Teeth of the Constitution

Now you see them, now you don't...

2006-09-25T18:37:00.000-07:00

Once again it is election time, and therefore time for the Left to take on their chameleon-like qualities, morphing into what they think the public wants to hear.

Why do they do this? Because if they really voiced what they believe, they wouldn't win an election again. Ever.

The Anti-gun left suddenly is "Pro Second Amendment" (just look at Kohl and Feingold), the Pro abortion left is suddenly more center, almost pro-life!!?? It goes on.

What really floors me however is not that the Left does this - they have to if they even want a chance to win, but that people in the voting public actually buy into their lies.

Slightly (?) Inactive, but Not Totally Abandoned...

2006-05-14T05:34:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I posted on this blog, but it isn't for lack of things to write about. Partly it is a priority issue - there are things I'd rather be doing, and party it has to do with a feeling of defeat: no matter what I wrote, things kept getting worse. It seems our wonderful politicians are bound and determined to do everything they can to screw us and keep themselves in power.

Feingold with his free speech limiting Campaign Finance Reform, who is now wanting to regulate the internet. Justices taking away private property under eminent domain to give to private developers, the allowing of millions of foreigners to enter the country illegally, then stay here with all the benefits of citizens and legal immigrants, the left trying to take away our Second Amendment rights... The list goes on.

Anyway, I may not be making much of a difference, but I figured that giving up would imply defeat, and the last thing I want to do is let the liberal left take over this country.

That said, I will make an effort to post at least once a week, and if anyone reads it, great! If not, at least I'll know I didn't give up.

All for now. Check back later for a more substantial post...

Doyle Veto Stands for Concealed Carry - Good or Bad for Wisconsin Gun Owners?

2006-01-31T15:56:00.000-08:00

The veto override vote today in the Assembly failed by 2 votes - Democrats (Steinbrink (D-65) and Terry Van Akkeren (D-26)) caving in to partisan politics and voting to sustain Doyle's veto when they initially supported the bill.

Is this bad news? Maybe, but not necessarily.

Supporters of the bill claimed that putting "concessions" (more on that later) to the anti-gun left into the bill was necessary in order to pass any type of concealed carry. These concessions included things like a list of permit holders held by the DOJ, access to the list by law enforcement, excessive (in my opinion) fees, and more. Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO) lists at least 8 major anti-gun provisions in the bill.

The strategy, supporters claim, is to get something - anything - passed regardless of the anti-gun concession involved. Later, work can begin to gut the bill of anti-gun provisions, and eventually end up with a Vermont style carry law (no permits, fees, etc.).

Those against passage of this bill as it was written claimed that there should be no anti-gun provision whatsoever. As Corey Graff, Executive Director of WGO, wrote in the latest WGO news (Winter 2006, Vol II No. 1), in order to compromise, you need to be giving something up. Every time the pro-gun side "compromises" by accepting some of the anti-gun demands of the left, they are in fact giving up some of our Second Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. What does the left give up in this compromise?

NOTHING! They gain ground every time.

So anyway, although I want Wisconsin to legalize concealed carry, I would rather wait until such time as we can get legislation passed that is not loaded down with fees, mandatory training, DOJ registration lists and other such anti-gun provisions. Once lists get started (my biggest objection to the bill as written), they can be very hard to get rid of later.

If you really think about it, why burden the honest citizens of this state with red tape and fees when the criminals running around are already carrying concealed? I mean really, it's not like the criminals are going to apply for a permit if this would have passed...

Self Defense a Privilege, not a Right in the State of Wisconsin

2006-01-29T10:32:00.000-08:00

I was reading through the Senate Bill SB 403 on concealed carry today, and came across the following in Section 37:

2. Instruction on the privilege of self-defense and the defense of others under s.939.48

The privilege of self-defense?? I thought that was our right! So I looked it up here, and found out that sure enough, the State considers it a privilege to defend yourself.

After reading through s.939.48 it seems that the intent was to make it clear that if you provoke someone into attacking you you can't claim self defense as part of your legal defense. That makes sense, but it really bothers me that the idiots in Madison didn't word it differently - that we have the right to defend ourselves, but we can't claim self-defense if we provoke the attack.

The next section (s.939.49) uses the same flawed logic in defending property - that it's a privilege, not a right.

Makes you wonder how many more of your rights the politicians in Madison turned into privileges...

Petition Congress: "NO United Nations GUN CONTROL"

2006-01-28T04:59:00.000-08:00

The National Association for Gun Rights has an on-line petition that will be sent to Congress in support of Senator Vitter's bill (S.1488) protecting our Second Amendment by withholding funding from the UN if they continue to move forward with their "Small Arms Control" initiative. Full text of Senator Vitter's bill can be found by searching:

"Issues and Legislation ---> Legislation Sponsored by Sen Vitter" on his website.

The related bill in the House of Representatives is H.R.3436.

I urge everyone to sign the ON-line petition at the NAGR website.

Judge Samuel Alito Hearings Begin, and the Democrats Still Don't Get It...

2006-01-09T16:33:00.000-08:00

Today at work I was listening a bit to some of the opening statements in the Alito hearings, and I could only shake my head and wonder how some of these people ever got to the Senate in the first place.

For example, Senator Feinstein (D-CA) wondered (these were opening statements, not questions yet) how Judge Alito would vote regarding the Senate's authority under the Protection of Interstate Trade and Commerce to pass anti-gun legislation:

"Let me give you one example here – and that’s the Rybar case. Your dissent argued that Congress lacked the authority to ban the possession and transfer of machine guns, based essentially on a technicality that Congressional findings from previous statutes were not explicitly incorporated in the legislation." ....
"I am concerned that the Rybar opinion demonstrates a willingness to strike down laws with which you personally may disagree by employing a narrow reading of Congress’s constitutional authority to enact legislation."

Basically, I got the impression that Sen. Feinstein wants to know if he will begin to limit Congress' ability to throw damn near anything they want under the Commerce Clause, including things that were never intended by the Framers to be controlled by the Federal Government, like firearms. It should be obvious that the Congress is overreaching, and that anything that appears out of reach to them is put under the Commerce Clause. It seems Sen. Feinstein doesn't want to lose this power, and feels very threatened by Judge Alito - his "personal opinions"are her scapegoat.

Senator Biden (D-DE) had the following to say:

"I cannot imagine, notwithstanding what many of my colleagues who I have great respect for believe, I can't imagine the founders when they sat down and wrote the document and got to the appointments clause said: You know what? The American people are entitled know before we make him president, before we make her senator, before we make him congressman what they believe on the major issues of the day.
But judges, Supreme Court nominees, as long as they're smart and honest and decent, it really doesn't matter what they think. We don't have to know.
I can't fathom -- can't fathom that that was the intent of the founders. They intended the American people to know what their nominees thought."
Well Senator, they were a lot smarter than you are because they realized that the Supreme Court is not a place for new ideas - it is a place to apply the Consitution, as it is written, to today's court cases. The reason the Founding Fathers put it that way is because they assumed that the appointments to the bench would be impartial, regardless of their personal beliefs. You obviously believe that the Court is where your own personal agenda and ideas of how things should be can be put into action.

Other common threads from the Democrats were abortion (how will he vote????!!!!), playing of the "minority card" since he will be replacing a woman Justice: "And it's also important to note that you're slated to replace the first woman ever nominated to the Supreme Court. We can pretend that's not the fact but it is. And through no fault of your own, we're cutting the number of women in half on the court. (Sen. Biden), and upsetting of the "balance" of the court.

All of these points brought up by the Democrats are nonsense, and have no business being discussed in this context.

I only hope that if the Democrats decide to fillibuster this nomination, that the Republican majority takes action and does not allow it - for that is another thing the Founding Fathers never intended: a filibuster of Judicial nominees.

Gun Seizures Halted in New Orleans

2005-09-24T06:11:00.000-07:00

This just in from the Second Amendment Foundation:

FEDERAL JUDGE HALTS NEW ORLEANS GUN SEIZURES
BELLEVUE, WA
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisianathis afternoon issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and National Rifle Association (NRA), bringing an end to firearm seizures from citizens living in and around New Orleans.

District Judge Jay Zaney issued the restraining order against all parties named in a lawsuit filed Thursday by SAF and NRA. Defendants in the lawsuit include New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Edwin Compass III.

“This is a great victory, not just for the NRA and SAF, but primarily for law-abiding gun owners everywhere,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are proud to have joined forces with the NRA to put an end to what has amounted to a warrantless gun grab by authorities in New Orleans and surrounding jurisdictions.

“Over the past three weeks,” he continued, “residents who had lost virtually everything in the devastation following Hurricane Katrina had also essentially been stripped of something even more precious, their civil rights, and their right of self-defense, because of these gun seizures.

“SAF and NRA had no alternative but to take action,” Gottlieb added. “If these gun confiscations had been allowed to continue without challenge, it would have set a dangerous precedent that would have encouraged authorities in other jurisdictions to believe they also could suspend the civil rights of citizens in the event of some other emergency.

“What must happen now, and quickly,” said Gottlieb, “is for authorities in the New Orleans area to explain how they will return all of those firearms to their rightful owners, and do it promptly. What this ruling affirms is that even in the face of great natural disasters, governments cannot arbitrarily deprive citizens of their rights. Thanks to some great teamwork between SAF and the NRA, this sort of thing will hopefully never happen again.”

Terri Schindler-Schiavo

2005-09-22T16:52:00.000-07:00

I know a lot is going on, and that makes it easy to forget about important events from the recent past.

Here are a couple of links worth reading from the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation website.

Read this, and this.

H.R. 800 - Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill

2005-09-21T17:43:00.000-07:00

H.R. 800 is an attempt to protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits which are concocted by the anti-gun left specifically to bankrupt the industry. This is a good bill, and I encourage everyone to call their reps and stress the importance of passing the House version of this bill, and NOT the Senate Version (S. 397), which has anti-gun amendments put in there by none other than Wisconsin's Senator Kohl.

It is important to note that groups such as the Brady Campaign post outright lies on their sites about this legislation. Here is an example of a Brady Campaign lie meant to deceive the public (see link above):

"Despite the efforts of our Senate allies, a majority in the United States Senate, eager to accommodate the wishes of NRA and gun corporation lobbyists, voted recently to strip the legal rights of victims of gun violence and give sweeping legal immunity to reckless and unsavory gun dealers"

Here's an excerpt from H.R. 800, proving that the legislation does not give "sweeping legal immunity...":

"The term qualified civil liability action...shall not include...an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product..."

There are many more cases spelled out in the bill that allow the industry to be sued. All you have to do is read the bill and you will realize that it is not giving the industry immunity from breaking the law (eg. knowingly selling firearms to criminals), liability stemming from defective products, or other similar instances.

The Senate version of this bill has a provision to make the purchase of a gun lock mandatory when purchasing a handgun. What's the problem with this? Two things:

It is basically a "tax" on purchasers of handguns, but more importantly,
If it passes, I predict the next bill will make it a felony to not use the gun lock.

And where does this leave the people who need a handgun at their ready disposal to protect their home and family? Fumbling for a key while the burglar has his/her way....

CALL YOUR REPS TODAY and urge them to pass the House bill, H.R. 800, not the Senate version.

The Second Amendment Explained

2005-09-12T19:36:00.000-07:00

Have you ever had a hard time debating someone who believed the Second Amendment only protected a State's right, or collective right (militia or army) to keep and bear arms ? I have, mostly because I can't remember enough facts to clearly explain the two clauses "A well regulated militia..." and "...the right of the people...", even though I know that in fact it does protect an individual right.

If you need more ammo (no pun intended) for your debates, read this article by Nelson Lund, J.D., Ph.D. of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.

The article is very well written as well as easy to understand, even for legal-language flunkies like me (legal jargon is kept to a minimum!).

Please take the time to read it, and send it along to a friend!

Not in MY Backyard...

2005-08-17T18:12:00.000-07:00

It seems that the environmentalists are all for alternative energy, et.al., as long as it isn't in their backyard!

The latest is the issue off the coast of Cape Cod where one group wants to put a bank of wind powered generators (windmills), and the other group are the rich elites that live on the coast. Apparently, the elites are claiming that their coastline is a "national jewel", and shouldn't be spoiled by putting the generators in. Before we rush to judgment however, the windmills will be so far off shore that they will appear from shore as 1/2" high dark spots, according to the developer. Not a real eye-sore in my book.

These environmentalists are kind of like Rosie O'Donnell, who says that nobody should have guns except the police and military....oh, and HER body guards. Or like PETA, that claims no one should euthanize dogs and cats because they have a right to live....oh, unless you are PETA, and you don't have the money to keep them. Then it's OK.

You get the idea.

Calls to Wisconsin's Senators

2005-07-18T18:01:00.000-07:00

Today I decided to call both Feingold's and Kohl's offices with my comments on 4 issues of importance to me:

1. Repeal the Washington D.C. Gun Ban

This bill is currently in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1288 District of Columbia Personal Protection Act), where I am confident it will pass. It is about time the citizens of D.C. are allowed to protect themselves and regain their Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

I asked them both to support this bill when it reaches the Senate.

2. Co-sign Senator David Vitter 's (R-LA) bill to keep any "small arms control" the UN passes out of the US

It will be interesting to see how many co-sponsors this bill gets from the 100 Senators who swore to uphold the US Constitution. If I were a betting man, I'd say that a six-pack says neither Kohl, nor Feingold (who ran as pro-gun in the last election) will co-sponsor nor vote in favor of this bill. We'll see. I hope I'm wrong as this is a much needed bill (just as Bolton is needed as the US rep in the UN).

3. 527's - leave them alone and quit taking away my First Amendment rights

Not a lot to be said here, Feingold is at it again trying to silence the general population under the ruse that there is corruption in exercising our First Amendment rights. Sigh...

4. The only nominees to the Supreme Court that should be blocked are those that are not originalists

See, the point is that the only kind of justices we need on the Supreme court are those that will use the framer's original intent, as it is written, in forming their opinions on each case.

I tried to impress upon the office clerks that it is the people who change the Constitution, and it is the Justices that use what "we" wrote for the basis of their opinions.

Once again, except this time at Kohl's Washington office, the girl tried to tell me that the Senator is only against those nominees that go against the "mainstream", or that are "too far right or left in the political spectrum". I tried to explain to her that neither the mainstream (whatever that is), nor political orientation (Left or Right) should have anything to do with the qualifications of a Justice! All that needs be looked at is if the nominee, in past opinions, interpreted the Constitution as it is written, with the original intent of the Framers in mind.

I don't think I got very far in getting this point across.

Ah well. I tried.

Senate Bill S271 - another one to stop, and H.R. 689 - light at the end of the tunnel

2005-07-17T16:52:00.000-07:00

McCain-Feingold are now at it again attacking our First Amendment rights, this time by trying to silence the public by basically shutting down 527s.

527s were used widely in the last election as a way around the unconstitutional MaCain-Feingold "incumbent protection" law that astonishingly was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Call your Senators and ask them to stop this anti-free speech bill in its tracks.

On a more positive note, there is House Bill H.R. 689 introduced by Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. This bill would repeal the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law, and restore our rights to talk about incumbents before an election.

Write or call your Congressman to sign-on to this bill.

Bill Proposed in Senate to Keep the UN from Destroying our Second Amendment

2005-07-17T06:26:00.000-07:00

Gun Owners of America reports that Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has introduced a bill that would block the UN from implementing gun control measures in the US. In addition, it would reportedly prohibit any U.S. funding to the UN unless the President certifies that the world body "has not taken action to restrict, attempt to restrict or otherwise adversely infringe upon the rights of individuals in the United States to possess a firearm or ammunition"."

Apparently this bill is still in a draft stage, and I haven't seen the entire text, just what the GOA reports in the link above.

Nonetheless, given that all Senators take an oath to uphold our Constitution, I would expect all 100 Senators to back this bill.

The UN needs to be sent the message that meddling in our Constitution will not be tolerated. Call your Senators Monday morning and urge them to sign on to this bill. If they don't want to, then demand to know how they can put the UN above our Constitution.

All you Wisconsinites out there remember - when you call Feingold's office, remind him that he campainged as a "pro-gun"candidate (which he definately isn't). Kohl's not pro-gun either, and he comes up for election next year I believe. Might want to remind him of that too.

Enough of "Smoke Free Places"

2005-06-16T20:09:00.000-07:00

Hat Tip to my daughter Sarah who checked my blog down in Paraguay (she's there with her Mom visiting family) and politely let me know I haven't posted lately!

I just watched a local news clip describing how SAFE ("smoke free areas for everybody" or something like that) is trying to pass an ordinance in Oneida County that would prohibit smoking in all bars and eating establishments. The Tavern League is apparently going to fight this to the bitter end, and I wish them luck in their efforts.

These people who are so against smoking just don't get it:

Smoking is a legal activity
Bars and restaurants are privately owned and their respective owners should be able to set whatever standard they want as regards smoking
Most importantly, everybody chooses for themselves where they want to go eat and drink.

If you think that second hand smoke is that bad, then don't go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking!!

If you think that second hand smoke is that bad for you, then don't take a job in places that allow smoking!!

If nobody goes to places that allow smoking, then those places will either go out of business, or they will change their policy. Same thing about workers - if no one will work in these establishments that allow smoking, then they'll either go out of business or they'll change their policy!

To all those fighting to make every stinking square foot in the nation "smoke free", stick it in your ear. Quit forcing your idea of a healthy environment on me. If enough people don't want second hand smoke in their face, then they will drive the change through their purchasing power in the market place.

I get ticked off about this every time I hear of it.

And I don't even smoke...

Senator Kohl's Office: "...we need Judges who make laws that are good for everybody..."

2005-05-29T16:13:00.000-07:00

Although this Blog may have looked dead over the past few weeks, it isn't. Now that summer is here, I've just got too much going on outside to be sitting inside. In any case, I'm still trying to convert liberals into conservatives, even though it's an extremely up-hill battle.

My most memorable phone call over the past weeks was to Senator Kohl's Milwaukee office. I called to let the Senator know that he was wrong on two counts (the only two in the letter, by the way) in a response to one of my comments. First, the filibuster was never meant to be used for judicial nominees as the Senator believes it should be, and second, what the mainstream thinks has nothing to do with evaluating a potential federal justice.

It was in telling the girl at Kohl's office about the second point that the office flunkie told me that we need judges that make laws that are good for everybody.

I then politely jumped down her throat and tried to explain to her that judges don't make laws, we do through our representatives! AUGhhhhhhh......

Here's another gem of hers: when I told her judges should interpret the Constitution as it was written, as opposed to her idea of interpreting it to suit the situation, she said (paraphrased) "...well all those guys that wrote the Constitution are dead now....

She probably thought I was a nut.

Protect Firearms Industry from Frivolous Lawsuits...Call Your Reps!

2005-05-15T08:17:00.000-07:00

This from my latest Gun Owners of America newsletter:

Two new bills, S.397 and H.R.800 have been introduced to put an end to frivolous lawsuits brought against the firearms industry by the anti-gun lobby and unscrupulous lawyers. These bills do not give the industry immunity from lawsuits if the product is defective as the anti-gun lobby would have you believe.

Please contact your representatives and urge them to vote in favor of these bills, without any "killer"anti-Second Amendment amendments.

Remember, even if you don't own any firearms, it isn't just about guns - it is about a minority of Americans trying to change our Constitution through legislation. There is a way to change the Constitution, and it isn't by passing law after law until the amendment in question if effectively null and void.

And remember, in addition to the attack on the Second Amendment, the First has also come under attack in a similar way thanks to our own Senator Russ Feingold and his so-called Campaign Finance Reform.

Call you Senators and Representatives today. Thanks.

Gone Fishing...(I wish)

2005-05-08T18:50:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

There has been a notable lack of work on this site lately, but posting will pick up again in the near future. At least I hope it will be in the near, and not distant, future.

You see, I have taken on major landscaping projects in the front yard, and when you pick a spot that visible to work in, you have to A] show notable progress to the neighbors and those passing through on a daily basis, and B] get the darn project done as soon as possible so you can go fishing.

All for now.

Adding Trackback

2005-05-01T08:08:00.000-07:00

I am in the process of adding Trackback to this site for comments, but am having a bit of trouble getting rid of the Blogger Comments link.

Please bear with me on this, and if you want to leave a comment, use the comment link to the left of the Tackback link for now.

Maybe I should have taken some computer classes in college. But then something tells me punch cards wouldn't help much on this problem....

Update: I now got rid of the blogger comment link. We'll see how this works!

Ivory-billed Woodpecker is Back. Good News, Bad News...

2005-05-01T04:52:00.000-07:00

If you have been over to Darn Floor recently, or maybe caught the evening news where it was mentioned, you'd know that the Ivory-billed woodpecker, thought to be extinct for over 60 years, has been "re-discovered" in Arkansas.

Well, as Darn Floor put it, this is cool news. I enjoy watching birds, and see plenty out in the woods on the job every day. Once in a while we see the look-alike Pileated woodpecker flying around - cool. So, this is good news to know that this particular critter is still out there.

Nonetheless, a split-second after my "that's cool" reaction started, my "Oh no..." reaction set in. Why? Well, Ivory-billed woodpeckers require large trees to nest in, and feed on insects under the bark of dead and dying trees. Why did they go "extinct"? Because of logging, silly. Even though they were heavily hunted by museums for their collections because it was naturally so rare, logging is still blamed as the cause of extinction.

That's what made me go "uh-oh".

The bird has been found in the "Big Woods" of Arkansas, which is apparently under a number of ownerships. The Nature Conservancy would like to bring this forest back to its primeval state

"The ivory-bill tells us that we could actually bring this system back to that primeval forest here in the heartland of North America,” said Fitzpatrick, who is also a member of The Nature Conservancy’s board of governors.

In addition, they are looking to expand the number of acres under protection

Fortunately, much of the land needed to create a vast corridor of forested wetlands is already in public ownership. More than 300,000 acres are protected in Arkansas in public reserves. To add to that acreage, the Conservancy is identifying private individuals and corporations that own important forest patches and enlisting their support in protecting the Big Woods. The Conservancy will use a variety of protection techniques, including land acquisition, conservation easements, ecotourism ventures, and the implementation of sustainable agriculture and sustainable forestry. The Conservancy is planting trees and encouraging public agencies and private landowners to reforest their property as well.

These two paragraphs can also be read as "take as much land out of timber production as possible". Nonetheless, here are the two key phrases that caught my attention: "primeval forest " and "sustainable forestry".

Environmentalists want the Nicolet-Chequamagon National Forest here in northern Wisconsin to be restored to its "pre-settlement condition", which basically translates to cutting less and less timber off the forest (makes sense, right? Before the area was settled, no one was around to cut it...). I image the same holds true when you want to return a forest to its "primeval state".

As far as "sustainable forestry" goes, I am convinced it means whatever the environmentalists want it to mean. Sustainable Forestry for the Big Woods will mean as little cutting as possible to still call it forestry, increasing the stocking of large trees and leaving them to die in the woods, and huge roadless areas. I fear for any large forest-land holder near the Big Woods area that wants to go in and cut his land; if they even think the Ivory-billed woodpecker may be on his land, I am sure lawsuits would be right around the corner to prohibit him from cutting. What's that you say? Private land! - he can cut if he wants to! Well, with lawyers and judges the way they are, if it's for the "good of the country" I'm sure they will figure out a way to stop it.

So, in spite of the fact that this bird has managed to survive on its own over all these years, environmentalists now have a hard-hitting club to wield when pushing for more and more restrictions on the rational use of our forest resources, particularly on public land, down South.

And on a side note, if a bird this big can go undetected for 60 years, then how can they ever claim with credibility that anything is in danger of extinction/has gone extinct?! One example that comes to mind is some fly in California whose "only known breeding grounds are the Delhi sand dunes" near Los Angeles. This fly halted development projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars simply because it was the only place entomologists had found it. They said the fly could go extinct if the project were to continue. I don't know what eventually came of this issue, but for all we know, the darn fly is found in sand dunes all across the southwest....

