So much is said these days on the need for compromise in Washington. Why can’t the Democrats and Republicans just compromise a bit in order to get things done? The fact of the matter is that compromise is not always the answer.

There is nothing inherently wrong with compromise, but it’s not an end in itself. Compromise is supposed to be the method by which opposing sides give and take on the details of an agreement for which they both have the same or similar goals. Neither side is asked to compromise their values.

An example might be something like this. You and your wife want to spend Saturday night watching a movie. You want to go to the theater. Your wife says the budget is tight so it wouldn’t be a good idea to spend so much money. She says we should just stay home. A compromise might be, let’s rent a movie for a fraction of the cost of going out and watch it at home. You compromised your desire for going out. She compromised her desire for not spending a lot of money, but you both had the same goal which was an evening of entertainment watching a movie.

Let’s take an example where compromise does not work.

Let’s suppose you and you long-time girlfriend have been in a monogamous relationship for a few years. Your view of the relationship is that of a temporary one. You may stay in it a while longer but have no desire to make it permanent. Your girlfriend has a different goal. She plans on the two of you getting married, having kids and spending the rest of your lives together.

You’re starting to get bored and decide to tell her that you want a more “open” relationship which allows each of you to date other people.

How are the two of you going to come to a compromise on that one? The answer, of course is you are not because you have different goals. Any compromise would necessarily mean one or both of you would be required to compromise your values. The only way to resolve this issue is to break up. You will need to find a new girlfriend who wants an open relationship and she will need to find a new boyfriend who is looking to make a long term commitment.

This is where we are in Washington today. The Democrats and Republicans are so far apart on the major issues there is no way for either side to compromise with the other without compromising their values. Let’s look a just a few examples:

1.  Healthcare – The Democrats passed the healthcare bill on a 100% partisan basis. Not one Republican voted for it. Democrats, since FDR wanted a national health care system run by the federal government. The very idea of a federal government takeover of healthcare is abhorrent to Republicans. Republicans believe in free markets with as little interference from the federal government as possible. There is no middle ground here.
2. Taxes – Democrats are constantly asking for higher taxes in order to spend more money. Republicans believe in lower taxes, thus leaving private citizens with more of their own money to do with as they please. Democrats believe those in Washington know best how to spend your money. Republicans believe individuals know best how to spend their own money. The choice is between higher taxes with government choosing how to spend your money or lower taxes with you choosing how to spend your money. No room for compromise here either.
3. Entitlements – Democrats, again since FDR have added more and more entitlement programs paid for by taxpayers. Despite a looming economic crisis, they added the biggest one of all time with Obama Care. Republicans believe in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. They want to preserve programs like Medicare and Social Security for those who are truly needy, but reform them so they will be solvent for future generations. There should be room for compromise here. Both sides want to preserve Medicare and Social Security. Why then has there been no compromise? It comes down to this. Democrats want to keep the programs exactly as they are now and make them fiscally viable by raising taxes. Republicans want to reform the programs in order to make them fiscally viable without raising taxes. In fact, they want to lower taxes in order to boost the economy which typically results in an increase in revenue to the federal government. Again, if one side wants higher taxes and the other wants lower taxes, there is no room for compromise.

There are many more issues, but these three are the most critical domestic issues of our time. How can the two parties compromise in order to solve these issues? I don’t believe they can.

Are Democrats going to do a 180 degree turn around and decide Obama Care was bad idea after all? I doubt it. Are they going to all of a sudden be for smaller government and lower taxes? I doubt that too. Are Republicans going to decide that bigger government and higher taxes are the answer? Not any time soon.

So, as voters what are we to do?

There is only one logical answer. It’s time to pick sides. Either you’re for one philosophy or the other. Gone are the days when it made sense to go into the voting booth and cast a vote for a Republican congressman while at the same time vote for a Democratic President, or vice versa.

If you believe in the Obama, Reid, and Pelosi agenda and cast your vote for Obama but at the same time vote for a Republican to represent you in congress, what have you accomplished? Your Republican congressman will vote with his party every time and against Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Obama, Reid, Pelosi will vote against your congressman every time as well.

You can still be an Independent. You don’t have to declare yourself a Republican or a Democrat. You may decide the Republicans have a platform which more closely aligns with your values, so you vote a straight Republican ticket. If they disappoint over the next four years you can switch to the Democrats in the next election. The important thing is you vote a straight party line ticket each time. If you pick and choose, Republican for this office and Democrat for that, you’re not being Independent. In fact, you’re contributing to the gridlock by voting for people who will always be voting against each other’s agenda.

Understand where each side stands on the issues that are most important to you. Then, pick a side and vote that way. The country needs to go one way or the other. Compromise? Not going to happen.

This video says it all. No comment required.

In any discussion of the constitution it is imperative to understand the relationship between The People and the federal government. The people are always dominant and the government is always subordinate. Stated differently,the People tell the federal government what it can and cannot do, not the other way around.

If this concept sounds at all foreign to you, please read it again, and keep re-reading it until it fully sinks in. It is the heart and soul of America and it’s what makes America exceptional. Until you understand this concept it is impossible to understand what the framers intended when they authored our founding documents. Once you understand and internalize this very simple concept, everything your read in the constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers or any other writings by the framers, makes perfect sense.

Prior to America, there had never been a government where the people ruled themselves. Never. This is the fundamental difference between America and the rest of the world.

The framers of our constitution lived under an oppressive government, the British monarchy. When they set out to draft a constitution for America they were determined to base it on the following principles:

1. All men are created equal. America would have no class system and no royalty.
2. Man’s rights come from his creator, not from his government.
3. Man’s creator granted each individual certain rights, i.e. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. There is no such thing as collective rights, only individual rights.
4. The People granted certain enumerated powers to the federal government which were  limited and defined. The only purpose for these powers was to preserve the individual rights of the People. (The People=Dominant. The Government=Subordinate.)

When reading the constitution, always keep in mind that the constitution in no way restricts the individual rights of the people. It does, however severely restrict the powers of the federal government. As James Madison, wrote, in Federalist Paper 45, ”The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.”

The second amendment to the constitution is a good example to illustrate my point. To review, the second amendment states,

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 I still hear people arguing that the intent of the framers was to grant the right to state governments to keep an armed military force, but does not give individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. They argue about the meaning of the term ‘militia’ as used in the second amendment. I can get down in the weeds discussing what the framers meant by the term, but it really isn’t significant if you understand the true intent of the constitution itself.

If you understand, as I wrote above that the constitution in no way restricts the individual rights of the people, and if you understand that the federal government does not grant rights, but rather it executes enumerated powers given to it by the People, then it becomes obvious that the intent here was to prevent the federal government from disarming the People.

The Bill of Rights, including the second amendment was written to make sure there would never be any misunderstanding in the future that the federal government had no power to intrude on or restrict the God given rights of the People.

If you understand the relationship between the People and the federal government, the rest is easy.

Reprinted from HumanEvents.com
By Ann Coulter

Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of “stand your ground” laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC’S Karen Finney blamed “the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.”)

This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.

We don’t know the facts yet, but let’s assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America’s oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country’s history.

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.

(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU’er, but every ACLU’er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)

In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks — even freemen — could not own guns.

Chief Justice Roger Taney’s infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: “[I]t would give them the full liberty,” he said, “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.

Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.

After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted “Black Codes,” denying black Americans the right of citizenship — such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms — while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.

For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.

The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 — passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant — made it a federal felony to “deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property.” This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress’ authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.

Under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant deployed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.

But the Klan had a few resurgences in the early and mid-20th century. Curiously, wherever the Klan became a political force, gun control laws would suddenly appear on the books.

This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.

How’s that “may issue” gun permit policy working for you?

The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence — including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.

A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high — beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.

But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.

Williams’ repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, “Negroes With Guns.” In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.

As the Klan found out, it’s not so much fun when the rabbit’s got the gun.

The NRA’s proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.

In the preface to “Negroes With Guns,” Williams writes: “I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense — and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence.”

Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK. But wherever the truth lies in that case, gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense.

Kids these days. The number of young people who deny the Moon landings is increasing. But can you blame them? The education system is failing today’s children, so one cannot be shocked when young adults deny the existence of the Apollo program. Some are surprised to learn that there really was a ship called the Titanic, and many do not even know when World War II happened. How can we improve education? Bill Whittle gives today’s kids a simple solution.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I was recently involved in yet another conversation with a liberal who tried as hard as he could to convince me the second amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to keep and bear arms. He argued that the framers use of the term militia was a reference to a government military unit similar to today’s National Guard.

The fact that we now have a National Guard he contends, is reason enough to repeal the second amendment. After all, if a private citizen wants to keep and bear arms, he should enlist in the National Guard.

In order to fall for this line of reasoning, four things need to be in place:

1. Ignorance of what the term “militia” meant at the time. (Hint: It meant ordinary citizens with the capability to band together to fight back threats to their liberty, whether from an external threat or a threat from within, like an over-reaching government.)
2. Ignorance of the stated views the framers had regarding a well-armed citizenry.
3. An ability to completely ignore the second part of the statement; i.e. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“
4. Ignorance of the history of tyranny. Any student of history knows the first right that is abolished on the way to tyranny is the right of free citizens to bear arms. When the tyranny fully take root, any guns left in the hands of the citizens are quickly rounded up. Why do you think they do that?

I will concentrate here on my second point and provide what the framers said they meant, in their own words.

Thomas Jefferson spoke to the topic directly with his comment,

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Jefferson’s justifications for his statement are found in comments like “when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty,” and “force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.”

Jefferson also wrote,

“For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.” He expounded on his point when he stated “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.”

Is there really any question as to where Jefferson stood on this issue?

John Adams was rather direct when he stated the following:

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense,” and even more controversial and bold when he offered “the right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.”

Was John Adams too ambiguous?

Thomas Paine told us:

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

George Washington said:

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” Then he seemingly justified his belief with the statement “it will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”

James Madison went right to the point of the current debate when he observed:

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Then he made sure to warn us as to why the first statement is needed when he argued “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.” 

Samuel Adams told us:

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Patrick Henry said:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” And to see the first statement not come true Henry said “The great object is that every man be armed.”

So there you have it in the framers’ own words.  The next time someone starts telling you the framers never intended for ordinary citizens to carry guns, just refer them to this article and ask, “then why did they write all these things?”

A final quote from Rush Limbaugh – “You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.”

President Obama has touted reports from the Congressional Budget Office claiming his health care law would actually decrease the deficit. But due to a bundle of budget gimmicks and other legislation, calculations show that Obamacare actually adds $698 billion to the deficit. This week’s chart, courtesy of The Heritage Foundation outlines each of those budget gimmicks.

Seventeen states already have voter ID laws in place. Others are in various stages of the process. Nothing draconian, mind you, just show me a photo ID that verifies you are who you claim to be and you can vote. After all, fair elections are a necessity in a free nation. The Supreme Court ruled back in 2008 that voter ID laws are constitutional.

So why has the Obama administration been fighting every state that is trying to pass voter ID laws? You can decide for yourself, but I’m pretty sure I know why.  Democrats see voter fraud as just another  tool in their arsenal to help them win elections (Does anyone remember ACORN?)

Here’s a short list of just some of the things we need a photo ID for off the top of my head.

You need a photo ID to get a driver’s license, buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, apply for welfare, apply for food stamps, cash a check, purchase a firearm, open a bank account, rent an apartment, be admitted to a hospital or get a marriage license.

Attorney General Eric Holder says there is no evidence of in-person voter fraud in the U.S. So, if that’s true, how will he explain this video?

The mainstream media never adequately vetted Senator Obama in 2008. Due to that fact, we elected a man we knew little about  to be the leader of the free world. The media is still actively cheer leading for the president in his 2012 re-election bid. They emphasize anything he does that can be construed as positive, while downplaying or worse, ignoring all that he does that is negative or unpopular.

His presidency has been a failure on many levels, and those of us who have taken the time to study this man now know what he is all about. Bloggers like myself as well as some in the media who are honestly concerned about where Mr. Obama will take America should he be re-elected and no longer beholden to the electorate  are trying to educate as many people as possible about the dangers of a second term.

The video below, produced by PJTV.com is a no-holds-barred reminder of the president’s policies, associations and contempt of American institutions.

The $50 lesson shown below is re-printed from an email that’s been making the rounds for the last year or so. I came across it again on another blog and thought I would pass it along for those who haven’t seen it yet.

Maybe it will help Mr. Obama avoid another 0-440 defeat of his proposed budget.

THE $50 LESSON:

Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.

During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.

She said she wanted to be President someday.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied… “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”
Her parents beamed with pride!

“Wow…what a worthy goal!” I said. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that!” I told her.

“What do you mean?” she replied.

So I told her, “You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge and I’ll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

She thought that over for a few seconds, and then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Her parents aren’t speaking to me now.