By a large majority, the people of the USA voted last fall for smaller and leaner government, that has yet to materialize in any real form. The American people sent a message to Congress to reduce the out of control spending and taxing of the Federal government. Yet we have seen that the Congress continues to spend and the President called for more investments (spending) from the government in areas that should be private industrial development, if there is real money to be made the private sector will get busy on the development. So how in the world can we reduce the Federal spending and "get our house in order"? I think there are ways to do this and not gut social security and the department of defense and the department of justice.
First abolish the department of education on the federal level, return the power to the states where in belongs in the first place and let the states keep the money that was sent to the federal level. Part of your tax dollar is sent to Washington D.C. for the federal department of education, people with good educations in offices that have no idea about what happens in a classroom day and day out, spend days just moving that money around and then sending it back to the states, of course they divide it up so that the states with the more powerful Congress-persons, get the bigger share. Do away with the waste of time and energy and leave the money in the state where it is collected, allow the states and the local government to have the money and spent it the way they need to.
Secondly do away with the federal department of transportation and return the money and power over roads and transportation to the state level. The federal DOT follows the same pattern as the federal department of education and it is wasteful.
Thirdly return welfare and public assistance to the state and local level, allow the states to have the monies raised by their own taxes to provide public assistance as the individual state voters see fit. Include in this some law enforcement and one could reduce the size of the department of justice and homeland security while maintaining the effectiveness. Do the people the USA really need as many Federal law enforcement agencies as we have? It would seem to me that some of the agencies could be merged and managed more effectively.
Local governments are having to take drastic steps to maintain services such as fire and police protection, and to keep the local class rooms filled with quality teachers and assistances.The question is always raised can we get help from the Federal level? What would it be like if we kept our education and transportation and security tax money locally? Better I am willing to bet.
Notice that I did not mention cutting the Department of Defense or the Social Security. I think that there are many other areas that could be returned to the state and local level, this would reduce the national spending level and there by reducing our national debt level. The jobs lost at the federal level would to some extent be off set by new local government jobs.
Goggle USA.gov and see how heavy the federal government really is and this listing will only provide you some the departments, there are those things that for security reasons can not be listed. After looking at the list you will agree that the federal government is to big and people depend on it to much.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Freedom of Speech
I normally blog about your Second Amendment rights, today I need to let you know something important. Your First Amendment rights are under attack also. The latest round of "hate speech" legislation is coming before many state legislative bodies and even in Congress. It sounds like making people talk civil and nice to each other is a good idea, and I agree that we should be civil and courteous in action and speech to each other. There is a Biblical principle here, "treat others as you want to be treated" my paraphrase. I agree and support this principle and work hard to live that out, however that doesn't mean I can't disagree with someone and say so.
Under some of the "hate speech" legislation being introduced around the country simple disagreement with someone could be ruled as hate speech. By simply speaking in public and making a statement that a life style is wrong or that someone actions are offensive could be ruled as hate speech. Let me give you an example, as strange as it may sound there is a move afoot in the mental health community to have pedophilia declared and alternative life style. If that was accepted, then speaking out against pedophilia could be considered hate speech. I personally disagree with the gay/lesbian life style, if that community is successful, saying so could result in a criminal charge of hate speech against me. This could be broadly applied for many groups.
I do not wish to have my First Amendment right of free speech to be restricted. I would rather have people have their feeling hurt and hear the truth, than not speak the truth and see the results. What are the results of not speaking the truth? Good question, let us reason together and determine some of the answers.
If an individual is doing a wrong thing and that wrong thing will result in an eternity in the devil's hell, I want to be able to tell them the truth. If a person is doing activities that result in someone being hurt or abused, I want to be free to say something. If an individual is trying to remove our American rights I want to be able to say something. Freedom of speech and press are critical to our American way of life. One of founding fathers said the following: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
Thomas Jefferson
Under some of the "hate speech" legislation being introduced around the country simple disagreement with someone could be ruled as hate speech. By simply speaking in public and making a statement that a life style is wrong or that someone actions are offensive could be ruled as hate speech. Let me give you an example, as strange as it may sound there is a move afoot in the mental health community to have pedophilia declared and alternative life style. If that was accepted, then speaking out against pedophilia could be considered hate speech. I personally disagree with the gay/lesbian life style, if that community is successful, saying so could result in a criminal charge of hate speech against me. This could be broadly applied for many groups.
