Video of the Westcliffe Independence Day Parade


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Apparently Feeling Left Out, Governor Hickenlooper Joins in the Lies

Governor Hickenlooper admitted to some big problems with last year’s gun legislation that was forced over the obvious protest of both Sheriffs and citizens.  But did he entirely come clean?  No.  Possibly envious of all the attention president Obama is receiving from his continuous lies and other assorted unconstitutional activities, governor Hickenlooper lies about previous contact with anti-gun statist billionaire Michael Bloomberg to an assembly of Sheriffs:

However, as the folks at Revealing Politics and The Complete Colorado have revealed, the governor’s phone records indicate otherwise.  Oops.

Why lie?  This situation was bad enough without the lies.  After all, that’s why so many people showed up to so many protests and ultimately ousted so many non-representing representatives!  Anyone who knows anything at all about the content of these new gun laws knows about the problems riddling them and the impossibility of these laws “curbing gun violence” (as was their stated goal).  For details, I wrote about this nonsense at length last March before the “political suicides” were fully realized.

So not only is the governor playing fast and loose with political power, he’s also a demonstrated liar.

Just what we need.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Video Compilation of Obama Lies

I don’t believe this man even has a conscience anymore.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

36 Lies in 173 Seconds–Obama on Obamacare

Wow, our most noble (Nobel?) president is seen cranking out lies at a rate of one lie every five seconds of video!  (Bonus for catching the cameo by Thief-in-Chief, Jon Corzine in one of the early clips.)

Now, many of Obama’s media sycophants have recently argued that the president simply misspoke (36 times!).  Or that he was merely incredibly ignorant of his own legacy-crowning creation when he signed it into law (after all, even Madame Pelosi said we’d have to pass the law to find out what’s in the law, apparently being a criminally-oath-breaking  illiterate public servant).  It was all just a simple misinformation campaign misunderstanding, right?

As has been uncovered by numerous sources, incompetent ignorance isn’t a valid excuse this time.  In fact, the following has been known by the president for the last three years, according to an article last week by CNBC!

But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law.

One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

Millions, eh?  So multiply that by at least 36 times, right?  And there’s plenty more, for those interested in more detail on the latest plague of lies from this administration.

This article mentions “sticker shock”, which is one of the primary reasons Obamacare will fail.  And maybe that’s the intention?  After all, how better to make a political push for a single-payer healthcare system than to create a political cause for the current failure?  It’s brilliant strategy, if not a little see-through.

I did a little research on this “sticker shock” theory, and it turns out, that’s exactly why hordes of young and healthy people will never voluntarily sign up for this pathetic excuse for yet more generational robbery.  (What do I mean by that?  The young/healthy are forced to pay for the old/sick in a cost-shifting scheme.  That’s the only way pre-existing conditions can now be forcibly covered by insurance agencies.  And it’s just another disgusting way in which the younger generations are being figuratively cannibalized by those older generations in power.)  Obamacare only works if the young/healthy foot the bill!  That’s why there are tax penalties (enforced by the cuddly IRS) for failing to obtain “approved” health care coverage.

Back to my research.  I went to Colorado’s Obamacare outlet, Connect for Health Colorado, to see about a rate quote.  I’m self-employed, so my wife and I have a high-deductible catastrophic plan.  What would a similar plan cost under Obamacare?  Fortunately, the Colorado site actually functions, so I’ve been able to get a quote based only on my zip code and birthday.  Here’s what I found:

The cheapest available plan will cost me 270% of what I pay now, and it has a higher per-family deductible than my current plan (almost double)!  WHAT!?!  How can this be?  After all, the other, official name for Obamacare is the “Affordable Care Act”!  How is cranking up insurance costs by nearly three times “affordable”?  And when should I expect the cancellation notice from my current insurer when they decide they can do that and opt for the greener pastures mandated by Obamacare?

But there’s the rub.

I’m a member of Generation X—not quite “young”, but certainly more healthy than many of the Boomers marching into retirement right now, many of whom are paying astronomical rates for health insurance, some of whom are “uninsurable” with all sorts of “preexisting conditions”.  The Millennials and Gen-X are being forced to pay for the super-expensive coverage that is now being granted to those who previously could not afford or obtain health insurance.  Is this really the right way to do things?  Young college graduates already have average student loan debt of $35,000.  Was college that expensive for your generation?  Then, if they can even find a job, they’ll be forced to pay into Social Security, a program that simply cannot exist when they reach age 65.  So let’s now charge them three or four times the previously extortive market rate for health insurance, and if they don’t pay up, send the IRS after them and throw them into prison if they can’t pay!

If this sort of generational cannibalism ever truly dawns on the conscience of the generation(s) perpetrating it, I can only imagine a massive wave of suicides among their ranks.  Either that, or they’ll run for office.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How’s That “Democracy” Working for You?

Ever noticed that election after election seems to present you with increasingly similar choices?  How many times have you found yourself explaining to another person that it’s important that we vote for the “lesser of two evils”?  Is this really true?  If so, where does a continual path of decisions for lesser evils eventually end?  Are you truly satisfied with your answer?  Is this really as good as it gets?

I recently stumbled across another video that helps better describe the problem.  I think the allegory is nearly perfect.  Welcome to The Diner From Hell:

The natural question to this obvious problem is, “OK, what do you recommend?  Can you think of anything better?”

Sure I can.  In fact, it would resemble post-colonial America when people were free to govern themselves, rather than “vote” for the above-the-law dictator du jour.

What were some of the differences between the times of our nation’s founding and today?

Well, one big difference was that permission was generally not needed for free commerce—and I think you’ll find that nearly everything hinges on this particular freedom.  Some people are still under the illusion that we have free trade today, but in fact we have nothing close to free trade and commerce.  For instance, consider that every transaction you make is subject to taxation—with the IRS apparently wanting to know about even your barter transactions!*  Back to my point.  Because of this insatiable need to tax every transaction you ever make, our public servants decided that—for your own good, mind you, and backed with the full force of our military police—you must have a Social Security number, by which all transactions can be either limited or tracked.  You cannot open a bank account without a Social Security number, and you cannot reasonably conduct clearings of transactions (like cashing and issuing checks) without a bank account.  And you cannot engage in any sort of free commerce without the capacity to exchange money freely.  Ironically, the only thing I’ve ever seen from Social Security (or am likely ever to see) is a demand that I put in ~15% of all my earnings and tracking of all transactions according to my Social Security number.  Nice.  Still think we have free trade here?

No free trade.  How about equality before the law, the concept that regardless of socioeconomic status, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law?  Nope.  In fact, we see that some people are more equal than others.  If you recall, during the financial melt-down of fraud, kick-backs, and other forms of bribery back in 2007/8, none of those responsible for such crimes went to jail.  Neither did Jon Corzine, who remains a non-indicted free man, despite giving no account for ~$1.2 – $1.6 billion dollars in stolen savings from the segregated accounts of customers at MF Global.  Neither has Eric Holder, who has been found to be in contempt of Congress for refusing to provide subpoenaed documents in the flagrantly illegal Fast and Furious scandal.  Neither has Lois Lerner of the IRS for illegally targeting convenient political opponents with the force of the IRS.  And these are just recent examples.  In fact, it seems that ever since bribery has become unofficially legal, so has inequality before the law become unofficially sanctioned.  One person commits a crime and gets a promotion and lifetime pension, while another commits exactly the same crime and gets thrown in prison for life.  Still think we have the rule of law—and not men—in the land of the formerly free?

Well, if we don’t have free trade or equality under the law, how can we possibly have the freedom to elect our public servants?  Think that through.  This is the open destruction of the rights of private property, as well as the open destruction of any semblance of justice.  By the government.  And as I’ve said many times in the past, the only legitimate purpose of the government is to protect the liberties of its citizens!  If they fail to do this, they fail in their only possible legitimacy and usefulness to a free people.  And when they have lost legitimacy, it’s impossible to claim they are of, by, and for the people, nor that they have the consent of the governed.  All is parasitic usurpation.  The American Revolution was fought for less than what we now see in the daily news.  (Truly.  Read the Declaration of Independence.)

So I ask again.  How’s that “democracy” working for you?


*Ever trade some baseball cards for a shotgun at a garage sale?  The IRS seems to see that not as a net balanced transaction, but as a net gain, and they want a piece of that gain.  They think the same of the other party in that transaction, which is a fraudulent claim, of course, since both parties cannot come away from such a barter transaction with a net gain.  If that were true, the way to become rich would be to simply repeat that trade over and over all day, every day.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Remember, Victims Don’t Have Guns…

…that’s why they have Chicago and New York City and all of New Jersey.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Help Kickstart World War III

Recent events with regard to Syria have been a little embarrassing, haven’t they?  Between the “offhand remark” by John Kerry the other day, and deft acceptance of said offer by Putin, Obama can finally save face for Syria’s crossing of Obama’s illegally-established “red line” that had nothing to do with any imminent security threat to the USA.

Whew!  Good thing, eh?  Otherwise, it was looking like they just might cobble together enough false and misrepresented evidence to falsely pin the August chemical gas attack on Assad, rather than the Al Qaeda-backed rebels who staged a false-flag event, kicking off World War III.

Why?  Because Obama!

Or maybe we could just send Congress to Syria instead!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Are They Lying About Syria?

It’s tough to find something less popular than our own Congress.  However, tough doesn’t mean impossible.  In fact, only 9% support starting a war with Syria and potentially sparking World War III.  Great.  So what are our public servants in Washington furiously trying to do?  Start another war, of course.  And to enlist help in this monstrous endeavor, the media news outlets continue to repeat exactly what they’re told by our present lawless administration.

Never mind that critical questions—when asked—seem to favor an opposite storyline.  Why aren’t our mainstream news outlets asking critical questions?  Were they all purchased in a stealth bail-out several years back along with GM and foolish financial institutions?  Who knows?  But they certainly seem quite careful to avoid any questioning of the official narrative.  With friends like these…

I rarely watch any TV shows, but of those I watch, formulaic crime shows such as Monk or Castle rank highly.  My wife and I are getting good enough to identify their patterns and often solve the mysteries within a few minutes of the shows’ openings.  How?  Most of the following issues must be clearly established in these shows before the cops can make an arrest—motive, evidence, means, and opportunity.  What happens when we seek to establish these things within the official narrative of the Syrian conflict?

First, does the suspect have motive?  In this case, does Syria’s Assad have motive to hit his own people with nerve gas while UN inspectors are roaming the area?  No.  If nothing else, the timing is terrible, since he’d obviously be caught.  (But maybe that’s the real goal of a different suspect—someone besides Assad?)  How about opportunity?  Sure, but why not cover your tracks, rather than be immediately busted by UN inspectors?  That would be similar to robbing a liquor store with a patrol car outside.  However, it was a perfect opportunity for a false-flag provocation.  By whom?  By the rebels attempting to oust Assad, of course.  What better time to commit atrocities against the innocent and pin it on your enemy?  Perfect opportunity.

Next, does the evidence point to the suspect, and does the suspect have the means to commit the crime?  Did Assad have the capacity to hit his own people with nerve gas?  Perhaps so.  However, from the reading I’ve been doing, the type of gas used was not military grade, so this doesn’t seem like a good match for the Syrian government.  Experts on nerve agents cite how those caring for the gas victims should have become overwhelmingly sick in handling the victims without any sort of protective gear—and would have, if the nature of the gas was military grade.  Therefore, they conclude the gas used was probably of a less potent, non-military grade that used industrial chemicals.  (Now who might be stuck using a less potent variety of nerve agent gas?  Why would you do that if you had military grade gas and your goal was to kill people?)

This video asks similar questions and cites evidence problematic to the official narrative.  I recommend taking a few minutes and hearing it out, particularly if you haven’t yet seen the other side of the story.  After all, the official narrative simply doesn’t make any sense.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thugs and the July 04 Parade

Well, for all the drummed-up controversy of having people of all ages and backgrounds march with (unloaded) rifles in the Independence Day Parade here in Westcliffe, what really happened was a parade of celebration of American independence from tyranny in support of our Colorado Sheriffs.  This was—by far—the longest parade I’ve yet witnessed on Westcliffe’s Main Street, with estimates of 450 to 500 people joining the march with various arms.  I’ve never seen so many Gadsden flags in one place.

Who could have ever predicted that the very people advocating self-government could have possibly governed themselves?  Nobody could have seen it coming!

Except, perhaps, those who understand that firearms in the hands of citizens are not a threat to other citizens.  As author Robert Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society.”  People tend not to trample the liberties of others when they could put their lives at risk in doing so.  It’s ironic that some of the very people who claim that man is inherently “good” are also those who also fear ordinary citizens—“good” people—possessing firearms for self-defense.  How can this be rationally reconciled?

While wandering across Main Street after the parade, my wife overheard a man who was interviewed by News 5 saying to someone, “I called them thugs.  I said they were thugs.”  Maybe “thug” was part of an important talking point to get across?  It turns out some of that interview made it into this article and video which you can see at  But if you watch the video, you may notice that nobody was acting like thugs.  In fact, I heard nothing but clapping and cheers as those toting rifles marched past.  Does public possession of a firearm really make you a thug?  If so, why do we have police, and why do they carry guns?  In this same article by News 5, it seems Mr. Poisson—who’s certainly entitled to his opinion—believes that folks demonstrating some of their Creator-borne rights are necessarily “thugs”, counter to the plainly-observable facts of a civilized (and polite) celebratory event.

And speaking of opinions, the editor of the Wet Mountain Tribune wasn’t shy in expressing his own a couple of weeks ago, including this little nugget:

Rightfully, the Chamber recognized the potential danger this could pose to parade spectators; the long-term damage this could cause to our local tourist industry; and the obvious liability issues – civil and criminal – if something were to happen.

. . .

As we stated, we’re all for brisk and thoughtful discourse on the whole issue of gun rights as they apply to the Second Amendment. But the Tea Party’s blatant disregard for public safety, its attempt to thumb noses at common decency, and its tactics that can be deemed no less than playground bullying resulted on one of the Wet Mountain Valley’s great summer celebrations to be cancelled. Thanks, Party spoilers.

Wow.  Indeed, “common decency” was simply thrown out the window when those marching in the parade decided to march with unloaded firearms in support of—and with—our Sheriff!  Horrors!

I’ve never seen this town as bustling with people as I did last Thursday.  Stores and restaurants were jammed full of customers—some still toting their rifles and sidearms.  And yet our own Chamber of Commerce made the decision to shut down the parade, rather than enjoy a celebration of liberty.  Maybe you believe this was a right decision, but I don’t see how the Chamber best represented its merchants with this decision.  How does that make sense?  If not for the quick action by the Town of Westcliffe in deciding to sponsor the parade, many of these folks probably wouldn’t have come to Westcliffe for their Independence Day celebrations.  And that would have been a real shame.

Photos below.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Supreme Court and Gay Marriage

If you haven’t heard by now, the Supreme Court issued its opinion regarding the legality of gay marriage today.  Here’s an excerpt from an article by the Chicago Tribune:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for gay rights on Wednesday by forcing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and paving the way for it in California, the most populous state.

As expected, however, the court fell short of a broader ruling endorsing a fundamental right for gay people to marry, meaning that there will be no impact in the more than 30 states that do not recognize gay marriage.

The two cases, both decided on 5-4 votes, concerned the constitutionality of a key part of a federal law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that denied benefits to same-sex married couples, and a voter-approved California state law enacted in 2008, called Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage.

The court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which limited the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal benefits, as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

And, predictably, some church officials are having a fit.  Here are some excerpts from an article at USA Today:

“The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act,” Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, . . . said in a statement.

. . .

The decisions have “highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates,” said a statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.”

Some are even praising this decision:

The Rev. J. Bennett Guess of the United Church of Christ, the largest Protestant denomination to come out in favor of gay marriage, praised the decisions as victories for both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages.

“The Supreme Court has underscored the central point that marriage is ultimately about the commitment between two people who love one another,” Guess said. “It is a great step toward full freedom and recognition for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people.”

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, of course.

But what I don’t understand is why anyone who considers themselves to be a believing “Christian” finds this decision very relevant one way or another.

Here’s why:  believing Christians are, ostensibly, those who take their understanding of the nature of God and of ethics from the Bible—and believe that Jesus Christ has reconciled them to God, bringing them into the Kingdom of Heaven.  And if this is true, they probably also understand that functions of the Church and functions of the State are foundationally—and irreconcilably—different.  In this light, any notion that we live in a “Christian nation”—whatever that means—evaporates.

Marriage, as a concept or institution, was first founded by God between Adam and Eve.  The scope of this union, marriage, was between these two people and God—and nobody else.

Now, here’s my point.  What legitimate role does the State have to do with marriage?  Anyone?  How is a decision made by an element of the State truly relevant to the Church?  I’d like to know.  Yes, it’s true, for the typical reasons of control and cash the State long ago usurped the role of arbiter to dictate who is or is not “married”.  But neither that, nor anything else done by any State agency has any effect on what remains true—that marriage is wholly within the sphere of the Church.  If the next proclamation by the Supreme Court establishes “marriage” between a hummingbird and a hibiscus, what relevance does this have?  Do you really believe that the federal government of the Usurped States of America must be in continual agreement with the Church?  Was Rome?

Rather than decry this decision or that decision made by an openly corrupt State, why not decry their meddling in affairs of the Church, of man, and of God in its entirety?  Tax benefits doled out as reward to some or penalties enacted against others simply play no legitimate part in marriage itself.

Thomas Jefferson was right to say that we do (and ought to) have a wall of separation between the Church and State.  These are entirely different spheres with entirely different purposes.  It’s time those that call themselves by the name of Christ begin more seriously considering the meaning of their citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven.

After all, no man can serve two masters.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment