Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Truth About The AR-15

If you really want to understand the AR-15 and its importance to the Second Amendment, you should read the attached article. So far it is the best explanation of the importance of a dreaded "assault weapon."

You won't read anything like this type of information on many other sites, even pro-gun control. We are proud to express a balanced view of this weapon.

Conservative Tom

Here is the link:

Sad State of Affairs at the CIA

One of our ever-so-diligent readers, posted this article today for us to read. We thank him and appreciate the heads up. His comment was right on.

He wonders what we are paying for, if the CIA cannot get things right and that the Pentagon has to go to outside sources to get accurate data since the "Agency" is too busy playing footsie with the powers to be in Washington. We also wonder what dis-information has been fed to us, the Congress and other consumers of their information.  

 If we cannot depend upon our intelligence service to provide accurate, up to date, and unblemished information, we might as well assign Conservative Tom to the whole job. At least we would try to get some of the information right and would not let Washington bureaucrats change the facts.

This country is coming to an end and this is just another indicator. It is a shame that we have to see it occurring daily.

Conservative Tom

Benghazi blunder: CIA opts for CYA

  • Last Updated: 2:16 AM, December 6, 2012
  • Posted: 11:59 PM, December 5, 2012
The United States has the world’s largest and (at $80 billion a year) best-funded intelligence services in the world — some 17 of them, in fact, including such lesser-known outfits as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which helped lead Seal Team Six to Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan, and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
How much bang we’re getting for our buck from the big dogs of the intelligence community, though, is another matter — as the recent Libyan fiasco so vividly demonstrates.
The deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were a moral and military disgrace, bespeaking a failure of nerve and judgment at the highest levels. With significant military assets just a couple of hours away, the men were left to die.
Their deaths were a tragedy, but now the ensuing blame game threatens to devolve into farce.
Ever since UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s ludicrous assertion that the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi (which now appears to have been a CIA station operating under flimsy diplomatic cover) was provoked by an amateur video that lampooned Islam, various elements of the IC have been scrambling to assign blame — and protect the White House.
At various points, the CIA, the FBI and the useless Office of the Director of National Intelligence have either shouldered the responsibility or had fingers pointed at them for editing out references to al Qaeda’s role in the deadly assault from the unclassified talking points provided to Rice and others in the aftermath of the disaster.
Most recently, the hot potato has landed back where it began — at CIA, which remains in organizational turmoil after the sudden resignation of its director, David Petraeus.
According to a detailed report in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, all references to terrorism were edited out by dozens of busy beavers in Langley:
“A detailed examination of how US assessments were turned into the talking points reveals a highly cautious, bureaucratic process that had the effect of watering down the US’s own intelligence. The same process was slow to change conclusions when evidence shifted, in particular about links to al Qaeda and whether the attack grew out of a protest.”
According to the Journal, the report was deliberately watered down to protect the agency’s sources and investigative methods — as if it were top secret that CIA or the National Security Agency is constantly monitoring al Qaeda’s internal communications, or has agents embedded within terror cells.
Yet the talking points also included this fateful line: “The demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo.” Which we now know was a flat-out lie.
We expect our intel agencies to lie to our enemies — that’s part of their brief. But we don’t expect them to lie to Congress and the White House — which in any case had its own domestic political reasons for not wanting to ascribe the attack to al Qaeda.
But even “watering down” our own intelligence for bureaucratic CYA reasons is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, it’s all too typical of the CIA — which has consistently bungled just about every major geopolitical development since it helped overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and engineered a coup against Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz the next year.
Among other things, the agency failed to adequately assess the global threat posed by the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and was caught by surprise when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed two years later. And how about those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
The Benghazi blunder illustrates why: While the Agency remains very good at collecting intelligence and providing payback against our foreign enemies, its in-house analysts are often too busy playing footsie with the Washington political and journalistic establishment to soberly and apolitically deliver the news.
So it’s no accident that another member of the IC, the Defense Intelligence Agency — which reports to the Pentagon — is beefing up its core of overseas “collection” agents as part of its new Defense Clandestine Service (announced back in April, but informally in existence for more than a decade). Essentially, the Pentagon now has a way to go around CIA if and when it feels the need for threat assessment unfiltered by a dysfunctional Langley bureaucracy.
It’s a sad commentary on a once-proud agency that it’s no longer trusted by the folks who have to put the military’s muscle behind the analysts’ mouths.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Obama's Gun Proposals

Our comments are in Red. If you comment, please use another color.

Conservative Tom

What Are Obama's Gun Control Proposals? An Easy Guide

Updated: January 16, 2013 | 1:38 p.m.
January 16, 2013 | 12:18 p.m.
President Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, left, hugs eight-year-old letter writer Grant Fritz during a news conference on proposals to reduce gun violence, Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013, in the South Court Auditorium at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

The sweeping gun-control package that President Obama unveiled Wednesday includes proposals to ban assault weapons, limit high-capacity magazines, and improve mental-health care. Many of the proposals will need congressional approval, but also included are several executive actions Obama plans to take. The proposals were developed by a task force led by Vice President Joe Biden in the aftermath of the mass shooting last month at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
Here is a look at what Obama is proposing:
Assault Weapons Ban: Obama is seeking a reinstatement of an earlier federal ban, which expired in 2004. The original measure was signed by President Clinton in 1994, but Congress declined to renew it. (After the last attempt expired, gun violence went down)
Limiting High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines: Advocates of a limit on high-capacity magazines believe it could slow down a shooter planning to carry out a massacre, such as the one at Sandy Hook. Obama’s proposal would limit these magazines to 10 bullets. Rep. Ron Barber, who was wounded in the Tucson, Ariz., shootings, is one of the advocates for this proposal. (Sandy Hook killer had 600 more bullets left after he killed himself. Limiting the number of bullets in a magazine might slow someone down due to changing magazines, but if he/she is prepared, they can have multiple clips.  This is a head fake and when it does not stop the next killer, they will outlaw all ammo magazines.)
Getting Rid of Armor-Piercing Bullets: Although it is illegal to manufacture and import armor-piercing bullets in the U.S., the president is sending legislation to Congress that will ban the possession and transfer of the ammunition. (Do you really think that the bad guys--most law abiding people do not have this type of ammo--will get rid of their bullets. This is typical lefty thinking.)
Gun-Trafficking Law: A favorite of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a gun-control group with major backing from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, this measure would help prevent the trafficking of guns between states. This measure would make it easier for law enforcement officers to go after “strawmen” who buys guns for other people and transfer them across state lines. (Seems that Fast and Furious was about this entire idea--however, it was the government who told the gun dealers to sell the arms. Stupid idea!)
Universal Background Checks: Anyone who buys a gun at a store, a gun show, or through other private sellers would have to go through a criminal background check before purchasing the weapon, under this legislative proposal. Senior White House officials said there would be exceptions for transfers between family members, however. The president will also direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to explain to licensed dealers how to best run background checks on potential buyers. (Background checks are already in place for store purchases. This would address the dreaded "gun show" sale and private deals. One would wonder how an individual who is selling his gun to his neighbor could do a background check--this is another example of lefty stupidity.  Having BATF instruct licensed dealers on background checks--is the most stupid. It is already done!
Tougher Background-Check System: Through executive action, the administration will give states $20 million in new incentives to share their information with a broader background-check system. The president will address legal barriers to reporting information that the White House has deemed unnecessary. The president will also ask federal agencies to update their records and make them available to the national background-check database. ("Remove them pesky legal barriers--we don't need them dumb laws, we know better" is what this says. What federal agencies are going to update what records--could this be the IRS?)
Review of Prohibitions on Gun Ownership: The president will ask the attorney general to look into current laws that outline which people are prohibited from buying guns, and make appropriate recommendations to improve the system. Currently, felons and some persons with disabilities are not allowed to purchase weapons. (This is where they are going to get all people who have taken a psychotropic drug or seen a psychologist or psychologist regardless of the reason or when the drug/doctor interaction took place.)
Nominate a New Head of the ATF: Obama will nominate Todd Jones as permanent head of the alcohol and firearms bureau. The agency has been without a congressionally confirmed director in six years. Jones is a U.S. attorney in Minnesota and has been serving as acting head of the ATF. (Check out the reason that Todd Jones has not been confirmed.)
Gun-Violence Research: The president is seeking a resumption of research into gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through executive action. Congress halted the research because of lawmaker concerns that the agency was advocating for gun control. White House lawyers found that researching the cause of gun violence would not qualify as advocacy. The agency would be tasked with looking into the causes of gun violence, including a correlation between video games and violent behavior. (Why are they only researching gun violence? Why are they not investigating reports of people who use guns to prevent violence? Reason: it doesn't meet their agenda!)
School Safety: The administration, through executive order, will allow local communities to use money under the “COPS” initiative — which is aimed at putting more police officers on the street — to hire “school resource officers” who could help improve safety in schools. The White House would also make more money available to cities and towns to allow them to hire more mental-health workers for schools. The administration will also work with schools to develop emergency plans that could help them become better equipped to respond to incidents such as a shooting. (So now we are moving dollars from cops to psyhchologists in schools. Would that have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora? Nope.  As far as emergency plans--Sandy Hook was prepared. He shot out the lock and entered. No one there had any way of defeating his guns.  This is just a movement of money to the schools from cops, it will do nothing.)
Combating Bullying: Through the Health and Human Services Department, the administration will provide new resources aimed at reducing bullying. (Who was bullied in Aurora or Sandy Hook. We don't know of any evidence to those facts. Dumb, junk science.)
Obamacare Regulations: The administration will develop regulations for the Affordable Care Act aimed at ensuring comprehensive care for mental-health problems. This would include putting money toward new social workers and psychologists. (Obamacare prevents doctors from asking questions about guns in the home, now that looks like it will be gone. More money going to social workers and psychologists--who controls and what will be the effect?  No doubt that we need to stop the crazies in our society like Aurora or Sandy Hook but how do you evaluate mental health in light of client privacy or do we say that anytime someone says that he is "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" that that person has to be reported to authorities? Do we take away guns from everyone that is ever fired?  These are all feel good solutions to a very dicey issue.)

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Kentucky Sheriff Speaks Plainly About Guns

Kentucky Sheriff tells the Feds--Go Stuff it.  We say Bravo!

This man is a common sense patriot. We hope he can withstand the pressure that will be brought to bear on him by the Feds, should gun control be mandated by the President.

Conservative Tom



Print ArticleSend a Tip
 13 Jan 2013 691POST A COMMENT

As I wrote on Jan. 11, Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman has made it clear that gun laws which violate the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution will not be enforced in his county. 

On Jan. 12, he followed this up with a press conference in which he explained that a Sheriff's powers are predominant over the powers of federal and state agents. When he says these things he drives gun-grabbers batty because he says them with the conviction that rests on knowledge, and he has no intention of backing down.
During the press conference, he took time to explain his powers as sheriff:
I am responsible for the people inside this county. I am the highest elected official in this county, and this is the only opportunity the people have to speak for themselves and say 'this is what we want.'
I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave. ...[And] it doesn't matter what [new laws] Obama passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.  
He said that if federal gun-grabbers don't understand this, then "they need to go back and study it," because Kentucky "is a commonwealth."
Peyman says he has been approached by liberals within the gun-grabbing world since he made his original promise of no gun control in his county, and he told them plainly: "You are never going to pull guns out of Jackson County."
Sheriff Denny Peyman represents everything good and brave about America, and about the great state of Kentucky. He is a patriot, first class. 

Here is another link:

French Tax Issues

Things always could be worse. If you read the following article you will see that:
        --French are taxed at 45% over 150,000 Euros
       -- 800 of France's weathliest have left the country
       -- More are going to leave if the 75% tax is adopted
       --Capital Gains can range up to  65%
       --Corporate Taxes range from 33-35% and
       --French philanthropists can only contribute 66% of their first 20% of income.

France and the rest of the Euro-zone are in trouble and we seem to want to emulate them? Are our leaders really that stupid?

Conservative Tom

Here is the link:

Obama Impeachment Proposed

We wrote a post this morning entitled "Are You Ready To Fight For Your Country" and wonder how many will answer that question in the affirmative? We are, but are you?

At least one of our Representatives is at least doing part of the work of a Congressman, he is threatening to bring Impeachment Articles against the President should he go ahead with his threat to use Executive Orders to ban guns. We wish him luck.

However, we feel he is on a Don Quixote  mission. Should Obama do what he threatens which would be to use his Executive powers to enforce the gun laws, there may be enough votes in the House to get the Articles of Impeachment filed. They would then be sent over to the Senate which is the sticking point.  Senate Democrats will NEVER vote against their President and since it takes a 2/3 vote in favor of Impeachment that will NEVER occur.  

To get a conviction, Obama would have to do something so outrageous, so abhorrent, so dishonorable that even Democrats would vote against him. We cannot think of anything that would meet that criteria. Can you?

So how do we  stop this runaway government?  We are asking for your suggestions. Please let us know how you think we can make a difference.

Conservative Tom

Texas Representative Threatens Obama Impeachment Over Guns

January 15, 2013 by  
Texas Representative Threatens Obama Impeachment Over Guns
Representative Steve Stockman (R-Texas) said yesterday that he would “seek to thwart” any attempts of executive action to implement stricter gun-control laws in the United States, even if it means “filing articles of impeachment” against President Barack Obama.
In a press conference yesterday, the President said that he was exploring what options he has for implementing stricter gun laws without Congressional approval.
“My understanding is the Vice President’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence,” said Obama. “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as President, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it.”
Stockman issued a statement after Obama’s remarks calling the President’s possible use of executive action “an existential threat to this Nation.”
“The White House’s recent announcement they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic,” Stockman said. “I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”
Though Obama said that “responsible gun owners” have no reason for concern, Stockman said that the potential for executive action should worry all Americans.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years,” he continued. “The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.
“Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court. The President’s actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office,” he continued. “They are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger. If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”

Are You Ready To Fight For Your Country?

Although we have never been a Democrat, have always been conservative, we agree strongly with the following post by Brandon Smith. We do not know this gentleman, however, he speaks clearly for us and we suspect many other freedom loving Americans.

Before the 2012 elections, we said this was the most important election since 1860 and it was. Over the next four years, we will see the damage that will be done in the name of "change".  In the past couple months we have seen a cover-up of the government on Benghazi, an odd health issue of Hillary Clinton which even today remains unexplained (we heard yesterday that she was on a secret mission to Iran and her plane crashed) and the threat by the President and Vice President to use "Executive Orders" to accomplish what he cannot get done through the Congress, in the case of gun laws.

Folks, our government is out of control!  What are we doing to bring it back into normal operation? The answer is nothing. We sit around watching football games and enjoy our reality shows while the country is falling apart.  We, the citizens are responsible for this decline. We voted for this bunch of losers who claim to know better what we want.

It is time for all of us to get off our butts and take this country back. Of course if you would rather have the government put you in jail for speaking out or keeping your gun, go ahead and continue doing what you have been doing. You will get what you deserve.  

As for us, we are very scared for this nation and will take any action to change its direction. Are you with us?

Be Scared, Be Very Scared.

Conservative Tom

A Message To The ‘Left’ From A ‘Right-Wing Extremist’

January 15, 2013 by  
A Message To The ‘Left’ From A ‘Right-Wing Extremist’
Some discoveries are exciting, joyful and exhilarating, while others can be quite painful. Stumbling upon the fact that you do not necessarily have a competent grasp of reality — that you have, in fact, been duped for most of your life — is not a pleasant experience. While it may be a living nightmare to realize that part of one’s life perhaps was wasted on the false ideas of others, enlightenment often requires that the worldview we were indoctrinated with be completely destroyed before we can finally resurrect a tangible identity and belief system. To have rebirth, something must first die.
In 2004, I found myself at such a crossroads. At that time, I was a dedicated Democrat, and I thought I had it all figured out. The Republican Party was to me a perfect sort of monster. It had everything: corporate puppet masters, warmongering zealots, fake Christians, Orwellian social policies. The George W. Bush years were a special kind of horror. It was cinematic. Shakespearian. If I were to tell a story of absolute villainy, I would merely describe the mass insanity and bloodlust days of doom and dread wrought by the neocon ilk in the early years of the new millennium.
But, of course, I was partly naïve.
The campaign rhetoric of John Kerry was eye-opening. I waited day after day and month after month for my party’s candidate to take a hard stance on the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I waited for a battle cry against the Patriot Act and the unConstitutional intrusions of the executive branch into the lives of innocent citizens. I waited for a clear vision, a spark of wisdom and common sense. I waited throughout the campaign for Kerry to embrace the feelings of his supporters and say with absolute resolve that the broken Nation we lived in would be returned to its original foundations and that civil liberty, freedom and peace would be our standard once again. Unfortunately, the words never came, and I realized he had no opposition to the Bush plan. He was not going to fight against the wars, the revolving door or the trampling of our freedoms. Indeed, it seemed as though he had no intention of winning at all.
I came to see a dark side to the Democratic Party that had always been there but which I had refused to acknowledge. Its leadership was no different than the neocons I despised. And many supporters of the Democratic establishment had no values or principles. Their only desire was to win, at any cost.
There was no doubt in my mind that if the Democrats reoccupied the White House or any other political power structure one day, they would immediately adopt the same exact policies and attitudes of the neoconservatives and become just as power-mad, if not more so. In 2008, my theory was proven unequivocally correct.
It really is amazing. I have seen the so-called “anti-war” party become the most accommodating cheerleader of laser-guided death in the Mideast, with predator drones operating in the sovereign skies of multiple nations raining missiles upon far more civilians than “enemy combatants” — all at the behest of Barack Obama. I have seen the “party of civil liberties” expand on every Constitution-crushing policy of the Bush Administration, while levying some of the most draconian legislation ever witnessed in the history of this country. I have seen Obama endorse enemy combatant status for American citizens and the end of due process under the law through the National Defense Authorization Act. I have seen him endorse the end of trial by jury. I have seen him endorse secret assassination lists and the Federally drafted murder of U.S. civilians. I have seen him endorse executive orders that open the path to the declaration of a “national emergency” at any time for any reason, allowing for the dissolution of most Constitutional rights and the unleashing of martial law.
If I were still a Democrat today, I would be sickly ashamed.
However, it is not my intent to admonish Democrats (at least not most of them). I used to be just like them. I used to believe in the game. I believed that the rules mattered and that it was possible to change things by those rules with patience and effort. I believed in non-violent resistance, protest, civil dissent, educational activism, etc. I thought that the courts were an avenue for political justice. I believed that the only element required to end corruption would be a sound argument and solid logic backed by an emotional appeal to reason. I believed in the power of elections, and I had faith in the idea that all we needed was the “right candidate” to lead us to the promised land.
The problem is, the way the world works and the way we wish the world worked are not always congruent. Attempting to renovate a criminal system while acting within the rigged confines of that system is futile, not to mention delusional. Corrupt oligarchies adhere to the standards of civility only as long as they feel the need to maintain the illusion of the moral high ground. Sometimes, the only solutions left in the face of tyranny are not peaceful. Logic, reason and justice are not revered in a legal system that serves the will of the power elite instead of the common man. The most beautiful of arguments are but meaningless flitters of hot air in the ears of sociopaths. Sometimes, the bully just needs to be punched in the teeth.
This philosophy of independent action is consistently demonized, regardless of how practical it really is when faced with the facts. The usual responses to the concept of full defiance are accusations of extremism and malicious intent. Believe me, when I embarked on the path toward the truth in 2004, I never thought I would one day be called a potential “homegrown terrorist,” but that is essentially where we are in America in 2013. To step outside the mainstream and question the validity of the game is akin to terrorism in the eyes of the state and the sad people who feed the machine.
During the rise of any despotic governmental structure, there is always a section of the population that is given special treatment and made to feel as though they are “on the winning team.” For now, it would appear that the “left” side of the political spectrum has been chosen by the establishment as the favored sons and daughters of the restructured centralized United States. However, before those of you on the left get too comfortable in your new position as the hand of globalization, I would like to appeal to you for a moment of unbiased consideration. I know from personal experience that there are Democrats out there who are actually far more like us Constitutionalists and “right-wing extremists” than they may realize. I ask that you take the following points into account, regardless of what the system decides to label us.
We Are Being Divided By False Party Paradigms
Many Democrats and Republicans are not stupid and want, above all else, to see the tenets of freedom respected and protected. Unfortunately, they also tend to believe that only their particular political party is the true defender of liberty. The bottom line is that there is very little, if any, discernable difference between the leadership of the two parties. If you ignore all the rhetoric and only look at action, Republican and Democratic leaders are essentially the same animal working for the same special interests. There is no left and right, only those who wish to be free and those who wish to control.
Last year, the left and the “right” experienced an incredible moment of unity after the introduction of the NDAA. People on both sides were able to see the terrifying implications of a law that allows the government to treat any American civilian as an enemy of war without right to trial. In 2013, the establishment is attempting to divide us once again with the issue of gun disarmament. I have already presented my position on gun rights in numerous other articles, and I believe my stance is unshakeable. But what I will ask anti-gun proponents or on the fence Democrats is this: How do you think legislation like the NDAA will be enforced in the future? Is it not far easier to threaten Americans with rendition, torture and assassination when they are completely unarmed? If you oppose the NDAA, you should also oppose any measure that gives teeth to the NDAA, including the debasement of the 2nd Amendment.
Democrats Are Looking For Help In The Wrong Place
Strangely, Democrats very often search for redress within the very system they know is criminal. For some reason, they think that if they bash their heads into the wall long enough, a door will suddenly appear. I’m here to tell you: There is no door.
The biggest difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives consistently look to government to solve all the troubles of the world, when government is usually the cause of all the troubles in the world. The most common Democratic argument is that in America the government “is what we make it” and we can change it anytime we like through the election process. Maybe this was true at one time, but not anymore. Just look at Obama. I would ask all those on the left to take an honest look at the policies of Obama compared to the policies of most neocons, especially when it comes to Constitutional liberties. Where is the conflict? And before you point at the gun control debate, I suggest you look at Obama compared to Mitt Romney and John McCain; there’s almost no difference whatsoever.
If the two-party system becomes a one-party system, then elections are meaningless and government will not help us.
Democrats Value Social Units When They Should Value Individuals Instead
Democrats tend to see everything in terms of groups: victim status groups, religious groups, racial groups, special interest groups, etc. They want to focus on the health of the whole world as if it is a single entity. It is not. Without individuals, there is no such thing as “groups.” And groups change and disperse without notice. Groups do not exist beyond shared values. Even within a group, the individual is still more important in the grand scheme of things.
As a former Democrat, I know that it is easy to fall into the trap of collectivism. It is easy to think that what is best for you must be best for everybody. This Utopian idealism is incredibly fallible. Wanting the best for everyone is a noble sentiment, but using government as a weapon to force your particular vision of the “greater good” on others leads to nothing but disaster. The only safe and reasonable course is to allow individuals to choose for themselves how they will function in society if they choose to participate at all. Government must be left out of the equation as much as possible, and its primary job should be to safeguard the individual’s right to choose how he will live. You have to get over the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect social order; even if there were, no government is going to make it happen for you.
Democrats Can Become As Power-Mad As Any Neocon
I think it is important to point out how quickly most Democratic values went out the door as soon as Obama was placed in the White House. You cannot claim to be anti-war, anti-torture, anti-assassination, anti-surveillance, anti-corporate, anti-bank, anti-rendition, etc. while defending the policies of Obama. This is hypocrisy.
I have heard some insane arguments from left-leaning proponents lately. Some admit that Obama does indeed murder and torture, but “at least he is pushing for universal healthcare.” Even if it did work (which it won’t), is Obamacare really worth having a President who is willing to murder children on the other side of the world and kill citizens here at home? Do not forget your moral compass just because you think the system is now your personal playground. If you do, you are no better than all the angry blood-crazed Republicans that bumbled into the Iraq War while blindly following Bush.
There Is A Difference Between Traditional Conservatives And Neocons
Neocons are not conservative. They are, in fact, socialist in their methods; and they always expand government spending and power while reducing Constitutional protections. The liberty movement, of which I am proudly a part, is traditional conservative. We believe that government, especially as corrupt as it is today, cannot be trusted to administrate and watch over every individual in our Nation. It has proven time after time that it caters only to criminally inclined circles of elites. Therefore, we seek to reduce the size and influence of government so that we can minimize the damage that it is doing. For this, we are called “extremists.”
Governments are not omnipotent. They are not above criticism or even punishment. They are merely a collection of individuals who act either with honor or dishonor. In the liberty movement, we treat a corrupt government just as we would treat a corrupt individual. We do not worship the image of the state, nor should any Democrat.
Liberty-Minded Conservatives Are Not Terrorists
There will come a time — very soon, I believe — when people like me are officially labeled “terrorists.” Perhaps it will be because we refuse gun registration or confiscation. Perhaps it will be because we develop alternative trade markets outside the system. Maybe it will be because some of us are targeted by Federal raids and we fight back instead of submitting. Maybe it will be because we speak out against the establishment during a time of declared crisis and speech critical of the government is labeled “harmful to the public good.” One way or another, whether you want to believe me now, the day is coming.
Before this occurs, and the mainstream media attack us viciously as conspiracy theorists and monsters, I want the left to understand that no matter what you may hear about us, our only purpose is to ensure that our natural rights are not violated, our country is not decimated and our republic is governed with full transparency. We are not the dumb, redneck, racist, hillbilly gun nuts you see in every primetime TV show. And anyone who acts out of personal bias and disdain for their fellow man is not someone we seek to associate with.
Many of the people I have dealt with in the liberty movement are the most intelligent, well-informed, principled and dedicated men and women I have ever met. They want what most of us want: to be free to determine their own destinies; to be free to speak their minds without threat of state retribution; to be free to defend themselves from any enemy that would seek to oppress them; to live within an economic environment that is not rigged in favor of elitist minorities and on the verge of engineered collapse; to live in a system that respects justice and legitimate law instead of using the law as a sword against the public; to wake up each day with solace in the knowledge that while life in many regards will always be a difficult thing, we still have the means to make it better for ourselves and for the next generation; to wake up knowing that those inner elements of the human heart which make us most unique and most endearing are no longer considered “aberrant” and are no longer under threat.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Congress Fails on Cliff And Sandy Legislation

Congress had the opportunity to fix the financial mess we are in with a couple bills lately. The Fiscal Cliff and the funding bill for the devastation of Hurricane Sandy were opportunities that Congress missed on taking real measures to fix the financial problems facing this country. However, they punted away the chance and instead loaded each bill with pork. These guys just don't get it and we, for one, are tired of it.  

It is time to unload the entire batch from Speaker, Majority Leader down to the janitor. Throw the entire bunch out and make them go and make a living and stop leaching off us.

Conservative Tom

Congress Sticks It To Us Again

January 4, 2013 by  
Congress Sticks It To Us Again
The Federal government will collect more payroll taxes this year.
Happy New Year, everyone! Weren’t you inspired to see how our elected representatives worked late into the night, even on New Year’s Eve, to keep this country from plunging over the fiscal cliff?
And what a great deal they got for us! Taxes are guaranteed to go up for the vast majority of Americans. Spending cuts will be postponed. Government is going to get bigger. So will the deficit. Barack Obama can gloat that he forced Republicans to accept higher taxes. In fact, an anonymous “official close to the talks” told FOX News’ Ed Henry that getting the GOP to break their tax pledge is “one of the most consequential policy achievements of the last couple of decades.”
My, doesn’t that make you feel better?
Conservatives in the House made a last-ditch effort to include some mandatory spending cuts in the legislation. But that effort failed when Democratic leaders in the Senate said they would refuse to consider any changes in the legislation they had approved the night before. When the final tally was taken, the measure passed the House 257-167, with about a third of the Republicans voting in favor of it.
The margin of approval was even bigger in the Senate, where it passed by a vote of 89-8. Among the tiny minority that voted nay were such Tea Party favorites as Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah).
And even though everyone is sick of all the politicking and posturing, we’re going to go through all of it again over the next couple of months. That’s when we run smack into the debt ceiling, have to deal with mandatory budget cuts and are supposed to come up with some sort of budget for the next fiscal year.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner added fuel to the fire when he said last week that the United States would reach its debt limit on Dec. 31 and, thus, presumably run out of money. But then he piously proclaimed that he could use some “extraordinary measures” to find the funds to keep government going for another couple of months. So the rhetoric to raise the debt ceiling from $16.394 trillion, where it is now, will get a lot hotter between now and March 1.
There is no rest for the wicked — or for the big spenders in Washington.
In a classic example of premature congratulations, the stock market celebrated the new accord. The Washington Post reported: “The Dow soared 308 points, or 2.4%, on Wednesday, the biggest point to start a year in history, after posting the biggest ever year-end point gain of 166 points on Monday.”
But don’t expect the euphoria to last for long, as the realities of what this new agreement does and doesn’t do begin to strike home.
Just how bad is this Frankenstein’s monster? The bill is packed with pork for many of the Administration’s pet projects, including subsidies for plug-in electric vehicles, special deductions for film and television productions, a $12.1 billion tax credit for wind energy and even first-time home buyers in the District of Columbia. Numerous subsidies, tax credits and other goodies are buried in the legislation. You can be sure that the more we learn about what’s in the bill, the less we will like it.
Although Barack Obama campaigned on promises to raise taxes for anyone making more than $200,000 a year and couples earning $250,000, the final legislation raised the base a bit higher. The new limit is families and small-business owners earning $450,000 a year. They will see their personal income tax rate go from 35 percent to 41 percent.
But that’s a fraction of the hit that income from investments will take. Thrifty seniors who lived within their means all of their lives will see the taxes on their investments go up dramatically, while the incentive for anyone to invest in productive businesses will go down. That’s because taxes on dividends and capital gains will go from 15 percent to 23.8 percent. (The final number includes an Obamacare investment income surtax of 3.8 percent.)
In addition to those higher tax rates, couples earning $300,000 or more a year will see their deductions and exemptions phased out. The more they earn, they less they will be able to deduct.
One of the few pieces of good news in the measure is that the estate tax won’t be quite as bad as was feared. If we had gone over the fiscal cliff, the death tax would have been 55 percent on all estates worth $1 million or more. The new number is 40 percent for estates valued at $5 million.
But there is another tax increase that will hit every wage earner in America. That is the payroll tax collected for Social Security, which will rise from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent. This is because a temporary reduction in payroll taxes that Congress approved two years ago, ostensibly to help stimulate the economy, expired on Jan. 1.
So every person earning $50,000 a year or more will pay an additional $1,000 in payroll taxes. So much for the myth that only “millionaires and billionaires” will have to ante up to help pay for Obama’s additional spending.
Taken all together, the Congressional Budget Office says this compromise legislation will add $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. And even that estimate assumes that the budget cuts required by sequestration actually do take effect this year. I wouldn’t bet on it. Although the sequestration cuts were supposed to begin on Jan. 1, the fiscal cliff compromise kicked that can down the road for another two months.
The bottom line is that this legislation raises income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, death taxes and payroll taxes. It is a huge victory for Obama and his big-spending buddies in Congress and a big setback for everyone who believes that Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
In effect, we’ve given some chronic alcoholics the keys to the liquor cabinets. And now we hope they will somehow sober up? Don’t count on it.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.