, we keep voting down a carry and conceal law and there is no one who should have the power to defend themselves against armed violence except for the police. What's troubling me is that these wogs keep wanting to exercise their natural rights.

Please note, I am not advocating for guns to be used to commit crimes.

Striking the dead equine over & over

But THIS is the problem with your's and mine country.

I swear, it's like Johnny the bully's mom saying if you just gave Johnny a stick, rather than his fists to beat up the weak kids for their milk money, Johnny wouldn't beat the weak kids up.

So, what do you give an adult baby?

I figure since Stanley Thornton has already thrown a temper tantrum over what Senator Coburn has proposed in regards to Stanley's supposed disability, I'd like to send him a present.I'm thinking a voucher for a copper clad lead surprise.  Of course he needs to find the blued steel binky to insert it through.

“You wanna test how damn serious I am about leaving this world, screw with my check that pays for this apartment and food. Try it. See how serious I am. I don’t care,” the California man said. “I have no problem killing myself. Take away the last thing keeping me here, and see what happens. Next time you see me on the news, it will be me in a body bag.”

Folks, the man is a drain on society who is able bodied enough to produce or modify various items for his fantasy life.  He isn't disabled, he's lazy.  If he wants to kill himself over losing his disability check every month, who are we to stop him?

Very recently, the Illinois legislature voted on allowing concealed carry. Ultimately, it failed to pass with the required number of votes, and Governor Pat Quinn had already said he would veto it. He needn't worry as the legislation failed to garner enough votes.

Governor Quinn, in gloating over this 'victory' to disarm the citizenry finds it ironic that the legislation would be voted into law, the very same day that Illinois honors fallen police officers. As if peaceably armed citizens are directly responsible for the deaths of those policemen.

It is time for the good people of all states, including Illinois to let it be known that the people should be choosing how to conduct themselves in their persons, and their property, including having the means to defend the same. The blood in the streets argument is a valid one when tyrants pour it out and dance in it to further their rights denying agenda.

The Brady Background Check Loophole

Say what? Isn't this piece of federal regulation supposed to catch the very thing that happened in regards to Jared Loughner in Arizona? It seems that Jared Lee Loughner lied on his 4473, the paperwork that EVERY SINGLE PERSON MUST FILL OUT WHEN PURCHASING A NEW GUN THROUGH A LICENSED DEALER.

And now, that bastion of state nannyism, Chuck Schumer is wishing to add more regulation. We keep adding laws and regulations in the fervent hope that the next one will be the one that solves all of society's ills. And over and over, this premise proves false.

Doublin'down on teh Mexican Gun Canard

BATFEIEIO decided to quack a little over the Mexican Gun Canard via Ken Melson.




Transcript of ATF Acting Director Melson — Webcast
December 20, 2010

Acting Director Announces Demand Letters for Multiple Sales of Specific Long Guns in Four Border States
Hello, I’m Ken Melson, the Acting Director of ATF.

A recent initiative by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has caught the attention of national media outlets. I wanted to make sure everyone heard from me about this law enforcement initiative so there isn’t any confusion.

Recently, ATF announced through the Federal Register our intent to initiate a new Demand Letter requiring the reporting of multiple sales of certain long guns by Federal Firearms Licensees, known as FFLs, in the four Southwest Border States. We took this step as a way to help gain actionable law enforcement intelligence which we believe will help reduce criminal firearms trafficking along the Southwest border.

Before we can actually issue the Demand Letter we must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget for purposes of the paperwork reduction act. We expect to receive that approval in early January, 2011.

As many of you already know, the goals of ATF’s Southwest border firearms trafficking strategy are:

•: To prevent violent crime;
•: Ensure the safety of the communities and law enforcement situated along the Southwest Border;
•: And to disrupt and dismantle the firearms trafficking networks responsible for the diversion of firearms from lawful commerce into the hands of the Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs)
Since 2006, there has been a significant increase in drug and firearms-related violence in Mexico and along our Southwest border. In response to this increased violence, ATF has deployed focused resources nationally to prevent the firearms trafficking along the Southwest Border and into Mexico.

According to ATF trace data, investigative experience, and Mexican law enforcement officials, a large number of rifles are being used in violent crimes in Mexico and along the border. Our new Demand Letter will implement a limited reporting of multiple sales of certain long guns that functions similarly to the current practice of reporting on the multiple sales of handguns. Currently, all FFLs in the country are required to submit a report of multiple sales to the National Tracing Center when an FFL sells two or more handguns to the same purchaser within five consecutive business days.

The proposed Demand Letter, which is narrowly circumscribed to meet our objectives, will apply a similar reporting requirement to certain long guns, but with these distinct differences:

First, the reporting requirement will apply only to FFLs doing business in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, which are major source states for crime guns seized in Mexico and traced to federal firearms licensees.

Secondly, the reporting requirement applies only to those rifles having all of the following characteristics:

•: A semi-automatic action;
•: A caliber greater than .22; and
•: The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
These specific characteristics subject a very narrow group of long guns that have been identified by ATF and the Government of Mexico as being involved in violent crimes in Mexico to the reporting requirement.

This reporting requirement would apply to the disposition of all rifles in the inventory of the FFLs exhibiting these characteristics, both new and used.

Third, we propose to implement this initiative as a pilot project for a period of one year.

Taken together, limiting the geographic scope, impacting a limited number of licensees, affecting a specific group of rifles, and limiting the duration of this reporting requirement, form a tailored, discreet, responsible and proactive response to a significant law enforcement issue.

Let me be absolutely clear. The purpose of requiring FFLs to report the specified multiple long gun sales in these four source states is to identify criminal firearms traffickers, not to prevent the full and free exercise of our Second Amendment rights, or to encumber the FFLs with burdensome paperwork.

These reports will give ATF real-time leads for the investigation of gun trafficking. ATF’s experience in these source states proves that multiple purchases of the described rifles are strong indicators of firearms trafficking to Mexico. By obtaining information about these multiple sales, ATF increases the likelihood of uncovering and disrupting trafficking schemes before the firearms make their way into Mexico.

I know that FFLs are good citizens who share ATF’s interest and commitment in keeping guns out of criminal hands. Working together we can do that without infringing on the rights of law abiding Americans.



h/t to No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money

A tarnished silver lining among the clouds

On the one hand, I am glad to read that freedom loving Chicagoans are purchasing handguns. That they have the McDonald decision to enumerate for them what is a natural right to self defense, I am thankful for. But stupid statements like this make my blood pressure start to rise.

Chicago residents remain under a handgun ban but Tropino says residents have visited his store to see what is available.

No, they DO NOT remain under a handgun ban. Oh, Dick Dailey would like that to be, but the fact remains that as long as you jump through all of their hoops, you can now legally own a handgun in Chicago.

BATFE seeks to circumvent Congress and add onerous regulations to purchasing long arms

Kurt Hoffman brings us up to date on an NRA-ILA alert. This is all in relation to Mexico's assertion that many of the guns used by drug gangs in Mexico originate here in the U.S.  For more history on this, go here.

Of course, the BATFE is trying to enact this new regulation bereft of congressional input at all.  Currently only multiple handgun purchases are required to be reported per the Gun Control Act of 1968.

They are trying to sneak this past without passing a new law.  I can't think of a better time for them to attempt this, than right now, with Congress' collective attention on another Omnibus spending bill that has the nations undivided consideration. 

Making our DemocracyRepublic Work

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has come out with a book titled Making Our Democracy Work. The title itself is misleading in that America is not a democracy, despite what statists and socialists would have us believe.  It is in fact, a constitutional republic. 

In an interview with Christopher Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Breyer states that the Second Amendment was meant to place a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. 





In the interview, Breyer goes on to talk about how the court should take a pragmatic view.  His judicial philosophy is to view the Constitution as a core set of values that must be applied according to the moment. 

Of course, values are flexible and can be changed.  One might value a seemingly rare item, and once that item has outlived its usefulness, it's value would decline. 

A judge, a politician, the average citizen that adheres to a set of core principles is much more interesting and is the answer to restoring the republic.  Allowing democracy to take hold is a recipe for disaster. 

