The following are some of my favorite gun quotes. Some of them show why we need guns. Some show why the Founding Fathers knew we had to have them. Some show why dictators (and idiots in Congress) don’t want you to have any. All of them make me thankful for my Second Amendment rights. If you’re thankful for your Second Amendment rights tweet, stumble, bookmark, and share this list with a friend.

1.”A free people ought to be armed.”
~George Washington

2.”To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
~Richard Henry Lee

3.”The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. … and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
~St. George Tucker

4.”[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
~James Madison

5.”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
~George Washington

Read more…

If you’ve watched the news much recently you’ve seen some heartbreaking things in Haiti after the devastating earthquake hit last month. One of our fellow conservative bloggers, Tabitha Hale, or @pinkelephantpun in Twitter, has the opportunity to go to Haiti with Joy in Hope Ministries next month.

They are sending in their first team since the quake the first week of March, and I’ve been asked to go down to Jacmel with them. We will be passing out supplies in the refugee camp, working in an orphanage that has been bombarded with babies since the quake, feeding people, and hopefully rebuilding the home of a Joy in Hope employee. It’s going to be brutal, and as many photos as we’ve seen and first hand accounts as we have heard, nothing can prepare us for what we might see.

Anyways, she needs to raise some money to be able to go and is short on time. If you’ve been thinking of giving to Haiti and haven’t yet, this would be a good opportunity to do so. You can donate at her site or send a check in the mail. The address is on her page. Good luck Tabitha!

This is a guest post from Paul at The Loud Talker. If you are interested in guest posting at Geek Politics, check out the guidelines here.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. The CRU is one of the primary sources of ammunition for global-warming alarmists. Jones also maintains the time series of the “instrumental temperature record.” This document heavily influenced the authors of the “2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers.” This assessment concluded the following:

1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate
3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased
4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise

Why is this important? This report is supposed to show scientific consensus on the subject of global warming. It is also the foundation on which the Copenhagen Treaty is built upon. The Copenhagen Treaty endorses the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, and in no uncertain terms, blames industrialized nations for causing global warming. I’ve read the draft document and draft amendments and it is truly a political document that blames developed nations for causing global warming. Furthermore, it seeks to punish these nations financially and to redistribute wealth to developing nations. We are talking trillions of dollars.

Does this affect America? Of course it does. Cap and Trade, carbon credits, and other legislation is the direct result of the past decade or so of man-made global warming hysteria led by the likes of Al Gore and Phil Jones. Gore stands to become a carbon billionaire due to his ownership of and association with various carbon offset/trading companies. Other companies like GE stand to make billions or trillions of dollars thanks to the mandated sale of climate-friendly products such as re-engineered light bulbs. Global Warming fears are the basis of a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Here are some quotes from the leaders of the AGW movement:

* “We will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.” Al Gore
* “Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” Barack Obama
* “We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences.” Al Gore
* “We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.” John McCain

As you can see, world leaders have been buying what Phil Jones is selling. Al Gore will tell you that the science is proven, the debate is over. He will not hear that there are plenty of scientists that disagree with him. But things seem to be changing. In a recent BBC interview Jones — one of the leading voices in the man-made global warming movement — happened to admit a few things. Jones said:

* there has been no statistically significant warming in recent years
* he acknowledged the likelihood of warmer periods in the past (such as the Medieval Warm Period)
* he admitted to manipulating key data to support global warming hysteria.

In other words, he has admitted that everything that the press and governments all over the world have bought hook, line and sinker, is a lie. The world has been warmer before. There has been no warming in recent years. And data was manipulated. Yet for some reason my friends that believe man is causing temperatures to rise cannot accept the possibility that they are on the wrong side of the argument. Scientists have shown that human impact on greenhouse gases is statistically insignificant. I’ve argued for years that the bright yellow thing in the sky has more to do with temperature fluctuations than anything humans could do. But they refuse to listen to opinions other than their own. “What do you mean dude? Are you against conservation?” “What’s the worst that could happen? We will get a better planet out of all of these recommendations, right?”

Wrong.

Pursuit of global warming legislation will add an unbearable load an already massively stressed American financial condition. The taxes and penalties imposed on companies under a cap and trade scheme will cause greater unemployment and price increases. Al Gore and his ilk need to sit back and shut the hell up for a while. President Obama needs to open up his ears and listen to the idea that man-made global warming is NOT a foregone proven scientific fact. He said in his first State of the Union speech “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” Overwhelming? I’d like to see the data on that. He continued: “But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future.”

I think most Americans can agree that energy efficiency, conservation, recycling and the like are good things to do. I also think that most Americans can agree that committing trillions of dollars to an unproven concept is a bad thing. Liberals cannot separate the two, conservatives can. We CAN be environmentally conscious AND fiscally responsible. It’s not an all or nothing situation.

Paul is Station Manager of RadioForConservatives.com, the largest web site dedicated solely to conservative podcasters. He also hosts a weekly show called “The Loud Talker.” His personal blog on conservative politics can be found at www.theloudtalker.com, and you can follow him on Twitter www.twitter.com/RFCloudtalker.

People keep looking around asking themselves, “What got us into this financial mess?”. People blame the banks, they blame this group of people or that group of people, but never have I seen a better example of who is at fault than the WSJ article trying to elicit pity for people ‘over-burdened’ with student loans by parading out a doctor with $555,000 in student loan debt.

When Michelle Bisutti, a 41-year-old family practitioner in Columbus, Ohio, finished medical school in 2003, her student-loan debt amounted to roughly $250,000. Since then, it has ballooned to $555,000.

It is the result of her deferring loan payments while she completed her residency, default charges and relentlessly compounding interest rates. Among the charges: a single $53,870 fee for when her loan was turned over to a collection agency.

“Maybe half of it was my fault because I didn’t look at the fine print,” Dr. Bisutti says. “But this is just outrageous now.”

I love this quote. It’s the very beginning of the article. The author explains all of the things Dr. Bisutti did to get herself into this predicament, then she quotes the good doctor taking half the responsibility and complaining that her situation is ridiculous. I think her situation is ridiculous also but I suspect we are finding the ‘ridiculous-ness’ in different places. I find it ridiculous that this doctor defaulted on her loans. I find it ridiculous that she didn’t look at the fine print. Frankly, if she can’t be trusted to read the fine print for one of the most important documents in her own life then how can she be trusted to read all of the fine print when it only matters of her patients life?

The article goes on weaving a tale of sadness for people who co-signed for loans and ‘didn’t read the fine print’. There are a few more gems in this article.

In 2005, the bill for the Wells Fargo loans came due. Representatives from the bank called her father, Michael Bisutti, every day for two months demanding payment. Mr. Bisutti, who had co-signed on the loans, finally decided to cover the $550 monthly payments for a year.

The author writes as if this is some terrible injustice done to the father. Th author says Dr. Bisutti’s father “finally decided” to pay the bill. Apparently, neither the author or the father in question realize that this is *his* debt. By co-signing for this loan he made it his debt. He told the bank in very specific terms, ‘If my daughter fails to re-pay this obligation I will pay it”.

After completing her fellowship in 2007, Dr. Bisutti juggled other debts, including her credit-card balance, and was having trouble making her $1,000-a-month student-loan payments. That year, she defaulted on both her federal and private loans. That is when the “collection cost” fee of $53,870 was added on to her private loan.

The quote above is, I think, the most important. What it shows is someone who is not suffering financial hardship but rather is woefully irresponsible at handling her finances. I’m paying back student loans right now and my bill is well over $1000 a month. I assure you my household income is less than that of the good doctor, but my wife and I have made sacrifices so that we can re-pay the money we obligated ourselves to pay back.

What are our sacrifices? Our cars are 10 and 20 years old. Our house is 60% empty; we have no furniture. We don’t eat out often. We don’t go to the mall. I haven’t bought a new pair of pants in about 2 years, and the pants I wear to work have been patched where they have worn all the way through. We save up slowly for the things we want. We don’t have a credit card. And when it is all said and done we are able to spend $2000 a month on school loans, $1400 a month on a mortgage and have some money to save for an emergency and for things we’d like. If the doctor can’t manage that perhaps she should change her lifestyle. I suggest she, and you, read “The Total Money Make Over” by Dave Ramsey. Dave’s book isn’t a get rich quick scheme, it’s a get rich slow, and painfully, scheme. Derek Clark, the other fellow that posts things around here, has written a review of “The Total Money Makeover” over at Geek Book Reviews.

I’d like to thank Mary Pilon at the Wall Street Journal for showing us one of the many people we can blame for the financial problems in the U.S. Though, I think I’d rather she try selling this sob story to someone else. Maybe she can find someone too lazy and irresponsible to pay their loans back to be sad and angry along with Dr. Bisutti. As for me, I’m too busy working my tail off and scrimping to pay my student loans to waste time being angry with her.

Evan Bayh, the 2 term Senator from Indiana is retiring. This gives the Republicans a great chance at another seat this November. I think that this could end up being a very interesting election year. I don’t know if Republicans can take back the majority in Congress as they did in 1994, but it is much more of an option than anyone would have expected a year ago. I think the key will be having a unified message akin to the Contract with America. If this message could include some REAL fiscal conservatism that would be great.

In other news, McCain is getting a challenger in his Republican primary. Not everyone likes McCain, but I have to think his name recognition makes him awfully tough to beat.

Senator Specter thought it would be a good idea to switch to the Democrats side last year. He helped them gain a supermajority in the Senate and has voted along side them all year. Some say he wanted join the side that was “winning,” and others just said he was afraid of losing his Republican primary to Pat Toomey. Well, right now it looks like he is going to lose to Toomey, it just won’t be in the primary.

‘I’m running like I’m 20 points behind and I’ll continue to run like I’m 20 points behind,” says Pat Toomey, the presumptive GOP nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania — who in fact now leads Sen. Arlen Specter 45 percent to 31 percent among likely voters in the latest Frank & Marshall College poll.

Specter’s reason for switching parties last year:

As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party.

As I said when he switched, I’d love to know which Republican party he is talking about that has moved farther and farther to the right. I’d love to join that one. Either way, the sharp left turn Washington has taken has made Pennsylvania (and the rest of America) more than a little concerned.

Campaigning across the state, Toomey says he’s hearing time and again that it’s Washington’s “lurch to the left” that “Pennsylvanians don’t like.” The bailouts and ObamaCare are both flashpoints. The effort to pass the “card-check” bill to ease union organizing is a loser for Specter, too, even in this union-friendly state. Above all, Toomey reports, voters are asking the government, Why aren’t you focused on the economy?

Much as with the Massachusetts voters who sent Scott Brown to the Senate, Pennsylvanians are unhappy with one-party rule. “People are looking for balance” and for some serious “fiscal discipline,” Toomey notes.

Fiscal discipline, that would be a great thing. Balance sounds like a pretty good idea as well. I’m certainly not advocating for a 60 seat supermajority for the Republicans. I wouldn’t upset with them taking back the majority though.

Toomey was a small business owner which gives him a huge advantage in my book. We need more of that in D.C. right now. Somebody who actually has an idea of what it takes to create jobs would be good for the Senate, as opposed the President’s cabinet who’ve never been in private business. Hopefully the change we get this election year is for people who have a clue as to how the economy works.

For those that are interested I just published my first post to Geek Book Reviews, my new blog. I had been posting some reviews here, but in the future they will be moving to this new blog. If you like to read as much as I do, head over and check out my first review of Linchpin by Seth Godin and subscribe to the RSS feed to get updates. I am planning to do 1-2 reviews a week between myself and guest posters so hopefully that will keep you busy reading. If you are interested in writing a review sometime shoot me an email and I’ll be happy to put it up.

I’ve always found the First Lady to be interesting. Not this particular First Lady but the idea of the First Lady. I think about this as I read an article explaining Michelle Obama’s ‘call for united effort to fight child hood obesity’ and a separate article where she calls for Health Care reform. I just can’t, for the life of me figure out why the media reports on the First Lady or why she gets to spend government funds on a staff to help her work on her ‘Pet project’. No one voted for Michelle Obama. No one asked her to spend our tax dollars on her childhood obesity program. No one voted to give money to the First Lady to pay her public relations people or her chief of staff. Sadly, however, here we are; Listening to someone we didn’t vote for engaging in a job she isn’t qualified for.

First Lady’s Official Role

Originally, the role of the First Lady was to act as the hostess for the White House. This wasn’t an official office and there was no title for the First Lady. The name ‘First Lady’ wasn’t coined until after the death of Dolley Madison and then it still took a number of years to really catch on. For the most part, the early First Ladies, Dolley Madison in particular, defined the role of the First Lady through their actions. The First Lady acted a the hostess of the White House and was a bit of a trend setting celebrity.

Eleanor in the White House

This remained the case for the next approx. 130 years following Dolley Madison’s death. In 1933 FDR and his wife Eleanor Roosevelt entered the White House and everything changed. During Eleanor’s time as the First Lady she bucked many of the existing trends in and expectations of behavior of a First Lady. Eleanor never gave up her speaking career, much to the chagrin of her critics. She spoke directly to the people she met while she travelled on behalf of her husband and his administration. She was an outspoken proponent of the African American Civil Rights Movement. She even played a vital role in the appointment of Mary McLeod Bethune to be head of the Division of Negro Affairs.

In many ways she represents all of the good things about the feminist movement. She represents strong women with their own ideas, women who have their own careers. I’m certainly happy to have had her support for the Civil Rights Movement, but I worry about the precedent she set.

The First Lady in the Post-Eleanor Era

I believe that Eleanor Roosevelt really set the stage for the First Lady-ship the way we know it now. We can look at the First Ladies since then and see all of their pet projects. You can see the speeches they gave, the tax dollars they influenced, the policies they pushed through and supported of their own accord.

Nancy Regan founded a Just Say No anti-drug campaign, a program that proved to be extremely costly and definitely exceeds what I think the job of the Federal Government is. Hilary Clinton championed sweeping health care reform. Thankfully, this program never got off the ground so the only money this cost the U.S. tax payers were the salaries used to pay the staff of people that assisted Hilary. Now, we have Michelle Obama’s new campaign against childhood obesity.

I’m a big guy, I’m definitely against childhood obesity - but is it the government’s job to spend my tax dollars persuading kids to go outside and play? More importantly should a pseudo government official that isn’t elected into their post and has no official power be able to divert money into programs like this? Should the First Lady have the power to cajole Congressmen into voting for her pet project? I’m tired of seeing First Ladies on T.V. telling me about their grand new idea. Id rather we let the President do his job and have the First Lady, or First Gentleman whenever that becomes the case, stop influencing public policy.