In the argument meathead took the position that the second amendment meant that only the militia were guaranteed the right to bear arms. He based this on his distorted usage of that term in the amendment. This is a common argument used by liberals today in their misguided attempts to disarm us all and leave us at the mercy of criminals and a possible tyrannical government. For those liberals who are unfamiliar with the second amendment I will reproduce it for you.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty straightforward and unambiguous, as the founding fathers no doubt thought. But the founding fathers had never envisioned the modern day liberal. From experience I can say that most liberals arguments are not based on facts but are a twisted perversion of reality. Liberals have taken a single, straightforward sentence and twisted it around in a feeble attempt to foist their beliefs on us all.

First, meathead’s definition of militia is completely wrong. I think he interpreted the modern day militia to be the National Guard.  The definition of militia as given by Merriam-Webster is:

a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b:the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

But when the Bill of Rights was written the definition of Militia was somewhat different. Back then the militia was defined as the whole body of able-bodied citizens. This included men and women. Merriam-Webster uses this definition too but has added that this includes men only and declared by law as being subject to call to military service. Even if we accept Merriam-Websters definition to include men only and declared by law, this includes most of the male population as all men are subject to the draft to this very day.

But even with the phrase ‘well regulated militia’ added to the second amendment, this does not imply that a well regulated militia is the sole justification for the right to keep and bear arms. What meathead conveniently leaves out of his argument is the fact that the second part of the second amendment does not say: ‘the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’  It specifically states the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of PEOPLE and infringed don’t liberals understand?

My final argument is that when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the arms that would later equip the militia that won our freedom from the British were in the hands of the people before a militia was ever organized and called into service. The arms were not supplied by the government. If we are ever confronted with a tyrannical government sometime in the future, how is a militia ever going to be formed to defend liberty if the guns needed to defend against that tyranny are in the governments hands and not we the people’s hands? Please answer that question for me meathead.

The venue is owned by a Methodist group and it seems one person complained about the building’s religious symbols and Christian-based references – among them a 20 foot white cross above the auditorium’s entrance. The ACLU wants the school to remove or cover up the cross and three other religious signs.

In an attempt to reach an accommodation with the ACLU school officials agreed to change the graduation program to remove the student-led invocation and two hymns, to rid the ceremony of any religious references. But of course this was not enough for the ACLU, who is still threatening to sue if the school doesn’t fully comply.

The first amendment to the Constitution states:

The original intent of the first amendment with regard to religion seems unambiguous. Congress shall make no Law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof.  The New Jersey school is making no Law nor is it prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is simply a graduation exercise.

But over the years the first amendment has been distorted and perverted to fit the political, social, an moral tenants of various parties. Even the Supreme Court has endorsed these distortions and perversions.

It has now been established that the first amendment now refers to states and municipalities, in addition to the federal government. In the middle to late twentieth century the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. No longer did it have to be a law, now it is simply a perceived preference of one religion over another religion or non-religion.

Now it has reached the point where the first amendment is being interpreted as not being able to even acknowledge God in public. The infamous “separation of church and state” has grown out of this distortion and perversion. As Ronald Reagan so eloquently said:

To those who cite the first amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny

The New Jersey school is not trying to create a state church, not trying to repress freedom of religion, not enacting any laws, and not discriminating against anyone. They just want to continue a 70 year tradition. Yet from a series of Supreme Court decisions and manipulation by other courts, government agencies, and organization like the ACLU, the first amendment is being used as a weapon to attack religion wherever it raises its “ugly” head.

The first amendment has gone from being a 45 word sentence with clearly stated intentions to a muddle of leagaleze that bears no resemblance to what our founding fathers intended. Unfortunately, the same could be said of many of the amendments to the Constitution. I am constantly amazed that our country is fast becoming a country where the good of the few outweigh the good of the many. How sad.

But the real story is much worse. Nearly 8% of Americans work directly for the government while an additional 9.6% of Americans work as contractors for the government. Taken together, more than half of all Americans make their living directly from the government. “We have reached a tipping point,” says Grassfire Nation’s Steve Elliott. “That’s why what is happening in Wisconsin could have huge ramifications. Unless citizens stand now for less government and fiscal restraint, the government-dependent class will demand more and more government and our nation will be destroyed from within.”

The reaction by the unions and Democratic legislators to this proposed bill is saddening but not unexpected. Unions have long had their way, to the detriment of the taxpayers of Wisconsin. As for the Democratic legislators fleeing the state to prevent a vote on the bill, that is an unfortunate tactic that sadly has been used by both parties in the past.

The unions argue that the bill is an attack on workers and the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill  is about fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget. Does anyone without an agenda honestly believe the Governor would propose a bill like this if the government was rolling in dough? As for an attack on the middle class, unions only represent 12% of the workforce, which hardly makes it an attack on the middle class.

Collective bargaining is not a right, it is a privilege. It is a privilege that federal employees do not have. As previously stated, only 12% of the workforce is unionized, with most employees choosing not to belong to unions. So collective bargaining is not something that most employees need or even necessarily want.

The old argument is once again raised that teachers are underpaid for the important work  they do. While this may have been true in the past, it is hardly true today. Union workers in Wisconsin make substantially more in salary and benefits that do their counterparts in the private sector. The percentage of salary that union workers in Wisconsin pay towards their pensions and health insurance is far below what federal workers and private sector workers pay. The compensation packages that union employees receive at retirement are much more generous that packages received by non-union employees.

Union workers seem to have no qualms about receiving these kinds of generous benefits at the expense of the taxpayers of Wisconsin. They also have no qualms about keeping their students out of class while they protest in the capital. They have no qualms about having doctors right them phony sick leave slips so they can continue to protest.

The overall behavior of the union protesters in Wisconsin has also been deplorable. They have occupied the capitol building and been loud and disruptive. Their signs and chants show a lack of civility that is disturbing coming from supposedly educated professionals. If you were to follow the coverage provided by the liberal main stream media however, you would think they were all a bunch of angels. Comparing this to the coverage by that same media to Tea Party protests is very enlightening. The immensity of the differences in coverage is a  reflection of  the bias held by most media.

The bottom line is that if something is not done about the out of whack benefits that have been granted to unionized public sector workers in Wisconsin by collective bargaining, real damage will be done not to the union employees, but to the students that these same employees are supposed to be teaching. Furloughs will happen simply because the state of Wisconsin can no longer afford to keep funding these types of benefits. So it the union employees are truly concerned about their students, instead of their pocketbooks, they should accept the bill, as should the absent Democratic legislators. With the economy of the country in the state it is presently in, sacrifices have to be made by everyone, including union employees.

Of course this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

It all started with a discreet channel logo inconspicuously placed on the screen. When the networks saw that they could get away with that, they plotted their next move. How dare you record our shows and then fast forward past the commercials. We’ll show you!  How about a not so inconspicuous onscreen ad for upcoming shows that is onscreen during the entire show. Take that!

Still no outcry? Lets see if they notice animated ads for upcoming shows every five minutes or so during the show.  Ready to cry uncle yet? If not, we have more things planned. How about a transparent ad that cover the entire screen? He he he!

The worst culprits seem to be the network news channels. How many scrolling tickers, labels, titles, and inserts can you put on the screen before you go screaming back to the good old newspaper? Apparently not enough.

It seems to me that there is a heated contest between the networks to see who can come up with the next obnoxious, obtrusive gimmick to make viewers lives miserable. Sure, the networks have a right to make money from the content they provide. But I also have a right to enjoy the shows that I watch. There has to be a balance between the networks right to make a profit and my right to enjoy watching that content. I think the networks are  precariously close to upsetting that balance.

This may be a battle that neither side can win. A similar battle is being fought on the internet.  Advertisement has become increasingly annoying to the point that I avoid some sites altogether. Consumers are fighting back by installing ad blockers and other software to block some of the advertising. Is it possible that some technology will come along that will allow viewers to block on screen ads on television?

In the meantime, I will be watching networks that seem to be attempting to find that balance and avoiding those that obviously are not.

That is all.

Wasn’t it just a year and a half ago that Tim Kaine closed down the rest areas because we couldn’t come up with the $9 million necessary to keep them up and running?

An outside performance audit has been called for two years by Virginia State Senator Mark D. Obenshain and a number of other delegates. Each time, VDOT pushed back, saying that their routine internal audits were more than sufficient. According to an audit conducted by Cherry, Bekaert and Holland, LLP, VDOT is sitting on almost a billion and a half dollars in unexpended funds even as roads went unplowed and bridges unrepaired. VDOT pled poverty, and Democrats called for tax increases for transportation. As Governor McDonnell put it, “Money has been sitting in the state’s wallet while Virginians have been sitting in traffic.”

Two words account for his happening: Fiscal mismanagement.

Every year, roughly $230 million allocated to specific projects is unspent when those projects are canceled or become inactive, but often, rather than using the freed up monies for other transportation projects, the funds just lie in dormant accounts.

Some time back, when the federal government delayed passage of a federal transportation bill, the Commonwealth set aside $524 million as a federal revenue reserve so that all projects would not grind to a halt should federal funding dry up. That may have been a prudent move at the time, but we have a transportation bill now, yet over half a billion dollars remained off limits, essentially forgotten.

Of course, it makes sense to set aside money for a rainy day, which is why Virginia has a separate reserve fund of long standing as well. But whereas most states maintain a sixty day reserve, Virginia’s covers five and a half months, and hasn’t been touched. That’s hard to justify when essential transportation projects are being put on hold. What’s a reserve fund for, if not for times like these? Virginia will now be moving into line with other states, drawing down to a sixty day reserve.

Finally, we have at least $400 million in unused toll credits, which is just money going to waste. These toll credits are not cash, but they may be the next best thing. Normally, when the federal government provides transportation funding, Virginia must make a 20% match. These accrued credits, however, can be used instead – and we haven’t been doing it. For several years, Virginia has been paying the federal government when it could have been simply cashing in its toll credits.

All told, we’re talking about $1.45 billion in money we essentially didn’t know we had, in a Department with a $3.3 billion annual budget. That’s great news, but the fact that it took an audit to tell VDOT that this money existed and could be redeployed is utterly unacceptable.

Thankfully, the McDonnell administration agrees, and his Secretary of Transportation, Sean Connaughton, is working to implement the fifty recommendations in the newly available audit so that we never have a repeat of this fiscal mismanagement. Full implementation of a remedial action plan is anticipated within forty-five days, and it can’t come a moment too soon.

Incredibly, $877 million was left unspent during the last two years, and six months into Fiscal Year 2010, we had only obligated a mere 5% of the federal transportation dollars available to us under the stimulus package, a delay I called inexcusable at the time. And I had no idea-no one did-how far behind we truly were. Like the Governor said, Virginians are sitting in traffic while this money sits in the government’s coffers, but that is about to change, and another $800-900 million will be committed to specific projects by the end of the year.

We need to do this right. We can’t go on an indiscriminate spending spree because we found money we didn’t know we had, and we should never push money out the door just because it’s available. We owe the taxpayers a far more prudent policy than that.

But the projects aren’t hard to find. Anyone who has spent any time on Virginia’s roads knows that maintenance projects have suffered and new construction is sorely needed. The results of this audit provide a way forward, not just identifying some crucial funds for the present, but charting a more prudent path for the future.

This isn’t the end by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that more work remains to be done in fully accounting for operational practices within VDOT, as this was more of a financial than a performance audit, though it does provided many useful recommendations in both areas. This is, however, a huge step forward.

An outside audit of VDOT was a long time in coming, but the real challenge is ahead. It’s time to make VDOT more efficient, more cost-effective, and more accountable. And now we have a roadmap.

Most of this posting came from an email I received from State Senator Mark Obenshein

The following information is compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports:

* 83 percent of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

* 86 percent of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

* 75 percent of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

* 24.9 percent of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 40.1 percent of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 48.2 percent of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 29 percent (630,000) of convicted illegal alien felons fill Arizona and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

* 53 percent plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

* 50 percent plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens

* 71 percent plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes.”

* 47 percent of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47 percent, 92 percent are illegal aliens.

* 63 percent of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63 percent, 97 percent are illegal aliens

* 66 perent of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66 percent, 98 percent are illegal aliens.

* 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the United States to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.

* 97.2 percent of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers

Administrators first told the students to remove their American flag bandannas, which they did. The students were then told they had to turn their American flag t-shirts inside out. The students rightfully told the administrators that that was disrespectful and they chose to go home instead. The administrators told the students that they did not want any fights to break out between Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage and those wearing American flags. One student quoted an administrator as saying they were “starting a fight and that they were fuel to the fire.”  The students were told that they could wear the American flag any other day but today was sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it is supposed to be their holiday.

A statement released by the school district said that it did not agree with the school’s actions, but this came only after a storm of protest over the incident. More than 100 students were spotted leaving after school wearing the colors of the Mexican flag, including some who had the flag painted on their faces or arms. To their credit, I don’t think most of the Mexican-American students complained about the students wearing the American flag. This seems to be mostly about a bunch of idiotic school administrators who are afraid of their own shadows and cover their bad decisions by citing school rules that really don’t apply to the situation.

Let me try to put into perspective just how stupid the administrators decision was. Every school that I know of  flies the American flag while school is in session. Did the administrators haul down the American flag and hoist the Mexican flag that day? If they did I think that is actually a crime. When St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated around the country, are Irish-Americans offended when the American flag is flown during parades celebrating their culture and heritage? Similar questions could be asked about the celebrations for Mardi Gras, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Octoberfest, the Chinese New Year, and the many other cultural and religious celebrations that are held every year in the United States.

Unless I am mistaken, all the Mexican-American students that were supposed to be offended by the showing of the American flag are U.S. citizens first and Mexicans second. How can they be offended by the showing of the flag of the country they are citizens of? Celebration of their culture and heritage is not lessened or harmed by the showing of the American flag. In fact, if Mexican-Americans truly want to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, they should show both the American flag and the Mexican flag. They should be equally proud of their Mexican heritage and the country they are citizens of. There shouldn’t be any day when students are prevented from displaying the American flag.  This doesn’t seem to me to be too hard a concept to grasp. But apparently it is for some school administrators in California.

In the same breath Teepen disingenuously touts the beauty of the Mayors appeal to the President as not calling for new laws but tougher enforcement of existing laws, saying that this is what gun rights advocates promote, while then going on to say that this is a phony pose. (On the part of the gun rights advocates)

Teepen continues by saying that the gun lobby works steadily to undermine enforcement by limiting the reach of current laws and chipping away at enforcement budgets. I would be interested in hearing Teepen explain how the gun lobby can influence law enforcement budgets.

According to Teepen, the Mayors make 40 recommendations. One is that the ATF require manufacturers to stamp new guns with a hidden serial number in addition to the one that criminals often file off. Since most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally and any hidden serial number would not be traceable to the criminal, this is a useless idea. Criminals seldom leave a gun at a crime scene to assist the police in solving the crime.

The Mayors also suggest more undercover testers to find out if unlawful out-of-state or felon buyers are shopping at gun shows. Since gun show purchases of firearms require the same background checks as those at retail stores, no felon is going to be able to buy a gun at a gun show. This is another useless idea.

The assertion by Teepen that gun shows and private sales remain essentially unregulated is absurd. Purchase of a gun at a gun show requires the purchaser to go through the exact same procedures as are required at a retail store. The fact that gun show sales amount to nearly half of all annual sales is therefore meaningless. There is no gun show loophole. As for private sales, I seriously doubt that someone who legally obtained a firearm is going to sell it to a criminal. Show me the statistics where this is a problem.

Then there is the assertion that there is little push against the 1 percent of licensed dealers who account for nearly 60 percent of the crime guns that law enforcement can trace. Statistics will show that this percentage of crime guns that law enforcement can trace is insignificant compared to the total of crime guns that law enforcement cannot trace. In other words, the vast majority of guns used in crimes were not obtained legally and none of the suggestions put forth by the Mayors will have an effect on reducing this problem.

Teepen then goes on to make the smarmy statement that there was a “pathological reaction” to Obama’s election evidenced by the huge leap in gun sales and ammunition purchases. It is not a “pathological reaction” when you consider that the majority of those serving in Obama’s administration are vehemently anti-gun and would like nothing better than to trash the second amendment and disarm Americans and take away their unalienable right to self-defense.

Teepen finishes up with the absurd statement that no other civilized country puts up with such a reckless level of domestic armament, or suffers the violence that inevitably follows from it. I could counter those ridiculous statements all day, but I will just make a few observations.

Numerous studies done over many years have all reached the same conclusion. Countries with more widespread gun ownership had fewer murders while countries with less gun ownership had, say it with me, more murders. Over the two years following England’s ban on handguns, the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40 percent.

In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study investigating whether gun control actually works. Their conclusion was that nothing seems to work very well. In 2004 the National Academy of Sciences published a comprehensive review of 253 journal articles, 90 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control schemes. The total number of gun laws found to reduce violent crime, suicide, or accidents? Zero.

Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens will never reduce the violent crime rate, it will have the opposite effect. And criminals will always find a way to obtain a handgun illegally. Depending on the police to protect you from violent crime is playing Russian roulette with your life as well as the lives of your loved ones.

Millions of Americans who own firearms use them for hunting, sport, or self-defense. Very few of these millions of firearms are used illegally. Reducing the number of guns owned by law-abiding citizens will do nothing to reduce violent crime. Tom Teepen and the ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ bring nothing new to the table, just the same worn-out and discredited arguments and ideas.

Declaration of IndeDpendence