FieryDog twitter
FieryDog Rss

Enough with the circus!

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 25-06-2009


It’s been less than 24 hours and I am already tired of the coverage of South Carolina governor, Mark Sanford. Infidelity abounds these days. It’s not news. If it were, you’d hear about the person next door to me sleeping with the woman across the street and the policeman cheating on his wife with her best friend from high school. You probably know a couple of cheaters yourself. Heck, there’s even a ridiculous television show called Cheaters if you need a fix of this kind of garbage.

Sanford’s sins aren’t news. They are a welcome distraction by the Obamanites in the mainstream media. Portraying this story with the import of a nuclear bomb dropping on New York removes attention from those things that truly matter. Like a magician using a bit of sleight-of-hand, all eyes are gawking at the circus surrounding Sanford while our neosocialist Congress attempts to enslave Americans.

Nancy Pelosi, the wicked witch of the West, plans on a vote tomorrow regarding Cap and Trade. Last night, ABC (the All Barack Channel) had an infomercial starring our socialist leader, Comrade Obama regarding his plan for socialized medicine. Comrade Obama urinates on the Constitution, circumventing Congress (and making them little more than a body of puppets) by naming czar after czar. These czars, who answer only to Obama, have the power to create and enact laws. Iranians are dying in the streets, looking to the world for succor in their quest for self-determination and our government wants to roast hotdogs with the bloddy-handed man who stole their Liberty. Unemployment is rising. Taxes are about to go up. Hyperinflation is right around the corner. Unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law is finding its way onto the books while the Supreme Court sits in silence.

Yes, there are many things we could and should be talking about, but an unfaithful husband is not one of them. Can we please get back to the things that matter?

Free Iran — Where Obama is Right and Wrong

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner, Obama | Posted on 24-06-2009


I am a supporter of Iranian freedom. I support any country, any people that desire to throw off the chains and shackles of an abusive government to institute a new government better prepared to serve and protect them. In that, I support the Chechens, the Basque, and even Texas if she decides to leave the Union.

This may shock some people, but I have to say it. Obama is right not to directly interfere in Iranian politics. It isn’t as if we can send troops into the country and have them recount the ballots while dodging the bullets of radical muslims.

That’s about as far as he’s right, though.

Rather than trying to take credit for an obviously rigged election immediately following its conclusion (anyone see the irony there?), Obama should have listened to the voices crying out against election fraud. It was reported yesterday that out of just a few cities, there were three million more votes than people. Perhaps ACORN has offices in Iran.

What Obama should have done

The Czar-of-Czars, Barack Obama, should have immediately withdrawn that hand he so graciously extends to every anti-semitic or socialist dictator. His un-inviting of Ahmadinejad should have been accompanied with a message: “As a freedom-loving people, we cannot and will not meet with leaders who murder their citizens in the streets. We hold these truths to be sacred, that every person everywhere, has the right to redress his or her government of grievances without fear of imprisonment, beatings, or death. We have no desire to interfere with any government’s laws, but neither can we stand by and align ourselves with a government that violates the fundamental rights of its citizens, rights that belong to all of humanity.”

 The next thing our C-I-C (Czar-in-Chief) should have done was petitition for the secretive (yes, I know our democrats can’t keep secrets if they will hurt America or help our enemies) aid of the iranian opposition by means of communication devices, particularly satellite devices capable of capturing audio & video and disseminating it throughout the world, so everyone could witness the atrocities. Moreover, a team of covert operatives should be injected for a short time solely to instruct the opposition leaders on effective information-dissemination and organizing techniques. (Perhaps, he–the community organizer in chief–could have gone himself).

As the light of Liberty in a dark world, America should have led the charge against human rights violations, meeting with allies and working with those on the international stage to apply economic and social pressure against Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In so doing, we should have demonstrated our belief that men and women everywhere have the right to self-determination; that governments–regardless of geographic location–derive their just powers to govern by the consent of the people and when the people withdraw that consent, the government is made void.

