Thomas Jefferson Quotes

I rather believe 'ole Tom had a good bit more on the ball than anyone we've had as president in my lifetime. Certainly, Hussein Obama doesn't share the ideals of a true forefather. How sad we can't have people elected to office who share the wisdom expressed here rather than powermongers who want little more than re-election.




"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we
shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson




"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who
are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas
Jefferson




"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the
world." -- Thomas Jefferson




"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson




"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results
from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson




"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson




"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in government." -- Thomas Jefferson




"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson




"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas
Jefferson




Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks
and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Political Correctness

Please enjoy these clips from Ronald Reagan and catch the true meaning of what he had to say as our president. Only takes 4 minutes. Political correctness??? Our country is 236 years old and it has been 23 years since Reagan was in office. That means that in only 10% of our nation's history we have drifted as far asunder as we now find ourselves. What a sad time it would be if the founding fathers could see what a mess has been made of their hopes, dreams and dedicated work. I hope and pray that some of us who have seen a great and proud nation, true to it's heritage, can pass along enough ideals to get back on the right track.

Buying Friends

Just received the information below this morning. Obviously, there are still some morons who believe giving money to other countries buys us friendship. That's as stupid as a Hatfield buying a McCoy a drink!! The dollar amounts below don't begin to take into account the millions of dollars spread around by the CIA to both governments and private citizens. I assume that, since our country is broke, to continue these payments our elected brainiacs will either get a Mastercard or take out a second lien on the White House.. By the way, CIA - isn't that an intelligence agency? When did they become another branch of military? That will be another study for future post. How they vote in the United Nations: Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded inboth the U.S. State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67%of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67%of the time Morocco votes against the United States 70%of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the United States 70%of the time Jordan votes against the United State 71%of the time
Tunisia votes against the United States 71%of the time
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73%of the time
Yemen votes against the United States 74%of the time
Algeria votes against the United States 74%of the time
Oman votes against the United States 74%of the time
Sudan votes against the United States 75%of the time
Pakistan votes against the United States 75%of the time
Libya votes against the United States 76%of the time
Egypt votes against the United States 79%of the time
Lebanon votes against the United States 80%of the time
India votes against the United States 81%of the time
Syria votes against the United States 84%of the time
Mauritania votes against the United States 87%of the time
U.S.Foreign Aid to those that hate us: Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States,still receives $2,000,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Jordan votes 71% against the United States receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually.
WHY? WHO IN THE WORLD STARTED THIS AND WHY? THEY ACTUALLY BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM. Perhaps it's time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.

Slippery Slope from Supreme Court

As frightening as the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare is what is contained within the majority opinion written by his honor Roberts. Most legal arguments (trials) are settled using precedent: rulings which have been established in previous courts which have the effect of establishing or interpreting law. Once a court has made a ruling, that stands as law unless later overturned by another court or on appeal. In some situations the appeals process makes its way to and is accepted by the Supreme Court for arguments. Whenever the Supreme Court writes an opinion, the content of that opinion carries the full weight of the highest court in the land and means that what is expressed therein has been considered by that court and cannot be appealed nor overturned. On page 45 of the 193 page decision on O'Care, his honor writes that "suppose Congress enacted a statute providing that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy saving windows must pay the IRS $50" and goes on to say "No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax and was within Congress's power to tax." In my opinion, by him including that verbiage he has opened the door for a crazed liberal Congress to tax, without restraint, any targeted group they wish to choose. How about "anyone with a house exceeding 2200 square feet, or owning a car newer than 4 years old, or having more than $10,000 in the bank, or ------------you fill in the blank. Considered as a whole, either the written opinion represents the loose lips of a fool or it bares the nasty teeth of a court willing to give a government unbridled ability to control its populace through taxation. With this language in a written opinion expressed by the majority in this court, there stands no chance of challenging a targeted taxation enacted by any Congress. All the more reason that votes are more important than ever!!

