Excellent Quotes That Should be Memorized in School

"So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private individuals will occasionally kill theirs."-Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) American author

"I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time." -H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."-George Washington

"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out...without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable." -H. L. Mencken

"Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns."-Thomas Jefferson

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." -Edward Abbey (1927-1989)

"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it."-Woodrow Wilson

"Annual drug deaths: tobacco: 395,000, alcohol: 125,000, 'legal' drugs: 38,000, illegal drug overdoses: 5,200, marijuana: 0. Considering government subsidies of tobacco, just what is our government protecting us from in the drug war?" -Ralph Nader

"Government employees (Bureaucrats) like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily available, they will create their own problems." -George Van Valkenburg

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." -Harry S. Truman

The Current Political Situation--Oligarchy

I've been a conservative for many years, and in fact believe to a large extent believe that I've always been a conservative. Overall, I think I can summarize my beliefs in a few words (although there may be a few exceptions to the rules):

• I believe in God;
• I believe that all Americans should have the right to live their life without interference, unless such is invited by them--such as asking someone into your home;
• I believe that our first responsibility is to harm no other, unless to prevent a greater harm--such as grabbing someone's arm to pull them from in front of a moving bus;
• I believe in right and wrong--there is black and white, and maybe a little grey depending on the exact nature of things;
• I believe in the original intent of the Constitution and in small government--the Federal government was never created to be "daddy" to anyone and everyone that had a problem. The Federal government was created to be the overseer of the many states, and little more.
• I believe in the sovereignty of the United States, and believe that the rest of the world can kiss my ass if they don't like it.

That pretty much summarizes it.

I am a big believer that this country was founded upon the principles of minimal governmental interference in our lives, and I truly believe that the founders of this country would be shocked at what has become of their little experiment. The fact is, liberalism has forced this country to the left in ways totally unimaginable a little over 200 years ago (or even 100 years ago for that matter). The fact that the government is now the sole source of income for an enormous number of people is beyond even the wildest dreams of anyone 100 years ago. The fact that the Federal government controls nearly everything in our lives, and taxes us upwards of 50% of our income (through income tax, FICA tax, gasoline tax, telephone tax, property tax, inheritance tax, and God-knows-what-other-tax) would have started an entirely new revolution for those that fought nearly 230 years ago, against a king that taxed their tea. Think about that. The Whiskey Rebellion was started because the Feds decided to tax moonshine, and although it failed, it was a testament to those that had had enough of "big government".

Now look at what we've turned into.............. 280 million wussies.

We effectively have a single political party who does whatever they want to do, without regard to those of us that still believe in liberty. When George W Bush was elected for the first time, I was thrilled. We now had a Republican (and ostensibly "conservative") running the White House, and "conservative" control of both houses of Congress. Wow. We were going to kick butt and take names. The government was going to be cut, taxes would be decreased (kicking the economy into gear), we'd roll back 60 years of Democratic dominance of the Congress, budget, and White House, and man, there were things that were going to happen that would set Ted Kennedy's hair on fire. 5 years later what do we have? NOT A DAMNED THING!! George has been a COLOSSAL disappointment, has shown ABSOLUTELY NO leadership as a CONSERVATIVE, and has only pushed us that much farther to the left. I am disappointed beyond measure. He cozies up to Slick Willie Clinton (who, in my mind is despicable), and has done NOTHING to further the conservative movement that put him into the White House. He's a fraud and a phony, and nobody named Bush will ever get my vote again. (I'll write myself in first.) Bush has NEVER VETOED ANYTHING!!! That means, he's obviously agreed with everything that the Congress tosses to him, right? I mean, if he actually had a spine and some common sense he could have seen through some of the SHIT that Congress has passed over the past 5 years, right? Well... I guess not.

Now, let's talk about Congress for a moment. The people of America have voted the (ostensibly) conservative Republicans into power into the Senate, so one would presume so that they could manage some of the liberal BS that has been thrown to them, correct? They've also voted the (ostensibly) conservative Representatives into power in the House for the same reason, right? So, with a MAJORITY of both houses AND a "conservative" President, one would think that they would have rolled over some of the squawking Democrats and done what needed to be done right? I mean, if I were a politician and had COMPLETE FUCKING CONTROL OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE GOVERNMENT I'd bet that I could get some things done, and install some judges in Federal positions that would interpret the laws by our own Constitution (and only our own Constitution). I'd bet that I could do that, and I'd bet that anyone reading this blog could do it too. SO WHY HAS IT NOT BEEN DONE? Could it be that there is no reason to do so, because there really is no difference between the powers that control us? Could it be that the Bush's and the Clinton's and all of those that have political clout are sleeping together and could not give a damn less about those of us that are under their thumb? Hmm..... Well, I say that that is EXACTLY what is going on.

I typically don't give in to conspiracy theories, (although there are a number of things about TWA Flight 800 that disturb me) but I do believe in my heart that there are those on this earth that despise individual freedom. I believe that there are those that believe that the government should control nearly all aspects of our lives, and I believe that there are those that are working toward that very goal--those that believe that Communism only failed because the wrong people were in charge. LOOK AT WHERE THIS COUNTRY IS GOING!! Am I out of my mind? Maybe, but I doubt it. (What else would you have expected me to say?) I have a LOT of examples, but let's not dwell on the minutiae. The FACT is, our government is OUT OF CONTROL!!

Those of you who have ears to hear, listen: The experiment has gone wrong, it's time to take control of the government back into the hands of the people. First, we need to get these assholes (er, politicians) out of office! Those that have not shown an allegiance to personal liberty and the Constitution, GET THEM OUT OF OFFICE!! I recognize that this may be difficult for those of you on the East and West Koasts that believe whatever is told to them by the government and are for Big Brother, but THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR FRIGGIN' WELFARE CHECK!! Look... This country is within about 5-10 years of facing complete and total COLLAPSE because of fiscal malfeasance by our so-called "leaders". The fact is, the MAJORITY of the costs of the Federal government today are due to Social (In)Security and Medicare/Medicaid. WHO THINKS THAT THIS WILL LAST FOREVER?? ARE WE ALL STUPID??

200 years ago an excellent economist and historian penned the following:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage." (emphasis my own.)

Sir Alex Fraser Tyler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

Where would you say that we are on his list of sequences? (I'm guessing somewhere between apathy/dependence to "bondage".) Anyone care to disagree?? Anyone care to tell me where/who the dictatorship is started??

More soon........Ramasart

Let's Talk About Guns, Once More

It's been a few days since my last post, and so I would like to make a few more points and then move on...

The discussion of guns and the history of guns (good and bad) in this country is doomed to continue ad-infinitum, simply because there will always be those that don't want the responsibililty to protect themselves and their families, while there are others of us who would not have it any other way. That is, some people obviously feel that the police are there for the sole purpose of protecting them, and others that state that "nobody is more capable of defending myself or my family than I am, as nobody cares about them the way I do and therefore would not go to the ends that I would in protecting those I love". It may be a bit simplistic, but I believe those to be the two main camps in the gun debate--there are others that are in the debate simply to gain power, but they tend to be a handful of politicians (that need to be voted out of office by their brainless, spineless, populace. And yes, if you live in one of those districts, I'm speaking to you.)

What I would like to do now is to widen the discussion somewhat. If one looks at the history of this country, it is obvious that the guns of the 18th century were not exactly of the same caliber (no pun intended) of those that we have today. What the people of 1776 had were guns that were exactly like the British troops had, flintlocks of various calibers that put out a huge puff of smoke when fired, giving away one's position. These are in fact what our people took into battle to overturn the "rule of law" (if you will), of a tyrant. Now, just suppose that modern weapons of war were available to both sides (for simplicity, let's discuss only the firearms and sidearms of today) at the time of Lexington-Concord. Does one not suppose that both sides would have used semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons (of various calibers) in their battles? I think not. Everyone would have used any and all means available to them to win the war, and I think to argue differently would be stupid.

