Saturday, July 03, 2010

Cowboy Banking

Via Samizdata’s quote of the day.

Contrary to what most people had assumed, banking in the United States had been highly stable in the decades before deposit insurance. Of course, depositors were concerned about their safety, but this made them cautious in whom they banked with. They demanded reassurance from their banks, and the banks gave it to them. Pressure from depositors forced the banks to be conservative, to lend carefully, to keep their leverage ratios low, and to disclose their broad positions. The bankers themselves were conservative even in their dress, but this was itself reassuring, and the solid architecture of the banks’ offices reinforced the notion that they were pillars of the community with solid roots in it. The key to banking was maintaining the confidence of depositors and not taking that confidence for granted.

Before deposit insurance, a bank that took too many risks would eventually undo itself. It would do well for a while, increasing market share and generating better shareholder returns than the fuddy-duddy banks, which would feel the pressure. However, come the inevitable downturn, the cowboy bank would experience heavy losses on its questionable lending, liquidity would tighten, and a point would come where the frightened depositors would run for their money: the cowboy would be literally run out of business. These occasional crises were unpleasant, but good for the long-term health and even stability of the system: the runs would expel the cowboys from the system and give a salutary reminder to those who survived. The system itself was rarely seriously at threat, because the depositors would redeposit their funds with the safe banks. There would typically be a flight to quality, a transferring of funds within the system, rather than a run on or threat to the system as a whole. Thus, it was the threat of a run that kept the bankers in line.

Once you introduce deposit insurance the situation changes profoundly. Deposit insurance allows the bankers to take their depositors’ confidence for granted. This takes the pressure off the bankers, who can now safely increase both their lending risks and their leverage ratios, thereby increasing returns to their shareholders (or, in modem Wall Street, to themselves). For their part, the depositors are no longer concerned with the risks their banks are taking, but only with the rates they get on their deposits. Consequently, deposit insurance subsidizes risk-taking, so leading to excess risk-taking with the deposit insurance agency and, ultimately, the taxpayer, picking up the tab.

Nor does the damage end there. With deposit insurance, there is no longer any run to fear and even the most insolvent banks following the most unsound “shoot to the moon” investments can now remain in business indefinitely, attracting more funds and staying in business by merely raising deposit interest rates. The process of competition then becomes utterly subverted: instead of allowing the conservative banks to drive out the cowboys, even if it takes a little time, the process of competition now rewards the cowboys and penalizes the good banks. It therefore pays to become a cowboy and, eventually, all banks do.

Quote taken from the book The Alchemists of Loss: How Modern Finance and Government Intervention Crashed the Financial System, (pp. 271-2), written by Kevin Dowd and Martin Hutchinson.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/03 at 07:23 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, July 02, 2010

The Grey Men Idea

My recent posts, Running Out of Options and Facebook Civil Disobedience Discussion, have generated much traffic here, and most interesting discussion threads.  I want to thank all who have visited, and commented, and I hope (I almost hate to utilize that word because its misuse has almost made it meaningless) that the ideas being kicked around provoke readers to further analyze their own, our, freedom.

But, to the Grey Men idea.  One of the comments; # 20 in the post Running Out of Options; put forth was this.

You want strategy? Well here is an option. Denial Of Service.
Our wealth is being taken from us and given to the parasite class via government agency. SO why fight the government goons with guns? Fight the agencies dolling out our tax dollars who are not armed and sitting their fat as lambs for the picking. Not only does it keep our funds from being distributed it has the added bonus of pissing off the parasites and forcing them to seek other options for their livelyhood.
This means shutting down the various physical locations of the social services for as long as possible in your area. Find them fix them and shut them down.

How say you?

This idea; which was mentioned by other commenters; damaging the property of the State, which is similar to an idea presented at Sipsey Street Irregulars, in a past post titled To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW., has one particular drawback, amongest others, which bears considering.

The major drawback, is that the State still retains full power, with the ability to further tax and spend what they do not have to replace what may be destroyed or shut down, meaning Americans will simply be forced to replace what has been destroyed or denied.  Thus, this idea lacks sustainability as a method to further the cause of liberty and freedom.

If, individuals are going to cast aside respect for property rights, and the State’s property is, allegedly, our property, I think a more effective target of destruction would be the property of the MSM.  The MSM, currently still privately owned, is, by and large, the mouthpiece of the State, and if its capabilities to disseminate information is checked, individuals will have to search elsewhere to remain informed, and, as this piece at the Center for a Stateless Society suggests, the alternative media could then increase its presence and influence.

And the technology, of course, is different. A lot of computer, Internet, and media savvy was in evidence at Porcfest. Far from having to rely only on live speeches, underrground newspapers, and pirate radio stations, we now have through the Computer Revolution a means of communicating with each other and the world such as has never yet been realized in human history. The ramifications of this for the dissolution and collapse of government are staggering. By making ever increasing use of alternative media and its accompanying technology, it is now within the grasp of anarchists to form a significant enough population minority to seriously threaten the continued power of the State.

Additionally, if MSM property is damaged, because it is private property, rather than State property, American taxpaying individuals would not be responsible for, or burden with, payments to replace what has been destroyed, it would fall on the private sector (I realize there really is no longer a private sector).

I, personally, have ethical issues with destroying private property, but as the State continually encroaches into private property, the economy, and our very lives, our choices become more limited as to what means we as individuals can undertake to restore freedom without loss of life.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/02 at 03:54 PM
(8) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

“Just Like We Did Last Time?”

After reading this,

Meanwhile, a bunch of left wing hoodlums are burning stuff at the G-20, just like they do. Every. Single. Year. Why is it that the media is so deathly afraid of us right wingers being violent, though we hardly ever are, yet lefties and socialists shut down a city for a week every year and nobody notices because it’s so ho-hum.,

which was gleaned from here, TJICstan muses the following, in a post titled “deathly afraid”? sounds right to me.

You know, I think that there’s a little bit of rationality embedded in the leftist fear of right wingers.

We are competent, armed, have military experience, can execute a plan, can engage in self sacrifice more extreme than “sleeping on a futon arranged over Craigslist the night before the protest”.

When 2 leftists get peeved, they make a giant puppet.

When 4,000 leftists get peeved, they burn a few Mazdas.

When 2 rightists get peeved, they destroy a federal building.

When 4,000 rightists get peeved, they attack the standing army of a world-straddling super-power… and win.

For the last 75 years the right has indulged the left, whether from lack of attention, hopes that things will turn around, belief in the power of the ballot box, or just adult-like indulgence of children.

…but what would happen if 4,000 … or, God forbid, 400,000 American libertarians and conservatives decided that the electoral process was not legitimate, and was nothing but a rigged game for the ever-growing scope and budget of a destructive federal government?

Well, you know that old joke “Why is Texas that big? Because we’re Americans, and we wanted it that big!”.

4,000 competent and well-armed anti-government folks could make the earth rumble and change the course of history for centuries to come.

Just like we did last time.

Just like we did last time?  While I would like to believe that “4,000 competent and well-armed anti-government folks could make the earth rumble and change the course of history for centuries to come,” I think those on the left, in complicity with the statist right, would ruthlessly hunt down and kill the 4,000, with the MSM wildly cheering and propagandistically consolidating the left’s, and statist right’s, grip on power.

Until such time that conservative individuals, meaning the statist right, come to the full realization of their complicity in the destruction of America, and consciously withdrawl their approval of “democracy,” true freedom loving individuals will be subject to their well meaning, but perfidious, collusion.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/02 at 02:17 PM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

“Corpse in Armor” - Buy It, Read It, Understand It

I’ve read Martin McPhillips’ book Corpse in Armor, and reviewed it here.  If my take on McPhillips’ book does not pique your interest in purchasing Corpse in Armor, read Billy Beck’s review for another viewpoint.  Here’s a taste of Billy’s take on the book.

There is an elemental thesis to this book, which is that world socialism was happy to have Islamist terrorism as an ally against America. I heartily agree. This is the largest context of the book: the fact that all kinds of devils will league happily against us precisely because this country is the best thing the world ever saw. Within that context, the action runs fast and hard, but one can always find time for spots of philosophy, even during interrogation.

If the above two reviews do not impel you to consider McPhillips’ book for your Summer Reading, read Mike Soja’s review, of which here is snippet.

Corpse brings the themes laid down by the likes of John Le Carré, Ken Follet, and Robert Ludlum into the twenty first century, with a fresh look at the dangers facing the United States from old adversaries and new, featuring the concomitant upgrades in modern technological capabilities on both sides of the war.  Corpse is all about the latest in instant communications, sophisticated network infrastructures, high-tech weaponry and deployment, drugs, and psychological techniques, and, most importantly, human individual endeavor.  People have to do what is right.

My copy of Corpse in Armor has gone through my hands, to my sons’ hands, and from there into my neighbor’s hands (sorry I didn’t make them purchase it, Martin), and I’ll continue to recommend it, not simply for the pleasure of the read, but for the ideas presented in a thriller novel form.  Buy the book.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/02 at 11:19 AM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

A Friday Poem

Lay me on an anvil, O God.
Beat me and hammer me into a crowbar.
Let me pry loose old walls.
Let me lift and loosen old foundations.

Lay me on an anvil, O God.
Beat me and hammer me into a steel spike.
Drive me into the girders that hold a skyscraper together.
Take red-hot rivets and fasten me into the central girders.
Let me be the great nail holding a skyscraper through blue nights into white stars.

Prayers of Steel - Carl Sandburg

I admire the appeal to destroy the old, and then rebuild to something greater in this poem.  I’m doing what I can.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/02 at 08:23 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Week in Review - “Aggravation and Drinking”

Scooteroi sums up the week in review in a post titled Aggravation and Drinking.  A couple items Scooter reviewed.  First, a graduation story.

- I caught a little bit of a story about a school that graduated a class with 30 valedictorians and it wasn’t because the quality of education was so good that the class had 30 students with a 4.0 GPA. They just didn’t want to have kids feel bad, so they took the top 30, which sort of defeats the whole valedictory idea.

This goes along with the current (and idiotic) idea that we can’t have winners and losers in society…which is one of the stupidest things I have heard of. What’s next, not keeping score during the super bowl or having all the drivers in a NASCAR race go to the winners circle?

Second, the Elena Kagan hearings.

- Then there’s the whole Elena Kagan thing. Yes, she has a good sense of humor. No, she shouldn’t be allowed to choose her wardrobe. And no, she has no business whatsoever being anywhere near the Supreme Court, let alone on it.

I have an idea. I want to fly Boeing 777’s for American Airlines. I’ve read about flying. I know all about lift, drag, weight and all that. I have accrued a jillion miles as a passenger on jets. I even read an article on how to land a plane if the pilot dies. I’m all set.

So, how about that job?

That’s the equivalent to putting Kagan on the high court.

I know it’s early, but, bourbon anyone?

Posted by John Venlet on 07/02 at 07:05 AM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Are There Any Oathkeepers in the Corrupt Chicago Political Machine?

In a post titled The Face of Fascism, Ed Rasimus points us to this news out of Chicago.

With the city’s gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun…

The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :
—Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
—Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
—Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.
—Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.
—Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Ed notes the following, in response to this news.

This is government run amok. This is absolute power which was seized and not constitutionally established. This is destruction of the rights of a people and denial of the basic principles enshrined by the Founders of our republic.

America is Running Out of Options for a peaceful resolution to the issues noted by Ed, above.

Mayor Daley Lays Out Strict Gun Rules for Chicago

Posted by John Venlet on 07/01 at 04:52 PM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Huge Tent City in Hawaii, Big Deal

Drudge links to a story at StarAdvertiser.com with the headline Huge homeless tent city takes root in Hawaii… wherein readers can find this information, which is the sub-headline to the story.

Homeless camps cover 50 acres, from Waipio Point, around Middle Loch to Pearl City

Big deal.  There have been tent cities in Hawaii for years.  When I was stationed at Pearl, from 1980 through 1984, there were tent cities on every island I visited, and the individuals living within the tent cities were more free than almost every other individual living in Hawaii at that time.

The remainder of the “huge tent city” story is all fluff, mentioning Pastor Joe Hunkin’s pastoral work, Duane “Dog” Chapman’s bounty hunting island adventures, and an inane comment from some flunky from Oahu’s Affordable Housing and Homeless Alliance.

Huge tent city in Hawaii, big deal.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/01 at 02:47 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Patriotism Quotes

Dr. Samuel Johnson is credited with stating “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” and this is indeed correct, if one considers that the statement, as Boswell points out, is meant to denote false patriotism, as elucidated by Johnson in this statement.

“Let us take a patriot, where we can meet him; and, that we may not flatter ourselves by false appearances, distinguish those marks which are certain, from those which may deceive; for a man may have the external appearance of a patriot, without the constituent qualities; as false coins have often lustre, though they want weight.”

Johnson expanded on the definition of the false patriot in this statement.

“A patriot is necessarily and invariably a lover of the people. But even this mark may sometimes deceive us.  The people is a very heterogeneous and confused mass of the wealthy and the poor, the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad. Before we confer on a man, who caresses the people, the title of patriot, we must examine to what part of the people he directs his notice. It is proverbially said, that he who dissembles his own character, may be known by that of his companions. If the candidate of patriotism endeavours to infuse right opinions into the higher ranks, and, by their influence, to regulate the lower; if he consorts chiefly with the wise, the temperate, the regular, and the virtuous, his love of the people may be rational and honest. But if his first or principal application be to the indigent, who are always inflammable; to the weak, who are naturally suspicious; to the ignorant, who are easily misled; and to the prfligate, who have no hope but from mischief and confusion; let his love of the people be no longer boasted. No man can reasonably be thought a lover of his country, for roasting an ox, or burning a boot, or attending the meeting at Mile-end, or registering his name in the lumber troop. He may, among the drunkards, be a hearty fellow, and, among sober handicraftmen, a free-spoken gentleman; but he must have some better distinction, before he is a patriot.”

I consider myself a patriot, and proudly, but of the variety described thusly by Johnson.

In the first (1755) and fourth (1773) editions of his Dictionary, Johnson defines “patriot” as “One whose ruling passion is the love of his country.” In the fourth edition, Johnson adds: “It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government.”

I’d like to think that those individuals I am aware of whose ruling passion is the love of America, and who factiously disturb the government and rail against it, have a bit of the Scottish Highlander spirit of patriotism in them also.

It affords a generous and manly pleasure to conceive a little nation gathering its fruits and tending its herds with fearless confidence, though it lies open on every side to invasion, where, in contempt of walls and trenches, every man sleeps securely with his sword beside him; where all on the first approach of hostility come together at the call to battle, as at a summons to a festal show; and committing their cattle to the care of those whom age or nature has disabled, engage the enemy with that competition for hazard and for glory, which operate in men that fight under the eye of those, whose dislike or kindness they have always considered as the greatest evil or the greatest good.

This was, in the beginning of the present century, the state of the Highlands. Every man was a soldier, who partook of national confidence, and interested himself in national honour. To lose this spirit, is to lose what no small advantage will compensate.

What type of patriot are you?

Posted by John Venlet on 07/01 at 08:11 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Cheapening the Holocaust - Words Matter

The Holocaust.  Those two words still currently have meaning.  The words bring to mind, for most individuals anyway, a horror so grotesque as to defy adequate words.  A picture is worth a thousand words, they say, what about a short video (04:44)?

Marvin Hier, writing in the Los Angeles Times considers the subject of The Holocaust, and thinks that is being cheapened by its utilization in political discourse.  I think he is on the mark.

...There are many injustices and manifestations of evil in our world, even in our own country, the greatest of democracies. Standing up to them is not only our right but our obligation. But that obligation does not include distorting and demeaning the word that has come to stand for the great evil that was the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was a total eclipse of humanity. It was not about going to the back of the line or eating in a different part of the restaurant or being escorted to the border without recourse. The Holocaust had one purpose: the total annihilation and extinction of a race.

Hier’s piece is titled Holocaust: a huge word made small.

Via Peg, at what if?, who notes the following.

The enormity of the crimes of the Holocaust was such that if you were to try to call out 2,000 of the names every day of the 6 million who perished, it would take more than eight years to complete the task. That’s what a holocaust is.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/30 at 11:17 AM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Facebook Civil Disobedience Discussion

In a post titled “You’d Better Not,”, Billy Beck loops the civil disobedience discussion into Facebook.  I am not a Facebook member, so I am not privy to the discussion taking place, there, but I’ve recently posted on the idea of civil disobedience here, which Billy contributed to here.

Billy’s most recent contribution, “You’d Better Not,” notes the importance of language, words, and ideas.

“If we’re going to talk about it, then let’s get it out straight. I don’t like to fool around with the language.

We’re talking about actual combat. Shooting & shit: people dying badly, wrongly, and early, and their stuff getting blown up.

Now… of course, that’s already happening right now. Just for one example: I don’t know what people under Nixon thought they were paying for when it came to a ‘War on Drugs’, but that’s exactly what it is, and people should be goddamned careful about their metaphors, because they have a special sort of blinding way about them. When the language does not refer directly to extant referents (the objects and concepts in reality around us) then what happens is that thinking is deprived of its necessary and elementary cognitive material. The function of language is to raise concepts to the perceptual level—through words (they are the percepts) and for the purpose of concept transmission—and this means that when the language does not refer to reality, then no concepts are being transmitted, and then all bets are off…

Here is my largest point at the moment, Randell: I see very few people in in this country who know what to fight for, or why. Nevermind how.”

Posted by John Venlet on 06/30 at 08:36 AM
(21) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Elena Kagan - How Low Can She Go?

Malone Vandam on how low Elena Kagan can go.

But looking at and listening to her, I wonder how much worse it could get. Assuming that the Senate would not confirm many of the Leftist lunatics available from various quarters (a risky assumption), I would argue that this woman, pretending to be “in the mainstream,” would go as low as her character would let her and her character suggests a bottomless pit with an awning over it. We’re apparently supposed to be paying attention only to the awning.

She’s mundane enough to pass through her own confirmation process relatively unnoticed, but it’s the element of banality in her that catches my eye and ear. Like the freak who nominated her, I’d bet she’s capable of anything, and I don’t mean on the good side.

Parable any one?

Posted by John Venlet on 06/30 at 07:59 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Porcfest 2010 - An Optimistic Report on Liberty

Alex R. Knight III attended Porcfest 2010, which was hosted by the Free State Project.  The event was held in Lancaster, New Hampshire, and Knight writes about his experience in a piece at the Center for a Stateless Society.

Knight came away from the event optimistic, which is evidenced by the title to his post on the event, We Can and Will Achieve Liberty: A Review of Porcfest 2010, and the following excerpts.

Another observation was the crowd demographic: At least half of those in attendance were on the younger side – mostly under 30. In many cases, there was little distinction in appearance between Porcfest attendees, and the flower-children who were at Woodstock over 40 years ago. The big difference now, however, are the ideas. And as events like Porcfest grow and grow, that will become increasingly important. Witness that the hippie movement of the 1960s withered because of two cardinal flaws: One, that Marxism is good and moral, and capitalism bad and evil. Two, that it was perfectly okay to use those college degrees they earned in order to get elected into the system of government so as to change it from within. Comforting is the thought that such gross misperceptions will not apply this time around. And the energy and enthusiastic, inquisitive nature of these twenty-somethings is encouraging. My experience showed that they were interested in asking real and relevant questions and getting practical answers in return. Just maybe, this generation is learning, and has something meaningful and rational to say. (bold by ed.)

Here’s Knight on the technology angle and its use as a weapon for liberty.

And the technology, of course, is different. A lot of computer, Internet, and media savvy was in evidence at Porcfest. Far from having to rely only on live speeches, underrground newspapers, and pirate radio stations, we now have through the Computer Revolution a means of communicating with each other and the world such as has never yet been realized in human history. The ramifications of this for the dissolution and collapse of government are staggering. By making ever increasing use of alternative media and its accompanying technology, it is now within the grasp of anarchists to form a significant enough population minority to seriously threaten the continued power of the State. Once the landslide starts, I don’t see much of any lasting effect that can stop it. As Henry David Thoreau said, “When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished.” I am of the opinion that we are, at long last, on that very road. (bold by ed.)

Though I do not necessarily share Knight’s optimism for achieving liberty, since it has been willingly voted and given away since the founding of the United States, it is encouraging to read that there appears to be a spark of liberty being husbanded and fanned in the hopes of creating a blaze of freedom

Posted by John Venlet on 06/29 at 01:47 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

McDonald, Poetic License, American Lit 101

Yesterday, SCOTUS decided McDonald et al. v . City of Chicago, Illinois, et al., in favor of McDonald.  This news has swept through the nation, accompanied by congratulations and mourning, depending on an individual’s political view of gun ownership.

I take no pleasure in this news, not because I think gun ownership should be restricted, it should not, but because the Second Amendment has been so obfuscated by the poetic license musings of the ruling class over the years that individuals no longer trust their own knowledge and understanding of the words within the Second Amendment, as presented to them by the founding fathers.

The Second Amendment, runs a total of twenty-seven (27) words, which are as follows.

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.

These twenty-seven (27) words have been mashed, bashed, pureed, and mouthed with a baby’s zeal for a zwieback, resembling not so much a learned discourse of knowledge and wisdom, but a bunch of college freshman in an American Lit 101 class analyzing a Shel Silverstein poem, and not understanding it.

I suppose, if an individual is content to waive their inalienable rights, kneeling as a supplicant before the power of the State, pleading for the right of property ownership, the SCOTUS decision will appear as a victory over the State, but it would be an unprincipled victory, as illustrated in these words from Billy Beck.

I have more principled reasons for my stand on owning firearms, and I don’t care one whit in the world for the Second Amendment. It means nothing to me. My rights have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, and when it dawns on people that it has finally been erased—the principal danger of all political premises posed as “social contracts”—my rights will still validly exist, even if I die defending them.  I own firearms because I have a right to private property.  That is the First Thing.

But let’s return to those twenty-seven (27) words of the Second Amendment.  There are three (3) words, only, within the amendment, if individuals believe they are constrained by the State, which actually bear analyzing.  Those words are “keep,” “bear,” and “infringe.”

When the founding fathers wrote The Constitution of the United States, it was written in a language which could be easily understood by the common man.  Meaning, a class of individuals, the majority at the time, with rather rudimentary educations as compared to today.  Thus, the words keep, bear, and infringe, as utilized by the founding fathers, would be understood to mean the following:

Keep:

4 a : to retain in one’s possession or power

b : to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing

c : to have in control

Bear:

— bear arms 1 : to carry or possess arms

Infringe:

1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

These three (3) small words were not misunderstood by individuals when The Constitution of the United States was written.  “To keep” meant exactly what is implied, “to retain in one’s possession,” ownership; “to bear” meant exactly what is implied, “to carry or possess;” and “shall not be infringed” meant exactly what is implied, the State shall not violate the right to own or carry arms, yet today these three (3) small words are so misunderstood that Justice Thomas Clarence required fifty-six (56) pages worth of words to support SCOTUS’ decision that individuals do have a right to keep and bear arms in the City of Chicago.

Individuals can slice and dice the Second Amendment all they want, but the fact remains that any law restricting ownership or the carrying of firearms is unconstitutional.  Period.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/29 at 07:31 AM
(1) Comments • (1) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, June 28, 2010

Zen Thought of the Day

To depend on others is to be unstable.

The Sutta Nipata

Posted by John Venlet on 06/28 at 08:32 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 3 of 232 pages  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »