Scott Brown's First Senate Address

Scott Brown should make his first official address something like this:

Ladies and gentlemen, I am standing here today because the good people of Massachusetts wanted to send a message to Washington. I am here as a representative of that message. What my constituency told me is that they are tired of Obama administrations attempts by the government to take over health care. I will, therefore with all diligence, work against the Obama administration to pass this so-called health care reform bill that a majority of Americans oppose. I am here to oppose the growth of government in all its forms. In fact, I am here to do my job and make government smaller. I will uphold my oath and vote no on any legislation that does not meet a Constitutional litmus test. I am asking Democrats, Republicans and Independents to join me in restoring the faith of the American people in their government. Thank you, I look forward to serving with you.

Conversation with a ??Conservative??

The following is from a Facebook conversation that started with a discussion on the Matthew Shepard hate crime bill. I didn't change any of the dialog, I eliminated last names to protect the innocent and not so innocent.

Lisa: re: Obama signing hate crime legislation: If you think spray painting "Die Niggers" on the side of an African American family's house should carry the same punishment as spray painting "I love Jimmy" then I say, thank GOD he signed the legislation.

Difster: It's about prosecuting people for their mindset during the commission of a crime. Isn't every murder a hate crime? Every beating? Should someone who murders someone because they're gay get a bigger punishment than someone who murders someone because they cut in line in front of them? No, I don't think so. Also, there's all this stuff just about saying stuff that could incite violence. In Canada churches get warned, fined, etc. just for stating what the Bible says about homosexuality. Is following the Bible a hate crime? Criminalizing thoughts is stupid.

Kevin: Would this particular example fall under either the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law or the Matthew Shepard Act?

Difster: The Matthew Shepard Act is likely to put a chill on some free speech.

Steve: It's a Big Brother type bill. How do you prosecute something someone thought about? A church were I previously went, the pastor Emeritus was warned by a Canadian pastor to mail his material instead of bringing it over the border. Why? The Canadian border guard was going to confiscate his material.

Steve: As usual, the politicians and press (esp. liberals) think that Matthew Shepard was killed because he was gay. Utter bullshit. The accused even stated that he was killed because they wanted his money for thier drug habit. To them he was an easy target.

Difster: Besides all that, there should be no such thing as a "Protected class" of people under the law. Everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law.

Steve: This may sound like a shocker to you all, but hate has had a factor in murder...ever since Cain and Abel. Just because someone chooses to be a certain way doens't make them above the law. Democrats are great at creating hate between classes or groups.

Difster: Basically, if I shoot someone in the head and don't say anything and then turn around and shoot a gay guy in the head and call him a faggot before I do that, I'll get more jail time for murdering him. In what sane world does that make sense?

Steve: Remember Larry, this law was about being the nanny state and making people FEEL good. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Rick : When they came for the Freedom of Speech, I said nothing. When they came for the Freedom of Religion, I said nothing. When they came for the Freedom of the Press, I said nothing. When they came for the 2nd Amendment, there wasn't enough people to help me fight back.

Jerry: "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

Paula: Just another reason I can't stand obama. It makes me sick. So, if I kill a pregnant woman, I'll get less punnishment than if I kill a gay guy. Seems completely rational to me...gotta go throw up now. Can someone please remind me what country I live in?

Difster: In some states, you'll get charged for two murders but will likely serve concurrent sentences. But if it's pregnant LESBIAN you'll really be punished!

Mike: I really enjoy your thought provoking comments and observations Lisa. It's refreshing to see a politically aware person that can weigh both sides of an issue and come up with a position of understanding and compromise that is sustainable in a culture as divided as the United States has become. It would be very nice to see you become active in local politics in Nashville, I think you could make a big difference and actually address the concerns of ALL people, Liberal, Conservative and Independent.

Difster: Mike, not to rain on your parade here, but there should be no compromise when it comes to liberty, theft by the government of what I earn so it can be given to someone less productive, not to mention free speech and gun rights being squeezed out daily. Compromise? Diverse? The principles to which I hold apply equally to everyone, culture and diversity don't mean a thing if people are not free.

Difster: Don't put words in my mouth. Bush presided over more destruction of our liberties than Clinton (who I was no fan of) did. And Clinton destroyed our liberties more than Bush Sr. before him. You think I trust either party to preserve or restore our liberties? Not a chance. WE have to take them back for ourselves, our so called representatives aren't going to do it for us. When a politician advocates the three principals in the following link, I'll vote for him: http://difster.blogspot.com/2005/06/on-liberty.html

Mike: and to make it perfectly clear, I didn't take a position one way or another. I simply complimented Lisa for having the ability to weigh both sides of an argument and come up with a position that addresses both sides needs in a sustainable dialouge. I did not even address the issue of this thread. I did however suggest that Lisa get involved in local politics because I believe she could make a difference as a leader. I am sorry that you feel my compliments to her put you in a position of defense. I have respect for your personal opinions and I am willing to listen to them and compromise if I see that I have been under a false impression. Being open minded probably contributed to me wanting to compliment Lisa on her open mind. please accept my apology for putting you on the defensive.

Difster: What I took issue with was the notion of "a position of understanding and compromise that is sustainable.." What does that even mean? Sustainable? For who? Who defines that? I don't want someone defining what is sustainable for me. Did you read the link I provided? I've never heard anyone but a left-liberal use the word sustainable in regards to policy, environment, etc. The left-liberal mentality is antithetical to liberty because it means you don't get to control the lives of others through taxation, regulation, "government provided compassion," etc.

Mike: I'm actually a republican war veteran

Difster: So what does sustainable mean? Define it for me. I'm not trying to be difficult, I truly have NO idea what that is supposed to mean.

Mike: Sustainable as I used it in the message to Lisa was intended to suggest that continuing talks between conservatives and liberals will give the United States the opportunity to work in a proactive and long term fashion towards being a productive and functioning society. Again, sorry for causing confusion.

Difster: "continuing talks between conservatives and liberals will give the United States the opportunity to work in a sustainable fashion towards being a productive and functioning society."

I still don't understand what you mean by sustainable. Continued talks are not productive since the underlying philosophies are completely different. A compromise of conservative philosophy results in compromised conservatism. How does that work in favor of the American people? Liberalism is always about compromise, they shift and change and believe whatever is expedient. Conservatives (and libertarians like myself) are supposed to have a principled set of beliefs that are not open to compromise because they are in fact the foundations of a productive, functioning society.

Mike: I agree completely with your first point.

R.C.: So that's why they lock up the spray cans at the hardware store!

Difster: I appreciate that. And I apologize if I mistook you for a liberal, I've really only ever heard a liberal use the word "sustainable" in a political context. To me it's a slippery word that can mean whatever someone wants it to at the time. That's what got my hackles up. But really, dialog between conservatives and liberals is useless, conservatives need to push the liberals aside and do what they were elected to do. If they had been doing that, they wouldn't have suffered such a crushing defeat at the ballot box. The GOP continues to move left out of some bizarre need to appease anyone but their own voter base. I guess there are plenty of reasons I don't consider myself a conservative or a Republican anymore.

Mike: I exercise my right of freedom to not be labeled as a liberal or a conservative. I have a personal set of beliefs that straddle both party positions. Like many Americans today, I am under-represented by the politicians I am given as choices to vote for. It is my hope that a new generation of leaders like Lisa can take power and address the concerns of all Americans regardless of their political affiliation or set of beliefs. As a very dedicated conservatie republican Army Officer I held the belief that the right to free speech was worth fighting for and dieing for. Not just my right to that free speech but, the rights of radical left wingers I knew hated everything I stood for and probably hated me as a person. My service wasn't out of fanatical fascism but instead, service to our freedom and our peoples rights to free speech. Today I have no party I can call my own and no true representation of my beliefs, I certainly didn't move to San Francisco to be represented by Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi. I moved here because it is a city that embraces freedom of expression, freedom of political views and freedom of individuality. While most of the nation points to San Fancisco as the bastion of liberalism and the seat of anti-americanism... most of us here don't feel that way at all. I live here because it truely is the land of the free and the home of the brave despite what the media portrays us as. My neighbors are architects, engineers, teachers, biochemists and office managers, hardly the bible burning, anarchist, conservative haters that many would have you believe live in this city. My original message to Lisa was the hope that her open mindedness could benefit local politics and I believe that is true. Otherwise we would only have a one party system and one candidate to vote for in every election if there was no point to having opposing viewpoints in government.

My point is, labeling anyone or any group discounts the individual contribution they bring to that group. I was a conservative republican that believed in violent defense of the freedom of speech. This view was very different than my fellow conservative Army Officer peers shared and yet, I am quite certain that my defense of that freedom was the right reason to join the army and the right reason to fight in three conflicts over. Not too many of my peers would have agreed and yet, my service was just as valuable as theirs. I believe there is room for individual beliefs within a group and I certainly believe that we should all have the freedom to exercise those beliefs within the framework of the law. If that is no longer the case then we need to re-draft the bill of rights to reflect what our society desires and potentially split into two nations that are unwilling to compromise their beliefs. That would be a sad day for us all in my opinion.

Mike: I like how I have her entire career and political future all mapped out and locked into stone as our champion of freedom... props to Lisa for staying out of this while I make a fool of myself plotting her future...LOL

Difster: A point about labels. Labels are useful. You labeled yourself in several different ways. You labeled yourself as a conservative, a Republican, an ex Army Officer. Then you say we shouldn't label because it discounts individual contribution. We must have labels, that's how we communicate ideas. Sometimes those labels are overbroad or misapplied but that goes with the territory. I label myself as a libertarian (small L, not big L) yet there are things about that philosophy I find fault with. Without that label, I would have to explain everything I believe to anyone that asks whereas a neat label such as libertarian covers enough ground to be understood.

You said: "It is my hope that a new generation of leaders like Lisa can take power and address the concerns of all Americans regardless of their political affiliation or set of beliefs."

Mike, that's impossible. The concerns of one group are different than that of other groups and all too frequently those concerns are diametrically opposed and both cannot be satisfied. Furthermore, you will never get even most people to agree on one set of principles or the other. This is exactly why we need a VERY LIMITED government so that those opposing groups have very little power to implement their agenda on the rest of us. The tendency, throughout history is always toward more control and less freedom

You said: "I certainly believe that we should all have the freedom to exercise those beliefs within the framework of the law."

Which law? The law as it's enacted or the law as it's supposed to conform to the Constitution. Many of our laws are unconstitutional yet they remain. Most government agencies are unconstitutional. Show me the Constitutional authorization for HUD, FEMA, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Transportation, EPA, FCC and most of the other alphabet soup agencies that are not specifically permitted in the Constitution. But if by the law you do in fact mean the Constitution and what it specifically authorizes, then yes. But please recognize that even the law is often times very, very wrong.

You said: "If that is no longer the case then we need to re-draft the bill of rights to reflect what our society desires and potentially split into two nations that are unwilling to compromise their beliefs. That would be a sad day for us all in my opinion."

The Bill of Rights has NOTHING to do with what society desires. My rights do not emanate from society, my rights are natural and come from God despite the desire of society. This is not a trivial point. But if we must split in to two nations in order to restore the liberty we are due, that would not be sad at all; I would rejoice. But it would be sad that anyone would fight for or choose a society of control and a burdensome government over real liberty.

Personally, I don't want open minded politicians and leaders. I want people who clearly and emphatically take the side of liberty over notion of compromise, public opinion or the desires of society (mob-rule).

Mike: I still agree very strongly with the point you raised, "Continued talks are not productive since the underlying philosophies are completely different."

Great point and we agree 100% on it.

Free Market Stupidity

Ok, so I go in to AM/PM (a convenience store chain) to get a soda refill. Rather than bring in a cup, I bring in a bottle than has a lid which works better for me. The store manager tell me that I can't fill up a bottle, if I want a refill it has to be a cup. Keep in mind, the bottle is the same size as the cup I'd be filling. He says it doesn't make sense to him. What? He gets his $.99 no matter what container I put it in, why would he care? So I try to talk some sense in to him because he clearly doesn't see the profit potential. Nope, he's adamant, NO BOTTLE! So then I told him that he's lost my business completely and I won't be back.

I totally support that man's right to run his business as he sees fit. If he wants to lose money over the fact that I'm filling a bottle rather than a cup then he's free to lose money over a semantic difference. But I'm also exercising my right not to do business with him.

Oh well, his loss.. I get 10 extra minutes of walking to go to the next closest AM/PM and I'm certain that I can use the exercise.

Down But Not Out

No, I haven't posted lately. Most of my thoughts are going on my Facebook account. I'll be back, but I think this is going in to the mothballs for a while.

Which begs the question, do you know what mothballs smell like?

You do? How did you get your nose between those tiny little legs?

Why I Love Open Source

Can you imagine Microsoft or any other country taking the time and expense to inclue a spell checker for the Lower Sorbian language which is spoken by a Slavic minority in Germany?

Someone made such a spellchecker for Firefox.

It's not that I have any need for such spell checker, it's just that open source software is very flexible and repsonds well to the needs of its users. If you can't find a feature you like in your software, modify it yourself!

Who Still Things We Have A Free Market?

The SEC permanently banned naked short sales and is considering other moves to stop free falls in stocks.

No kids, we don't have a free market and we haven't for a long time. The SEC is evidence of that.

An Act of Desperation

Looks like Nutty Pelosi is going to attempt to force the hand of our beloved legislature by bypassing committee and bringing the Obamacare bill to a floor vote before the August recess.

To me, this is suicide, not only for the bill, but for Pelosi herself. It is such a partisan and desperate act to shove something down the throats of the American people that we don't want that this could very well define her "legacy." Let's hope so.

I say, let it come to a floor vote and see what happens. I think most of the Dems will not vote for it for fear of voter backlash.

They already face an uphill battle for reelection over the bailouts and stimulus package.

A Last Gasp Of Breath

The cap & trade bill that is set for a full vote on Friday seems to be a last gasp attempt at convincing the rest of us that global warming (which they're not just calling 'global climate change' is really happening. Despite the best efforts of the global warming advocates and a nearly continuous media storm from almost all sides to convince us otherwise, there is no consensus among scientists or the general public that there is any global warming happening at all. In fact, there seems to be plenty of evidence that the whole thing is a lie.

If you hadn't noticed, every global warming (climate change) solution involves more government and higher taxes. The will make some noise about voluntary cooperation from the private sector, but mainly, it's about force.

If this fails, which seems likely right now, it will be a huge set back to the left on this issue and may very well spell death to that movement. We can only hope.

No Comprendo

I can't even begin to fathom the evil in a man that is so dedicated to baby killing that he has withstood threats, harassment and already being shot once in order to ply his murderous trade.

Global Warming Killer?

Kofi Annan says global warming is a silent killer of 300,000 per year and it's increasing. He cites a report that says, "The report claims that 90 percent of the deaths are related to gradual environmental degradation caused by a warming climate, which exacerbates existing threats — mainly malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria."

I have three little letters for you Mr. Annan. DDT. That miracle pesticide that is absolutely harmless but was demonized by Rachel Carson using false and misleading data.

I question the veracity of that report though. Global warming (if it really exists and I don't believe it does) should create more farmable land should increase food production and more people would get fed. Also, if 300,000 people in underdeveloped countries were really dying per year from global warming, the existing food supply would be seen as a net increase.

As for global warming, I think Kofi Annan, among others, is full of hot air!

Choosing The Wrong Target

An idiotic Washington D.C. council member named Jim Graham is, as the this article says, "cracking down" on selling pizza by the slice late at night in D.C. neighborhoods. Apparently D.C. residents remain hungry long in to the night since some of these place stay open until 4:30 AM and there is some violence here and there late at night. The councilman admits that the eateries are operating legally but they have become a nuisance. Is this guy really so stupid that he thinks that stopping late night pizza sales will reduce crime? Is he so stupid that he doesn't understand that maybe it's the criminals responsible for crime, not the pizza shop owner? Is he such a blithering idiot that he cannot see the root causes of crime and must go after private businesses that are legally serving a customer base?

If I were these pizza shop owners, I'd pick a representative to have a meeting with this guy and offer him a bribe (campaign contribution) to drop the legislation. The kicker is, they'd get the whole thing on tape and destroy him at the next city council meeting.

Yes Jim Graham, you are STUPID! Why don't you figure out the real problem and address it that way!

An Abortion Candidate

This article doesn't mention that abortion was recommended to this mother but it does say that doctors didn't expect this girl (now 6 years) old to survive birth because many of her organs weren't in the right place, she has 5 spleens, two left lungs, etc.

I could almost bet that the doctors, and many friends and family recommended that the mother abort the baby rather than suffer the pain of very short life, etc.

So far the girl has survived 6 years long than expected and seems to be in good health. Who knows how long she'll survive. Even if she doesn't lead a "normal" life as we would call it, no doubt she's brought joy to the life of her parents (ok, it only mentions mom in the article) and those around her and probably even her doctors. People who survive difficult conditions really seem to inspire us. She is a shining example of God's grace and the miracle of life.

**Note to evolutionists: This girl has a genetic disorder, a mutation. Mutations are always destructive, not improvements. Or perhaps you might think that evolution is selecting that we now need multiple spleens and our organs belong in different places. Oh wait, she'll probably never have kids so she can't pass on the traits.

Treating Them Like Children

More proof that the democrats see much of their constituency as children.

High-ranking House Democrats are urging the Treasury Department to prop up minority-owned broadcasters suffering from a lack of capital and lost advertising revenue amid the economic slump.

To the liberal-left elite, minorities, women and any other group except white males are to be treated by children who cannot make their own way and require government help. If broadcasters are failing, they're failing. Why should the taxpayers provide money to a PRIVATE BUSINESS that isn't generating enough revenue to continue operations. I don't care who owns the business, there is simply no Constitutional authority for the government to keep any business from failing.

Oh.. I amend my statement above. White, male bankers and automotive executives are also children.

Miscellany

I almost ran over a puppy today. A little black one. Fortunately, he made it across safely.

Malibu is a very nice place but it's so difficult to get to. You can take the canyon roads from the freeways north of Los Angeles or you can take Pacific Coast Highway from the 10 freeway. Traffic there is always beastly. I'm guessing a lot of people that live there, hardly ever leave. But if you're going to live in a place that's tough to get in and out of, that's the place to be!

It would be fun to start a rumor that a cell phone virus is going around that sends a silent signal to your brain to produce a real virus. It would take a lot of work to create fake scientific studies, etc. and I really just don't have that kind of time.

I know, I need to get back to The Federalist Papers. #7 is a bit boring and much like #6 so I've been putting it off.

It's been reported that my recent blog post about voting actually swayed someone's opinion in my direction. Imagine that!

The Fox Shall Guard The Henhouse

Need I say more?

Voting By The Numbers

I've been having an ongoing verbal argument with a friend for several years about voting. He thinks that not voting or voting for a third party candidate (i.e. NOT a Republican) is the same as voting for the Democrat. I realize it's not election season but we were talking about this again the other day and I finally had to put it all down in writing. Thanks to Vox for providing the math lesson on this one, I've adapted his examples.

Submitted for your amusement, here is the email I sent to my friend:

I just wanted to clear this up, we've talked about it off and on for a long time but I wanted this in print so you can see it.

Candidate A is a Democrat
Candidate B is a Republican
Candidate C is a third party candidate.

Candidate A has 99 votes
Candidate B has 99 votes.

The next voter votes for Candidate C.

How many votes does Candidate A have?

1) 100
2) 99
3) 5

Let's put it this another way:

I live in a small town with 101 people.
50 people vote for the Democrat
50 people vote for the Republican
I decline to vote. Who wins? Did I vote for the Democrat by not voting as you contend? Please explain.

Same small town scenario with 100 people.
50 people vote Democrat
49 people vote Republican
I decline to vote or write in some other candidate. The Dem wins but did I vote for the Democrat by not voting? Please explain.

Not voting for one party is not a vote for another party. The math doesn't work that way. If I find the Candidate A and Candidate B both so abhorrent that I cannot ENDORSE, VOTE, SUPPORT, GET BEHIND, CHOOSE, SUGGEST, or RECOMMEND how is not voting for either of those choices a vote for the person who is furthest from my views? It does not give them an extra vote as the examples above demonstrate. Not voting for someone means not voting for someone. Why is this so hard to understand? You're supposed to be much better at math than me, remember?

When you VOTE for someone, you are making a pronouncement that you want that person representing you. I didn't want McCain or Obama representing me. I didn't want Schwarzenegger or Bustamante representing me either. I knew one of them was going to win but it's absolutely impossible that by NOT voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger that I voted for Obama and Bustamante. They received NO extra votes because they didn't get mine. 1+1= 2. By your logic, 1+0 =2 because if the Republican didn't get that extra vote, then my non-vote goes to the Democrat which would be 1+0=2.

I got so tired of hearing... "But a third party person won't win!" Ron Paul is a Republican. Tom McClintock is a Republican. They aren't third party candidates. What bothers me most is the people saying that people like McClintock and Paul are spoilers when really, they are the ones upholding the ideals of liberty and conservative government. You voted for McCain and you voted for Schwarzenegger TWICE! You voted for that NON Republican TWICE! That means you gave your consent to be governed by a non-Republican, gay marriage, pro abortion, anti-gun, big government supporter who just so happens to have aligned himself with the Republican party just because he's a member of the Republican party. It can almost be excused that you voted for him the first time, but the state was already in chaos when you voted for him the second time yet you SUPPORTED him again knowing he was doing further damage to this state. Why would you do that?

Why would you vote for McCain who admitted he doesn't even really understand economics to represent you as the leader of the country in a time of economic trouble? Sure, he could surround himself with advisors who know economics, but how would he choose them if he doesn't understand it enough to begin with. He voted for the bailout. I don't care if he regretted it later, he voted for it as a United States Senator. SHAME ON HIM. Had I been supporting him up to that point, I would have withdrawn my support right there because it's clear he doesn't understand economics OR the Constitution of the United States of America which he is already sworn to uphold. Clearly he's a failure at his sworn duty, why would you vote for him for president? Because Obama is worse? How much worse and in what way? No doubt Obama is out to destroy this country but he didn't get my vote. I didn't support him. I didn't walk in to a voting booth and cast a ballot in favor of him. In the California and Federal elections, I voted for the person who I could actually support the policies of. I voted my principles. I voted my conscience. I voted for what I believed was right. Furthermore, both Ron Paul and Tom McClintock are committed, demonstrable Christians. Schwarzenegger clearly is no such thing and McCain seems to take a stab at it but I haven't seen much evidence of a deep, abiding faith.

You continually tell me I'm STUPID for voting the way I do yet I was right about Schwarzeneggar and I know I would have been right about McCain. The things Ron Paul was saying in the primaries are now coming to pass but no one wanted to listen to him because they didn't want to believe him. They wanted to (as you always say) BELIEVE THE BIGGER LIE. That's what you did by voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger (twice). You believed the bigger lie that somehow they could turn things around. Our governor has certainly made things worse.

I haven't even talked about you voting for George Bush twice. He was never a conservative. He hardly ever did one thing in office that is in line with conservative values. He could have done a lot more against abortion than he did. He could have used the bull pulpit. He could have done more for gun rights (he supported a continuation of the "assault weapons ban") and he approved budgets that were the largest non-military domestic expenditures this country has ever seen! Other than his initial reaction to 9/11, I can't say there are too many things that Bush did that I ever agreed with. I voted for him the first time; that was my mistake. I did not vote for him the second time. I saw my error.

In short, I cannot and will not give my support through voting to people who are bent on destroying this country through bad economic policy and stripping away our liberties by interfering more and more in our lives every day, growing government to outrageous levels and making us and future generations pay for it by continually loading us with more and more debt. If you want to continue to think that my lack of support for Republican candidates who do those things is a vote for the Democrats who do it more then there is nothing I can do to prevent that, but whatever you decide to think, it would be dishonest of you to continue to say that I really haven't thought it through and I don't know what I'm talking about. You can continue to disagree with me on this subject but you aren't going to change my mind, you can't change the rules of math and you can't change the fact that both parties are running us down the road to destruction.

Big Companies Are Not Capitalist

Need proof? Look at what the CEO of GM just said. Click here.

They WANT government protection for their businesses, not the freedom to succeed or fail on their own. Capitalist? I don't think so. The proper term would be corporate statism.

Federalist #6

Quite some time ago (starting nearly 4 years ago I'm ashamed to say) I started a chapter by chapter summary of the Federalist Papers. It got away from me and I stopped after #5. And now I continue but you may want to read the first 5. I think this is a good time to start again. This is to remind people of the principles this country was founded on even if some of them were a bit flawed. Certainly there can be no perfect system of government in this world but what America has produced has been the best so far.

Federalist #1
Federalist #2
Federalist #3
Federalist #4
Federalist #5

Author - Hamilton

"To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance teh accumulated experience of ages."

I don't doubt at all that Canada and Mexico would be at war with us on occasion if the United States weren't so much more powerful than both of them. If the South had succeeded in breaking from the Union (as it should have been allowed to to d0) there might have been occasional wars there too. It's hard for us to see the history of Europe and them of it as a continent in conflict which it has been for most of its history. Now we only see it in light of current events with the EU and the Euro currency and France, Germany and England acting as if they've really just been like brothers punching each other in the arm rather than bitter enemies at constant war.

The unfortunate part of Hamilton's statement is that it takes government to for a cohesive union and government has an insatiable appetite for growth and power.

"The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, ad to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled in to war."

Wouldn't that be nice? But it just isn't so. Men are sinners and subject to the same jealousies, and bad behavior as everyone else in any other kind of government. While it's true that a strong Republic is less likely to be manipulated and used to satisfy the blood lust of any particular group of men, we've seen that it's certainly possible. In fairness, Hamilton was making a point about what other man say the genius of a republic is and doesn't particularly agree with it. He goes on to point out that not every nation is perusing benevolent ends for it's people and so conflict will arise.

Please bear in mind that when he's speaking here of having several unions instead of one united republic, there were still only the 13 states and the outlying territories not yet created as states going out to about the Mississippi river. I'll leave it to your imagination to decide whether it would have been best to have our current union split in to several nations as states were added on.

"Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of government, let the revolt of part of the State of North Carolina, the late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts, declare------!"

That doesn't sound entirely unlike what we have going today though we've yet to face any insurrection. I think we're on the verge of serious civil unrest.

An Annoying Thing About Mexico

Maybe lots of annoying things come to your mind and I'm sure this is minor in comparison but I'm going to tell you about it anyway.

It seems that just about every parking lot has a parking lot attendant, especially places like the grocery stores, and other places where a large number of people might be shopping at one time. What I can't get used to is they way these guys will step in to the path of your car as you're backing up to guide you out. It creeps me out every time. I don't want someone behind me to help me back up; I do a fine job on my own. The laws of motion in Mexico are no different than the United States and with rare exception, I don't need help backing up there. (Exeptions: Driving large moving trucks, towing a trailer, etc.)

I don't really mind that they insist on rushing over to help put bags in the car even if it's only a few, I just hate it when they get behind me while I'm backing out.

And, in case you hadn't guessed, they work for tips.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

As if the government doesn't lie enough, now comes the news that our own government has been been telling a real whopper about the number of guns flowing from the US in to Mexico.

The lie that's being perpetuated by people like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi is that 90% of the illegal arms in Mexico come from the U.S.

It turns out the figure is closer to 17%. They came up with the 90% figure because Mexico sends lists of serial numbers of guns it recovers to the U.S. for tracing. 90% of the serial numbers we trace for them come from guns that originated in the U.S. however most of the weapons they recover have no serial numbers so they don't send them to us for tracing so they don't make it in to our statistical pool.

Clinton recently went to Mexico spouting that number and blaming the U.S. for some of the violence in Mexico based on this figure. I wonder if she'll amend her statement now that this new figure has come to light? She also promised to do more about the illegal flow of arms to Mexico.

To me, it seems like it's not really that bad. It's not an insignificant problem, but how many millions or billions are we going to spend on "prevention" to try to slow down something that is so easily transportable in vehicles crossing the border. Seriously, it wouldn't be that hard. Vehicles come under very little scrutiny going from the U.S. to Mexico. Sure, they pull over some random cars for thorough checks but still, it wouldn't be that hard.

The sad part is, Clinton, Pelosi and the Justice Department will probably continue to use the 90% figure despite the fact that it's been proven false.