CALL FOR BAN ON PRESSURE COOKERS!!

Please join me in protesting the rights of people owning pressure cookers.  Pressure cookers are just too dangerous for civilian ownership.  If we ban the purchase of pressure cookers, we greatly reduce the number of people killed or wounded.  It won't be easy because Americans seem to stubbornly cling to the idea that they need pressure cookers.  At a minimum, we need common sense pressure cooker regulations like 3-day waiting periods before purchases are approved, background checks, limiting the cooker capacities to only 2-quarts, and banning carry handles and grips on all pressure cookers.


Please call your Congressmen today and tell them we need to put an end to pressure cooker violence!

LETS KEEP OUR HEADS.

"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it.  The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury.  Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim."  - Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper -

"When any nation mistrusts its citizens with guns, it is sending a clear message.  It no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans."  - George Washington -

"Rights don't change just because technology advances."  - unknown -












"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.  I love only that which they defend."  - J.R.R. Tolkien -












"Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self-defense and in pursuit of peace.  One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate, isn't due as much as anything to the criminal's instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has the means of self-protection."  - Ronald Reagan -

RED or BLUE . . . OR DIE!!!!

     I often hear the argument, "If you don't vote for Trump that's a vote for Hillary." Not only does this not make any sense at all, there are other problems with this kind of thinking which I think are the cause of many of America's problems today.  I believe political parties and people's unquestioning allegiance to them are a major threat to the free individual and the American way of life.  Some people say that they will support whoever ends up being the Republican nominee.  This logic is bothersome as it indicates to me that they are not considering any individual for president but rather are beholden only to the party.  Thus they have willingly surrendered their sovereign free authority to decide, and handed it over to a group.  This is extremely dangerous to individual liberty and it isn't only my opinion.  Other respected Americans have shared this view on political parties which I think gives my perspective some credibility.

     George Washington said,  “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

     Likewise John Adams said,  "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

     Remember in the '80's the whole "Coke or Pepsi" rivalry?  People on the street would be asked to taste two different colas, one was Coke and the other Pepsi.  Then they'd be asked which one they would choose.  Let's use this example to compare the "not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary" logic.  Let's say Tom's Grocery Store is trying to determine which cola to stock on it's shelves and decides to conduct a taste test.  Whichever cola wins the contest will be available to purchase at Tom's Grocery.  So Tom sets up the taste test outside his store and records people's choices.  One person in particular tastes both the red cola and the blue cola but declines to choose either one.  Tom is confused and asks the taste tester, "Why didn't you choose one?"  
To which the taster replies, "I don't like cola and I think it is bad for my health."  
Tom personally prefers the red cola and would really like to see the red one win the contest, so he tries to persuade the taster, "Are you sure you didn't like the red one?  I think the red one is better.  Would you like to taste them again? Maybe you'll see that the red cola is better."  
However, the taster insists on not choosing red or blue and says, "I can't in good conscience choose something I don't believe in."
Irritated, Tom begins to yell at the taster, "Well you're messing up the voting and that is just un-American!  Don't you realize that NOT voting for red is really a vote FOR blue?  But out of curiosity, what drink would you choose if you could pick anything?"
"Orange," the taster replied calmly. "I think the orange one would be best for me."
Aggravated, Tom hisses through his teeth, "That's ridiculous. The orange one would never win.  If the blue one wins, I'm blaming you because you didn't vote for red!"

Voting for a candidate I believe in is what makes me American.  I am loyal to my country not only to a group or faction within my country.  Doing that... would be UN-American.

POLITICAL PARTIES = DANGER

THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS..... NOT!

When election time comes around I often hear a phrase that causes me to shudder with disgust, "We have to vote for the lesser of two evils."

This kind of thinking is not only ridiculous it is downright dangerous to free people in a free society.  Let's look at it this way: If a drug dealer approached you and offered you either heroine or cocaine, which would you choose?  What if you were offered a taste of either strychnine or arsenic, which one would you choose?  How about you give me either $10 or $100?  In these examples, which choices are the lesser of two evils?  If offered heroine or cocaine I would choose kale.  Strychnine or arsenic?... I'd go for a walk in the woods.  Give $10 or $100?... some would say $10 is obviously the lesser of two evils.  On the contrary, how about paying $0 or better yet dancing an Irish jig?

My point is, we always have the right to choose whatever we want.  We are not forced to only choose what is presented in front of us.  So please, please, please, this next election vote for someone you believe in (whoever that may be) not just the LESSER OF TWO EVILS.  And get people to stop saying that.  Voting for someone you don't want to get rid of someone you don't want just makes no sense.

IS OBAMA THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENT?

     I find it interesting when opponents of President Obama's policies say things like, "His policies are failures." or "He must not understand anything about (blank)."  I think President Obama is extremely smart and I believe his policies are incredibly successful.  Please read on and I'll explain my views. (some of you who follow "The Iron" may have been startled by that declaration but it'll all make sense)

     Success or failure is all relative to your point of view.  For example, if you completely burnt a lasagna I might look at it and say, "Awe man!  You ruined the lasagna!"  However, what if you intended to create charred lasagna?  Then, you would be a success!  I may not like the end result and we may disagree on the reason you wanted to produce the carbon casserole.  But it would not be accurate for me to call your dish a "failure" if in fact that was your intent.

     The most important yet most forgotten part of all of this is the follow up question to the President's choices and actions.  It is the question that should be asked the most but is presented the least.  It is the question that can reveal the true nature of any situation if pursued.  It is the greatest question and at the same time can be the worst question.  It is the question that I usually find myself reacting with, "Sheesh. I'm sorry I asked."

That question is WHY?

President Obama's policies, ideals, and actions are tremendously successful.  I am actually impressed with the volume and rate at which his ideas have become realities.  However, to borrow from the words of Abraham Lincoln: 

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) 

"Hey, what did you learn at the university?"


"I learned how to be offended.  I learned how to protest.  I learned how to agitate society.  I learned how to whine about fairness.  I learned how to make sure my children have less freedom than me.  I learned how to accumulate mountains of debt.   I also mastered the art of social bullying, and... it only cost me $65,000!!"


"Wow.  Sounds like quite an experience.  Did you learn how to do anything worthwhile like a specific skill or anything?"


"No.  That's what Graduate School is for."


"Oh!  What are you going to study in grad-school?"


"I want to be a college professor someday!"


"...(sigh)..."

THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE

"Hey Frank, have you decided who to vote for?"

"Not yet Bill."

"Gee Frank, why the heck not?"

"Well Bill, my party hasn't told me who to vote for yet."

"Golly-gee-whillikers Frank, you're the smartest guy I know."

"HA HA HA HA HA!"

IS THIS ALARMING TO ANYONE ELSE?

WHY DIDN'T WE EVER LEARN THAT?!!

Why didn't we ever learn in school that an American President issued an executive order to send American citizens to concentration camps based on their ethnicity? (Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Ex. Order 9066, February 19, 1942)

Why didn't we ever learn in school that there were a greater number of blacks proportionate to whites in the American South who owned slaves?  (search William "April" Ellison, among others). 











Why didn't we ever learn in school that monetary inflation can be avoided?  Its not just something that inevitably happens over time.








We learned about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address but why didn't we ever learn in school that he also said this:





"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union:"  (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)

THE ENEMY WITHIN?

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."

-Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address-

FREEDOM vs. SAFETY

Would you rather be FREE or SAFE?  That is a tricky question and I might even respond to the question with this question, "Could I have both?"  However, I believe the answer is an unfortunate NO.  I don't think there's any way to guarantee safety, but I do think you can be guaranteed freedom.  The people who designed our country's system understood this pretty well.  

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."  ~Thomas Jefferson~

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  ~Ben Franklin~

There are many others who understand this idea as well.  Some of them from more recent times.

"Freedom is not defined by safety.  Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference.  Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place."  ~Ron Paul~

"If you want total security, go to prison.  There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on.  The only thing lacking is freedom." ~Dwight D. Eisenhower~

WHERE ARE YOU, PEACEFUL MAJORITY?

We hear that the majority of Muslims are peaceful or moderate and don't agree with the extremism of groups like ISIS.  I believe that this is true.  However, what difference does it make if the peaceful majority don't do anything to stop the radical few?  Consider this:


I believe that most Germans were peaceful.  However, the Nazi's (the radical few) were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, including their own citizens.
The peaceful majority were irrelevant. 


I believe that most Japanese were peaceful.  However, the radical few were responsible for the deaths of millions of people across southeast Asia.
The peaceful majority were irrelevant.


I believe that most Chinese were peaceful.  However, the extreme few were responsible for so many deaths, some aren't even sure how many millions were killed exactly... possibly as high as 75,000,000.
The peaceful majority were irrelevant.



The idea for this post was inspired by a short video of a response by Brigitte Gabriel
Click Here to watch

THIS IS WHY WE MUST BE EVER SO CAUTIOUS OF GOVERNMENT !!

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf~

HEALTHCARE.... WHAT HAPPENED?

THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE

THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

I WISH WE COULD HAVE

WHO AM I ???

Am I a racist because my skin is "white"?

Am I a sexist because I am a man?

Am I a bigot because I worship the God of love?

Am I a "radical extremist" because I believe in strict adherence to the law?

Do I hate children because I think parents have the right to decide what's best for their children's education?

Do I hate women because I believe it's wrong to kill babies?

Am I prejudice against short people because I am tall?

Am I a non-conformist because I study history and value the lessons learned from previous mistakes? (maybe a little)

Am I a killer because I like guns?

Do I hate beggers on the street because I offer them opportunities instead of $5?

Am I insane because I wish my money was worth something?

Am I dangerous because I want the government to leave me alone?

When I listen to what others say, I really don't know who I am...


WHO AM I?

DISCUSS ONLY THAT WHICH IS RELEVANT

There are so many things being debated politically today but what is really shocking to me is that most of the discussions are actually irrelevant.  Think for a minute about what we hear being argued:

Minimum wage
Education
Government keeping us safe
The value of Federal Reserve Notes
Price of oil
Rich are too rich
Global warming
Soda is bad for us
(many other things you can think about)


Let's ask ourselves two questions, 
1- "Is our federal government involved in any of these situations?"

2- "If 'yes', are they legally authorized to be involved?"

#1 is a big YES.  The federal government is involved in all of the above, except maybe "soda is bad for us."  That may only be in some states.

#2 is an even bigger and louder NO!!  The federal government is authorized to do only a few things that are specifically prescribed by law.  This is laid out in plain English in just a few pages of text in our U.S. Constitution.  The government is not authorized to be involved in any of the topics listed above.  As a matter of fact, some of those issues are specifically listed with prohibitions against government involvement.  The law can be changed of course, and there are specific ways that we can do that.  However, none of the things listed above have been added to the list of things the government is authorized to be involved in... so how can that be?  Well, think about that and do some research for awhile if you want the truth, and a pounding headache. 

So the next time someone wants to argue with you about the minimum wage (or whatever else), you can just say "I have no opinion on the issue.  Until the federal government is legally authorized to be involved with people's wages, the topic itself is irrelevant."  Talk about getting some strange looks...

ITS VOTING TIME AGAIN... *gulp*... I JUST THREW UP IN MY MOUTH A LITTLE BIT.

Anybody else kind of sick and tired of voting?  I know we all get tired of those campaign ads.  I'd like to just send out a little snippet of encouragement today.

I consider myself politically unaffiliated and if you're like me at all, you may have found yourself voting for people based on their policies and previous actions instead of their political affiliations.  A candidate's party means little to me except that it can sometimes be an indicator of what that person uses as a guideline for their policy ideas.  Other than that, it is virtually meaningless and that isn't even always accurate.

I often get criticized for voting for people who "can't win" like so-called third party candidates or unaffiliated candidates.
"You're throwing your vote away!" they will say.
"You're helping the worst people when you do that!" some shout.
"That is unpatriotic!" others will complain.

Well, don't be discouraged by this.  The statements above are things that have actually been said to me and I will share with you some of my responses:

"It is my duty as an American to vote for someone I believe in."
"I don't see how voting FOR someone helps anyone else."
"Voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is unpatriotic."
"If there are no candidates worth voting for-don't vote, or better yet write in someone you DO believe in."
"When I go to sleep tonight, I can rest easy knowing I have voted for our Liberty."

So get out there and vote!  Know who you're voting for and why.  Be confident in your decision and if you're not, you shouldn't vote.  When you show up to vote, smile, say a prayer, take a deep breath, and cast your vote.  Oh and one more thing, bring your own barf bag just in case.

DO TRAFFIC TICKETS VIOLATE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

Someone told me that traffic tickets violated the U.S. Constitution.  My first thought was, "What?! How can that be? I doubt it."  But if you know me at all or have followed my posts for a while, you know that we can't just take someone's word for it anymore no matter who that someone is (friend, newscast, government, etc...).

I was told that a traffic ticket falls under the definition of a BILL OF ATTAINDER or BILL OF PAINS & PENALTIES, and that it is expressly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution.  Naturally I wondered, "What is a BILL OF ATTAINDER?" and, "Does our Constitution really forbid it?" 

WHAT IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER? (according to Black's Law Dictionary)

[A legislative act, directed against a designated person, pronouncing him guilty of an alleged crime, (usually treason,) without trial of conviction according to the recognized rules of procedure, and passing sentence of death and attainder upon him.  "Bills of attainder," as they are technically called, are such special acts of legislature as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offenses, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.  If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a "BILL OF PAINS and PENALTIES," but both are included in the prohibition in the Federal Constitution.]

U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1

"No State shall... pass any Bill of Attainder..."


Although a traffic ticket can be challenged in court I guess, it seems to me that the mere issuance of such a penalty is prohibited.  Not to mention the costs charged to the accused and to the court (which is charged to the accused and others by way of taxation) for the proceedings.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERTY

THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERTY