Does thinking you're the last sane person on the face of the earth make you crazy? I fortunately know that I am not alone in my sentiment, but I couldn't help but wonder as I watched a group of sheeple (supposedly plucked from among the brightest segment of society) debating what would be the appropriate courses of action to prevent more massacres, school shootings, and violence upon helpless, hapless victims. Their solutions, framed by the pacifist/nonviolent psychobabble that has eroded our society's rational judgment since who-knows-when, were the usual platitudes: locking down campus, installing metal detectors, hiring more guards, etc. Not one of them had the presence of mind (or, rather, had the gall) to suggest the only real solution to the problem—allow the people their Constitutional rights to bear arms and to protect life, liberty and property. No doubt the person who had had the audacity to suggest such a thing would have been booed off the stage by politically correct sheeple or censored and intimidated by the stooges of the thought police.

What enrages me is not so much the madness of the killer as the ones that quite deliberately disabled the victims by using (abusing) their power to exercise authority over them and effectively negate the rights of others to protect their lives.

The latest tragedy to occur in a lecture hall of a university has served at least one small personal benefit to me. I realized that I need to make a point not to sit next to the door. That is not so I'll have a better chance of getting away, but so that I have time to draw my own gun and am not the first one to go down—because you know none of the other idiots will have a gun. Yeah, that's right. I pack heat! My self-preservation is between me and God, all others be damned. I challenge every other red-blooded American that considers himself or herself to be a true conservative to take seriously the message that the “gun-nuts” proclaim incessantly—choose to not be a victim.

I still can't get over the situation of Sean Taylor—a man reduced to defending his life with a machete against gunman because the government revoked his Second Amendment rights. If ever there was a unanimous public outcry against a miscarriage of justice, would this not merit it? Instead we see the sheeple's attention diverted from the real news story and seduced by rumors and innuendos about his background and character. I lament the probability that the few that have followed the story still think that he in some degree deserved what he got.

What could one person do to counteract the evil of unconstitutional gun control? One person could do a lot if that person were in a position to grant clemency. If I were commander in chief, I wouldn't waste time pardoning people that were properly convicted. I would look for those that were wrongfully imprisoned for exercising their “inalienable rights.” The first and foremost right is to life. It is our duty as citizens—upholders of the Constitution—to hold our leaders to the standard of the Constitution or else hold them in contempt otherwise. If we do not, then our citizenship means nothing, as does our country.

There was a cliché I heard so many times in high school—”Majority rules, and minority rights.” That was meant to illustrate the balance between and republic and democracy, a justification of populism moderated by some rule of law. It really does a better job of describing the state of rule that exists today in our country—that of “mobocracy”—since the “minority” is still just another group (unless it is the individual staking his claim to natural God-given rights). Mobocracy is a result of collectivism and loosely reined democracy where various factions take turns in or coordinate efforts in robbing the cookie jar. The only thing that keeps a single group from gaining tyrannical power over the rest is the inability to secure a critical mass of power. That has been our one saving grace over the many decades, but it may not always be so.

Most of the Boortz disciples are familiar with this term. Michael Savage also points out this national malady. You should thank them for having educated you, if such is the case, because there is no greater threat to our country, neither from within nor without. Ayn Rand used the term many years ago as she pointed out that such rule of popular will, which is fickle at best, obliterates the type of principled leadership that brought about this great nation in the first place. Not only is there a lack of ideology guiding the country today, but there is a reigning anti-ideology which provides “. . . as a guiding creed the following tenets: that statistics should be substituted for the truth, vote-counting for principles, numbers for rights, and public polls for morality—that pragmatic, range-of-the moment expediency should be the criterion of an idea's truth or falsehood—that any desire of any nature whatsoever should be accepted as a valid claim provided it is held by a sufficient number of people—that a majority may do anything it pleases to a minority—in short, gang rule and mob rule . . . contained in—and camouflaged by—the notion of 'Government by consensus.'”

It seems to me that the dominant news and entertainment media are the leading propagators of this anti-ideology, and the politicians and power groups are co-conspirators; but it could be the other way around. Most of the ones we should expect to look toward for leadership and guidance against the endless onslaught of popular oppression seem to have been worn down over the years by the sheer centripetal force of mindless sheeple reacting in aggregate to the decontructionist methods of the propagandists that influence everything we see and hear. We do not hear many voices of principle and and justice. Instead we get soothing lies for itching ears.

Where can we turn for the beacon in the storm? Go back and read the founding documents and the holy scriptures. Go to your places of worship. The stalwart works of truth and light that have endured centuries; our communities of like-minded people that hold principle above convenience, truth above compromise, and justice over expediency—in these we find refuge from the storm and recharge our energy for the ongoing battle.

Do you know who your Senators and Representative are? Do you know what they are up to and how they are voting? We need to be keenly aware of what's going on—you know how sneaky they can be. I know many of you are you unsettled by the way the presidential race is shaping up, but don't give up! Use the ongoing moments of reckoning as an awakening to what really counts.

The executive office is extremely important to the operation of this country, but have you stopped to think where a huge portion of the real problems originated and how it is going to be solved? The president signs the bills, but it's the legislative branch that has to do the real work. That is where we need to exert a lot of our influence.

Think about some of the amazing things that transpired within the year prior to the official start of the campaign cycle, which were effected through the actions of individuals like you and me imploring their elected representatives in Washington to vote a certain way on matters of great importance. From defending the integrity of our troops to defeating one of the most hideous pieces of legislation on immigration, we have shown that we can have a great impact on what goes on in Washington.

It is my intention to give public kudos to people that are doing good things, and as I see wayward politicians in my line of fire, I will put the spotlight on them as well.

My plug today is for something Paul Broun has adopted as his legislative litmus test. “I will apply the following four-way test for every piece of legislation that comes before the House for a vote: 1) Is it constitutional and a proper function of government? 2) Is it morally right? 3) Is it something we need? 4) Is it something we can afford?”

I won't encourage you to call up your Congressman and insist he use this same test (anyone can pay lip service); rather you yourself should use this test on your representatives' votes and call them up when they violate it. Can we make this the standard? Somebody must lead the way—if not us, then who?

There are foolish and traitorous people all around us. They tell us we can't have it our way all the time. They tell us we should compromise. They tell us to stop rocking the boat. To them I say, it was the refusal of compromise that won us our independence, that freed the slaves, that kept the light of freedom burning in this world and that toppled the greatest regime of oppression we have ever known.

This popular and insidious myth sadly affects many who labor as advocates of the truth. They think there is virtue in compromise. They believe that by bringing the enemy into their homes they can win him over, but in truth that is a moral decay that will inescapably erode their sense of what's right and wrong.

I am not talking about the compromise of trying to decide which restaurant to visit or what living room furniture to buy. I am talking about core principles—especially the ones outlined in our country's founding documents. I am talking about the principles of freedom that make up our immortal souls, for we were created with the ability and the purpose to discern good from evil and to choose the good.

Light and darkness cannot occupy the same space. When the light is ascended, the darkness flees: “the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” Likewise evil lurks where truth or goodness is absent, and it cannot abide when they come about. When the waters are muddied and the truth obfuscated, evil is who triumphs; and when you leave the lies of your enemy unanswered, you are abandoning your cause to be extinguished.

Three eternal principles governing the act of compromise were taught by Ayn Rand in an article included in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. In a conflict between two groups with similar principles, it is the more consistent one that wins. In a collaboration between two groups holding different principles, the more irrational one wins. When opposing principles are not clearly defined, the more irrational one wins.

Here is how the scam of compromise works:

The liar says to the fool: “If you don't cooperate, everyone will think you're not a team player.”

Fool: “Oh, no! I'm a team player, I'm a team player!”

Liar: “Okay, prove it.”

Fool: “Fine. I'll compromise. I'm on the team now, right?”

Liar (under his breath): “Yeah—the losing team!”

It's hard enough to be constantly on the defensive and on the offensive. It's so much worse when we have to also battle the fools amongst our own ranks. If our principles are to win out, we must be consistent and persistent. If lies are to be uncovered, it will only be through our tireless efforts to expose them.

