"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- JP Curran, 1790

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Offering Common Sense is Undergoing Changes

OCS readers,

Do yourselves a favor and take a moment or two to look at our newest RSS feed from our mirror (not mirrow... my wife caught that, and nobody else even mentioned it...thanks guys!) site, run by JCB, http://www.offeringcommonsense.wordpress.com/. Offering "Common" Sense started with very humble beginnings with a couple of site visitors per week. We're now garnering visitors by the hundreds per day sometimes, and we couldn't be happier.

We're about to undergo a few more changes in the very near future to make your experience with OCS more informative and even more enjoyable (if you can believe that is even possible!). As this site progresses, and reaches more and more Conservative viewers (and those of other ideologies who are just Conservative-curious), we hope to have more and more of an impact on the national political debate.

The freedom of speech guaranteed by our founding fathers in the Constitution is given to us by God, simply for existing. Sometimes the government forgets that simple fact, but blogs like this one and others do a small part in keeping them honest. You can get the latest vote tallies from Congress here, see what others are saying, and stay tuned in to what your government is and is not doing. We are unapologetically Conservative, and we're not going to sit idly by while the government increases its own footprint and prints play money for failing institutions.

Thank you for reading Offering "Common" Sense, and we look forward to bringing you even better, harder-hitting, Conservative content in the near future.

-J. Dallas Brooks

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Republicans who voted for the Omnibus Bill (H.R. 1105)

The following Republicans actually voted FOR the Omnibus Government Spending Screw the Taxpayers Act Part II...H.R. 1105.

Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45]
Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R, FL-5]
Rep. Anh Cao [R, LA-2]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2]
Rep. Michael Castle [R, DE-0]
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8]
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2]
Rep. John McHugh [R, NY-23]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8]
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6]
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1]
Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0]

The following Republicans didn't even care enough to vote either way...they "abstained."

Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6]
Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48]
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6]
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42]

Now, for a stark contrast on paradox Wednesday, let's look at the Democrats who voted with the American Taxpayers for a change!

Rep. Melissa Bean [D, IL-8]
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D, CA-18]
Rep. Travis Childers [D, MS-1]
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5]
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2]
Rep. Steve Driehaus [D, OH-1]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8]
Rep. Baron Hill [D, IN-9]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3]
Rep. Frank Kratovil [D, MD-1]
Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8]
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2]
Rep. Walter Minnick [D, ID-1]
Rep. Harry Mitchell [D, AZ-5]
Rep. Glenn Nye [D, VA-2]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]
Rep. Jackie Speier [D, CA-12]
Rep. John Tanner [D, TN-8]
Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4]

*Thanks to Opencongress.org for publishing this list. The House.gov site made no mention of it as of this evening, only stating that there was a Roll Call vote #86. Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Get ready to be hit by an Omnibus (H.R. 1105)

Sphere: Related Content

Georgia Republicans Stand Against the IRS

If you hate taxes, you're fed up with one bailout bill after another going to corporations that don't comprehend basic business principles, and you don't appreciate a tax-dodger running the Treasury Department, while you dutifully pay your bills and taxes, take a look at the Republican party. The Georgia Republicans in Congress, in particular, should be commended for their sponsorship of H.R. 25 (Rep. Linder) and S.296 (Sen. Chambliss). As much as I'd like to see such a bill come to pass, it just will not happen. This nation has elected Democrats into power, and yet it complains about the injustices of government abuse of power. Pres. Obama would never support such a bill, but if we develop enough of a majority in 2010, he'll have no choice. What a signal to the American people, and the rest of the world it would be to enact the Fair Tax Act into law! Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 23, 2009

Alan Colmes, the new National Inquirer of the News Media

Alan Colmes, staunch liberal, and Foxnews political pundit actually sat down for a formal interview with Bill Ayers who does "not regret" planting bombs. The self-professed terrorist has no place in our political discourse, and elevating his status or his ego does nothing to solve the problems our nation faces. This is nothing more than tabloid journalism, and I thought that Alan was a little better than that.

Dr. Ayers, I honestly don't give a rats A what you think about the war in Afghanistan, or anything else for that matter. As far as I'm concerned, you should be behind bars for terrorism, aggravated assault, and attempted murder. You're nothing more than a sideshow, and were it not for the President's ill choice of venue early in his political life, you would be virtually unheard of at this point in time. You may not regret your actions now or even understand the hypocrisy of being an anti-war activist who bombs people, but I truly believe your visit to the Pearly Gates will be the toughest interview you ever face.

