Ten Years Later: September 11, 2001

Where were you when you first heard or saw the news? My wife and I were getting ready for work. This was before kids, so we always had the TV tuned to the local news as we got ready. At around 5:50am PST, the local news cut away to a special report, saying that apparently, an airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center and one of the towers was on fire. At that time, they didn't know if it was an accident or what kind of plane it was.

As my wife and I watched the smoke rise from the gaping hole in the top of the North Tower, I watched another airplane flash into view from the right side of the screen. It disappeared behind the towers, and then a split second later, a giant fireball filled the screen. I'm sure you have seen this footage yourself.

It is crazy how the mind works during a stressful moment. Even after I watched the second plane fly into the South Tower, I will always remember my first thought, which was, "Man, there is some air traffic controller who is royally screwing up." My mind still hadn't wrapped itself around the fact that this was a terrorist attack! Talk about having a "September 10th" mentality.

As the morning quickly unfolded, my wife and I had to continue getting ready for work. But when news came in that the Pentagon had been hit as well, that is when I called my parents. My Dad answered the phone, and I will always remember what I said. I asked, "Are you watching the TV?" He said he wasn't. I told him, "Turn on the news right now!"

I wasn't teaching in 2001; I was still working full time at the California National Guard State Headquarters in the Inspector General office. I had called in earlier to ask if they wanted us to come in and they said to wait and they would call. They finally did call at about 6:45am and said come in to work. It was during my drive to work that the news on the car radio announced that the South Tower had collapsed. That was 6:59am PST. I got into my office and the rest of the staff already had the TV on. We watched the North Tower collapse at 7:28am PST. After the North Tower collapsed, the leadership at the CalGuard HQ changed their minds and sent everyone home. My wife was not so lucky. She attempted to teach her 1st graders for the rest of the day, but not much teaching was accomplished. She was told that she could not talk about it with her class (understandable with six year olds). Every recess she shuffled her students out as fast as possible so she could turn on the TV. As for me, I spent the rest of the day in front of the television with a perpetual look of astonishment on my face. When one of the newscasters said that, based on how many people worked in the World Trade Center on a typical day, as many as 30,000 people could have been killed, I burst into tears.

As the day wore on, I also tried to digest the news that a fourth plane had been crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. By the time my wife got home, she and I were both absolutely numb.

In the years since that awful day, our entire society has changed. Life has almost become Orwellian, as we live in an increasingly repressive police state with the TSA molesting and manhandling us at the airport; we live in a state of perpetual warfare in such places as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya ("We have always been at war with Eastasia"); and through laws like the PATRIOT Act, the federal government has the ability to conduct surveillance on Americans that, while the feds insist now that abuses of these laws cannot happen, there is no guarantee that these laws will not be abused in the future, if they are not being abused already. Creeping tyranny in this country has become so pronounced that, more often than not, I question which I should fear more: Islamic terrorism or the actions of my own federal and state governments? What should I fear more: the one in lightning-strike chance that I or my family could be killed in a terrorist attack, or the almost 100% chance that the legislature and governor of my home state of California are - through Assembly Bill 144 - about to shut off any method for me to defend myself and my family with a firearm? What should I fear more: A one in a lightning-strike chance that Islamic terrorists will kill me or my family, or a fifty-fifty chance that due to job-killing and crony-protecting laws, regulations, and spending passed by the federal government, my wife and I will lose our livelihoods, our home, and God knows what else?

My children were born in 2004 and 2006. They will never know an America as it existed before September 11, 2001; just as I, having been born in 1972, will never know the America that existed before the national cultural and financial upheaval that began in the mid-to-late 1960s. Even after the 1960s ended, I like to think that the United States still enjoyed just a smidgen of innocence in the decades that followed. I believe that smidgen of innocence was extinguished on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, and I don't know if we will ever get it back. The thought that my children are growing up in the roiling cauldron that is Post-9/11 America pains my wife and me to no end.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Who do U.S. military members like better, Obama or Bush?

h/t to Bookworm Room (see blogroll):

Say what you will about George W. Bush (and I have plenty, and it isn't pretty), it was always very obvious that he was loved by the servicemembers he commanded. Just watch this rousing reception when Bush was introduced to a crowd of Marines during his presidency:



Now contrast that with the reception a group of what looks to be Marines and Navy personnel gave Obama just the other day. Notice what it takes to get them to finally applaud:



Can't say I blame them. I ended my 12-year stint in the U.S. Army and National Guard during Bush's presidency, but I served all four years of my active duty under Bill Clinton. I swear to you, I felt more honored to serve under Clinton than I would under Obama. Left-wing politics aside, at least Clinton has some wisp of masculine gravitas to him. Obama is just a preening metrosexual who I can't imagine would last more than a week in the military.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Agency Fee Payers: It's that time of year again

It is time once again for the yearly ritual that teachers like me who are not members of the California Teachers Association (CTA) must accomplish if we wish to get back a portion of the union dues that we are nonetheless forced by law to pay to the CTA if we want to continue teaching in this benighted state.

California is a "closed shop" or "non-right to work" state whose laws force teachers like me to pay approximately $900 in annual dues to the CTA, even if I am not a member. Luckily, I get about $300 of that money back, as that is the approximate amount of my dues that the CTA uses, not for work related issues, but for political activism - the lion's share of that money going to Leftist/Statist/Democrat causes. If a member of the CTA wants that money back, he has to donate it a charity that is on a CTA-approved list. If the member simply wants the money back free and clear, he must quit the CTA, as I have done.

If you are a conservative teacher like me who is sick of having his money forcibly confiscated and used to support causes that disgust you, you can get that money back. And as for liability insurance and all those benefits that that CTA promises its members? You can use your $300 refund to buy better benefits from the Association of American Educators (AAE), who are linked in my blogroll at left. I have been a member for about five years now, and I couldn't be happier with them.

For further information, you can also check out the California Teachers Empowerment Network (CTEN), who also writes about such issues, and can also be found on my blogroll.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

A bumper sticker that would make Orwell blush

Traveling the highways and byways of the Sacramento area on a daily basis gives me witness to occasional displays of stupidity on the bumpers of people's cars.

