Violence has it’s time and place.  We as a people should only use violence as an absolute last resort.  I completely disagree with the notion that violence is only for “barbaric people” who can’t use words to express their ideas.  Sometimes violence, war, and blood are the only tools left to a society.  They feel so oppressed that their voice is never heard.  These people get labeled as “extremist” by those who oppress them so others can oppress them even more.  Thomas Jefferson once said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Obama’s favorite president Abraham Lincoln said:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

Congressmen all over the country are getting the full brunt of the anger that is brewing in the hearts of America.  And many of these people (myself included) feel completely left out of the conversation.  With Obama calling on his followers to report people who disagree with him to Pelosi calling protesters un-American, you can see why people are getting even more angry.

In an effort to help out my fellow conservatives, I’d like to offer some thoughts and questions you should ask your Congressmen.  Let’s leave the chanting and the angry mob outside the town hall.  If you have the chance to ask your congressmen questions, use the opportunity to ask them the hard questions, questions no one wants to ask.  Questions that the media should be asking but are too scared or too lazy to ask themselves.

Congressmen ultimately answer to you.  Here are some hard questions to ask:

1. When GM and Chrysler were begging for a bailout, Congress reamed them for flying in on corporate private jets.  However, the House recently approved $550 million to upgrade their own personal jets.  Why should the American people approve these private jets for congressmen but not for taxpayer-owned GM?  Furthermore, what will you do to correct this?
2. Obama has consistently said that the health care bill will improve health care.  If this is the case, why has no congressmen agreed to go on the public option?  Will you mandate, and not ask, all congressmen who vote for the bill to use the public option?  Why or why not?
3. Obama has consistently promised that public option health care will give people a choice, and not force people to choose the public option.  However, page 16 (section 102) clearly states otherwise.  Who should we believe? The bill or the President?  If the bill, why haven’t you accused the President of lying to the public and when will you draw up impeachment proceedings like congress did for President Bush?
4. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, a special independent prosecutor, who found fraudulent activity between Obama and a supporter.  Why hasn’t Obama been charged with hindering prosecution, which is a federal felony?
5. Obama has consistently broken many of his campaign promises and looks like he will have to raise taxes on the 95% of the people he said he would protect.  What will you do to prevent this from happening?  Additionally, why hasn’t any democratic congressmen charged Obama with this very fact?  He said “lobbyist will not have a job in this administration” and no less then 24 hours later a lobbyist has a job in his administration.  Why are congressmen, especially democratic congressmen afraid to confront this president when they were not afraid to with the last president?

There have been many reports of congressmen filling the audience with unions who support Obama.  And many of these reports show that these union thugs have become violent toward conservative protesters.  Due to this fact, I am recommending any protester who has a gun to go armed.  You should be prepared to protect yourself.  Since the White House has even encouraged violence, I expect these thugs to be even more violent in the weeks to come.  Remember the rule of self-defense: Do not shoot unless they threaten you.  Virginians: Our state is not a retreat state.  You may stand your ground if you are being threatened.  Do not be afraid of these thugs but at the same time do not be afraid to defend your self.

Please respect all laws in your state when carrying a weapon.

The White House wants people to report “disinformation” to flag@whitehouse.com.  Barack Obama has even said he doesn’t want people who disagree with him to “do a whole lot of talking“.

This is nothing short of a desperate “President” trying to scare his critics into backing down.  But, hey, if he wants to get a whole bunch of e-mails, that’s his business.  I think We the People should report our neighbors for spreading disinformation.  And I say we start with the Obama supporters.

No doubt that this community activist has enlisted a large army of kool-aid drinkers into doing his bidding.  To level the playing field, we should do the same.  In the next week, I’ll be debuting a website where fellow conservatives can report Obama supporters.  Upload pictures of their bumper stickers (including license plates).  Use the Freedom of Information Act in your state to obtain their address, phone number, and any other identifying information.  That information will be publicly displayed for people to see.

Unlike the White House, this list will not be illegal since the information is publicly available.  What people decide to do with the information is not up for the state to decide.

Once I have the website up and running, I’ll make another announcement on this site and on Twitter.

Bills I support:

• HB 982: Concealed handgun permit applications — Protects from public disclosure permittee names and descriptive information held by the Department of State Police.  Bill forged after The Roanoke Times published a list of names and addresses of those who had conceal carry permits.
• HB 55 : Designating English as official language of State — I think it’s discriminatory that the VA government website only offers Spanish as an alternative language.  Why not Korean?  Make the official language English so there is no discrimination.
• HB 65 : Voters and voting; photo identification required to vote — Voting is important to the democratic process.  We must be able to verify all voters to be sure that they are indeed the person who they say they are.

Bills I oppose:

• HB 904 : Mobile telephone and other wireless electronic devices; use of hands-free accessory while driving — Unfairly targets travelling businessmen as well as more affluent drivers.  I would only support this bill if eating, drinking, and any other activity taking focus away from driving were also banned.
• HB 20 : Primary elections; voter registration by political party — Political party affiliations should not used as a filter.  Current rules are fine.
• SB 233 : Transportation Plan; include quantifiable measures & achievable goals for greenhouse gas emission — Greenhouse gases is a very broad term and measurement of these gases will accomplish nothing except provide an arbitrary measure to reduce a naturally occurring emission.
• SB 2 : Retail Sales and Use Tax; eliminates exemption for certain fuels — We don’t need any more taxes on gas.  And the Use tax should be eliminated, not expanded.

You can view federal bills I’m tracking on OpenCongress.org.

The irony of this is that people from the “pro-choice” camp are saying that it prevents people from getting abortions.  What’s even more ironic is that these “pro-choice” people want to take choice away from health providers to force them to perform a procedure they think is unsafe or that they disagree with.

Why should it matter why?  Doctors refuse treatments all the time when they don’t believe it is safe for the patient.

I cannot support HR7310 (sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1] and Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]) or S20.  These democrats, who are pro-choice, want to take choice away from doctors and instead give it in politicians.  Call your senators and congressmen and tell them to vote these bills down!

For realz!

Of course, Obama wants to blame this on Bush, because that’s what democrats do best: blame the other guy. The guy won’t place blame on his party, even though they are in control of the House AND Senate, as they stated when Nancy Peloski took control of the House. Of course, every Obama nut job conveniently forgets this fact and instead blames Bush for his policies, under regulation, blah blah blah.

In reality, this whole problem started before Bush took office. It started with President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat) with the Community Restoration Act of 1977. The act “encouraged” Fannie and Freddie to lend to minority communities. But it wasn’t until President Bill Clinton (another Democrat) introduced his National Homeownership Strategy that put the act into overdrive, causing billions of dollars to go to people simply because of their race and little else. Clinton saw this as a way to get minorities into the middle class. Well intentioned, but failed miserably.

While I won’t get into the details, it’s clear that the problem started long ago, not in the last eight years. To further underscore this, let’s look at Europe. After the stocks in the US started to drop, economies in other countries started to suffer as well. Germany even stated that it would pump more money into their economy because it was floundering. One of two things is happening: Europe isn’t as regulated as we thought OR deregulation is not the problem.

Bailing out failing companies for corruption is bad enough. But I find it okay that they were suffering because a law forced them to make bad loans. People keep blaming the companies for greed. I completely agree. But when the cards are stacked and there’s nothing you can do about it, you might as well use it to your advantage. President Carter provided the deck, President Clinton stacked it, and President Bush is caught dealing the cards.

My question is why doesn’t the mainstream media talk about this? I’m convinced that at this point, Obama can eat a live human baby and people will say, “Aww! How cute! He loves that baby so much that he wants to eat him. That’s so sweet!”

Only in Obama World, does 1 + 1 equal banana, the sky is meatloaf, and unicorns and leprechauns provide free healthcare for all.

However, as time goes by, it seems that more and more people are accepting the idea of proprietary access.  Slashdot and many others have posted a storyabout how portals like Yahoo can delete user’s content without any question.  The heart of this is the Terms of Service that users agree to when they register for an account.  The ToS states that Yahoo has the authority to do what they want with the data that’s on their servers.  They own them so they should be able to do what they want.

This relates to net-neutrality because ISPs are already filtering out what you can and cannot access.  The biggest perpetrator of this is Comcast, which is blocking most BitTorrent traffic.  Comcast contends that they are not blocking anything, but reports and tests say otherwise.

People SCREAM that they want net-neutrality but does their behavior dispute that opinion?

With the release of hulu.com, many people have hailed it as the next-generation TV station.  NetFlix, Apple iTunes, and Amazon all offer online videos to rent.  YouTube garners so much traffic that many companies block it.  Same goes for MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter.

The sad thing part is that sooner or later, hulu and the link will unable to sustain themselves with ads alone (read dot-com bubble).  They will eventually want to make it subscription-based.  Heck, most people are willing to pay money to keep from seeing ads!  In order to accomplish this, we will probably have to give up net-neutrality.

Why? If more and more people start going to hulu for television, ISPs will have a lot of traffic going to that one URL.  While it won’t cost them more, they will want to get money from it so why not charge extra for “faster access”?

I support net-neutrality.  But at some point, I have to ask myself what is it that I really want.  To be honest with you, I’d rather have faster hulu.com access than have everything the same speed.  This, of course, assumes that this is how proprietary access would work.

Net-neutrality is important because it gives the little man the same voice as the big corporations.  It gives everyone a fair chance to reach their audience.  Can you imaging typing in http://www.amazon.com and instead being directed to http://www.bn.com?  From there, you’ll be greeted with a window offering you lower prices for the item that your looking for.  If you stillwant to go to amazon.com, you’d have to hit another button to continue.  But then your browsing comes to a crawl.  But then you go back to bn.com, and everything is fine again!

We want net-neutrality, but we may be beating a dead horse.  At the very least, we’re saying one thing and doing something else entirely.