Some Definitions:

Some Definitions:

Civil War:
A war between factions in the same country

Rebellion:
Organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another

Revolution:
The overthrow of a government by those who are governed

Secede:
To split from or to withdraw from membership of a political union, an alliance or an organization

Secession:
Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity.

Want to Retake Your Government? Learn to Work Together.

Want to Retake Your Government? Learn to Work Together.


Every election, half the people complain that the wrong guy won. Democrat or Republican, odds are, the winner will be one of them. But why? Year after year, people complain yet you never see any other parties getting in, even in the small elections, odds are good that despite our rich number of parties, it's a Democrat or Republican in there.

Behind the "Big Two", the most popular parties are the Libertarian, Green and Constitution parties. Despite years of work though, none have gotten close to winning any major elections. Why is this? Some will point at ballot access issues, road blocks, legal challenges, and a deck stacked against any 3rd party. There is that, but none of that is in fact, insurmountable.

Maybe it's time for these 3rd parties to take some pages out of history and change tactics. They are out numbered, out gunned and out funded by their entrenched opponents, yet stupidly continue to attack head on, and lose.

In the 2008 US Presidential election, Barack Obama changed the rules. He set records doing so. The avalanche he set off is still moving, months after his election. The third parties need to study this, learn from it, and adopt it to their messages.

Something else they must do. Learn to work together.

Barack Obama raised $533 Million, and won 69.5 Million votes. John McCain raised $379 Million, and won 60 Million votes. Third party candidates Ralph Nader (I), Bob Barr (L), Chuck Baldwin (C) and Cynthia McKinney (G) combined raised less than $7 Million and only won 1.7 Million votes combined.

Now, because they are locked out of the debates, because the media only mentions them as an after thought, rarely do they get to present their positions next to the Big Two. But, what if they pooled their war chests. Now, they could take out bigger ads, buy longer spots, and make their voices carry that little bit farther.

Of course, they would also have to start compromising on various points. Everytime a third party starts to gain some headway, it seems it fractures and creates spin offs. I've lost track of how many Libertarian spin off parties there are.

If the thirds want to win, they need to stop taking their balls home and nitpicking. Win some elections, then you can change the world. Until you win, it doesn't matter how right your cause is, especially if only 20 people can hear you speak.

Re: "Redistribute the Wealth"

Re: "Redistribute the Wealth"

---

Quote:

How many Americans here have friends and associates who's deepest concern is who won what game or who's topic of conversation is always "man I got so wasted last night"?

But that's ok. Those of us who work hard, educate ourselves, start businesses, or work 2-3 jobs while putting ourselves through higher education....we can pay more taxes so that lazybones and slacker can have government subsidized health care (while we pay top dollar for ours), government subsidized heating and electric (while we pay for ours), and even free money to spend on lotto and lobster (while we watch our money and live frugally). It's ok. It's our "Civic Duty" to help those "unfortunates".

On education: I read several hundred books every year, own a thousand+, read 4 newspapers (onliine) daily (SF CA, Austin TX (2), Buffalo NY), plus dozens of discussions like this one every day. I've taken extra training classes, community ed courses, online training, and am at Borders/Barnes & Nobel or my local ibraries weekly. I also run history chanel, food network, HGTV, DIY and Discovery as background. If our "unfortunates" did 10% of that, they'd be miles ahead.

Schools today in the US are woefully behind the technical requirements. Teaching methods in many cases are outdated, classes are over crowded, and teachers are still using maps that show the Soviet Union, and still using text books that list Sadamn as the head of Iraq. Unfortunately, even if they were up to date, balanced, and truely designed to learn, even the best teacher can't teach when the student isn't open to learn, or isn't there in the first place. Kids don't want to learn because they know they can grow up, go on welfare and have the government pay for everything. They have no idea of the value of a dollar, not because it's arbitrary imaginary money, but because they aren't required to know how to manage it.

We argue people go bankrupt because of medical bills. Those lotto winners went bankrupt because they were incapable of handling money.

Before you redistribute the wealth, maybe you need to revamp your education system so that people will be able to handle that which you give them.

Then again, maybe it's time that kids learn that they aren't entitled to anything, anything! that they didn't earn themselves.

Michael Badnarik Quote

The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, and in 1776, that's exactly what they meant. Women could not vote, women could not own property, and blacks were considered property. After 200 years of enlightenment, we have realized that gender and race are inappropriate distinctions for determining who has individual rights. Anytime Gov gives you permission they let you know that you have permission by giving you a permit or a license. If you have a marriage license, what permission do you have to do now that you did not have permission to do before, who gave you that permission, and who gave them the authority to give you that permission in the first place?