On my way home from work this afternoon, I glimpsed a bumper sticker that said this:

Pro-Child

Pro-Family

Pro-Choice

Really? So which part of this stance is "pro-child"? Is it when a pair of scissors is inserted into the back of the baby's skull? Is it when a baby is torn and picked out of the womb, limb by limb? Is it when a still-alive baby that has just been aborted is shuffled off in a bucket to the corner of the room where he or she dies slowly and painfully?

At this point, a naysayer throws the usual argument at me that it is just as well that these abortions take place because many of these aborted babies would have been born into terrible circumstances such as poverty and abuse. To that I say, if this is your criteria for playing God and deciding who is born and who isn't, then why should we stop at the unborn? My wife and I both teach in pretty dysfunctional parts of town. We could give you quite a lengthy list of elementary and middle school-age kids who live absolutely miserable lives, and this jackwagon driving the car with that bumper sticker could end their misery right quick. Heck it makes more sense to kill these kids who have been born, as we know they live miserable lives, whereas with unborn babies, we can only guess. I know this is quite a swiftian proposition I am making here, but it is a road that has been traveled before in world history.

When I was young and dumb, I considered myself "pro-choice." Now that I am a father of two children, I definitely don't think that way anymore, but I actually changed my stance in my mid-20s, years before I had kids of my own. I think what changed my views on abortion the most was a news story sometime in 1998 out of Montana - or some state up in the northwest - where a pregnant woman was jailed and slated for trial on charges that she was using illegal drugs while pregnant, thereby abusing her unborn baby. So you know how she got the child abuse charges dropped and gained her freedom? She got an abortion. Think about it: She skated on the charges of abusing her baby by killing her baby.

Let's put that on a bumper sticker.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Yeah, more debt. That'll do it!

So, our Dear Leader wants to stack $300 billion more onto our already out-of-control debt.

Just to remind you of what this means, check out how far we have come and where we are headed; and keep in mind that the red bars begin the same year as Obama's presidency:

It's as if the house was on fire when Firefighter Obama arrived, but he started spraying it with a tanker truck full of gasoline.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Technical difficulties repaired?

That was weird. I had to copy and paste the last three posts onto a Word document, and then delete them off the blog. I then reposted them, and my menu is back up on the left side. Hopefully, this was a permanent fix.

I am getting sick of Blogger; maybe I'll switch to WordPress.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Representative Wilson, meet Mayor Nutter

I don't know how this clown got past my radar, as I had never heard of her until today. Florida Congresscritter Frederica Wilson appeared on MSNBC yesterday to explain the reasons that blacks in the United States are being affected by the Great Recession more than other ethnic groups. Her list was of the tired, unimaginative, cliched variety that included racism, of course. She also mentioned this digital divide that supposedly exists.

And then there is the hat. Apparently wearing a ridiculous hat everywhere she goes is this woman's schtick. She has even petitioned House Speaker John Boehner to drop the "No hats in the House Chamber" rule that has been in place since 1837. Wearing a hat like this while performing your official duties as a sitting member of the United States Congress is an absolute disgrace, and this woman should be ashamed of herself. I get the feeling however that shame is not something that is part of her personality profile. Enough of my written description of this clown; don't just read the transcript, roll the tape!

When you look at African American males, 40% of them are unemployed, those under 30 years of age. I understand exactly the entire nation must be involved in this recovery but the black community is experiencing a great recession. That's what we're experiencing... And all of the growth in the past 30 years, we see it slipping away. From home ownership, the middle class; it's slipping away from our hands. And it has a lot to do with many issues. Racism, shipping jobs overseas, access -- no access to technology. You know, the digital divide is there and many of the new jobs that's what it requires. So, we have a problem.

For good measure, this same Congresscritter referred to the Tea Party as "the real enemy" in a speech she gave yesterday. Frederica Wilson apparently decided to join the Civility Brigade with Maxine Waters.

As for Wilson's concern about why black Americans under the age of 30 are especially having trouble finding work, I refer her to the words spoken by the Mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter (who is also black).

In his speech last week to a Philadelphia church congregation about the mobs of young blacks who are tearing that city apart, Mayor Nutter doesn't blame the problems that young blacks face finding a job on racism, shipping jobs overseas, or the digital divide. His reasons are a bit less esoteric:



I'll tell you one thing - if I was interviewing job candidates, and one walked in wearing a hat as ridiculous as that worn by Frederica Wilson, I would toss that application in the trash as soon as the person walked through my door.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Now that's what I call school spirit!

Some parents at our kids' elementary school told my wife about a YouTube video made last May by a local middle school that you just have to see.

With our educational system the way it is, government bureaucrats would look at these students not studying their language arts and math and shake their heads with a tsk, tsk. However, years from now, when they are all grown up, these students will never forget what they did in this video and the work they did preparing for it.

The best part is that this is the school to which my kids are slated to attend when they reach middle school. Knowing what can go on in middle schools (after all, I teach in one), it does my heart well, and my wife's heart well, to know that this is the kind of enthusiasm and spirit that awaits our children in a few years:



"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Maxine had more to say... don't cut her off!

All day long today, I heard about and read about Kleptocrat California Congresscritter Maxine Waters, who represents south central Los Angeles, saying during a speech to her constitutents and SEIU thugs that the Tea Party, "can go straight to hell."

I thought that was bad enough, but then on the way home from work, as I was listening to talk radio, Mark Levin was gracious enough to play the entire quote. Telling the Tea Party to go straight to hell is bad enough, but what she said a few seconds later was even worse. Ms. Waters waited for the applause to dissipate a bit, then then added that she intended to help the Tea Party get to hell.

Watch and listen to this vicious, hateful creature:



Again, for the record, the exact money quote to her minions from the lovely Maxine Waters was:

...You can't be intimidated, you can't be frightened; as far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell! And, and I intend to help 'em get there!

And how was Maxine figuring she would send me and my fellow Tea Party members to hell? Did a sitting member of the United States Congress just say that she wants us dead and is going to try to make that happen? First, we are terrorists, and now we belong in hell. This just gets scarier and scarier. Seriously. Remind me again, what was it our Dear Leader, Barack Obama, said during his speech in Arizona in the wake of the the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and several others? Oh yeah:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds....