Now on the question for whom to vote: you must choose based on the principles of what is right and which issues have the top priority. The perfect candidate does not exist. Do you vote for the liar just to teach the fool a lesson? That could be a fatal mistake. Vote for the fool—at least you know you can browbeat him into doing what's right.

There are three immutable laws that are commonly referenced in the study of logic:

The principle of identity: any statement that is true, is true.

The principle of non-contradiction: a statement cannot be both true and false.

The principle of excluded middle: a statement must be either true or false.

Now at a glance, those look pretty cut and dry—even to a certifiable moron—and yet so many people are fooled on a regular basis by statements that violate those laws. What can be learned from looking at two statements that are clear contradictions and yet still both true? The answer is simply that the statements are generalities or they have not been sufficiently explained. Their terms require more “precising” definitions.

As if you didn't already know from history, or if you couldn't tell by the goings-on in this year's campaigns, obfuscation is the preferred tactic in swaying voters. Some call it lies, some call it misrepresentation; but the trick is that the obfuscater leaves a back door open by purposely being just vague enough to be technically correct but just specific enough to convey the wrong message. You yourself know the practice well because you have done it when you have had to deliver bad news. You say something that literally means one thing, but the context in which it is used conveys a wholly different meaning—a white lie.

Now some ideologies (such as Marxism) claim through the practice of their philosophies that half-truths are just as good as whole truths since, without them, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. George Orwell famously illustrated this principle from the immortal line from his book 1984: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." I'll leave you to research this one.

You have heard the contradictory accusations fly across the debate floors and the various media ads: “So-and-so raised taxes;” “He's lying. I lowered taxes.” Then you see different pundits (whom you may have thought would give you a straight answer) arguing on opposite sides while you, the viewer, are left just as bewildered as ever. Now most people would just go with a gut feeling and trust whichever one appeals more to their innate senses, but if you are truly wise you will understand that THIS IS YOUR MOMENT TO MAKE THE CLEAREST JUDGMENT ABOUT SOMEONE'S CREDIBILITY!

What was the principle I explained? They can't both be true, and yet neither is an untruth (technically). So there is a further explanation, and more precising terms are needed to reach a conclusion. The truth is in the terminology.

Obfuscation:

Statement 1: Candidate “A” raised taxes.

Statement 2: Candidate “A” lowered taxes.

Truth:

Candidate “A” raised the tax revenue. The total amount of taxes brought in (tax revenue) went up.

Candidate “A” lowered the tax rate. You paid a smaller percentage of what you earned.

Now you know which one is purposely misleading you in this hypothetical example. The second set of statements are perfectly clear and non-contradictory. In case some of you think that that is a mathematical impossibility (to lower taxes and get higher revenue) I encourage you to take a few economics courses. This law of economics is extremely important to understand: in certain cases, lowering taxes raises revenue—both short term and long term. Know these principles for yourself, and don't trust any politician to automatically do what is best for you.

You have heard so many variations and misapplications, but here is the actual quote:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

All men are created equal—what does that mean? We know that from the womb, physically (genetically) there are significant inequalities (not just dissimilarities or disparities) among practically all men (read: mankind). Even though the grammatical interpretation of these words renders an untruth, we know our eminently wise founding fathers spoke a simple yet profound truth. What is that truth?

If you were to ask a socialist-statist, he would tell you that it means that it is empirically unfair that the proletarian earns a paupers wage while the bourgeoisie live a life of luxury. If you were to ask one of the so-called “race pimps,” he would tell you that it means that as long as the average black man earns less than the average white man, we need to force employers to hire and promote one race of people over another. A democrat politician would tell you that the minimum wage ought to be raised to the median income or some nonsense. I could go on, but you get the picture.

All of these answers miss the point. They don't understand that this country was not founded on the premise that all things are meant to be even-steven. It was founded first and foremost on freedom: life liberty and property. Although the pursuit of happiness is an unalienable right, the reception of such is by no means a guarantee. THERE IS NO LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, except in regards to the just application of the law to all people; and that is the true meaning of the phrase “all men are created equal”: The law is no respecter of persons.

I'm no Constitutional lawyer—I just call them like I see them. I do think that the document is simple enough for a middle schooler to understand and interpret. I also think that where we have gone wrong is that government actions are rarely held up to the light of the Constitution, with politicians willing to get away with what they can and let the courts strike down what they may—similar to the mob reasoning “They can't catch us all.”

Another problem that's even worse than the first is that the citizenry, who should be the ones to keep the government honest, have largely fallen into Constitutional illiteracy since many decades. Had the people been on the ball under FDR's tenure, there may never have been (among many other things) something called “The Great Depression,” as it is known.

So as you consider whom to put into office, go back and read the Constitution; and then keep in mind what a politician has done to either thwart it or to support it—keeping in mind also the emptiness of campaign promises.

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

It says nothing about schools, municipalities, workplaces, hospitals, states, etc. This is quite definitely a restriction on Congress and none else.

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It makes me shake my head in amazement at the ignorance of political pundits that scream, "You don't believe in free speech—you're trying to silence me." It is each private citizen's right to thwart the message of another so long as it does not violate local and state laws. Again this is a restriction of Congress and not of private citizens. Having the right to voice an opinion does not obligate anyone else to hear it.

Note that this prohibits abridging freedom of the press and says nothing of enforcing or guaranteeing it, that is to say its impartiality.

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is a restriction of Congress—state an local governments should have their own laws on the books governing common standards of decency and order. The bounds set upon Congress do not necessarily or automatically extend to every last governing body, or else the Constitution would say so; nor was it the intent. Otherwise we would have adopted the title "The Federated Provinces of America."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  - 2nd Ammendment

Besides the fact that it is still just as relevant today as it was then, there is no good or practical reason to disarm the citizenry. I do think that those that do arm themselves should have the proper training, and it is reasonable for governments to enforce proper use of firearms in public.

Note also that this has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  - 4th Ammendment

This does not preclude intelligence gathering or operations on people that constitute real and actual threats to this country and its citizenry, but with the explicit caveat that the cause is just and verified and the scope is adequately delineated.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger . . .”  - 5th Ammendment

There is cause to suspend certain liberties in war time. Notice how this particular instance applies to service members rather than civilians. So if it is not unreasonable to sequester members of our own defending force, is it any less reasonable to do as much to the attacking force? See also Article 1, Section 9: “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Again it applies to US persons only, and there are exceptions.

“No person shall be . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .”

The death penalty has provision in the Constitution.

“. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So-called eminent domain clearly may only be applied to “public use” purposes; and then it is unconstitutional to fail to grant “just compensation.” I think that means nothing less than fair market value.

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”  - 6th Ammendment

Trying enemy combatants—only a fool, a demagogue or a traitor would suggest that the Constitution requires it. First of all, this right applies to criminal prosecutions and not actions of war. Secondly the actions did not take place in any State or district within the United States. Of third note, it is absolutely ludicrous (if not downright insane) to show the enemy the very intelligence you are using against him.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” - 9th Ammendment

We have a right to healthcare. We have a right to a working wage. We have a right to be accepted for who we are. I may as well say I have a right to eat, to breath, to sing my favorite song; but I have no right to force another person to do or provide it for me.

The only rights you have are the rights you exercise yourself. The moment you permit the government to do for you what you should do for yourself, both you and the unduly burdened taxpayer become subjects (read: slaves) of the state. Excessive taxes are the moral equivalent of slavery. In old times masters and conquerors required hefty tributes and taxes from subjects under pain of violence or extinction. This was and is a form of slavery.

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . .”

Article 4, Section 4

Most people naively think that liberty=democracy. It does not. Democracy has its place. I believe in democratic markets, democratic press, democratic individuals and private organizations; but the government—let it be a REPUBLIC.

Thanks to Walter Williams for tipping us off to the NCPA. Read what they have to say about "global warming."

Global Warming Primer

Experts' Opinions

Global warming forecast violates accepted principles

In case some of us need to be reminded what is actually driving the current frenzy:

"These dire predictions are not the result of scientific forecasting . . . Rather, they are opinions derived from a political process."