Real Americans can disagree, and they can function in a free society with open debate. Just as I make no apologies for my staunch Conservatism, I fully respect and appreciate the right of the liberal nuts to express their views, too. Prance in the streets, and proclaim your love for the gay pandas, and your hatred for any war, all you want. I welcome the debate. You, however, Dr. Ayers have demonstrated that you have no ability to reason or function in a free society. Perhaps you'd be better served in one of the communist nations you love so much.

I'll tell you what. Here's my offer to Dr. Ayers. If you will revoke your American citizenship, and move to a communist country (or even a socialist European country for that matter) and take up permanent residence...I'll buy the one way plane ticket! Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Bush Diplomacy v. Obama Diplomacy

Maybe it's time for liberals to acknowledge that President Bush may just have been right about the Axis of Evil...hmmmm.

Sphere: Related Content

Earmarks, Get Your Earmarks Here!

A lobby group (PMA Group), which has ties to Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) is accused of illegal campaign contributions. CQ Politics published a list of the names of our elected officials involved in PMA Group dealings. (Here).

This is not the list you want your name to pop up on. Unfortunately for Colorado, we have 2 Democrats (Mark Udall and Ed Perlmutter) and 1 Republican (Doug Lamborn) here. This is just not the type of politics we need in America. It's time for term limits, it's time to stop the vote-buying schemes, and the underhanded, shady dealings that cost taxpayers money. I'm not opposed to a politician accepting funds, but you should owe no one anything but love and kindness (to paraphrase). If I run for office, you can give me all the money you want, but don't expect a dime back in any legislation passed in the Congress! You should know where I stand on the issues (tax cuts, traditional family values, pro-life, ending government intrusion into private lives), and donate or not donate accordingly. That's it.

Here's the story. Sphere: Related Content

Rep. Jackson-Lee is at it again! H.R. 262 - Preventing "Hate" Crimes

In a bill that does little more than grant more government benefits (such as unemployment, time off of work, insurance benefits, and free housing!) the Texas Democrat has proclaimed that she knows what a "hate" crime is:

‘(20) HATE CRIME- The term ‘hate crime’ means a criminal offense in which the prosecutor has determined that the defendant intentionally selected a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

Now think about this for just a minute. A prosecutor will now presume to punish not only the crime of the defendant, but also the actual thoughts going through his head. Obviously this type of Orwellian "justice" is a farce. The real purpose here is simply for Rep. Jackson-Lee to attempt to purchase votes for herself out of the national purse. As a liberal Democrat, her constituents, as opposed to a Republican's, are more likely to be minorities [race], of some religious affiliation other than Christianity [religion], from another country [national origin], black [ethnicity], female [gender], disabled [disability] (except for disabled veterans), and homosexual [sexual orientation].

What's so striking about this bill, is that it removes the incentive from a more lofty goal of justice, and shifts it towards getting stuff. If you are a majority, Christian, male, heterosexual person, and you are robbed at gunpoint, you get nothing but the satisfaction of seeing the perpetrator behind bars (if he's caught). If you're armed (this is Texas), then perhaps you can send the criminal to hell and save some taxpayer money, which also gives a bit of satisfaction, I suppose. But that is where the buck stops. If you're a Jackson-Lee voter, then don't stop there! You might as well get some government benefits, too!

*Let me be perfectly clear, I'm not suggesting that individuals, due to their social category as defined in this bill, will be either Democrat of Republican, rather, Rep. Jackson-Lee has made a calculated effort to cast a wide net around her voting base. That said, who can name the screenshot movie reference in the post? Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 20, 2009

S. 449 - Free Speech Protection Act of 2009

A Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent walk into a bar...and discover some common sense!

S. 449 was sponsored in the Senate by Arlen Specter (R*-PA) (co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer) recently, and it doesn't have one bit of press. Essentially, this bill is redundant and unnecessary because my wording on S. 449 would be "Refer to Amendment 1, US Constitution." Problem solved! Still, as we move ever closer to a government dominated by socialist ideals, whereby the government considers itself much more able to choose your life's decisions than you are, perhaps it's worth re-affirming the 1st Amendment in the federal legislature. To save you the headache of searching the Senate.gov website, I'll post the full text of the bill here!


1st Session

S. 449

To protect free speech.


February 13, 2009

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


To protect free speech.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    This Act may be cited as the `Free Speech Protection Act of 2009'.


    Congress finds the following:
      (1) The freedom of speech and the press is enshrined in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
      (2) Free speech, the free exchange of information, and the free expression of ideas and opinions are essential to the functioning of representative democracy in the United States.
      (3) The free expression and publication by journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others of the information they uncover and develop through research and study is essential to the formation of sound public policy and thus to the security of the people of the United States.
      (4) The first amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States, articulated in such precedents as New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 (1964)), and its progeny, reflects the fundamental value that the people of the United States place on promoting the free exchange of ideas and information, requiring in cases involving public figures a demonstration of actual malice, that is, that allegedly defamatory, libelous, or slanderous statements about public figures are not merely false but made with knowledge of that falsity or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.
      (5) Some persons are obstructing the free expression rights of United States persons, and the vital interest of the people of the United States in receiving information on matters of public importance, by first seeking out foreign jurisdictions that do not provide the full extent of free-speech protection that is fundamental in the United States and then suing United States persons in such jurisdictions in defamation actions based on speech uttered or published in the United States, speech that is fully protected under first amendment jurisprudence in the United States and the laws of the several States and the District of Columbia.
      (6) Some of these actions are intended not only to suppress the free speech rights of journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and other individuals but to intimidate publishers and other organizations that might otherwise disseminate or support the work of those individuals with the threat of prohibitive foreign lawsuits, litigation expenses, and judgments that provide for money damages and other speech-suppressing relief. Such actions are intentional tortious acts aimed at United States persons, even though the harmful conduct may have occurred extraterritorially.
      (7) The governments and courts of some foreign countries have failed to curtail this practice, permitting lawsuits filed by persons who are often not citizens of those countries, under circumstances where there is often little or no basis for jurisdiction over the United States persons against whom such suits are brought.
      (8) Some of the plaintiffs bringing such suits are intentionally and strategically refraining from filing their suits in the United States, even though the speech at issue was published in the United States, in order to avoid the Supreme Court's first amendment jurisprudence and frustrate the protections it affords United States persons.
      (9) The United States persons against whom such suits are brought must consequently endure the prohibitive expense, inconvenience, and anxiety attendant to being sued in foreign courts for conduct that is protected under the first amendment, or decline to answer such suits and risk the entry of costly default judgments that may be executed in countries other than the United States where those individuals travel or own property.
      (10) Journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others subjected to such suits are suffering concrete and profound financial and professional damage for engaging in conduct that is protected under the Constitution of the United States and essential to informing the people of the United States, their representatives, and other policymakers.
      (11) In turn, the people of the United States are suffering concrete and profound harm because they, their representatives, and other government policymakers rely on the free expression of information, ideas, and opinions developed by responsible journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others for the formulation of sound public policy, including national security policy.
      (12) The United States respects the sovereign right of other countries to enact their own laws regarding speech, and seeks only to protect the first amendment rights of the people of the United States in connection with speech that occurs, in whole or in part, in the United States.


    (a) Cause of Action- Any United States person against whom a lawsuit is brought in a foreign country for defamation on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, uttered, or otherwise primarily disseminated in the United States may bring an action in a United States district court specified in subsection (f) against any person who, or entity which, brought the foreign lawsuit if--
      (1) the writing, utterance, or other speech at issue in the foreign lawsuit does not constitute defamation under United States law; and
      (2) the person or entity which brought the foreign lawsuit serves or causes to be served any documents in connection with such foreign lawsuit on a United States person.
    (b) Jurisdiction- The district court shall have personal jurisdiction under this section if, in light of the facts alleged in the complaint, the person or entity bringing the foreign suit described in subsection (a) served or caused to be served any documents in connection with such foreign lawsuit on a United States person with assets in the United States against which the claimant in the foreign lawsuit could execute if a judgment in the foreign lawsuit were awarded.
    (c) Remedies-
      (1) ORDER TO BAR ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- In a cause of action described in subsection (a), if the court determines that the applicable writing, utterance, or other speech at issue in the underlying foreign lawsuit does not constitute defamation under United States law, the court shall order that any foreign judgment in the foreign lawsuit in question may not be enforced in the United States, including by any Federal, State, or local court, and may order such other injunctive relief that the court considers appropriate to protect the right to free speech under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
      (2) DAMAGES- In addition to the remedy under paragraph (1) and if the conditions for release under that paragraph are satisfied, damages shall be awarded to the United States person bringing the action under subsection (a), based on the following:
        (A) The amount of any foreign judgment in the underlying foreign lawsuit.
        (B) The costs, including reasonable legal fees, attributable to the underlying foreign lawsuit that have been borne by the United States person.
        (C) The harm caused to the United States person due to decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding.
    (d) Treble Damages- If, in an action brought under subsection (a), the court or, if applicable, the jury determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person or entity bringing the foreign lawsuit which gave rise to the cause of action intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States by discouraging publishers or other media from publishing, or discouraging employers, contractors, donors, sponsors, or similar financial supporters from employing, retaining, or supporting, the research, writing, or other speech of a journalist, academic, commentator, expert, or other individual, the court may award treble damages.
    (e) Expedited Discovery- Upon the filing of an action under subsection (a), the court may order expedited discovery if the court determines, based on the allegations in the complaint, that the speech at issue in the underlying foreign lawsuit is protected under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
    (f) Venue- An action under subsection (a) may be brought by a United States person only in a United States district court in which the United States person is domiciled, does business, or owns real property that could be executed against in satisfaction of a judgment in the underlying foreign lawsuit which gave rise to the action.
    (g) Timing of Action; Statute of Limitations-
      (1) TIMING- An action under subsection (a) may be commenced after the filing of the foreign lawsuit in a foreign country on which the action is based.
      (2) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- For purposes of section 1658(a) of title 28, United States Code, the cause of action under subsection (a) accrues on the first date on which papers in connection with the foreign lawsuit described in section (a), on which the cause of action is based, are served on a United States person in the United States.


    This Act applies with respect to any foreign lawsuit that is described in section 3(a) in connection with papers that were served before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.


    In this Act:
      (1) DEFAMATION- The term `defamation' means any action or other proceeding for defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or emotional distress, have presented a person or persons in a negative light, or have resulted in criticism or condemnation of a person or persons.
      (2) FOREIGN COUNTRY- The term `foreign country' means any country other than the United States.
      (3) FOREIGN JUDGMENT- The term `foreign judgment' means any judgment of a foreign country, including the court system or an agency of a foreign country, that grants or denies any form of relief, including injunctive relief and monetary damages, in a defamation action.
      (4) FOREIGN LAWSUIT- The term `foreign lawsuit' includes any other hearing or proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, commission, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of a foreign country or political subdivision thereof.
      (5) UNITED STATES- The term `United States' means the several States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
      (6) UNITED STATES PERSON- The term `United States person' means--
        (A) a United States citizen;
        (B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United States;
        (C) an alien lawfully residing in the United States at the time that the speech that is the subject of the foreign defamation suit or proceeding was researched, prepared, or disseminated; or
        (D) a business entity incorporated in, or with its primary location or place of operation in, the United States.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 19, 2009

"A Nation of Cowards." -- AG Holder

"In things racial we have always been, and continue to be...a nation of cowards." -- Attorney General of the United States

I honestly don't even need to give much of a response here. AG Holder's words speak volumes, so I ask Offering Common Sense readers, some of the most tuned in, and acutely aware blog readers on the internet, what do you think about our new Attorney General and his comments? You'll have to try to step past the steaming pile of hypocrisy that he left for you to achieve some objectivity, of course. Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

S. 371 - Sen. Bennett (D - CO) Co-sponsoring

Senate Bill 371 is known as the "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009," and it was introduced by Sen. Thune (R - ND) and co-sponsored by the newest Democrat in the Senate, Bill Bennett.

In essence this bill seems to try to make it legal for those citizens with a concealed carry permits in one state to carry the same licensed, permitted weapon in another state; however, some of the wording is a little tricky here. For example, the bill states that the person carrying his or her firearm is "subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried." Presumably this means that private businesses that do not want firearms, stadiums, libraries, and other places that commonly 'outlaw' firearms (concealed carry permits or not), but I gather that a loose interpretation of such a bill would allow too much wiggle room for liberal state governments to find creative ways of restricting access to interstate highways, and the like.

Here's my proposed S. 371 rewrite:

Section 2. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.
(a) Refer to Amendment 2.

That's it!

Overall, I'm surprised to see Sen. Bennett go against the Democratic party and at least attempt to support gun rights to some extent, but I fear this is nothing more than lip service, as we know this bill will ultimately either fail to become law or fail to adequately protect gun rights of American citizens. The bigger grievance we should have with Sen. Bennett is his support of the Screw the Taxpayers Act of 2009 (commonly referred to as some type of 'stimulus' plan). Sphere: Related Content

H.R. 794 - Rep. Doug Lamborn's Current Bill

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R CO-5) is sponsoring H.R. 794 "to prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained by the United States at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the Florence Federal Correctional Complex in Colorado, or to construct facilities for such enemy combatants at such location."

Although I agree with the gist of this bill, I believe the bill should be amended so that the words "Florence Federal Correctional Complex in Colorado" are stricken from the language and replaced with "any land or territory of the United States." What do you say, Congressman? How about expanding the scope? I believe you would win some support from a large majority of the states, and it may pre-empt a legal nightmare for this nation's taxpayers thanks to the Obama Administration's weak policies on terrorism. Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Pork Alert! H.R. 1000 (Update #1)

In the grand scheme of things, $50 million is a drop in the bucket, but at some point we need to stand up as Conservatives...as Americans, and say "enough spending!" Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO 5), the Congressman formerly known as the Representative who does not answer constituent emails*, actually co-sponsored this pork-barrel bill that votes itself $50,000,000.00 from the federal purse to bring to his home state of Colorado for environmental projects. While we should be stewards of our environment (and not anti-capitalist green morons with the real agenda of bringing down the world's economy), Rep. Lamborn is putting his own re-election over the interests of the nation by co-sponsoring this bill. This is precisely why I want to impose term limits on Congress. Would our Republican representative vote to spend taxpayer money in such a way if he were ineligible for re-election in 2010?

*Congressman Lamborn's Communication Director returned my blog w/ an email, and I appreciate the gesture. I now eagerly await the Congressman's opinions on pork-barrel spending and term limits in particular. My party is a reflection of my ideology, not the other way around, and I make no apologies for complaining about not hearing from my Representative in the past. I also make sure that I am fair when my grievances are addressed. We're halfway there. Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 16, 2009

H.R. 17 - Citizen's Self-Defense Act of 2009

Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) has introduced the Citizen's Self-Defense Act of 2009 to the House, but as of now it's only moved through the House Committee on the Judiciary by moving to the subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, where it will surely never achieve the votes necessary to go to a full floor vote. Here's why: there are 9 Democrats and 6 Republicans on the subcommittee (see for yourself).

This is a bill that states that police cannot protect citizens (they merely draw an outline on your body after you've been murdered) and it mentions that there are thousands of gun crimes where the police do not respond for an hour or more after a 9-1-1 call. Common sense, while common on this website, is far from common in Congress, but this bill is the exception to that rule. The bill specificies that shotguns, rifles, and handguns can be used in the defense of family or property. Here's an excerpt:

(a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--
(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;
(2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and
(3) in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.

Citizens, write directly to the Chairman, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) to encourage him to send this bill out of the committee and on to a full floor vote today! Write Rep. Scott here.

Let them know that we are Americans, and we will not sit and watch our God-given freedoms be flushed down the toilet.

--J.Dallas Brooks

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, February 15, 2009

My Dream

Normally I reserve this site for refutations* of liberal arguments, and a general political approach to philosophy. Those of you who know me, understand that I am a Republican because I am a Conservative, not the other way around. As such, I often do not make a ton of personal comments on me, my life, or even my family. What follows will be an exception.

*Note: Socrates often used rhetorical "refutations" to extract his version of absolute truth from his students, while claiming no wisdom for himself. Perhaps this is something to do with an enormous amount of pragmatism, whereby Socrates could simply see the world for how it was, just as I attempt to see it for how it is.


Last night I dreamed that I somehow went back in time to President Reagan's last days in office. I was 29 years old still (as I am today), and from the year 2009, but transported temporarily to January 1989. Reagan was different, and it was as if he were an aloof old grandfather, the caricature so often portrayed in the news media, and nothing like the real man. He had longer hair, and dark glasses, and I found myself somehow in the presence of the man in some cemetery, where he had just given some remarks. My father, who died much before Reagan (1987, at the age of 30 due to cancer), was there. His trademark mustache was there, but gray. He seemed to point me towards Reagan, and I felt an incredible urge to make a plea for him to somehow act to prevent Sept. 11, 2001.

As I approached the President, he turned to me but didn't seem to really be focused on anything but making his way to his next appointment.
"Mr. President, I'm from the future."
A knowing look (knowing that I must be nuts that is).
"How can I help you, son?" he replied.
"In the year 2001 we will witness the worst terrorist attacks in our nation's history, you have to find bin Laden, and destroy Al Qaeda now in 1989. I have more details for you."
Just then, the secret service detail diverted the President's attention, and lead him away to his limo, and off he went.

I believe that dreams sometimes have a deeper meaning than what a Psychologist would associate to them. Anyone who watches any type of Sci-Fi movie or show where time travel is possible would understand the desire to go back in time and change negative events. As I sat, pondering the implications of my weird dream, where I failed to use my one chance to save innocent lives even when meeting the men that I admired most in life (my father, and Reagan), something hit me. Perhaps its not about what I would do to change past events, as this is physically impossible, outside the realm of the imagination. Rather, what would someone from our possible future come back to warn us about? What will someone in my shoes in 20 or 30 years yet to come wish they could change?

We can't know the future, despite what anyone will tell you. People who prophesize often have an over-inflated sense of importance, or they follow-up with a request for your Visa or Mastercard number. In any case, we can be Socratic, and pragmatic. We can remove the lens of bias, we can ignore the rhetoric, the mass hysteria, and the rhythmic beating of the music that is played to march us toward some destiny rife with compliance. We must simply ask ourselves what our forefathers really meant with their words and their actions. We must ask where are we today, and how did we get here? We have to first know where we are, and no one seems to want to be honest about that. It's necessary to know this before we move forward.

Just as we are helpless to change the past, we have great power to shape the future. Sphere: Related Content

The Top of the Slippery Slope

H.R. 45 - Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

And so it begins, the liberals are now not only calling to reinstate "fairness" (read: liberal bias) to the radio waves where they see Conservative successes, they probably sense that the only way to do this is to first take our guns. I mean, after all, that's how the Nazis and the Soviets did it, why should Democrats be any different than their mentors?

Those of you vaguely familiar with the concept of logic (liberal visitors to this site may want to Google the term or read some of the works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) will understand that the slippery slope of complete government control approaches. They start with a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation, tied to a "Save the Children Act of [insert current year here]" as an addendum, which creates some new type of government bureaucracy to monitor or control your freedom. Liberals, socialists, and communists understand that our founding fathers knew full well the dangers of government oppression, and that the 2nd Amendment was put into place to ensure that overzealous bureaucrats didn't dare tread on the rights and freedoms of Americans. They will tell you it's for your own good, and it's the best philosophical argument in their mind. After all they "probably have a much higher I.Q. than you do." (Biden quote to reporters) Of course, this doesn't apply to government, by any means. You'll see what I'm talking about in a minute.

Ladies and gentlemen, enter the 111th Congress, stage left. After passing a "stimulus" bill that spends $800 billion dollars that we don't have, calls for "fairness" (censorship), and a series of blunders by the Executive Branch in its handling of cabinet positions, we now have H.R. 45, which is step 1 in the liberal agenda of removing guns from all citizens.

Not a licensed gun collector of dealer? Well, you better have a license, or agents will be at your door, confiscating your weapon, and sending you to prison for 2 years!

Got kids? Well, you may not have guns if the government has anything to do with it. By a loose interpretation of this vague law, we may see such restrictions.

After an entire bill of restrictions on citizens' rights (which will be duly challenged in the Supreme Court if this bill comes to pass), here's my favorite section:



    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any department or agency of the United States, of a State, or of a political subdivision of a State, or to any official conduct of any officer or employee of such a department or agency.

"I've been to Georgia on a fast train honey, I wasn't born no yesterday, Had a good Christian raisin' and an 8th grade education ain't no need in ya'll a treatin' me this way!"
--Texas Outlaws

Keep a track on the House here.

--J. Dallas Brooks, *unlicensed Gun Owner

*this will be "outlaw" after passage of the bill, I presume

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Constitutional Amendment XXVIII

Constitutional Amendment XXVIII (28):

Whereas our founding fathers set up a Republican form of government so that:
(a) the American people could duly elect Legislators to pass laws reflecting the best interests of the United States, and
(b) the government by, of, and for the people is designed to protect the Constitution from mass hysteria and mob-rule mentality,

Whereas the current federal government is failing to live up to its Constitutional mandates in part due to:
(c) our elected "leaders" appearing to have no concept of American "best interests", and
(d) the government of the United States willfully and maliciously prints money so that our children and great-grandchildren will have to pay the debts,
(e) the mass hysteria common in a media-driven campaign to extort money from the taxpayers is readily apparent,

Be it resolved that these United States in the year 2009 Anno Domini (if you want Common Era, you'll have to attribute our commonality to something significant to the world other than the Birth of Christ 2009 years ago...good luck you morons that use C.E.), hereby amends the Constitution with the following verbage:
(1) No Representative shall serve more than 2 terms of office, for a total of 4 years of service in the House of Representatives
(1)(a) Representatives that take office during any partially fulfilled term will serve less than 4 years, as the partially fulfilled term counts for one term of office
(2) No Senator shall serve more than one term in office, for a total of 6 years of service in the Senate of the United States
(2)(a) Partially fulfilled terms also count as the entire term

Ladies and gentlemen, if you read this blog you are a more discerning citizen than most. You also know better than to expect Congress to ever vote to put itself out of a job. It's their political survival reflexes at work. Still, a Constitutional Amendment can pass in a number of ways, and the one shot we have at getting this through is for a convention of the state legislatures. In this case, if you want extremely effective federal response, we're best served by contacting our state legislatures! Many people are not even aware of who their state leaders are, yet the states have far more power over your everyday lives than the federal government (not that the feds don't try to change that with each and every breath they take!). If enough states propose a Constitutional Amendment (the 28th as it stands now), term limits could be a reality!

It's good enough for the President, isn't it? Why not Congress?

For my own part, a letter has been emailed to Sen. Cadman (CO District 10 - Senate) and Rep. Stephens (CO District 20 - House). Their response (or lack thereof if history is any indication) will be duly noted. Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 13, 2009

The Pork Barrell Spending and Screw the Taxpayers Act of 2009

This so-called Economic Stimulus package (you know, the one that is going to spend $800 billion to $1.2 trillion tax dollars that we don't actually have, which will need to be basically printed from nothing) is very mysterious...mostly because our "leaders" haven't seen or read the actual bill they are voting on. Seriously, for a decent salary and a lifetime of benefits, I believe that our Representatives and Senators can at least have the decency to read a bill before they cram it down America's throat.

Is anyone still opposed to TERM LIMITS on CONGRESS!? Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, February 8, 2009

GOP Leadership embracing its role as the opposition

What a refreshing weekend! The GOP Leaders went 3 for 3.

Forget Snowe, Collins, and Specter. The were known centrists that would be targetted by Dems.

1. Michael Steele proved to be an articulate, intelligent, and pursuasive standard bearer as the RNC chair on ThisWeek. Despite the grilling from George S. he stood in there and delivered the Conservative message without apologies. The key point being that tax breaks stimulate instantaneously and create long-term JOB growth. Whereas Gov. spending creates temporary contractual employment and takes time to get into the economy and doesn't save us from potential job cuts.

2. McCain stood up as a Conservative leader rather than a quarterback of compromise.

3. Even if the Senate version of the Stimulus Plan passes in the House, the amount of tax cuts has doubled.

All in all not a bad weekend.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Sen. Collins, Specter, and Snow: A Betrayal of Principles

If we learned anything as an ideology, it's that we cannot be the champion of hard-working Americans by catering to the special interests, the labor unions, and the other liberal entities that exist to steal from the citizens and give to the government. President Bush, although the right man and warrior at a time when we desperately needed him, failed to live up to the fiscal responsibility that our forefathers would have wanted. An $800,000,000,000.00 "stimulus" plan was approved by the House recently, but it was done in an extremely partisan manner (something we'll see as the cornerstone of the Obama Administration until 2011 just as we saw it with the Clinton Administration until 1995). Not one House Republican voted to steal our money to give it to failing organizations or condoms for Kindergartners, yet in the Senate, we see clearly who is and who is not with us, the taxpayers. Both Republican* Senators from Maine (Collins and Snow), and Sen. Specter (R*-PA) have thrown their support behind this grand larceny, and I certainly hope that the old addage is true: an elephant never forgets. As these Republicans* come up for re-election, it's time to step up, and find true Conservatives. The Conservative ideology is not very complicated. The answers are generally fairly easy, but you have to have the courage of your convictions to stand by those decisions. Cut taxes, end government oppression and intrusion into every aspect of Americans' lives, support our military strength, and let the people who made America great, make American greater still. This economic downturn is obvious, but the reasons for it seem to escape many (especially in the press).

We haven't exactly been a free market economy during the past century or two (the SEC, anti-trust laws, incessant government regulations and even price caps...yes price caps!), and that's been our downfall. Liberals will tell you that we weren't socialist** enough, and that we should try it now. The truth is, however, without all of the past government "intervention" we would have probably been in great shape economically. With trillions (some say as high as $13 trillion) of U.S. dollars invested overseas to avoid our unfriendly environment to business (yes, America is no longer business-friendly, how do you like that?), and a ton of government waste, it should be obvious that a reversal in our socialist** policy decades ago would have done wonders for us. Instead of being in debt by $10-12 trillion, we'd be a few trillion in the green.

Imagine... (Do the Wayne's World doodley-doo doodley-doo noise here):

President McCain issued his 2015 Budget Request to the House of Representatives today, with spending totalling somewhere on the order of $500 billion dollars. Conservative groups created an outcry against the McCain Administration's over-spending, but backed down when the President showed the balanced checkbook. The US Savings Account has now over $1.2 trillion, so the 2010 budget will require $0 tax revenues. Since the 2011 passage of the FairTax, the federal government has doubled annual tax revenues by eliminating tax burdens on productivity, and yet the need for numerous government programs has been reduced by upwards of 85% for the past 2 years. President McCain says that after spending all of the budget for 2015, he expects to have approximately $700billion left in savings, yet the 2015 revenue projects from the FairTax are expected to put $2 trillion back into the government purse. The liberal groups criticized the $1.3 trillion budget surplus, but seeing the need to ensure that the US Government doesn't have too much liquidity, the President ordered a second Mars colony developed by NASA. Unfortunately, the discovery of a super alloy 2" below the Martian surface that weighs less than tin foil and is stronger than any material on earth suggests that once again the American revenues will fly through the roof. In international news, the U.S. officially paid off the debts of all 3rd World Nations, which is already paying dividends worldwide. Terrorists are ostracized in their own home nations, and we are seeing for the first time, a global trends towards true cooperation.

In Sports, the Atlanta Braves have done it again! Six World Series in a Row and over the Minnesota Twins each and every time!...


denotes term used loosely
** often called "progressive"

Sphere: Related Content

The Culture of Death

Nadya Suleman is a 33 year old single mother who recently delivered 8 babies (octuplets), while she already had 6 other children (who were born together as sextuplets). Her doctor implanted her with the 8 embryos, figuring that many do not make it through the entire pregnancy.

Miracle 1: they did.

While a traditional family (with a husband and wife serving as father and mother for their children) is known to be the best situation in which to raise children in our society, and while there are ethical dilemmas with medical fertilization when we begin to see the press coverage of Nadya and her 14 children we see the culture of death emerge.

Here are only a few excerpts from ONE STORY about Nadya [and my responses]:

Ann Curry: “People feel, you know, this woman is being completely irresponsible and selfish to bring these children in the world without a clear source of income and enough help to raise them.”
[Ann, I suppose you're supporting the definition of a traditional family, and you aren't calling her children an irresponsible mistake? Just let me know where the non-profit foundation's email address is that NBC has set up for this woman and her 14 innocent children.]

NBC Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Snyderman: “There’s a phenomenal risk to eight babies. Eight babies, by definition, cannot be born normal weight and robust.”
[Cannot be born normal? Dr.*Snyderman, you seem to fail to realize just one thing: the children are doing exceptionally well, growing larger and stronger everyday. We'll just put an asterisk by that little fatalistic statement of fact and call it a theory...just like I'm putting the asterisk by your title...doctors should by definition support life, not death. You're playing for the wrong team.]

NBC’s Psychiatrist Dr. Gail Saltz: “Undoubtedly these eight children are going to have issues: at the minimum, the issue of neglect… There will probably be developmental delays at best in these children; maybe learning disabilities. There are going to be major issues that they’re going to need various therapies for.”
[Wow! Imagine that! A Psychiatrist that believes 8 patients will "need various therapies." Now there's a shock. Moron.]

I understand the discussions about a welfare state, traditional families, medical ethics, and the like, but you are all missing the point here if you're debating this now. These are 8 living, breathing human beings with souls. They do not deserve your condemnation. Nadya's only crime is that she isn't involved in a gay relationship and that she didn't abort 7 of the children at 8.5 months of pregnancy. That would, at least, give her some media sympathy. Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps it's time to stop casting stones, and offer a donation or two to Nadya's children? Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 6, 2009

Obama's Stimulus is his First Battle of Manassas

After a brief hiatus I return with a large smile on my face. Obama's attempt steamroll his massive Government stimulus plan past the Republicans is failing. Mitt Romney depicted it best in saying it "will stimulate government not the economy".

With approval rating below 50% in all major polls, Obama's stimulus plan will hopefully die a quick death. Congrats to the Senate and House Republicans for showing the Administration and the country that in opposition you aren't afraid to plant your heals and fight. Keep up the good work.

Unless there is capitulation from Senate Republicans, the Stimulus package will need to be re-drafted which generate Dem vs. Dem squabbling and added opportunity for Republicans to pick apart the pork barrel flank of this plan.

With the tremendous build-up and impending failure, this may be the equivalent of Union Army's blunders during the First Battle of Manassas or Bull Run for Obama legislative agenda. Eager to satisfy impatient politicians seeking a quick victory, Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell advanced his untested army across Bull Run to face the Confederate Army in haste. He amassed the largest Army on the North American continent (35K+) and tried to bludgeon his way through to victory. After initial successes and public support for the campaign, he was quickly routed into an embarrassing defeat. Sound familiar.

Even in failure Obama has the capacity and political capital to rebuild and win many future victories. But, this would be a crushing blow to his momentum and strategy.

Signing off...JCB

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/05/opinion/polls/main4778192.shtml Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Coleman still tickin'

Norm Coleman's chances to overturn the announced 225 vote edge for Al Franken of the Minnesota Senate race got a life saving shot in the arm.

The Minnesota trial judges assigned to the Coleman filed recount trial have decided allow 4,800 rejected absentee ballots to be re-evaluated.


Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Site Meter