Somehow, I don't think Maxine will be upbraided by the Messiah for that comment. On the other hand, I can see him giving her a nasty call about what she said in Detroit to a black audience a few days before telling the Tea Party where they can go:



Hear that? The Congressional Black Caucus is, "tired, y'all." They are tired of defending this president who, according to Maxine Waters, did not visit a sufficient number of black communities on his recent BlunderBus tour through Iowa, and she was practically begging the black audience to turn her and the CBC loose on the President in response to his inability to drag the black community out of their jobless morass in which they currently find themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if Maxine made her Tea Party remark in order to take the focus off what she said about Obama in Detroit. When she made those remarks, she was messing with his most loyal voting bloc. On the other hand, the Tea Party remark will cost Maxine Waters and Barack Obama not a single thing.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Back in the trenches

After a short staff meeting and spending the rest of the day setting up my classroom back on Monday, I just finished up my first week back teaching 8th grade U.S. History. I feel like a combat veteran with survivor's guilt. Last year, two of my fellow social studies teachers - who had been hired by our district just one year after me - were let go in the great budget crunch. One of the teachers taught all 8th grade, the other taught all 7th grade. They have been replaced by one teacher who is teaching half 8th and half 7th. With one fewer teacher teaching our subject, I have seen a significant increase in the number of students in my individual classes. My first clue that this was going to happen was when I first walked into my classroom and saw that the 32 desks that were in my classroom when I walked out two months ago had increased to 37. Uh oh.

Last year, I had a class that started out at 22, fell to 17 at one point, then rebounded to 23 by the end of the year. This year, my smallest class is 33 students. I teach 5 periods, so the total number of students I have right now is 178. Some of my fellow teachers have classes in excess of 42 students.

This is when some of members of the chattering classes - many of whom are, unfortunately, conservative - smugly tell us that in Japan, or Korea, or Singapore, teachers have no problems with classes of 40 or even 50 students, so what is my friggin' problem? Of course, these teachers across the vast Pacific don't have problems with their large classes! Their students are actually expected to behave, and the teachers and administrators of schools over there actually have the ability to make the students behave, or else. Due to a state education code that ties both our hands behind our backs and then lashes them to our ankles, we teachers and administrators here in California do not have the same classroom and campus management tools at our disposal.

Judging by the campus-wide behavior of our students so far this year - five students have already been suspended for fighting, including three of my students - I have a feeling I will have plenty of opportunities this year to lay out a sobering picture for you of just how dysfunctional our state's education system continues to be.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Jackson-Lee and Pelosi attempt to out-stupid each other

Last month, in the middle of the debt ceiling debate, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) sidled up to the podium on the House floor and threw down the race card:

"I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?”

Earlier in her speech, Jackson Lee said Obama has been targeted unlike any other president.
"I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one," said Jackson Lee from the House floor.

"Read between the lines," she continued. "What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?"

Michelle Malkin's guest blogger, Doug Powers, best summed up the obvious response to Jackson-Lee's bloviating with sarcastic flair:

And all this time I thought opposition to raising the debt ceiling might have something to do with the fact that Obama’s record so far on deficit spending is making even Bush look like a piker. I stand corrected.
But Jackson Lee’s frustration stems from the obvious: Democrats treated George W. Bush with great respect, always gave him the benefit of the doubt, didn’t block his appointments and always supported his requests to raise the debt ceiling, so she only wants Republicans to return the favor now that Obama is president.
Five years ago, Senator Obama said “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. America deserves better.” Now, when people agree with Obama’s statement, Sheila Jackson Lee insinuates that they’re racists? Color me confused.

You would think that one would hear no more about this; that no one in his or her right mind would double down on this "Criticizing Obama is always racist" theme. Ahhh, but folks, statist stupidity knows no bounds. As the presidency of our Dear Leader, President Obummer, continues to circle the drain, Barack's sycophants become more and more desperate.

Now we have San Francisco's finest, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, making a speech to a group of Sheila Jackson-Lee's constituents where she agrees with Jackson-Lee's assessment of Obama's critics. Talk about being stuck on stupid:



What really disturbs me is the enthusiastic applause from the crowd. We really are becoming two nations, and I don't mean on racial lines; I mean political ones.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

California's statist legislature is close to checkmating state gun owners

California has what are most likely the most stringent gun laws of any state in the nation. If you wish to defend yourself and your family by carrying a concealed handgun in California, you must endure a byzantine application process where your request is at the mercy of the Sheriff of your county of residence. You must show cause for your desire to carry a concealed handgun, and as far as I know, defense of yourself and your family is not considered a good cause. From what I understand, being a crony or good friend of the Sheriff and lining his pockets with a substantial financial contribution to his or her election campaign is a cause that is much more likely to get one's concealed-carry permit approved.

As the state law is currently written, if someone is not approved for a concealed-carry permit (and most applicants are not) one can still open-carry in California. What this means is that according to California Penal Code section 12031, you can carry a handgun on your person as long as it is visible and unloaded. Most open carriers have their unloaded pistol in a holster on one hip, and their loaded magazines in a magazine holster on the other hip, as the law states that your ammunition must be visible as well. Oh, and you cannot open-carry within 1,000 feet of a school. Oh, and a police officer can stop you and check to ensure your weapon is unloaded. So even though there are all kinds of nit-picky rules for open-carry as well, at least you do not need any kind of permit to do this. For now.

State Assembly member Anthony Portantino (Democrat, naturally) is currently guiding Assembly Bill (AB) 144 through the state legislature. Last I checked, it had cleared the Assembly, and is now being considered in the State Senate, which is dominated by Democrats. If it passes through the Senate (which it will in all likelihood), it will then go before our Democrat Governor, who is not a fan of the Second Amendment. Once AB 144 passes, then that is it. Checkmate. You cannot carry concealed; you cannot carry openly. You are totally disarmed.

For a good summation of all this, I urge you to view this 8-minute video put out by the Reason Foundation. They interview an Open-Carry advocate from San Diego who eloquently explains his position, and then they interview none other than Portantino himself, where he proceeds to display his absolute imbecility with the arguments he makes in support of his AB 144:



What is particularly frustrating is that there have been federal lawsuits in the past where citizens of California have tried to vacate or ease back California's concealed-carry laws, but federal judges have refused to do so, because after all, if you can't get obtain a concealed-carry permit, you can always open-carry. In a recent case out of Yolo County - Richards v. County of Yolo - in which plaintiff Adam Richards attempted to obtain a concealed-carry permit after being denied one by the Yolo County Sheriff, the judge found against Richards because after all...

Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur in a public setting.

Hmmm, so if Portantino's unconstitutional travesty of a bill becomes law, then what? What do the law-abiding citizens of California do? Must we walk down the sidewalk carrying a rifle or shotgun? Or will Portantino then call for that to be outlawed as well? If AB 144 becomes law, I think people should break out their long guns and take a friendly stroll down the street (staying at least a thousand feet away from schools of course) and it goes without saying that the law would also need to be challenged in court. California's concealed-carry restrictions are bad enough, but to also outlaw open-carry and leave California's law-abiding citizens even more defenseless than they already are sickens me.

In case you are interested in letting Portantino hear your respectful thoughts on what you think of his attempts to kill all efforts of law-abiding Californians to defend themselves, here is his telephone number and a link to his Assembly website. Right now, he has a big feature on his homepage where he is bragging about his beloved AB 144:

Assemblymember Anthony Portantino

(916) 319-2044

Should you also like to contact your State Senator and urge their "No" vote, since AB 144 currently resides on the Senate calendar, you can find the contact information to your State Senator here.

Oh, and one last thought on which to chew: In Vermont, you don't even need a permit to carry concealed, let alone open. Have you heard about any crime problems in Vermont lately?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Idiotic Dems say: Unemployment benefits create jobs

Who knew? We now have two high-ranking Democrats in Washington going on record saying that the fastest and bestest way to economic prosperity is to keep handing out unemployment benefits.

Nancy Pelosi from last summer:

"[Unemployment benefits] injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

And now we have Obama's spokesmouth, Jay Carney, saying essentially the same thing just the other day:

There are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance... It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren't running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They're not going to save it, they're going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually.

Seriously, how can people who are this ignorant make it that high into the upper echelons of power in this country? I mean, try to wrap your mind around their so-called logic: Perpetually paying people not to work creates jobs? This line of thinking begs the obvious question: If paying people unemployment benefits creates jobs, then why doesn't the government give EVERYONE unemployment benefits? I always think of the same thing regarding the minimum wage. If raising it from $5/hour to $7/hour with the stroke of a pen helps people so much, then why not force employers to pay employees at least $10/hour? Or even better $100/hour? That'll fix everything right? Quit pussyfooting around!

Please understand, I realize the immediate relief that people feel when they can fall back on unemployment payments while they ride a rough patch between the job they lost and their next job. However, if someone is unable to find another job after 99 weeks of supposedly (or actually) looking, then we have bigger problems facing the nation. Unemployment benefits do not create more jobs; employers who have the available capital and the confidence of consistent economic conditions unencumbered by excessive government taxation and regulation are the ones who create jobs. Keeping tax rates high in order to extend unemployment benefits does nothing but take more money away from the business owners and employers out there who could take that money and use it to hire more people.

Our government continuing to confiscate money and hand it to other people harkens to the old economic metaphor of scooping a bucket full of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping it in the shallow end, with the expectation that it will improve the water level of the shallow end. What needs to happen is for government to put the bucket away and let the pool owners put in more water.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Time to fit me for an orange jumpsuit?

I consider myself a Tea Party member. I even have the t-shirt. According to the ubiquitous meme that I have been hearing all over the airwaves, however, I guess I should prepare myself to trade in that t-shirt for an orange Guantanamo jumpsuit.

It is one thing to be called a terrorist by the morons in the statist media, such as Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, Joan Walsh of Salon, and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times; it is quite another to be called a terrorist by our elected officials, who have the power of life and death over me.

When the Vice President of the United States is agreeing with the statist nutballs in the congress that Tea Party members are acting like terrorists, I have to seriously wonder what are the intentions of Biden and company? Are they laying the groundwork for something?

Pass it off as paranoia if you wish, but in this day and age, I am wary of putting anything past our imperial federal government.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

So Barack, what do you think about raising the debt limit?

Why aren't the spineless, squishy Republicans playing and referencing this quote at every opportunity? Why? Oh yeah, they're spineless and squishy.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Senator Barack Obama
March 20, 2006

Keep in mind, that was when he was arguing against raising the debt limit to $9 Trillion. Now, five years later as President, he wants to raise the debt limit past $14.3 Trillion.

Please folks, vote out this clown in 2012.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Rule number one of interviewing: Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer

So learneth Contessa Brewer of MSNBC while questioning Representative Mo Brooks (R-Alabama).



He should have asked her what degree she has. Somehow I doubt it is in economics. What a ditz.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Crowds and unbelievable beauty: Yosemite lives up to its reputation

I must admit, I was not looking forward to going to Yosemite National Park during our just-finished vacation. While it has a reputation for being beautiful, Yosemite is also known for huge crowds, waiting in line, and vehicle-choked roads leading in to the place. In all categories, Yosemite lived up to its reputation.

I detest crowds, so hiking in the Yosemite area will never be my first choice; I know of so many wilderness areas where you will see nary a soul during your entire hike. However, there is a reason there are such crowds in Yosemite: It is breathtakingly gorgeous!

While our home base during our vacation was a house near Bass Lake directly to the south, our whole group of ten family members ventured into Yosemite last Tuesday. Here are some of the photographic highlights I took during that day, and remember, you can click on any of the images for better detail:




At the end of the day, I wasn't satisfied with the views we saw, so I resolved to return the next day, and take the road to Glacier Point, which overlooks much of Yosemite Valley from about 3,500 feet up. Everyone else wanted to go to the beach at Bass Lake, so I went solo. Here is what awaited me when I got to the top:








Rather than a wilderness destination, I felt more like I was at some sort of living, interactive art gallery. I can tolerate crowds for something like that!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

On to my next vacation

Not that I have blogged much this summer, but my paucity of postings may get more meager yet.

