No, not the “right-to-life” in the anti-abortion sense.
Your right to life.
Your right to quiet enjoyment of your time and the fruits of your labor. Your right to enjoy a quiet evening with a good book, curled up by a crackling fire with a snoring dog by your feet and a contented cat in your lap. Sipping warm chocolate or cool wine. Your right to LIVE. Peacefully, and without worry.
Do you have the right to defend your life?
If not, then the right to life is illusory and you are merely a slave of whatever master chooses to own you or use you.
If so, should you be limited in what you can use to defend your life?
Logic says no. Logic says that you should use the most effective method at your disposal in defense of your life, until the threat is gone or you have perished.
Logic also indicates that any entity that would restrict the means available to you for defense of your life is, in essence, abetting your attacker. Those restrictions on your means constitute a rigging of the system against you, to the advantage of your attacker. You are now fighting for your life against a direct foe and an indirect one. One aims to deprive you of your life, the other aims to deprive you of your means to defend it. Both are evil in their aims towards you. Both are conspiring to ensure that the odds are stacked against your success in defense of your life.
Why?
I can understand the criminal's goal. It is immediate. It seeks gratification to satisfy some urgent want or need, and does not recognize societal boundaries erected to thwart it.
What is the goal of the entity abetting the criminal?
I can think of a few. More crime means more laws are required to “prevent” crime. More laws requires more lawyers and legislators. More laws means more policemen to enforce them. More policemen, lawyers, and legislators means more requirements for the people to support the system. More requirements means more taxes. More taxes means more power. More power means the need for more power. Ad infinitum.
In a just system, the victim (that's you) would have available to himself/herself the most effective means of defense possible. In a just system, there would be no restrictions on what you could use, because the system would recognize that your life was worth defending. A just system would consider that your quiet evening was disturbed by someone whose aim was to deprive you of your life, or of the fruits of your life.
You did not ask to be attacked.
You shouldn't have to ask for permission to own the proper tools of your defense, nor prove that you are worthy of defending. You should not have to subject yourself to scrutiny for wishing to peaceably obtain effective means of defense.
It is guaranteed that your attacker didn't...
Think about that one.
Law abiding people, by definition, obey the law. Criminals, by definition, do not.
Any law that restricts the actions of the law-abiding will not have any effect on the criminal. This is a logical statement. Enacting laws whose impact affects only the law-abiding is tantamount to abetting a criminal.
Such is the case with gun control laws.
It is too bad that existing case law has effectively granted immunity to the State for the consequences of their bad decisions. One really good wrongful death award to a plaintiff whose loved one was denied the means of defense by the state could have a chilling effect on bad policy choices going forward. Unfortunately, it will never happen...
Consider: No government agency has liability or consequence for the effects of their failed policies when it comes to gun control. They cannot be sued. They have “sovereign immunity”. Take Chicago or New York City, or (recently) DC as examples. Their draconian gun control laws have effectively disarmed the law-abiding. Only the criminals, by definition, are armed. Case law has established that the government has no duty to defend you if you call for help, dial 911, or shout to a passing patrol car. If you get attacked and call 911, shout to the patrol car, whatever, and they fail to stop the attack (and you have no means available to defend yourself), you would think that they would have SOME liability in this because they DID disarm you with their laws (which you followed because you are law-abiding). Not the case. Your heirs have no recourse.
In the United States of America today, unless you are (or are willing to become) a criminal, you have no absolute right to life. You have only the privilege of life, and only to the extent that you can prove yourself worthy of that privilege.
If you think that this stance is harsh, ask yourself what measures you had to endure, what steps had to be taken, in order to procure for yourself the best and most effective means available to defend your life (and assuming that you even can, based on where you live).
Then ask yourself: Is it right?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Pax,
Newbius
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
I love Friday nights...
I really love Friday nights.
Friday is the day when I get to hang out with the coolest people I know: my teen-aged kids and their friends. In four or five hours, my batteries are totally recharged for another week in the trenches.
The standing deal is this: I make the pizza. 3, 4 or more, depending on group size. Hand-tossed dough, and sauces-yes plural-from scratch, plus whatever toppings they want.
They can invite any friends they want to have over for food, and music, and board or card games. The door is open to anybody they know who wants to be a guest for the evening.
Frankly, I think I get the better end of the deal.
I get to hang out with some of the brightest, freshest, most talented teenagers I have ever met. Their parents know that the kids are safe, and I know where my kids are on Friday night. Most of these friends go to Youth Group with my teens. They are really a wonderful group. So far, every one of the friends has earned a standing invitation to return.
What impresses me most though is their diversity of talent, thought, and world view. All have very clear thinking on the issues of the day. A lot of them are honors students. Some are musicians. Some sing in choir. Some are athletes. They have wonderful senses of humor, sparkling wit, and quick minds. Their parents did very well with every single one of them. I am proud that these are the people that my teens choose to be with.
If these kids are our Nation's future, we are going to be all right.
Here's hoping that your Fridays go as well as mine do.
Pax,
Newbius
Friday is the day when I get to hang out with the coolest people I know: my teen-aged kids and their friends. In four or five hours, my batteries are totally recharged for another week in the trenches.
The standing deal is this: I make the pizza. 3, 4 or more, depending on group size. Hand-tossed dough, and sauces-yes plural-from scratch, plus whatever toppings they want.
They can invite any friends they want to have over for food, and music, and board or card games. The door is open to anybody they know who wants to be a guest for the evening.
Frankly, I think I get the better end of the deal.
I get to hang out with some of the brightest, freshest, most talented teenagers I have ever met. Their parents know that the kids are safe, and I know where my kids are on Friday night. Most of these friends go to Youth Group with my teens. They are really a wonderful group. So far, every one of the friends has earned a standing invitation to return.
What impresses me most though is their diversity of talent, thought, and world view. All have very clear thinking on the issues of the day. A lot of them are honors students. Some are musicians. Some sing in choir. Some are athletes. They have wonderful senses of humor, sparkling wit, and quick minds. Their parents did very well with every single one of them. I am proud that these are the people that my teens choose to be with.
If these kids are our Nation's future, we are going to be all right.
Here's hoping that your Fridays go as well as mine do.
Pax,
Newbius
Slithering in through the back door - HR45
No action yet, except it is in committee...
I posted last night on the USCCA Forums that the Administration wouldn't begin with a frontal assault on our Second Amendment rights. I think that Holder spoke out of turn by actually announcing publicly what the current administration intends to do to us. (Again, it isn't that they don't WANT to do this, they just don't want to do this right now.)
So, this bill is is languishing in committee. It is probably sitting there awaiting the right time to spring it upon us-but maybe I am just being cynical (hey, it has happened before).
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
•It is registered
•You are fingerprinted
•You supply a current Driver's License
•You supply your Social Security #
•You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
•Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
•There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.
They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
Maybe I am being alarmist in mentioning it. It was important enough for someone to email this alert to me, so I think I ought to at least pass it along to my readers (few though they may be).
Read the bill. Make your own determination about its contents. Contact your representative in Congress. Then contact them again by a different method. Then tell anybody you know who might care about this issue. Screw being polite about it, this government wishes to disarm you! OBAMNATION (Openly, By Any Means Necessary, As They Identify Opportunistic "Needs")
We are in for a long battle to retain our rights...
Pax,
Newbius
I posted last night on the USCCA Forums that the Administration wouldn't begin with a frontal assault on our Second Amendment rights. I think that Holder spoke out of turn by actually announcing publicly what the current administration intends to do to us. (Again, it isn't that they don't WANT to do this, they just don't want to do this right now.)
So, this bill is is languishing in committee. It is probably sitting there awaiting the right time to spring it upon us-but maybe I am just being cynical (hey, it has happened before).
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
•It is registered
•You are fingerprinted
•You supply a current Driver's License
•You supply your Social Security #
•You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
•Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
•There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.
They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
Maybe I am being alarmist in mentioning it. It was important enough for someone to email this alert to me, so I think I ought to at least pass it along to my readers (few though they may be).
Read the bill. Make your own determination about its contents. Contact your representative in Congress. Then contact them again by a different method. Then tell anybody you know who might care about this issue. Screw being polite about it, this government wishes to disarm you! OBAMNATION (Openly, By Any Means Necessary, As They Identify Opportunistic "Needs")
We are in for a long battle to retain our rights...
Pax,
Newbius
Fairness Doctrine by another name
Well,
The DC Voting Rights bill is working its way through the sausage factory. Short of a Constitutional Amendment, I don't see how this is legitimate in any way. That is a discussion for another time though.
The Fairness Doctrine was officially "Disapproved" as an amendment to S.160 so everybody could be on record as opposing it. Cool. OK So far.
Then (drum roll please) this piece of steaming dog-doo was agreed to on a party line vote:
S.AMDT.591
Amends: S.160
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (submitted 2/26/2009) (proposed 2/26/2009)
Don't get me wrong here. I am all for diversity. I think everybody who wants a piece of the pie and is willing to work for it should get it.
That said, I also recognize that the only way that Government can enforce diversity is through various forms of coercion. And, since the person doing the promoting is "Tricky Dicky" Durbin-that squeaky-clean Illinois politician, I expect that "Diversity" in this sense means Liberal Minority ownership for politically-connected recipients.
Or, to put another way, The Fairness Doctrine-repackaged and marketed with a different wrapper but with the same tired goals.
Pax,
Newbius
The DC Voting Rights bill is working its way through the sausage factory. Short of a Constitutional Amendment, I don't see how this is legitimate in any way. That is a discussion for another time though.
The Fairness Doctrine was officially "Disapproved" as an amendment to S.160 so everybody could be on record as opposing it. Cool. OK So far.
Then (drum roll please) this piece of steaming dog-doo was agreed to on a party line vote:
S.AMDT.591
Amends: S.160
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (submitted 2/26/2009) (proposed 2/26/2009)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S2574
STATUS:
- 2/26/2009:
- Amendment SA 591 proposed by Senator Durbin.
- 2/26/2009:
- Amendment SA 591 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57 - 41. Record Vote Number: 70.
Don't get me wrong here. I am all for diversity. I think everybody who wants a piece of the pie and is willing to work for it should get it.
That said, I also recognize that the only way that Government can enforce diversity is through various forms of coercion. And, since the person doing the promoting is "Tricky Dicky" Durbin-that squeaky-clean Illinois politician, I expect that "Diversity" in this sense means Liberal Minority ownership for politically-connected recipients.
Or, to put another way, The Fairness Doctrine-repackaged and marketed with a different wrapper but with the same tired goals.
Pax,
Newbius
A little Crow, extra sauce...
Well, I made a mistake. I apologize to all of you left-leaning sympathizers. I got it wrong.
Obama is NOT a Socialist. There. I said it. I even agree with you.
The Democrats are not Socialists. Yep. I said that one too. I really mean it, too.
You see, Socialism (a milder form of just like Communism) requires that the State own the property, and then assigns the beneficial interest to whomever it pleases. This is not a description of what is happening today. It is not at all like what we are experiencing at the hands of our government. Well, maybe in the case of the banks and other companies that the government took (partial) ownership of...but just those cases. Otherwise, not the general situation in the country today.
Truly.
The situation we are in right now is one where private individuals and corporations get to retain ownership, and the State tells them how much of the benefit they will get to enjoy (if any).
This is definitely NOT Socialism.
This is Fascism.
Pax,
Newbius
Obama is NOT a Socialist. There. I said it. I even agree with you.
The Democrats are not Socialists. Yep. I said that one too. I really mean it, too.
You see, Socialism (
Truly.
The situation we are in right now is one where private individuals and corporations get to retain ownership, and the State tells them how much of the benefit they will get to enjoy (if any).
This is definitely NOT Socialism.
This is Fascism.
Pax,
Newbius
Thursday, February 26, 2009
It is a FUNDAMENTAL difference in position
...between the Liberal-Socialist-Statist position regarding YOUR income, and your OWN position on it.
Nancy Pelosi was just quoted on CNN as stating that the "reason for all of our deficits was because Bush gave the wealthiest wage earners a tax cut that they weren't entitled to".
I kid you not.
As I stated last September, the numbers are incontrovertible. My sources are Government Statistics! The reason for the deficits was that Government SPENT MORE THAN THEY TOOK FROM YOU. And, what they took from you was MORE than they expected due to the (many-times-proven) positive effect on revenue by lowering the tax rates.
I was yelling at the TV again and scared my cats!
I wish that JUST ONCE, an HONEST journalist (are there any left?) would ask these politician HACKS to prove their statement with something approaching factual data, instead of blithely nodding their heads in agreement and letting these bald-faced lies stand as if they had merit.
Am I alone out here?
If you think I am just another raving lunatic out here in the Blog-o-sphere, let me quote the IRS for you regarding the amount of your wages that you get to keep (exemptions, deductions, credits, and other monies otherwise collected from you). The IRS calls this amount a "Tax Expenditure"
In the view of the Pelosi's of the world, all of the money you earn is rightfully the Government's. Therefore, any amount that you get to keep is an entitlement. Looked at through this lens, it begins to make sense when she and others of her ilk state that you were allowed too much, or taxed too little. Since they own you already (you slave, you), they get to dispose of your work product (life) in any way that pleases them.
I guess one of the things that surprises me about all of this, is that nobody in the Press seems to care that the numbers don't add up. Nobody in the Press is alarmed. Nobody in the Press (except Glenn Beck and the Wall Street Journal - both completely discredited by the rest of the media as foaming, rabid, right-wingers) has bothered to analyze anything.
Prediction: When the numbers really come in (in 2011), everybody earning over $30,000 will get a tax hike. Or, hyper-inflation will have destroyed our civilization as we know it. Anybody up for an "Obamar Republic"? Remember that the failed policies of Tax-and-Spend and Liberal Socialism destroyed the fragile German economy and paved the way for a National Socialist leader. (Yeah, I know these are Wiki references...shut up and deal, ok?)
Like all good Statist systems, the pattern goes like this:
Get Elected
Disarm the people (crime crisis, or uprising of the unwashed as an excuse)
Abolish elections (emergency measure only!)
Muzzle the Press (control the message)
Rule for 2-5 decades
Step one is complete...
Pax,
Newbius
Nancy Pelosi was just quoted on CNN as stating that the "reason for all of our deficits was because Bush gave the wealthiest wage earners a tax cut that they weren't entitled to".
I kid you not.
As I stated last September, the numbers are incontrovertible. My sources are Government Statistics! The reason for the deficits was that Government SPENT MORE THAN THEY TOOK FROM YOU. And, what they took from you was MORE than they expected due to the (many-times-proven) positive effect on revenue by lowering the tax rates.
I was yelling at the TV again and scared my cats!
I wish that JUST ONCE, an HONEST journalist (are there any left?) would ask these politician HACKS to prove their statement with something approaching factual data, instead of blithely nodding their heads in agreement and letting these bald-faced lies stand as if they had merit.
Am I alone out here?
If you think I am just another raving lunatic out here in the Blog-o-sphere, let me quote the IRS for you regarding the amount of your wages that you get to keep (exemptions, deductions, credits, and other monies otherwise collected from you). The IRS calls this amount a "Tax Expenditure"
In the view of the Pelosi's of the world, all of the money you earn is rightfully the Government's. Therefore, any amount that you get to keep is an entitlement. Looked at through this lens, it begins to make sense when she and others of her ilk state that you were allowed too much, or taxed too little. Since they own you already (you slave, you), they get to dispose of your work product (life) in any way that pleases them.
I guess one of the things that surprises me about all of this, is that nobody in the Press seems to care that the numbers don't add up. Nobody in the Press is alarmed. Nobody in the Press (except Glenn Beck and the Wall Street Journal - both completely discredited by the rest of the media as foaming, rabid, right-wingers) has bothered to analyze anything.
Prediction: When the numbers really come in (in 2011), everybody earning over $30,000 will get a tax hike. Or, hyper-inflation will have destroyed our civilization as we know it. Anybody up for an "Obamar Republic"? Remember that the failed policies of Tax-and-Spend and Liberal Socialism destroyed the fragile German economy and paved the way for a National Socialist leader. (Yeah, I know these are Wiki references...shut up and deal, ok?)
Like all good Statist systems, the pattern goes like this:
Get Elected
Disarm the people (crime crisis, or uprising of the unwashed as an excuse)
Abolish elections (emergency measure only!)
Muzzle the Press (control the message)
Rule for 2-5 decades
Step one is complete...
Pax,
Newbius
More on the assault on our 2A Freedom:
David Codrea has an excellent piece out today about the coming "Assault Weapons" ban. If you are a reader of this, or are someone who cares about your fundamental freedoms, then you need to spread the word.
Pax,
Newbius
Pax,
Newbius
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
And so the assault on the 2nd Amendment begins...
Eric Holder, under the smokescreen of a presser about the bust of the Sinaloan drug cartel and seizure of property, announced that the Obama Administration intends to re-institute the Clinton Gun Bans.
This isn't really news, as this had been a part of the Democratic Party Platform (page 48, if you care to look it up). and was also listed on the White House website. What is news is that it was stated openly by a member of the Obama team in a news conference.
Given the level of candor that Eric Holder showed during the press conference, what is astonishing to me is that nobody asked any follow up questions to the statement. Do the morons in the Press not realize that the only REAL guarantor of the First Amendment is the existence of the Second?
Add to this public posture, the wishes of the Democratic-controlled congress and the socialist President in repealing the Tiahrt Amendment and you have a recipe for disaster for the 2nd Amendment.
The People are not going to like this one bit... It is too bad that the Congress isn't going to listen to them. The last time we had an out of control government, taxation without representation (can anybody seriously claim that Congress represents US and not themselves??), and a trampling of individual rights, Thomas Jefferson drafted, and some enterprising and bold gentlemen signed their names to, the following:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I am not advocating or fomenting a rebellion. I am observing a pattern of arrogance and abuse of the individual so breathtaking in its scope that it boggles the mind and invites revolt by free-thinking Americans.
We are a free people. We are beginning to remember this again. We will not be disarmed, silenced, or subjugated.
Democrats take heed...
Pax,
Newbius
This isn't really news, as this had been a part of the Democratic Party Platform (page 48, if you care to look it up). and was also listed on the White House website. What is news is that it was stated openly by a member of the Obama team in a news conference.
Given the level of candor that Eric Holder showed during the press conference, what is astonishing to me is that nobody asked any follow up questions to the statement. Do the morons in the Press not realize that the only REAL guarantor of the First Amendment is the existence of the Second?
Add to this public posture, the wishes of the Democratic-controlled congress and the socialist President in repealing the Tiahrt Amendment and you have a recipe for disaster for the 2nd Amendment.
The People are not going to like this one bit... It is too bad that the Congress isn't going to listen to them. The last time we had an out of control government, taxation without representation (can anybody seriously claim that Congress represents US and not themselves??), and a trampling of individual rights, Thomas Jefferson drafted, and some enterprising and bold gentlemen signed their names to, the following:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I am not advocating or fomenting a rebellion. I am observing a pattern of arrogance and abuse of the individual so breathtaking in its scope that it boggles the mind and invites revolt by free-thinking Americans.
We are a free people. We are beginning to remember this again. We will not be disarmed, silenced, or subjugated.
Democrats take heed...
Pax,
Newbius
Calling John Galt!
Rustmeister posted a link worth noting. It seems that some people are beginning to pay attention to truths formerly known and recently ignored. Glad to hear it...
While they are at the bookstore, may I recommend also: "The Fountainhead", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", "The Federalist Papers", "The Anti-Federalist Papers", and "Democracy in America"? These books, if fully understood, present a picture of how our nation was envisioned at creation and what ideas and actions threaten it. The novels by Ayn Rand are works of fiction, yet wholly accurate from a legalistic and moral point of view (and the laws spoken of in Atlas Shrugged existed in America at the time of printing in 1957). The balance of the books listed are insightful essays on the virtues of Capitalism, republican (little R) government, and the pitfalls of Democracy and Statism.
Until you have read and understand these books, you will be unprepared to discuss the political situation in America today and why MOST of what the Federal Government does today is completely unconstitutional.
Since the Press today is still concerned with "Minority Rights", and believes that the Democratic Party is the only group capable of ensuring fairness and equality, I will leave you with this quote. Please reflect on the actions of the Dems today in contrast to the ideal presented here:
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -Ayn Rand
Pax,
Newbius
While they are at the bookstore, may I recommend also: "The Fountainhead", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", "The Federalist Papers", "The Anti-Federalist Papers", and "Democracy in America"? These books, if fully understood, present a picture of how our nation was envisioned at creation and what ideas and actions threaten it. The novels by Ayn Rand are works of fiction, yet wholly accurate from a legalistic and moral point of view (and the laws spoken of in Atlas Shrugged existed in America at the time of printing in 1957). The balance of the books listed are insightful essays on the virtues of Capitalism, republican (little R) government, and the pitfalls of Democracy and Statism.
Until you have read and understand these books, you will be unprepared to discuss the political situation in America today and why MOST of what the Federal Government does today is completely unconstitutional.
Since the Press today is still concerned with "Minority Rights", and believes that the Democratic Party is the only group capable of ensuring fairness and equality, I will leave you with this quote. Please reflect on the actions of the Dems today in contrast to the ideal presented here:
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -Ayn Rand
Pax,
Newbius
As if I didn't already know...
Shocker of the day:
| You are a Social Liberal (68% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (83% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also : The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Pizza, updated
I promised last year to post the sauce recipe. Didn't happen. Sorry...
I have updated the dough recipe however, and will now post both the updated dough recipe and also the red sauce. Here goes:
Pizza
Pizza Dough:
This recipe will make 2-16” thick crust, or 3-16” thin crust pizzas.
3 cups warm water
1 Tbsp Sugar
4 ½ tsp Active Dry Yeast
1 Tbsp Sea Salt (regular salt can be substituted)
1/8 cup extra virgin olive oil
8 to 9 ½ cups Bread Flour (all-purpose can be substituted)
Pizza Sauce:
1 can (15 oz.) Contadina Tomato Sauce
1 can (6 oz.) Contadina Tomato Paste
1 ½ Tsp Sea Salt
1 Tbsp ground black pepper
3 Tbsp Balsamic vinegar
2 rounded Tbsp minced garlic
2-3 Tbsp McCormick “Italian Seasoning” herb blend
Combine all ingredients in bowl with wire whisk and allow to sit for at least 1 hour before using.
In Stand mixer or large bowl, combine 1st 3 ingredients and let stand for 3 minutes
Add salt and oil and stir well
Mix in flour and knead well until dough has satiny feel and is no longer sticky. You should be able to mix in 8 cups to start and add flour until proper consistency is reached. Amount of flour will vary depending on humidity, absorption of flour, and other factors.
Lightly oil a large bowl and put dough in to rise, covered with plastic wrap, until at least doubled in volume (2-3 hours at room temperature). Punch down, knead in bowl, and allow to rest for another 30 minutes.
Divide dough evenly by weight for pizza crusts. Lightly knead dough and form into a tight ball, being careful not to expel too much air.
Roll out dough on lightly floured surface (I use 50/50 mix of corn meal and flour) and toss/stretch to size.
Top with sauce and your favorite toppings and bake in pizza pan (or on a stone) at 450-475° for 12-15 minutes until crust is light brown. You might want to start out in the lower third for 7-8 minutes, then move to the middle for the remainder of the cooking time.
I have updated the dough recipe however, and will now post both the updated dough recipe and also the red sauce. Here goes:
Pizza
Pizza Dough:
This recipe will make 2-16” thick crust, or 3-16” thin crust pizzas.
3 cups warm water
1 Tbsp Sugar
4 ½ tsp Active Dry Yeast
1 Tbsp Sea Salt (regular salt can be substituted)
1/8 cup extra virgin olive oil
8 to 9 ½ cups Bread Flour (all-purpose can be substituted)
Pizza Sauce:
1 can (15 oz.) Contadina Tomato Sauce
1 can (6 oz.) Contadina Tomato Paste
1 ½ Tsp Sea Salt
1 Tbsp ground black pepper
3 Tbsp Balsamic vinegar
2 rounded Tbsp minced garlic
2-3 Tbsp McCormick “Italian Seasoning” herb blend
Combine all ingredients in bowl with wire whisk and allow to sit for at least 1 hour before using.
In Stand mixer or large bowl, combine 1st 3 ingredients and let stand for 3 minutes
Add salt and oil and stir well
Mix in flour and knead well until dough has satiny feel and is no longer sticky. You should be able to mix in 8 cups to start and add flour until proper consistency is reached. Amount of flour will vary depending on humidity, absorption of flour, and other factors.
Lightly oil a large bowl and put dough in to rise, covered with plastic wrap, until at least doubled in volume (2-3 hours at room temperature). Punch down, knead in bowl, and allow to rest for another 30 minutes.
Divide dough evenly by weight for pizza crusts. Lightly knead dough and form into a tight ball, being careful not to expel too much air.
Roll out dough on lightly floured surface (I use 50/50 mix of corn meal and flour) and toss/stretch to size.
Top with sauce and your favorite toppings and bake in pizza pan (or on a stone) at 450-475° for 12-15 minutes until crust is light brown. You might want to start out in the lower third for 7-8 minutes, then move to the middle for the remainder of the cooking time.
New Hampshire threatens...
Civil war?
The "Live Free or Die" state is pondering a resolution in their legislature which warns the United States Federal Government that further usurpations of powers reserved to the States and the People will nullify their Constitutional authority.
It is worth a read, and isn't even all that hard to follow as legislation goes.
Thanks to Defend Our Freedoms Foundation for the update.
Pax,
Newbius
The "Live Free or Die" state is pondering a resolution in their legislature which warns the United States Federal Government that further usurpations of powers reserved to the States and the People will nullify their Constitutional authority.
It is worth a read, and isn't even all that hard to follow as legislation goes.
Thanks to Defend Our Freedoms Foundation for the update.
Pax,
Newbius
LawDog posts a funny!!
This is too funny...I had to link to it! The LawDog Files: Thought for the day:
Let the arguments begin!
Newbius
Let the arguments begin!
Newbius
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tidbit of the day:
Follow up to previous post:
The local Wally World's current supply of ammo is still sparse. They have 22LR, .223 Remington, and .45 ACP in quantity (plus lots of 12GA bird shot). Almost nothing else...
An optimist would look at the news of the day (especially considering that our economy should be "saved" now due to the Porkulus Plan) and wonder what all of the fuss was still about. I guess my area of the woods is not yet full of optimists.
In the mean-time, I will keep cruising the aisles of the local stores hoping for "Change" in the supplies reaching us.
Pax,
Newbius
The local Wally World's current supply of ammo is still sparse. They have 22LR, .223 Remington, and .45 ACP in quantity (plus lots of 12GA bird shot). Almost nothing else...
An optimist would look at the news of the day (especially considering that our economy should be "saved" now due to the Porkulus Plan) and wonder what all of the fuss was still about. I guess my area of the woods is not yet full of optimists.
In the mean-time, I will keep cruising the aisles of the local stores hoping for "Change" in the supplies reaching us.
Pax,
Newbius
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Oh yeah, I am also an embarrassment to Barack!
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
You should try it!
Newbius
Time to exercise a right (actually a left...)
Some of you who are close to me know that I tore some tendons in my right hand and forearm. This has really put a cramp (literally and figuratively) in most of what I do.
It occurs to me, however, that I should take this opportunity to get a little practice in.
Weak hand.
At the Range.
Having the strong side significantly weakened is the perfect chance to perfect my grip, sight alignment, and reloading skills with my carry gun, off-hand.
So, I plan to head out and give the Left a workout. It should be interesting. Maybe I can still hit the broad side of the barn with it. Maybe I can do significantly better. ;)
We shall see...
Pax,
Newbius
It occurs to me, however, that I should take this opportunity to get a little practice in.
Weak hand.
At the Range.
Having the strong side significantly weakened is the perfect chance to perfect my grip, sight alignment, and reloading skills with my carry gun, off-hand.
So, I plan to head out and give the Left a workout. It should be interesting. Maybe I can still hit the broad side of the barn with it. Maybe I can do significantly better. ;)
We shall see...
Pax,
Newbius
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Politics, again... (sigh)
Sorry readers. This one is about rights again. It is perfectly OK if you want to go do something else, because these fundamental truths will still be here when you get back.
Today, I am going to ask you to read and compare the Democratic Party platform of 2008 (found HERE) with an essay written by Ayn Rand (found HERE) entitled Man's Rights.
Since this is a request for you to do some work, and I know that some of you are too lazy to do so on your own, I will summarize. To wit: The Democratic Party, since before the turn of the twentieth century, has been interested in consolidating political and economic power into Government's hands in order to subjugate the people. They are doing this, one interest-group at a time, by creating rights where none existed previously and using the power of regulation and taxation to disarm their victims. Ayn Rand believes (as do I) that RIGHTS are something each person holds for themselves, and which do NOT impinge upon another's freedom to live and earn for himself (and dispose of those earnings) in any manner whatsoever, so long as no coercive force is involved.
The right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not mean that one person gets to gain them at the expense of another. The United States of today is far removed from that noble ideal.
(Lest you think I am absolving the Republican Party of any wrong-doing, the same statement applies to them, but with a different twist. The Republican Party is ALSO subjugating the people to their schemes by promoting fear of Government among their constituents while at the same time growing the very same government in the name of public security.)
Since this piece is about the Democrats though (and especially since they hold absolute political power at the moment), I will focus upon them.
In 1944, FDR put forth an "Economic Bill of Rights" which basically stated that the "People" (presumably, the working class) had a right to unearned economic benefits which were to be obtained by taking them from other People (presumably the "evil rich people"), in the name of fairness. This kind of populism works politically because usually there are many more working-class voters than there are potential victim voters. Throw into the mix an elaborate Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, and you now have an electorate that will become dependent upon Government for moneys extracted from others.
In 1960, the Democratic Party renewed this pledge of economic rights with these promises taken from the 1960 party platform:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”
Ayn Rand asked then, as we should ask now: "At whose expense?"
"Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”
A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort."
It is my firm belief that we are now at a perilous time in our Nation's history. As a nation of (ostensibly) free people, we should all be asking ourselves if we really want to go down this path. The Democrats' recently passed "Stimulus" bill is nothing more than a TRILLION DOLLARS (far worse actually, including interest) of pay-offs to their special-interest constituencies, big-government apologists, and anti-freedom groups who seek to disarm you and OWN you through regulation and wage-slavery. It is an unprecedented expansion of the Federal Government that makes Bush look like the amateur he was. As a citizen, it is your duty to read what is in this bill, understand it and its implications for restrictions on your freedoms, and then spread the word to others.
Your kid's future depends upon it.
Pax,
Newbius
Today, I am going to ask you to read and compare the Democratic Party platform of 2008 (found HERE) with an essay written by Ayn Rand (found HERE) entitled Man's Rights.
Since this is a request for you to do some work, and I know that some of you are too lazy to do so on your own, I will summarize. To wit: The Democratic Party, since before the turn of the twentieth century, has been interested in consolidating political and economic power into Government's hands in order to subjugate the people. They are doing this, one interest-group at a time, by creating rights where none existed previously and using the power of regulation and taxation to disarm their victims. Ayn Rand believes (as do I) that RIGHTS are something each person holds for themselves, and which do NOT impinge upon another's freedom to live and earn for himself (and dispose of those earnings) in any manner whatsoever, so long as no coercive force is involved.
The right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not mean that one person gets to gain them at the expense of another. The United States of today is far removed from that noble ideal.
(Lest you think I am absolving the Republican Party of any wrong-doing, the same statement applies to them, but with a different twist. The Republican Party is ALSO subjugating the people to their schemes by promoting fear of Government among their constituents while at the same time growing the very same government in the name of public security.)
Since this piece is about the Democrats though (and especially since they hold absolute political power at the moment), I will focus upon them.
In 1944, FDR put forth an "Economic Bill of Rights" which basically stated that the "People" (presumably, the working class) had a right to unearned economic benefits which were to be obtained by taking them from other People (presumably the "evil rich people"), in the name of fairness. This kind of populism works politically because usually there are many more working-class voters than there are potential victim voters. Throw into the mix an elaborate Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, and you now have an electorate that will become dependent upon Government for moneys extracted from others.
In 1960, the Democratic Party renewed this pledge of economic rights with these promises taken from the 1960 party platform:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”
Ayn Rand asked then, as we should ask now: "At whose expense?"
"Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”
A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort."
It is my firm belief that we are now at a perilous time in our Nation's history. As a nation of (ostensibly) free people, we should all be asking ourselves if we really want to go down this path. The Democrats' recently passed "Stimulus" bill is nothing more than a TRILLION DOLLARS (far worse actually, including interest) of pay-offs to their special-interest constituencies, big-government apologists, and anti-freedom groups who seek to disarm you and OWN you through regulation and wage-slavery. It is an unprecedented expansion of the Federal Government that makes Bush look like the amateur he was. As a citizen, it is your duty to read what is in this bill, understand it and its implications for restrictions on your freedoms, and then spread the word to others.
Your kid's future depends upon it.
Pax,
Newbius
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)