I do not wish to have my First Amendment right of free speech to be restricted. I would rather have people have their feeling hurt and hear the truth, than not speak the truth and see the results. What are the results of not speaking the truth? Good question, let us reason together and determine some of the answers.
If an individual is doing a wrong thing and that wrong thing will result in an eternity in the devil's hell, I want to be able to tell them the truth. If a person is doing activities that result in someone being hurt or abused, I want to be free to say something. If an individual is trying to remove our American rights I want to be able to say something. Freedom of speech and press are critical to our American way of life. One of founding fathers said the following: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
Thomas Jefferson
I have to agree with Jefferson.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Why Do Many Public Leaders Promote Gun Control?
Many politicians promote gun control and guns bans as a way to control crime and criminals. Mayor Bloomberg spends more time worrying about national gun control than administering the government of New York city. He and the others that work for gun control use all kinds of miss-information and will resort to out right lies to convince you that they are looking out for your best interest and that guns are the root cause of all evil. They ignore the facts, let us examine the truth of fact for a minute.
Fact 1) Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Fact 2) More people die from people driving and text messaging everyday than guns, source CDC
Fact 3) Where legal guns sales increase crime decreases, source "More Guns, Less Crime"..a statistical study of gun ownership/sales and crime rates.
Fact 4) Criminals do not care about gun laws. They do not buy guns at retailers or gun shows, they steal guns or buy the guns on the street from someone who stole it.
Fact 5) Criminals like it when they are the only ones who have guns. Criminals do not turn in guns at some type of turn it in promotion, only law abiding people do that.
The truth of the matter is a little deeper and more sinister than all those politicians will really tell you. They want you to believe that they have your best interest in the fore front of their plans and that you are safer if only the police and military have guns. The truth of the matter is that if only police and military have guns the politicians have total control of the masses. That is part of the plan, now I am not one of anti-government types, but the truth of it is that if the American people did not have the right to keep and bear arms the other rights of the American people would be empty promises and hollow words. The power brokers would like to see all Americans unarmed and the military and paramilitary then only people with firearms. You must remember that men and women in these services are trained to response to the orders of their superiors and not to consider the correctness of these orders. How do I know this, I was one.
One of the safest countries in the world has very liberal gun laws and most of the population owns guns and shoots on a regular basis. The people of this country enjoy a low crime rate and strong economy, and freedoms. The Swiss got it right.
What would you prefer a free society and private ownership of firearms with less crime, and individual rights or a more controlled society with no private ownership of firearms, no individual rights and higher crime rates? I will take the first option.
Fact 1) Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Fact 2) More people die from people driving and text messaging everyday than guns, source CDC
Fact 3) Where legal guns sales increase crime decreases, source "More Guns, Less Crime"..a statistical study of gun ownership/sales and crime rates.
Fact 4) Criminals do not care about gun laws. They do not buy guns at retailers or gun shows, they steal guns or buy the guns on the street from someone who stole it.
Fact 5) Criminals like it when they are the only ones who have guns. Criminals do not turn in guns at some type of turn it in promotion, only law abiding people do that.
The truth of the matter is a little deeper and more sinister than all those politicians will really tell you. They want you to believe that they have your best interest in the fore front of their plans and that you are safer if only the police and military have guns. The truth of the matter is that if only police and military have guns the politicians have total control of the masses. That is part of the plan, now I am not one of anti-government types, but the truth of it is that if the American people did not have the right to keep and bear arms the other rights of the American people would be empty promises and hollow words. The power brokers would like to see all Americans unarmed and the military and paramilitary then only people with firearms. You must remember that men and women in these services are trained to response to the orders of their superiors and not to consider the correctness of these orders. How do I know this, I was one.
One of the safest countries in the world has very liberal gun laws and most of the population owns guns and shoots on a regular basis. The people of this country enjoy a low crime rate and strong economy, and freedoms. The Swiss got it right.
What would you prefer a free society and private ownership of firearms with less crime, and individual rights or a more controlled society with no private ownership of firearms, no individual rights and higher crime rates? I will take the first option.
Friday, January 28, 2011
American Freedom
The Arab world is starting to come apart at the seams. Riots in Egypt and Yemen and other countries are starting to see unrest. One must remember that most of these places are ruled by kings, princes or presidents for life( that's code for dictator). These citizens must take to the streets to address their government because they have no way to have their grievances addressed by their government.
It should be noted that some of these governments call themselves democratic and free, however they rule for the good of a few and ignore the needs of the masses. The people have no freedoms to express themselves or to better themselves. At times one would think that the US government is run the same way, however the American people still have the right to work hard and improve their condition. We still have the right to address our government and demand changes, we have the right to run for elected office if we so desire, and we can vote. We have the right to speak out with out fear of government reprisal, to a point.We can still go or not go to what ever church we desire. These rights are not to be sniffed at and are of great value. These rights are promised and guaranteed and guarded by the Constitution, all of the these rights are only as good rights of Americans to defend them, through the exercise of these rights. The one right that is insured in the Constitution is the right to keep and bear arms, this right was inserted to insure that the other rights would not be taken away by the government.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787 he wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."
As to individual rights: He defines it by saying, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Jefferson and I would encourage you to protect you to protect your life and your freedoms.
It should be noted that some of these governments call themselves democratic and free, however they rule for the good of a few and ignore the needs of the masses. The people have no freedoms to express themselves or to better themselves. At times one would think that the US government is run the same way, however the American people still have the right to work hard and improve their condition. We still have the right to address our government and demand changes, we have the right to run for elected office if we so desire, and we can vote. We have the right to speak out with out fear of government reprisal, to a point.We can still go or not go to what ever church we desire. These rights are not to be sniffed at and are of great value. These rights are promised and guaranteed and guarded by the Constitution, all of the these rights are only as good rights of Americans to defend them, through the exercise of these rights. The one right that is insured in the Constitution is the right to keep and bear arms, this right was inserted to insure that the other rights would not be taken away by the government.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787 he wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."
As to individual rights: He defines it by saying, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Jefferson and I would encourage you to protect you to protect your life and your freedoms.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Gun Control or Criminal Control...which works best?
January 23 and 24 were tough days for US law enforcement, 11 officers shoot, some died at the scene and some are in the hospitals in their locals, any way one describes it, that is wrong on many levels. Having a background in law enforcement and a son in law enforcement and many friends in the field, this hits home hard. My prayers are for a speedy and full recovery of injured officers and God comfort on the families of those killed.
I heard Mayor Bloomberg, of NYC call for stronger gun control laws and he was joined by a number of well meaning, but miss informed people. I am not understanding why these folks are so uninformed, because they are smart and well educated. Criminals do not buy guns from legal gun stores or dealers. Criminals buy guns on the street corner, and don't care about permits or the law or back ground investigations. The only people who are effected by gun control laws are the law abiding citizens who are not going to use a gun for illegal purposes.
Let's look at a few cities and do a contrast. Camden NJ, is considered one of the most dangerous cities in the USA, and recently had to lay off over 100 police officers, in NJ it is very difficult to purchase or own a gun. In 2009, Camden had the highest crime rate in the U.S. with 2,333 violent crimes per 100,000 people while the national average was 455 per 100,000. Camden NJ had a population of 79,904 in 2000. New York and Chicago both have very high crime rates and yet it is almost impossible to own a handgun in either of these two cities. That however does not stop the gang members and criminals. Wilmington NC, is a city similar in size to Camden NJ yet the crime rate has fallen over the last 3 years, is there crime, yes, but less of it. Why is that? Good question, one reason I can point to is the right of the people in NC to protect themselves, by owning and carrying a firearm.
So what then is the answer? I don't have the complete answer, but my family has been victim of criminals and I would like to suggest that the laws be changed to control criminals. My cousin was beaten to death by two people he tried to help. Tommy for what ever reason was not armed, but then again he was a big strap of a man and normally everyone like Tommy, he alway had a quick comment and grin. I am sure the two criminals that killed my cousin had run afoul the law before, because they were bumming their way across the country. What would be today if these two had been held in jail somewhere for some crime committed. Then my question is, what would have happened if my cousin had been armed, having spend a few days shooting and hunting and fishing with him, I know he could defended himself with a firearm.
Criminals are tried and convicted of violent crime and then released on probation with little or no supervision. Criminals charge with rape, molestation and other horrible violent crimes are routinely released on low bonds and to meet their financial needs for court turn right back to crime.
Recently a young man moved to NJ, and to avoid legal problems with his two legally owned handguns, he did his research and complied with the NJ law. When he mentioned to someone that his guns were in the trunk and locked, the local law enforcement was called. The officers tried not to arrest the young man, however they were forced to by a ADA. The man was tried and found guilty of weapons charges and sentenced to seven years in prison. However the trial violated many of the mans civil rights and he has been pardoned by the governor of NJ. Yet a criminal in NJ may only receive a suspended sentence for a violent crime.
Gun control does not work....criminal control does, it is time the American justice system changes the focus.
I heard Mayor Bloomberg, of NYC call for stronger gun control laws and he was joined by a number of well meaning, but miss informed people. I am not understanding why these folks are so uninformed, because they are smart and well educated. Criminals do not buy guns from legal gun stores or dealers. Criminals buy guns on the street corner, and don't care about permits or the law or back ground investigations. The only people who are effected by gun control laws are the law abiding citizens who are not going to use a gun for illegal purposes.
Let's look at a few cities and do a contrast. Camden NJ, is considered one of the most dangerous cities in the USA, and recently had to lay off over 100 police officers, in NJ it is very difficult to purchase or own a gun. In 2009, Camden had the highest crime rate in the U.S. with 2,333 violent crimes per 100,000 people while the national average was 455 per 100,000. Camden NJ had a population of 79,904 in 2000. New York and Chicago both have very high crime rates and yet it is almost impossible to own a handgun in either of these two cities. That however does not stop the gang members and criminals. Wilmington NC, is a city similar in size to Camden NJ yet the crime rate has fallen over the last 3 years, is there crime, yes, but less of it. Why is that? Good question, one reason I can point to is the right of the people in NC to protect themselves, by owning and carrying a firearm.
So what then is the answer? I don't have the complete answer, but my family has been victim of criminals and I would like to suggest that the laws be changed to control criminals. My cousin was beaten to death by two people he tried to help. Tommy for what ever reason was not armed, but then again he was a big strap of a man and normally everyone like Tommy, he alway had a quick comment and grin. I am sure the two criminals that killed my cousin had run afoul the law before, because they were bumming their way across the country. What would be today if these two had been held in jail somewhere for some crime committed. Then my question is, what would have happened if my cousin had been armed, having spend a few days shooting and hunting and fishing with him, I know he could defended himself with a firearm.
Criminals are tried and convicted of violent crime and then released on probation with little or no supervision. Criminals charge with rape, molestation and other horrible violent crimes are routinely released on low bonds and to meet their financial needs for court turn right back to crime.
Recently a young man moved to NJ, and to avoid legal problems with his two legally owned handguns, he did his research and complied with the NJ law. When he mentioned to someone that his guns were in the trunk and locked, the local law enforcement was called. The officers tried not to arrest the young man, however they were forced to by a ADA. The man was tried and found guilty of weapons charges and sentenced to seven years in prison. However the trial violated many of the mans civil rights and he has been pardoned by the governor of NJ. Yet a criminal in NJ may only receive a suspended sentence for a violent crime.
Gun control does not work....criminal control does, it is time the American justice system changes the focus.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Religion Scam or Truth?
The atheist community have posted a bill board that has symbols from the five major world religions on it and the words that say " You know it is a SCAM". They may want to be careful, the Christians will throw words and talk at them and maybe pray for them, the Buddhist and Hindus will probably ignore them, but the Islamic faithful may declare jihad against them.
I really can't disagree with the statement, because over all it is a true statement. Many in the organized religions have convoluted these religions so much that it is a scam. The truth of the matter is that true religion turns into to action to serve those in need. The Christian faith(notice I said faith) demands us to serve others. Matter of fact James wrote in his letter "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27 NKJV)", one translations says to 'look after" and another says "take care of". With this in mind, religion as it is practiced today very well may be a scam.
The challenge is to put your religion into action and there by convert it to a loving and living faith. Faith in God, through Jesus and the empowerment by the Holy Spirit is no scam. This I know because I have proven it many times in my own life. When we give to others, time, talent, funds, love, kindness, and mercy it is returned to us. Paul wrote in a letter," A man reaps what he sows." Jesus washed His disciples feet, that was the lowest form of service in the household of that time and was reserved for the lowest of servants or slaves. What should we be doing? Jesus also made the statement, that His followers should help those in need and visit those in prison, and the sick. What a follower Jesus does for the lowest of these, the follower does for Jesus.Check out the story in Matthew 25:34-39.
Religion may be a scam, but true Faith and Christian service and faith in Jesus is no scam.
I really can't disagree with the statement, because over all it is a true statement. Many in the organized religions have convoluted these religions so much that it is a scam. The truth of the matter is that true religion turns into to action to serve those in need. The Christian faith(notice I said faith) demands us to serve others. Matter of fact James wrote in his letter "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27 NKJV)", one translations says to 'look after" and another says "take care of". With this in mind, religion as it is practiced today very well may be a scam.
The challenge is to put your religion into action and there by convert it to a loving and living faith. Faith in God, through Jesus and the empowerment by the Holy Spirit is no scam. This I know because I have proven it many times in my own life. When we give to others, time, talent, funds, love, kindness, and mercy it is returned to us. Paul wrote in a letter," A man reaps what he sows." Jesus washed His disciples feet, that was the lowest form of service in the household of that time and was reserved for the lowest of servants or slaves. What should we be doing? Jesus also made the statement, that His followers should help those in need and visit those in prison, and the sick. What a follower Jesus does for the lowest of these, the follower does for Jesus.Check out the story in Matthew 25:34-39.
Religion may be a scam, but true Faith and Christian service and faith in Jesus is no scam.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
New Year or What's Next?
I think that the current President has gotten a bad rap of sorts. Now let me say this up front, I am not a supporter of President Obama, nor do I care much for the opponents that ran against him. The President can only accomplish what the Congress will agree to or allow. A new Congress is to be sworn in and get too work very soon and that is a good thing.With that is mind I would like to give you a few things to think about.
1) Most people in Congress think that the average income citizen makes over 100K per year, I don't, how about you?
2) Most people in Congress think that the average citizen is not smart enough to "get out of the rain" or make an informed decision about their life or anything else for that matter.
3) Most people in Congress like to send money and do so with ease, of course it is not their money, it is your money that they are spending. I like to spend other peoples' money too, do you have any extra to give away, I can help you.
4) Most people in Congress are convinced that the average American can not decide or know what their civil rights are or should be, and most certainly you and I can not be responsible for our self defense or personal protection.
5) If the American people continue to act the way they have for the past 20 years the folks in Congress may be correct.
I don't know about you, but I live on half of 100K, when it is raining I go inside, and I am smart enough to know when I can afford to spend money and on what I should purchase. I do not need Congress or the President telling me what I have to buy or how I should spend my income. It is my money and I need it now, to live on. I want people to have the right to say "NO" if they wish and speak their mind. I have friends that disagree with me on political things and they like to do so vocally, that is fine. I will defend their right to disagree with me, to the point of taking up arms to defend them, if need be. I have friends that disagree with me about matters of faith and I will defend their right to do so. People should have the the right decide what they want to do, as long as it is within the bounds of the law. Congress need not pass any more restrictive laws about speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, or freedom to keep and bear arms, we have all we need in the form of the First Ten Amendments.
New Year, what to you want to tell your elected officials? Are they doing the will of the people or the will of the party? Stay in contact with these people you elected, send them letters, and emails, and phone calls, make your voice heard.
1) Most people in Congress think that the average income citizen makes over 100K per year, I don't, how about you?
2) Most people in Congress think that the average citizen is not smart enough to "get out of the rain" or make an informed decision about their life or anything else for that matter.
3) Most people in Congress like to send money and do so with ease, of course it is not their money, it is your money that they are spending. I like to spend other peoples' money too, do you have any extra to give away, I can help you.
4) Most people in Congress are convinced that the average American can not decide or know what their civil rights are or should be, and most certainly you and I can not be responsible for our self defense or personal protection.
5) If the American people continue to act the way they have for the past 20 years the folks in Congress may be correct.
I don't know about you, but I live on half of 100K, when it is raining I go inside, and I am smart enough to know when I can afford to spend money and on what I should purchase. I do not need Congress or the President telling me what I have to buy or how I should spend my income. It is my money and I need it now, to live on. I want people to have the right to say "NO" if they wish and speak their mind. I have friends that disagree with me on political things and they like to do so vocally, that is fine. I will defend their right to disagree with me, to the point of taking up arms to defend them, if need be. I have friends that disagree with me about matters of faith and I will defend their right to do so. People should have the the right decide what they want to do, as long as it is within the bounds of the law. Congress need not pass any more restrictive laws about speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, or freedom to keep and bear arms, we have all we need in the form of the First Ten Amendments.
New Year, what to you want to tell your elected officials? Are they doing the will of the people or the will of the party? Stay in contact with these people you elected, send them letters, and emails, and phone calls, make your voice heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)