This is a site for me. If you stumbled across it fine. Enjoy looking around. Maybe you’ll learn something that will adjust your world view from that of the rest of the lemmings on the left and right.

The articles posted here are either monologues or email exchanges on topics I find interesting. Because the writing is generaly “stream of consciences” there are probably spelling and grammer errors in every paragraph (or even sentence!). I don’t care – this site is for me.

Clicking on the Title at the top of the page will take you back to the beginning.

You can use this Search box to find articles on this site. Simply type in a word, hit search and every posting that has that word in it will be presented.

Tyler and I displaying our 1958 Triumph TR3 at the Highland Games in Mesa, AZ (1998 or 1999?)

“leaders in the military are taught “I” if things go wrong, and “they” if things go right, only to have politicians say “I” if things go right, and “they” if things go wrong? That is TOO big of a fundamental difference between the two cultures!”

It reminded me of another old paper I had written back around 1984 that was entitled “Criminal Negligent – Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs”.  The Professor teaching this History class was a HUGE JFK fan and was constantly allowing her political slip to show. To tweak her a bit (ok, more than a bit) I wrote this paper for the class. It had to have irridated her no end to read it and in the end grade the paper and A

Criminal Negligent: Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs

Depression – The Business Cycle

I love how I opened the paper with a quote from Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson since he unknowingly pointed out the reason we are in this current mess

“Nothing like the Depression should ever occur again. It it does, the fault will come from unwillingness to take action, from a fixed belief in the validity of certain theories, and from a hope that what worked in an earlier generation will also work well again.”

Yep, Keynesians believe that their theories dug us out of the Great Depression (while ignoring the fact the rest of the world was in shambles and therefore we had markets to sell to).  So who exactly has a “fixed belief in the validity of certain theories”?

Consider this about the “Founders”. Great Britain certainly did not view any of them as “moderates” even thought they certainly had issues and differences among each other.  Just read the reports from the Continental Congress hashing out the Declaration of Independence. The Founders did NOT speak with one voice concerning the foundations that were laid down to establish this Nation.

Some were firebrands intent on rubbing King George’s nose in it and others did want a more moderate approach. In the end they worked to reach a compromise in the very language that birthed this Country.  Including moderation in language that resulted in the bloodshed of thousands of Citizens just a few short decades later.

So consider that when you rip your fellow travelers on the “right” because those on the “left” don’t view any of us as “moderate”. They view us all as barely one on step away from wearing jackboots and brownshirts.

When a shrew like Marueen Dowd writes something as inane as “accountable to no one once they give the last word” in referring to the Justices it just shows how dumb and desperate they are.

Hey, Maureen, you might want to take a look at the Constitution. The ENTIRE document.  Then you might notice that neither SCOTUS, POTUS (or his teleprompter) have the final say.  Who does? Well the answer can be found in the fact that if we don’t like something in the Constitution WE THE PEOPLE can amend it (unless of course you live in California where their Court can tell the population to pound sand – but I guess the lefts desire for DEMOCRATIC action only extends to action they agree with)

Try that and let’s see how many Americans really want to give complete control of our lives and choices to Politicians.

There is a distinct difference between regulation of commerce and coercion of commerce.

In the 1992 New York v. United States decision the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot compel a State to enter into a contract. If they cannot compel a State how can they compel a citizen of that same State?

Swing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that to do so was:

“Congress has crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion.”

In the next paragraph she even cut to the matter of timeliness with this observation:

“We must initially reject respondents’ suggestion that, because the take-title provision will not take effect until January 1, 1996, petitioners’ challenge thereto is unripe. It takes many years to develop a new disposal site. All parties agree that New York must take action now in order to avoid the take-title provision’s consequences, and no party suggests that the State’s waste generators will have ceased producing waste by 1996. The issue is thus ripe for review.

How would an Unconstitutional forced subsidy of waste producers be any different that a forced subsidy to Insurance companies?

“Such a forced transfer, standing alone, would in principle be no different than a congressionally compelled subsidy from state governments to radioactive waste producers.”

Considering the Federally imposed penalty/tax (depending on the forum that the Administration is arguing in front of) for not entering into this coerced contract Justice O’Connor also held

“In this provision, Congress has not held out the threat of exercising its spending power or its commerce power; it has instead held out the threat, should the States not regulate according to one federal instruction, of simply forcing the States to submit to another federal instruction. A choice between two unconstitutionally coercive regulatory techniques is no choice at all.”

So for those caught up in the nonsense that the Supreme Court should follow precedence here ya go.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=505&page=144

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This is a weakness of mine but it irritates me when people expound on “The Gospel According To Them”

Especially when they try to equate ALL the words spoken by another member – even if a Church leader as being doctrine.

Really liked some of the references and observations on this page. Yes I do see the irony pointing to someone else’s observation on the “Gospel According To Them” but then the guy that wrote that page does have a disclaimer

From the Church’s site: