Today the Gadsden flag flutters at Castle Argghhh!
236 years ago...
James Madison opined: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
Mark Steyn opined on that subject in this post two years ago in The Corner on Regulatory Despotism.
Just yesterday, I had a visitor from Australia here in the Arms Room. He's the first visitor who actually had made mewling noises while examining the collection. His visit was a bittersweet thing to him, as he related turning in his small collection of semi-autos (he did allow that the government paid fair value, though you sometimes had to argue about it) and other suddenly-proscribed firearms, noting with some disgust that they were now "manhole covers in Britain." Heh. There's irony in that, in more was than one.
Can it happen here? Absolutely. Flip the Supreme Court, and the 2nd Amendment reverts to the Liberals preferred interpretation that it's the only Amendment the ten the defines a right purely of the States, vice the individual citizen. The States do get a nod in the 10th, riding on the backs of the people.
Frequent commenter Rivrdog opined why things are different, now...
There is truth in his words. The genius of the Left has been their success as getting so many of us used to or reliant upon government largesse. Myself included - yes, I have my own funds laid aside for retirement, but I'm still drawing a government pension, government disability, and harbor some small hope of getting back some of my social security.
Of course, there are some, such as Professor Teresa Ghilarducci, who propose to confiscate my privately accumulated funds, give me a fixed return (i.e., just another pension) and use the rest for whatever purposes the political class devises.
Because we're all too stupid for words, and the stupid, ignorant and lazy shouldn't have a lesser retirement than the others who earned it - the earners should just lower their expectations and be happy that they have the opportunity to help others. And to feel other than Hopey-Changey about that is, well, unpatriotic and dissent is only the highest form of patriotism when it emanates from the left.
Otherwise... there is no debate.
Jules Crittenden has more on the historical side of things - It was about hope, and change...
236 years ago...
Stand your ground! Don't fire unless fired upon! But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!Captain John Parker's orders to his troops. Like many good quotes, probably apocryphal - but part of the mythos, regardless, and captures the spirit of the restive residents of Massachusetts.
BY the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.
The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.
On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.
Spirit, that made those heroes dare To die,
and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.
James Madison opined: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
Mark Steyn opined on that subject in this post two years ago in The Corner on Regulatory Despotism.
No elected politicians passed a law in any legislature mandating that would-be gun-owners explain why they bust up with their sweethearts. But some no-name official somewhere in the permanent bureaucracy did, and that's that. Two centuries ago, Tocqueville wrote:
There was a time in Europe in which the law, as well as the consent of the people, clothed kings with a power almost without limits. But almost never did it happen that they made use of it.
True. The king was an absolute tyrant - in theory. But in practice he was in his palace hundreds of miles away, and for the most part you got on with your life relatively undisturbed. As Tocqueville wrote:
Although the entire government of the empire was concentrated in the hands of the emperor alone, and although he remained, in time of need, the arbiter of all things, the details of social life and of individual existence ordinarily escaped his control.
But what would happen, he wondered, if administrative capability were to evolve to make it possible "to subject all of his subjects to the details of a uniform set of regulations"? That moment has now arrived in much of the western world, including America.
Just yesterday, I had a visitor from Australia here in the Arms Room. He's the first visitor who actually had made mewling noises while examining the collection. His visit was a bittersweet thing to him, as he related turning in his small collection of semi-autos (he did allow that the government paid fair value, though you sometimes had to argue about it) and other suddenly-proscribed firearms, noting with some disgust that they were now "manhole covers in Britain." Heh. There's irony in that, in more was than one.
Can it happen here? Absolutely. Flip the Supreme Court, and the 2nd Amendment reverts to the Liberals preferred interpretation that it's the only Amendment the ten the defines a right purely of the States, vice the individual citizen. The States do get a nod in the 10th, riding on the backs of the people.
Frequent commenter Rivrdog opined why things are different, now...
There is truth in his words. The genius of the Left has been their success as getting so many of us used to or reliant upon government largesse. Myself included - yes, I have my own funds laid aside for retirement, but I'm still drawing a government pension, government disability, and harbor some small hope of getting back some of my social security.
Of course, there are some, such as Professor Teresa Ghilarducci, who propose to confiscate my privately accumulated funds, give me a fixed return (i.e., just another pension) and use the rest for whatever purposes the political class devises.
Because we're all too stupid for words, and the stupid, ignorant and lazy shouldn't have a lesser retirement than the others who earned it - the earners should just lower their expectations and be happy that they have the opportunity to help others. And to feel other than Hopey-Changey about that is, well, unpatriotic and dissent is only the highest form of patriotism when it emanates from the left.
Otherwise... there is no debate.
Jules Crittenden has more on the historical side of things - It was about hope, and change...
My hope is that a majority of voters have recognized the mistake that was made in 2008 and that Obama and his Democrat Party colleagues have led us to the abyss, and that 2012 is probably our last chance to correct course before we go over the edge.
But if a majority of voters (namely, the 45% of earners who don't pay ANY income tax and the rich liberal elites who want to redistribute everyone else's hard earned money) decide in 2012 that they want to continue on this path, then over the cliff we'll go.
Not only that, inflation is tied to taxes. What the helk is so wrong about lower prices? Higher prices are just inflation with less buying power. Twenty years ago, a loaf of bread was what....85 cents? Now, try $3.00 a loaf. Gas, same/same. Your money bought more 45 years ago than it does now, and while you may have a higher wage, you have less buying power.