QOTD - Allen Rostron

Learning from the pitfalls and building on achievements of the past, the Obama administration can make progress on the gun issue with a strategy that emphasizes the compatibility of gun rights and sensible gun control.

- Allen Rostron

William R. Jacques Constitutional Law Scholar and Associate Professor of Law
University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law

The source of the quote I found here.

There is no compatibility between gun rights and sensible gun control. Since the National Firearms Act of 1934, we've been exploring that compatibility. It's like the vegetable your parents made you eat as a child. You did it, because it was put in front of you. Now that you're an adult, that vegetable is no longer on your menu.

Ambiguous Criteria for Gun Ownership in Furious Mike's Paradise

The city of New York is proposing new criteria on who may legally own a gun in the Big Apple.  Of course, Paul Helmke pipes in on the part that would deny someone their natural right to own a gun if they failed to pay taxes.

Imagine if this were applied to being Jewish, or Black or Gay. People would be up in arms. To me this is like the arbitrary laws that were put in place to prevent blacks from voting in the south after the Civil War. Bigots are still among us. Let's call them out for what they are.

A most perplexing issue

Living in a practical libertarian manner can be a real pain in the ass sometimes.  Case in point, the Boy Scouts are denying a gay father a leadership position in their organization.  Now, I was a Boy Scout and support and understand their right to choose who they allow into their organization.  On the other hand, who you decide to be intimate with is none of mine or anyone else's concern.  Where does the privacy of the individual end and the requirements of the organization begin? It is quite the conundrum.

Submit or Die

I'm not certain what this video's meaning was beyond, "submit or die." I suppose whoever pitched this idea found humor in it. And with seven different individuals exploding at the push of a button with the accompanying gore, well, I hope those who view it have a strong stomach.



How about if I raise my carbon emissions by ten percent. I know, I'll take ten ten round magazines and shoot at "green" targets. And I'll even recycle my brass.

The EPA, under Lisa Jackson, is seeking to ban lead based ammunition.  Currently, the EPA is seeking comments on this proposal.  This is the same woman who feels that carbon dioxide is a threat to human life, and is leading the charge to regulate it.

The NSSF is urging people to be respectful when submitting their comments. 
You can submit comments here. 

Of course, it's not quite time yet to saddle up & shoot the bastards, so Tam is holding her snark in check for the time being, but I share her sentiment.

 There is anecdotal evidence that the banning of traditional ammunition would have an adverse impact on government bureaucrat populations.

Call, write, pester the shit out of, your local congresscritter as well and express your displeasure in a polite, respectful way. Yeah, you gotta eat some crow to show them some respect, but it might head off this clusterfuck of an idea.  

 One of my Facebook friends pointed me to this article.   It is written by a pagan and is in response to the tea party.  Let's explore this poor deluded creatures thoughts, shall we?

At this point, as a liberal, I'm right with them. I voted for President Obama and, although I think he has potential, I have been less than pleased with his administration so far. While trying to be positive, the economy isn't looking good, and it's hurting my community. He's perpetuated the previous administration's power grabs and, while I understand the need for the economic stimulus package, the national debt worries me. Not to mention we are still losing American lives in wars overseas and basic rights for detainees still haven't been achieved.

First off, she states who she voted for, President Obama, and she thinks he has potential. Everyone has potential.  What does President Obama have potential for, becoming a disciple of Al "release my Chakra" Gore?  No thanks, I don't want another sex poodle in the White House.   She goes on to say she understand the need for the economic stimulus package, but yet the national debt worries her.  Where does that national debt come from?  Among many parts of the stimulus package was funding for Chinese Prostitutes in China to learn how to drink responsibly.  I guess that is so Al Gore can release his Chakra without the Chinese lady passing out on him.  

 

At this point I diverge from the Tea Party as represented in this poll. I think Obama's choice of Evergreen Chapel as a home church is laudable, I think our best years may be ahead, I'm generally happy with the reform of health insurance company practices, I don't feel there is a racial bias in the White House, I'm cautious about vague terms like "smaller government," and I feel that policies should favor the poor in this time of economic upheaval.