The family and I have already spent a week enjoying the zoo and beaches in San Diego this summer. Now, we leave tomorrow for a week of swimming and sightseeing at Bass Lake, which is about a half-hour south of Yosemite.

We have never been to this lake before, but we have seen it quite extensively on celluloid, as it was the location filming spot for the 1988 comedy The Great Outdoors, starring Dan Aykroyd and the the late, great John Candy. Let's hope I have a better time than John Candy's character. My brother-in-law will even be there at the lake with me, but he is nothing like Aykroyd's character!

During one of the days next week, we will be driving up to Yosemite. The last time I was there, I was too young to remember, so it will essentially be a first for me. I hope to take some amazing photos. I'm no Ansel Adams, but I figure you can't go wrong snapping Yosemite.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

What goes up, must come down: The United States ends its Space Shuttle program. Now what?

The Space Shuttle Atlantis took off today on the final mission of the Space Shuttle program, which has been launching the Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Endeavour, and Atlantis into orbit since April of 1981.

I marginally remember watching the launch of the first space shuttle - the Columbia - when I was 8 years old, but for some reason, I never forgot the names of the two astronauts who flew that mission: John Young and Robert Crippen. Since that time, 355 astronauts have flown on 135 missions, with two of those missions ending in the destruction of the Challenger and Columbia, at the cost of 14 lives.

I am torn regarding the conclusion of the Space Shuttle missions. Being the free market guy I am, I believe that the private sector should be leading the way to space. There are still satellites to send up and, maybe someday, passengers to carry and asteroid minerals to mine... who knows what the possibilities are? But with the possibility to make a substantial profit, entrepreneurial men and women will figure it out. With NASA dominating the space race for the last 50 or so years, with its access to an almost endless supply of taxpayer largess, private enterprise couldn't quite compete against the U.S. government. Now that NASA is out of a job - save raising the self-esteem of Muslims - perhaps all these soon-to-be-out-of-work NASA engineers will find new life in the private sector.

What it boils down to is that while I am always uncomfortable with the government performing extra-constitutional functions that the private sector can and should perform, I do admit to harboring a special nostalgia and pride for our government space programs: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, the Space Shuttle, Hubble Telescope, Mars Missions, solar system probes, and the International Space Station. For goodness sake, we put men on the moon! Yet, the Obama administration seems to have brought a glorious government program to an inglorious end. I feel like our space program deserves a more respectful conclusion. Instead, there is nothing in the hopper, nothing planned for the future (that I know of). The Obama administration comes off like a little kid who has had his fun with his space toy and just tosses it off to the side before moving on to something else.

On the other hand, I am feeling rather queasy thinking about a spacecraft plastered with sponsor stickers like some stock car at Daytona. I'll get used to it.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Don't forget our Founders' sacrifices

As we celebrate the 235th birthday of the united States of America, please be sure to pause and contemplate the sacrifices made by our Founding Fathers in their efforts to make our country a reality. While liars like the late Howard Zinn would have you believe that the Founders only wanted independence in order to make money and exploit people, the reality is that many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence lost everything they had.

One such example is signer Richard Stockton. After returning from Philadelphia after signing the Declaration, here is what happened as he returned to his home state of New Jersey:

As he returned from Philadelphia to his home in New Jersey, Judge Stockton was warned that British troops were coming to arrest him. He fled to a neighbor’s house with his wife and children. But a Loyalist, a supporter of the British cause, betrayed the family’s hiding place. Here is what happened next, as described in a wonderful little book Personal Liberty has made available in PDF form:

The judge was dragged from bed and beaten, then thrown into prison. This distinguished jurist, who had worn the handsome robes of a colonial court, now shivered in a common jail, abused and all but starved.

A shocked Congress arranged for his parole. Invalided by the harsh treatment he had received, he returned to (his home at) Morven to find his furniture and clothing burned, his fine horses stolen, and his library — one of the finest private collections in the country — completely destroyed. The hiding place of exquisite family silver, hastily buried, had been betrayed by a servant.

The Stocktons were so destitute that they had to accept charity. For the judge’s fortune was gone, too. He had pledged it and his life to his country. He lost both. He did not live to see the Revolution won.

For more information on the fate of the signers of the Declaration, please finish the article.

Happy Independence Day, and God Bless America.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Jeremiah Wright proves who the racist is

As you listen to this toxic racist give an extended discourse about how all white people are liars, remember that our Dear Leader, Barack Obama, spent 20 years sitting in this man's pews and considered Wright to be his mentor:



I think what bothers me most of all is the overwhelmingly positive response that Wright receives from his enthusiastic audience at the African Baptist Church of Savannah, Georgia.

God save us.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

The War Between the States was deadlier than previously thought

The oft-agreed upon and repeated number of Americans - North and South - who were killed in the U.S. Civil War/War Between the States/War for Southern Independence is 620,000. That is the number I have always seen, and that is the number I have always taught my students.

However, historian J. David Hacker will soon release an article in which he pegs that number as at least 20% higher than previously thought. Hacker believes that the number of Americans killed during the War Between the States could be as high as 850,000, but is definitely about 750,000.

With the U.S. only containing a population of 31 million at the time, this number of dead is mindboggling. 620,000 was bad enough.

Hacker's numbers find most of the increase in the number of Confederate dead. Historians have always conceded that record keeping was never as complete on the Confederate side, and their casualties were notoriously undercounted.

If this new estimated number of 750,000 holds water, that would put the number of Americans killed in the War Between the States as about 50,000 more than the number killed in the American Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican War, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do the math yourself, and keep in mind that these numbers include deaths from all causes; not just combat. In fact, I will provide two numbers for each war, with the second number being the approximate number of actual combat deaths:

American Revolution: 25,000/4,400

War of 1812: 20,000/2,200

Mexican War: 13,000/1,700

Indian Wars: 2,000/1,000

Spanish-American War: 2,000/385

World War I: 116,000/53,000

World War II: 408,000/292,000

Korean War: 54,000/33,000

Vietnam War: 58,000/47,000

Persian Gulf War: 363/148

Iraq/Afghanistan: 5,000+/???

As if the War Between the States wasn't horrific enough...

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

The needle on Obama's gaffe meter hits a new low

This one is not just embarrassing, it is tragic. The other day, our Dear Leader was speaking to the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum in upstate New York. In what seemed to me as a cheap way to try to endear himself to his military audience, Obama name-dropped one Sergeant First Class Jared Monti of the 10th Mountain Division, to whom Obama presented the Medal of Honor early in his presidency.

Obama told the soldiers in the audience:

“First time I saw the 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq,” Obama said on Thursday. “When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there.

“I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”

One problem there genius: you cited the wrong friggin' soldier. SFC Monti did receive his award posthumously - he was killed in Afghanistan in 2006 while peforming the heroic act for which he received the award. Obama presented the posthumous Medal of Honor to Monti's parents at a White House ceremony in September, 2009. You can read SFC Monti's MoH citation here.

The name Obama was trying to recall was Army Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, which is based out of Vicenza, Italy. SSG Giunta did survive to receive his Medal of Honor from President Obama in November, 2010. You can read SSG Giunta's MoH citation here.

It gets better though folks. When the White House was queried as to how Obama could have made such an egregious error, the White House spokesmouth said that Obama had "no prepared remarks" during his Fort Drum speech. You know what that is code for right? NO TELEPROMPTER!

Are politicians - presidents included - going to make verbal gaffes? Of course. What continues to bother me and many others is the continuing double standard whereby conservative politicians are never allowed to live down their gaffes, but statist politicians are forgiven theirs. When the life story of President Obama is recounted in later years, do you think this horrific speaking error will be part of the narrative?

On the other side of the political aisle, the leftist dead tree media have never let us forget that Vice President Dan Quayle misspelled potato as "potatoe."

Which gaffe do you think is worse?

Since Quayle is rather old news, let's focus on a more current conservative that the Left loves to lampoon, and that is Sarah Palin. All we hear from the media is how stupid Palin is, but those same media morons look right past the many stupid statements made by that brilliant, god-like Obama.

Here then is a brilliant compilation of clips showing these media types railing on about Palin while, in juxtaposition, playing the many verbal missteps of Barack Obama. If you want to listen how truly mediocre this supposedly brilliant man is, just watch and listen for yourself. There are a few bad words from Bill Maher, so turn down the volume a bit:



The man is an embarrassment to the office.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Local Republican who is black demonstrates selective outrage

Local political activist Ken Barnes was, until recently, a Republican who is also a black man. Notice I do not say "Black Republican" because making someone's race their primary identifier has never sat well with me. I have kept track of Barnes's doings, such as his unsuccessful 2010 run for a spot on the Los Rios College board (I voted for him). Though I don't know him personally, Barnes is one of my Facebook friends, where I always read his posts that show up on my Wall.

In the most recent edition of the Sunday Sacramento Bee, Barnes announced in an special editorial that he was leaving the Republican Party, mostly because of the fallout over a racially offensive cartoon that an Orange County Republican official named Marilyn Davenport sent to her friends by email. The cartoon insults President Obama thus:

Yes, I agree; this is extremely offensive, and Davenport ought to be ashamed of herself. She apologized, but for the good of the party, she would be better off resigning her position. She was rebuked by just about everybody around her, however, this is not enough for Mr. Barnes:

While the Orange County GOP chairman and a number of other committee members were quick to condemn the image and Davenport, what's disturbing is the incredible number of people who continue to defend Davenport's actions as well as the cartoon itself.

Had this been an isolated event, it could be set aside as a mere aberration. However, when placed in the context of similar offenses by the same self-identified tea party-conservative Republicans, there emerges a disturbing pattern of extreme intolerance.

Over the past two years, we have seen Republicans use long-held racist imagery in portrayals of Obama. The president has been depicted as a communist witch doctor, a man inclined to plant watermelons on the White House lawn, and we watched in disbelief as his face was placed on an "Obama Buck Food Stamp" along with stereotyped pictures of fried chicken, barbecue ribs, Kool-Aid and the obligatory watermelon.

Again, Mr. Barnes, you are right - there are idiots on the right side of the aisle who do themselves or the conservative side no favors by engaging in this kind of rotten behavior. However, I would venture to say that people who are supposedly defending what Marilyn Davenport did are not so much saying that is OK what she did as they are pointing out the hypocrisy of the political Left who get the vapors about images such as the Obama/Chimpanzee family cartoon, but have no problem with images like this:

For cripes sake, there is even an anti-George W. Bush/anti-Republican website called The Smirking Chimp that still operates as we speak. Its byline says "In Dishonor of the Worst President in U.S. History, 2001-2009."

Ah, but I know what the argument will be next: But George W. Bush is a white guy! It doesn't matter as much if he is made to look like a chimpanzee. OK, then let's take a look at what Democrats and the Left have done to Republican political figures who happen to be black:

First, there is this political cartoon from a leftist black website that performs a two-fer by insulting jurists Janice Rogers Brown and Clarence Thomas:

Black Commentator online magazine, which ran this cartoon, tried to defend it by saying they were just trying to make Rogers-Brown look like Clarence Thomas, but I'm not buying it. Last I checked, Clarence Thomas does not have a towering crop of nappy hair or a mammy-esque physique. Neither does Janice Rogers-Brown.

Then, there was the big-lipped image of Bush's National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, drawn by leftist political cartoonist Pat Oliphant:

Did this get you worked up Mr. Barnes? Or do you even know it exists?

The Left wasn't done with Condoleezza Rice. How about when leftist cartoonist Ted Rall called her a "House Nigga" and accused her of wanting to be white?

Did this get you worked up, Mr. Barnes? Or did you even know it exists?

Remember, far from being condemned or repudiated, Black Commentator, Pat Oliphant, and Ted Rall continue to be celebrated by their leftist peers. It is this double standard that is being brought up by people who are "defending" Marilyn Davenport.

Ken Barnes either does not care, or is not aware of the rampant racism that is being practiced by the political Left. The difference is that missteps like that done by Republican Marilyn Davenport are blasted all over the newspapers, while racism exhibited by leftists in the media gets a pass.

I wish Ken Barnes had studied this issue more thoroughly before making his decision to leave the Republican Party.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Sarah Palin wins another U.S. History contest against the smug morons in the media

Since I have not been blogging much of late, I haven't had the chance to throw in my two bits about Sarah Palin's awkward explanation of a little-known aspect of Paul Revere's famous Ride of April 18, 1775.

While visiting Boston, Palin had this to say about Revere's famous feat:

"He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

Was Palin's explanation awkward? Yes. Giving answers off-the-cuff can be a bit scatterbrained sometimes; just ask our Teleprompter-in-Chief who "Uhh's" and "Ahh's" his way through statements that are not scrolling before him on little glass screens. However, despite her tortured syntax, Palin was historically correct in her statement. While Revere's main purpose that night was to warn the militia scattered throughout the countryside between Boston and Lexington/Concord, he did have opportunity to tell some of the British soldiers that night exactly what was awaiting them.

Even the Vicar of the Old North Church (from which hung the "one if by land" lantern) says that Palin not only got her statement correct, she got much of the information from him!

But the lesser-known tale of Revere warning the British of the American response to the march from Boston to Concord is nothing new. I just happened to find out just how not new the story is, and I found it purely by chance.

As I mentioned in my previous post, my family and I are currently staying with my wife's sister and her family in San Diego. I was perusing their bookshelf and came across a rather old-looking book that was given to my brother-in-law from his mother. The book is called Paul Revere and the Minute Men, by Dorothy Canfield Fisher. It was published in 1950 by Random House - New York. I flipped through the book to see if it mentioned anything about Revere warning the British, and lo and behold, starting on page 162, I found the following passage (emphasis mine):

Paul and [William] Dawes turned their horses towards Concord, and a young Dr. Prescott rode along with them. He lived in the district, knew everyone and all the lanes and byroads.

This time, halfway to Concord, there were not two, but four British officers suddenly blocking the way. the Americans were forced into a field where six more British were waiting. In the darkness and confusion Dawes slid off his horse and managed to hide in the bushes. Prescott jumped a stone wall and rode off. But Paul was squarely cornered with a pistol cold against his forehead.

"Who are you? Where did you come from?"

Paul thought quickly. Someone might recognize him. Boldness was his only hope. "My name's Revere," he said. "I left Boston about ten o'clock...."

Then a bell, quite near, started ringing. The British looked at one another, worried. they quieted down and one of them, remembering orders, tried to explain why they were here. "We're only out after deserters," he said.

Paul saw his chance. "I know better. I know what you're after. But you won't get it. The alarm has been given everywhere. And it's spreading."

The British put their heads together and talked in tones too low for Paul Revere to hear. Then they took the reins out of his hands and led his horse in their midst back along the road to Lexington. the major waved his pistol and said, "As for you, Paul Revere, don't try to escape or I'll blow your brains out. You go back with us. We'll send you to England to be tried and hanged for treason."

Paul answered briefly. "Do as you like about that. But what chance have you to get to Boston? There are only ten of you. Your troops are hours away. There are at least five hundred Minute Men heading here at this minute. In an hour, there will be thousands more."

It was slow work leading Revere's horse. the road was dark and lonely. The Englishmen got uneasy and alarmed. With good reason. what chance did they have against a whole countryside swarming with armed men who hated them?

All at once a gun was fired. In the darkness, it rang out very loud. The officers drew their horses sharply to a halt.

"What was that?" the British major snapped out.
"Only another alarm gun. They're being fired like that everywhere from here to Connecticut. You've a mighty slim chance of getting back to Boston with whole skins." Revere spoke out boldly though he knew he was still in mortal danger.

The British officers had another short whispered talk. "Dismount," they told him. As Revere had hoped, they began to see that they had a better chance to escape without being burdened with a prisoner.

They mounted one of their sergeants on Paul's horse and, spurring their mounts to a run, vanished down the road.

So what do you think? Did Revere also warn the British about anything that night, as Palin said? Remember, this book from which I just quoted was published in 1950. Palin's assertion is not some new knowledge. Instead, people have just remembered what they want to remember, and then in their ignorance, belittle anyone who mentions something not commonly known.

Speaking of which, a classic case of the media morons who displayed their own ignorance in their attempt to showcase Palin's can be summed up by Daniel Kurtzman, who writes for About.com. Kurtzman had this to say about Palin's statement:

As any elementary school student can probably tell you, Paul Revere was not attempting to warn the British when he rode around crying, "The British are coming." Nor was he ringing bells and trying to protect gun rights.

Looks like you need to go back to elementary school Mr. Kurtzman, because in your attempt to show us how brilliant you are compared to Sarah Palin, you got at least four historical facts wrong in that one short little missive.

First, we have already established that Revere did warn the British (some, not all, obviously) about what they were facing that night. Second, Revere did not yell, "The British are coming!" as Kurtzman states. That little canard was put to pasture a long, long time ago, yet Kurtzman still clings to it. Revere yelled, "The Regulars are coming!" or "The Regulars are out!" Third, Revere wasn't ringing bells, but as his warnings and those of the other riders blanketed the countryside, church bells did begin to ring as a signal for the militia to grab their weapons, as did warning shots being fired, as is mentioned in the book excerpt above. And fourth, the Battles of Lexington and Concord were all about gun rights. One of the primary missions of the British that day was to seize and/or destroy the militia's munitions caches which had been hidden in Concord. Yes, that is correct: The very first battle of the American Revolution was about gun control, and it was Paul Revere who is the most famous of the messengers who warned the militia about the British soldiers who were were on the way to seize that militia's means of defending itself and the colonies. Even the textbooks from which I teach my 8th graders do not shy away from explaining this. Yet, the smug (and very wrong) Mr. Kurtzman somehow missed something that elementary and middle school students are taught every year.

You know, the funny thing is that Sarah Palin is not even my first choice for the Republican presidential nomination, nor my second choice. Heck, she is not even running for President right now! Yet, I cannot help but chuckle in amusement at this obsession the lamestream media have with Palin. What is it about this woman that causes these media morons to make themselves look like utter fools in their vain efforts to discredit her? Remember when Palin rightly referenced that the Boston Tea Party took place in 1773? The media morons got that wrong too, even though they were convinced that they finally nailed her.

Right now, they are still poring over the 24,000 emails from her time as Alaska governor that were recently released. If only Barack Obama had received just one-quarter of the scrutiny that Sarah Palin has received from the lamestream media.

And Mr. Kurtzman, my sign-off quote is written especially for you:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Kickin' it in San Diego

Sorry for the dearth of posts during this month so far. This typically happens in June. My school year ends, and I go into shutdown where I don't feel like doing much of anything. Then, on Friday afternoon, we departed for the always-lovely city of San Diego, so blogging on the road is never easy; especially when I am doing the driving. My wife's sister and her family live there, and there are always beaches to visit, zoos to enjoy, and so on.

Yesterday, we enjoyed a day at the world-famous San Diego Zoo, and while I took many obligatory photographs of the animals and the scenery, nothing compares to the shot I took on Monday morning when I went with my brother-in-law to Dog Beach, which is a small area near the mouth of the San Diego River where dog owners are allowed to let their dogs run off their leash.

As I was walking along the sandy riverbank, I noticed a ripply formation of sand that had been exposed by the low tide. I was so intrigued, I made the image the wallpaper for my iPhone:


It looks so beautiful, but the reality is that the location of this particular spit of sand was rather nasty.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

The Golden State... soon to be sans "Golden"

The lunacy continues unabated in California. Pop quiz everyone, what was the primary motivator for thousands of Americans risking their lives to come to California in the late 1840s and early 1850s? DING DING DING - If you said "Gold," you are correct.

Next question: The dredge mining of what substance is about to be outlawed in California if the state's Democrat-controlled government has its way? DING DING DING - If you said "Gold," you are correct.

Can you even fathom this? The mining of the very metal that put California on the map, is about to be, for all intents and purposes, outlawed within the state.

I grew up in a tiny town in the northwestern corner of California called Happy Camp. Yeah, yeah, it's a funny name, but there is a story behind that name. You see, Happy Camp is located in a small valley within the Klamath River canyon where Indian Creek empties into the Klamath River. Originally the area was called Murderers Bar. Yikes. However, in 1851 or so, a bunch of gold miners discovered copious amounts of the yellow stuff in the area, and not surprisingly, they celebrated their new-found fortune in their mining camp. It sure was a happy camp.. Aha!

After the easy-to-find gold petered out in the Happy Camp area, the residents moved on to other endeavors; especially logging. However, in the 1980s, the Spotted Owl was used by those same environmentalist wackos to shut down the logging industry in the Happy Camp area. Around the same time, gold mining returned in a big way to the area, especially when an organized group called The New 49ers set up shop in town. After the logging industry went belly-up, these gold miners were a welcome addition to the struggling local economy, along with any tourism that happened along (especially river rafters using Happy Camp as a taking-off point).

With gold mining now about to take a huge hit from our statist legislature who are in the pocket of environmentalist groups who want to control every aspect of our lives, I don't see how the economies of little towns like Happy Camp - already on the ropes as it is - can survive much longer.

It is that kind of history and heritage that has defined our Golden State, and now, in the name of appeasing the environmentalists out there who don't want the little people defiling the forests, a large piece of our state's past is about to be thrown on the dust heap of history.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Eat as I say, not as I do

First Lady, Michelle Obama, seems to have a serious obsession with trying to control what we eat. Too bad that doesn't carry over to her own family.

First, chuck the ol' food pyramid folks and check out what's on your plate now:

Seems healthy enough (too much grain perhaps?), but tell me where this meal fits on the plate:

There is your president, yesterday in Toledo, Ohio, scarfing down two chili dogs and french fries. Do the fries count as a vegetable?

Remember folks, the rules only apply to little people like us, not the royal couple in the White House.

Then of course, there is my oft-repeated inquiry. Where in the Constitution does the Executive Branch (through the USDA, which produced the plate chart with over $2 million of our tax dollars) get the Constitutional authority to even deign to tell me or my family how we should eat? C'mon now, cite me the Article, Section, and Clause.

This imperial federal government of ours, and the hypocritical elitist prigs who run it, make me sick to my stomach.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Is it illegal to be an a**hole?

In Vernal, Utah, apparently it is. When a man was forced to pay a disputed $25 medical bill, he paid it with 2,500 pennies.

I don't see what the problem is; the medical clinic accepts cash, and pennies are legal tender - good for all debts, public and private.

Nevertheless, the man was cited by local law enforcement for disorderly conduct and he could possibly be fined $140.

If the guy has any balls, he should pay the fine with 14,000 pennies!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Victor Davis Hanson seconds my opinion

In his latest column, Victor Davis Hanson (one of my favorites!) lays out the three-prong strategy that Obama and his minions are going to unleash during the 2012 election campaign, and what we can do to stop them. First, the strategy:

Whether always officially sanctioned or not, Obama’s campaign will focus on three general themes: a) the 2008 meltdown of the economy on Bush’s watch; b) conservative heartlessness in gutting cherished entitlement programs; and c) racial bias behind any criticism of Barack Obama.

After going into detail on each of these strategies, VDH has a suggestion for those quivering and quaking Republicans/conservatives out there who are perpetually terrified about what the Democrats/statists think and say about them:

So will this tripartite strategy work? Only if the president’s opponents allow themselves to be caricatured as greedy Wall Street profiteers who want to punish the elderly and are prejudiced against blacks. And if they can’t answer back defiantly to that nonsense, then they really do deserve to lose.

"Answer back defiantly." In my previous post, what did I say about how to counter the slanderous bile of people like Representative James Clyburn?

The whole premise of blaming criticism of Obama on racism is absolutely absurd, but you know how this story goes. If the charges are not answered, no matter how stupid the charges are, then the meme is cemented in people's minds. You cannot let these slimy lowlifes like Jim Clyburn control the narrative. Remember the concept of "The Big Lie"? The bigger it is, the more likely people are willing to believe it. Calling me, and others like me, a racist because I disagree with Obama is a pretty big lie, wouldn't you say? All the more reason to call people out when they accuse you of it.

Victor Davis Hanson agrees. Don't back down to these soulless liars. Call them out every time.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson