I CALL FOR A WEAPONS BAN!

That's right. I have joined the ranks of those who wish to ban the most terrible weapon of all.

The specific weapon I want to ban has killed more people than 9 mm pistols, more people than 12 gauge shotguns, more people than AK 47s and, yes, more people than both atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

This weapon has killed people all over the world. It has killed people in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, in South America, in North America and even in Antarctica.

Yes, this weapon WAS used for hunting, but that is little reason to allow it to be kept in circulation.

It is also true that collectors love this weapon. Their walls are adorned with examples of these weapons from the earliest recorded use of them to the ones manufactured today.

One of this weapon's greatest assets is also its greatest danger. It can be used in so many ways to commit so many different incidences of mayhem.

As an instrument of terror, this weapon is unsurpassed in history. It can be used to frighten, to intimidate, to maim, to dismember, to cut out a heart, to behead and countless other ways.

I speak of none other than the SWORD.

There are many kinds of swords, but one of the most deadly was surely the Roman gladius (shown above).

To quote Vince's Worthwhile Website, "With their skills as soldiers and battle formations the gladius was an ideal weapon for drawing out in the tight formations that they used to march and indeed fight in.

"The Roman Gladius (Gladius; n  Lat; sword) got its origins from the Spaniards when after several conflicts the Romans became impressed with the sword and adopted it for themselves."

The Roman gladius, though, was a short little dude, and its range was therefore fairly short.

For targets further away, there were various longer swords that could be used.

People have actually made their living and gained their fame using swords.

Now there can be little doubt. The sword must be banned.
Please contact your Senator and Congressman and encourage him to introduce a bill (hopefully with no earmarks) to ban these awful WSDs (weapons of such destruction).

CIRCUMVENT WHENEVER POSSIBLE

Until President BO (the amateur president) did it, no president in US history has EVER declared Congress to be in recess. Only Congress has the Constitutional power to declare itself in recess. He simply said, in his usual dictatorial manner, "I declare that there is a recess."

Congress might take breaks during the year, but it does not recess until the end of the Congressional session...EVER. Then when it reconvenes, we call it a new Congress and give it the next number in the Congressional sequence.

From time to time Congress takes holiday breaks and other breaks for its members to go back to their districts and do some politicking  or to be with their families or whatever, but they do NOT take a recess to do it.

The Constitution makes it clear with the phrase: the Recess. It is the time following the end of a Congressional session.

See, words matter and so does grammar. That's why we should all learn it, whether we want to or not.

"The" is a definite article. That means it refers to something specifically and not to something generally, as in the case with "a."

If you say to me, "Give me a key to a car," I might fulfill your command by handing you just any old key. On the other hand, if you say to me, "Give me the key to the car," you have now gotten specific and any other key I hand you might raise your ire.

So, "the recess" is different from "a recess." It refers to the specific recess that occurs at the end of a Congressional session.

That's what the US District Court (not just "a" court, the court) affirmed unanimously with its decision concerning President BO (the amateur president 's appointments to the NLRB (not just any labor board...that specific labor board.)

The Constitution: Article II, Section 2: ...The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

A sitting president has every right, under the Constitution, to appoint people to certain positions when Congress is in RECESS. To make appointments when Congress is in session is not Constitutional. That would constitution a failure to uphold the Constitution, something PBO (tap) swore he would do.

Because it was still in session, and therefore must have been consulted with regard to those appointments, Obama circumvented Congress and the Constitution to get his way.

His attitude is, as he has stated, "if Congress won't do it, I'll do it without them."

We're a Constitutional, Representative Republic, and a president is not allowed to do such a thing.

Now, do you think he knew that?

If so, why did he go ahead and do it?

If not, why did he not know? Isn't he supposed to have been some sort of Constitutional Scholar?

Some scholar.

If you need more clarification, here is a link to a video by a man who really IS a Constitutional scholar and who has actually argued cases before the Supreme Court and won. (Whether you like him or not, you HAVE to admit that he knows more about the Constitution than you do...or I, for that matter.)

SUNDAY RESPITE-Come Just As You Are-Unknown Artist

LET'S PLAY "SEE WHAT WE CAN GET AWAY WITH"

Was it that he did not know?

Perhaps he knew, but didn't care.

Maybe he knew but deliberately decided to flaunt his power.

Or maybe this is just part-and-parcel of his character and ideology.

Whatever it was, you'll remember the flack over President BO (the amateur president)'s controversial recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last year. The administration claimed that Congress was in "recess," therefore the appointments were Constitutional.

The president is only supposed use his power of recess appointment when Congress quits business at the end of a year.

The left insisted that the "recess" was sine die, which is a legislative term that indicates the end of a long work period.  

President BO (the amateur president) appointed three people to the labor board while the Senate was in session, ignoring the Senate’s “advise and consent” role.

Now, a federal appeals court has overturned his appointments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Obama, indeed, ignored the Senate’s “advise and consent” role by appointing those three people to the NLRB.

The court characterized PBO (tap)'s appointments as an abuse of power.

The White House had argued that the Senate was in recess because it was only holding pro forma sessions at the time of the appointments. The White House said the pro forma sessions did not constitute the Senate being in session.

They were either ignorant or they deliberately acted contrary to the law.

If they were ignorant, they further confirm the contention that this administration is amateurish in its actions.

If they were deliberately acting contrary to the law, their moral character and their competence to lead the country must be called into question.

There are a couple of places where you can learn more about the ruling: HERE and HERE.

This president continually exceeds his reach of power with policy decisions made by "executive order."

Executive Orders ARE Constitutional, as long as they do not violate other parts of the Constitution.

President BO (the amateur president) places no such restrictions on himself.

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF...AND MUMBLES, TOO

What difference it makes is LIES.

All liberals think lies are OK if they suit their political agenda and/or get them off the hook for something wrong they've done.




She takes "...full responsibility...?

Responsibility always costs something. Always.

Liberals think just saying the words "I take full responsibility" means they have taken responsibility.

No such thing!

If I drive over the speed limit at the urging of my passenger, am stopped by an officer and explain to him that my passenger told me to drive that fast, who is he going to hold responsible? How? Can you say, "Ticket?"

If my passenger says, "I told him to, I take responsibility, " who do you think the officer will write the ticket out to?

Since I am driving, I am responsible and I must pay the ticket.

I repeat: Responsibility always costs something. Always.

What price do you, in your wildest imagination, expect Hillary Clinton to pay for her total lack of response to the security needs of the American Ambassador?

Does this remind you of another Clinton and a place called Waco?

WHO CARES? - NOT OBAMA

Just a week before the New Year, Obama enjoyed his highest approval ratings of 2012. According to Gallup, 58% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing. Survey results released today (Saturday, January 19) by Gallup, though, show Obama's approval rating has plummeted to just 49%.

So, what does it mean?

President BO (the amateur president) began to lose ground after his gun control proposals, which were a bunch of "Who shot John" to begin with.

One of the things his drop, even considering his second inauguration, means is that the public is not with him on the gun control issue...not his version of it anyway.

Gun control is not the only issue that has disenchanted some people, but it is representative of what has gone wrong (or right, depending on your point of view) in his tenure.

What it really shows is that PBC (tap) does not care one whit what the people want. They have made themselves clear and he's not listening.

He does not have to get reelected, so he can show his true colors. Some would say his color is pink.

The side of himself he is showing is the "I'm the boss here, and you'll do what I tell you. I don't need Congress or the Supreme Court or the people with me.

His attitude is, "Regardless of what the people want, they'll get them what I want them to get."

Wake up, America. Your president does not care what you  think, what you want or where you're going. He wants what he wants for you. And he's going to make you want it whether you want it or not.

Just a quick note. This post is not about gun control. It is about the public's reaction to Obama's attitude and policies in this new year.

CELEBRATING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Last Friday I watched a *“scicumentary” on PBS about time and how it is defined.

The program host visited various physicists, philosophers and clergy to discuss the topic of time and came to the conclusion that we don’t know how to define it.

Politicians can’t define it either. In fact, they lack the gene to anticipate what might happen in the future, largely because they can’t see past the next election or the current firestorm of choice.

“Unintended consequences” of their decision making often end up costing and/or hurting both their constituents and the other citizens of the United States.

One such “unintended consequence” is Social Security.

It was intended as an aid to retirement…a federal government plan to “care for the elderly” and to garner votes and political favor for FDR.

On this very blog I have referred to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.  I was wrong. It is much worse than a Ponzi scheme.

Shikha Dalmia, a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation, writes this about Social Security:

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It is much worse.

Here are three reasons why:

One, a Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats.

Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.

Three: When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes. Indeed, Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute points out, 

Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. 

The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. 

Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

And given that the worker-to-retiree ratio is expected to fall from 3-1 today to 2-1 in 2030 (down from 16-1 in 1950) these taxes will only go up unless the government decides to kick retirees in their dentures and slash benefits.

Now, please don’t go telling me about how I have “reaped the benefits” of the Social Security program. I have had Social Security taxes taken out of my paycheck ever since I began working, much to my chagrin.

I was not given a choice. The money was confiscated…just taken…by the federal government. It was not invested as a retirement plan would be. It was just taken and redistributed.

When Social Security was enacted, it was touted as proof that the federal government cared about people.

Only it proved no such thing, largely because of unintended consequences.

Millions of people have no income EXCEPT Social Security, for a variety of good and not-so-good reasons.

Some lost their retirement savings due to economic pressures. Others lost savings because of their own stupidity. Still others never saved in the first place, expecting the government to take care of them in their old age.

As everybody knows (apparently not), one cannot live on Social Security alone and have any of life’s amenities.

The unintended consequence of this poorly designed scheme is that there are millions living right at the poverty level precisely BECAUSE of a government that was supposed to be helpful (if you are naive enough to believe that’s why FDR pushed it).

I am not really interested in discussing the merits or demerits of Social Security here, I have used it as an example of the federal government predictable way of enacting legislation that has UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

I could have chosen Federal Reserve Act of 1913, The New Deal, The Great Society, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act , the Dodd-Frank Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, the Reorganization Plan Number 3 (Environmental Protection Agency), or the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Food and Drug Administration). I chose Social Security. Get over it.

The point is the federal government cannot foresee the consequences of the laws it imposes on people because of its nature, its distance from the people, because it lacks the gene to anticipate what might happen as a result of any given law and its penchant for scrambling to pass foolish legislation in the name of “serving its constituents.”

They major on proving the sarcastic adage:  “We’re from the government. We’re here to help.”

*A combining of science with documentary. Not a real word, until now.