House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) gave a celebratory speech to Congress on Wednesday, the same week as the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Health Care Act, evoking the core principles of the Declaration of Independence— life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She could hardly contain her glee:
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is exactly what the Affordable Health Care Act helps to guarantee. A healthier life, the liberty to pursue happiness, free of the constraints that a lack of health care might provide to a family. If you want to be a photographer, a writer, an artist, a musician, you can do so. If you want to start a business, if you want to change jobs, under the Affordable Care Act, you have that liberty to pursue your happiness. And that is why I am so pleased that this week we can celebrate the two year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.
Time to start the party.
If you want to pursue your dream career, change your job, or start your own business, the government is here to say you can do so! (Imagine the commemoratory events planned in offices around the country this week: colorful streamers falling from drop ceiling tiles, balloons strung from fire sprinkler heads and Obama’s glowing smile supplanted on “Happy Birthday” sheet cakes.)
I have another idea of what could help those Americans trapped in dead-end jobs, shackled with their inevitable pursuit of depression: capital. Anyone who wants to start their own business needs capital. Why not create a law that anyone who writes a persuasive letter to the federal government, expressing their heartfelt plea for the funds needed to cover start-up costs such as three years of salary, equipment costs and legal fees, will receive a check in the mail? Mrs. Pelosi certainly would support that idea. After all, having sufficient capital to start your own business is the very definition of pursuing happiness.
Although we have many Americans who do not want to be small business owners, their letter would look slightly different. “I have not been on a family vacation in two years, and my kids really want to meet Goofy at Disney World. Can you send a check for $3,000?”
Critics quickly poke holes in my suggestions: but we’re not talking about free vacations; we are talking about providing health care. Health care saves lives. And that provides all Americans life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness.
Is that so? To what end?
Daniel Webster (1782-1852), a leading American statesman and senator from Massachusetts, as well as a U.S. Congressman and U.S. Secretary of State, presented a testimony before the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention in 1840, persuasively arguing for the people’s rights to establish qualifications for their elected officials. Early in his testimony Webster said, “No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure.”
That statement, another harbinger for our times, like so many of our Founding Fathers’ words, rebukes our modern-day governmental philosophy that more is better and much more is best. The temptation of holding office coincides with the temptation to trade handouts for reelection. Webster continued:
There may be among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society; and if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed and seeks their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress.
Nancy Pelosi and her counterparts grossly augment their realm of legislative authority by extending “the pursuit of happiness” to include health care coverage. Again, no citizen is denied health care when needed. But that same citizen is required, by law, to pay for services rendered. But the damaging ramifications of the Affordable Health Care Act “benefit” only a portion of the public, rather than protect the general welfare of the whole.
(What better protects the general welfare of the whole than removing government from health insurance? Just look to the housing market as our “lesson learned.”)
Additionally, handing out checks to entrepreneurs does not benefit the whole. The same can be said for food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, child tax credits, Earned Income Tax Credit, student loans and government-subsidized housing.
No limits exist on the government’s ability to grant a benefit, cloaked in the right to pursue happiness, so long as the government denies the spirit of the Constitution and their limited legislative powers. And no elected official can pervert their legislative ability amongst a society that seeks their repeal.
Like Webster asserted to his Convention, “If he dislikes the condition, he may decline the office in like manner as if he dislikes the salary, the rank, or any thing else which the law attaches to it.” And if he chooses not to decline, we the people can remove. Because we are the government.
Happy Anniversary.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Earlier this week, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, penned a letter in response to recent visits by White House officials to the group of Catholic Bishops. In an effort to soothe the fiery debate ignited in recent weeks due to the Obama Administration’s mandate on private insurers providing its customers contraception coverage, the church leaders and White House staff discussed “the options.” Dolan’s letter, addressed to his Conference of Catholic Bishops, reaffirms the unapologetic position by the White House:
How fortunate that we as a body have had opportunities during our past plenary assemblies to manifest our strong unity in defense of religious freedom. We rely on that unity now more than ever as HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] seeks to define what constitutes church ministry and how it can be exercised.
The HHS seeks to constitute church ministry and how it can be exercised? This untoward conversation greatly concerned Dolan when White House officials further clarified their position:
At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is,revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for 'working out the wrinkles.' Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the 'enlightened' voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.
Even though these conversations existed within the walls of the Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Washington D.C. offices, Dolan makes it clear why the contraception mandate should concern all of us:
They know that this is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception. It’s about religious freedom, the sacred right of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.
With a President and his Administration who are not concerned with the fundamental rights granted to our religious organizations— because to do so would require a pause, for a few moments, ruminating the original intent of the U.S. Government, which we can all agree is not going to happen— the argument must come to fruition from citizens leading laborious debates rooted in limited government and individual freedom.
It is no surprise that the White House believes themselves to be more enlightened than this 46-year old institution that has driven humanitarian efforts alongside past and the present Popes. An institution as grandiose as the government, capable of altering school lunches while juggling CEO compensation plans, vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and plastic bag usage, surely can deliver the exceptional alternative to the Catholic Church.
It is the very fact that we have allowed our government to take on the role of god that it believes it is god.
In his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, “History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.” The distorted control we have granted to our elected officials has existed for some time, peaking in our present scenario of an entitlement, welfare-laden state, leading directly to the throne of federally-funded morality (or immorality).
But what we also have today is an opportunity to reshape the debate. The fact that Americans are debating whether the federal government should require private, non-profit and religious organizations to provide contraception to individuals is both good and bad. The argument is good because people who question the acts of their government are people who have the potential to react to unjust laws. The argument is bad because we must entertain the argument at all. King wrote:
[T]here is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So, the purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.
Tension exists today— from Sandra Fluke’s passionate testimony pleading for financial provision from the government to support the co-ed lifestyle, to the Susan G. Komen Foundation entering the stage of public disapproval for its decision to cut its voluntary donations to Planned Parenthood (only to reverse course), to the Obama Administration defunding the Embryo Adoption Awareness Campaign in lieu of a “lack of interest” from the public— and we are talking.
Every enactment of an Obama Administration law and regulation supplies the Conservative aggregation a fresh opportunity to create tension, but we should approach the theatre of thought with the simplicity of the facts, rather than the subjectivity of public opinion.
After all, opinions change. Truth does not. King reminds us that “human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.”
How fortunate that we as a body have had opportunities during our past plenary assemblies to manifest our strong unity in defense of religious freedom. We rely on that unity now more than ever as HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] seeks to define what constitutes church ministry and how it can be exercised.
The HHS seeks to constitute church ministry and how it can be exercised? This untoward conversation greatly concerned Dolan when White House officials further clarified their position:
At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is,revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for 'working out the wrinkles.' Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the 'enlightened' voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.
Even though these conversations existed within the walls of the Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Washington D.C. offices, Dolan makes it clear why the contraception mandate should concern all of us:
They know that this is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception. It’s about religious freedom, the sacred right of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.
With a President and his Administration who are not concerned with the fundamental rights granted to our religious organizations— because to do so would require a pause, for a few moments, ruminating the original intent of the U.S. Government, which we can all agree is not going to happen— the argument must come to fruition from citizens leading laborious debates rooted in limited government and individual freedom.
It is no surprise that the White House believes themselves to be more enlightened than this 46-year old institution that has driven humanitarian efforts alongside past and the present Popes. An institution as grandiose as the government, capable of altering school lunches while juggling CEO compensation plans, vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and plastic bag usage, surely can deliver the exceptional alternative to the Catholic Church.
It is the very fact that we have allowed our government to take on the role of god that it believes it is god.
In his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, “History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.” The distorted control we have granted to our elected officials has existed for some time, peaking in our present scenario of an entitlement, welfare-laden state, leading directly to the throne of federally-funded morality (or immorality).
But what we also have today is an opportunity to reshape the debate. The fact that Americans are debating whether the federal government should require private, non-profit and religious organizations to provide contraception to individuals is both good and bad. The argument is good because people who question the acts of their government are people who have the potential to react to unjust laws. The argument is bad because we must entertain the argument at all. King wrote:
[T]here is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So, the purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.
Tension exists today— from Sandra Fluke’s passionate testimony pleading for financial provision from the government to support the co-ed lifestyle, to the Susan G. Komen Foundation entering the stage of public disapproval for its decision to cut its voluntary donations to Planned Parenthood (only to reverse course), to the Obama Administration defunding the Embryo Adoption Awareness Campaign in lieu of a “lack of interest” from the public— and we are talking.
Every enactment of an Obama Administration law and regulation supplies the Conservative aggregation a fresh opportunity to create tension, but we should approach the theatre of thought with the simplicity of the facts, rather than the subjectivity of public opinion.
After all, opinions change. Truth does not. King reminds us that “human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.”
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
We’ve heard it for years, but Obama and his administration have taken class warfare to new heights. Flip through the cable news stations and you will see Warren Buffet’s secretary or hear the phrase “not paying their fair share.” Obama used his recent State of the Union Address to call out those obscenely wealthy Americans that highlight our economic inequality. He stated:
We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.
So Obama has proposed a resolution: the “Buffett Rule.” Millionaires and billionaires, as he says, should have a 30% effective income tax rate. Millionaires should not pay less in taxes than their secretaries (insert image of a white-haired elderly man wearing thick glasses on his perfectly rounded head).
But is a higher tax rate a resolution? A resolution, after all, solves a problem. Will economic disparity cease to exist if the wealthy pay a larger portion of their income to the government? Hardly. This is why the “Buffett Rule” is a perfect example of liberalistic communication: avoid the truth at all costs by deflecting the argument.
Here we are, all of us, in our homes, at our jobs, on the local news, over a beer, debating whether the 1% really do need that much money. They can afford to pay a little more, say some. But half of Americans pay nothing, others say. Romney only paid 15% tax rate in 2010, some complain. But his tax rate reflects capital gains, not income taxes, others reply.
And so on. Meanwhile, Obama continues, traveling swing state by swing state, rousing the crowd with tales of fat cats and down-and-outs who reflect an unjust capitalistic system. Why, he bemoans, aren’t THEY paying their fair share?
Clever. But liberals usually are.
Conservatives don’t need dexterous speech when we have principles. Here is what I have been (mentally) shouting at the television (well, mostly mentally): the debate is not whether the rich are paying their fair share, the argument is what amount of income the government should receive. The reasons are obvious, when you think it through:
1. The government cannot create wealth, they can only take it out of the economy.
2. Once wealth is out of the economy, it cannot return.
3. The government has never managed anything efficiently or profitably (post office, solar-powered companies, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, public education).
4. Taxes have only ever increased, and our debt has only ever increased.
5. Government spending has only ever increased, and economic disparity still exists.
6. Who determines what is fair? And for that matter, fair share of what?
7. Who determines who is wealthy and who is not?
And the granddaddy of them all: even if the government taxed the wealthiest 10% of Americans at 100% (thus taking away their entire income), we would not come close to paying off our nation’s debt. The Wall Street Journal calculated:
Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.
Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.
In addition, our economy would be in real pain if the wealthiest 10% had no money to invest or spend. We are a trickle-down economy, as much as some people hate that truth.
Conservatives have a big job. We need to re-educate people to think with logic and by principle. Government should only receive funding to cover its intended—and limited—purposes: to protect Americans from foreign and domestic “invaders,” punish those who break the laws, and promote the liberty of the individual and institutions (family, church, and the marketplace).
(And “promote” does not mean the creation or funding of programs. Promote simply means to speak highly of.)
Next time someone begins a discussion with the merits of what equates fair taxation, start at the beginning. What funding should the government receive? Or better yet, what is the role of government?
Dry, I know. But without an understanding of the original purpose of government, anything goes. We’ve witnessed enough decisions by this administration to know…anything has gone. Trillions, in fact.
We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.
So Obama has proposed a resolution: the “Buffett Rule.” Millionaires and billionaires, as he says, should have a 30% effective income tax rate. Millionaires should not pay less in taxes than their secretaries (insert image of a white-haired elderly man wearing thick glasses on his perfectly rounded head).
But is a higher tax rate a resolution? A resolution, after all, solves a problem. Will economic disparity cease to exist if the wealthy pay a larger portion of their income to the government? Hardly. This is why the “Buffett Rule” is a perfect example of liberalistic communication: avoid the truth at all costs by deflecting the argument.
Here we are, all of us, in our homes, at our jobs, on the local news, over a beer, debating whether the 1% really do need that much money. They can afford to pay a little more, say some. But half of Americans pay nothing, others say. Romney only paid 15% tax rate in 2010, some complain. But his tax rate reflects capital gains, not income taxes, others reply.
And so on. Meanwhile, Obama continues, traveling swing state by swing state, rousing the crowd with tales of fat cats and down-and-outs who reflect an unjust capitalistic system. Why, he bemoans, aren’t THEY paying their fair share?
Clever. But liberals usually are.
Conservatives don’t need dexterous speech when we have principles. Here is what I have been (mentally) shouting at the television (well, mostly mentally): the debate is not whether the rich are paying their fair share, the argument is what amount of income the government should receive. The reasons are obvious, when you think it through:
1. The government cannot create wealth, they can only take it out of the economy.
2. Once wealth is out of the economy, it cannot return.
3. The government has never managed anything efficiently or profitably (post office, solar-powered companies, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, public education).
4. Taxes have only ever increased, and our debt has only ever increased.
5. Government spending has only ever increased, and economic disparity still exists.
6. Who determines what is fair? And for that matter, fair share of what?
7. Who determines who is wealthy and who is not?
And the granddaddy of them all: even if the government taxed the wealthiest 10% of Americans at 100% (thus taking away their entire income), we would not come close to paying off our nation’s debt. The Wall Street Journal calculated:
Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.
Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.
In addition, our economy would be in real pain if the wealthiest 10% had no money to invest or spend. We are a trickle-down economy, as much as some people hate that truth.
Conservatives have a big job. We need to re-educate people to think with logic and by principle. Government should only receive funding to cover its intended—and limited—purposes: to protect Americans from foreign and domestic “invaders,” punish those who break the laws, and promote the liberty of the individual and institutions (family, church, and the marketplace).
(And “promote” does not mean the creation or funding of programs. Promote simply means to speak highly of.)
Next time someone begins a discussion with the merits of what equates fair taxation, start at the beginning. What funding should the government receive? Or better yet, what is the role of government?
Dry, I know. But without an understanding of the original purpose of government, anything goes. We’ve witnessed enough decisions by this administration to know…anything has gone. Trillions, in fact.
Customer Shoots at Robber During Store Stickup
Jesse Garza of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 30, 2012
Milwaukee police late Monday were investigating whether a 20-year-old man who showed up at a hospital with a gunshot wound is the same man who tried to rob an Aldi store and was shot at by a customer.
A man with a shotgun entered the store at N. 76th St. and W. Villard Ave. about 7 p.m., according to a news release from Milwaukee police.
According to the release, as the man began to rob the store a customer fired shots at him, and the man fled empty-handed.
No customers or employees were injured during the incident, and police were questioning a man who went to the hospital with a gunshot wound to determine if his injury was connected to the attempted robbery, according to
the release.
-------------
This story makes me giddy. It has all aspects of a perfect fairytale, although the fate of the heroic customer who shot the robber has yet to be determined.
Consider this analogy:
Consider the old addage, how can you expect to win if you're not willing to get dirty with the people that are spreading the dirt?
If a basketball opponent is given a free-pass to double-dribbling and traveling, their opponent would inevitably lose if they continued to abide by the traditional rules of the game. So, in this instance both teams enter into a game with a certain understanding of standard rules (laws, signs against concealed carry), one team completely violates the rules (criminals), and the referees (police) have no ability to stop the game (the game is freedom of movement in the overall society, in this case Aldi or wherever a crime occurs).
If the opposing coach realizes that the game is going to be allowed to continue despite massive violations, he will also realize that he must adjust accordingly or he will lose.
If the coach decided to adjust his player's conduct in the game to match the other team, this is the equivalent of getting a concealed carry permit. It simply levels the playing field for all participants involved in the game.
If the coach would continue to tell his players to dribble with the rules and not travel, this demonstrates a righteous commitment to rules and tradition, but also an acceptance of defeat. Its just that during a robbery at Aldi, defeat means dying. And I say fuck dying. I would much rather be judged by a jury of twelve than carried by six of my friends.
In the end, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A man coming into an Aldi to rob the place with a shotgun has affected that customer's right to continue a living a life absent from the risk posed by the 00 buckshot in the criminal's shotgun.
By entering into that Aldi wielding that weapon with his verbalized intent, the criminal gave up his right to life. By prosecuting the person who shot him for carrying a weapon in an unauthorized area, we would be publicly announcing that the individual's right to life is dead, and that he must rely on the state for his complete protection. Problem is, the state's standard for police response cannot ever counter the immediacy posed by the nature of a robbery or the muzzle velocity of a shotgun.
Perhaps the solution should be to simply boycott Aldi or any other business stupid enough to post signs that keep law abiding concealed carry permit holders from defending Aldi's property, employees, and patrons. On the other hand, property rights (including Aldi's) need to be respected or we are lost as a Nation. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence said each citizen were guaranteed the right to "life, liberty, and property," which of course was later amended.
Regardless, I close with a smile on my face as I reflect on a bad guy being shot, store patrons and employees safe, no money stolen, and hopefully increased future hesitation by Milwaukee thugs who think they can rule with violence. To them, I say this: game on. Defense wins championships. You have a problem with no pain, no gain? No problem. Let's all play by the same rules. I guaranty I am a better shot.
Jan. 30, 2012
Milwaukee police late Monday were investigating whether a 20-year-old man who showed up at a hospital with a gunshot wound is the same man who tried to rob an Aldi store and was shot at by a customer.
A man with a shotgun entered the store at N. 76th St. and W. Villard Ave. about 7 p.m., according to a news release from Milwaukee police.
According to the release, as the man began to rob the store a customer fired shots at him, and the man fled empty-handed.
No customers or employees were injured during the incident, and police were questioning a man who went to the hospital with a gunshot wound to determine if his injury was connected to the attempted robbery, according to
the release.
-------------
This story makes me giddy. It has all aspects of a perfect fairytale, although the fate of the heroic customer who shot the robber has yet to be determined.
Consider this analogy:
Consider the old addage, how can you expect to win if you're not willing to get dirty with the people that are spreading the dirt?
If a basketball opponent is given a free-pass to double-dribbling and traveling, their opponent would inevitably lose if they continued to abide by the traditional rules of the game. So, in this instance both teams enter into a game with a certain understanding of standard rules (laws, signs against concealed carry), one team completely violates the rules (criminals), and the referees (police) have no ability to stop the game (the game is freedom of movement in the overall society, in this case Aldi or wherever a crime occurs).
If the opposing coach realizes that the game is going to be allowed to continue despite massive violations, he will also realize that he must adjust accordingly or he will lose.
If the coach decided to adjust his player's conduct in the game to match the other team, this is the equivalent of getting a concealed carry permit. It simply levels the playing field for all participants involved in the game.
If the coach would continue to tell his players to dribble with the rules and not travel, this demonstrates a righteous commitment to rules and tradition, but also an acceptance of defeat. Its just that during a robbery at Aldi, defeat means dying. And I say fuck dying. I would much rather be judged by a jury of twelve than carried by six of my friends.
In the end, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A man coming into an Aldi to rob the place with a shotgun has affected that customer's right to continue a living a life absent from the risk posed by the 00 buckshot in the criminal's shotgun.
By entering into that Aldi wielding that weapon with his verbalized intent, the criminal gave up his right to life. By prosecuting the person who shot him for carrying a weapon in an unauthorized area, we would be publicly announcing that the individual's right to life is dead, and that he must rely on the state for his complete protection. Problem is, the state's standard for police response cannot ever counter the immediacy posed by the nature of a robbery or the muzzle velocity of a shotgun.
Perhaps the solution should be to simply boycott Aldi or any other business stupid enough to post signs that keep law abiding concealed carry permit holders from defending Aldi's property, employees, and patrons. On the other hand, property rights (including Aldi's) need to be respected or we are lost as a Nation. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence said each citizen were guaranteed the right to "life, liberty, and property," which of course was later amended.
Regardless, I close with a smile on my face as I reflect on a bad guy being shot, store patrons and employees safe, no money stolen, and hopefully increased future hesitation by Milwaukee thugs who think they can rule with violence. To them, I say this: game on. Defense wins championships. You have a problem with no pain, no gain? No problem. Let's all play by the same rules. I guaranty I am a better shot.
Monday, January 30, 2012
A GREAT article and a good start to a conversation that will, at some point, rear its head:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577179303330474134.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577179303330474134.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
Sunday, January 29, 2012
We do have some leaders in America who tell the truth. I heart Allen West. The future looks good when you listen to individuals like him:
http://youtu.be/zZ8A6UFbQoY
http://youtu.be/zZ8A6UFbQoY
Monday, January 16, 2012
No Grass Stains Allowed
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sends THE WEEKLY STANDARD an email commenting on the Marines' video, and has given them permission to publish it.
Representative West: "I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.
All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?
The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.
As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell."
We cannot expect to win a war without getting dirty with the people spreading the dirt, the same as a little kid soccer team cannot expect to play a game without a single kid receiving a grass stain. To be sure, all the soccer parents in America understand the latter, but how many of them understand the former?
Representative West: "I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.
All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?
The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.
As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell."
We cannot expect to win a war without getting dirty with the people spreading the dirt, the same as a little kid soccer team cannot expect to play a game without a single kid receiving a grass stain. To be sure, all the soccer parents in America understand the latter, but how many of them understand the former?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)