PreviewThe people shape their own destiny
-- either as free people or as slaves.

If they remain self-reliant, they stay free.
Ever expanding state power destroys lives.

Government panacea is a defective idea.
Email our servants:


Thursday, December 3, 2015

Common sense brave

Obama called for "common sense gun safety laws" after the attack on innocent Americans in San Bernardino.  Obama insists to try to hamper the People's ability to protect themselves.  Obama's idea of 'common sense' is more of the same laws we have now... just so he will look like he is doing something.  Obama is an enabler for the attackers.

Only if the people realize they are the only ones who can make themselves safe, only when the politicians stop trying to push gun control as a substitute for a vigilant, armed  people, only then will we be safe[r].


The Democratic fascist has no real feeling for human beings, so they substitute boilerplate remarks. 

Here the ordinary, Democratic Party crank can use the Democratic boilerplate code to make any criminal use of firearms into a political call to ban guns for the law-abiding.

"My heart just breaks for the victims of the _(place)_ shooting in _(city)_. Those _(number greater than 3)_ people didn't deserve to die in a hail of bullets. Thoughts going out to their families and loved ones as they mourn the senseless deaths of these _(# dead)_. I will keep the _(# wounded)_ survivors in my thoughts and hope for a swift emotional and physical recovery.

Enough hate. Enough gun violence. It's time for solutions. We have to fix what's broken. Tonight, as we think of our _(place)_ neighbors, let's all be resolute in moving forward together to make our state, our nation and world a safer place."

(based on a speech delivered by Jay Inslee, governor, Washington state)


Friday, October 9, 2015

Gun Control versus Reality

Obama made a tour of Oregon to 'console' the people who lost loved ones in the Roseburg massacre.   Some one with a grudge against society did the anti-social crime of murder, something not covered by the Second Amendment.  This seems to have escaped Mr Obama and the fools of the Left.

The fashionable Left will complain about madmen they eject from mental heath care (in the name of cost-cutting) who then go violently insane -- but they will not mention the positive usefulness of weapons in controlling the criminals and politicians.

Ferzample of how politicians need to be controlled by our weapons, take a look at the situation in Cuba.  All of this is stuff the fashionable Left doesn't want mentioned.

The article about oppressive government in Cuba is in Spanish.  You may want to use

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Idiotic (or dishonest) Liberal Reasoning

It turns out liberals try to appear reasonable when they apply the craft of deception.  Also, if liberals control the reins of government, they are willing to corrupt government by using weighty government institutions to publish their deceptions.  The most obvious is the recent government Bureau of Labor Statistics Proclamation that the American economy is at full employment.   The following points show how the liberals are busy applying more deception to the labor picture.


Many people argue that liberals, socialists and progressives do not understand basic economics. I am not totally convinced about that.

Take the law of demand, for example, one of the fundamental principles of economics. It holds that the lower the cost of something the more people will take or do of it. Conversely, the higher the cost the less people will take or do something. By their actions, liberals fully understand the law of demand. Let's look at some proof.

The Seattle City Council voted unanimously to establish a tax on gun and ammunition sales. Hillary Clinton has called for a 25 percent tax on gun sales. In Chicago, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle proposed "violence taxes" on bullets to discourage criminals from buying guns. Let's ignore the merit of these measures. They do show that gun grabbers acknowledge the law of demand. They want fewer gun sales and thus propose raising the cost of guns.

NBCBLK contributor Danielle Moodie-Mills said, "We need to stop misgendering people in the media, and there needs to be some type of fine that's put into place for ... media outlets ... that decide that they're just not going to call people by their name." What Moodie-Mills wants is for us to be obliged, if a man says he's a woman, to address him as her and, if a woman says she's a man, to address her as him. The basic point here is that Moodie-Mills acknowledges the fundamental law of demand when she calls for FCC fines for media people who "misgender" folks. By the way, if I claimed to be the king of Siam, I wonder whether she would support my demand that I be addressed as "your majesty."

In the Ohio Legislature, Rep. Bill Patmon, a Democrat from Cleveland, introduced a bill to make it illegal to manufacture, sell or display toy guns. The ban would apply to any toy gun that a "reasonable person" could confuse with a real one. A $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail would be imposed for failure to obey the law. That's more evidence that liberals understand the law of demand. You want less of something? Just raise its cost.

Even San Francisco liberals and environmentalists understand the law of demand. They've proposed a ban that over the next four years would phase out the sale of plastic water bottles that hold 21 ounces or less in public places. Violators could face fines of up to $1,000.

Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu once said, "We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" in order to make Americans give up their "love affair with the automobile." If gas prices rise high enough, Chu knows that Americans will drive less.

There you have it — abundant evidence that liberals, socialists and progressives understand the law of demand. But wait a minute. What about raising the cost of hiring workers through increases in the minimum wage?

Aaron Pacitti, Siena College professor of economics, wrote that raising the minimum wage "would reduce income inequality and poverty while boosting growth, without increasing unemployment." The leftist Center for Economic and Policy Research has written a paper whose title tells it all: "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?" The U.S. Department of Labor has a page on its website titled "Minimum Wage Mythbusters", which relays a message from liberal economists: "Increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers."

What the liberals believe — and want us to believe — is that though an increase in the cost of anything will cause people to use less of it, labor is exempt from the law of demand. That's like accepting the idea that the law of gravity influences the falling behavior of everything except nice people. One would have to be a lunatic to believe either proposition.

Walter Williams


Vote for Democrats and you'll never get to work for the rest of your life. 

Monday, September 7, 2015

Unemployment isn't working

The administration released the unemployment figures last Friday.  They claimed unemployment was at on 5.1%, an historic low. 

How does the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a government department, publish the obvious happy face unemployment rate and in the same report mentions the labor participation rate which show low and falling employment, stated as a percentage of the whole population.  How is it possible to have a declining labor force participation (fewer people working) and a declining unemployment rate? 

The answer is - It Isn't.  Someone is so distorting the truth about Obamanomics that it amounts to a lie.  The truth is the United States has not had such a low labor participation rate since 1978.  The current "unemployment rate" is an imaginary figure dreamed up by politicians who owe their allegiance to the present political regime.  Meanwhile millions of Americans suffer.

The Left claims corporations are to blame for unemployment, which is a difficult position given that the administration claims such a rosy employment picture. Why the divergence between reality and the giant mentalities of the administration?

50 years ago President John Kennedy stated, "The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."  Obama wants to tax America.  Obama knows that increased taxes increase unemployment and misery, so he and his gang of economic thugs just imagine that it ain't so.

Friday, September 4, 2015

The peacemaker war mongers

Excerpts from Paul Greenberg

The contentious debate continues over whether our president's nuclear deal with Iran's mullahs offers the world its best chance for peace -- or is sure to lead to war. Or will it lead to some murky mix of the two, much like the period between the two world wars?

History doesn't repeat itself, it's been said, but it rhymes. And the past remains as debatable as the future, as any historian well knows. Where is Gentle Reader to look for guidance when the guideposts point in different directions? And the peacemakers can be hard to tell from the warmongers.

Talk about what the Israelis call an existential choice as they face the prospect of an Iran with its own Bomb and the means to deliver it. You pays your money and you takes your choice of conflicting counsels. For example:

"It is a very good deal. ... It would be good for the United States. It would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. It would be good for the world. ... (I)t achieves one of our most critical security objectives. This is the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war. ... (A)nd military action would be far less effective than this deal." --Barack Obama.

But this pact with Iran is an "historic mistake," according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who warns that it would make it easier, not harder, for Iran to get its own Bomb, with all that would mean for his region and the world.


Did another American president -- Woodrow Wilson -- have the right idea when he staked his all on the dream of a League of Nations that would safeguard world peace? He struck out for Paris without consulting the opposition at home, determined to negotiate a peace treaty on his own, such was his blind confidence in his own idealism and complete contempt for his critics. (Remind you of anyone?)

Wilsonian idealism seemed to be working -- right up to the moment it didn't, and the next world war erupted after two decades of intermittent crises.

By then the American people had grown sick of idealistic leaders and had chosen an ordinary politician as president -- Warren G. Harding -- who promised not nostrums but normalcy, and soon had his own diplomatic achievements to show for it. Like the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, which established a balance of power that kept an unsteady peace for almost two decades.

A different and far-seeing president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, could see the war clouds gathering year by year -- and knew the country wasn't willing to face the gathering storm. His conclusion: He knew he had to prepare American public opinion for war step by step.

Was FDR being duplicitous or practicing statesmanship? For there are times when a statesman must rise above candor in order to lead. Sincerity can be treacherous when it comes to diplomacy, even if our current president seems to mean every tricky word he says.


Who will prove the peacemaker and who the warmonger now, the president or his critics, as this debate about a nuclear pact with Iran continues? That's a question each citizen of a republic must answer for himself in a free society. And the answer may depend on whether this nation, and this world, remains free.