The Three Rs, and a Suggestion for the Environmentalists

2005-04-30T19:33:00.000-07:00

My daughter today asked me what the three Rs were. "Reading 'Riting and 'Rithmatic" I told her. "I don't think we should change them to reduce, re-use and re-cycle" (which is what she was getting at in the first place, what with earth day recently gone by and all).

My wife (the Paraguayan), listening in the kitchen, said "Why don't you use old newspaper instead of toilet paper like they do in Paraguay? That's re-using"!

Well, she's right - rural Paraguay tends to do lots of that (newspaper for TP). I know I did, and can tell you from experience that when all you have left is glossy magazine paper, reach for the corn cobs instead.

Anyway, What say we ship old newspapers and corn cobs to Hollywood and let them practice what they preach?

Doyle Ignores Us....Again

2005-04-27T17:41:00.000-07:00

H/T to Patrick at My View of the World for these pole results (scroll down to the "Voter ID" post) on Voter ID.

In a nutshell, 83% of Wisconsinites polled support Voter ID, and 15% don't (the rest aren't sure).

Could someone please let Governor Doyle know that in a Democracy the minority doesn't rule?

Gov. Doyle Ignores the Will of the People

2005-04-26T18:43:00.000-07:00

Once again, a H/T to my Mother for sending me a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on the results of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress hearings on the feral cat debate. The article pointed out two facts of relevance to this post:

56.7% of the people that voted at the Wisconsin Conservation Congress hearings on the issue voted to remove protection (OK to shoot'em) on feral cats. On a county level, 51 of 72 counties (71%) voted to remove protection.
Governor Doyle said he personally opposes the idea of shooting feral cats, and said "I don't think Wisconsin should become known as a state where we shoot cats".

The Wisconsin Conservation Congress apparently listens to the people it represents and is expected to forward this idea to the DNR, according to the article.

Maybe Gov. Doyle should also heed the will of the people instead of blowing us off. After all, is he in Madison to represent us, or forward his own agenda?

Maybe the Governor would like to respond as to how he can offhandedly dismiss an idea that almost 60% of the voters at those meetings wanted?

Paul Bucher Speaks Out For Concealed Carry, but...

2005-04-25T19:15:00.000-07:00

H/T to my Mom for sending me A. G. Paul Bucher's letter in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel dated April 11, 2005 titled "Safety in concealed-carry law".

Once again, Bucher states his position as pro-concealed carry. That's good: Wisconsin needs concealed carry if for nothing else but to put us on a level playing field with the common criminal. Nonetheless, he also promotes a database list of permit holders, with "rock solid safeguards against developing lists that would impinge on the privacy of or target permit holders".

His reasoning for this list is to protect law enforcement officers in the event of a traffic stop. The officer would be able to check the vehicle's registration against the list, and find out if the car's owner is a permit holder. He claims that this will "address officer safety in traffic stops while getting a good bill into law".

Here's my problem with the list: first off, the fact that the car's owner has a carry permit tells you nothing about the driver of the vehicle. I would maybe get a permit to carry, but my wife sure wouldn't - yet she often drives my car. So do friends of mine for that matter.

Second, if the license check comes up that the owner does not have a permit, does that mean the vehicle is safe to approach? Of course not! Officers must approach every vehicle as if the occupants were armed and dangerous - carry permit or not. And don't forget - according to the US Supreme Court, criminals are exempt from registering their guns under the protections offered in the Fifth Amendment. The list therefore, would never tell the officer there was an armed criminal in the vehicle.

Finally, lists of people who own guns should never be in the Government's control.

Although I would much prefer a Vermont-style carry law, I also understand the argument that in order to get somewhere, we must take what we can get now, and then improve on it later. Nonetheless, I am very leery of gun owner lists. If we must have government issued permits for concealed carry, then the permitting system should be based on the insta-check system for gun purchases (which I also oppose for obvious reasons): once you are approved, the records of your approval/transaction are destroyed.

Have a good night.

Activist Judges, Left and Right

2005-04-24T06:07:00.000-07:00

Reading through some blogs this morning I came across this post by Blogger Beer, pointing out that activist judges can be on the right or the left, and they are equally bad for the United States. I agree fully with his stance on this: we need justices that interpret the Constitution as it is written, regardless of personal stances.

As a case-in-point of conservative judicial activism, he cited the case of Justice Moore in Alabama (the Ten Commandments case). Blogger Beer cited a 2003 National Review article by Quin Hillyer that he said pointed out quite plainly that "Justice Moore's intentions were clearly unconstitutional", and that he was imposing his personal beliefs in trying to post the Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse. (The article is also an argument against the Democrat's rejection of Alabama AG Bill Pryor's nomination for a position on the federal bench back in 2003.)

First, let me say this about the Ten Commandments case, and religious expression in general on public property: the First Amendment to the Constitution states that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

It is precisely left-wing activist judges, prodded on by the ACLU and others, that have led the general population to believe that it is unconstitutional to express one's religious beliefs on public property. Therefore, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional (among other like rulings), I think they are wrong. In fact, they are wrong.

This brings me to the National Review article, where I found some comments that caught my attention. First, Hillyer seems to make the case that if the Ten Commandments are small, they are Constitutional, and if they are large, they aren't. That seems like pretty shaky reasoning to me, but hey, who am I to make that claim?

What concerns me most however is this quote from AG Pryor, a position that Alabama's Gov. Riley also took (emphasis added):

As Pryor explained: "I continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the building of the Supreme Court of the United States... (But) the rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders. The rule of law means that we can work to change the law but not to defy court orders."

It seems to me that precisely because of judicial activism no matter how hard we work to "change the law" in a case like this, it would likely be overturned by activist judges regardless of how constitutional it may be. And that leaves us where exactly? What do we do when the courts ignore the true intent of the Constitution and impose their own version of how things should be? I cringe to think of what could happen these days if the Supreme Court ever takes on a case regarding the true intent of the Second Amendment!

I believe it was Tom Delay who said that Activist Judges will have to pay for their actions, and he is right. But how do we go about doing that if we all believe (I don't) that the Judicial branch of government has the final word on everything, and that their opinion is law?

I for one have very little faith in the Federal Judiciary, and question every decision that comes out of it. The Judicial branch of government is becoming far too powerful, and because of it, the Federal Government is also sticking its nose in parts of our life that the Framers never intended.

Short of a revolution, I'm not sure what can be done anymore. Nonetheless, I will continue to write my representatives, vote for those I feel will be a force towards improvement, and talk to anyone who will listen about how screwed up the United States has become.

In time, maybe we can reverse direction and return the United States to the great Nation the Framers intended.

(Note: I still believe the United States is the greatest Nation on earth, but also believe that the Framers are rolling over in their graves over the amount and scope of power the Federal Government has taken on.)

Contact Senator Frist !!

2005-04-18T18:56:00.000-07:00

Once again, a bill is before the Senate (S 397) that would (hopefully) shield the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits. Go here and search for "S 397" for the text of the bill. This bill would prohibit civil lawsuits against the firearms industry for the actions of third parties.

As necessary as this bill is, the left is again trying to tack on "killer amendments" and/or tack on amendments that would allow the bill to pass, but would further inhibit our Second Amendment rights on other fronts.

Thanks to Gun Owners of America for this update. According to GOA, this bill is not perfect, but the left is still trying to tack on things such as a renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban, a .50cal ban, mandatory trigger locks (a lot of good a pistol with a lock on it will do you in time of need...), and more.

Please contact Senator Frist - he has the power to get this legislation passed without any killer amendments, and without being watered down any more by the anti-freedom left.

Here is contact information for Senator Frist:

Phone: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-1264
Webform:
http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm
(Note: If you have problems with the above url, go to http://frist.senate.gov/ and click on "About Senator Frist," then select the "Contact Senator Frist" option.)

Contact him to let him know that he should use the parliamentary powers at his disposal to get this already watered-down bill passed, but that it is not worth the adoption of any other gun control amendments. (Note: Non-constituents can only send e-mail by going to his website and filling out the form provided. If you choose to do that, please disregard any automated response you might receive; his office WILL take note of your position.)

A Minor Correction to Make...

2005-04-18T18:45:00.000-07:00

In my post here on the Wisconsin Conservation Congress' requirement of a photo ID to vote, I have the following correction to make. Thank you to Ann Marie Kutzke from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Legal Services for clearing this up in response to my e-mail to the DNR:

Dear Mr. Xxxxxx,
I photo ID is required to vote for delegates who are being nominated and elected that evening at during the Wisconsin Conservation Congress portion of the meeting per the Code of Procedures for the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.
If one is only "voting" (non-binding vote) in regards to the DNR Fish & Wildlife Proposed Rule changes or Wisconsin Conservation Congress Advisory Questions one does not need to present a Photo ID for that.
I hope that answers you questions.
Thank you,
AnnMarie Kutzke
Bureau of Legal Services, Wisconsin Conservation Congress, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Now, Given that the WCC is still only an advisory board, if they require a photo ID to vote for its members, you'd think Wisconsin could require a photo ID to vote for Senators, Representatives, Presidents, Governors, etc....

I Had a Dream...

2005-04-17T05:50:00.000-07:00

...that I was talking with Senator Feingold on the phone and was trying to impress upon him the problem with Judicial activists. I was using as an example the Bush-Gore election where the Federal bench got involved in the election process and what a bad precedent that was.

I explained that the people elect their representatives, and that judges should have no hand in elections, and... then I woke up.

In any case, in my dream, Senator Feingold couldn't see why this was a problem, He just didn't get it.

Photo ID Required for Inconsequential Voting...

2005-04-16T15:32:00.000-07:00

Hat Tip to my Aunt on this one. She told me today that while listening to the radio the other day she learned that the Wisconsin Conservation Congress required people to present a photo ID in order to vote on the feral cat hunting proposal! The result of these votes is so inconsequential it's not even funny. There is nothing binding in their elections; all the WCC can do is recommend an action to be taken on an issue.

Yet Governor Doyle says he will veto a bill that requires a photo ID to vote.

Nobody will be disenfranchised by requiring a photo ID to vote. Let's get the Photo ID bill passed and start getting the corruption and voter fraud out of Wisconsin's elections.

President's Judicial Nominees Need a Vote

2005-04-14T18:50:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to Blog General for this post on the Judicial Confirmation Network.

We need to get the Senate in line with this - what they are pulling with filibusters on President Bush's judicial nominations is not only unprecedented, but it is far from what the Framers of our Constitution had intended the process to be. Except in cases of extreme incompetence or other grave fault, the Senate is supposed to defer to the President on this issue.

Remember - this is the pre-game warm-up for the liberal left. If they can get through this stage, when a vacancy opens in the Supreme Court, they will be all set to continue, knowing the general public "didn't care enough to make a real stink of it".

Here are a couple of things everyone should do:

1) Read "Men in Black" by Mark Levin.
2) When you are done reading the book, loan it to a friend.
3) Go to Blog General and use the links he has in his post to write Kohl and Feingold. Now, not later, and make a stink of this.
4) Go to Judicial Confirmation Network and sign their petition.
5) Continue to make a stink about it.
6) Loan the book to another friend.

You get the idea.

Feral Cats are Back!

2005-04-12T18:47:00.000-07:00

Sure - Feral cats are back in the news, this time with their fate being voted on in all 72 Wisconsin counties at Wisconsin Conservation Congress meetings. Go here for the WCG comments on the issue. I do know that some counties were in favor of the lawful dispatching of feral cats, and others were not. The vote count should be done for tomorrow's new. Obviously, this would not involve shooting cats within city limits or where the discharge of a firearm is otherwise illegal.

Read an L.A. Times article here about the goings-on at the Madison meeting.

Personally, I think a feral cat - that is a cat that has no collar, no leash and is roaming wild - should be shot and eliminated just as other non-native exotic species are. Here are some reasons different groups of people should support this legislation:

Cat Lovers: feral cats give all cats a bad name, and turn otherwise cat-lovers into cat-loathers.
Environmentalists: feral cats eat our state's songbirds and other wild birds and animals. Just as environmentalists are trying to get rid of purple loostrife because it forces out native plants, they should get rid of feral cats because they not only eat our native wildlife, but compete with our native predators for limited prey.
Hunters: feral cats eat, among other things, Ruffed grouse chicks, rabbits, and anything else they can find. You'd be surprised what a good-sized cat can bring home. I know a cat (OK, my cat - Gifford - when I was in Paraguay, where all things roam free) that brought home a full grown chicken once.
Animal Rights Nuts: no comment on this hopeless bunch.

I really like cats, but I also like Wisconsin's native wildlife. There is a place for all, and a cat's place is indoors, or outdoors on a leash.

Paul Bucher for AG....maybe not...?

2005-04-11T19:10:00.000-07:00

I posted here (H/T Owen @ Boots & Sabers) about Paul Bucher and his apparent support for Concealed Carry law in Wisconsin. Well, yesterday Wendy posted on Boots & Sabers on Bucher's favorable position on creating a list of carry permit holders and Owen had another post here on his anti-carry statements. It seems there is a bit of confusion on what his stance really is on concealed carry, but it appears to me he's against it.

As Wendy pointed out, Bucher apparently wants a list of those who have concealed carry so the police know if the occupant of the vehicle they are stopping may be carrying. Sorry, but I am sure the police are trained to approach all vehicles as if the occupant(s) are armed and dangerous. And as Wendy said, it's not the people who would be on that list that would be the problem for the police.

Owen points out Bucher's past comments against concealed carry. That makes him sound like a Hillary wanna-be: tell the people what you think they want to hear, regardless of where you stand or how you will position yourself on the issue if elected.

I posted here on what my version of Wisconsin Concealed Carry should be:

"Wisconsin should have concealed carry that works like this; if you can legally purchase a firearm, then you can carry it. Period."

Is there any reason to have more to the legislation than that?

Take Someone Shooting!

2005-04-11T18:32:00.000-07:00

Looking for a way to get more people to back the Second Amendment? Here's one: if you own a gun, take someone shooting; if you don’t, find someone who does and ask them if they could take you (offer to pay for the ammunition, it usually isn’t much!).

I took my daughter and niece shooting tin cans with .22cal rifles when they were ten, and they both loved it. I just went out again with my daughter this past weekend (at her insistence: "Dad, when can we go shooting again?) and we had a lot of fun for only $5.00 and a bunch of tin cans. My sister had a blast shooting the rifles and .22 revolver at an indoor range with me and my brother. My brother-in-law had a good time with the .22cal rifles and the shotgun shooting trap with a hand thrower when my brother and I took him out. Good, clean fun for kids (and adults) of all ages!

None of these people had ever shot a gun before, and they all had a really good time. I'm always looking for an opportunity to take them again, as is my brother. Next on my list is to take another of my nieces out with the 22’s - I'm sure she'll have just as much fun!

Although none of the people I took out for the first time shooting could be classified as anti-gun, I do believe that many anti-gun people can be easily converted to pro-gun if they get the chance to actually hold a gun and shoot it. That’s when they realize that as long as you follow firearm safety rules, the gun isn’t going to kill anyone.

Because I have had firearms around the house since I won my first shotgun back in high school, I don't think anyone in my family was confused about the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are those out there however who have never been around firearms and are literally scared to death of them. These are the people that I am guessing would be all for more anti-firearms legislation today, but could be swayed against it if they only lost their irrational fear of guns.

Maybe I'm naive, but hey, even if it only works for 1 in a 100, that's one more on our side.

"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns." -- U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995"

Obey Pledges Not to Retire...

2005-04-10T05:44:00.000-07:00

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on April 6, page 7A quotes Dave Obey as pledging not to retire until the United States has universal health care:

"If the Republicans want me to leave, my advice is pass universal health care, and I will leave tomorrow as a present."

This quote came as Obey was honored for having served 36 years in office. If this quote is legitimate, and not taken out of context, here's my problem with it: isn't it up to the voters to determine how long he can stay in office? Apparently Obey has been in office so long that he has forgotten who put him there.

So, Mr. Obey, without commenting on how well you have or haven't represented us (or me in particular) over these years, remember this: you can quit any time you want, but you can't stay any longer than we want you to! When your constituents vote you out, you're out regardless if there is universal health care or not.

I personally, would like to see term limits on all elected representatives in Washington regardless of whether or not they have served their constituents well. Maybe have a 2 term limit, and then possibly the ability to be elected back in after a couple out. This could have the desirable effect of having politicians focus more on what they were voted in to do, and less on the "party politics" of Washington.

I don't believe the Framers ever intended service in the House or Senate to be life-long jobs.

The Courts are Winning...

2005-04-04T18:35:00.000-07:00

That's the conclusion that Rich Glasgow came to regarding the "battle of the branches (of government)", and I believe he is right. Read his post here, which includes a very scary comment by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Rich also mentions 3 must read books: Men in Black by Mark Levin, Constitutional Chaos by Judge Andrew Napolitano, and So Help Me God, by Judge Roy Moore. Rich has links for each of those books, so please go to his post to check them out.

I ordered my copy of "Men in Black" which should arrive Wednesday. I read a few paragraphs in the bookstore the other day and knew right then it was a must-read.

Earlier I mentioned Senator Kohl's thoughts on judicial nominations in this post, and that single comment by Senator Kohl should make your skin crawl if you are at all concerned about the direction our great country is heading, at least when we let the liberal left do the driving. Read all of Kohl's statement here.

Paul Bucher for Wisconsin Attorney General

2005-04-04T18:01:00.000-07:00

H/T to Boots and Sabers for this post about Paul Bucher who recently announced that he will run for Wisconsin Attorney Geberal.

Bucher stated that "The problems aren’t the guns, it’s the guns in the wrong hands." adding “We need to put more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens...". Read more at Boots & Sabers.

He hits the nail right on the head - at least get the law abiding citizens on an even playing field with the common criminal. Maybe then the bad guys will think twice before preying on the "defenseless" ordinary citizen (who may not be that defenseless after all!).

No post today, but busy writing nonetheless...

2005-04-01T15:43:00.000-08:00

Hi All,

I have spent the time I usually (try to) reserve for writing a post or two to writing my representatives in Madison and Washington. I encourage, no challenge, everyone to take 15 minutes today (it took me longer than that - but then I'm a pretty cruddy typist!) to do the same.

Some of my "hot topics" include:

Wisconsin
- WI Photo ID for voting - needed
- WI Concealed Carry Vermont Style - needed
National
- No ban or registration for .50cal rifles
- Stop illegal immigration and NO amnesty
- Stick to your (the Senate's) role as outlined in the Constitution and give the President's judicial nominees a vote*
- Prosecute the judge(s) that snubbed thier noses at the law passed by Congress and signed by the President ordering a "de novo" review of fact in the Terri Shiavo case

* Read this from Senator Herb Kohl's website about his position regarding judicial nominations. The last sentence reads (emphasis added):

"I have only opposed those nominees whose views and judicial philosophies are so far out of the mainstream as to place our liberties at risk."

And exactly what does the "mainstream" have to do with anything? Somebody please help me understand how the framers included the "mainstream" in the Constitution, specifically in the judicial nomination process.

I am at a total loss on this one.....

Milwaukee County Gun Registration

2005-03-31T15:50:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 148, introduced by State Senator Spencer Coggs (D-6th) would require all persons residing in Milwaukee County to register their firearms with the DOJ, regardless of where the firearm is kept.

This bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Young, Fields, Sinicki, Toles, Turner, Berceau, A., Williams and Kessler.

Here is the summary of the Bill:

2005 SENATE BILL 148
March 29, 2005 − Introduced by Senator COGGS, cosponsored by Representatives YOUNG, FIELDS, SINICKI, TOLES, TURNER, BERCEAU, A. WILLIAMS and KESSLER.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy.
AN ACT to create 175.36 of the statutes; relating to: requiring registration of firearms owned by Milwaukee County residents and providing a penalty.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill requires an individual who resides in Milwaukee County and who owns a firearm to report to the Department of Justice (DOJ) the individual’s name and address, the manufacturer, model, and serial number of the firearm, and any other identifying characteristic of the firearm specified by DOJ. When ownership of a firearm is transferred from or to a Milwaukee County resident, the resident must report the transfer of ownership to DOJ. The bill requires DOJ to maintain a registry of this firearms ownership information. DOJ must keep the information in the registry confidential, except that DOJ may release information to a law enforcement officer who is investigating a crime that involves a firearm. The firearms reporting requirements apply to handguns, rifles, shotguns, and machine guns, regardless of where in the state they are located, but not to firearms designed to fire loose black power, firearms manufactured before 1899, or firearms that cannot be fired and cannot readily be restored to firing condition. An individual who violates the reporting requirements may be fined not more than $1,000 or jailed for not more than nine months or both.
As we know from history, once there is a gun registry, confiscation follows. Look at Hitler’s Germany, look at England, look at California when in the late 1990’s ordered the confiscation of SKS and “assault rifles” (whatever they are) which by California law were previously registered.

Apparently this proposed legislation is in response to the recent shooting by the man from New Berlin. Well, would this legislation have stopped that crime? Will this legislation stop future crimes? Will this legislation serve as anything other than a precursor to confiscating guns in Milwaukee County?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding “No”!

Want to know the really neat thing about firearms registration? In Haynes vs. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against forced self-incrimination. In other words, the court said that if someone "realistically can expect that registration [of a firearm] will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution," the registration requirement is unconstitutional.

Neat, huh?

Terri, Rest In Peace

2005-03-31T15:45:00.000-08:00

Say a prayer for Terri, and that God have mercy on those who killed her.

Concerned about Illegal Immigration? Read this...

2005-03-30T18:23:00.000-08:00

Here is a must read site for information on Illegal Immigration - "The Immigration Blog". This blog comes to us from Michelle Malkin, who has her other blog here.

Very good reading on immigration issues.

Wisconsin Legislation AB56 to be voted on in House Judiciary Committee soon

2005-03-28T18:41:00.000-08:00

This legislation will put an end to reckless lawsuits that attempt to hold legally operating gun manufacturers, dealers, and clubs liable for the acts of criminals.

Go to the “Wisconsin Legislation” link at the top of my sidebar to find out more about AB56, then write your representatives and ask them to support this important legislation.

Gun Ban Crowd Attacks the .50cal

2005-03-28T18:35:00.000-08:00

The gun ban crowd has declared its new bandwagon, and it is the .50cal “sniper” rifle. This isn’t to say that they have forgotten about our semi-automatic rifles, our pistols, our revolvers, our shotguns and other firearms, it’s just that they see a better chance of passing legislation nation-wide on the .50cal. Why? Because very few people own .50cal rifles and they realize that most gun owners will not fight to keep from banning a gun they A) don’t own, and B) see no use for.

Well the problem with thinking like that is that this is only a stepping stone to banning more guns. What makes you think that they will stop with the .50cal? You see, just as they arbitrarily invented and lobbied against the “assault weapon” they will now declare war on “sniper rifles”.

What are sniper rifles? Any firearm the gun ban lobby deems a sniper rifle: the .50cal now, then the .45-70, then the .308, the .227, and finally your kid’s (and yours too) .22cal rimfire plinking/squirrel hunting rifle as well as all the calibers in between. Because in all reality any gun is an assault weapon, and any rifle is a sniper rifle when put in the wrong hands.

Although the gun ban crowd would prefer to immediately confiscate all our guns, as Senator Feinstein publicly acknowledged, they realize that they could never pass legislation to accomplish that. So they attack us bit-by-bit, first going after a weapon that would be relatively easy to demonize and that few people own, hoping and actually counting on that the rest of us won’t care enough to get off our duffs and call our representatives to let them know how wrong this is and how much we are against it.

Legislation has not been presented yet, but there is talk some will be introduced soon. I’ll keep you posted here as I find out more.

What can we do? Call/write/e-mail your Representatives and Senators now and let them know you oppose any such legislation that may be presented.

Wisconsin Legislation Link Update

2005-03-28T16:14:00.000-08:00

The link "Current Wisconsin Legislation" at the top of my sidebar is now updated - I mistakenly had the link direct you to a site that listed legislation of interest to the agriculture/natural resources sectors. The current link will take you to a site run by the state and has various search and listing options for all legislation in both the Senate and Assembly.

Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.

More on Social Security and Why Bush is Right

2005-03-27T18:32:00.000-08:00

Here is some data on Galveston County, Texas that I had heard about, but never took the time to look up. H/T again to Vista on Current Events for posting the information.

More on ethanol

2005-03-27T18:22:00.000-08:00

Go here (H/T Vista on Current Events) to read more on why ethanol is not so great, especially if you own a GM vehicle.

Why the Paraguayan flag?

2005-03-27T18:01:00.000-08:00

Those of you who visit this site with some regularity may notice that I put a Paraguayan flag next to the US flag and wonder what that is for.

Well, I lived and worked in Paraguay for about 15 years, first as a Peace Corps Forestry Volunteer, then in other forestry and training positions both with, and outside of Peace Corps. My wife is Paraguayan, and my daughter therefore is 50/50, but a US citizen and honorary Wisconsinite by birth (you know she's got Wisconsin blood in her - she loves ice fishing!)!

Anyway, with nothing to do this morning after the Easter egg hunt (we went to church last night) I found a freeware Paraguayan flag and decided to put it up to kind of give the site a little more flavor, and a bit of recognition to the multi-cultural environment in our house here in Rhinelander.

Also though, after having lived through random police searches, restrictions on activities before elections, restrictions on speech in general, always having to prove who I was with a government issued ID, and so on, I learned to truly appreciate the freedoms we have here in the USA as guaranteed in our Constitution.

That’s why campaign finance reform, a national ID (a.k.a. natl. driver’s license) and gun control are such sore topics with me. These three issues strike at the core of our freedoms: the freedom to move around as we choose without having to prove ourselves worthy to the government, the freedom to speak our mind when and where we want, and the freedom to own firearms as a means of last resort against a tyrannical government.

So, there’s a little more background on me I guess. Anyone interested in learning about Paraguay can contact me by e-mail. The link is in my profile.

Wisconsin Senate Bill SB18 Requires Ethanol in Gasoline Statewide

2005-03-26T10:20:00.000-08:00

Except for a few instances such as aviation fuel, recreational vehicles and high octane gas (among others) all gasoline sold in Wisconsin will have to have between 9.2 and 10% ethanol according to SB18, which is currently in the committee of natural resources and transportation.

Ethanol, once reported to be the great environmental fuel, maybe isn’t so great after all. Even the Sierra Club and the Madison Audubon Society have come out against ethanol as an environmentally friendly fuel. There is plenty of debate about whether or not there is a net gain of energy from ethanol production, as well as about the amount of and kinds of air-borne contaminants its production puts into our air. Go here for a number of links to articles on ethanol production.

My question is this: if ethanol really gives yields of up to a 34% positive energy gain, then why does the industry need to be so heavily subsidized by Wisconsin and the Feds?? Maybe because ethanol is not a 1:1 substitute for gasoline; it’s an inferior fuel. It must be or market forces would push ethanol production through the roof, subsidies or not.

But alas, that’s not going to happen, so Gov. Doyle has two million dollars of ethanol subsidies in his proposed budget, the joint finance committee added another 2 million to that, and the Federal Government paid out approximately 7 billion dollars in subsidies between 1979 and 1997 (I couldn’t find current subsidies by the Feds, but there is no reason to believe they have been reduced). This article by the Heritage Foundation spells out many of the arguments against ethanol.

Ethanol production basically takes one form of fuel energy (petroleum) and converts it into another (ethanol). Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, one must assume that 100% of the net gain in ethanol production must come from the sun, which is free energy to all. I find this dubious at best, and wonder if there really is a net gain.

Regardless though, if we are really concerned about the environment with all this wouldn’t it be better to just pay the farmers to not grow ethanol destined corn and save all the petroleum energy that is required to: plant, fertilize, sanitize (weed and pest control), harvest, ship, process into ethanol and then ship again to the gas station?

Think of all the acres we could plant back into trees which require no additional inputs, improve the soil and ground water, can be harvested sustainably, and provide homes for all our furry & feathered friends. A corn field can’t do any of that…

Besides, proponents of ethanol like to call it a “sustainable” energy source. I ask you: How can it be sustainable if it relies on petroleum to produce it?

Stay up-to-date on Wisconsin Legislation

2005-03-26T04:57:00.000-08:00

Wondering what the politicians in Madison are cooking up these days? Check out the "WI Legislation" link on this page (under "Find Your Reps") to see what's going on. Interesting reading once a week I would think. Mandatory reading once a month?

NYT Editorial Still doesn't get it about Terri Shiavo

2005-03-23T17:03:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted much lately, mostly because after coming home from work, I'd run through a few of my favorite bolgs and find nothing but depressing news about the chances Terri has of not being starved to death.

Today I heard a caller on Rush Limbaugh's show say that before Terri's "accident" she suffered from bulimia. Apparently the caller thought that justification as to why we should kill Terri through starvation and dehydration. I truly feel sorry for these people that seem to be trying as hard as they can to justify what is going on.

Then, here is an excerpt from a New York Times editorial by Charles Fried, a professor at the Harvard Law School. He quotes Justice Scalia's opinion in a 1990 case in Missouri that portrayed "precisely the same issues".

I quote from the article:

"The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it," Justice Scalia wrote. (Emphasis added)

I could not find the actual opinion or case that Fried refers to, but here it seems to me that the Missouri case involved someone who required a whole lot more science than just feeding him (her?) to stay alive. Again, here is the MSM purposefully misrepresenting Terri’s condition to promote its own agenda.

Again, I quote from the editorial:

Justice Scalia went on to say that he would have preferred that the court had announced, "clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field." The problem, he insisted, was that "the point at which life becomes 'worthless,' and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become 'extraordinary' or 'inappropriate,' are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine justices of this court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory."

For starters, life is never “worthless” Justice Scalia. Second, Mr. Fried, do you really feel eating and drinking are extraordinary means of keeping yourself alive?

More (if you can stand to read more without blowing a gasket…):

For years now, Congress has more and more stringently demanded that federal court intervention be limited to cases where the state courts have acted not just technically incorrectly, but with egregious lack of reason. Whatever might be said of the Florida state court proceedings in this case, they certainly have not crossed that line, and indeed probably accord with what state courts all over the country have ordered or permitted for years in these difficult and agonizing cases.

Judge Greer has broken more Florida laws and has acted with a complete lack of reason in this case. He not only passed the line Fried talks about, but erased it and drew another of his own liking. Congress didn’t intervene in this case because they wanted an activist judge, it is precisely because there was an activist Judge that was not basing his rulings on fact, but on his own notion that Terri should die. That is more than justification for Congress and the President to act. No branch of government acts in a vacuum; all can be held accountable by the others.

I hope this made sense today. Sorry if it doesn’t. Here’s the link to the editorial again (you need to register to view it). MSM...don't know how much more I can take.

Paul

More on New Gun Control for Milwaukee

2005-03-21T14:34:00.000-08:00

H/T to Boots and Sabers for this on State Sen. Spencer Coggs’ (D-MKE) attempts to impose further restrictions on the people of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County's Second Amendment Rights. Also thanks for this link to an article of how this proposed legislation came about. There is no good reason for the government to know who owns and who does not own guns. There is also no sane reason why dealers and manufacturers should be held responsible for the illegal acts of others.

If a dealer knowingly sells a gun to a felon, then he broke the law and can be prosecuted under that law. No need for another law to cover that. If a manufacturer makes a defective gun and someone gets hurt, then you can sue for damages: don't hold them liable because someone used a perfectly functional gun in a crime.

Here's another interesting article in the L.A. Times that was apparently inspired by the recent shootings around the country, including the one in New Berlin, Wisconsin. The article basically tried to show how both sides of the gun debate are using these shootings to push their agenda.

The interesting thing to note is how prosecutors and judges now want to carry a firearm for personal protection. I’d like to know how many of them were all for the current laws that ban guns from courtrooms…?

Nonetheless, this probably doesn’t mean much for us common folk because in all likelihood it will end up as “…well we need guns to protect ourselves because we are so important. You don’t however…the police are there to protect you…” Kind of like Michael Moore – he is as anti-gun as you can get when it pertains to your or my rights to own them.

But he needs his armed bodyguard of course.

Kill a Baby, Save a Bear

2005-03-20T13:24:00.000-08:00

OK, so I grabbed the title out of one of the comments on a post found on Ankle Biting Pundits.com, but check this out - are the Democrats confused about priorities or what?!?!

Hat Tip to Brain Post for this one. I had to pass it on. Read through the comments on Ankle Biting Pundits, some are good, and the few liberals that did post only make you shake your head.

I like Polar Bears, but how Barbara Boxer can stand up there and preach about saving God given gifts, then vote "No" twice in 2003 to ban partial birth abortion, and "Yes" in 2002 to make sure military personnel had access to abortion services in military hospitals is lost on me.

I can only shake my head...

Track Wisconsin Gun Legislation at Wisconsin Gun Owners

2005-03-20T13:01:00.000-08:00

Concerned about your Second Amendment rights slipping away because you didn't know what legislation was currently under consideration in Madison?

Go here, to see Wisconsin Gun Owner's (WGO) new web site feature "Bill Watch". (Click on "bill watch" in WGO's left margin). You can find out details of current legislation, who has sponsored the bill, and where it is in the process of becoming law.

Visit frequently. WGO's home page link is on this site under "Pro Second Amendment Organizations".

Stop Hillary in 2008!!

2005-03-20T11:30:00.000-08:00

Moonbattery posted here a very nice graphic of Hillary popping in and out of a cuckoo clock. Very appropriate. Also he gave the link to Blogs Against Hillary, where you can sign up to show your support.

Hillary is probably the sneakiest of all Democrats. Immediately after Bush won the election, she started to (try to) morph into a conservative so that when the 2008 election campaign rolls around she will have a whole list of "conservative" bills that she has voted for.

Her plan no doubt is to set up a few years of a new voting record that she will spew at us ad nausium during the campaign assuming we will all forget her past voting record, and knowing the MSM will conveniently forget it also. She'll be the conservative ex-liberal for 2008.

Use the link on this page to check Hillary's voting record over the next few years, and to compare it to her past few years (all on that site).

Patriotic Icons

2005-03-20T04:55:00.000-08:00

Like the American flag on this site? Go here to get yours. Lots of cool stuff you can download for free.

Good Morning America on Terri Shiavo

2005-03-19T05:45:00.000-08:00

This morning, Good Morning America (GMA) interviewed Terri’s brother, Michael Shiavo, and Tom DeLay (separately).

I felt Terri’s brother wasn’t asked the questions that would have allowed him to really tell us what is going on, Michael and his lawyer lied about starvation/dehydration being a peaceful death (It's not. See my earlier post on this.), and Tom DeLay did an excellent job.

Senator DeLay forcefully corrected GMA that Terri is not on life support. He said that death row inmates have more rights and appeals to keep from being killed than Terri does. He pointed out that in Florida to do what they are doing to Terri would get you a prison term and a $5,000 fine if you did it to a dog.

Kate Snow (who did the interviews) said “understood” and moved on when Tom DeLay corrected her that Terri is not on life support. Obviously she didn’t want the truth to get in the way of her agenda, which is why a follow-up question such as “Really?, then why is MSM reporting otherwise?” Kate also tried to paint the Republican's efforts as purely political, and named her source for that allegation as “House Republicans”.

She also showed results from a poll of their viewers that showed 87% of the respondents said they would not want to live this way. Which way? The way the main stream media has portrayed her as on life support, comatose, and as a vegetable? Or as she really is – alert, aware, not on life support, and responsive.

Hopefully GMA had record viewers for Tom DeLay’s segment.

Anti-gun Crowd once again Exploits Tragedy

2005-03-19T05:37:00.000-08:00

Hat tip to my sister at Stand in the Trenches for sending me this release (from the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort – [WAVE]) that she found on Charlie Sykes blog.

I’m not surprised, and as Charlie Sykes says, “This didn’t take long.”

If WAVE is truly concerned with violence, why aren’t they pushing to get the perpetrators of these crimes behind bars with longer sentences, less leniency, no leniency for repeat offenders and the like instead of blaming the weapon used? It’s because their goal is not really to stop violence, it is to remove guns from our society.

Here’s the proof: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told the country on CBS’ 60 Minutes

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

How much clearer do you want it? Blatant disregard for our Constitutional rights.

The Brady Campaign, The Million Mom March (I don’t think they ever really even had a ‘million’ moms!), the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and all the rest have the same goal as Sen. Feinstein. It has nothing to do with stopping violence.

I wrote here about how the Left needs activist Judges that are willing to legislate from the bench based on their personal political beliefs. The anti-gun crowd also uses legislation created by Congress and the States to change the United States Constitution by making the personal possession of firearms illegal, effectively 'making the Second Amendment null and void.

They use legislation, and lawsuits filed with activist judges to uphold their legislation, because they don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell to change the Constitution as regards the Second Amendment they way it should be changed: through the proper process that requires ratification by the States.

Dying of Starvation and Dehydration is not Peaceful.

2005-03-19T05:36:00.000-08:00

Go here at Fr. Johansen’s site to read about how awful the “peaceful” death that Michael Shiavo wants for Terri really is.

(It's not.)

Call Your Reps to Help Terri

2005-03-18T15:31:00.000-08:00

Today Terri's feeding tube was ordered removed. This is the first step towards a court-ordered murder of an innocent woman.

Please use the link at the left or click here (same link) to find your reps in Washington and tell them that you do not support court-ordered murder of an innocent woman, that she is not "comatose" as the major media networks insist on calling her, and that they should stand up and stop this atrocity.

Also let them know that Judge Greer should be removed from office. Go here for a petition to remove Judge Greer from office and to see all the laws Judge Greer has broken throughout his rulings. Then when you are done, sign the petition.

Representative's Voting Records

2005-03-17T18:28:00.000-08:00

H/T to my Brother JAM for this link to "Project Vote Smart". There are many links on the site to check out voting records, a "find your rep" search and more.

An invaluable tool when writing your representatives so you can write with authority on what they voted for and against. I'll add this link to the top of my "links" section to the left.

Democrats to Lose Right to Free Speech...Oh My!

2005-03-16T18:41:00.000-08:00

Here's a good one. In this letter sent out to Democrats, Governor Howard Dean, M.D. claims that Democrats in the Senate are about to lose their right to free speech if the Republicans change the number of votes required to kill a filibuster from 60 to 51!

I quote

"Today Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators asked us, the American people, to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate."

Sorry guys, but the First Amendment does not address the rules of the Senate.

The interesting thing to note here however is that none of these great defenders of our First Amendment rights cried out when they passed Campaign-Finance Reform which turned the First Amendment on its head for us!!

(I was going to post a comment on their site, but in order to register you have to be a Democrat, and I just didn't have it in me to break their rules. I can understand them however. They surely don't want any truth to get in the way of their ranting.)

Oh heck - I was going to continue to pick this letter apart, but due to lack of time I'll just copy the whole letter below and welcome your comments. All I can do is shake my head at the lies and other misleading statements in it.

Here's the letter:

Submitted by golfmonkey on March 15, 2005 - 11:54pm.
I received this today from the Democratic Party. Please read and sign the petition.
Thanks!

Sometimes partisan politics gets overheated -- I know that as well as anyone. But when one
party controls all three branches of government, and then seeks to change the fundamental principles and rules of our democracy, we need to talk about it soberly and seriously.
The Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress -- they want to give George Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the
courts.
Today Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators asked us, the American people, to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
We have to act. Sign this petition, which we will deliver to every U.S. Senator, asking them to protect the right to free speech in the Senate. If they don't, it is not only their voice that will be silenced -- it will be ours: http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
Here are the facts: George Bush has appointed judges to lifetime positions at a better rate than any president in nearly three decades. More than 95% of his nominees have been approved. Only ten nominees have been refused -- all because they are unqualified and out of the mainstream.
But that's not enough. And on this issue, as on Social Security, it is becoming more and more obvious to everyone that the Republican leadership is out of touch with reality.
More Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history. And that same
day, across the country, the Democratic candidates for Senate received over 4 million more votes than Republicans.
Americans did not endorse the fringe agenda to dismantle Social Security. And they did not endorse dismantling the system of checks and balances that have served our country for over 200 years.
Please tell your Senator to stand up for free speech: http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
This is not a partisan issue -- it is an American issue. And we all must act together in
order to protect our democracy.
Thank you.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Democrats Clamor Against Filibuster Change...Why?

2005-03-16T12:27:00.000-08:00

Yesterday the Democrats deserted the Senate chamber and protested on the steps outside threatening to shut down all non-essential business in the Senate if the Republican majority changes the filibuster rules. Why is it the Democrats are so up in arms about this?

Well, Rush Limbaugh recently had an excellent show covering this topic - one of the best of his I have heard yet. Basically, the Democrats, and in particular the liberal-left, are fighting hard to make sure that judges prone to making legislation get behind the bench as opposed to those who will solely interpret the Constitution.

Without activist, legislation-making judges behind the bench, the left will never accomplish what they want.

Take abortion: if put to a vote, it is highly likely that it would be outlawed across the country. The same thing is true with same-sex marriage; 11 States passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in the last election. The closest vote was in Oregon at 57-43% - an easy majority. The juvenile death penalty is another ruling that truly shows the nature of activist judges. This however is in the US Constitution, but as an accepted and constitutional form of punishment. In one fell swoop, the Court changed our Constitution. Isn't that supposed to be up to us to do?

As Justice Scalia, criticizing the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the juvenile death penalty said

"Unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling on the first of March to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on 'evolving notions of decency' was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority."

That pretty much says it all in a nutshell. The Democrats, with the liberal left leading the charge, have to get their own people on the bench. Heaven forbid we get people who actually interpret the Constitution.

Senate Filibuster Rule Change: Good idea or Bad?

2005-03-15T18:36:00.000-08:00

The Senate Republicans, frustrated (and rightly so) about the Democrats blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees, are planning to change the filibuster rules so that Bush’s nominees will be guaranteed a vote on the Senate floor.

Sounds good, right? Well here is an article written by Michael E. Hammond, General Counsel, United States Senate Steering Committee, 1978-1989. The article came in an e-mail from Gun Owners of America (GOA).

GOA says that this is a bad idea, since eliminating the judicial filibuster would also eliminate the legislative filibuster. The problem GOA has with this is really two-fold.

First, many pieces of legislation that would have severely (in my opinion) restricted our Second Amendment rights failed to pass because of legislative filibuster, or the threat of a filibuster. By eliminating this Senate “tool”, they say, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy and the rest of their anti-gun clan will be far better positioned to get legislation like the Clinton Gun Ban passed, either on its own, or by tacking it onto other “must pass” legislation.

Second, GOA says, looking at the Republican track record of judicial appointees doesn’t really guarantee anything. They point out the some of the more liberal justices on the bench were appointed by Republican presidents: John Paul Stevens (Ford), Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan), and David Souter (George H. W. Bush).

The article above is a good one, but long and heavy on Senate procedures – definitely not my forte. Nonetheless, it seems to me that eliminating filibusters for short term gain may in fact hurt us in the long run.

It seems that the important thing here is to forget changing the Senate rules and concentrate on winning a filibuster-proof majority in 2006.

Senator Feingold speaks out on the FEC, Campaign-Finance Reform and Blogs...

2005-03-14T15:10:00.000-08:00

H/T to Jiblog for this, which apparently appeared first on myDD.com. Boots & Sabers has an excellent comment from Sunday, March 13 on Senator Feingold's letter. You can read the Senator's complete letter here at the DailyKos I agree fully with Boots & Sabers, and Jiblog, and have a few comments of my own to add below. But before we get started, the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In his letter, Senator Feingold states that

"As one of the main authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, also known as BCRA, it is particularly difficult to hear the mistaken belief that the law was somehow an attack on our cherished First Amendment rights. It is not. The law was found to be constitutional and it accomplished what we wanted it to do without infringing on First Amendment rights: stopping Members of Congress from soliciting enormous campaign contributions from monied interests; and reducing the corrupting influence of big money donations."

First, it is an attack on our First Amendment. Specifically it restricts what membership organizations can say about a candidate or incumbent before an election. Is a membership organization not a part of the First Amendment when it refers to the “right of the people peaceably to assemble”? Membership organizations like the NRA and Right to Life, as well the ACLU are just people getting together to express their opinion and petition the government.

Second, so the Supreme Courts declared that his cherished law is “constitutional”. Big deal. The Supreme Court also once ruled that slavery was constitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissenting opinion in the 5-4 split of the Supreme Court on the Campaign-Finance issue stated that

“With breathtaking scope, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) directly targets and constricts core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection…’”

That aside, what Senator Feingold really seems interested in however is

“...stopping Members of Congress from soliciting enormous campaign contributions from monied interests; and reducing the corrupting influence of big money donations.”

So in reality this has nothing to do with us, does it? We can infer from Senator Feingold’s statement that those Members of Congress who solicit (and receive) big money donations are being corrupted by its influence.

If Senator Feingold knows about all this corruption going on in the House and Senate (and we can only assume that he must know about it because he put so much effort into getting this law passed, and in defending it now), then maybe he should stand up and name the people taking bribes, and the companies offering bribes (bluntly speaking, that’s what we are really talking about here is bribes, right?). New flash: we already have laws against both those things: offering and taking bribes.

Finally, in talking about blogs and bloggers he states that

“The definitions and rules relating to "coordinated activity" should be clarified, so legitimate bloggers and journalists alike don't have to worry about vague rules for legitimate activity.”

And as Jiblog pointed out, exactly who is going to define what or who a “legitimate” blogger is? Every time the Senator mentioned blogs, bloggers or other media, he prefaced it with ‘legitimate’. Why Senator did you feel the need for the word 'legitimate'? What exercise of our First Amendment right isn’t legitimate to you?

In my most humble, Wisconsin opinion, anyone who wants to express his or her thoughts is “legitimate”, regardless of whether or not we agree with what they say. Period. The whole idea behind the First Amendment is that no one decides what is or is not appropriate speech!

Annual Credit Report

2005-03-13T13:29:00.000-08:00

This is more of a "Public Service Announcement"than anything else, but a worthwhile one if I say so myself. Apparently the three major credit reporting companies are required to give individuals a free credit report each year (one from each company). Go to AnnualCreditReport.com to get yours.

I got mine, and the information they get on you is complete to say the least.

An interesting little bit of information (also free) from Equifax is your personal debt compared to others in your area. In Rhinelander the average debt is around $47,000 if my memory serves me right. This does not include home loans!

About the best thing parents can do is teach their children how to save. That would make their future more secure (and less relying on Social Security), and would give them more "disposable" income to be able to give to worthy charities. Everybody's a winner!

Wisconsin Concealed Carry

2005-03-12T16:11:00.000-08:00

Not a lot of time today to blog, bere here is a good post on jiblog about Wisconsin Concealed Carry and why we should have it. Here is another on Blogger Beer. Please see the comment I placed on BloggerBeer's post.

Wisconsin should have concealed carry that works like this; if you can legally purchase a firearm, then you can carry it. Period.

New York Times Misleads again on Guns...

2005-03-09T15:35:00.000-08:00

An editorial (you will need a log-in) in the New York Times today gave it a good shot to once again mislead the public concerning assault weapons and gun control.

First, there is this statement that implies gun control isn't nearly as good as it should be: "Federal agents could only watch as the crazy quilt of loopholes that passes for gun control..." Well, there are more restrictions and controls on buying and selling firearms than any other industry in the Nation. If the problem as they state is that people on the Fed's watch list of terrorism suspects are getting firearms, legally, then put them in the same class of people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms. End of story, since then when the dealer did a background check, a screen would come up telling him/her not to sell the individual a firearm.

That way, the terrorism suspect would know that he should go get a gun illegally instead.

Next, the article states: "Welcome to the new world of homeland security, where all the national resolve to be alert is clearly butting into the citizenry's near-almighty right to bear arms." In my opinion, given that the right to keep and bear arms is the Second Amendment to our Constitution, it is an "almighty right". Just like the First Amendment, and all the rest.

Then we have this statement: "...terror suspects' easy access to combat rifles..." [emphasis added]. To me, combat rifle conjures up images of fully automatic machine guns, as it probably does in most people's minds that aren't well versed in firearms. Well, machine guns have been illegal since the 1950's (or thereabouts). What they are getting are basically hunting rifles. This seems like a deliberate ploy to mislead the public. They also mention that the suspects were cleared to buy "assault rifles". Well, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle". The Clinton Gun Ban defined these rifles solely on what the rifle looked like - cosmetic features with no regard to what the rifle could do. Why? Because if they defined assault rifles based on performance, they would have to ban all rifles, including the rifles in my basement. The public isn't "ready" for that yet.

Finally, there is this statement slandering then Attorney General John Ashcroft: "...when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a gun rights zealot who was attorney general at the time..." [emphasis added]. "Gun rights zealot" conjures up a nut in my mind - why didn't they just say...when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a defender of our Second Amendment against anti-gun zealots, who was attorney general at the time...

No, that would be counterproductive to their real agenda.

Open Season on Feral Cats?

2005-03-09T14:13:00.000-08:00

I first saw this on Jiblog, and have heard about it every time I turn on the news or radio for the last two days. I figured a post would be in order given that I have re-thought my comment on Jiblog's post. But first, in an effort of full disclosure....I really like cats, and I'm a hunter.

To start with, let's get a few things straight. First, feral cats are not a part of the ecosystem as one woman on the news claimed last night. They belong in the woods just as much as a milk cow does. (Neither does if you're confused on that point.) Cats belong in the home, or on a leash in your yard.

Second, in the city of Rhinelander, there is an ordinance (#13.07, sub 5, sub B) that states cats must be on a leash if outside. If they aren't, then they have to be on the owner's property. I am sure other cities, townships and maybe counties have similar ordinances, but believe me; I don't have the time to check all that. Suffice it to say that cat owners should be responsible for their pets, ordinance or not.

Third, domestic cats in the wild kill for the sake of killing, not just when they need to eat. According to J.S. Coleman, et. al. in this article, a reasonable estimate of the number of birds killed each year in Wisconsin by cats, is 39 million. This doesn't include other small mammals such as voles, field mice, etc.

So, given the above, I would say feral cats should be considered a non-native invasive species when roaming free in the woods, or around the city for that matter (I have cats roaming the DNR protected wetland in my backyard, and I can guarantee they aren't checking to be sure the frogs have enough water).

If we accept the above paragraph, then hunters should be in favor of eliminating feral cats (they prey on game birds), environmentalists should be also (environmentalists are really big now on getting rid of non-native invasive species), as well as bird watchers and nature lovers in general.

That leaves us with the animal rights nuts. The best "solution" I've heard from them so far is to capture the wild cats, neuter them, and let them go again. Oh ya, there's a money-sucking non-solution if I have ever heard one.

Therefore, either trap'em and euthanize them, or shoot them where they sit. Sounds cruel, but hey, life in the wild is a whole lot more cruel than that (see my post on "Life and Death in the Winter Woods". I'd be willing to bet the bird the hawk got wished it had just been shot instead.

Southwest Part of US Reported Stolen

2005-03-08T18:16:00.000-08:00

I recently received a comment from anonymous on my first post where I laid out in brief some of my thoughts on current issues. One of these was that I am anti-illegal alien.

Anonymous, who appears to be Native American Indian, said that "This country was stolen from its original inhabitants."

Well, back then, the world was under a different set of rules. One of them was "go forth and conquer". Just as one Indian tribe would wage war on another to reclaim or increase their territory, the White Man came and conquered what is now the United States.

Anon. went on to say that "Now come the Mexicans, 8 or 9 million of them. They are not the blancos, but rather Indiana and mixed bloods, the poor campesinos. They are "taking over" in their numbers, and threaten the whiteness of the USA. Good for them. Perhaps one day TX, NM, CA, AZ etc will go back to Mexico, making up for their theft 150 yrs ago."

Unfortunately for Anon., National borders are now clearly defined, and the rules for coming and going are explicit and generally well known. Because the people coming into the United States are breaking those rules, the United States has the right to throw them out and well should.

I am neither condoning nor condemning what went on 150 years ago. That's just the way it was.

In closing, I hope that we will always welcome those who wish to come here legally. That's one of the things that make us such a great Nation.

Social Security Personal Accounts

2005-03-07T15:40:00.000-08:00

Ann Althouse complained here, and here, about the non-answers she found as to how personal accounts help deal with the Social Security solvency problem (After analyzing Senator McConnell's response, she determined they don't). Well, in my opinion, I also believe they don't - at least not in an immediate way.

Social Security is all about making people's retirement more secure. Simply put, it is trying to make sure old people have money to spend in retirement; if not for ocean cruises, then at least for covering the bills and having something left over for a movie or two. It is currently doing this through redistribution of wealth: take from the rich and give to the poor. Personal accounts are better than the current Social Security program to insure that (a good retirement) happens. By gradually starting a program such as personal accounts, over time it could work out that the Social Security program isn't even needed for the vast majority of the population.

Just think. If a worker is investing in privately owned retirement accounts his whole life (instead of SS), then suddenly dies at the "young" age of 60, all that accrued capital will be handed down to his spouse and or children, making them immediately more secure in their future retirement (assuming the funds stay in a retirement account). If the same individual dies at 80, his own retirement will be better taken care of (than with SS). Financially, he will also have to rely less on his children, helping them get ahead for their retirement. Anything left over in his account again goes to survivors.

I don't know. Maybe someone can poke a hole in this quickly thought out logic, but it seems to me that the poorest of the poor can benefit from something like this.

Maybe Ann Althouse should think more about how we can wean ourselves off of Social Security instead of a way to "...save or put more money into the program". Innovative ideas are needed: postponing retirement age, cutting benefits or increasing the SS tax are not solutions.

All we need are a few more good ideas to get us from where we are to where we really want to be: a secure retirement, for all Americans, for the long haul.

Update: Right after posting this I checked out Jib at Jiblog, and he has an excellent post on the subject, with an excellent comment by J. Rice, pretty much backing my comments above about money to pass on to heirs.

Campaign-Finance may extend to bloggers

2005-03-05T05:26:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Badger Blog Alliance and Instapundit for this heads-up on recent developments of the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform". Here is the article the BBA linked to on the subject.

Just as Feingold attacked the core of the First Amendment - political free speech - with his first round of campaign-Finance reform by making it illegal for membership organizations such as Gun Owners of America, the NRA, and Right to Life to put out paid political adds before an election, it is now looking to regulate what you and I can put in our blogs.

As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in his dissent to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding Campaign-Finance Reform, "It is an effort by Congress to ensure that civic discourse takes place only through the modes of its choosing." (emphasis added) (America's First Freedom. February 2004. pg 38). It appears that since blogs are now a force to be reckoned with, polititians must now regulate what we can say lest their stay in power be threatened.

Scary thought.

H.R. 47 - Citizen's Self-Defense Act of 2005

2005-03-04T12:00:00.000-08:00

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett from the 6th District of Maryland has introduced the above legislation to the House of Representatives.

This Bill would reaffirm an individuals right to obtain and use firearms to defend one's self, family and home against a person in the act of committing a felony. It also allows an individual to bring action against the United States if these rights are violated.

I received a copy of the Bill through Gun Owners of America, and after talking to Congressman Bartlett's office today, found out that it will be posted on his website by Monday.

As of today, there isn't a single Wisconsin Congressman that has co-sponsored this bill. In the Entire House, there are 32 Republican and 1 Democrat Co-sponsors.

Please call your representative and urge them to co-sponsor this bill. Let's put honest citizens on a level playing field with the common criminal!

Milwaukee Common Council wants more gun control

2005-03-02T18:20:00.000-08:00

If you live in Milwaukee, give this post a read over at Boots and Sabers - it seems that the Milwaukee Common Council thinks that if they have more control over the guns law abiding citizens can/can't have they'll reduce crime committed by the criminal class.

This type of reasoning never fails to amaze me. Anyway, my guess is they'll first disarm potential victims by banning handguns within the city limits. Once that is done, criminals will be able to work in a safe environment without the risk of getting shot on-the-job. That's the goal, right? A safer Milwaukee?

.50 cal Barrett - it's on my wish list!

2005-03-02T16:14:00.001-08:00

Hat tip to my Brother for this link to ABC's 60 minutes site on the .50 cal Barrett rifle. You can read it for yourself, but there are a few things I'd like to comment on here. ABC interviews the inventor of the .50 cal, Ronnie Barrett, and also Tom Diaz from the very anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC).

If you're not familiar with the .50 cal, it is a HUGE rifle - around 5 feet long and weighing in at about 33 lbs! Not something you can hide real easy. It is a powerful rifle however, and it is used in long range target shooting competitions of a mile or more. Go here to check them out and maybe get one for your wife next Christmas. It has never been used in a crime in the history of the United States however.

Mr. Diaz at one point in the interview states ""I just think that there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it." Well, the problem with this statement is that if you ask the VPC, every firearm manufactured is a "threat to our health and safety". They are going after the .50 cal because so few people own them there will be relatively little resistence to legislation that either creates a database (to be used in subsequent confiscation) of .50 cal rifles, or an outright ban on civilian ownership.

But wait - once these rifles are illegal, then what will be the next "most powerful rifle in civilian hands"? Maybe the .308 or the .44 magnum?

At another point in the article, ABC tries to make it sound like you can purchase the incendiary explosive rounds that are illegal, by putting in this creatively deceptive paragraph (I aded the emphasis): "In fact, 60 Minutes found a number of sites on the Internet that claimed to be selling the explosive Raufoss ammunition. On one site, it witnessed someone making an apparent transaction of the illegal round." Did they bother to really check this out? Apparently not. Leaving the reader with the impression that you can purchase these rounds is far better than actually finding out the truth, which may not be what they were after.

Diaz finds it incredible that the US Government doesn't know who has these rifles. And exactly why should they if no crimes have been committed with them? He says that at a minimum records need to be kept on who purchases them. But Mr. Barrett hits the nail on the head: "And a terrorist is not concerned if you pass, or Tom Diaz passes, another law."

As I said in an earlier post, any gun is a potential problem if you have the wrong person behind the trigger. Banning the .50 cal is a slippery slope to more and more gun bans. Write your reps in Washington and ask them to not support any legislation that would create a database of .50 cal owners or other limitations on its sale or purchase in the USA.

Remember - you may not own a .50 cal, but if they ban these, your rifle may be the next on the list.

Now, if I can only find the $8,000 to get one!

Time to kill? Check this out...

2005-03-02T16:14:00.000-08:00

Here's a fun, goofy site that my brother found. Just move your cursor over the bears...

US Supreme Court cites "International Opinion" in ruling....what???

2005-03-01T18:18:00.000-08:00

The United States Supreme Court today ruled it unconstitutional to execute juveniles. In writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion...". And exactly why does he need to acknowledge what other countries think?

Regardless of how you feel about the decision, it should be alarming to you that the Supreme Court is using international opinion as a basis, in part or in whole, to decide a case. How long will it be before we see the courts cite the United Nations? Will they cite a "strong, international will to eliminate small arms as exemplified by the UN small arms treaty" when they finally take a Second Amendment case, and thereby determine that the Second Amendment is null and void?

Add to this Judge Greer in Florida (Terri Shiavo's case), and it is a wonder that I have any faith left at all in our judicial system. I found this comment over at Stand in the Trenches today that really spells out where we are with these judges, and this link to sign a petition to impeach Judge Greer. Please sign the petition! It is a first step in "fixing" an apparently broken judicial system.

San Francisco's Hand Gun Ban: Why Worry in Wisconsin?

2005-02-27T12:03:00.000-08:00

Once again, the ~~Left~~ West Coast is at it trying to deprive its citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights under the Second Amendment.

This time it is the San Francisco board of supervisors who last December submitted to the Department of Elections a proposed law that would ban the possession of handguns, and the sale, manufacture and transfer of all firearms and ammunition in the city and county of San Francisco.

Why should we here in Wisconsin worry about what they do in California? Well, I think there are two good reasons.

First, anti-gun zealots start where resistance is least. Just as California banned .50 caliber rifles (very few people own these) as a stepping stone to banning other calibers (wait and see; time will prove me right on this one), they will ban handguns in San Francisco as a stepping stone to other cities. They need these precedents as arguments for their case where resistance is greater. Given the liberal, law-making attitude of so many courts these days, you can see why this is so important to them. It is something for these judges to grab onto and use in their arguments.

Second, take a look at our Governor Doyle. In 2002 Doyle, then Attorney General, submitted legislation (Senate Bill 363) through Senator Jim Baumgart that would have made every gun in the state (except single shots) illegal as well as basically all ammunition. Go here for a synopsis and some excerpts of the legislation. It makes you wonder if Gov. Doyle isn't watching closely the results of San Francisco's proposal with designs on similar legislation for Wisconsin.

The point is this: each time there is an assault on our Second Amendment it serves as a launching pad for more anti-gun legislation somewhere else.

The point to really drive home however is that even if you don't like, own or use guns, the fact that the left is trying to legislate away our Second Amendment should be a very serious concern to you. Which part of the Constitution are they going to attack next???

Finally, go here to read an article about what life is like in England these days after the passage of all their gun-banning legislation. (Search for "An Englishman's Home is his Dungeon", by Mark Steyn. You may have to register to view the article.) Do San Franciscans really think they'll be safer with this type of legislation? I wonder...

National Geographic to air "In the Womb"

2005-02-27T09:51:00.000-08:00

On March 6 at 8 pm Eastern time National Geographic will air a show entitled In the Womb on the National Geographic channel. Go here to (maybe) find out more, but be forewarned: I searched and could find no information on the special except that it is scheduled to air.

Call me naive, but to me this can be nothing but a convincing argument against abortion. I don't have cable, so if anyone watches this show, please come back and comment on the context of the show. Thanks.

Wisconsin is So Great!

2005-02-26T06:26:00.000-08:00

Wisconsin is great! This morning I was having my coffee, looking out over our snow-covered/-2 degree F backyard starting to plan our garden! My wife, who is from Paraguay, I am sure thinks I'm nuts (the fact that I really like winter and never notice that the sun hasn't shone for the last 2 weeks doesn't help!). As far as she is concerned, summer never quite makes it up to Rhinelander!

In any case, no matter what season you are in, there is always great stuff to do, and at the same time great stuff to look forward to in the next season (except spring - see below). Here's what I mean. In summer you can go camping, garden ,open water fish, barbecue, and all that good summer stuff. At about the middle of summer you can start thinking about walks through the colorful fall woods in search of elusive ruffed grouse, rabbits and squirrles!

And just as fall sets in and hunting is in full swing, the air starts getting cooler, and then ice fishing settles on the brain. To be truthful however, late fall/early winter is a very difficult time once the lakes freeze over - serious decisions must be made. Should I go ice fishing today, or give Ruffed Grouse another shot (no pun intended)?

Then comes winter; hunting is basically over except for snowshoe hares, and ice fishing is in full swing. That season also passes too fast. As I write this, there are only two weekends left before tip-up fishing for walleye and northern pike (my favorites) is over. And that is when you start thinking of the garden, paging through the Jung catalog, picking out plants to order for this summer (we are going to order some asparagus plants this year). Once summer hits, the cyle starts again, and another year flys by.

[I skip spring because there really is nothing to look forward to, and nothing much to do either - no hunting, no fishing, and no gardening because the soil is still too wet. Give me another 2 weeks of winter and 1 of summer!]

Anyway, Cheers! to Wisconsin - it's a great place to live!

A Sad Day for Terri

2005-02-25T16:55:00.000-08:00

I heard on the news today that Judge Greer (Hat Tip to Mary Eileen for the Judge's name!) has issued a final order that will be the beginning of the end for Terri. Come March 18, Terri's family will no longer be able to feed her, and must basically let her starve to death, or, I would imagine, face criminal charges or contempt of court for not killing another human being.

Of course the MSM had to have their say in it in that "15 years since Terri became unconscious....". I'm sorry, but if you have taken the time to browse Terri's web site, you can see videos that clearly show she is anything but unconscious.

Say a prayer for Terri.

Law and Order's Hunting Massacre Show

2005-02-23T20:22:00.000-08:00

Hat tip to Badger Blog Alliance for the heads up on tonight's episode of law and Order. The show didn't focus much on the hunters that were killed, but on the guy who tried to be a hero in chasing down the person that did the shooting.

They did however get in their anti-gun agenda, and here is how that went:

First, at the beginning of the show (and you have to forgive me because I don't know the actor's names at all), a detective pulls a Remington bolt action rifle out of the trunk of a car, and comments on what a nice deer rifle it is, how he used to hunt with one, etc. Basically, they are setting themselves up as "pro hunting/pro-gun" in this scene. I wish I had caught the model of the Remington, but if anyone did, I'd like to know what it was. I'd bet a 6-pack it was a single shot model (no magazine capacity of any kind).

Later, a detective pulls a rifle out of a dumpster (supposedly the one used to kill the hunters). He looks at it, and with a disapproving tone to his voice says "Semi automatic. That's no hunting rifle." The gun is one of those that looks like a military gun, an assault rifle, but of course isn't. They are relying on the fact that if the gun looks military to most people, they will associate semi-automatic rifle with military rifle with "bad gun that should be outlawed".

Of course as we all know, whether the gun is a semi-auto, bolt action, lever action or any other type of action is irrelevant to what the gun is used for. Just like the Clinton Gun Ban (thankfully now deceased), they are basing their judgment on purely cosmetic features of the gun. If it looks bad, it must be bad. All you need to turn any rifle into an assault rifle (including the bolt action shown at the beginning of the show) is a bad person behind the trigger.

In the last piece of this anti-gun episode, a police officer under oath in court says, "…semi-automatics are inappropriate for hunting. That kind of gun maims deer more often that it kills them."

That is a blatant lie. Any gun will maim a deer if the shooter can't hit what he/she is aiming at. Semi automatics are as appropriate for deer hunting as the bolt action they came out with first on the show.

Unfortunately, this turned out to be a very well choreographed effort to instill bias against semi-automatic weapons in the general public. Just as unfortunate, there are far too many people out there that will actually believe this anti-gun propaganda (that semi-autos aren't appropriate for deer hunting and they maim more than they kill, and the unspoken implication that they should be banned).

Disgusting. Sometimes I wonder why I watch TV at all. Then I realize I have to in order to find out what kind of tricks the anti-gun left is up to.

Real ID Legislation

2005-02-23T04:02:00.000-08:00

Oops - I had a bad link in my post yesterday about the Real ID legislation passed by the House. Go here instead, do a search on "HR 418", and you should get two results. This is the one I read through:

2 . REAL ID Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.418.EH]

Sorry about that.

Life and Death in the Winter Woods

2005-02-22T19:00:00.000-08:00

I work in the woods a lot, and today was a beautiful day: cool (low 20's), light flurries on-and-off, sunshine poking through the clouds a bit, and a cool breeze out of the North.

I was standing in a fairly open part of the woods, not moving because I was checking my data recorder for the trees I had to measure next. Out of nowhere came a small brown (grey? It was moving!) bird, dodging like crazy with a hawk on its tail (no pun intended). Somewhat lagging behind the small freaked-out bird and the determined hawk in chase was another hawk, a bit higher up - it seemed to be enjoying the chase from a good vantage point. It was keeping up, but wasn't actively pursuing the smaller bird.

Well, about the place where I had been working 20 minutes earlier, I heard the birds crash into some light brush, and then couldn't see them. I wondered what the outcome of the chase had been - did the little guy get away, or is it lunch time for the hawk?

Then I saw a few feathers blowing across the snow in the area where the birds zoomed by me. Close call I thought; they almost got him right here before I saw them coming. It didn't look good, or sound good though, over there.

When I returned to the area where I heard them crash into the brush, my suspicion was confirmed: feathers everywhere. That little guy was quick, but not quick enough for a determined hawk.

Life in the wild: hard, vicious and winner-takes-all.

The moral of the story? We're animals, but we live in a different world than these birds do. Take care of them, take care of where they live, but don't get carried away and elevate them to the human level. People are animals, but animals are definitely not people.

The other moral? Hang out in the woods: the best office you can find!

Terri Shiavo

2005-02-22T16:38:00.000-08:00

Please go here to read the latest about Terri Shiavo and her husband's attempts to kill her by starvation and dehydration.

It is wrong what her husband is doing, and as Mary Eileen said in her last paragraph, this is "...about a the murder of a woman by court order; it's about the right to life for disabled people; it's about all of us, eventually."

Real ID

2005-02-22T15:56:00.000-08:00

There have been a number of posts about this legislation that recently passed the House, and a very good one was put on Badger Blog Alliance by Stand in the Trenches. One of the links in there goes to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and his speech before the House against it.

I finally found the entire bill as passed in the House, and actually did read through it. One of the answers that Stand in the Trenches couldn't answer was what kind of information is really going on this card? Well, here is what I found in the bill: "(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements." (Sec. 202(b)(9)). What I couldn't find were what these "minimum data elements" are.

Call me paranoid, but here is my problem: the Secretary of Homeland Security has an incredible amount of power written into this bill. You could call him the "Real ID Dictator" - all he has to do is "consult" with the States or the Secretary of Transportation on numerous issues, then makes the call he wants.

What happens if we get an anti-gun administration (aka Clinton/Gore/Reno) again? Will the Secretary of Homeland Security deem it necessary to have all firearms ownership included as well?

That's scary - I think Rep. Ron Paul is right: "This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens". It establishes this by basically coercing the States (through withholding funds if not in compliance) to link their databases.

Do we really need this? I don't think so!

I couldn't find in the bill where it allows for sharing of the database with Canada and Mexico, but it may be in there is legal-eze.

I'm still against this bill - I can only hope it doesn't pass in the Senate. I think we can find a better way to secure our borders that does not infringe on my freedoms!

More on my Views

2005-02-21T16:57:00.000-08:00

Well Shaun, you have the dubious distinction of being the first person to post on my blog. Congratulations! (I think?).

Let's start with my being Pro-Life. I guess I don't buy into the argument that it is a woman's choice to kill her unborn infant, under the misconception that it is "her body, her choice". Is it really her body? I don't think so, given that the unborn has its own head, arms, legs, you get the idea. Sure you may say, but that is only after "X" number of weeks (I don't know what the exact number is, but it really doesn't matter - read on), before that it is only a bunch of cells.

Well, a bunch of cells, yes, but human cells nonetheless. The reason the mystery "X" number from above doesn't really matter is, because from conception on, it is a human being and fully deserving to live. It is virtually impossible to draw a line and say "from this point on it is a human being and has a right to live, and before that it isn't and doesn't", because it just is a human. It's not like you have a turtle before and a human after. You get the idea.

As far as my believing the Second Amendment is the most important, think about this: if they (politicians/Government) take away our right to firearm ownership, what recourse do we have if they then try to take away our Freedom of Speech? The answer is none. It would be much harder for them to take the First knowing that if they push us too far we could create a real heck of a mess.

As Rush Limbaugh once said (and this is paraphrased) "the Second Amendment is there in case the Government decides to ignore the First". That's it in a nutshell on the Second Amendment and what I believe. I'd be more than happy to discuss this further with anyone willing to take the time. (Kind of running out of time right now - I'm at the library with the Wife and Daughter and we're leaving soon.)

Lastly, you were right that I am a conservative, but even I have trouble deciding what kind I am. I generally vote Republican, but don't always agree with what the Republican party does. You can watch my comments and posts and let me know when you get a better idea. It would be interesting to see what you come up with!

Under Construction....

2005-02-21T15:07:00.000-08:00

If you happened upon this blog by chance, bear with me - I'm just getting it started. Nonetheless, this should suffice for background for now: I'm Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, and Anti-Illegal Alien, among other things.

Feel free to post a comment, especially if you don't agree with my views. We can all benefit from well reasoned, rational debate.