Surprisingly, I agree with the author that our best years are ahead of us.  Although I suspect, not for the same reasons.  I do disagree that there isn't a racial bias in the White House.  It's a class bias, and President Obama feels he's yours and mine better.  How can you be cautious about vague terms like "smaller government?"  But hold onto that thought, I'll address it here in a minute.  Policies should favor the poor?  We've had one hundred plus years of welfare and entitlement programs here in the United States and yet, poverty is more prevalent than ever.   I personally favor policies that put government out of the wealth distribution business. 

So far we're about 50/50. Looking at the Contract from America gives me far more food for thought than expected. Let's look at the article's points one by one, beginning with the preamble:

Individual Liberty: I'm with this 99 percent. I want my freedom of expression, of religion, and of economic choices to be protected. I want to be able to speak, read, and write freely without worrying that the government is invading my privacy; to practice my faith openly without fear; to be able to marry regardless of gender; and to be able to purchase herbs, tarot readings, hemp products, and local edibles without government interference. That said, I do like having food inspectors to make sure I don't buy hamburgers tainted with Mad Cow disease and I think it's reasonable to have a license for gun ownership, as a gun is just as lethal as a car in uneducated hands. So I have no issue with my economic freedoms being limited by basic concern for my safety.

Well, why not one hundred percent.  You cannot pick and choose which enumerated rights are enforced and which are ignored.  And even with USDA inspectors, we still have food borne illness.  Here's where I wholeheartedly disagree with you,  and that's a license for gun ownership.  Try this statement on and see how uncomfortable it makes you, "I thinks it's reasonable to have a license to worship pagan gods, as religion is just as lethal as a pen & paper in uneducated hands."  I bet you feel a tad bit upset that I would advocate licensing to practice your religion.  Look at it from a peaceably armed citizen's point of view.  I can't say it any better than Benjamin Franklin, so I'll use his quote to rebut your last statement here, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

  

Limited Government: I do think the government should have a limited presence in our daily lives. They shouldn't be concerned with what I'm reading or what happens in my bedroom between consenting adults. It's none of their business if I burn non-addictive herbs for their scent or for their relaxation properties. However, I recognize that my effect on other people is limited, while corporations, insurance companies, and Wall Street can have a disastrously detrimental effect on society at large if allowed to function unchecked. A corporation's first priority is profits, not the welfare of the society it exists in, so regulation of industry is for the public good.

Ah, so you are for limited, albeit, smaller government. The leviathan has too many heads and needs to be pruned.  I bet every time, Congress has acted to limit business somehow from "trampling over the poor and middle class," business has found a new way around said law.  

Economic Freedom: I think this is a bit redundant, and I've already expressed my thoughts on this.

No, you wanted YOUR economic choices protected.  How about my economic choices or the economic choices of the store where you buy your tarot cards?  

1. Protect the Constitution: I think identifying the Constitutional right of each piece of legislature is a fine idea, as long as it doesn't become a tool to reinforce bizarre interpretations of the Constitution.

Right now, the way the current administration is interpreting the Constitution is pretty bizarre.  Where exactly does it say that I have to buy health insurance, I can't seem to find that clause.  

2. Reject Cap & Trade: I don't think industries should be able to buy and sell emissions allowances. I think giving incentives for companies to reduce their emissions, and take steps to "green" their businesses, would increase domestic jobs.

Hallelujah!! Let's make this a free market solution.  But wait a cotton picking minute!  Give incentives?!?!?!? That national debt you're worried about, well those incentives I bet would take the form of tax breaks.  And who is the business gonna pass their costs along to, that's right, you and me.  

3. Demand a Balanced Budget: County governments in the State of Georgia must have balanced budgets to remain an incorporated government entity in the state. I think it's reasonable to ask our government to be fiscally responsible in this manner.

Sorry, can't do that with that Economic Stimulus Package you see the need for.  

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: I am in favor of the general principal of tax reform, but I advocate a simple graduated income tax over a flat-rate or so-called "fair tax" scheme. That could be another article entirely.

How about we raise taxes on imports into this country and do away with the income tax.  A national sales tax would also work better, as people are consumers and boy do we ever consume.  

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington: Creating an "Internal Services" to police the Constitutionality and efficiency of government offices sounds like a disaster, quite frankly. Aside from the irony of creating a new far-reaching government entity to ensure the government stays small, one of the biggest areas of waste in the federal government is the military. How would this task force handle that while protecting national security? How Constitutional is the war in Iraq, and what is the exact total of money, arms, and lives that could be saved there with greater fiscal and moral responsibility at all levels of the federal government?

You ask how the war in Iraq is Constitutional, and yet you don't ask if anything else the government is doing nowadays is Constitutional.  EVERY. SINGLE. PIECE. OF. LEGISLATION.  needs to & must be scrutinized by the constituency of Congress and the President.  We the People are the ones responsible to correct and direct our elected leaders into a more responsible course of action.  

6. End Runaway Government Spending: Capping spending by inflation and population growth may sound good at first, but I'm skeptical on the wisdom of such a scheme. I would rather the government have flexibility to adapt to contingencies rather than be bound and financially strapped for cash in an emergency. That said, I don't have any better ideas.

How about Congress takes each 'emergency' on a case by case basis?  Otherwise, everything becomes an 'emergency."

 

7. Defund, Repeal and Replace Government-run Healthcare: I've already stated I'm in favor of the health care reforms enacted by the current administration, but this section of the Contract is worded broadly enough to do away with Medicare and Medicaid, which would be a disaster to millions of our elderly.

 Again, I point to my rebuttal of point five; Why aren't we seriously looking at the constitutionality of health care reform?  

8. Pass an "All-of-the-Above" Energy Policy: I agree that we need to take a fresh look at our energy options in the U.S., but I also think that means we need to seriously promote alternative energy options. The oil spill in the Gulf has hurt the livelihood of the men and women living along the coast, from fishermen, to shrimpers, to folks in the tourist industry. We need to make sure our energy investments going forward are responsible, clean, and fiscally sound. Ranchers can harvest wind energy in the same pastures they run their cows. That's the kind of solution that helps the American farmer and works toward solving our energy issues.

Does this mean that you don't mind if we drill in the ANR?  Or in shallow waters off the coast of California?  Recently,  I took a trip to Wisconsin and saw hundred's of Wind Turbines.  I can truly understand the Not In My Backyard mentality of the Kennedy's.  Huge pylons with three bladed props turning did nothing to improve the natural beauty of an otherwise pristine landscape.

 

9. Stop the Pork: I think limiting the use of earmarks is a good thing. If government organizations don't have their funds micro-managed by Congress then they have the flexibility they need to be efficient and effective, and perhaps this will reduce the special favors granted to lobbyists.

Me too, however, let's also, do away with some government organizations, like the Dept. of Education, Energy and the ATF.   While we're at it, let's get rid of the EPA.  After all, they are the ones that will enforce Cap & Trade.  

 

10. Stop the Tax Hikes: I dislike paying taxes as much as the next guy, but I honestly believe that since we aren't going to reduce the over-abundant coffers of the military and that BP will not bear the cost of cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico effectively, adding in the fact that we've had an ongoing deficit that the current economic slump has deepened, the money has to come from somewhere. It's sad but we need to do what we can to improve our future. 

 
Yes, I'd rather have the extra cash in my pocket, but I'm also thankful for the unemployment extensions and tax cuts that have helped so many through this recession. It sucks, but if the government honestly reduces the deficit, it's worth it to me. Sure, we could pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and use those funds to pay down the debt while saving the lives of our service members, but we all know that won't happen. We could repeal all the extravagant tax cuts for the oil companies. We could legalize marijuana and tax it. We could legalize prostitution and tax it. We're not going to do those things, though. It will come out of our pockets and it's the price we pay to keep from sinking into an economic Depression as bad as or worse than that our grandparents and great-grandparents lived through.

How about we stop extending jobless benefits and give people some incentive to find work or create new business'?  It seems to me that the government told BP to set up a $20 billion dollar fund to help clean up.  Wait, let me guess, the government is wise enough to know that $20 billion is enough to clean everything up.  No, well then what is the magic number?

We've had national debt for decades, long before it started to climb out of control in the ‘80s. What people tend to forget is that our national debt went way out of control during the ‘40s, when our national debt equated to 120 percent of our GDP. It took us until the ‘70s to bring that back down to a reasonable level. Right now, our national debt equates to approximately 80-90 percent of our GDP. Is it scary? Of course it is, but we have been here before. We handled it then and we can handle it now.

Maybe there is some small truth in Tim's assertion that liberals don't like white, male, 45- year-old Republicans. I think it's the median age we don't like: 45. While their parents survived the Great Depression and a World War, the folks currently in their mid-to-late 40s and early 50s had to survive Abba, the Berlin Wall collapsing, the flourishing economy of the late ‘80s and the ‘90s, a President's getting nookie on the side, and the amazing advances of the tech industry. They had the limited Gulf War but haven't had their generation swept up in the aimless morass of Vietnam, Afghanistan, or the current Iraqi war. It has nothing to do with their being white, male, or Republican; it has to do with their sense of entitlement and jaded pessimism.

As a liberal Pagan, I think I have enough in common with the Tea Party Movement to engage in respectful, serious, and practical dialogue about how to solve the problems facing our nation. Our civic pride and values are very similar. We love liberty, America, and a strong economy. We simply don't always agree with how to preserve those things.

What do I really think about the Tea Party Movement? I think they have interesting ideas, ones that need to be discussed, debated, and taken seriously nationwide. The Tea Party is a corrective action taken against the lack of public discourse about the direction of our country. Politics was once the dinner table conversation of America. Now, we so readily accept all "news" as entertainment that we bypass those posing as objective reporters and go straight to the clown-pundits: Coulter, Colbert, Beck, and Stewart.

I sympathize with the problems the Tea Party has had with the media, with fringe elements, and with being taken seriously. Pagans have been dealing with those issues since the ‘60s and could offer a few pointers, if they'd care to listen. The Modern Pagan Movement is grappling with how to form loose unions in which to promote the interests of our very different autonomous Pagan groups without infringing on their liberties or imposing values on them from the outside. We as a religious movement are deeply engaged in the same issues as the Republic in which we stand. We like tea, we like parties, and we could learn from each other. We should talk.

Sounds good to me, how about over a cup of tea?

 

Equating a celebrated tool with lethality

The VPC's Josh Sugarmann is decrying the use of a particular model of pistol that was used by the alleged gunman during last week's horrific shooting in CT.

Sugarmann equates the Ruger SR9c, a pistol named Handgun of the Year, with his view that the firearms industry is producing increasingly lethal firearms.

Sugarmann's ignorance of why compact pistols are a compromise would be laughable, if not for the tragedy he attempts to profit from.

Had the alleged gunman used a Ford Fusion, would Sugarmann bemoan over the Ford's 263 hp V-6 being used to run down one of those killed? I highly doubt it. Perhaps Josh Sugarmann shouldn't ever buy a Ford Fusion, it's **** of the year status might mean he could run someone over someone.

You can undo anything these days it seems.  Atheists are now un-baptizing themselves with a hair dryer. 

Noted atheist  Edwin Kagan performed a ceremony in which people came forward to where Kagan would use a hair dryer to symbolically dry the baptismal water from their heads.  Isn't it ironic that atheists, who reject the idea of the symbolism of a baptizing, use a very similiar ceremony to reverse what has been done to them?

The money quote

"I was baptized Catholic. I don't remember any of it at all," said 24-year-old Cambridge Boxterman. "According to my mother, I screamed like a banshee ... so you can see that even as a young child I didn't want to be baptized. It's not fair. I was born atheist, and they were forcing me to become Catholic."

Um, skippy, yeah, not so much.  You were probably an infant when this  happened.  Life isn't fair either.   And you were born an atheist?  That statement implies that you were predetermined to become one.  Predetermination, a most metaphysical subject.