Divemedic

Begun in 1982, the Big Dig, a highway project in Boston, is now complete. At a cost of $14.8 Billion dollars, it cost over $25,000 for each citizen of the city. The Big Dig is the costliest construction project in the history of our nation. It was once vetoed as too expensive by President Reagan, before Congress overrode his veto.

In comparison, the famous “bridge to nowhere” in Ketchikan, Alaska, has been touted as a famous example of government waste and pork. Serving a county of 13,000 people, the $310 million project would cost the taxpayers less than $24,000 for each citizen of the county. That makes THIS pork barrel project actually more cost effective than the “Big Dig.”

The amount of spending that we are doing as a nation is staggering. Thousands of projects costing billions of dollars a year, each adding to the debt of the Nation. When the bill comes due, the citizens of Boston can stand in bread lines knowing that they have a cool tunnel under their feet.

A whole lot of press is out there attempting to portray the people who oppose immigration as racists. They accuse the people who oppose illegals as being anti-hispanic. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left wing activist center, maintains a website that lists supposed “hate groups” They recently have added groups to this list because of their opposition to illegal immigration.

One of the reasons that they cite for this, is that many groups are sticking to the “Aztlan Conspiracy Theory.” They claim that anyone who believes this “theory” is a right wing racist.

Yet it can be easily demonstrated that a large movement among Mexican people in the United States is dedicated to returning “Aztlan” to the “rightful owners”- the descendants of the people who owned it before the people of the United States “stole” the land.

They claim that the land of the Southwestern United States was stolen from them, and they aim to take it back.

One of these groups- La MEChA, even has this in their constitution:

Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlan must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan.

Yet, a group that in its own constitution claims to favor one race, and the overthrow of legitimate government is not a hate group, according to the SPLC. Furthermore, anyone who speaks out against such a group is accusedd of being a hate group. Gotta love hypocrisy.

This MEChA group has a chapter on many College Campuses in this country. For example, click here to read this trash:

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories

then they go on to threaten armed rebellion.

This illegal immigration thing is going to explode.

A gunman enters a school and begins shooting. He kills six students before turning the gun on himself.

A gunman enters a college, kills 32 and wounds 17 before killing himself. There were no weapons permitted on campus.

A gunman enters a school campus and kills three before being subdued by armed students.

A man enters a shopping mall, which does not allow weapons on property, and kills 6 people during a 3 hour standoff.

A man enters a shopping mall, which does not allow weapons on property, and kills 9 people before turning the gun on himself.

A man enters a church containing 7,000 worshipers. He has 2 pistols, a rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. He shoots 3 people in the parking lot before he is confronted by a woman with a concealed weapons permit. She shoots him, and he then takes his own life.

Note that when armed defenders are present, the criminal is stopped after only a few shots. When the policies of the facility ensure a safe environment for the criminal to carry out his crime, the death toll is higher.

Just as I have said all along, defenseless victim zones do not work. Armed resistance does.

A woman is arrested for illegally carrying a concealed weapon. She was caught by a routine bag check at the front gate of Walt Disney World’s Magic Kingdom. Some of the people at this site point out that perhaps she had a permit, and was carrying legally.

Others begin to ask ask penetrating questions, like:

I also agree, a person has a right to keep and bear arms, as long as they do it legally. Seeing that she is from Pa., if she has a permit in Pa., it does not give her the right to cross state lines with the weapon.

Of course, if this person had the slightest idea what they were talking about, they would know that it is legal to transport firearms across state lines, and that Florida and Pennsylvania have reciprocity, which means they honor each other’s permits.

Whether this woman had a permit or not is beside the point of this discussion:

How about this one:

No matter where you think it is permissible or acceptable to have a gun, Disney World is not one of those places.

Or, the question I consider to be the winner:

thing is, i dont understand why anyone needs a gun. anti trust and paranoia is ripe. never ever in my life felt the need to carry or hide any weapon.

I will give you a few reasons why:

This man is robbed in his own garage, in Disney’s Celebration community
This couple was robbed at gunpoint at Downtown Disney on November first
A man robs a store at gun point just this morning in Orlando
This liquor store was robbed just a little bit later

Of course, Disney is known for keeping pedophiles on the payroll. So we know that we don’t have to worry about anyone molesting our kids.

Here is the real news of the day:

Criminals operate on Disney property. The mix of large amounts of money, mixed with distracted tourists, easy get aways, and lax security make it relatively easy for the criminal element to operate there. Sure, security gets lucky and catches one woman with a weapon. I can tell you that on any given day, there are numerous weapons in that park. not all of them belong to the good guys. At least when I am there, I know that the one I have is going to be used for good, not evil.

Criminals break the law. That is why they are called criminals. Making a law prohibiting a criminal from possessing a gun will not be any more effective than the one that prohibits that same criminal from shooting up a mall, or robbing you at gunpoint. What it will do, however, is remove the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

I had a woman tell me today that she did not want to be standing in line with her two year old, and have to worry that the person behind her has a gun. I asked her why she would assume that a law would fix that. I then pointed out that she doesn’t have to worry about my gun.

Her “But I hate guns! They are evil!”
Me “Guns are metal, inanimate objects. They don’t do anything that their owner doesn’t use them for.”

People who jump through hoops and get a permit are not the ones you should be worried about.

end of rant

A few years ago, I wrote a paper for an American Government class. The liberal teacher and I saw things differently when it came to Government giveaway programs. Because of a post that Tamara put up, I give you the conclusion from that paper:

The poverty level has remained near 12% ever since the United States abolished the gold standard in 1973, with the current level being 12.7%. It is important to note that the method the Government is using to calculate the poverty line only takes inflation into account, instead of the more accurate model which compares the percentage of the cost of living to household income. Using this method, the current cost of living has risen from 30% of individual income in 1965 to 50% of household income in 2003. Where it used to take one income to support a family, it now takes two.

This means that the effective poverty rate has more than doubled since the “War on Poverty” began, when expressed as a real percentage of household income. Despite spending trillions of dollars fighting the “war”, the “war” has been lost.

These programs, which are intended to pay low income families at the expense of the taxpayer, are only a part of the redistribution of wealth in this country. The figures for the 2003 tax year (the latest year for which I could find figures) tell the story.

According to the IRS, anyone who earns more than $57,343 a year is in the top 25% of all wage earners. Out of 128 million returns filed, over 32 million people fell into that category. Those top 25% paid $627 billion (83.88%) of the $748 billion paid in Federal income tax. The average tax bill for them was $19,512. The lowest 50% of wage earners (those making less than $29,019) only paid 3.4% of the income tax bill, or an average of $402 per taxpayer. The system of progressive taxation and government giveaway programs has gone beyond helping the needy and has progressed to a communist redistribution of wealth.

Maybe that is why the Cleavers can’t make it on one income any longer.

Seventy percent of all credit reports contain at least one error.

Nine million people a year are victims of identity theft. It is the fastest growing crime in America.

Credit inaccuracies, and the failure of the Credit Reporting Agencies to correct them, are the number one complaint received by the Federal Trade Commission.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that Credit Reporting Agencies conduct a “reasonable investigation” when a consumer disputes an entry in their credit file. What is tricky is how those investigations are conducted.

When you dispute an item on your credit report, the Credit Reporting Agency sends an electronic message to the entity that reported the item, and the entity responds back that the item is verified or not. Frequently, the “investigation” is automated at both ends, and no person actually checks anything. That is it- investigation complete. Once completed, any future requests for investigation of that disputed item can be declared “frivolous” and ignored by the Credit Reporting Agency. At least one, Experian, does so as a matter of policy.

The reason it is done this way is simple: money. Your credit record directly affects your credit score. Your credit score determines how much you will pay for almost everything. Your car insurance, the amount of the deposit on your utilities, credit card rates and fees, and whether or not you get that job you were hoping for is all dependent on your score.

With all of that money available, creditors are going to use reports from the credit reporting agency that lets them charge the highest rates, that is the one that has the most “dirt” on you. So, the creditors, being the customer, are shopping for the best product- your bad credit- and will patronize the agency that delivers the goods. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the Credit Reporting Agency to NOT investigate, thus keeping your score negative.

Spurring most of this is the rapidly expanding sub prime market, and the lucrative debt purchasing market. Every major bank in the United States has a “sub prime” credit division. It is extremely profitable.

I can tell you from my own experience, and others I have spoken to, that there is another component to this- if you raise a fuss and dispute negative items, positive credit items mysteriously disappear from your credit in what appears to be retaliation.

Complaining to the FTC does little- they rarely go after lenders and collection agencies, and almost never go after Credit Reporting Agencies. Despite losing lawsuits in the million dollar range, the policies of these companies do not change- there is just too much money to be made.

It is time that congress does something. Perhaps they could take a look at this.

If you read the websites of the gun control crowd, you read claims about how the Second Amendment applies only to militias, and that since we have the National Guard, that is all the militia we need, so there is no need for citizens to have guns. They often claim that there has only been one court case that has ruled on the second amendment.

That is why so many got so excited about the Supreme court getting ready to hear the Parker case. Of course, the Supremes have so far deftly dodged hearing this case. There are other cases which we can use to see how our founders intended the right to bear arms to be read. For example, we can read the Dred Scott decision for some guidance:

[If black people were] entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which [Southern states] considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give the persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union … the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State. (emphasis added)

Reading the passage from that case shows that the Supreme court felt that one of the rights that citizens possessed was the right to be armed wherever they went. The truth is, gun control laws were used then like gun control laws are used now: As a way to control people, not guns. The fact is, when you remove ANY of the basic rights and freedoms that humans possess, you remove their freedom, and you enslave your population. Gun control in America began as a means of controlling the negroes.

If your right to weapons is removed, how will you guard the right to speak? how will you guard your right to vote? How can you ensure your freedom? While it may be inconceivable now, the day may come when we are no longer citizens, but slaves to the very government we created.

If we allow the government of the people, for the people, and by the people to begin removing the rights of the people whenever it seems expedient to do so, it will not be long before the government is our master instead of our employee. Don’t let them enslave you.

The Constitution of the United States. If we the people only understood that the Government has a job to do, and would stop complaining about that 200 year old piece of paper written by a bunch of dead guys, our leaders could get something done.

Congress is debating a bill that would shield businesses from lawsuits that were filed because they allowed government officials to snoop into our emails and telephone calls without a warrant. One official said:

“It is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.”

Notice that I said without a warrant. That is right, the government is fighting for the power to snoop into your personal information and conduct warrantless searches into your personal effects. All in the name of fighting terrorism.

He goes on to say:

Millions of people in this country — particularly young people — already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

So, in other words, since I choose to blog, I have given up my right to be free from searches and seizures. Government assholes like this guy are free to peer into my private life whenever they choose?

Warrantless searches of your home are not far away, under this guy’s thinking. After all, I once had a party at my house, where I invited people into my home. Why not let the FBI in as well?

Positions of the ACLU:

NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) has a constitutional right to publish pamphlets that instruct members on how to break the law and molest young boys.

That 18 year old men have a constitutional right to have sex with 14 year old boys.

While at the same time, law abiding citizens do not have a constitutional right to own a gun

What I do not understand is how the ACLU can read the first amendment to mean that NAMBLA has an unlimited constitutional right to instruct men on how to rape and kill young boys, while at the same time, taking the following position with regards to the Second Amendment:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

1 Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to own a car? The two are not equivalent.

2 What part of “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

3 I know all about the disingenuous statements regarding the militia clause. Do we really have to discuss this again?

Since the Supreme court is poised to take a case that will decide whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective one, I ask the ACLU this question:

If the Supreme Court rules that the right to bear arms is an individual one, will you then defend the NRA as voraciously as you do NAMBLA, or you rather support those who want to fuck young boys, instead of simply take them hunting?