A Government Of The People, For The People, And By The People

Here's a letter I sent to my distinguished U.S. Senator from California:

Feel free to copy it and send it along to the other 99 tools in Washington....

Sen. Diane Feinstein October 2, 2008
331 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510


Senator Feinstein, how DARE you!

You’ve just been quoted as having said the following:

“I’ve received calls and e-mails from 91,000 Californians, and 85,000 of them were opposed to this measure. There’s a lot of confusion out there, people aren’t understanding this…”

The only people who take the time to actually call and e-mail you are the ones who do understand, confusion notwithstanding. I guarantee you that the people who truly don’t understand these economic events and circumstances, despite being the same people who have entrusted you with their representation, are in fact the ones who will not take the time, or have the impetus to contact you. And you, I am sure, are quite aware of this. They may feel powerless or lazy or both; nevertheless, it is your DUTY to represent them with clear and reasoned statesmanship. And for those that do take the initiative to contact you, you have an even greater duty to heed their wishes!

85,000 opposed, eh? And you still voted "yes".

So I ask again, HOW DARE YOU?!?

Your lack of leadership is the reason why you’ve only received 91,000 phone calls and e-mails, instead of 91 MILLION. But please do not waste any more time dithering words and insulting that first tenth of 1%. For if you do, then you are going to see a lot of people making it their personal mission in life to RUIN your career. From San Diego to Crescent City, and from Hollywood all the way up the northern Bible belt to Redding, you will be hearing a clamor such as has never been heard before in the Great State of California. Is that understood? Or is that too vague and confusing for a Senator?

Now if you are not happy about being unable to garner the co-operation from the Representatives of California in that lower little house of Congress, and thereby secure as much unnecessary pork as possible for all the lobbyists who you mistakenly believe assisted in getting you elected, then why don’t you just stop, and instead offer some leadership that will inspire confidence, not apathy, in our Republic? If you truly believe that 93.5% of constituents who contact you are “confused”, then why don’t you let us know that this tax-payer bailout, er,.. “rescue plan” will do the following things that are necessary and needed, and not institute statist initiatives that will forever tarnish the Constitution, and drain what’s left of our nation’s wealth?

Note the following DEMANDS.

DEMANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1. Rescind the Community Reinvestment Act - this is a huge contributing factor to the FMAC and FNMA meltdown, brought on by pressure from all sides to increase the number of affordable (adjustable) home loans, while at the same time endeavoring to prop up the non-sustainable demand for the increased supply of the home construction industry.

2. Draft responsible trade legislation so that concrete and construction jobs are not the only available labor industry for thousands of people in any given region. And “green” jobs will not fill the void, either, so stop selling the fantasy.

3. Require that sound accounting principles for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae be instituted immediately. Ginny Mae, too. Or is Ginny something we should even be worried about? Please let us know.

4. Require that sound regulation/auditing processes be instituted immediately for Freddie and Fannie.

5. Institute a contemporary of the Glass-Steagall Act, so that Wall Street and Main Street are not keeping all their eggs in the same basket, and letting their eggs multiply like rabbits meant for dinner…

6. Allow ZERO campaign contributions to ANY political party from quasi-governmental entities, in order to avoid a conflict of interest. Prosecute such past dalliances.

7. Any and all possible net gains, or interest accrued from any government purchase of mortgage backed securities shall be used to retire debt. It SHALL NOT be used for funding NEW entitlement programs.

8. No earmarks in any “rescue” bill. Nothing for ACORN, LaRaza, or any other "nonprofit organizaiton." This also is not the time nor place for Energy legislation that would have been well debated if not for Nancy Pelosi turning off the cameras and turning out the lights. And no surprise tax cuts for Indian reservations, either. They have casinos, now.

9. The Secretary of the Treasury is not to be given unconstitutional powers, as this position is a political appointee who is not elected and accountable to the U.S. taxpayer beyond the current Administration. Period. End of story. (Thank you for not budging on this one, btw)

10. Exhibit leadership by demanding from the American People (yourselves included), more than just tax dollars. Demand that we work not just from the top down to solve this crisis, but also from the bottom up, so that we may meet in the middle. Let us know how we can save our money and accrue less debt, while still supporting business, and growth. Tell us what we can do, not what you keep failing to do.

If there is more understanding necessary from the citizens of the United States, then it is up to you to better inform the media, your colleagues, and yourself of the great and tumultuous issues facing our economy and our way of life. Admittedly, there are many who will not care to hear or be required to endure these hard truths. But it is nevertheless your DUTY to heed and respect the wishes of those you govern, regardless of state-wide comprehension. By disparaging the principles of Democracy for the convenience of appeasing the oligarchy, you tread a dangerous path, Senator.


Respectfully,




Jared E. Sneed
Citizen and Resident, California, U.S.A.

Re-Assurances From The Obama Campaign

So it was today on The Jerry Doyle show that I heard of the Obama campaign's latest attempts to mainstream and move to the center...,

by issuing some statements including this gem:

"(the campaign) strongly supports a woman's decision to bring her pregnancy to full-term."

Now, is this a simple matter of political ineptitude and thoughtless campaigning? Or is it something much more sinister? Maybe a bit of both? Any way you look at it, it smells...

Admittedly, it is unfortunate that statements such as this come about due to platform issues and the divide of ideology among the two camps - left/right Democrat/Republican....

Nevertheless, I find it astonishing that this kind of statement could ever be uttered without at least having been immediately clarified or retracted.

Seriously, does the Obama campaign actually think that by claiming to support something that should not require or ever even be addressed by Government, or those seeking office, that it will soften its image among centrist and right-wing voters?

It sounds like they're trying to make people feel bad about not agreeing with the "right to choose" platform, via the back door of claiming that as far as the Government is concerned, your decision to not end a pregnancy by killing a fetus and instead bringing a child into the family is "supported". As if this kind of life-choice were something quaint, and traditional. Something to inspire an "awwww..." and "how cute, the little people deciding to take the more difficult path and raise a child.."

Jesus, I want to vomit.

It's true that people who either agree or disagree with abortion in general vote, sometimes even early, and often! (in Illinois)

But no matter what our views on the sticky legality-mixed-with-morality abortion debate, We The People, and prospective parents, specifically, neither ask for nor should we ever need to ask for Government's "support" based on one or any ideological position. period.

And once we do need to ask, then all will have been lost.... How nice of the Obama campaign to re-assure us that abortion is not yet a requirement or even an expectation!

-YARK- ... erp.

Now you'll have to excuse me. I need to brush my teeth.

Lol..

Providing For the National Defense

On July 2, 2008, Sen. Barack Obama was apparently quoted as saying the following:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

He also proposed to double the size of the PeaceCorps, and quadruple the size of the AmeriCorps.

An engaging piece by World Net Daily's Joseph Farah begs to question why more people are not alarmed by these proposals, and why there seems to be very little attention by other media.

What I find even more troubling than Mr. Obama's proposal for a "civilian national security force" is how it is doubly alarming due to the qualifier that precedes this proposed force. His statement, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set", speaks volumes and is equally deafening in volume.

The core function and resposibility of the United States Government is to provide for the National defense. Currently, the U.S. Military, all branches, serves to facilitate such provision. If, as Mr. Obama so ridiculously claims, we can no longer "rely" on that Military, then he is bluntly stating that the core function of our U.S. Government must be usurped.

Or am I reading too much into his words?

"Just words", right?

The Institution of Marriage

I've just had a thought on all this LGBT activism that's pushing so hard for faux-marriage.





Is Marriage (classical, 1 man/1 woman matrimony) an institution?

Or is it not?

For if it is an institution, then the circumstance of one's sexual orientation should obviously factor into that person's decision to get married. Right?

Stay with me here... there's more.

If a homosexual does not wish to indulge the option of forming a union with a person of the opposite sex, for the purposes of having children and raising a family with that person, then are they at that point making a decision to abstain from an institution? Clearly, yes. At least this particular institution.

Now if that same homosexual prefers to partner with someone who is alike in gender, then on first account the option of procreation is summarily forfeited. Therefore, in order to raise a family our same-sex couple would need to participate in some sort of institution that could facilitate such an endeavor. This is where science or adoption comes to the rescue, apparently.

But it remains that said homosexual has made a conscious and deliberate choice to avoid the institution of classical Marriage. Homosexuality may or may not be a choice, but entering into the institution of Marriage definitely is. (except for arranged marriages...)

Now let's pretend that Marriage is not a valid institution. This being the case, then our homosexual couple is free to enter into a union consisting of... what exactly? And without a facilitating institution, how would it be possible to raise a family?

Now I mentioned science and adoption earlier, but isn't that just cheating? And what basis is that to start a family on? Really! A family unit founded on the principle of cheating? That should do real well for establishing moral principles! but i digress..

Returning to my point, it can easily be established that legally and socially recognized Marriage, between 1 man and 1 woman, is in fact an institution whose sole purpose is to facilitate the creation of a family, which involves procreation. Any refutation of this would be fallacious for the following reason: humans typically are not monogamous creatures unless engaged in child-rearing. They just aren't. And yet like many other species in the animal kingdom, humans are quite often predisposed to mate for life with a very limited number of partners, and more often than not only 1 at that. Not to mention the biological drive to procreate contributes to the formation of relationships, for the purpose of sexual and emotional gratification. These relationships will naturally gain solvency, otherwise the survival of the species would be in jeopardy. Hence a definition of this institution can be established. We have historically named that definition "Marriage"

So as the biological drive to procreate is intentionally misdirected towards the wrong gender, and a non-procreative relationship is established, it follows that the aforementioned institution cannot take form. And without that institution, there is no "marriage".

It really is that simple.

This is Amazing!

A scout caught this Golden Trout (the California State Fish) while on a troop backpacking trip deep in the high Sierras near Mt. Whitney.

These fish are typically only 10 inches or so..

This one's a trophy!

I have a new mission in life. To bag one of these! (or I might just CPR - Catch,Photo,Release)

Here's the original link:

http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/showthread.php?t=4265

CAIR doesn't care for The Savage Nation

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or, NAMBLA, has been trying to convince companies to pull their advertising from Michael Savage's conservative talk radio show "The Savage Nation". They assert that Dr. Savage is a bigot and that he is inciting Islamophobia.
Personally, I would say that he is simply "displaying" Islamophobia, not necessarily "inciting" it.

Read for yourself:

CAIR was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Muslim attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you.-- What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it.-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave"

Now on the surface this does sound quite inflammatory. However, if Dr. Savage is exercising his freedom of speech by making a point about certain Muslims who would prefer the United States become a Muslim country, and keeping in mind the on-going violence in current Muslim countries, with or without a U.S. presence, then is he wrong? Is his opinion wrong? After all, it is just his opinion. Now a better question is whether or not his sponsors share that opinion. Obviously Dr. Savage's sponsors would not want to appear bigoted in any way, and therefore they would contend that they don't endorse the content of "The Savage Nation". But by continuing to sponser the show, they really are endorsing the content. So CAIR goes after the sponsors, and bristles like an insulted aristocrat whenever a talk-show host complains about subjugation in the name of Islam and loss of freedom. CAIR contends that they just want to "empower" American Muslims, and defend their rights of free worship. Funny thing is, I was under the impression that the United States of America is a democratic Republic, where the freedom of religion is already protected. But if the U.S. were to become a Muslim nation, then one can reasonably assume, given current and historical examples, that our nation would no longer be a democratic Republic that guarantees freedom of speech.
So how exactly do they want it? Currently here in America, you can actually have your cake, and eat it, too! So do they want the cake, or not?

Now back to Dr. Savage's on-air comments.
When faced by a threat, usually a person will react. Fight or flight response. Simple as that. But if the threat, real or perceived, is slow and gradual, then a person might have time to form a more comprehensive plan of action. Terrorism, including explosive suicide attacks and YouTube decapitations, just might be a kind of threat to some people. Maybe. But people are just people, right?

So after reading Dr. Savage's comments, I imagined the same comments directed at different entities, and with slight changes in wording. Just for fun!

Take, for example, this scenario:

The Communist Party of the United States of America has called for the sponsors of Michael Savage's conservative talk-radio show "the Savage Nation" to pull their advertising. They contend that Savage's recent remarks are anti-Communist and incite patriotism. The CPUSA was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Commie attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- "I'm not gonna put my wife in a factory. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a mine. And I'm not marching lockstep and raising my boots as high as possible. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about communism. I don't wanna hear one more word about communism. Take your failed economic system and shove it up your behind! I'm sick of you.-- What kind of philosophy is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-P-U-S-A and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it!-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Communist Manifesto is not a document of freedom. The Communist Manifesto is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave!"

Now then, if another threat were being presented by a different kind of people, which groups would want to silence the response? And how could they effectively present themselves as victims?

Try this scenario:

W.A.R. was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Arian attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- “I'm not gonna put my wife in a concentration camp. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in an oven. And I'm not throwin’ my hand out and saluting some guy that talks really loud. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about National Socialism. I don't wanna hear one more word about National Socialism. Take your dictatorship and shove it up your behind! I'm sick of you.-- What kind of government is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take W-A-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it!-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, Mein Kampf is not a document of freedom. Mein Kampf is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave.”

And what about this? If it were Jews and Israelis instead of Muslims and Arabs doing the killing, and then whining that people don't like them enough, or embrace their violent world-view, would we be hearing from their lawyers? Just because someone stands up and shouts his opinion?

The JDL was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Jewish attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- “I'm not gonna put my wife in a Yamulke. And I'm not gonna put my daughter through Law school. And I'm not smearing blood over my doorway and lighting a menorah. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Judaism. I don't wanna hear one more word about Judaism. Take your religion and shove it up your behind! I'm sick of you.-- What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take J-D-L and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it!-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Torah is not a document of freedom. The Torah is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave.”

Fun with words!

That is all.