• Source: Libertarian Party National Convention (2004)

RON PAUL - Audit the Federal Reserve!!! - HR 1207

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlmXUiEgNO8

Encourage your representitive to support HR 1207 - the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. The Fed is a private institution and is therefore not subject to normal Governmental Freedom of Information requests, as Bloomberg recently found out.

HR 1207 will help to reveal where the Fed is funnelling trillions of dollars of taxpayer's money.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/cam...

Do US Citizens have Rights?

Do US Citizens have Rights?
(MartialTalk 12-03-2008)

---

Found elsewhere, chew on it a bit.....

Quote:

A Natural Right is a liberty that is granted to us by our creator (God). It is inalienable part of our being (it cannot be taken or given away). Our” rights” are evidenced by the actions we take in exercising these liberties. To be considered a “right,” an action must be something we can do entirely by ourselves. If we need the help of others in any way, either actively or passively, that action cannot be considered a right. An action cannot be considered a “right” if it harms another innocent person, damages their property or prohibits another person from freely exercising their liberties. An inherent part of Natural Rights is the duty to respect the rights of others and not to infringe on the free exercise of those rights by other free people. We can all use logic and reason to determine what these rights are, and to figure out how far our liberties extend.

Quote:

Blacks Law Dictionary. Words are defined quite differently sometimes in the legal sense. Take the word "person" for instance...the legal definition of "person" is: person: In general usage, a human being (ie natural person), though by statue (the) term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers (see 29 USC 152) (The) scope and delineation of (the) term is necessary for determining those to whom (the) Fourteenth Amendment of (the) Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to "person". A corporation is a "person" within (the) meaning of (the) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process provisions of the United States Constitution. (Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, Ala, 470 US 869 We can also look at corporation: Corporation: An artificial PERSON or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state. An association of PERSON created by statute as a legal entity. Now. Keep this definition in mind as you read the 14th Amendment: 14th Amendment, Section I: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. (CONGRESS redefined us as CITIZENS rather than WE THE PEOPLE..congress CREATED US CITIZENS) Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence : Unalienable. Many believe it is inalienable..but it is unalienable. The Founding Fathers were all about property rights and contracts. The entire Constitution is concerned with property rights, to include your body, your person, which is your private property. So we conclude, that this amendment refers to all "persons" , which "may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations"- and "corporations". These persons are "citizens of the United States and (citizens) of the State wherein they reside." This clause establishes dual citizenship, with "citizens of the United States" apparently taking precedence. Remember that the CREATOR is always held to be more powerful than the created. Becuse Congress has CREATED juristic citizens, they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of Congress.

Follow this timeline:

Key

• AR: Date an Amendment was ratified
• AP: Date of the passage of a Constitutional Amendment
• NA: Notable American event
• NW: Notable World event
• PR: Presidential term begins
• SH: Statehood (for original 13 colonies, date Constitution was ratified)
• WR: An event in a U.S. war

1765/03/22 NA - Declaration of Rights is passed
1770/03/05 NA - Boston Massacre
1773/12/16 NA - Boston Tea Party
1774/03/31 NA - Boston Port Act is passed by Parliament
1774/05/20 NA - Administration of Justice and Massachusetts Government Acts are passed by Parliament
1774/06/02 NA - Quartering Act is passed by Parliament
1774/09/05 NA - First Continental Congress convenes
1774/10/07 NA - Quebec Act is passed by Parliament
1774/10/14 NA - Declaration of Rights and Grievances is passed
1774/10/20 NA - Articles of Association are signed
1775/04/18 WR - American Revolution begins
1775/05/10 NA - Second Continental Congress convenes
1775/07/21 NA - Ben Franklin presents a plan for confederation
1776/06/07 NA - Richard Henry Lee introduces independence resolution
1776/07/04 NA - Declaration of Independence adopted
1776/12/20 NA - Third Continental Congress convenes
1777/11/15 NA - Articles of Confederation proposed
1781/03/01 NA - Articles of Confederation ratified
1783/02/04 WR - English declare hostilities at an end
1783/04/11 WR - America declares hostilities at an end
1784/01/14 WR - Revolutionary War Ends (Treaty of Paris)
1787/05/25 NA - Constitutional Convention opens
1787/09/17 NA - Final draft of the Constitution sent to Congress
1787/12/07 SH - Delaware
1787/12/12 SH - Pennsylvania
1787/12/18 SH - New Jersey
1788/01/02 SH - Georgia
1788/01/09 SH - Connecticut
1788/02/06 SH - Massachusetts
1788/04/28 SH - Maryland
1788/05/23 SH - South Carolina
1788/06/21 SH - New Hampshire
1788/06/21 NA - Constitution Ratified
1788/06/25 SH - Virginia
1788/07/26 SH - New York
1789/03/04 NA - The Constitution goes into effect
1789/04/30 PR - George Washington
1789/07/14 NW - French Revolution
1789/09/25 AP - Amendments 1-10, 27, one unratified amendment
1789/11/21 SH - North Carolina
1790/05/29 SH - Rhode Island
1791/03/04 SH - Vermont
1791/12/15 AR - Amendments 1-10
.....
1866/06/13 AP - Amendment 14
.....
1868/07/09 AR - Amendment 14

"We The People" declared independence from England, fought a war and entered into a confederation consisting of the 13 former colonies. A convention was called to fix the AoC, and instead they scrapped it and created the Constitution. "We" then created Congress, who passed the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

WE THE PEOPLE created Congress. CONGRESS created US Citizens. WE THE PEOPLE have a right to keep and bear arms. US CITIZENS must obtain a concealed carry permit. WE THE PEOPLE have a right to travel. US CITIZENS must obtain a drivers license. WE THE PEOPLE have a right to live with whomever we wish. US CITIZENS are expected to get a marriage license. WE THE PEOPLE have RIGHTS. US CITIZENS are granted PRIVILEGES. In other words. US CITIZENS have no rights.

When you're done chewing, let me know how it tasted. LOL!

Michael Badnarik Quote

I have the right to do whatever I wish with my property. If I own a pile of wood, I can set fire to it even if it is currently nailed together in the shape of a barn. Cigarettes may not be healthy for me in the long run, but I have the freedom to smoke them anyway. Drinking alcohol may or may not have negative side effects, but even if it does, the government has no authority to prohibit you from consuming it, even if it is "in your own best interest." Since when do we let the government decide what is or isn't good for us? What the hell does Congress know about nutrition, anyway? (For that matter, what does Congress know about the Constitution?) If the government can use force whenever something is "in our best interest" then government should force everyone to wake up at 6am every morning for calisthenics in the front yard. Fast food establishments should be torn down and replaced with bars that serve carrot juice and alfalfa sprouts, since - "it's in your best interest." This paternalistic attitude that "the government knows best" and that you are merely a helpless child is insulting and reprehensible. Hitler used the same attitude to persuade the Germans to subjugate themselves to the "Fatherland."

• Source: Good to be King (2004)

Should the 17th Amendment be repealed?

Should the 17th Amendment be repealed?
(originally posted on MartialTalk)

---

According to the original design of the founding fathers; U.S. senators were not directly elected by the voting public, but by the state legislatures. This changed in 1914 with the passing of the 17th Amendment, which put the election of Senators into the hands of the general public. With this, the balance between the people, the states and the federal government was broken.

While on the surface this seems smart, has it really worked out all that well?


United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.



Read this interesting article by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and lets open the discussion.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo93.html

Other notes:
http://www.articlev.com/repeal17.htm
http://repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/
http://www.liberty-ca.org/repeal17/s...a2003oneil.htm

"Heres to You Mr Jefferson" Awesome by Mike Church

Awesome video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUJoB5Z6u0w

Michael Badnarik Quote

The question is: How bad do things have to get before you will do something about it? Where is your line in the sand? If you don't enforce the constitutional limitations on your government very soon, you are likely to find out what World War III will be like. I'm quite sure that I will never experience that war - because dissidents are always the first to be eliminated.

• Source: Good to be King (2004)

Thomas Paine on to Washington

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le2OnDKqj3g

The Second American Revolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk

We The People Stimulus Package

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

"Its a different world today" is a common comment.

"Its a different world today" is a common comment. Yep. It is, which is why they allowed for the ability to amend the constitution, yet made it difficult, so it wasn't done at whim without careful discussion and consideration. The Constitution consists of three parts: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the subsequent Amendments. This was the framework designed to run and restrict our Federal government. Unfortunately, a number of people claim it's outdated, vague, or allows greater power than stated because it doesn't specifically say "no". Others claim we don't know what they said, even though they left huge amounts of writing clearly stating most if not all the points.

Unfortunately, too many people who take oaths to "Uphold and Defend" the Constitution, choose to reinterpret things their way, and excuse violation when it's convenient or doesn't favor their own views. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean just what you want to hear. It also means the vilest, foulest, most offensive imaginable.

Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights contained two proposed amendments dealing with freedom of speech. One proposed amendment said "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

Freedom of Religion doesn't mean just your faith, and the ones you accept. It means the rock worshipers, the sky dancers, the polytheists, the no-theists, and those people over there doing the weird stuff.

"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

Right to Bear Arms means that every freeman had the right AND responsibility to own, train with, be experienced with, and understand arms. Arms isn't just a .22. It's a machine gun, it's an RPG, it's an M60, its an MP5.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

And so on. Unfortunately, today we have a government that continually usurps more and more power, seeks to disarm it's citizens, to criminalize dissent, to create dependence, so that like children we are forever glued to the tit of government. Sheep, here but to be serfs under the illusion of free will. So yes, it is a different world. One which our Founders would be ashamed of, and disgusted that we have let it fall so far from what they created for us.

In reply to "April 15 is patriots' day"

Commentary: April 15 is patriots' day

• Story Highlights
• Paul Begala: April 15 is one day most Americans sacrifice for government
  
• Begala says paying taxes to support worthy government services is patriotic
  
• "Tea parties" are being pushed by GOP supporters who lost election, Begala says
  
• He says President Obama and Congress have cut taxes for most

In the article above, Mr Begala makes some interesting points. I disagree that these "Tea Party's" are simply disgruntled losers from the last election. I'm sure some of them are, but I think the vast majority of American's are reaching the boiling point in frustration with administration after administration simply selling us out to the special interest groups, and covering their buddies asses. We The People are tired of paying more and more for everything, while watching government subsidized incompetence continue. We're tired of our so called leaders pushing flawed laws through then later going "oops, we've no idea how that was missed / got in there" after someone finds a problem with the latest 10,000 page maze of confusion they dump on us, while ensuring their buddies get a little something on the side. Our so called leaders are more worried about getting on a more prestigious committee, or impressing a campaign donor, then caring what we want.

Mr Begala makes an excellent point here:
He wrote "You want something to protest? How 'bout protesting how little we give back to our veterans? Or how 'bout protesting that the entire budget of the National Cancer Institute (where government researchers battle a disease that will strike half of all men and a third of all women) is 0.03 percent of what we gave the bandits at American International Group alone? Oh, but veterans benefits and cancer research might cost money. It might require -- dare I say it? -- paying taxes."

Yes sir, you are right. It will take tax dollars. Maybe rather than bailing out collapsing businesses and rewarding the people who brought them to ruin with million dollar pay outs, it could have been funneled to help those who fight to keep this a free country. $11 Trillion dollars would have been a hell of a boost to our discarded veterans and their long term care.

In the mean time, it's time to start working to vote the elite's out. Rather than pick one of the tired old 2, look up the Libertarian, Green, Constitution or other third parties and see what the Democrats and Republican's don't want you to know. You have a choice. More importantly, you have the power to retake your government. Use it.
====

These guys had no idea how stupid we are.

These guys didn't know what they were talking about. We need special people to let us know what we can and can't be trusted with, and they need to keep track of that for us as we're too untrustworthy and stupid to handle ourselves otherwise. So stupid they were back then.

=====


When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state".

Love your country, but never trust its government.
-- Robert A. Heinlein.


"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188


"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256


"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
-- Peter Venetoklis

...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents."
-- Don B. Kates, writing on statistical patterns in gun crime

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- John F. Kennedy

he right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.
-- Attributed to Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)

Redistribute the wealth.

Redistribute the wealth. (originally posted on MartialTalk 09-30-2008)

---

People look at things like the following, decide that wealth in the US is unfairly distributed, and look for more ways to take money from the top 10% and pass it out to the bottom 10%, usually without the bottom having to actually earn it.

Quote:

Here are some published numbers, taken fom Forbes magazine. This would be the top 10 on their 400 list....1. Bill Gates Net Worth $57.0 billion 2. Warren Buffett Net Worth $50.0 billion 3. Lawrence Ellison Net Worth $27.0 billion 4. Jim Walton Net Worth $23.4 billion 5. S Robson Walton Net Worth $23.3 billion 6. Alice Walton Net Worth $23.2 billion 7. Christy Walton Net Worth $23.2 billion 8. Michael Bloomberg Net Worth $20.0 billion 9. Charles Koch Net Worth $19.0 billion 10. David Koch Net Worth $19.0 billion 'The rich haven't gotten richer--or poorer--this year. The price of admission to this, the 27th edition of The Forbes 400, is $1.3 billion for the second year in a row. The assembled net worth of America's wealthiest rose by $30 billion--only 2%--to $1.57 trillion.' (quoted from Forbes) Now, take that in perspective. The 400 richest americans have a net worth of 1.57 trillion dollars. The entire GDP of Canada from a 2007 estimate, as found in teh CIA world factbook (correct or not?) https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/ca.html is listed as being 1.432 trillion dollars. Really... stop and think about that. The accrued wealth of 400 people essentially exceeds the annual value of the national economy of 33 million people. You would really have us believe that there is NOT an uneven distribution of wealth? Whether it's right or wrong is an entire other debate, but I don't think the numbers or the fact of the matter is a subject of much informed debate. Rod

A reply to the above was this

Quote:

How about, it's their money, and you don't have any right to it. You want more money, go work for it.

A statement I agree with.

Having worked retail in supermarkets, convenience stores and the like, I can say that simply giving people money won't make them suddenly know how to manage it, or even appreciate it. Many arguments occur over people trying to use welfare and food stamps for beer, lotto and cigarettes.

A discussion I had on the idea of taking money from the top earners and passing it out included comments like "they owe it to us", and "they have plenty" and similar. Bill Gates, who isn't one of my favorite people, earned his money. He already gives plenty to charity. The Walton's inherited theirs from their father Sam, who earned it. Sam you may recall drove a pickup truck and not a Caddie because "you can't put hunting dogs in a Cadillac.".

People rarely appreciate something that is given to them unearned. The gift is usually squandered, and all that has happened is they have been trained to expect a handout.

One comment is that if you evened out the bank acounts so that everyone had the same amount, within a short period of time, the previously rich will be so again, and the previously poor will be so again. One only has to look at the bankrupsty rate of lottery winners (80%) to see that wealth without understanding causes wealth to vanish.

Rather than taking cash from the wealthy, a better system would be to encourage a voluntary system that would teach people how to manage their money, and become self sufficient. As someone once wrote, teaching someone to fish sustains them for life, giving the a fish only feeds them for today.

Libertarians ask, ‘What is Obama ashamed of?’

Press Release

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Libertarians ask, ‘What is Obama ashamed of?’

LP knocks Obama for breaking more promises in a secret signing ceremony

WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party asked Wednesday why President Obama enacted the $490 billion FY09 omnibus spending and its over 8,500 earmarks behind closed doors, and despite campaign promises to end earmark abuse.

“President Obama’s decision to hide from the media while signing this bill isn’t just a violation of his promise of transparency, it’s an attempt to avoid questions about breaking another promise to end earmark abuse,” said Libertarian National Committee Communications Director Donny Ferguson.

“He promised to end earmarks. He promised transparency. He promised fiscal responsibility. He didn’t mean a word of it. More and more Americans realize his crippling taxes and crushing debt are prescriptions for prolonged economic suffering. Now he has to hide behind closed doors to sign his pork-stuffed plan to explode wasteful spending,” said Ferguson.

Libertarians support an economic renewal plan centered on tax and regulatory relief for employers, preserving the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that blunted previous recessions and greatly simplifying the tax code for employers and taxpayers. Polls such as Rasmussen show voters prefer the Libertarian approach over the Republican and Democrat plans to increase government spending.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669, 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

# # #

Examples of Registration leading to confiscation:

Examples of Registration leading to confiscation:

1930's & 1940's

Quote:

Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed six million Jews. It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin. Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938. Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents. ... In 1941, U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson called on Congress to enact national registration of all firearms.8 Given events in Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to protect the Second Amendment. Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall explained: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka."9 Rep. John W. Patman added: "The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves. . . ."10

Source: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...tist/id14.html

2000
CALIFORNIA ORDERS STATE-WIDE CONFISCATION



Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies

Quote:

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph) In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions. On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed. "Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999) Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson) More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)

________

Chuck Norris For President.....Of Texas?

Quote:

On Glenn Beck's radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, "I may run for president of Texas." That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state. From the East Coast to the "Left Coast," America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government.

Full Article

You've got my vote Chuck.