So I attend the College Republicans meetings at the University of Minnesota every Wednesday with my sister.  About 40 people are there each meeting with about 20-30 regulars.  I started going a month ago because I thought it would be fun to get involved a bit, even if I don't REALLY support McCain.  So once in awhile they pop up phone banking on us for the last 10 minutes.  Ive gone with my sister to phone banking before and personally I think its a waste of time since we aren't convincing anyone of anything, but only asking questions.  Anyways one of the 20 people I called was this guy who must have been itching for a debate.  I first ask him if he is voting McCain, then Coleman.  He then asks me if I'M voting for McCain.  So I tell him Im not 100% sure, but probably (Im still waiting for his 1 term only announcement).  Anyways, we get into this 20 minute debate.  He was somewhat independent, but more liberal.  First he started on Palin's experience, but I derailed him with Obama and he had to change the subject.  Next he brought up the economy and how Bush's policies got us here.  Which led to the Trickle down effect and how he thinks it doesn't work.  I was appalled at his reasoning as he was saying things like, "You can tax businesses because they can hide the money" and stuff like that.  I figured that it wouldn't be easy to try and prove the trickle down effect works on the phone.  So I decided I would throw in a short description here.

So now that you have the backstory....

The trickle down effect basically says that cutting taxes for everyone, including high income earners, will help the job market and the economy.  Liberals will say that taxing the rich will not harm the economy.  Polar opposites, so I feel this is a major subject to discuss.

What happens when you cut taxes on everyone?

-middle class people suddenly have more money
-business owners suddenly have more money
-basically everyone has more money, lets face it, you cannot deny that with everyone getting their taxes cut.

What will the middle class do with more money? 
-Suddenly they have enough money for that new TV.
-Maybe they will go on more vacations?
-In short, they will spend the extra money they have.

What will the business owners do with more money?
-Buy more inventory
-Buy new machinery to increase production, which creates jobs
-Lower prices to undercut competitors(Ill admit this is probably least likely, but a possibility nonetheless)

What happens with middle class spending more?
-Businesses make more money by selling more products
-tourist areas make more money as well
-GDP will rise due to higher spending


What happens when businesses have more money?
-Jobs created

Is there any possible way to actually deny any of that logic?  A business owner will try to make more money in every possible way.  Producing more will allow them to sell more and make them more money, so they will try to do that.  Buying more inventory will mean that the business they bought from will have more money and they will buy from another business who will buy from another etc etc.  The middle class will then have more jobs available to them and they will be more competitive since there will be more available jobs to take.  Their wages will increase due to competition.  A business owner knows its worth paying $15 for a reliable worker instead of paying $11 for an unreliable one.

What happens to government income?
-If GDP does not change, it will be lower, however with all the extra spending by businesses and consumers the GDP will be higher.  There is a breaking point, but at our current rates the last tax cut raised the IRS revenues.

So.....in short.

Middle class has more money
Businesses have more money
Government takes in more taxes, due to higher GDP
More jobs are created
Jobs make more money

Can anything be a drawback of this trickle down effect?

Conversely, what happens when taxes are raised on the rich only.  Obama claims that, and even though I know he will raise taxes on all, I will compare that.

Businesses have less money

What does a business do when they have higher taxes?

Raise prices?
Lay off workers?
Lower wages?

There aren't many options to make up the loss.

So the economy has fewer jobs, at lower wages with higher priced goods. 

So basically the middle class will not be affected if...

you do not buy goods from a company.
You do not work for a company.

Does anyone reading do both of those things?  I think it would be tough not to buy goods from a company, since everything is made by a business.  And before you liberals argue the 250k cutoff, that is very low for a business.  Many business that are small clear well over 250k for the year.  Nearly every business will be affected.

So today I was watching some political ads on TV and for the umpteenth time I got to hear about how the Bush economic policies caused this crisis.  Oh wait.....no I didn't.  I only heard that it DID cause the crisis.  I didn't hear how it did.  In fact I have yet to hear HOW it has yet.  Its always Bush's economic policies this, or Bush's doctrine that, but never do they name policies.  Never do I hear of one possible thing that Bush did that caused this crisis.  Well...ok, the one I have heard is the Iraq war, but that hasn't been the cause of this banking crisis or the home bubble.  To say that is beyond ignorance and into lies.  So liberals...if any of you are reading, lets hear of a policy of Bush's that has caused this crisis.  I mean...it must be better than the CRA bill right?