Happiness

Being happy doesn't mean everything is perfect in your life. Happiness comes when you can see beyond the imperfections. Ignore problems you cannot solve and work toward correcting the problems over which you have control, but do not dwell on them. Wait to worry! Tomorrow's problems may get solved before they arrive and almost always present themselves in a different form from what you worry about. Life on this earth is too short to spend it in worry, turmoil, and stress. Smile, laugh and be happy with things as they are. Do not lose the opportunity for happiness in the moment worrying about the future nor wishing for different in the present. This should also be on my mirror for daily reading!

Intoxication Manslaughter

Re: Intoxication Manslaughter Many years ago I had the unfortunate displeasure of serving on a jury in an intoxication manslaughter case. There had been three people, two males and a female, killed in what could only be described as an horrific accident. The car had flown through the air for many feet and had struck a tree while airborne, ejecting the driver, nearly unharmed, and killing the three passengers. During the course of the trial we were told that the new "intoxication manslaughter" law required that a blood sample be taken from the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident. In this case, a sample was taken at the scene in the paramedics' vehicle. A police officer rode in that vehicle, in which the driver was taken to a hospital, and another blood sample was taken there at the officer's insistence. We were told that sample was not tested for many hours. As part of the prosecution's initial presentation we were given, and made to look at, not only pictures from the scene of the accident, but also pictures of the autopsies performed on the deceased. These pictures were then mounted to an easel and placed in front of the jury box, for effect, and left there throughout the trial. The pictures were so indescribably awful that, contrary to the Judge's instructions, during the very first break the jury took there were jurors who were openly ready to charge and convict the driver with any crime the court or prosecutors might offer. As the trial progressed we were given the results of the blood tests. At that time, the legal limit of blood alcohol for intoxication was 1.0 (it is now lower). The first test, given at the scene, showed a level of .9 – absolutely legal and below the level required to convict on any of the pending charges. The second test showed a level of 1.1 – high enough to convict based upon legitimacy of the evidence. One of the paramedics who had been first on scene stated unequivocally the defendant was in shock but did not show any signs of impairment nor did he smell of alcohol. He had no reason to believe the defendant might have been intoxicated. A very poor witness for the defense, a doctor of questionable credibility, gave testimony about how the second blood sample may have been tainted by fermentation for having been held so long before testing. The prosecution essentially presented only the one blood test, which showed the defendant over the legal alcohol limit and the pictures from the crash. The lawyer for the defendant was appointed by the court and was not nearly as capable in his presentation as compared to the huge team of prosecution lawyers. We were later told, after the trial, that due to the magnitude of the accident other lawyers were unwilling to accept the case as they assumed they would lose. As soon as deliberations began, the jury was split with some voting guilty and some voting innocent. The innocent side of the voters claimed there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant was intoxicated and others claimed he was and yet others stated it didn't really matter – he had been drinking and people were killed, therefore he was guilty in their minds. As jury foreman, I sent a couple questions to the judge for clarification. One was " if a person who is intoxicated is driving through an intersection with a legal green light and a completely sober person runs the red light in that intersection, hits the intoxicated driver's vehicle and dies as a result of that accident – is the intoxicated driver guilty of intoxication manslaughter?" The answer, based upon the wording of the law, "yes". Later, a question was posed " if a person has driven to the next block of their own street, entered a friend's home and become legally intoxicated and returned to their vehicle intending to drive home but decided not to drive and remained in their vehicle, realizing their intoxication, and were struck from the rear while sitting still by a sober driver who died as a result of that accident, is the intoxicated person guilty of intoxication manslaughter?" The answer, according to the law, "yes". The charge given the jury in our case consisted of answering some very simple questions: 1. Did an accident occur? 2. Did someone die as a result of that accident? 3. Was the defendant a driver in that accident? 