Now, let's move forward to 1789 and the debates on the Constitution... Does one not agree that the 2nd Amendment would have been worded in such a way that the "militia" of the time would have available to them the same weaponry that the British army had? Does one think that the founding fathers would have limited the weapons available to the very people that had just fought and won the war?? I think not. Think about this--the 2nd Amendment was specifically designed so that in the event our government once again became tyrannical in its character that the militia had the right to overtake it, thereby to make it once again respond to the will of the people. Frankly, I think it is entirely conceivable that the founders of this country would have insisted that the same weapons that were available to the government be available to the people, so that they would not have a severe disadvantage in overtaking the government again. (I just don't think that they had the foresight to see what has happened.)

Now, with modern weaponry this becomes a huge debate when one considers the various missles, bombs, etc., that modern armies have available, considering their destructive capabilities (especially atomic and nuclear weapons). Frankly, the LAST thing that I would want is a handful of pissed off (fill in the blank)s with atomic weapons of any kind. However, I think it makes for an interesting debate. Should Joe Average American citizen have the RIGHT to own whatever type of firearm he desires? Bottom line...I think so, and I think that the founding fathers would agree. However, I also think there is a reasonableness measure that needs to be added to the debate. Such things as a prior history of violence against innocents with a weapon certainly come to mind, and having the mental capacity significantly above a walnut would seem to be desireable. The problem is, what is reasonable and prudent in one person's mind is a huge stumbling block to others. I'm sure there are mental walnuts that would feel that my assessment is discriminatory to them, to which I would reply: "TFB". (I'm not politically correct, and feel no need to be. Frankly, if someone is an idiot I think we do them a disservice in not letting them know that they're an idiot.) If someone has a history of violence, especially with weapons, then I think it reasonable to keep them from owning them again. Maybe if they show for a period of 20 years or so that they are capable of being non-violent in their actions then MAYBE they get the right to own a firearm. (I know people that in extreme circumstances have inflicted serious pain on another and went to prison, whom I think are prone to no more violence than the average citizen.) I'm sure there are other ideas that would be in keeping with my premise, but the fact is, I think that as a rule, people should be able to own whatever firearm they choose. Period. (With limited governmental interruption.)

I am sure that any liberal reading this would consider me to be out of my mind even suggesting that the average citizen be allowed to own a fully-automatic (whatever). The reason they feel that way, in my opinion, is because they esteem themselves to be above the common man. They feel that they are intellectually above "those commoners" (though they would never use those words), and while they would trust THEMSELVES with such weapons (though they would never touch one), only a certified nutcase would even consider such things. Frankly, that's why I believe (in Michael Savage's words) "liberalism is a mental disorder". I guess I missed my calling, because while I seem to have a reasonable intelligence quotient, I am a staunch conservative. I have some Libertarian blood running through me, but I am a true believer in a small government and protection of our "borders, language, and culture" (to again steal from Michael Savage). I don't believe in open borders (there's fodder for another blog), I don't believe in undisciplined capitalism, and I don't believe a word that comes from Ted Kennedy's mouth (sober or not). {The fact is, his father made his money running rum and guns, was as corrupt as anyone who ever lived (and twice as powerful), and all of the Kennedy's are far overdue whatever horrible things engulf them--as far as I'm concerned. (Sorry, there goes that politically incorrect surge again....)} I know.....tell me what you really think. Right?

Bottom line, I think that the federal government has far outstripped its bounds in any number of ways, but in terms of guns in general and handguns in particular, they have no authority to regulate what anyone owns. They overstepped their bounds in the 30's, again in 1968, and again with the (now defunct) Clinton gun ban.

Semper Ingenuus, Semper Liberera!!

(look it up) :-)