Category: Non-Logic

Most of you that are reading this know that the legislative branch of the federal government is the law making body. Congress, made of the House and Senate, write laws. That’s one of their few jobs. They overstep their bounds all the time, but that’s a different post.

They are supposed to be in charge of all things law related. When they write a law, they are supposed to include what the law is, how it’s going to be implemented along with how much money it will take to be implemented, and from what portion of the Constitution they have the authority to enact such a law. They used to do this. What they started doing, instead, was create agencies like the Department of Education, the FDA, the EPA, DOE, etc. These agencies are tasked with writing all the parts of the law that have to do with how the law will be executed.

You might be thinking to yourself, “Self, that sounds absurd. There are supposed to be law makers, and law executers. How did these agencies get into the business of writing laws??”

Well, Self, you’d be onto something. Let’s discuss a scenario and you tell me if the Congress members don’t think you’re got the IQ of a gnat for falling for this nonsense.

Imagine a farmer who is being pushed on hard by the EPA. They are fixing to go out of business because the EPA has made yet another regulation that will cost lots of money to implement, yet makes no actual difference to the environment. Just a couple of examples are the regulation of dust (yes, dust) and making the handling of manure so complex as to require 15 hours of paperwork every week by the farmer.

Well, the law that the EPA is using to put the pressure on this farm doesn’t say they can’t stir up dust. It just states that they can’t pollute the air. Well, okay, but how did the EPA come up with that? They wrote a REGULATION. “Well,” you say, “that should be part of the law, so we can hold the people who wrote it accountable at the voting booths! Why are they just adding to laws?” EXACTLY. Because the congress has tasked the alphabet agency to write the rest of the law, and they can play like they have no culpability.

Now, back to our farmer. They petition their congressman to ask for help. The congressman “pulls a few strings” and has the EPA back off or give him a waiver. Well, the farmer is grateful and will vote for our congressman again!

Do you see how the congressman has shunned his responsibility in writing the law that caused the problem in the first place? He acts like he can’t do anything about the excessive and costly regulation (which costs billions – that’s NINE zeros – of dollars out of the economy each year and keep people from basing businesses in the US because of them). Don’t be thinking I’m talking about sane regulations. I’m talking about things like forcing businesses to post calorie counts. Really? If customers want to know, they already have to provide the info. But, we’re going to make them spend money of posting them, regardless if anyone cares? It’s things like that, and millions more regulations piled on idiotic things like that which force businesses to close.

You might be thinking…it’s just ONE regulation. How can it be that bad? Well, you know how they used to press people to death? They’d pile on one stone at a time. Each didn’t weigh much, but the combined weight, in the end, killed the person. Same thing. Each regulation may not be a humdinger (though, some are), but the death of the business is the same, in the end. They die under millions of regulations that your congresswoman claims to have no part of.

Here’s the worst part: there is NO place in the US Constitution where it could even be construed as to mean that these agencies are constitutional. So, let’s sum up:

The congressmen/women shirk their responsibility, play like they can’t do anything about it, and then, when they give you crutches (after breaking your legs), want you to be thankful. Yep. They’re pretty sure you’re brain power is comparable to that of a coconut.

This is why it’s important to understand natural rights. Get my book about The Declaration of Independence by clicking HERE, or on the picture at the right. You can’t understand the Constitution without understanding The Declaration. Get informed, and then know where you stand.

And, quit voting in congresspeople who think you are as smart as a pencil eraser!



Today, I went to HEB to pick up a few items. (For non-Texans, HEB is the name of the best grocery store in Texas. Okay, carry on…) As I went through the aisles, I noticed an enticing pecan pie from the bakery. Now, normally, I’d have baked my own, but I was hungry, it looked really good, and I remembered I had a $3.00 off coupon for any bakery pie or 12″ pie. Just my luck!

I took my items to the checkout and handed the coupon to the clerk. The coupon was one that I had procured at the checkout line of another HEB. When you check out, the printer that spits out the receipt will also give coupons. It’s pretty much a Craps shoot because sometimes they’re wonderful and plentiful, and other times you get one crappy little 30-cents-off jobbie for something you’d never buy anyway, like HEB brand haggis.

After the checker rang up the items, she realized the coupon hadn’t worked. She looked at the pie (which was obviously, to me, a 12″ pie), picked it up, and looked at the bottom. She called over a co-worker and asked him to posit an opinion as to why the coupon didn’t work. He had no idea and so-called over yet another co-worker. They all head-scratched for a moment, and then one decided that maybe the pie was too big.

In my ignorance, I believed that maybe they had 12.5″ pies or something, and I, like an idiot, had picked up one of those, not realizing it was 12.5″ instead of 12″. I was ready to take their assessment at face value. Then, one of them offered the knowledge that a 12″ pie was the size of those in the silver throw away tins with the plastic wrap around it and that THIS was a MUCH BIGGER pie than 12″.

You know those pies, right? In the tiny 8″ and 9″ pie pans? Yeah. That’s what they assured me were the 12″ pies the coupon was good for. As they all nodded and agreed that this was the issue, I realized that none of them even know how long a standard ruler is. None of them thought to try the coupon again. None thought about calling a manager to ask him or her to help the customer with the situation. They came to a consensus as to why the coupon didn’t work and went with it, nodding and smiling as my $3 savings I was so happy about was just flushed down the commode.

No wonder politicians get away with the crap they do. My word, we are in trouble.

This is why y’all need to buy my book. Just click on the picture of the book to the right. Get one for you and your kids, grandkids, your neighbors’ kids…everyone. Maybe, just maybe, if we can get people, kids especially, interested in liberty and learning, we might one day end up with a nation of people who – and I know this is reaching for the stars – know what a 12″ pie looks like.

Labels – Get Them Right

I’ve been told by “pro-choice” people that they are not “pro-abortion,” but support the “right” of the mother to choose to have her child killed and sucked out of her uterus and into the trash, if she desires it.

I have a question for those people, or any of you who see yourselves as “pro-choice.”

What do you call someone who does not own slaves themselves, but thinks that people should have the “right” to take away the right to freedom of others and force them to labor without the choice to leave?

Do you call them “pro-choice” in regards to slavery? OR do you call them “pro-slavery”?

Anyone who is “pro-choice” is “pro-whatever-the-issue-is,” because they think it’s moral enough to allow it to happen, unimpeded.If you are “pro-choice” you are “pro-dismembering-innocent-unborn-humans-at-the-whim-of-the-mother.” Make sure you get your labels right, and make sure you know what you stand for.

One last thought: the term “fetus,” that people use, which manages to dehumanize the unborn human, actually means, “offspring in the womb.” Offspring means, “A child, in relation to its parents.” Saying “fetus” is the same as saying “child in the womb.” Again, know your labels and what you stand for.

Gun Control?

I hear lots of people saying we need to have “common sense” laws to keep the bad guys from getting guns. But, the laws they call for only control law-abiding citizens.

Will criminals go for background checks? No, because they wouldn’t pass them.

Would a criminal take the time to wait for a “waiting period”? Nope. Illegal weapons are much faster.

How about just limiting the types of scary looking guns that people can buy? People have used all manner of weapons to hurt others, so this makes no difference.

So, if gun control laws will make it to where the bad guys can’t get guns, we should be able to look at other laws that accomplish the same things. I should be ashamed, here, because, obviously, outlawing murder has made it to where zero murders occur…wait, what? There are STILL murders? Oh. Okay, how about making stealing things illegal. Now, THAT has worked like a charm, right? No? Hmmm…

It seems as if all these other laws punish the bad guys once they’ve done wrong, while not keeping innocent citizens from going about their lives. On the other hand, gun control laws just punish everyone BEFORE they commit crimes. Huh. Weird.

Well, if anyone can tell me a law that works like the rest of them – namely, punishing the guilty once they’ve done bad things – and does not limit the actions of innocent people, I’m all ears.

THIS! It’s long, but seriously, read it. 🙂

The Matt Walsh Blog

First, I’d like to treat you to a look at a few snippets of some emails I received yesterday, after a certain “controversial” segment on my show:

“I never realized you were so anti-education…”

“It figures that a teabagger would hate education so much…”

“….so it seems you would rather have a nation full of illiterates…”

“….I get tired of your anarchist propaganda…”

“I’m sure Hitler would be very proud of you…”

That last one — the obligatory “you’re as bad as Hitler!” charge — is especially ironic, considering the subject that prompted these responses: public education. Specifically, my belief that government education is an unmitigated disaster, and can only be remedied by more and more families deciding to remove government from the equation and educate their children themselves. That last emailer is, predictably, a proud product of public school. But you already knew that, in light of his hilarious…

View original post 1,687 more words

Noah Webster Quote

From our friends at The Federalist Papers (whether you read their blog or like them on Facebook, they are awesome!)

Let me get this straight:

The President has refused to carry out Obamacare as it’s written, delayed portions and totally canceled others. He has given exemptions to all manner of big corporation. All of these things are altering a duly passed law by Congress. He is NOT a legislator. His actions are illegal.

Further, he has refused to even discuss the matter with lawmakers, yet will negotiate with the terrorist funding head of state of Iran and has armed our enemies in Syria (side note: this is also illegal…as in treason).

He has rejected requests for WWII veterans to see their memorial (and used money to pay more guards than Clinton allowed in Benghazi). Keep in mind this, and many other memorials he blocked off are PRIVATELY FUNDED, and have never been affected in any of the other 17 government shutdowns. To boot, he has stationed these guards (who are getting paid) to block off the memorial that is supposedly closed because of a lack of funding.

He has refused to sign any bill that changes Obamacare in any way (like the medical device tax that even Democrats want to repeal),or any continuing resolution that does not fully fund Obamacare (you know, the one HE hasn’t even executed fully…which, again, is illegal activity).

He supposedly taught the US Constitution but seems to have forgotten that whatever functions of the government get funded is decided entirely by the House. That is THEIR prerogative. It’s called “separation of powers.” It’s ALL up to the House as to what to fund and what to not fund*. Now, the Senate can keep from passing a bill by voting it down. But, it’s the Senate’s fault, not the House’s, for the shutdown.

After all this, he and the Democrat leadership call Republicans names and blame them for the shutdown.

What am I missing??? Does ANYONE really buy this nonsense?


*As a side note, many of the problems we are facing with government funding stem from the fact that most of the laws these people are trying to enact are unconstitutional. If you wish to know if any law is legal, but you don’t know if it is, please put it in the comments and we can discuss it either here or in another post. 🙂

Grab a copy of my book The Declaration Made Easy by clicking on the picture on the right! It’s great for kids and adults alike!

Senator Cruz has taken a lot of heat about his sort-of-filibuster, and his desire to not vote for cloture. I think he was right and I’ll put my reasons why at the end of this post. But, for now, we have reality that the House now has the continuing resolution bill in their laps that funds Obamacare, thanks to Harry Reid’s procedural bullying.

Starting Monday, the money for the government stops flowing, except for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare because they are funded separately. Still, the military would have to keep working for no pay until this was resolved and that sucks.

Keep in mind, the only reason they have to vote on continuing resolutions is because they have NOT PASSED A BUDGET! Obama put forward two budgets and got ZERO votes for them both. Not zero Republicans, ZERO total. Also keep in mind that this is one of the very few things they are duty bound by the US Constitution to do. Yep. They have plenty of time to tell me what kind of toilet I can buy, but none to pass a budget.

Okay, so the question is: WHAT TO DO??

If they have any cojones at all, they’ll send each portion of the budget back to the Senate, piece by piece. Who would vote against a bill that has an entire substance of: fund the military? Anyone who voted against that is just sick in the head.

What about an entire bill that reads: we will, for another year, pay our debts? And, so on…you get the idea. The last item would be Obamacare, and they’d have two options here. They could:

1. Forget to send over a bill that funds Obamacare. I mean, the Republicans are always being accused of having Neanderthal level intelligence. Who could blame them for not understanding that it needs funding? Maybe they could ask Reid to send over some explanations and scratch their heads while he blows a gasket.  Incidentally, I’d pay to see this.

2. Send over funding for Obamacare that makes it totally void unless the Senate passes a budget. The House has passed, oh, I don’t know, about 20 budgets, so they’d have their pick.

Now, some will scream (as they did about Cruz “shutting down the government,” which was a lie) that the Republicans would get blamed for anything bad that happens and <gasp!> they might not get elected again!! NEWSFLASH: Republicans get blamed for EVERYTHING ALREADY. Probably, in large part, because they are pansies who don’t know crap about messaging and listen to Karl Rove.

How about the Republicans stand on principle, do what is right, and fear God over reelection. Trust me, facing Him will be much worse that retiring on full pension after losing an election.

For those that think Obamacare is super great, tell me why I know many who have lost their insurance, have already had premiums hiked, had the experience, like my husband’s company, where they are forcing people into the exchanges, and a dear friend of mine, who is 74, was told by her doctor the other day that after age 76, she would get ZERO care under OCare, if she got cancer. Got that? Literally left to die. Not to mention those who are now forced to work 29 hours at their jobs because their boss had the choice of doing that or going bankrupt because of the cost of OCare.

Obamacare Grandma


Grab a copy of my book! It’s available at (click on the picture of my book at the right) or, for anyone who loves all things Texan, get it at the IAmATexan website:!


Here is my discussion on a Facebook page about what I encountered with many conservatives who wish to bash Cruz instead of fighting side by side to do anything that will defeat this bill that is hurting so many Americans:

“I just had some R’s say that what Cruz did was theater and not helpful to the cause of actually getting rid of Ocare because it didn’t do anything regarding procedure, and it seemed a little like he was campaigning.

I have to admit that, in the beginning, I was tired and grouchy and made some harsh comments when questioning the other commenters, so it could have gone better.

That being said, my point was that Cruz wasn’t playing around for procedure, but was trying to rally the public to put pressure on the senators, the way they did the reps, which led to the amendment in the CR that defunded Ocare.

Another commenter said that it was Cruz taking the people emotionally hostage, making them think there was some way to stop Ocare right now. I thought that was ridiculous. [I still think this is a ridiculous statement…if Senators hadn’t voted for cloture, there would have been a chance!]

Another mentioned how Cruz mentioned the Nazi’s and so was divisive. Well, aren’t the other senators displaying appeasement and defeatism? He made no inference that the rest of Nazi horrors would happen, but that’s what allowed them to keep gaining power…appeasement and defeatism. [Not to mention that Cruz went through a ton of historical instances where appeasement lead to bad things for the average people of the countries involved, not just Nazi Germany.]

All in all, aside from my snide and condescending remarks to the other commenters, I stand by my premise that everything the R’s have been doing thus far has not worked and has, in fact, made things worse. The entrenched politicians are trying to play nice and appease those who are promoting a bill that will literally be the death of many.

I was called a Cruz-fan, and maybe I am. But, I’ve disagreed with him before, and there is no cult of personality.

I support what he did, because he did it to rally people…to keep them engaged and to inform them of what was going on, if they only took the time to listen to what he was saying about the procedure and what the bill is really doing. ”


Here is a link for the Heritage’s piece that explains more about filibustering, filling the amendment tree, and cloture. Very informative: Heritage: Tyranny in the Senate.

Gun Pic

If you were a criminal and you wanted to hold someone up, would you go try to rob someone who is just as likely armed as not, OR would you go to a place where all the law-abiding citizens would be almost assuredly unarmed?


This is why all but 1 (ONE) mass shootings in the last 30 years have taken place in “gun free zones.” Does this mean there are no shooters other places? There are not as many occurrences of ATTEMPTED shootings, to be sure…but in those places, there are other people with guns who stop it from becoming a mass shooting when it does happen.

Personally, I’d rather have the shooters stopped cold without having to wait the 30 minutes for the cops, but maybe that’s just me.

To the argument where people say there is a “pipeline” of guns from the states that allow guns to the states and cities that don’t, this begs a question. Why, then, do the mass shootings happen in the places where the gun laws are very strict instead of those where the gun laws are more in keeping with the US Constitution? The answer? See above.

Gun control laws do not disarm anyone except the law-abiding and keep no one but the criminals safer. This has been known since forever, demonstrated in this country (well, colonies, more accurately) when Cesare Beccaria (born in 1738) said this,

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”

Jefferson quoted him on this in his Commonplace book. This same theme is seen from every founder and framer who discussed the issue. John Lott did a study and wrote a book about this called More Guns, Less Crime. It’s been peer-reviewed over 40 times, and no one can debunk his premise.

I’ve seen lots of laws proposed that will disarm law-abiding citizens, but none that disarm criminals. That’s why we are supposed to have laws where crimes are punished, not punish the innocent who the government thinks COULD commit a crime.

That’s the kind of thinking they have in France where you have to prove yourself innocent of any crime the cops charge you with. One more reason to be thankful to live in America. Now, if we could get the politicians to follow the US Constitution…

Check out my book (to the right), and get a copy today! If you have kids, hate history because it’s boring, or just love the founding documents, this book is for you!

In Obamacare, we find that if someone is of some particular religion, that must be disregarded when they are running their business. They must, even if they object on moral grounds, to offer birth control in the health plans to their employees. Many seem to think this is okay, and, in light of some Supreme Court cases, that seems to be the trend.

But, all we have to do is look at the first amendment to see that this is wrong. It’s simple English: The Congress cannot make any law that prohibits (restricts) the free exercise of religion.

first amendment

Let’s not worry right now about free speech, press, or assembly. This is about religion. Now, it’s clear that CONGRESS ONLY is not allowed to “make [any] law prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The state governments are not denied this. They ARE denied some things, and those items are listed in Article I, Section 10. There are only a few things denied to the states, such as not being able to, as individual states, enter into treaties with foreign governments. It’s a logical list.

Now, you might be all up in arms about this saying that there can be NO restriction on speech or religion!! But, states make laws about slander and libel, and they can outlaw Satanic rituals. That makes sense, and keeps society civil. However, Congress cannot make laws about slander and libel. They also cannot regulate religion.

So, the Congress cannot make ANY law in regards to the free exercise of religion, even telling businesses what type of health care insurance they have to provide to their employees.

If this is not enough to make you understand and be persuaded to see the truth of my argument, let’s turn the tables and see how this works on the reverse. If you are an atheist, and you do want to provide your employees with health insurance that covers birth control, but Congress makes a law that this is illegal. Regardless of your personal beliefs, you cannot offer that type of health insurance. Is that right? No. And, neither is it right to force those who don’t want to offer this to do so.

Another argument is that the employees do not have the right to choose. But, that choice was made when they agreed to work at a business that is run by a certain religion. If I applied for a job where I knew the proprietors were Scientologists, I might not be surprised when they don’t offer health insurance for antidepressants. Since when am I forced to work for them? I’m not, and neither are the people who work for Catholics.

The right of conscience, the ability to live your life, in all spheres, according to your beliefs, is a foundational right in this country. Only when your beliefs infringe on the rights of others can the STATES intervene. For instance, if your religion believes that if a child misbehaves, that the parents can kill the child, this is an illegal act and will be considered a crime, even though it’s in your belief system. This is because the child’s right to life is not to be taken from them. That can only happen legally if they have been convicted of crimes suitable for the death penalty, or if some individual kills them in self-defense. States have the duty to protect the inalienable rights of their citizens. If you are confused about what a right is, or whether health care insurance is a right (hint: it’s NOT), please see my blog about rights.

This bill was passed by the SCOTUS because they said the government has a right to tax its people. Even if we ignore the fact that the tax is on NOT doing something (one of the “taxes” is for those who don’t get what the government deems proper insurance), the ruling totally ignored the first amendment rights  of all individuals to exercise their religion, even in the public square. The amendment does not read, you see, “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion], unless you open a business or are out in public.”

Get a copy of my book about The Declaration of Independence by clicking the link on the right. That document is the premise for our country, and everyone needs to read it. Now, it’s Made Easy! Get your copy today!


The 10th Amendment seems to be a point of contention. Many of our statist friends say that this amendment give the federal government free rein to do whatever it wants, citing the part “not prohibited to it” to mean that it is referring to the Federal Government. But, take a moment to apply basic English rules to it, and you’ll see this is in error.

Here is the text, in whole:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, we see that we can take out the part offset by commas as it would read: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Easy Peasy! If the powers are not delegated to the US, they are to remain with the states or people. BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

This is where it gets dicey. Statists want the offset portion to be highlighted!! “See?” they say, “If they are not outlined OR if they are not denied specifically to the feds, they can do it!!”

Keep your pantyhose on! Let’s delve into that.

Here is the offset part: “nor prohibited by it to the States”. Oh, whoops. Looks like our statist friends didn’t take enough English classes to understand complex sentence structures.

This reads: “nor prohibited by it [“it” means the US Constitution] TO THE STATES. As Scooby-Doo says, “Ruh-roh!”

The following four statements identify that which is for the feds to do, and that which is for the states:

If a thing is not delegated to the United States Congress, it goes to the states and people. (These are few and defined, and found in Article I for a full list of items they are in charge of handling.)

Regarding the states, if it’s not denied to the states, it belongs with the states and people. (This list is almost endless, save the few things denied to them in Article I – such as making treaties with foreign countries.)

The only thing left for the feds to do is that which is specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, and nothing more.

Thus, the next time a statist says to you, “I don’t see the word healthcare in the Constitution!” You can say, “Exactly!” Maybe you will have time for a quick English lesson or two for them.

Any questions?

%d bloggers like this: