There are a variety of things that torque me off. There are also a lot of people and organizations that torque me off. It happens. I'm an opinionated individual. In return, I would reckon that there are quite a few people and organizations that don't like me. No biggie. I can live a comfortable life and allow for people to dislike me.

But, I may just add to that list with this post. Really. If you don't hate me after this one, then I will commend you on being able to not only think outside the box, but also in your ability to understand what it means to be a freedom loving individual.

Much of this recent thinking has come about thanks to the antisocialist's post on god in this country. In this post, the antisocialist makes some very interesting thought provoking arguments regarding freedom in this country, particularly the intentions of the founding fathers when determining what freedom meant. Whereas he takes a very idealistic approach to things, I chose to argue the herd mentality problem and the fact that people may want absolute freedom but they also want to be guided and belong to something bigger. It is an interesting contradiction in humanity, and something that I find very frustrating because it results in a deep conflict between individual rights and "guaranteed" rights.

But I digress, the element of this post that is bound to upset more than a few people is the fact that I don't like the Bill of Rights. I don't think it was a good idea and I don't think that it serves the noble purpose that so many others seem to believe. It is strange how often people know more about the Bill of Rights than the original Constitution. I would dare to guess that many people actually feel that the Bill of Rights is a more powerful document than its parent document. But to people like me it's a real head scratcher. The Bill of Rights wasn't originally part of the US Constitution, so why is it of such vital importance today? I would almost go so far as to say that it was with the birth of the Bil of Rights that we also saw the fledgling birth of the nanny state.

Strangely, this seems very contrary to what I usually say. I sit and root for freedom and accuse the left of working to infringe on my rights. Whereas that may be true, you have look a bit deeper. With every step to violate my rights as an American citizen, what do the libs use as their backing argument? The Bill of Rights. Interesting how a document designed to ensure rights is so often used against the very people it was designed to protect. But this is more interesting than it is surprising, and even [founding father] Alexander Hamilton recognized this problem when he wrote Federalist Number 84 where he specifically wrote:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

And he goes further by giving a spectacular example that not only applied in 1788, but is also just as big (if not bigger) an issue today. He tackles the so-called "Freedom of the Press" by saying:

"Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

Very interesting. It would certainly seem that Hamilton was trying to warn people that "guaranteeing" certain rights will have consequences - particularly when it comes to people seeking to abuse those rights.

Part of the flaw in guaranteeing certain rights to people through government control is that it violates the very principle of rights. It blurs that ever-important line between where your rights end and mine begin. Using Hamilton's idea concept of the press, where does the freedom of the press actually end? If I do not want my life violated by the press, do where is my freedom to keep them out? All too often members of the press claim that they have the right to things, but how often does that right infringe on the individual rights of another person?

Now, don't go thinking that I am against civil rights. Quite the contrary, I am all for civil rights but I do not believe that it is up to the government to outline those rights to the extent it has. A great deal of damage has been done to this country in the name of civil rights, and it has mostly stemmed from the fact that the Bill makes the mistake of claiming seemingly unlimited rights in matters that conflict with the rights of others (or other rights). It opened the door to allow for the government to determine what rights people are afforded and who is subjected to what. In a sense, it impedes on individual rights while favoring the rights of the whole.

It would seem to me that a free country should not have to worry about assuring the rights of its people. It's an absolute contradiction. The government of a free nation should doe exactly what is stated in our Constitution's preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Nowhere there does it say that they should guarantee right. That is the job of the individual. When individuals are assured their own rights, there is no need for another power to step in and regulate. This is the premise of individualism, which is a concept that is essentially the opposite of Socialism. Look at it this way, Socialism takes the guarantee of rights to the point of ensuring that everybody has the right of being taken care of and that the well being of the whole is more important that the rights of the individual. While I am not a strict individualist (namely because I acknowledge the reality of dealing with human nature), I do believe that there should be a happy medium where the government protects an individuals ability to have rights but does not dictate what those rights are or to whom they apply.

Anyway, that's about all I have to say about that. Sorry it's a bit wordy, and probably a bit scattered, but I just felt the need to get that out there so people understand where I'm coming from when I talk about rights...

I was going to celebrate the coming and rapid passing of my 10,000th hit yesterday with something special, but obviously things changed a little bit and as I set my sights on 15,000, I feel the need to take some time to address yesterday's events with a slightly less passionate and angry rhetoric.

As we all know, the Minneapolis bridge collapse tragedy erupted into a scene of political ugliness yesterday. I was incredibly outraged by the immediacy of the left in grasping on to this incident and using it to try to push their political and socialist agendas, and didn't hide my feelings one single bit when confronting them on it. I was somewhat shocked that I had numerous people call me out on my hate and my anger, which was really a first for me. I don't know if it's because I was worse than usual, or if it was because I actually caught the attention of the people I was targeting for once. Either way, it really forced me to sit back and think about what had happened and why.

Something that I have been working at for a while now is trying to get past the Republican "we have to be better than them" mentality. Personally, I think the Republicans have gone overboard with that way of thinking, and it has turned into much more of a "bend over and take it with a smile" sort of thing than most of us are willing to admit. So, I have taken it upon myself to go the other way, and am fighting back and doing everything I can to call a spade a spade and gut punch the left whenever I get an opportunity.

See, I am tired of getting rolled over by the left time and again. You can only take so much before you simply can't write them off as the loony left any more and you find that you have to pull out your own guns and start firing back. I am not advocating a war between the parties, but I am advocating for some strength in the Republican party - and I'm not talking about showing that "quiet strength and resolve" that we're supposed to be exhibiting in the face of adversity. I am talking about pulling out the big hammer and knocking the Democrats down a peg when they get up and start preaching their usual tripe about how the downfall of America is due to the Republican Right out there. See, the dirty little secret is that the Democrats are winning over this country because not enough people are out there from the Right to tell these people that they are absolutely full of crap.

Now, I am not talking about sinking to their level. I have had a few people question my drive as being hypocritical since I so viciously attack the left for their blind hate. On the contrary, I see that there is so much valid and substantiated ammo out there that we can use, that we don't need to sink to blind hate and accusations. My tirade yesterday was a perfect example, as my hate and anger was based on the truth of the matter. There was no blindness to it. I attacked them because they misuse the transportation money they collect and then call for higher taxes to pay for roads when a bridge collapses. This is in very stark contrast to the hateful rhetoric we usually get from the left via the likes of Daily Kos et al.

See, the problem that the Republican part is facing right now is that our quiet strength and maturity is failing us and there aren't enough people out there to shift the overall attitude from "turn the other cheek" to "fire at will." The left knows this, and that is why they have been working feverishly to resurrect the fairness doctrine. They know that if they can shut down the few people on the Right who are taking up arms against the left, that the fledgling movement would crumble. We don't have the strength of numbers that they have. We don't have the hordes of fanatics and bloggers and media members that they do because for far too long we have been to concerned with being the people who don't sink to the level of the democrats and decided to just let them rant and rave while we went about our business.

Well, yesterday's fiasco should have been a brutal eye opener to the Right. It should have been stirred up something in the Right that a few of us have been feeling already. Even Bush felt it, and felt the need to fire back, which may have caught some flack from people, but I think was a necessary action to take in the face of the barrage of fire that came from the left starting almost immediately after the dust settled around the bridge. As soon as the first Democrat raised his finger and pointed it to the Right, the Republicans should have pulled out the big guns and slapped each and every Democrat down with the facts as we all know them. When the libs claimed "not enough taxes" we should have been Johnny on the spot with the fact that the tax money collected for transportation gets funneled into light rail and mass transit projects instead of road and bridge repair. See, we can point the finger right back, the only difference is that our arguments are based on fact instead of just blind hatred of the Right. Maybe the general public needs to be made aware of the faults of the left in the same manner that they're constantly being inundated with the Right's faults.

As for me, I'm more than happy to be at the tip of this spear. I'm ready to pull out the guns and dig in for a long battle. The Democrats have had the run of the land for too long. They have had control of the media and have enjoyed a lack of fundamental opposition for long enough. I will do what I can to rally the masses and build up a Conservative Republican force to be reckoned with because I am absolutely sick and tired of trying to be better than them. We already know that we're better than them because we fight with our heads instead of our hearts, but it's time to put some heart behind our heads and fight for what we believe in. Every time a liberal opens their mouth, we should be right there ready with a gut punch aimed to knock them off their high horse and put them back in line. It's time for us to show America that we can fight and that we can stand up against the moonbat left and take them down every time they surface with their blind hate and anti-Right tirades.

Cross posted from "A [sometimes] Logical View of the Illogical

Well folks, to celebrate what looks to be my 10,000th hit to my blog today, I will take on an issue that I have been conspicuously quiet on over the past months. Don't hate me for it, but I will be blunt.

Now, with that said...

Unlike the liberal democrats out there, I have no blame to place on the administration nor do I have any crazy conspiracy theories about oil money, war profiteering or the Cheney - Haliburton connection. I leave that sort of insanity to Cindy Sheehan and her rabid followers. Instead I will throw all of that back in the faces of those moonbats and actually say that I believe that the Bush administration did the right thing in taking on Iraq. But the right thing and good ideas are not always a hand-in-hand issues. Let me explain:

The Bush administration gave the Iraqi people the greatest gift any nation can receive. Toss democracy out of the equation if you want, but the underlying gift that was given was the chance at a new way of life. The Iraqi people were relieved of an oppressive and violent government and essentially given a clean slate with which to re-form their country into something else. Not only were they given a chance, they were also given use of a military force with which to help keep the peace and protect them from outside forces while they reformulated their new infant of a country into something that can be self-sustaining.

Can any country ask for a better gift? Just ask the countries that were liberated during World War 2. Or how about more recent times... Ask Kuwait what sort of gift liberation is. People on Earth deserve as many chances as it takes to have a home that is as free as possible and that allows its people the best chance at happiness and prosperity. Of course, it doesn't always work out like that, and not every country gets those opportunities... Which is why the gift that was given to the Iraqi people is particularly grand. That is what makes the military action against Iraq the right thing to do. It gave them a second chance at life.

However, that doesn't mean that it was a good idea, and knowing what we know now, we can probably say that it was a bad idea. This does not mean that the Bush administration is to blame, however. Quite the contrary, nobody is to blame but the Iraqi people. Our administration and military can only do so much, and our only failure here was simply our inability to anticipate the immaturity of the people in the region. What ended up happening over there was like taking away the oppressive babysitter and leaving the ill-mannered toddlers in charge. This wasn't like returning France to the the French during WW2.

See, the reality of the situation is the simple fact that the Iraqi people threw our gift back in our faces. Ok, to be fair, I'm sure it's not everybody over there, but it is certainly a large enough part of the population to keep them from moving forward. Either way, the problem lies with the Iraqi people - whether that's indicative of the people or the religion is a matter of speculation... Or is it? With the intricate ties between the culture and the religion, maybe you don't need to really separate one from the other. Maybe the problem lies as much with Islam as it does with the people.

I hate to be so blunt, but the simple truth lies with the fact that the only "leaders" who are emerging from Iraq are assholes. When presented with a clean slate and an opportunity to start a new nation from scratch, you would expect to see some sort of quality leadership step forward. Where are the George Washingtons, Thomas Jeffersons or Ben Franklins of Iraq? Where are the people who will stand up and reign in control of this fledgling infant of a nation and unite the people under the Iraqi flag under the promise of a bold new future? They're just not there. Instead they have allowed themselves to be consumed with petty infighting between religious factions and the only leaders who are emerging are terrorists and jihadists who have little interest in building a new and modern Iraqi nation and are instead interested in waging war with the evil Western infidels and spreading Islamic extremism across the country.

So is it fear that is keeping the Iraqi people from moving forward, or is it just a lack of motivation? I mean, by the numbers there are far more Iraqis who are not jihad extremists, yet they're the ones who are steering the direction of the country. Is it fear that keeps quality leaders from emerging in Iraq, or is the problem deeper than that?

It is my suspicion that it is that very thing that the Bush administration and the US military didn't anticipate before moving on Iraq. I believe that the problem is in fact that deep, and that the problem goes far beyond fear. I think that the people in Iraq are capable of building a new country, but they are not willing to set aside their own differences and step up to the plate. Even if they did find a George Washington to step up and take the reigns, he would only have the support of his own faction. The rest of the factions would not rally beneath a leader that isn't their own. Can you imagine where we would be as a nation if Lutherans and Baptists refused to acknowledge a Methodist leader? It would be chaos - and all stemming from stubbornness and refusing to be tolerant. Two things that are plaguing the Iraqi people right now.

As an issue, this is not limited to Iraq. This is a plague that falls over a good majority of the Middle Eastern nations. It seems that if they're not busy hating the Jews and Israel, they're busy hating and killing each other. Just look at the recent violence in Lebanon, Pakistan and Palestine. It's wide-spread and getting worse, which interestingly seems to be following the spread of Islamic extremism.

Perhaps we were too naive in assuming that things would be different in Iraq if they were given the opportunity to create a new nation. As much as I hate today it, Saddam Hussein may have had a much better understanding of his people than the rest of us did; and while I don't condone the things he did, I think I can understand why he employed the methods he used to keep Iraq under control. Maybe these people do in fact need a strict babysitter to keep them in line. Maybe they do need somebody to stand up and tell them that "this is the way things are, so shut up and go about your lives." Whereas we have our idea as to what a George Washington character should be, maybe we're wrong in thinking that sort of person could ever hope to lead the Iraqi people.

However, contrary to the democrat's opinion on things, we have to acknowledge that throwing our hands in the air and walking away will not solve Iraq's problems. We gave them a clean slate with which to work with, and we need to continue to protect this fledgling nation not only from itself, but from the other "interested" parties who are chomping at the bit to incorporate Iraq into their own regimes. The people of Iraq deserve the chance to overcome their own problems and move their nation forward. Sadly, I think that it might take a strong man (hopefully less than a total tyrant however) to come in and secure control over the people, but if that's what it takes I don't think we should stand in his way. If that is to be Iraq's second chance, then so be it. I would like to hope that Iraq's second chance would be having a George Washington stand up and lead the nation to prosperity and peace, but the reality of the situation is somewhat more grim than that.

Having been lit off by a posting over on Say Anything (and the news article that started the whole thing), I decided to carry forward the rant that I began over there and really get into the nitty gritty on the subject...

With that said, I am not too proud to admit that I was a typical teenage guy when I was younger. I groped, slapped, pestered, poked at, pulled the hair of, tickled and whatever else may have been required of me to get the attention of the fairer sex. I fancied myself to be in the top 1% of the flirting population. I also paid the consequences of those actions on more than one occasion including being dumped out of my desk in the middle of class and more slaps than I could ever hope to remember. Of course, those counter flirtation techniques were always done with a little smile, a lot of blushing and giggling and usually resulted in some sort of teenage fling.

What's more is that this sort of behavior did not result in me growing up and becoming a sex offender, rapist, sexual predator or anything else of the sort, nor did it result in creating hordes of female victims that needed therapy for years after the incidents. You know why? Because it was all in the name of fun. It was all part of performing that delicate dance between teenage boys and teenage girls as they struggle past that awkward phase of relationship building. It's all normal behavior. More importantly, they are all very important building blocks in developing teens.

This sort of behavior taught us things like tolerance and respect. It also teaches teens that there is right behavior and wrong behavior, and teaches them to understand that a little bit of flirting and "naughty" interaction is perfectly acceptable in life, and actually makes life much more enjoyable.

However, things have changed, and people like me are apparently a dying breed. If I were of high school age now, and I acted as I did 10 years ago, I would probably find myself labeled as a sex offender and be sitting in jail. Don't believe me? It's happening right now. From the article....

"The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.

Now, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, face the prospect of 10 years in juvenile detention and a lifetime on the sex offender registry in a case that poses a fundamental question: When is horseplay a crime?"

What the hell? Has political correctness really gone this far? It has in Oregon apparently, and my guess is that it's lurking in the shadows in every corner of this country right now. All it takes is for one oversensitive person - in this case a teacher's aide who saw this activity - to bring down what would ordinarily be a normal way of life for teenagers.

I can't even begin to explain how furious this makes me. I mean, where does it end? Is the male/female relationship dying at the hands of the politically correct crowd? It certainly seems that way. This is on the heels of one of my prior articles about a school that has banned all physical contact between students - with no exception. So now the "big brother" politically correct crowd is working feverishly to completely remove something that most of us would consider an essential aspect of growing up. That relationship dance just got a whole lot more difficult.

So where does it end? If a 13-year old boy slapping another 13-year old girl's butt results in jail time and registration as a sex offender, then where does that leave us? I think back to the classic movie "Demolition Man" and the scene where Stallone is supposed to have "Sex" with Sandra Bullock and finds that there is no physical contact in this version of the future. Sex is all in the mind and contact/transfer of bodily fluids is considered abhorrent by the population. Of course, reproduction is regulated and done in a lab. Whereas the scene in the movie is entertaining, the prospect of something like that becoming reality is pretty damned scary!

I don't think that the movie hit a nerve in 1993 when it came out, and I doubt that the writers meant for that future to be anything more than an entertaining bit of absurd science fiction... After all, who would ever think that physical contact between two people would be disgusting? But now fast forward 14 years later, and in 2007 it seems that perhaps that future wasn't so much science fiction as it was prophetic. Is this where we're headed?

As much as my rhetoric sounds absurd, even to me, I can't shake the feeling that this science fiction view of today's social climate is headed in a very bad direction. Physical contact between teens is a sex offense, boys on a team giving each other high-fives is banned, even looking or talking to somebody in an "inappropriate manner" can result in job loss or massive lawsuits against you. Is the goal of the politically correct crowd really to create a "gloriously" sterile world? I shudder to think. I mean, I guess it's only a matter of time before the thought police come into play and we run the risk of being punished if it's suspected we have had an impure thought about another person. Are we looking at a future where people like me end up with "PERVERT" tattooed across their forehead in red block letters because we still have naughty thoughts and like to be a little frisky once in a while?

Well, probably not... I wish I could say of course not, but I'm just not that confident in the state of things right now. So for now it's just going to be probably.

I have been pondering this post for a while, as it is something that is rather heated and somewhat shrouded in speculation... However, I have recently felt inspired by Eric's post over at the Tygrrrr Express and the subsequent comments that followed it, so I decided that it's now time to address this little bit of ugliness.

I frequently head over to MoveOn, Daily Kos, the Huffington Report et al in order to see what the left is up to and what their rage inspired topic de'jour is. It's always a trial of patience not to create an account so I can engage these people and try to pick their brains in a woeful attempt to understand where they're coming from... But I refrain and remind myself that you cannot rationalize hate. You cannot approach somebody who is that full of hate and ask them where they're coming from and why they're making such ludicrous statements about America.

So I read and study, and try to apply some of my psychology and sociology schooling as I try to figure out just what is going on out there. The question that I am seeking some insight into is why these people on the left hate the rest of us so much. I say the rest of us because the leftist extremists who so rabidly follow MoveOn and Daily Kos have so polarized themselves against the everyday American citizen that there are few people who don't fall within the hateful sights of them at least once in a while.

I stand to challenge the leftists out there, and I hope that at least some of them get an opportunity to make it here and read this post. I challenge them to explain where this hatred comes from. Why they feel that any opinion besides theirs is invalid. Why they have so much desire to drag everybody down into their self-destructive altruistic vision America...

My Peanuts cartoon the other day summed things up pretty nicely. If our purpose is to give to everybody else, what is the purpose of everybody else?

This is the hatred that I see. There is a severe altruistic self hatred that is perpetuating amongst the extreme left. These are people who believe that self-sacrifice and a reduced standard of living is a punishment that America must bear because of our succes. Ordinarily I wouldn't care if there were self-sacrificing people out there, but this hatred is being projected onto the rest of us. We are the subject of scorn and angry rhetoric from these websites because we ask why we should hate ourselves. We are constantly confronted with protests and demonstrations from people who demand that we have to reduce our standard of living and give to everybody who has less than we do because they're somehow more deserving than we are. And when we stand up for our own rights we fall victim to some of the most virulent hate I have ever seen in this world.

Getting back to Eric's post, and really the reason behind my post, is comment #6 from Southernvoice. This individual felt the need to justify why the left feels that it's acceptable for Bush to be compared to Hitler. Can these people really be so blinded by their own hate that they truly do believe this sort of tripe that comes from their own mouthes? I mean, seriously... Despite the best efforts of the left to reduce our freedoms under the guise of socialism, we are still living in the most wonderful country on Earth. Having traveled the globe, I can say that with some degree of certainty too, as there are many nice places to visit, this is the only place I would choose to live.

Yet, the hate spews forth, and reading some of the psychotic ramblings on Daily Kos and others that so vividly berate America does nothing but confuse and irritate me. When you have people like Cindy Sheehan who publicly denounce America with utter venom, yo can't help but to wonder what these people are experiencing that the rest of us aren't? How can a country that I love so much be perceived as such a hellhole that is so often likened to Nazi Germany by the left? I just doesn't make sense. But, since when does blind hatred make any sense at all?

So I guess that is what really hits at the heart of the matter. What is driving this hate? What has happened to these people that has caused them to hate not only themselves but the rest of us and their country as well?

What's worse is that this hatred has invaded their ability to act as rational human beings. I mean, when is the last time one of these leftists has engaged you or I in decent conversation or debate? It's just not there. Instead it's one attack after another. It's name calling. It's a blind fury of accusations and insults. Every time there is some dissent to their opinions or ideas, we get this from them. I dream of a day when one of these people will choose to engage me in a healthy debate without immediately turning to name calling and an absolutely shut-off attitude towards any other opinion. Consider this: How many times have you made an opinion or asked a question without a swift and brutal response from the left aimed at making you look like a wretch of a human being? How many times have you been called a racist, or callous, or a bigot... When all you did was ask a question regarding their self-hating behavior or why they feel you should be exhibiting self-loathing too?

I am not trying to start a fight here, I simply want to know where this blind hate is coming from. I want to know what awful things have happened to these people that have driven them to truly believe that we as Americans (and hence they) are evil and need to induce some sort of self punishment as retribution for the lifestyle we lead. I want to know why they hate themselves so much that they believe that anybody who has ever been more underprivileged in their lives is somehow more deserving than they are (and indirectly the rest of us who are considered "well off").

Is it really too much to ask for? Is it expecting too much for somebody from Daily Kos or Huffington or Moveon to step forward and explain to the rest of us why we're subjected to this sort of hatred on a daily basis? Can they explain to us what we have done in our lives that has made us so evil and what our country has done that warrants such angry rhetoric?

I hope that I'm not asking too much. I hope there is still enough humanity left on that side of the political spectrum that somebody can put aside their vicious hatred long enough to be reasonable and engage in a reasonable exchange of thought and opinions. Are you out there?

 cross posted from A [sometimes] Logical View of the Illogical

Here are some numbers that will make your stomach knot...

According to a new study released for Minnesota, the total yearly cost of sex assaults in the state is nearly $8 Billion.

Each child assault costs the an average of $184,000

Each adult assault costs an average of $139,000

The highest cost was "suffering and lost quality of life" which came out to around $6.4 Billion. The state spent $130.5 million to investigate, incarcerate and treat sex offenders and $90.5 million on health care and other victim services. The state gets $823,000 in federal funding for sex assault victims.

In 2005, there were 61,000 sex assaults in Minnesota alone. 80% were women and 29% were minors. One in 70 children was assaulted with the highest rate being girls between 13 and 17.

For the full report, including a complete breakdown of costs and who pays for what, see the full report here.

I'm not sure what to make of these numbers. I'm appalled, especially when you consider where all of our efforts are being channeled to right now. How can we justify spending so much money on things like immigrant rights when the monetary cost alone of sexual crimes in just one state is $8 billion (not to mention the psychological and physical effects of sex crimes on the population). Perhaps we should focus more on taking care of problems like this and less effort on the silly crap the government seems so focused on right now.

Continuing the story of Mark Daggy and his run in with a particularly dangerous illegal immigrant... The story just continues to get more and more interesting. It also helps to peel back a layer of the system and reveals an ugly underbelly as to what's really going on out there in the illegal immigrant community.

For background on the situation, check out part 1 and part 2 of the story...

Anyway, so the story behind the illegal immigrant involved with Mr. Daggy and his home just continues to get more interesting, especially after it was determined that this guy is the same guy that is on a missing person's report from Maryland. You can see the missing person's poster here. We compared the picture of this guy from the KSTP video to the picture and thought the facial features were too similar to be a coincidence, and it was then confirmed by Mark that it was in fact the same individual.

However, the story doesn't end there. According to Mark, who has been in contact with Maryland police and center for missing persons, this guy got his start in this country in Maryland in 2005 and has taken off across the country since then, ending up in Minnesota most recently.

The story goes that this guy (whose real name and age we still don't really know) was sponsored to come and visit this country in 2005. He was to return to El Salvador after his visit, however he decided to take off from his sponsors.
He was caught and ordered to leave the country and return to his home country. He was released into the custody of his sponsors, and was going to pay for his return home. However, he decided to flee once again, this time across the country. At that point, the sponsors filed a missing persons report.

According to what Mark was told by the Maryland Missing Kids Network, this is not uncommon. People come here on a short sponsored visit only to disappear. This is something that costs millions in police investigations just for missing illegals who have come here legally and then fled.

So here we have a perfect example of illegal immigration gone really wrong. This is a guy who came here to visit and then disappeared after being ordered to leave, only to turn back up two years later after assaulting a local man. According to the information that is coming out, this is not this illegal's first brush with the law in this area, however he has been immune to immigration issues thanks to the city of St.Paul's strict sanctuary city policy. In fact, it was almost certain that he would be returned to the streets had mark Daggy not taken the matters into his own hands and brought it to the attention of people who are working to bring it to light.

Another point of interest is that Mr. Daggy (who is trained in bloodborne pathogens from OSHA) is concerned that this guy is suffering from Hepatitis (given his physical appearance) and thinks that people who have had contact with him should be tested ASAP. Of course since nobody knows just who he is or where he's been for the past two years, that may be a difficult task. The problems and activities of just this one illegal immigrant are just spiraling into a massive mess, and this is just one guy. Who says that the best thing to do is give amnesty to them? For every decent immigrant out there, how many are like this guy? How many people like this are slipping through the cracks every day because city officials think it's better to keep them happy than to address the problem of illegal immigrants in their cities?

As Mark put it to me:

"Looking at the Big Picture its Clear / We are being Sold Out for a Buck and a Vote!

Its time to hold any Person or Persons accountable with in the Media / Government / Sponsors and Business."

In typical democrat fashion, the answer to everything that isn't working is to throw more money at it and hope the problem goes away for a little while longer. Of course, if you don't have enough money to throw at it to quiet the problem, then you need to raise more money from other sources... And in another act of irresponsibility, the democrats are trying to do exactly what you would expect them to do... Punish the rest of us who simply try to enjoy life as best we can.

Yes folks the democrats are looking for ways to further fund the SCHIP (state children's health insurance program) disaster. The program, although good in intention, failed miserably in practice. Why? Because the democratshave been feverishly working to expand the entitlement programs to encompass as many people as they can, and now they're running out of money for these programs. Whereas the SCHIP program sounds like something that would benefit children, the truth of the matter is that there are more capable adults on the program than children.

What's worse is that the democrats are trying to expand it even further, which is why they're looking for more money this year. Just haw far are they willing to push the entitlement issue? Well, they're seeking to expand SCHIP eligibility to 400% of the FPL (federal poverty level) which means that a family of four with a household income of $80,000 a year would receive SCHIP subsidies. Last time I checked, $80,000 a year is hardly poverty level.

Here are some charts to make you feel ill (click for full size):

The situation is simply getting worse from a number of perspectives. The biggest issue is the expansion of the entitlement culture and the cultivation of more and more people who are dependent on government programs.

The second issue, and one that I take very personally, is that programs like this need money, and the damned democrats are turning to life's little luxuries to fund them. This is the sort of thing we have come to expect from democrats: the rest of us have to lower our standard of living so that others can live off of the government dole (and supposedly enjoy a higher standard of living).

But I digress. The democrat's plan calls for a new tobacco tax to fund the expanding SCHIP program. The new tobacco tax is aimed at raising an additional $35 Billion in revenue to fund SCHIP.

Of course, the dems obviously didn't do their homework on this one, since it can be assumed that this steep tax will drive the number of new smokers down even further, and it is estimated that to achieve these numbers, they will need another 22 million new smokers by 2017. The democrats also failed to realize that the people they would be harming would be the very people they're aiming to save considering more than half of the smoking population falls below the 200% FPL line. So an increase in taxes at this level would have harsh economic impacts on the people already having the hardest time.

But that isn't what really makes me mad. It gets me upset, but what really boils my blood is the democrat's attack on cigars, which is presumably an attack on people who enjoy life's little luxuries. The democrats are trying to raise the tax rate on cigars to 53.1% which also includes a 20,400% increase on the cap. This would make a cigar the single largest excise taxed item in the IRS code by many times. Right now cigars enjoy a 4.8 cent per cigar tax cap. The new tax cap would be $10 per cigar.

What makes this difficult is that the dems are hiding behind children in order to levy this tax. As one cigar roller in Tampa puts it:

"How do you oppose a sin tax Congress has rigged to help sick kids?"

In an argument about the fact that it's unfair to overtax something people enjoy as opposed to something people are addicted to (i.e. cigarettes), he hits it right on the head.

"A good wine. A good scotch. A good bourbon. A good cigar. It all enhances the quality of life. We're in the relaxation business."

That's exactly it, and it's also exactly why the democrats are going after cigars. The "Well off" shouldn't be allowed to relax and enjoy life as long as there are "less fortunate" people out there... Or at least that's the message we're getting from today's democratic party.

I have seen the democrats do some ridiculously unfair things, but this one certainly takes the cake. This is an assault - a 20,000% tax increase assault - on a person's ability to take time out of their week and enjoy an hour or so.

For another great post on this, check out Wake Up America

For more information on SCHIP, check out:

The Phantom Economic Benefits of SCHIP Expansion

22 Million New Smokers Needed: Funding SCHIP Expansion with a Tobacco Tax

Expanding SCHIP into AMT Territory: SCHIP Plan Would Extend Welfare to Wealthy Families

SCHIP Reauthorization: Congress Should Beware of Creating a New Entitlement

The State Children's Health Insurance Program: High Stakes for American Families

Children's Health: SCHIP Should Not Become a Welfare Entitlement

The Future of SCHIP: Family Freedom or Government Control?

The Truth About SCHIP Shortfalls

Do you want to know what's destroying the fiber of this nation? It's the entitlement mentality. It's the mentality that drives people to claim that anybody who has more than they do has the responsibility to give something to them or that they have the right to take advantage of other people's work.

Funny, it sounds an awful lot like communism to me. But what do I know? I'm just a casual blogger with a lot of wild right wing opinions. I'm a radical.

But I'm a radical who has his eyes wide open and sees what's going on out there. I think that probably comes from being a hard working American who has done nothing but worked hard in his life, has never asked for anything, and want nothing more than to enjoy the fruits of his hard work.

So, needless to say, as I watch things like crime and taxes spin out of control, welfare running rampant and the rise of socialized health care in America, I get a bit defensive.

However, the entitlement mentality is nothing new, its simply spreading to a new demographic, and as it spreads it grows. However, the basis for this mentality have grown out of one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century - a mistake that allowed for the growth of parasites in America, and a mistake that is inspiring the liberal left to encompass more demographic groups and add more entitlements to an already parasitic society.

The mistake that was made was opening up the doors to offering entitlements to minorities (particularly blacks) as some sort of compensation for past treatment. Whereas the government at the time thought that their heart was in the right place, they were horribly wrong. What they did was create a group of people who believed that they were entitled to be taken care of... And as expected, that mentality transcended generations as each new generation was taught that they were entitled and as each generation demanded - and received - more entitlements.

What has come of this is a two-fold problem. Obviously, the top problem is that we are facing a massive population of minorities who don't think that they need to take care of themselves and are entitled to just about everything because they are "victims"... Furthermore, this has also created a surge in crime because so many of these people have become absurdly apathetic in their approach to community policing, raising children properly and promoting solid communities that encourage growth and well-being.

So what does this mean for 21st century America? Sadly, instead of addressing the problem head-on (which would be deeply politically incorrect and probably hurt somebody's feelings), the liberal left has instead decided that there are more victims out there than just minorities, and have actively been working to extend the parasitic entitlement culture to anybody who has less than somebody else. Just as they worked so hard in the mid-20th century to create a victim-based entitlement mentality, they're now working just as feverishly to convince people that the "have's" have the responsibility to take care of the "have-not's."

Never before have I seen so many people calling for the government to take care of them. They want the wealth of the working class (have's) to be redistributed to them through social programs and government entitlements. They want the government to raise their children, they want the government to police their communities, they want the government to take away their freedom to choose what they eat and where they can smoke... They are telling the rest of us that they don't want to take responsibility for their own lives, and in turn we have to do it for them.

But how can this be? Hasn't anybody been asking where this mentality is stemming from? I know I have, and what I'm finding is ugly at best.

It seems that the liberal left is actively working to convince the "have-not's" that they are victims of the upper classes. Those people who went to college, make a decent living and live comfortably are responsible for the plight of the lower classes, and in turn it's their responsibility to take care of them; that they are entitled to a portion of the earnings of these people. This has been a relatively quiet campaign in recent years, but a recent series of events - from the Katrina fiasco to the introduction of socialized health care to the rise of the nanny state - has ripped the plot wide open. The liberal left has made it abundantly clear that the "have-not's" are entitled because they don't have it is good as the "have's."

Is this a good thing? I mean, did communism really work so well that it has inspired legions of liberals that it should be the way of the future? It certainly seems that way. After all, how else could anybody explain the entitlement mentality? The left is actively working to ensure that wealth is evenly distributed because it is the "fair" way to run a country. The working class is being forced to give more and more to those who are deemed to be "less fortunate" than they are. Don't believe me? Just look at the current Wisconsin plan. It would replace my $60/month full health coverage through my employer with a $140/month state run system all under the flag of "giving everyone coverage by having everybody paying a share of the costs" (as spoken by one Senate Democrat).

So what is the liberal left telling the people out there? I'll tell you what it sounds like to me. It sounds like they're telling people that they don't need to work hard and better their lives because the rest of us will be here to take care of them. Can you say "entitlement mentality?" If implemented and added to the rest of the welfare and social programs out there, what would be left for people to work towards? Responsibility gets thrown right out the window, and it would only be a matter of time before we would be facing the same sorts of problems that we're currently facing with the minority community - only the numbers would be on a much larger scale. We would have massive numbers of people without a college degree and a good jobs living off of entitlements and growing dependent on them (parasites). I shudder to think.

So maybe the question we should be asking is what the real agenda of the left really is? What is gained by the creation of the entitlement state besides a new form of pseudo-communism? If the goal of the left is create legions of people who are dependent on government for their survival, than they're certainly accomplishing their goal... But to what end? Is the end goal a nation of equality amongst all people regardless of the misery that is being created as the result? Folks, that's communism. It can be candy-coated every which way; they can call it anything they want and try to push it as creating equality... But they're also destroying prosperity and creating a whole new demographic of people who are threatening to join the minority entitlement crowd as parasitic blights on society.

But who's to say, right? I'm just a hard working conservative nutball who wants to enjoy his life and certainly doesn't want anybody telling him that he owes anybody anything simply because he has something to give.

On June 28th, 2005, Danny Dietz, a 25-year old Navy SEAL and three other SEALs were ambushed by Al Qaeda guerrillas in Afghanistan. Dietz was severely wounded, yet stayed and fought for 45 minutes, allowing one of his teammates to escape. For his deeds, Dietz was awarded the Navy Cross.

Dietz’s body was found on a mountainside on July 4th. He had died trying to defend his three other SEAL teammates.

To honor Dietz, a memorial has been erected and dedicated in his home town of Littleton, Colorado. The dedication took place this past July 4th, two years after his body had been found on that mountainside in Afghanistan.

However, what should be a solemn tribute to a fallen hero turned into a controversial issue in the city as a group of parents took issue with the memorial statue because it featured Dietz holding a rifle.

In one argument, the parents complained that the statue was too close to area schools and playgrounds. To further that argument, they complain that the statue presents the wrong image. One of the mothers, Emily Cassidy, said:

“I don’t think young children should be exposed to that in that way - unsupervised by their parents or any adults.”

And Linda Cuesta, a mother who’s child was at Columbine high school during the shooting there, said:

“As much as it breaks my heart to do this, we have to weigh the effect of the statue in this particular place against the family’s feelings. Who wins here? It’s a tough situation.”

I’m sure it does break her heart, but that’s because she’s a WUSSY! They’re all a bunch of spineless wussies. The nerve of people in this day and age is atrocious and disgusting. Danny Dietz’s father, Dan Dietz, retorted to this by saying:

“It broke our hearts. My son was fighting for her freedom to do exactly what she is doing. She put my son in the same category as Columbine. How does she have the audacity to do that?”

I agree. How would anybody have the audacity to do something like that. It is absolutely revolting that people like Cassidy and Cuesta have the nerve to protest a memorial to a fallen hero simply because they don’t think children should be exposed to it. Does that mean that these women will keep their children away from other war memorials around the country? Will they keep their children away from the television where guns and violence are frequently glorified? What is it exactly that these women are trying to protect? Is it their distaste for war and the military that is driving this?

Allen Stone of the Littleton VFW said it best:

“The people who have never served in the armed forces are always the ones who speak the loudest against what the armed forces have done.”

I think that is entirely true. As a veteran, I have had the most lively and frustrating arguments with people who have never - and would never - serve in the armed forces, yet they think that their opinion carries more weight because it comes from their feelings rather than their experiences. Sounds pretty backwards to me, but it seems to be what I have to deal with more often than not.

Getting back to the wussy parents though, when it comes to the facts, they seem to think they have the answers. When presented with the fact that war memorials around the world feature rifles, swords, cannons etc, Cuesta simply said “trends are changing.”

Are they now? Or is simply that people like her are not willing to accept the fact that there are things that the armed forces do that need to be done. She claims to be an advocate of gun control, so is it her opinion that all guns are bad - even those in the hands of soldiers who fight off bad guys to save their friends? I would certainly seem that is what is being said… But I guess I could be putting words into her mouth.

Cindy Dietz, Danny’s mother, also had some words of wisdom to say, which I feel carry much more weight than the whose of the wussy parents:

“Our son attended those schools. Without us parents teaching children what our heroes are doing for us … you can’t shelter them from that.”

I agree. There is no reason to shelter children from something like this. Children should understand what it means to be a hero. They should not have the “dumbed down, friendly, politically correct” version of what happens in this world. They should know that a soldier carries a gun to defend their freedom and their country. It should not be up to the wussy parents to tell the story as they see fit. It may not be a warm and fuzzy view of reality, but it is the truth.

Regarding the statue itself and the fact that Danny Dietz is holding his gun at rest, his father simply said:

“What we thought of was to portray the courage and bravery of the young men who are protecting our freedoms.”

and his mother says of the children who would see the statue:

“I would hope they’d gaze into the face of that hero.”

I can’t imagine the pain that the Dietz family went through. Their son was a hero and died doing what he did best. He deserves this memorial and people, including children, deserve t