Not So Famous…

Link to the original article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31494385/ns/us_news-security/

Now, before you all start freaking out about how I want terrorists to buy guns, you need to re-read my post title.  That is not what I said, nor is it how I feel.  I’ll explain, but you’re going to have to stay with me longer than a single paragraph.

First off, what determines whether someone is or is not a suspected terrorist? According to that article, it would be this list kept by the FBI. So if this list is some sort of master list that contains the people who are suspected of being terrorists, the question must be asked, “How does one make it into this list?”  The answer to THAT question explains why I titled this post as I did.

Let me recount for you three incidents:

1. Ron Paul Supporters Are Labeled Potential Terrorists

Yup.

Now, I’m not talking about Glenn Beck calling Ron Paul supporters terrorists.  I’m not talking about the Phoenix report that was recirculated claiming that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists. It was Missouri’s Information Analysis Center in a report released in February of 2009 that analyzed into existence the suspicion that someone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker on their vehicle could be a member of the Modern Militia Movement, and thus could be a terrorist.  This report was circulated through law enforcement communities, and one can only wonder if anyone new made it onto the secret FBI list because of it.  I supported Ron Paul, which I guess makes me a terrorist.

2. Returning Veterans Targeted as potential recruitment targets for right-wing extremist groups by the Department of Homeland Security, April 7, 2009.

“…the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups…”

I am not quoting that snippet out of context.  Read the report here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Yup…the DHS is basically saying this:

“Thank you for your service, you despicable terrorists.”

Regardless, now returning veterans are suspected of being potential terrorists.  How many of them made it onto the secret list?

3. Department of Defense potentially equates protest with low-level terrorist activities.

A multiple choice question on an exam administered by the Department of Defense asked the following:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?
* Attacking the Pentagon
* [Improvised Explosive Devices]
* Hate crimes against racial groups
* Protests

The correct answer was “Protests”.  So, if you’re exercising your right to peaceably assemble, which is guaranteed you by this really obscure document called The Constitution of the United States of America, you could be a low-level terrorist. Regardless of the fact that this test is not directly equating protests with terrorism, it’s definitely saying that any protest COULD be a terrorist act. This is a concerning move, and based on this, *I* could very well be on that secret list.

Now, all of these incidents were THIS YEAR ALONE. I qualify as a potential terrorist in two of those three incidents, and thus I don’t support any move by our government to bar legal citizens who have committed no crime from purchasing firearms based on some list maintained by our government, which has already been shown to have kept people on the list past when they should have been removed: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603968.html).

So I definitely DO NOT support any barring of individuals from buying firearms just because they made it onto some list that they can’t see, and can’t even find out if they’re on.

I’m listening to Rush Limbaugh while working, and something he said really caught my attention:

Caller, I agree with you that Tax Cuts are the way to go, but the Republican party doesn’t WANT tax cuts.

And THAT is one reason why I (and others like me) say that the Republican Party is dead.  They’re all trying to out-liberal one another despite the fact that President Reagan showed just how efficacious tax cuts can be to stimulate the economy.

It’s time for a third party to get the conservative vote.

I have sent a message to Boxer and Feinstein to oppose this stupid tax increase, and if you love beer, and the wonderful variety of it that we have in California, you should as well.  This is what I am sending to them:

As you well know, the Senate Finance Committee is considering a proposal to raise the Federal Excise Tax on Beer as a part of health care discussion.  This is a bad idea!

The concept of a tax on a vice is self-defeating. So we need money to pay for single-payer health care (assuming that is a good thing to have… a proposition that is by no means certain).  Taxing production of a good (thereby increasing the cost of said good) with the express stated purpose of lessening the consumption of said good can ONLY lead to a decrease in tax revenues from this source.  The single-payer health care plans, on the other hand, are ONLY going to rise, or at the VERY best stay level.  This tax, then MAY only provide a short term boost in funding, and is not a sustainable proposition for funding of this health care plan.

What’s more, who is the Senate Finance Committee to determine what I should or should not consume?  There are things in this world FAR more harmful to the human body than alcohol, and where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the power to regulate our habits?  (And no, “to promote the general welfare” does not count.  That is part of the preamble, which explains why the Constitution was necessary, and not a granting of powers to the government.)

Finally, this proposition will only harm small businesses who cannot afford to absorb the cost of this increase, and MUST pass this on to the consumers.  When prices go up, the demand for a good at the new, higher price will fall, and this will torpedo the brewing industry, which is really only starting to gain its momentum against the lesser-quality, but lower priced mass-producing brewing giants. So how is this a GOOD thing in an economic climate where small businesses are failing right and left already?  How will this stimulate the economy, and raise consumer sentiment, when they see their favorite breweries being shut down because of a tax increase that is only doomed to raise less and less each month…BY DESIGN?

I am overtaxed, and I cannot afford more taxes.  Beer is one of life’s great pleasures, when it’s done well, and the very businesses that are producing beer that is done well are the businesses that will be harmed by this foolhardy idea.

Please oppose the increase of the Federal Excise Tax on Beer, and protect the jobs and well-being of many who depend on the brewing industry, and the well-rated California brewing scene to boot.

Support Your Local Brewery had this to say about the excise tax:

http://www.sylb.org/excisetax.html

Seriously, send a message to Washington letting them know that their decisions as to what you should or should not put in your body are totally out of line, and taxing us to do so is even more ridiculous.

There is a blog entitled Beer Girl, that I find very interesting. I don’t want to play into any stereotypes, (and she’d not appreciate it much), but in my experience most girls don’t like beer. Daniel’s wife, Julie, is one rare exception.

So it’s doubly interesting when you find a girl who’s dedicated her blog to beer.  :)  Check out her blog.  Especially if you’re from California, as she’ll be able to find beers that we cannot. (Her Twitter page says she lives in New York.)

Don’t just get all huffy and post a comment without thinking.  I’m not interested in comments about how angry my insinuation makes you.  I’m not interested in how long the government has provided education.  All I’m posting this for is to get people to consider a United States in which the government did not provide education.

For one, the Department of Education is a HUGE tax dollar drain. In 2008, the requested budget for the Department of Education was $62.6 BILLION. If the extremely inefficient government gave those dollars back to the people from whom they took them, how better could those dollars be spent? What’s more, what do we GET when the Department of Education gets this money? Well, $300 million of that money is actually going to help low-income families obtain more choices in sending their children to PRIVATE schools.  So now we’re taking money from the taxpayer in order to allow them more options in sending their children to a private school?  What say we cut out the middleman?

Oh yeah, let’s not forget about the increasing drive to force children to accept deviant lifestyles as normal and healthy, thereby prohibiting my family’s free exercise of religion. Sex education at an increasingly young age. I object to these sorts of things and they are the reason I will not be sending my children to public schools.  However, I will be forced to pay for the Department of Education, regardless of that fact.

The biggest argument for cutting the Department of Education, however, is that it’s not a power allowed for in the U.S. Constitution. That’s right, folks. You CAN read the U.S. Constitution and understand what it says.  Go ahead.  I’ll wait….

….

Well, anyway, show me in the U.S. Constitution where the Department of Education is permitted, and I’ll grant you the argument.  However, you need to remember something as you’re reading it: Whenever a power is not granted to the Federal Government, it is reserved for the States.  Yes, that means we may be pushing the problem down one level, but I support that, as it inevitably means that some States will get it right.  At the VERY least, they have the potential to get it right.

Any arguments about how beneficial the DoEd is are easily refuted by the Constiutution.  What’s more, when you carry this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you might think of some other Federal Departments that could also be removed under the same argument.  Before you start telling me, “well if we have to get rid of the Department of Education because it’s not allowed in the Constitution, then that means we should also get rid of the Department of Whatever”, you should be aware that I agree with you on that count.

And you’re only giving me ideas…not proving that the DoEd is indispensable.

Scotch Ale being my favorite beer style of all time, when Beer Magazine published a list of Scotch Ales, I knew I had to make a Bucket List.

So up at the top of my blog, you may now view my Scotch Ale Bucket List!