4. Was the defendant intoxicated? If the answer to all was yes, he was guilty, if the answer to any was no, he was innocent. The basic facts presented were: there was an accident, someone died as a result of the accident, the defendant was a driver and, according to the prosecution, he was intoxicated, according to the defense he was not. They both provided proof. Should anyone have had any doubt? It would be like one side showing a coin claiming it is heads and another claiming it is tails. Both may be right, both may be wrong. In a criminal trial, however, a jury is ordered to determine beyond a reasonable doubt which side is right. Question four was the sticking point. If there existed a blood test totally exonerating the defendant from this charge, how could the jury accept only the test that proved him guilty? There was, it was argued, reasonable doubt based upon the blood tests and at various times some jurors actually vacillated with their votes. After greater than a reasonable, time the judge was notified the jury could not reach a unanimous decision. The judge responded that since this was the first case to be heard under this new law, the jury would not be released until coming to a verdict. There could be no hung jury. Period! The coin had to be heads or tails and the jury would remain until a determination was made. The method of that decision, be it affirmation of one side's argument or a compromise to end the endless haggling would be unimportant. A verdict would be rendered. The jury had been told they would be the ones to determine the punishment phase in the event of a conviction and we had been given what the options would be. Without belaboring the hours of deliberation, a deal was finally struck wherein the defendant would be convicted but the jury agreed unanimously the sentence would be the minimum allowed and would be probated. The verdict was presented to the court and, after hearing additional arguments, the jury was sent out to decide the appropriate punishment. Since that had been pre-determined, it took only a few minutes to put into writing and the jury returned – to an almost packed courtroom consisting of many interested parties. Everyone in the courtroom seemed amazed at the rapidity with which the jury had reached the punishment decision and when it was announced, the level of anger and angst expressed in that courtroom was overwhelming. The family of the female who died was understandably grief stricken while the families of the males who died were relieved. During the punishment hearing phase, the families of the males had actually asked that the defendant not receive any jail time as they did not attribute complete blame to the defendant. The bulk of irate folks present had no family ties to anyone involved but were present to see "justice" served and, by their determination through blinded vision, it was not. When all was completed, the judge asked if any jurors would meet with the lawyers who had questions about their presentations. I remained and was stricken and sickened by the questions asked by the attorneys who reminded me of a group of thespians wanting a critique on their performances. Not ONE single word was mentioned about guilt nor innocence. As a matter of fact, it was brought out at that time that the convicted driver had actually gotten into a road race, had come to a major curve in the road and was stricken by the other vehicle causing him to jump the curb, fly through the air and the deadly crash ensued. Why had that fact not been given during the trial? It was explained that had nothing to do with the questions that had to be answered in an intoxication manslaughter case. Why had the driver not been charged with some other crime of which he was absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty? Because the combination of the incredibly ghastly scene of this crash and the fact there were three people dead due to someone else's actions would probably WIN at trial when there was some level of evidence pointing to intoxication. My primary point of writing this is to let you understand not all circumstances are as they seem. Probation may very well be justified in some instances. A ruling of complete innocence may be justified when a jury hears testimony not given to the general public nor the news media. The strong possibility exists there have been other cases where judges and juries, privy to facts in a case not given outside the courtroom, may have rendered verdicts or sentences unfavorable to outsiders opinions. Maybe this case, today, would have been bargained DOWN to simple manslaughter rather than intoxication manslaughter with stiffer penalties. Maybe justice could have been truly and truthfully served. A secondary reason for my writing this is to attempt to rid my psyche of my personal guilt or seek forgiveness for having allowed myself to be bullied and intimidated by a judge into voting to convict another human of a crime I did not believe he committed. I could not be certain if it was heads or tails – one test he was completely innocent of the crime with which he was charged, the other test guilty. Certainly, he did something horribly wrong and perhaps there was a law which would have properly punished him. He was not, however, guilty of intoxication manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Any law which, by the language it is written, prohibits any and all facts pertinent to the situation from being presented by both sides is a poor law and I believe contrary to the intent of the laws of our land. Anyone sitting on a jury empowered to change a person's life forever should have all the facts having to do with the case and neither prosecution nor defense should be given an "edge" by disallowing pertinent facts. Truth, not good acting by the lawyers nor twisting of facts, should determine the outcome of a trial.

Stimulus Money

Stimulus Payments This is a payment given by the government to members of the populace who qualify based upon income (or lack thereof). The idea behind stimulus payments is that the individuals receiving the money will spend the "government " money on goods and products and stimulate the overall economy. There are a few problems with stimulus plans. First, the money is coming from collected taxes paid by the people who won't be receiving the stimulus, who could have spent it themselves if it hadn't been collected as taxes. Next, it is money found momentarily in the coffers of a broke government, which could help the economy by paying off some of its own astronomical debt. Just as important as the above problems are a few sad facts about where the stimulus money will go. If used to buy a new car, it will probably go to Japan or Korea. If used to buy a new TV, it will likely go to China. If the money is spent on gas for the car, it will go to the Arabs or another Middle Eastern country. If it is used to buy fruits or vegetables, the money will go to Mexico or Honduras. If a new computer is purchased, the stimulus will go to China, India, or Taiwan. In the event that generally useless but "important stuff" is bought, the funds will go, again, to China or Taiwan. Clothing purchases will help the economy of Vietnam, China, or Indonesia. So, how do we stimulate the U.S. economy with the "stimulus" funds? The most obvious place would be to shop at garage sales and purchase the stuff that someone else has already bought to help all the other countries. The snowballing problem there is that the seller will likely use the money to buy more "stuff" and support the foreign economies even more, so this isn't the ideal place for spending the money. There are only a few truly American ways to spend the stimulus money. First, buying a house will help somewhat. At least the builder, who may be an American, will have a job despite most of his income going to illegal aliens who will send their share to their home country. The lumber will likely have been grown here so there is a chance of helping our own economy. Next, and even better, is to spend the money on beer – domestic beer! Stuff brewed right here in the good old U.S., at least partially from crops grown here, might keep some of the money in domestic circulation. Another opportunity to help our own economy is to buy a Harley Davidson, a Milwaukee product, which is not only American, but fun to ride. Speaking of fun to ride, one might hire an American prostitute, not a foreigner who will send the money elsewhere, and they will spend their proceeds right here. They should be legalized and licensed then they, too, could become taxed and their taxes would add to the stimulus pot. This all leads to a simple summation. Get your stimulus money, find a ho in a biker bar, marry her and buy her a house and sit around drinking beer from now on. BE AN AMERICAN.

Social Security

Social Security, by the simplest of explanations, was established as a means for older citizens to be certain of an income in the years after they were no longer employed. The premise was rather simple in that many people in their productive years would contribute to the fund which would be disbursed to a relatively fewer number of retired people and the fund would become self-sustaining. So as to guarantee the solvency of the plan, it became mandatory for all wage earners to contribute. By the same token, all those contributors would be guaranteed a payment in later life. I cannot locate any statements that ever promised the contributed dollars would actually provide as good or better return than had they been invested privately and it was not devised as a necessarily good investment on an individual basis. The plan simply couldn't exist with voluntary contributions. Had the government (better stated as elected officials) not robbed the account with IOU's and transferred Social Security funds throughout the spending process, the plan would have more than enough funds to continue indefinitely. Now, due to the insanity of spending by our elected morons, many in high places with guaranteed retirements are looking at ways to screw us out of that which was promised. I must have missed the fine print where it said if you save on your own and have substantial retirement assets you may not receive Social Security. If that's the way it's ultimately to work, the name may as well be changed to "Socialism Security" - take from those with and give to those without. Everybody contribute but the distribution is based upon "needs". Incredibly, there are many from both parties wanting to change the system to do just that as they are now calling Social Security an "entitlement" program just like welfare and Medicare. Damn right, by actual definition we are "entitled" to receive our Social Security as is everyone who has, or will be, required to contribute. Only by a loud cry made by a huge number of the "unwashed" heard by the "anointed" ones in Washington will we be protected. Anyone who doesn't believe in the power of the pen and the voice need only look at the changing of marriage laws in this country - (hell, I can probably marry my dog in some states). I would like to propose a groundswell movement entitled " Don't U Mess Around (with) Social Security. The acronym being "DUMASS". If word of this movement were to become widespread enough, then all anyone would have to send to their senators and representatives would be one word, DUMASS! I believe it to be a word easily understood by those who were supposed to represent the people who voted for them plus, with certain twisted connotations I'm sure the Washingtonians could apply, even greater meaning might be assigned to the acronym. Folks might actually enjoy mailing or emailing a simple message, DUMASS, to ones who receive a retirement equal to the full amount of their pay for as little as one term in elected office. There has been no discussion as to saving budgetary dollars by using an asset nor income basis for determining retirement for the elite leaders. Please contact your representatives and senators with your feelings on placing Social Security on a needs or asset basis because that would become "Can't Repay Any Promises", or" CRAP" for short. If nobody hears, then nothing gets done. Howie Irwin

Interview with God

Part of this was sent to me years ago in similar wording.  Much of it I added with what I believe I would have heard in this interview.  It should be on my mirror to read daily (if I could find my glasses).

 

I dreamed I had a chance to interview God.  I asked if he had time for me.

 He replied " My time is eternity, what would you like to ask me?"

 I queried " What surprises you most about mankind?"

 God answered: " That they get bored being children and rush to grow up and then long to be children again.  They lose their health striving to make money and then spend all their money trying to restore their health.  They think so anxiously about the future that they forget about the present and live neither for the present nor the future.  They live as though they will never die and die having never lived."

 I continued by asking: "What advice do you have for parents to teach their children?"

 God spoke: " Teach them that they cannot make someone love them, what they can do is allow themselves to be loved.  Learn what is most valuable in life is not what they have, but who they have in their lives. Teach them that a rich person is not the one who has the most, rather it is the one who needs the least.  Let them know it is not good to compare themselves to others for, ultimately, everyone will be judged individually. Teach them that money can buy everything but happiness and salvation.

Let them know it takes but a few seconds to open gaping wounds in persons they love, but it takes many years to heal them.  They must learn it is not always enough to be forgiven by others, they must forgive themselves.  Know that there people who love them but may not know how to express their love.  Teach them a true friend is someone who knows everything about them but remains a friend anyway.  They must learn to forgive by practicing forgiveness.  Teach them two people can look at the same thing and view it completely differently.  Let them know that people may forget what they say or do but will remember how they made them feel.
Teach them that, thanks to my son, an everlasting life of salvation is available if they will but repent and belive. "

 I thanked him for his time, for all he had done for my family, and all his blessings.

 He replied: "Anytime, I'm always here and if you'll just ask for me, I'll answer."

Democracy and Freedom

The following is a direct quote from a school superintendent in Illinois about parental response to a new ruling he has announced banning all Halloween costumes, candy, parties, etc. within his school district. This isn't out of context - it fully expresses what he had to say in further detail. I have to wonder who hires the district's sup and who pays him????

 "We knew what their response would be," he said. "We know they would feel strongly [about banning Halloween in the school district]. So, the reason we didn't go forward with the community hearings is because we knew they would be upset." 

 YGBSM!!!!!!!

Obviously he has read the book on officials in power - whether appointed or elected- the will of the people has no bearing, the lawmaker does as he pleases. Great concept, eh?

Jobs

Disregarding the absurdly high business tax burdens in our country, if you have a couple hours to waste look online at the laws with which an employer must comply if they have more than 50 employees. The search results are staggering, but you have to look at many resources to find all the requirements - ranging anywhere from Family Medical Leave to required sexual harassment training to the impossible OSHA laws. I'm beginning to understand China's success more and more. Now, look at either the direct insurance costs or the fines which have been enacted under Obamacare for companies with over 50 employees. Jobs??? It would take a fool to want to increase a small business to beyond 50 employees in this country. The cost of tax accountants pales in comparison to the human resource (similar to personnel, but has a better ring) expenses for an employer to try to comply with the laws of this land. I wish Romney's handlers had seized an opportunity to eloquently present some of the genuine issues which are stumbling blocks to employment growth.

Welcome

First and foremost, thank you for visiting my blog.  I have no idea where it's going, but it ought to be interesting.  One thing I can say for sure, this world shows no signs of leaving this particular blogger short of material.  Subscribe to my feed using the links on the page, share on facebook if you like it, leave comments, all the usual stuff...

Thanks again,

Howie