The jobs Americans just won't do.

So many liberals, excuse me, "Progressives" on the Left claim that large-scale immigration is necessary because there are jobs that Americans - even the unemployed - simply won't do. That there are thousands, millions of people South of the Border who are willing to come up here and do them, if we would simply stop persecuting them, discriminating against them, and open our borders.

This enterprising family has discovered their niche, and have been doing the job that American citizens have simply refused to do, a job that must be done. Although they are not quite as skilled at it as some have been in the past, they did the best they could with the tools they had, but now their dreams are at an end, because law enforcement stepped in when local citizens complained about them. Now a grandmother, her children and even one of her grandchildren sit in jail, just because some petty individuals didn't like them. It's a cryin' shame, I tell ya.

Grandmother Heads Counterfeit Ring

And yes, they are illegal ("undocumented") aliens.

AKA: Soon to be Democrats

They just don't get it.

Albert Einstein is reputed to have defined "insanity" as doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result each time. In the big picture, that certainly applies to socialism. The Left - especially the fools in academia and in politics - think that if they can just institute socialism their way, it will work this time. (Sigh.)

It also applies to the methods the Left uses to create socialism here in America. The just don't get the notion that increasing taxes means less revenue. That the income taxes from fewer people at a higher rate simply won't match what could be gathered by the income taxes from a much larger group of people at a lower rate.

California has decided to tax Internet sales, not simply of California businesses that have a physical presence within their state, but all sales involving the Internet, and Governor Moonbeam just signed it into law. (You remember him from the last time he was governor, don't you? "Jerry Brown's Space Program: $60 million dollars spent exploring Uranus.") They claim they will realize $200 million dollars in revenue from this. Instead, the businesses that exist on the Internet will simply stop doing business with Californians rather than have to collect the taxes and then pay them to the state of California. Amazon.com - where I make a thousand or so dollars of purchases each year - has stated it will stop doing business with affiliates in California (all 25,000+ of them). So those businesses will probably shut down, since they won't be able to sell to folks who live outside of California either (like myself, a legal resident of Oregon - no sales tax - who is currently staying in Montana - no sales tax). Instead of getting more tax revenue from them, they will now get zero.

The Supreme Court (before Obama radicalized it into the social activist arm of his administration), declared it unConstitutional for a state to tax interstate commerce when the companies involved have no physical presence within a state. But a number of states (New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Illinois, Arkansas, and Connecticut) have passed similar laws, and apparently are ignoring SCOTUS, although several of those states are being taken to court by Amazon and others.

This may well get straightened out, and California may have to rescind this ridiculous attempt at theft, but probably not before the businesses - and dreams - of thousands of people have been destroyed. Any doubts that California is a socialist state, or that Jerry Brown is a Marxist, should be settled now.

(h/t Honourable Means at Bonnie Blue Blog)

TSA needs to die. Literally.

This is so bad I cannot even comment upon it without resorting to unacceptable profanity and verbalization of a desire to end the lives of those guilty of this behavior. Were this my mother (who died of cancer in her seventies), I would hunt these people down and dispose of them like rabid dogs. And smile while doing it.

http://hellonearth-1.blogspot.com/2011/06/tsa-screws-pooch-again.html

http://www.newsherald.com/news/mother-94767-search-adult.html

Soul mate

I don't know who this guy or gal is, but we are definitely cut from the same cloth. As a veteran who spent over eight years giving back to other veterans by working at a shitty VA hospital in Roseburg, OR (it was only shitty for the last six of the eight - ask me who the Directors were during that time ;-), I just came across this photo of a note posted on the window of a veteran's center in the great state of Washington.

I have no use for thieves. Sure, some are simply helpless people who are unable to support their drug habits by honest work (unemployed? unwilling to work? disabled but capable of breaking, entering, and stealing computer equipment?), but some are actually bad people {sarcasm off}. Removing them from the gene pool, although they may have already polluted it with some of their own genetic flotsam and jetsam, is a goodness thing.

Whoever you are, you clever sir or madam, I would like to shake your hand. Even if it is still covered in gunpowder residue.

One Double Standard, Coming Right Up

Those few folks who know me have an idea how I feel about anti_Semitism, and the Jews. It's possible I might have mentioned coming close to strangling my ex mother-in-law (while she was still my m-i-l) when she stated that the Jews got what they deserved in the Holocaust. She is representative of much of the Left, as they claim to be compassionate and caring, claim to be supportive of minorities, but are strangely silent - including even "Progressive" Jews - when the subject is anti-Semitism, or Israel.

[Ed. note: the m-i-l had had enough to drink that night to speak to how she really felt about her Jewish "friends". Would you be surprised to discover her parents were German?]

Here recently, it has become known that Saudi Arabia refuses to let Jews, or anyone who has ever gotten a stamp on their passport in Israel, into Saudi Arabia. They have admitted it is illegal to be in Saudi Arabia if you are a Jew. Apparently, Delta Airlines is cooperating with Saudi Arabia on this, as they continue to fly their aircraft there, in spite of the obvious racist, anti-Semitic behavior of that country.

Where is the outcry from the Left? Where are the shouts of racism, the condemnation of Saudi Arabia for its racist refusal to admit Jews into their country? Could it be that the Left only plays the race card when it is a race of which they approve? Or is it simply that there is no benefit to them from playing the Jewish race card, so it doesn't get played? That they really have no love for the minorities they pretend to care about, but only use the accusation of racism to assault those they dislike, without any true concern for the minorities involved?

As this article points out, the Israelis not only allow people of all races, creeds and nationalities to live in Israel, they even have Arabs, muslims, in their legislature, the Knesset. As opposed to countries such as Saudi Arabia, where it is illegal to be Jewish, let alone a citizen, let alone a participant in government.

What do we hear from the Left about this? Nothing. Silence. Yet, were Israel to ban the presence of muslims within Israel - which they have excellent reason to do, given the number of Israelis killed and maimed by muslims - the Left would be screaming its invective, calling Israel racist, inhumane, cruel and unjust, demanding they be invaded by U.N. troops and brought to heel.

I guess that makes the Left the poster child for hypocrisy. But, we knew that, didn't we? We knew that those elites who utilize the Left, the Progressive movement, to advance their aims are willing to say anything, do anything, to forward their agenda. Including using minorities - who they really don't care about - as a front for creating socialism in America. Oh, they love minorities, all right. When they are nannies, chauffeurs, gardeners, and servants. When they are voters willing to keep the Democrats who serve the Left in power. Just don't invite them to the country club. Well, maybe a few caddies and a token golf pro.

A look at the future in store for us, if we allow it.

There are many in this country who believe guns are evil, that they cause people to do harmful, deadly things that they would never do if there only weren't any guns available. Of course, there is no logic capable of supporting this belief, nor any facts that encourage such a supposition, but they continue to believe it nonetheless.

For the moment, we will leave aside all of the excellent reasons for acknowledging the right to keep and bear arms, save one: self-defense. Most states have laws written which explain that the defense of another who is at risk of bodily injury or death is considered part of self-defense. So, you are not breaking the law if you defend a family member, a friend, a neighbor, or even a defenseless child or woman or elderly man, any of whom are not currently capable of defending themselves. The laws codify the right of an individual to use deadly force to save another, as well as yourself.

In this country (at least for the present moment), it is acceptable to use deadly force to defend yourself against home invaders. Of course, if those invaders happen to be cops, you will most likely die. But, if it happens to be a gang of balaclava-wearing men who appear intent upon doing you harm, you are entitled to defend yourself and any others in your home who might be at risk of said bodily injury or death. You need only fear for your life, or theirs, or fear bodily injury, and you may respond with all of the force necessary to stop or repel those invading your home.

However, if you happen to live in England, all bets are off. English law, established by some years of recent precedent, denies you not only the right to arm yourself with a firearm for self-defense, you are not permitted to injure your assailant in any manner whatsoever. There have been many instances of British subjects (subjects are different from citizens) defending themselves with a bat, or a club, or a knife, or even using their hands and their feet, and being arrested and sent to jail. English law does not accept the right of their subjects to defend themselves against aggression, no matter how egregious.

Here is a recent article about a family being arrested for murder when one of a group of masked men - wearing balaclavas - who forced their way into their home, ended up dying from a stab wound, which the article leads us to believe was caused by a member of the family. Frankly, I would probably simply clam up if it was me, and force the court to prove it was I who had stabbed the criminal, rather than one of his criminal cohort, who they may never even identify, let alone locate and bring in for questioning. Having read a bit about the current state of English law enforcement, though, it wouldn't surprise me to read that the local police offered one of the other criminals complete immunity to come forward and testify against this family they are accusing of murder.

Much like one of our "esteemed" U.S. Attorneys did in the 2006 Ramos/Compean case, where two Border Agents were sent to prison for shooting a drug smuggler in the ass when he attempted to flee the scene after one of the agents had been assaulted and injured. The U.S. Attorney gave the drug smuggler - arrested numerous times, a criminal known to American law enforcement even though he was a Mexican citizen - complete immunity to get on the stand and lie his bandaged ass off in the Attorney's successful attempt to send two good men to prison for the effrontery of stopping a known felon by wounding him, a criminal whom one of the agents thought had seriously injured his partner.

That was a travesty of justice. (It did not appear to be a case of excessive force, as seems to have become somewhat common these days.) Even so, it is actually more legitimate to scrutinize the actions of law enforcement - whose officers, are supposed to be held to a higher standard of behavior - than to criminalize an individual's right to protect himself and those he loves. In England it has become unacceptable to use force to defend oneself. It is reason for their judicial system to criminalize you and put you in gaol (jail).

There are many Democrats, and I include Obama in this group, who believe the European model of society is superior to American society. They believe the British National Health System is superior to ours, and wish to introduce many of its features into our healthcare system (The Affordable Care Act, aka: Obamacare). Many of these same people would love to see us disarmed, stripped of our firearms, in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has finally recognized the correctness of the Second Amendment as an individual right. (All the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, inhering to the individual, not a group.)

These people would love to see us suffer at the hands of criminals, as that is the price of disarming us. I realize some of you reading this may say it is outrageous of me to claim to know they would "love to see us suffer", but stop to consider this: if they would love to see an America without firearms (indisputable fact), and they realize, as they must, that this would mean increased depredation at the hands of criminals - burglars, robbers, rapists - then it is indeed fair to say they would love to see us suffer at their hands.

This could be, will be our fate if we allow our country to be molded into a socialist copy of Great Britain or the rest of Europe. If we allow our elected "representatives" to act upon their desires, their agenda rather than what we (The People) want and need as Americans. Do any of you imagine criminals will be less likely to break into our homes to steal, rob and rape our wives, daughters, sisters and mothers if we follow in Britain's footsteps? If we allow ourselves to be disarmed and incapable of resisting? Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. (Remember that the courts - including SCOTUS - have decided that the police have no duty to protect you, only to protect "society" at large.) They are certain to get there in time to draw a lovely chalk mark around your cooling corpse.

I read about a firearms trainer - shooting instructor - who was trying to teach a lady who actually hated guns how to use one (her husband talked her into attending the class.) She told him she would never actually shoot at another human being, and that is why she couldn't hit the target, even close up. He asked her to think about being at a service station, putting gas into her vehicle, and then walking to the attendant to pay. As she walks back to her vehicle, she sees a man unbuckle her three year old daughter from her car seat and throw her into his van. The trainer asked her what she would do. If she saw this happening and was armed with a gun, would she use it? The lady became almost enraged thinking of some stranger, some pederast snatching her child, and said she would kill him, with her bare hands if that were all she had. Not being completely in denial, she realized she could indeed shoot in such a circumstance, and decided she needed to learn how to handle a firearm after all. She became quite proficient with her weapon, dedicated to developing her ability to defend her loved ones, as she wouldn't have merely to defend herself.

So, emulating the English is something to devoutly wish does not happen. However, if those who are pushing us to "think globally", who want us to become a clone of European society, have their way, it could be our future. Where we will be jailed for resisting anyone who invades our home, even the street trash who feel safe invading our homes. The ones without badges and the ones with badges.

The Firearms Freedom Act and the Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment speaks to the fact that the Founders of our nation, our Republic, intended that the Federal government be limited in scope and power. It reiterated the intent that the people, and through them their own individual state, possessed all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government, the "United States". Please remember that the"United States" were so called because the states joined together to accomplish some limited goals that were more easily realized in concert than separately. There was never any wish to relegate complete control to a central government (except perhaps by a few misguided, elitist individuals such as Alexander Hamilton.)

The Federal government, as all governments do when let off the leash by a lazy, distracted and unsuspecting citizenry, seeks to grow its power, to control all that it can. Because of this fact, the weakly written Commerce Clause has been interpreted by politicians and Presidents to mean that anything they wish can be controlled by the Federal government.

It was bad enough when the Federal government applied it to all items which physically moved between states, but since before WWII it has been applied to anything you do. Farmers who grew wheat and raised livestock and grew personal gardens all for their own personal use were harassed, arrested and convicted under the Commerce Clause. IIRC, the justification was that they were depriving the economy of other food producers in other states by not purchasing their produce, instead consuming their own. This continues to this day. The FDA and the Department of Agriculture can control what you grow and what you consume of and on your own property. Personal vegetable gardens, goats and cows kept for personal consumption of their milk and meat and offspring, wheat grown to make only your own bread or pasta.

Recently, several states - including the beautiful state of Montana where I currently am residing - have passed legislation, signed by their governor, which codifies that a firearm produced entirely within the state and kept only within that state is not subject to any Federal firearm laws. Montana was the first to pass such a law.

Of course, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (which many of us believe should be the name of a convenience store, not a Federal agency) is trying to convince people, and the legislature of the states involved, that Federal law supersedes state law. This may be true when considering laws that pertain to Federal powers granted by the Constitution, but as the Commerce Clause was not intended to control activities within a state that did not concern or affect other states' ability to conduct commerce with each other, it does not apply to the Firearms Freedom Act, which is entirely intrastate.

Here is a web site that speaks to this issue. Since this is a good "foot in the door" aimed at recovering some control from that which has been usurped by the Federal government, it should be supported by anyone who A) believes in "states rights", especially as written in the Constitution and reflected in the Tenth Amendment, and B) wishes to begin to curb the excesses of governmental control over ever aspect of our lives.

Please check out this web site, read conservative opinions written about the Commerce Clause and about the Tenth Amendment/states' rights. I say "conservative" because we all have heard the government's liberal, indeed socialistic interpretation of these issues: that you have no rights beyond those which the Federal government wants you to have, and only when it wants you to have them. In order to read anything other than that, you will have to force yourself to check conservative web sites which talk about the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment, which the Supreme Court is busy trashing through their social activism.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/