Catherine

Alfonzo Rachel is a talented man and I love his video commentaries (see them at PJ Media; free registration required after watching a limited number of videos). It is disgusting that this happened to him -- or anyone. Fifth Amendment: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law..." (caps added).

Whether you are left or right, you should find this "advertisement" funny. I got a real kick out of it. http://teamcoco.com/video/52648/conservotax-the-new-tax-software-for-republicans

Hi Joan -- The Progressive Party USA was founded by _Republican_ Teddy Roosevelt. Historical fact; look it up. Read the various stances of the progressives; compare and contrast with the current stances of the overall GOP, and then with the stances of the abolitionist/civil rights stances Republican Party as personified by Republican Abraham Lincoln, Republican Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and others. You will quickly see what lines up and what does not. Both major parties basically want more power to central government, as that assures their own importance and ability to profit - and to impose their own social agendas, which is not supposed to be federal jurisdiction at all (those matters are left, by the Constitution, to the states). The difference is only one of speed. Full-progressive and progressive-lite are the two flavors on the national stage. And one reason why it doesn't seem to make any difference who gets elected! As for Publius Huldah -- read her articles (linked below) on rights, the 1st Amendment. Please note the lady is a retired attorney who has studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers for decades; her scholarship is stunning in its depth and breadth. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/do-our-rights-come-from-god-the-constitution-the-supreme-court-or-congress-2/ http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/1st-amendment/ As for your assertion that women and minorities were not included and were never meant to be included -- partially true. Yet the words they used were carefully chosen to be inclusive. I have never understood why it is that the same people (general statement; not finger-pointing at you) who insist on holding the Founders and Framers to the standards we hold today, also insist we hold other contemporaneous cultures only to their own standards -- and cry that to do otherwise is racist/sexist/"culturist" and other terms. They were flawed people; there was only ever One who was not. The Declaration and Constitution are not perfect -- yet they strove as best they could. Evaluated by the standards of their day, they were prescient about rights, and set the stage for the freest and most prosperous society the world has ever seen. At the time the Constitution was written, of the 13 states, fully nine had legal ownership of slaves (eight by 1789, when the Constitution was ratified). Yet they still wrote into the document wording that was to set the stage for the abolition of slavery only twenty years later. Had Eli Whitney's cotton gin been only another decade or so delayed in invention and widespread use, the whole disgusting issue could have been resolved before "king cotton" made the fight so much more prolonged and horrific. As for the internal debates -- if you read Madison's notes on the Convention and the journals and letters of attendees, they saw the dichotomy and struggled with it personally. George Washington never bought a slave after the Declaration was written. He was given them, and did not sell them -- and took pains to keep families together. Why not free them? He didn't have the cash. Virginia, at that time, required a cash bond to be paid, sufficient to support the freed slave for the rest of their life, upon manumission. But manumitting slaves also meant they would be outside of his ability to protect. Washington didn't have that kind of money, and did feel that level of responsibility -- so he did the best he could, and freed his slaves upon his death. Jefferson, in much the same boat, could not free his slaves upon his death -- Virginia had changed the law, and that course was no longer open to him.

I have noticed an increasing trend in the last several years of letters from the IRS (and my state, too, to a lesser degree) claiming all kinds of problems that do not, in fact, exist. "Unreported sales" that were properly reported, 1099-Q distributions as taxable when used to pay education costs and so reported, etc. It's like they put their computer algorithms on super-sensitive, and then handed the results to the newest of the newbies for review. In times past, I saw 3-6 letters a year that clients received. Starting in about 2008 (after the real estate bubble burst, the economy tanked, and tax receipts plummeted), that number skyrocketed to over 30 a year. Almost all are completely specious. What hasn't been specious? Example: client claimed $X in estimated taxes, one check of which was not posted as received -- sent them to look for the check so we could dispute. Client found check -- in a folder! - they'd forgotten to send it in. Little things like that. My personal opinion is that they're demanding funds in the hopes people panic and pay, to get more dollars in the coffers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329082/At-oak-time--Carpenter-carves-functioning-watches-entirely-wood.html Working watches, gorgeously hand-carved from wood, accurate to a couple of minutes per day. Wow.

To paraphrase from "The Princess Bride" -- "This word debate, I don't think it means what you think it means." Merriam-Webster: Definition of DEBATE a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides There is no provision in that definition for screaming, hissy fits, name-calling, side-stepping issues, ignoring facts, or cutting off the other person with ad hominem attacks. So poor Ms. Maddow would be left with NOTHING to say or do. If she (or any of the other soi-disant "commentators" of the left) could/would debate the issues, either Publius Huldah or Michael Badnarik would mop the floor with her (or any of the others) in about 3 seconds.

Depends on what you need -- how user-friendly, whether it's going to be you or client using it, if you want/need control of tax payments or want them seamless, etc. Medlin Payroll (Jerry posts here sometimes) is excellent. Still has somewhat of a DOS feel (no problem & even some nostalgia for those of us who remember DOS!), easy to use, very flexible, dirt cheap. I do not recommend it to clients who are not computer-savvy, though. If you want clients to do payroll eventually (or you to do it for them but relatively painlessly), there is online SurePayroll by Paychex. I have a couple of clients who use it. I can get reports, they have access from whatever computer, all taxes get paid automatically. Some folks also think well of CFS's tax software (www.taxtools.com) but I have not tried it for myself.

And you have just PROVEN my point: that a fact-based argument from our Founding Principles gets turned into "You're just a Know-It-All!!!" followed by more name-calling. Frankly, you didn't even deserve this much of a response.

I do not watch mainstream TV and have not for years -- too busy, and I got far too sick of the blatant leftist bias. My time is worth more. I read. What's the problem with what Sheriff Mueller wrote? Article VI of the Constitution states that all laws "made in pursuance of this Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The key phrase is "made in pursuance." Laws antithetical to the Constitution (which document includes the Bill of Rights by full incorporation, see Article VII) are, in Madison's words, "usurpations of powers NOT granted; therefore null and void." The Sheriff states he will not allow the enforcement of soi-disant "laws" which are actually merely usurpations. He thereby upholds the Constitution, as he swore to do. How is upholding the supreme Law of the Land paranoid? Why is standing by the oath one swore suspect? You need to look at your basic principles -- do you really think one should swear an oath, NOT intending to uphold it? Or that being forsworn is no big deal? Really? There is no honor and no integrity in that stance; how can you then call yourself an honorable person; one of integrity? Or are those merely old-fashioned, meaningless terms as well? They are NOT; not to me. As for the Republican party today -- they have been almost entirely taken over by the "Progressives" -- and the Democrat party has been completely subsumed by that same group outlook. Read a bit about the history of the Progressives and their antecedents, the Fabian Socialists. That ought to give you a serious case of the willies. Their stance is one of utter contempt for humanity; eugenicists and tyrants all. One of their members and spokesmen, George Bernard Shaw (yes, the famous author) stated flat-out that everyone should be required to go before a panel, yearly, to justify their existence (showing how they had produced more than they had consumed) and if they could not so do, they should be killed, as a service to humanity. Humanely, of course. They are despicable. If you understood what these people stand for, and how they have been working to destroy this country from within (for decades) you would recoil in horror and do everything in your power to bring their plans out from under the rocks they hide beneath, and to stop them.

http://www.countysheriffproject.org/

Rabbi Daniel Lapin says, "The more things change, the more we must rely on the principles that never change." Do some reading on the Constitution and its principles -- I've cited web sites, books, articles, YouTube videos; take your pick. Yes, the _world_ has changed -- but the principles of freedom, morality, self-government, self-regulation, responsibility including our duty to aid our fellow humans -- NONE of those have changed one iota. THOSE are what the Constitution is founded upon.

There was a great cartoon in The New Yorker magazine a couple years ago: two cavemen sitting & talking. Once says to the other, "I don't get it. We get lots of fresh air and exercise, the water and air are clean, everything we eat is organic and free-range -- and no one lives past thirty!"

The Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter of whether or not something is Constitutional. That job is NOT part of their assigned duties (read the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803; just a couple of pages of clear text; available at Justia Law). The states and people can nullify, and -- believe it or not -- the county sheriffs are the final arbiters/sentinels of what is or is not Constitutional in their counties. See the County Sheriff project for info.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg, Pennsylvania November 19, 1863

KC -- First THANK YOU for the link to the Galveston County program; I had been looking for that and couldn't find it. Next -- here in Mass we have had way too many House speakers, Senate presidents, and other officials leave office only to shortly thereafter end up in the hoosegow for illegal activities while in office. I was told some years ago that the Democrat Party in Mass (we essentially have single-party rule here; the Republicans have a scant handful of office holders and no Independents at all) _wants_ ethically challenged petty (or not-so-petty) crooks who could not get elected without strong party support -- because they TOE THE LINE and do what they are told by the party -- else they lose their cushy jobs and all their chances to enrich themselves illegally. Once out of office, the party doesn't care what happens to them -- so off to Club Fed they go. So we end up with rep's stuffing their bra's with bribes, on camera. Rep's appearing at press conferences without their trousers to bi+ch about how "the man" is against them. Rep's claiming to know nothing about their in-law's illegal businesses and having no idea where their personal wealth (from the spouse working in that illegal business) came from... et cetera. It is disgusting.

You make several excellent points (and I'm with you on the vacations and paying off the cards monthly). The one point I'll make here is that capitalism is based on PRODUCTION, not consumption. The Keynesian economists have this exactly backwards. (Read Peter Schiff's "How An Economy Grows and Why It Crashes" before tackling von Mises or Hayek; it's where I send my daughters' friends when they have questions.) Quick proof? The iPod. No one was clamoring for it before it existed. Production first; then comes consumption. Proof some more? FedEx. The guy who started the company got an "F" on the project where he laid out the business model; the prof said flat out that "no one needs documents overnight and besides there are fax machines." Production (here, of a service -- that now has a huge air and truck fleet too) first.

That debate was long and arduous. It was held in 1787, when a convention was called to re-vamp the Articles of Confederation, a "perpetual union" that was falling apart after only ten years. That convention came up with the Constitution, which was presented to the states and ratified in 1789. Read the works the Framers read (Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero, Bastiat, Locke, etc.; I have read portions of their works and am in absolute awe over the breadth of knowledge of the framers -- there is NO equivalent group today) about the structure and purpose of government, the history of governance, inherent rights, the origins of civil society, the causes of breakdowns of civil societies over the ages... You'll not do much better than they did no matter how long you take. As for your very valid question about OK damages -- yes, they _would_ do well with no Federal help. Look at recent history: after Superstorm Sandy, church groups and private charities got to _more_ places and gave _more_ aid than the feds did -- and the help they gave was pertinent to that specific spot's needs. Was there one over-arching group over all of them? No. Did some places get missed? Probably. Do places (and people) get missed when the feds are in charge? Yes. Do people scam the system? Yes; more likely to succeed with larger agencies. Private groups _will_ step in to fill voids. If the feds backed off, more private groups would step in. There was a drought in TX during the administration of Grover Cleveland (Democrat). Congress voted $50K in aid to be sent for relief. Cleveland vetoed the bill, saying there was no Constitutional justification for that aid coming from the feds. In response, private groups raised and sent over $100K to TX in relief. So TX came off two times better relying on private aid alone. Here is a link to a great true story involving Rep. Davey Crockett (of "Remember the Alamo!" fame): http://personalliberty.com/2010/04/09/sockdolager-a-tale-of-davy-crockett-charity-and-congress/

You may have all the colors, but you have demonstrated time and again that (1) you have no understanding of the principles that this country was founded upon, and (2) that you are mainly not interested in discussing issues when you have the option of ad hominem attacks. What Herman Cain accurately calls the "SIN" tactics: Side-step the issue, Ignore facts, and Name-call.

The Patriot Act is a complete and utter violation of the 4th Amendment. If we understood the Constitution, we would declare it "a usurpation of powers not granted, therefore null and void" (see the Federalist papers, possibly #44 or #43, for Madison's words on this topic). Who is the "we" here? The states, which (together with the general citizenry) CREATED the federal government and whose creature the fedgov't is. 10th Amendment, (paraphrased; full text in many places) "all powers not delegated to the feds, nor forbidden to the states (Art 1, Section 10, mainly), are reserved to the States and the People." So far as giving up liberty for safety, Ben Franklin said that best: "He who gives up a little essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither -- and that is what he receives, in the end."

Judy (and Bulldog Tom, too) -- If I can figure a way to extract individual pictures, I will post a couple. The folks who run that web site only have this download-it-all slideshow, unfortunately. It is safe, but they don't have the certificate set up right so there is a warning message "are you SURE?!?!" from your computer.

The ammo companies say they are running full capacity -- but yes, there is trouble getting ammo and shops are limiting what each person can buy so that they don't sell out a case to the first person who walks through the door. The MIT college team supplier had to search high and low and long and hard to be able to buy enough for next year's collegiate practice and match season! The pit crew spends the whole match in the pit and are completely safe. It's a concrete bunker. The targets are mounted on frames that extend way above the bunker. They wear ear protection, so they stand facing the backstop area (big dirt berm behind the targets) to see what's going on. When they see a "poof" of dirt behind their target, they pull down on the frame, taking the whole target down. Spotter, paster, score marker.... and back up it goes, 'til the next "poof" hits. Each shooter has 22 shots (2 sighters, 10 "record" shots), fired in pairs (right, left, right, left). A team is six people -- doing the math, that is 22 x 6 = 132 holes per target for the full match. The only "injury" I ever heard of happened to my older girl; it was raining that day, she lost her grip on the frame, and whammed her hand against the lower part of the frame. Not even a bruise but she had a few very colorful words at the time. We've all whacked our hands against car doors, kitchen counters, etc., just as hard. But yeah, they stand for 2 1/2 hours in a concrete bunker with bullets whizzing by far overhead, perfectly safely. They have plenty of room and there's even a porta-potty stationed down there (you might have time, if you're quick, between pairs of shooters).

Glad y'all liked the pictures!

There are two firing lines _behind_ this one (not in use, of course!) -- at 300 and 600 yards. From _those_ distances, you don't stand up! Prone only. There used to be a 1,000 yard range in Woburn MA but it got taken decades ago by the state as Rt 128 (the inner ring road around Boston) goes right through where it used to be. I hear there is one in NH somewhere, one in NY somewhere, and we know some folks trying to get another one built in NH. That might be fun to try someday. I haven't shot at those distances before; you need to learn to read the wind at the longer distances. There are wind flags in several places at the Reading club where the EMRL matches are held. The bright jacket was a birthday gift from my husband a few years ago. I figure if I can't out-shoot them all, at least I can out-class them with my sartorial elegance.

Nah; if I get mad I will use my drill sergeant voice and deafen you! No way I'd risk my license just 'cuz I'm mad!

Oops; forgot to include that. 200 yards. Caliber depends on the shooter; most folks these days use .223 (just a bit larger than .22, but more powder to have a steady trajectory in the longer distances); some still use .308. A couple of folks have very old Springfields of I-don't-know-what caliber but they have quite the "boom!" and muzzle flash! Many of the rifles you folks see in the pictures are the oh-so-scary "assault" rifles. "Assault" is NOT a rifle type; it refers only to cosmetic details such as type of grip and whether or not there is a place to affix a bayonet. Both my girls spent several years as "pit crew" -- the folks who pull and score the targets. After each shot, they pull the target down, find the new hole, put in a spotter, put a "paster" (sticky paper spot) over the old hole, and put an orange scoring disk in the right spot to tell if the shot was an X, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, or 4. 2 1/2 hours of non-stop work but they got good money for it and liked the job.