So today I was thinking about all the parasites to society that are going to have their vote worth just as much as mine and thought of a great way to fix our country.  This will work on many levels since it starts in the grassroots and spreads upward, quickly.  I started thinking on why should a person who does nothing but suck life from society be able to have a voice?  If you were in a small tribe and you decided as a group on what to do, would you allow the person who slept all day to vote on what the group does?  Why would we allow people that have no idea on what the real world is all about, because you supplied their needs through welfare, to vote?  Wouldn't that lead to exactly the type of politics we have now?

I am constantly hearing Obama and McCain shouting all the things they will give me.  As if I need or trust the government to give me anything worthwhile without taking more from me the next day.  Today the winning politician is usually the one who sounds best when promising the parasites their gifts.  I seem to remember that the only rights our founders thought were given to us were life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Now, I had no idea that they thought the happiness would come directly FROM the government.  I'd imagine that they thought freedom FROM government would be that pursuit of happiness. 

So to my idea. 

First off I would raise the voting age to 21, unless you have a military card.  If you are old enough to serve, you can vote right?  Well I see it that if you do serve you can vote, otherwise, why should an indoctrinated 19 year old be able to vote if they haven't even been given responsibility at a job yet?  In most cases they haven't had to pay rent, car insurance, car payments, cell phone bills etc etc.  Now some have, but I feel they are in an enough of the minority that their group shouldn't be allowed in the decision making process for this country.  If you served in the military you have fought to protect our rights and deserve a seat at the table. 

Next I would like to limit the voters to only people that pay in positive taxes for that election year.  I think this could also extend to people that have paid positive taxes for X amount of years, say 25 years.  That way people who have contributed to society are the only ones voting.  My aunt has never known what its like to have to work for anything because she has been on welfare since she was a teenager.  Why should her vote count just as much as mine?  Again, would you allow the person in your tribe to vote if they had been lazy and sleeping all day every day?  Probably not.  The people that should be making the decisions should be the people that are helping make this country a better place.  They are the ones who are getting jobs and helping keep our roads smooth, or bridges up.  They are the ones keeping our military well kept and trained.  The parasites are draining society and shouldn't be allowed a seat at the table. 

Now, I don't feel this is elitist in any way.  It's incredibly easy to make enough money to pay in positive taxes.  For it to be elitist, I think the prerequisite would have to be tougher than getting a job.

Now some may be thinking this could be difficult.  I do not think voter registration cards would get it done.  However, we are in the information age with computers and databases bringing everything to you in the blink of an eye.  The government has the central databases that could do this.  When the IRS takes in your filed taxes, it marks your SS number as yes or no for voting possibility.  Then you go to your voting building or whatever and you slide your license through the machine like a credit card.  The machine reads your SS number and finds it in the database.  It then says if you can vote or not.  I think its pretty simple.  If you do not have a license then you must get an identification card from the government.  This also eliminates voter registration since you will already be in the database.  This also eliminates lots of fraud obviously since it doesn't rely on registration but up to date taxes.  Deaths are already run through the government and they could just mark the voting possibility no when you die.  That way your social security number is no longer valid to vote.

Any thoughts or questions?

So, my sister is in an AP Government class as an 11th grader and she has come to me with questions about their readings.  I found the recent reading incredibly liberal.  And hence begins my story of indoctrination, first hand. 

Here are some quotes from the crazy reading which was authored by David Brooks( a journalist for the NYT).  Let alone that she is required to read a piece by a writer of the laughable NYT, this piece is propaganda.

"Everything that people in my neighborhood do without motors, the people in Red America do with motors. We sail; they powerboat. We cross-country ski; they snowmobile. We hike; they drive ATVs. We have vineyard tours; they have tractor pulls."

And there he goes about them saving the planet eh?  His neighborhood he talks of is blue America, or democrats.

"All we know, or all we think we know, about Red America is that millions and millions of its people live quietly underneath flight patterns, many of them are racist and homophobic, and when you see them at highway rest stops, they're often really fat and their clothes are too tight."

Umm...can you wrongly stereotype anymore than this excuse of a human being?

Im not going to quote through the entire thing as you get the point.  Read it for yourself if you like.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/brooks.htm

So I was sitting around ideating the other day(jk, its from an IBM commercial) and came across this idea while talking with my dad. 

Couple of assumptions/truths before I give out my priceless invention

1.  Mortgage banks are the ones failing because people are not able to pay their mortgages.  Pretty much a given.

2.  Prices of houses are, and have been, falling.  So people don't own enough of the house to sell it and that is killing the market.

My solution!!!  And you may want to sit down folks! 

Remove Property Taxes!!!  TADA!! 





I know where my parents live, they pay around 8k property taxes a year.  In many places the property tax is higher than it should be since house prices have fallen.  They never lowered property taxes!  Remove the couple hundred each month that these folks have to pay to the almighty government, and let them use it for their house payment.  Now this will also help house pricing as people would start to gain some equity in their homes as they pay for them.  It would at least help stabilize the market, instead of a continuing free-fall.

Now, of course this alone will not solve this crisis.  There are many things the government could do to help solve this.  Cut taxes to start.  Stop wasteful spending would also help us lower our debt and increase the worth of the dollar.  But, when did the almighty government do anything that was good for the economy? 

But, if we can get the American people to be able to pay their mortgages, then the banks will be taking in the necessary money.  I also think that banks could be smarter and lower interest rates on existing loans.  That would lower house payments and people would be able to pay, instead of leaving and the bank getting nothing.  But hey, thats just me thinking out of the box right? 

The past couple weeks have seen the liberals blame this banking crisis on Bush and the open-market system of economy.  They seem to think that speculation and greed were the only things causing this crisis.  How wrong they are!  The open market never performs well when it is regulated into doing things it wouldn't normally do.  This crisis did not happen over night, nor in 8 years.  This crisis has been brewing for decades. 

Check out this site...as I will be using this as a center piece of this article. 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

Thomas DiLorenzo has many articles that are worth reading.  Proving capitalism over any other and the such.  Very informative.  This specific article covers how the government forced this crisis upon us. 

Here are a couple quotes from the piece:

"The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria."

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters."

It goes through ACORN as well.  Now, who do we know that is associated with ACORN?  anyone?  Maybe a liberal might know?  Ah well...you'll get it. haha

It of course does not rule other factors and he talks about how other factors have helped cause this crisis.  This crisis was 30 years in the making though, not 8.  This crisis is reaching far and wide across every banking spectrum imaginable.  It has spread across seas in some instances.  If you build a house of cards with 3 cards, then 3 cards will fall.  If you build a house of cards with 30 cards, then 30 cards will fall.  We have just seen 30 cards fall from our house of cards.  I believe this crisis is much more intertwined with the government than we think.  To add in my personal opinion, I think that when the government needed money, they simply added it to the computers and did not print any.  Now that is dangerous and can cause a bubble of cash in the economy, without putting any more cash in the economy.  When people then started needing their cash, there wasn't any to be had.  The numbers may be there, but they aren't actually there.  Thats just my opinion, so you can take that anyway you want. 

So my final destination of this piece.  Banking crisis = government regulation

Your comments are welcome.

The conventions went smoothly without unnecessary psychos interrupting their affairs....for one party.  The democrats didn't have to deal with psycho conservatives(and I say conservatives because only hardcore conservatives or hardcore liberals would protest since they are the only types that are passionate about their beliefs), but they didn't have to deal with psycho conservatives dropping bricks from overhead passes onto cars.  They didn't have to deal with psycho conservatives with balloons full of urine!  The republicans had to change around travel routes because of psycho vandals(not protesters...vandals).  Store owners came to shop with broken windows. 

Are these people REALLY advocates of allowing everyone their right to freedom of speech?  They are trying to suppress OUR right to free speech.  Notice on this site, liberals are free to express their views, while on HuffPo and co, conservatives are booted and banned.  These are the people that are trying to suppress our right to freedom of radio.  The fairness doctrine does what a protest could not do.  It forces us to relinquish our right to full freedom of speech and instead forces us to give time to other beliefs that would otherwise not be able to make it in the sector.  Liberals are free to start their own radio broadcasts, but they cannot compete.  Since they cannot compete, they will turn to unleveling the playing field in their favor.  But I digress.  I am sick of these psycho liberals running the show.  If Obama takes the presidency and begins his socialist drive, it is time for conservatives to play hardball.  In my eyes the march on Washington would be upon us.  Read the DoI and you will see the instructions for what we must....MUST do if the government becomes destructive to our life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness.  The time will come to show the world what America is all about. 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

If we stand around and do nothing, the evils of socialism will be upon us!  If Obama takes the presidency we must fight tooth and nail against his policies.  We MUST inform our congressmen that they WILL be voted OUT if they do not fight socialism at every turn!  This must also happen if McCain gets in there!  Perhaps more so.  Conservativism must make a comeback and this next 4 years is the time!  Not only will our voices be heard, but it will force McCain(if elected) to see that we want Palin in 4 years.  He will see that he won by default.  He will see where this country will be heading!  If Obama gets in, it will show Jindal that he is a must for 2012.  We should be promoting him for 4 years!  Talk to your friends, especially conservative ones, about Jindal!  Promote him everytime politics come up.  Research his every issue so you know what you are talking about.  Know about his track record of cutting taxes 6 times since taking office as governor.  We must begin to act! 

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Lets begin to live it!

I recently found out my other blog was my main link.  No wonder my visits went down in here. So I will just post up my other blog and you can link to that.


http://liberaltownusa.blogtownhall.com/

Im also going to hold off my new series until TH gets this fixed.  Its no fun writing when only 20 views are coming in on it.  Once that gets fixed it will more than double the readers, so Ill wait until then.

I am taking an olympic break.  I didn't have much time before and with watching the olympics, well, I think its a good spot.  Ill start on that series just after that.  Just wanted to let my stoic followers know I wouldn't start on that yet. *laughs out loud* Like I have stoic followers.

What would happen if Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia etc in ME, suddenly had the means to destroy us.  In essence, what if our power were reversed and they were most powerful while we just bought our oil from them.  I would assume we wouldn't be able to attack Iraq like we did, that goes without saying.  But, how would they react towards us?  Or what if in 10 years, by some major advances, Iran was more powerful than us?  Would they sit idly around?  Or would they destroy us?  Just something to think about :)  Have a nice day

I am going to do a series of posts in which I pit human nature against a type of government and speak as to why it would fail or succeed.  I will start each on off with a paragraph on human nature to remind everyone what I am basing my opinion on.  This post will simply rely on human nature and nothing else.  It is the underpinning of my arguments ahead and will be used for my comparisons. 


Human nature:
What exactly is human nature?  To care for others?  To bow to a ruler?  I will only compare human nature to government and not human nature as a whole. 

The ruled:  The people who are not in government and are of the middle class or lower make up a major portion of all societies, including the most successful.  So it only makes sense to use them as the people being ruled.  How does human nature play a part in how they react towards their government? 

They would expect their government to repel foreign invaders of course, but how about domestically?  I will start with freedom.  Through history some have said that certain people wouldn't be able to deal with freedom.  Many said it of the Black slaves that were freed in the civil war and given equal rights during the Civil Rights movement.  Many said Japanese wouldn't be able to cope with a free society after world war 2.  In both cases they were dead wrong.  The Japanese are one of the most prosperous nations in the world and the blacks here, with some draw backs from LBJ legislation, are coping with freedoms much the same way anyone else here does.  Humans want to be free!  They don't want a person telling them they must grow up to be a factory worker because their dad was.  They want to have the possibilities of owning the factory. 
How about government prosperity?  Through history many dictators and tyrants have built incredible castles and palaces.  Do the people care about those types of things?  I believe they do not.  The people would much rather have the money going to something that benefited the entire populace rather than the money building a palace for their prince.

I believe the ruled act in a very expected way.  They just don't want government getting in their way or pushing them to the ground.  The rulers are the ones that make or break the case for many governments.

The rulers:  What does a person do with power?  Do they take only what is good for the country?  Some do...some don't.  What about finances?  Do they again take what is good for the country, or horde as much as they can? 
If a single person is the ruler, they have supreme control to do what they like.  The country is at the mercy of one man.  Many people are corrupt by so much power and end up overextending principles that are otherwise good for the country.  Many turn their country into an oppressed population.  However, some do not.  Some will use what is given to its fullest extent and since they don't have to worry about another contradicting them, they bring prosperous times to their country. 

The Human nature of man with power is to become corrupt in it.  Through history many leaders have started out with good intentions and ended up bringing their country to their knees because of corruption.  They get power hungry.  Once they got power, they could never get enough.  Even the purest of heart were often corrupt in their last days.  Many become paranoid in how they will retain their power until their dying day and will do anything to keep it, even murder a rival if they must.  A single man at power puts the country at great risk since the country is at the command of a single opinion with no checks or balances to stop a bad decision. 

The human nature of man is only relevant to a single person and in each government I will delve into whether the multiple persons aspect of that particular government will help or not.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." - John Quincy Adams, 6th President of USA.


I had a debate on another site (password protected site, so I can't really link it or I would) about the quote above.  He seemed to think the above quote shouted of theocracy.  I disagreed, and that gave me thought to write a short column on the reasoning of quote.  John Q Adams was not a founding father, but he was closely connected with one as his father.  I believe this quote to be 100% true and that truth is coming to light as America moves away from religion and into a secular country. 

Our constitution gives unbridled freedom, seen only by few civilizations in the history of the world.  With that freedom the people have the authority to do many things unseen in the rest of the world.  For example, a person can stand in the street and speak out against America, without fear of being arrested.  A man has the right to bear many types of weapons that would not be allowed of him in other countries.  With freedom comes responsibility to act in such a way as to contribute to society.  If everyone fully exercised their freedom, causing harm to this country, we would fall from power at a feet of a citizenry that wished harm on this country. 

What a religion does is give people a moral code to live by.  People of Christianity do their best to live by the life of Jesus.  If our population had 300 million people striving to live their life as Jesus led his, would there be as many problems as we have today?  With religion comes an example of how we should live our lives.  Humans are by nature not perfect and we will never be close, but if everyone was trying to leave a positive footprint, well you see where I am going with this.

Now we must connect the dots here and show how our constitution is made for religious people and would fail under all others.  With the freedom our constitution gives, people will all live their lives according to how they would like to live them.  Government forces the hand of no person concerning personal decisions.  If people do not live by a moral code of a religion, then what code will they live their lives by?  Surely some people will live their lives with the same positive morals of religion, even if they do not believe in a higher being, but how many would?  The effects of America moving towards secularism is already beginning to show.  Abortion is legal, same-sex marriages is now moving from state to state, in Colorado if a person feels they are a woman that day, they can go into the womans locker room even if they are a man.  In the schools, ever since the removal of God from schools, our violence rates in the schools has reached higher levels than seen before.  School shootings have been happening at an increasing rate.  Our country is moving away from having a moral code and moving towards an "anything goes" country.  With that comes a more selfish and individualistic society, where people have no common set of values to live by.  This weakens a country by breaking apart the population from common beliefs and views of where this country should go.  If a populous does not have a common goal for the country, then how is the country to move forward?  If there is no foundation upon which the population can together stand, where is the groundwork we can all stand on?  What binds us together as a people?

Thank you for your time, please respond if you have anything to add, your opinion is most welcome.

Now, for those of you who played sports, you know exactly what this mean.  For those of you who didn't, you may still know, but if you do not...  Basically it's saying that if you are focused on your task at hand and confident, you have won half the battle.  Obviously physical skill plays a part, but mentally strong athletes will succeed far more often.  If you are confident in yourself, you take your physical steps without hesitation or worry and that causes you to beat your opponent if you are equally matched physically.  Ok, I hope you all get that...because now I'm comparing this to our economy.

For the last couple years the MSM and democrats have been predicting this recession and even saying we were currently in one.  Neither were true, but they hammered at it.  I would get you quotes and whatnot, but even the liberals reading this know its true.  So with that in mind, how did that affect our economy?

Our economy was going along fine when they started in with their recession talk.  Our tax breaks recovered our economy spectacular after 9/11.  The recession Bush took from Clinton was turned into positive results.  Now, picture yourself as an investor.  You are hearing from NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc etc, that a recession is looming.  What do you do?  You reel in some of your investments fearing it could drop in value, maybe you sell your extra property?  Picture yourself as a middle-class family parent.  What do you do?  Instead of buying that boat you could finally afford, you save your money since you heard there was a recession looming.  The lower income families are already saving all they can and hardly making it.  My point is, their rants about a recession caused people to fear for the recession.  Our physical attributes were moving along at a great pace, but our mental game was in the tank.  We were then not able to perform at our best without 50% of what is needed for 100% total. 

So, in my opinion, the democrats ranting and raving of a recession got their wish in forcing one upon themselves.  If you shoot a basketball with the expectation to fail, you will miss.  If you swing at a baseball with the expectation to fail, you will swing and miss.  If you shoot a penalty shot in soccer with the expectation to miss, you will not score.  If you look at our economy and inform the people that a recession is looming, a recession will occur. 

You thoughts and response is welcome.

With the Supreme court decision to ALLOW us to keep our rights given to us, I thought I would write a little on what I think about the 2nd amendment using other important documents written around the same time.  The Supreme court is there to interpret the Constitution, not to legislate on it.  Therefore, I am going to prove what our founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the 2nd amendment. 

To do this I will first bring us to a time before we had written a Constitution.  A time before there was a United States.  A time where there was a small committee of 3 looking over a document called the Declaration of Independence.  I know its just another small document that doesn't have much to do with anything now right?(or so the libs may say)  hehe, but I am going to use it none the less.

I will scan down and find a paragraph that contains a mention of us securing our rights and what to do if government becomes destructive. 

"That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Now, I think to myself.  How, if under any circumstances, would the people abolish a government that is becoming destructive, if we don't have arms to do it?  Throw pitchforks?  Maybe fling snowballs at them (for those of you who have seen John Adams haha).  Perhaps a club will do.  I think not.  The only way for the people to rise up and defeat the national government is to use arms.  The military would be much too strong to overcome without, and if the government is becoming destructive, I very much doubt they wouldn't be using the military to do their bidding.  To that point, I argue that Thomas Jefferson supports the people having arms to defend themselves from the government.  How could any sane person object to that argument. 

I now move to another of our founding fathers using yet again, a different such document than the Constitution.  Again, a time before televisions, a time before the Constitution.  The Federalist Papers have three such names in them and all of them did great things for our country.  Alexander Hamilton set a foundation of credit our country has built upon until today, James Madison Jr. was our 4th president and John Jay was our first chief justice.  All of which had a hand in the writing of the Constitution.  These are hardly people you can ignore when interpreting the intended meaning of our amendments.

I turn our time to Federalist Paper #28.  Written by Alexander Hamilton to the people of New York.  I will go straight to quotes:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Here he speaks of the people needing to take to arms if congress or the President betray us.  Now, he speaks specifically of arms in this statement, so there can be no other means by which he says the people could overthrow the government, if need be.  We must rush tumultuously to arms...Tough to argue against that.  Again, any sane person could not possibly do so.

I now move onto the 2nd amendment itself.  Now, the parsing of the sentence in question is causing many of these problems.  I will try to prove why I think the way I do on this subject.

"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."

Here is how I interpret the law.

Subject, what its for, what it is, final solution.

Throughout the Federalist papers, PUBLIUS creates many sentences in which you have to parse them carefully and correctly to have the desired outcome of the sentence.  Reading the above paragraph you must be able to see that.  They use commas much differently than we do today on a regular basis, and that is what makes this so hard to interpret.  They constantly use them as sub-sentences or describing areas for the previous parse.  I think it is fairly obvious that the second portion is directed at the first.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...  It is describing what a militia is used for or why we need it.  For the security of a free state.  The third part is where many people have many different thoughts.  I believe it describes what a militia is.  A militia is the right of the people to bear arms.  Without that right, there would be no militia.  The third applies to the subject.  Since a militia is the right of people to bear arms, then the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed. 
I for one believe the common sense interpretation makes perfect sense, but where people can skew the law, they will do so. 

Since the ruling came out that the 2nd applies to the individual, doesn't that mean that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional?  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!

The job of the Supreme court is to interpret the original meaning of the law, not create their new meaning of it!

Using other historical documents written by our founding fathers, along with the obvious meaning.  How can anyone argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean exactly what it says?  We get guns!!!

Sources:
Declaration of Independence
Federalist Paper #28

Isn't it obvious?

If were talking of a new party...The Crawfish has a great idea on its beginnings.

Party Platform and such can be found here:
http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/25/part_2_of_the_2008_american_tradition_party_platform.thtml

Now, I was thinking of an animal.  Republicans have elephant.  Democrats have donkey.  How about the good ole snake?
It was on our 'Don't Tread On Me' flags.  It will show the tenacity we intend to use when taking back our country.  What do y'all think?