Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Friday, January 11, 2013

Founders Advice On Gun Control

I recently received the following quote from a friend of mine. It is: 
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's
Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

It got me to thinking what other quotes can we find and we came across the following article which makes it pretty clear what the Founders were thinking about guns and a soldier's equipment. Would they have thought that ALL weapons of war should be allowed in individual's hands? We believe the answer would be yes.

During this current debate, we keep hearing about the use of guns for "hunting and sport" as if that was the original intent of the Second Amendment. It  is obvious that the Founders would laugh at that presumption.  They feared their fellow citizens who were not mentally balanced and criminals but they were more frightened of a government that would impose its will on the common folk.

We believe that we need to take the wisdom of the Founders and apply it to today. Gun control is forbidden by the Second Amendment and any effort to impose any should be resisted to the full extent necessary.  We must push back otherwise we are guaranteeing that our other rights will not be worth the paper onto which they are written.

Be Scared, Be Very Scared!

Conservative Tom 

The Founders’ Words Reveal Intent.
By Colonel Dan, SASS# 24025 Life

We all probably know the Second Amendment by heart, but do we know the underlying intent that served as a foundational basis for that Amendment? 

Obviously, the basic content of our Founding Fathers’ thoughts ultimately determined the final content of our Constitution.  But in order to gain some insight to their fundamental thought process, i.e. intent, we might want to read what they wrote on the subject external to the Bill of Rights. 

In their hearts of hearts—their souls—how did they really feel about the private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms—and why?  This is a question the anti-gunners in our midst use and twist constantly—as in “The Second doesn’t really mean what you think it does.  It means that only a well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms, not the people.”  The militia defined by the anti-gunners as the National Guard—in other words, a government regulated military force.  Is that the view of the Founding Fathers? 

To help us better understand their intentions I suggest we read the words they used when persuading others about the merits of their ideas.  Therein we’ll find the best available indication of actual intent behind the Amendment from those that actually wrote it.

Below are a few representative examples among many regarding our right to keep and bear arms from the Founders themselves.  All quotes are unedited by me.  I could not and would not presume to improve upon the inspiration of our Founding Fathers. 

My only request is that you read, think, and determine for yourself what they really meant.  Then after reading their own words, ask yourself if the Founders seem like advocates of “common sense gun control” or do they seem somewhat more like “Second Amendment Absolutists” to you? 

Once you come to a conclusion, be an active voice of commitment in defense of and for that conclusion—whatever it may be.  Just don’t be noncommittal and therefore uncommitted—there’s too much at stake.


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson,
Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776).

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's
Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater…confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).

"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." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison.  

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784).

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at p. 750, August 17, 1789.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" --Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." --Richard
Henry Lee, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --Patrick Henry

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." --Thomas Paine

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" --from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18,1789 at 2, col.2.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."  Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." – Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

My Sentiments

Does the following article make sense to you? It does to us.  It encapsulates the issues that we are feeling about the current state of affairs in this country. We do not know who wrote it originally, however, if you do know, please let us know and we will update the posting.

Let us know what you think.

Conservative Tom

P.S. If  you find other article that might fit into Conservative Tom's positions on the issues, if you would email them to us at, it would be appreciated. We will protect your identity, unless you want other to know you think the same as we do.

Subject: Does This Describe Your Attitude?

My sentiments parallel those below.  
           It's official; I don't know anything.
           I thought for sure that given such a clear choice, Americans would vote for love of country over revenge.
           I was wrong.
           I thought, that just as every presidential election in my lifetime, the bad economy would be hung around the incumbent's neck, sinking him.
           I was wrong.
           I thought that even those few Americans who were fortunate enough to still be fully employed (not counting those leeching off the public system) would be cognizant of how much pain their neighbors were in and elect someone who would at least try to make improvements.
           I was wrong.
           I thought that now that FINALLY some of the disturbing truths about our president had come to light, voters would reject a man so dangerously at odds with the American experience.
           I was wrong.
           I thought the 2010 elections and the Tea Party meant something. I thought the enthusiasm on display at Romney/Ryan events, contrasted with the lack of same at Obama/Biden events meant something. I thought Americans would never sell their liberty for the sake of trinkets like cell phones or even big shiny lies like 'free health care'.
           I was wrong.
           Never in a million years would I have supposed that America would support a president who left his (our) people to die at the hands of our enemies overseas without lifting a hand to help, then lie about what he watched in real time for over two weeks, then lie about the lie for another month.
           I was wrong.
           I thought Americans could tell a hawk from a handsaw.
           I was wrong.
           We were offered the clearest choice we've had since 1980, where we had malaise and a misery index on one hand and a shining city on a hill on the other.  Back then, we chose the city on the hill.  This time the choice was between a man who says 7.9% unemployment and $4.00 gas is the new normal and a guy whose entire career has been about fixing broken entities.
           We chose to stay broken. And Broke.
           Maybe I'm wrong about the ramifications of this choice.  Maybe windmills will actually turn out to be a viable energy source.  Maybe America diminished will be loved overseas.  Maybe a nuclear Iran won't be a threat.  Maybe Israel is over reacting. Maybe western civilization was always over rated. Maybe life under sharia is not bad at all.  Maybe when the rest of the world realizes that we have no intention of ever paying back that $16,000,000,000,000.00 (and counting) that we've borrowed from them, they won't devalue the dollar, causing hyperinflation here at home. Maybe China will just keep on giving us money and not demand our he art s, souls, national monuments and marriageable daughters as payment.
           I've watched my candidate lose elections before but I've never felt the way I did when this one was called for Obama. It wasn't bitterness or sadness or even disappointment.  It took me a while to figure out what it was.  Then it hit me; it was horror. Pure, unadulterated horror. Not because of Obama, but because of what it says about us, the American people, that we chose this.
           It shouldn't have even been close. Faced with the choice between taking charge of our destiny and tackling our financial problems, we opted to get high and have sex. We've elected a guy who doesn't understand that a growing economy that creates more tax payers will bring in more revenue than higher taxes.  A Commander in Chief who doesn't know our military still uses bayonets. A man who wants to control the economy without even knowing the difference between bankruptcy and liquidation. It was one thing to elect an unknown quantity, buying his line of 'Hope and Change'.  It's something else to deliberately choose his failed policies over someone who has actually achieved success in life.  I never dreamed America would do that.
           Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, Hello Idiocracy!
           Goodbye, recovery.
           Goodbye, energy independence.
           Goodbye, religious liberty.
           Goodbye, liberty and justice for all.
           Goodbye, America dream.
           It profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world but we threw ours away for cell phones and birth control pills.
           In the twentieth century (the American Century), we stepped up to the plate three times and saved the rest of the world from fascism, Nazism and communism.  We were the cavalry, always riding to the rescue.
           Now, we've gotten rid of our horses, spent all our money on windmills, alienated our allies, bowed to our enemies, cut ourselves off from our own natural resources thrown away our children's birthright and spent their inheritance.
           And we did it on purpose.
           When the wolf is at the door (and he's coming, yelling 'Allahu Akbar') we're going to find out that there is no one out there to come to our rescue.
           On the bright side, maybe it'll all turn out great.
           After all, I don't know anything.

Groundhog Vs. State of the Union

Something to look forward to
In the coming New Year, 2013, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union
address will occur on the same day. This is an ironic turn of events. One involves
a meaningless ritual in which we look to an insignificant creature of little intelligence
for guidance...
The other involves a groundhog.

Comparing 1776 With 2012--Same Issues?

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I’ve been writing about it for over a year. Many of you may have thought that I was just trying to make a point and not serious about it. But, indeed I was always serious, as you should be too – as our Founding Fathers John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and company were serious in the years leading up to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. We no longer have a free nation! We no longer have a functional republic! What choice is there when the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government fail and refuse to take into account the profound grievances of the “We the People” and instead walk off to feather their own corrupt establishment nest?
The Founding Fathers and the colonies declared independence and waged a revolutionary war for a lot less than the current tyranny we face. First, the colonies were very prosperous but also subject to being heavily taxed – that is, financially raped by King George III – without representation in the British Parliament. They were hardly bankrupt as the nation is today. With the disgusting and revolting (no pun intended) actions on display just in the last days in Congress and the executive branch with regard to the so-called fiscal cliff legislation – which will increase onerous taxes and in fact increase the country’s bankruptcy by $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years – it is clear that King George III was an amateur tyrant when compared with the nation’s current, self-serving and greedy establishment hacks in both major political parties.
Second, John Adams (who as a trial lawyer risked his career to successfully defend British soldiers who had been provoked to fire on and kill colonial protesters on Boston Common) and his fellow Founding Fathers were outraged that even after the American legal system had functioned properly and acquitted the British soldiers, King George ordered that all criminal defendants accused of felonies be subsequently tried in British courts in London. The king removed the legal right of the colonies to adjudicate serious crimes committed on American soil. Today, and as just one example among an ever-expanding array of disgraceful illegal acts by our judges on a daily basis, the refusal of courts to hear eligibility challenges concerning the status of Barack Hussein Obama as a “natural born citizen” reinforces the reality that we no longer have a functional legal system. Notwithstanding that the result is a black-Muslim, anti-white, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian “Manchurian candidate” fraudster socialist tyrant in the Oval Office – bent on tearing down and destroying the pillars of our formerly capitalist society – “We the People” have been left defenseless, legally, by the judges who have taken an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution, the law and mete out justice.
Third, the colonies objected to having King George impose what was in effect a trade embargo; the despot ruler ordering that the colonies could not engage in tea and other forms if trade with other countries, but instead had to primarily buy only British products.
Fourth, when the Founding Fathers and colonies sought to reason with the king to have him remove this bondage and heavy taxation without representation, the Crown reacted by sending its troops to seize and destroy American arms and weapons, to try to prevent the colonies from rising up in rebellion. The absolute right to bear arms was enshrined into the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a result. Today, with the overreaction to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the convenient and opportunistic push by leftists led by Obama to begin the process of banning guns and seizing our weapons of self-defense against not just the so-called government but other criminals among us – we can see more than the similarities of our plight in 1776.
In short, our situation – whereby the nation has been intentionally bankrupted by the Democratic and Republican establishment and sold out to the equivalent of biblical money changers in the modern form of special interests who line the pockets of our government representatives with campaign contributions and other forms of cash, legal and illegal, to do their bidding – is far worse than in 1776. And, that is not even to mention the moral decay that has swept the nation and is rotting it from within, as manifested in our generally filthy and degenerate movies, television and music – which have been furthered by government entities like the Federal Communications Commission, whose commissioners come from both political parties.
Thus, the profound and moving words and self-evident truths contained in the Declaration of Independence ring even more true today than in 1776. They read just in part, “… when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them (meaning ‘We the People’) under absolute Despotism, its is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The time has come after a long line of “abuses and usurpations” for us to rise up and demand that our current so called rulers leave “Dodge City,” or suffer the consequences as King George III was forced to do.
I am currently in a deep contemplative mood on how to try to do this peacefully without resort to violence. The Founding Fathers, however, ultimately concluded that peaceful means were not possible.
We now find ourselves at a similar crossroads with little time to waste before the nation is totally destroyed by its corrupt and degenerate establishment rulers.

Read more at 

Thursday, January 10, 2013

New Debt Financing Scheme--Script

Since Congress can't get its act together and start a plan to solve the debt crisis, there have been a number of proposals about handling the issue.  We have heard about a platinum coin worth $1 trillion being deposited in the Treasury and a plan to issue an executive order to pay the bills, both are impossible and will never happen.  The latest is  issuing scrip for debt. This will be for payments such as Social Security.

The way scrip would work is that it would be created in exchange for the amount owed. The recipient could keep the instrument until the government had the money to pay the debt. However, if there was a need to get the money earlier, banks and, we assume, Wall Street, would purchase the instrument at a discount.  How large a discount would depend upon how soon it would be assumed that the government would be able to pay its bills.
Can you imagine a pensioner who would lose 10,15, or 35% of their benefits because the government could not pay him his monthly benefit? 

We will bet you that Congressmen/women, Senators and the President will get their pay and not have to accept the scrip! Nor will  Wall Street or the banks, they all will receive "real money."  It will only be the common people that this garbage will be dropped on!

Isn't it time that Congress get to work and solve the problem. It will require pain for all American's part, however, if it is not done the damage will be many times worse. However, plans like this scrip idea are foolish and only will put lipstick on the pig!

Conservative Tom

The Debt Ceiling’s Escape Hatch

Oliver Munday

  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL

Opinion Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.
Oliver Munday
THE fiscal cliff may have been avoided, but an even higher-stakes political standoff — this time, over thefederal debt ceiling — is just around the bend.
Congressional Republicans have said they will demand immense cuts to popular government programs in exchange for agreeing to raise the nation’s authorized borrowing limit of$16.4 trillion. The Treasury Department briefly nudged against that ceiling on Dec. 31, but used “extraordinary” financial measures to buy more time. If nothing is done, the government will soon be unable to pay all of its bills in a timely manner. This unprecedented event would profoundly damage the government’s credit rating and send the financial system into a tailspin.
So far, President Obama isn’t giving in. As he rightly said last week, he “will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed.”
But for the president’s tough talk to be credible, Congress and the country need to know before we reach the breach point — an event that could come as early as February — that he has a plausible plan to work around the debt ceiling.
There are no great options. Most of the ideas floated so far would either severely disrupt the public markets for Treasury debt or rely on a constitutional claim of executive authority so far-reaching that we would very likely spend the next two years locked in an impeachment fight.
Some have suggested, for instance, that the president could ignore the debt ceiling and direct the Treasury to issue more bonds to cover its obligations. But the Constitution is clear, and Mr. Obama agrees, that Congress alone has the power to authorize new borrowing.
Other supposed solutions — like the notion that the Treasury Department could create a$1 trillion dollar platinum coin and deposit it in its own account at the Federal Reserve — are even more fantastical.
However, there is a plausible course of action, one that the president should publicly adopt in the coming weeks as his contingency plan should debt-ceiling negotiations falter. He should threaten to issue scrip — “registered warrants” — to existing claims holders (other than those who own actual government debt) in lieu of money. Recipients of these I.O.U.’s could include federal employees, defense contractors, Medicare service providers, Social Security recipients and others.
The scrip would not violate the debt ceiling because it wouldn’t constitute a new borrowing of money backed by the credit of the United States. It would merely be a formal acknowledgment of a pre-existing monetary claim against the United States that the Treasury was not currently able to pay. The president could therefore establish a scrip program by executive order without piling a constitutional crisis on top of a fiscal one.
To avoid any confusion with actual Treasury debt, and to be consistent with the law governing claims against the United States more generally, the scrip would not pay interest in most cases. And unlike debt, it would have no fixed maturity date but rather would become redeemable in cash only when the secretary of the Treasury was able to certify that there’s enough money available in the Treasury’s general fund to cover it.
Finally, the scrip would be transferable, allowing financial institutions to buy it at a high percentage of its face value, knowing that the political crisis would almost certainly be resolved before long.
The federal Anti-Assignment Act generally prohibits the transfer of claims against the United States from one private actor to another, but the government could waive the act’s application, which is what the president would do here.
The strategy may sound far-fetched, but it has been used before: in fact, California relied on it as recently as 2009.
Beginning in July of that year, California addressed its budget crisis by issuing 450,000 registered warrants, totaling $2.6 billion, to individual and business claimants, including recipients of aid programs, recipients of tax refunds and government contractors. Those holders who needed immediate cash were usually able to sell their registered warrants to banks at face value, though some institutions limited such purchases.
Whether as a result of public shaming, pressure from banks or a newfound sense of responsibility, the Legislature quickly worked out a budget deal and the scrip was then redeemed for cash.
Throughout the ordeal, California continued to pay its public debt service in cash and on schedule and never lost an investment-grade credit rating.
A federal scrip program, importantly, would not explicitly challenge any constitutional allocation of powers. Nor would there be confusion in the marketplace between valid Treasury bonds and this new paper, which would have a different name, financial terms and legal status. And because the scrip would be transferable, claimants forced to accept it would be able to turn it into immediate cash in private markets, for as long as the Treasury was unable to issue new debt.
Would a federal scrip program be a painless way of resolving a debt ceiling crisis? Hardly. But it would be the least awful way to defang the most extortionate demands of Congressional hard-liners — and one that would not permanently damage America’s fiscal standing in the world.

Edward D. Kleinbard, a former chief of staff at the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, is a law professor at the University of Southern California.

Piers Morgan's Facts Challenged by Local Anchor


The gun control debate is often highly-emotional, with both sides throwing out statistics in an effort to sway Americans to either side of the aisle. Since the Sandy Hook shooting last month, CNN’s Piers Morgan has emerged as a vocal proponent for increased gun control laws. This week, after Morgan’s very public, on-air spat with radio host Alex Jones, Ben Swann, a local Fox anchor for WXIX-TV in Cincinnati, offered up a fascinating fact-check of some of the stats that the British CNN host has been using. Morgan will surely find the results unpalatable.
Swann tackled a litany of statistics, but took particular aim at one number that Morgan has repeatedly mentioned in recent days. During his exchange with Jones, the CNN host alleged that Great Britain only had 35 gun-related murders in 2011 compared to 11,000 that unfolded in the U.S. during that same timeframe. Swann, though, debunked this claim, delving deeply into crime statistics to make better sense of the numbers.
WXIX TVs Ben Swann Fact Checks Piers Morgans Anti Gun Claims
Ben Swann, a local Fox anchor for WXIX-TV, fact checks CNN host Piers Morgan’s gun claims (Photo Credit: WXIX-TV)
“There were 12,664 homicides in the U.S. Of those 8,583 were caused by firearms,” he explainedin a video posted on WXIX-TV’s web site. “But of those, 400 are listed as justifiable homicide by law enforcement — 260 justifiable homicide by private citizens.”
Based on this analysis, Morgan’s claim that 11,000 people died needlessly in the U.S. as a result of poor gun control measures seems to fall flat (the number is lower, however it is still higher than Great Britain’s — so, on that point, Morgan has some standing). Swann continued, noting that the CNN host is also wrong about his claim that only 35 firearm deaths unfolded in Great Britain — a figure which is actually closer to 59, the reporter alleged.
Swann noted that those like Morgan who seek greater gun control measures lose their argument when they claim that “fewer guns equals less crime.” To make this point, he explored the crime rates in Great Britain, the U.S. and other nations around the globe.
“The U.S. has the highest gun ownership in the world…[making it] first in the world for gun ownership,” said Swann. “[The] U.S., despite being number one in gun ownership, is number 28 in gun homicide, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people.”
WXIX TVs Ben Swann Fact Checks Piers Morgans Anti Gun Claims
CNN host Piers Morgan and radio host Alex Jones(Photo Credit: CNN)
In exploring the United Kingdom’s numbers (Great Britain is part of the UK), some of Morgan’s arguments again seem to falter, as Swann notes that the UK has the second-highest overall crime rate in the European Union (EU); the EU has also named Britain the most violent country in the union.
“In the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people,” Swann noted, showcasing that fewer guns is certainly not indicative of a lower crime rate (the rate in the U.S. is 466 per 100,000 residents).
The stat-driven segment ended with Swann delivering a message that gun control advocates will undoubtedly dislike. Rather than blaming weapons, the anchor said that individuals are accountable for violent actions.
“While people like Morgan insist that the U.S. can learn from Great Britain — well maybe we can,” Swann concluded. “What we might learn is that violent crime is not the result of a gun or any tool — it is the result of the heart of men and women.”
Watch the video, below:
Will Morgan respond to this pointed rebuke? We’ll have to wait and see, but considering how fervently Swann relied upon actual statistics and not mere emotion, arguing against the anchor’s points with legitimacy could prove a highly-difficult task for the CNN host.