Government holds people, businesses and non-profits to a standard it will not enforce for itself. The IRS uses document comparison to see if you did your math right. Assume that you were given a 1099 for $500 of interest. If you did not report the income, you will get slammed for not declaring that $500 of income. Or, let's say you declared it without the documentation, and the bank didn't send it in. You think the IRS is going to return those taxes to you? What you admit on your return holds you liable. We cannot audit the FED, the IRS and some other agencies that should be audited. Planned Parenthood is the tip of the iceburg.
All right, I am shutting up!
It does if you burrow in to the April 19th page, but I found that odd. I figure it's more historically significant than the matyrdom of St. Alphenge (1012), the arrival of John Adams as US Ambassador in The Hague (1782), and the adoption of the Australian national anthem (1985). You can argue about the entry of German troops into the Warsaw Ghetto, and the OKC federal building bombing, but I think those also fall under Lexington and Concord in historical significance.
The Feds can't turn a profit running a whorehouse. Why would I trust them to manage my money?
All snark aside, no one should ever trust government with their money. Government knows this. We have a proven track record of wise expenditure (sticking to a budget) and saving. Government does not have this same track record.
And Cricket...IRA's are befpre tax dollars. They pretty much hold to the same rules as a 401K on taxes and penalties. Your second post said otherwise.
8^ D
I have been voting for over 41 years, I wish they would put up place on the ballot that said, “NONE OF THE ABOVE”! Why don't they do this? I believe the reason is this, “NONE OF ABOVE would win, by a landslide. Personally, I believe I'm just thoroughly disgusted with the whole political process.
Now that I've said it, those world opinions, now let's get the facts. I can understand Cricket's view, but we all must understand our own responsibilities as well as understand the Government's responsibilities, as well. I didn't like either choice, in fact, I thought about quitting voting, altogether. But this is not the right answer and I must dig my heels in and try to do what is right. As we look at these new weapons systems we should also be putting a tracker on where the money goes. It should not go to any politician, past or present .
By law and judicial review, a person born outside the territory of the United States to parents one or both of American citizenship and serving on government duty are considered native-born.
Two of my children were born overseas and I asked the US Consulate on a lark if either of my kids could still run for President.
Grumpy, I'll take your "none of the above" rhetoric when you provide evidence that you have consistently paid contributions to appropriate persons/causes, joined a local phone bank, knocked on doors, volunteered to drive voters to their polling places, run for public office, etc...
Too many people gripe that there are no "good candidates," but fail to explain where such candidates come from, especially when the complainers do little more than vote, bitch, and send letters to the editors.
This is why I find the Tea Party movement so interesting. All across this country, every-day citizens have started making the kind of committments described above
This means we all need to go together and pull out the best ideas. This should answer your concerns.
Respectfully,
Grumpy
When I was born, I was issued a Certificate of Naturalization, even though both of my parents were native-born Americans, overseas because Uncle sent them there. I still had to get the certificate when we arrived stateside.
So, technically, I'm a naturalized citizen. Good thing, or I'd be stateless, as the Germans don't recognize birthright citizenship. But it's a real PITA when it comes time to update the security clearance, and I have to fight the fight with the examiner that no, I do not in fact have to produce the actual document, I provide the certificate number, they call the State Department, and State will confirm the name and number. Not an issue now, as I have physical possession of the certificate - but as it is an irreplaceable document (don't lose yours, kids, it's a paperwork nightmare, from what I'm told) we kept it in my parent's safe deposit box while I was on active duty traveling all the time.
Heh.
But when you start to understand the inner and outer workings of politics it becomes clear why we have to eternal issue with crummy politicians.
Let me points out a few factors. I know it's not at all easy to stomach and many of you will be tempted to fling poop but here it is.
1) Politicians are a reflection of both the country and the people. You hate them you effectely hate your country.
2) We dehumanise politicians. Hold them up to Mr and Mrs Brady Bunch standards. Noone is like that and so they all fall short. So they all hold their little secrets. So we don't really know much about who we vote for. Also adding a few more dirty secrets like corruption and embezzlement won't hurt huh?
3) Not only that we require them to please as many people as possible and displease as few people as possible to be reelected. They are ethernal apologisers and yes men who kiss babies they don't give a hoot about, because they have to. This kind of ties into the weakness in democracy ideas where handouts buy votes.
4) They are surrounded by sharks. Every word can be treacherous and so many of them talk all day but say nothing at all. This serves us how, exactly?
5) The legal landmine field that is in politics demands a lawyers skill to get through. Therefore most politicians are lawyers. Not only that, but sucessful politicians are by nature skilled at charming, skilled at campaigning, skilled at dealing with the media, skilled at debating, skilled at evasion, skilled at law. What room is there left to be skilled at what we need? Like economics and being an executive.
6) We frequently choose to elect politicians who have little real world experience.
7) We frequently elect politicians because of fear of the other politician.
8) (see 6) Only the well connected wealthy politicians have any chance at all. That's because you need that to get noticed in politics and therefore elected. That's we we have to two Bushes and Hillary Billery de facto dynasties. There is no your son or daufghter is going to be President whatsoever.
Because that *isn't* the country I live in. And it distorts their view of the country we live in.
This is a good thing as far as providing some consistency and continuity to policy, cultural succession, etc., and provides a certain degree of buffer when politicians come in who want to radically change things overnight.
However, these bureaucrats are just as susceptible to the feedback loop of groupthink as the elected politicians, and are probably just as likely - or even more so - to do whatever they can to protect their own little turfs and fiefdoms within Big Gov't.
The same is true on a smaller scale in every state capital.
PS. Roth IRAs are after tax dollars. Sorry for the confusion.