With that, the Obama Administration should be waiting and watching. As soon as a de facto government springs up amongst the populace, America should be the first to recognize it, giving it the power of a de jure government, provided that new charter contains the liberties essential to the propagation of freedom.

Instead, from what we know, our president has acted like a timid child, afraid to speak out against Islamic dictators. Perhaps his own muslim upbringing and faith render him incapable of contradicting someone he views as his spiritual leader or superior. Or perhaps, as his domestic policies indicate, Mr. Obama does not care too much for individual Liberty.

Iran is America in a few years (H.R. 45)

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner, Democrats, Obama | Posted on 20-06-2009


We cannot turn on the news these days without seeing smuggled images of bloodied Iranian protesters in the street. The government has cracked down on the people. The Ayatollah decreed yesterday there would be blood in the streets if people demonstrated today. As I watch these images and read these stories, all I can think is–that’s America in a few years.

It is bad enough the things our government has done to us over the past century: exorbitant taxes, the destruction of property rights, the destruction of contract rights, the abolition of states’ rights. Now the government wants to enslave us further.

Three short quotes paint a vivid picture:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”  –Mahatma Gandhi

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficient… The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.” –Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

With President Obama’s socialist agendas hogging the news, there is little talk about a law Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) is trying to pass.

Like 99.5% of the laws coming out of Congress, this one also makes void our Constitution by perverting it in such a fashion that it  is like a snake eating its own tail. Relying on the Commerce Clause and the fact that a 16 year old boy was shot to death in Chicago, H.R. 45 Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, seeks to curb and limit firearm ownership.

Among other things, H.R. 45 would force every gun owner in America to have a federal license. In order to obtain that license, one must present a passport-type photo, a thumb print, proof of identity, current address, record of passing tests on the “use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use,” and more. Beyond that, every gun owner must register the make, model, and serial number of each firearm with the federal government.

If a licensed person moves and fails to tell the government he or she changed addresses, they can be punished with two years in prison.

According to the US Dept. of Justice, in 2005 (the latest data I could find) 11,346 people were killed by a handgun or other firearm. There are approximately 300,000,000 people in these United States. That means 0.00003782% of the population or one out of every 26,441 people were killed by a firearm. To put this in perspective, your chances of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 20,000. Perhaps the government should fingerprint, monitor, and license all potential airline passengers and warn them of the dangers to their health. Or maybe we should regulate and abolish electricity, since your odds of dying by electrocution are 1 in 5,000. Perhaps Bobby L. Rush, can create a stupidity test for electricity use. If you have less than a 120 IQ, it’s back to kerosene lamps and outhouses (your odds of drowning are 1 in 8,942).

With so few people actually dying from firearms, the question must be asked: why tag, locate, and monitor everyone with a firearm? The simple answer is contained in Jefferson’s quote above. An unarmed people are incapable of protecting themselves against tyranny in government.

Patrick Henry said in 1788, “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Make no mistake. Mr. Rush’s proposal lends itself to absolute tyranny in America. In order to confiscate the weapons, the despotic government must first locate them.

When that happens, we can rely on Chairman Mao’s philosophy: “Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’” No one will be able to rise up against Obama’s dream of a socialist America.

And that brings us back to my original observation. When we are fully unarmed and when the government controls our wages, health care, and education, we will be like those protestors in Iran. We may shout and march, but nothing will change. The government will crack down and blood will fill the streets.

Slavery & the Framers…What They Don’t Tell You

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 19-06-2009


I’d like to touch upon a sensitive subject. Politically correct loons will no doubt call me pro-slavery after this, because in their estimation, anything shy of tarring and feathering the founding fathers is considered approbation. I am not pro-slavery, but neither am I afraid of their ad hominem attacks.

We all know there was some hypocrisy in the Constitution. How can we not know? From the time we start learning about the Constitution in school, we are told about the old evil white men who demanded freedom for whites while keeping another race chained and shackled; beaten and maimed. But is this the truth?

We’re not told the full history because it runs in contrast to the mythology some would have us believe. So, here are some facts and comments on slavery.

Thomas Jefferson, though he owned slaves, was vehemently opposed to the institution. In 1788, he wrote

As far as I can judge from the experiments which have been made, to give liberty to, or rather to abandon persons whose habits have been formed in slavery is like abandoning children.

In Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he wrote:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

This was altered at the insistence of some and replaced with

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .

In 1814, Jefferson wrote

There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.

George Washington said,

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.

One of Washington’s slaves, Sambo, said Washington would never borrow his boat without first asking and that he always put it back exactly where he found it, even if that meant dragging it twenty yards due to changing tides.

The Constitution attempted to bring about the downfall of slavery with this:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The rationale was that by preventing the importation of slaves, they would weaken the institution and eventually, it would die a natural death. We know this isn’t what happened, but it was an attempt by the Framers to rid America of that scourge.

The Three-Fifths Compromise did not, according to contemporary history, reduce the humanity of Blacks to 3/5 of a person. It was merely a way of counting for taxation and representation. Northern states rightfully feared the Southern states would have a massive voting block in Congress if it was 1:1. And Southern states knew 1:1 meant 40% more taxes. Three-fifths allowed both the partial taxation and partial representation based on slave numbers.

Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton were both members of anti-slavery groups.

During the Constitutional debates on August 21, 1787, Luther Martin said slavery was “inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.”

Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, less than half owned slaves.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not written by a bunch of old white men trying to force slavery on everyone. Original sources paint the exact opposite picture. The majority of our Framers were  against slavery in a country where the institution was so interwoven into the fabric that they could not easily eradicate it.

Letter to Senators re: socialized medicine

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 18-06-2009


Dear Senator ____________,


As Thomas Paine once wrote, these are the times that try men’s souls. Our swift devolution into absolute despotism is appalling.


Any form of socialized medicine, whether presented to the Congress by a Democrat or Republican is an attack on Liberty. Our Framers founded this federation on the simple idea that all men are endowed with the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. When the government takes—at gunpoint or under threat of imprisonment—the money of one citizen to pay for the poor choices of another, the guarantees to Liberty and Property are made void.


What is the purpose of a Constitution if the men and women we elect refuse to abide by it? Has that great document, second only to the Holy Bible, become little more than a mirage for the thirsty, presenting but not fulfilling the promise of relief from the angry desert?


I implore of you to vote against any plan for government-run health care. I further ask you to remind your colleagues that any man or woman who votes for such a measure does not deserve the honor of sitting in those desks where men of principle and honor once guided this great nation.




When will Obama be impeached?

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner, Obama | Posted on 17-06-2009


How far is too far? At what point do the people incapable of looking past race stop seeing Barack Obama as an icon of blackness and start viewing him as a man who happens to be failing America?

America is not a collection of states. Nor is she a mass of 300 million people. Borders and race do not define America. We were Americans before Alaska became a state. The expansion of our borders with the incorporation of Puerto Rico as a state would not change who America is. Likewise, if Texas took its toys and seceded, America would still survive.

America is not a place. America is a set of ideas laid out and defined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. America is the idea that all men are created equal. That everyone, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or political proclivity, is entitled to Life, Liberty, and Property.

America is the antithesis of the England we seceded from. There, there was one sovereign–the king. In America, each individual is a sovereign. America is the idea that each man and woman is capabale of deciding the best way to run his or her life. America is the idea that the less government interferes in the lives of the people, the more they and Liberty will thrive.

Unfortunately, America is also dying. The borders will remain and the people will still be confined within those borders. She may even keep the name, but she will exist the way a loved one who passed years ago continues to live in our memories and dreams.

Had George W. Bush done half the things Mr. Obama has done over the past six months, there would have been calls for his impeachment. I, too, would have joined in that chorus. But why the silence now? Are people so entranced by Mr. Obama’s blackness, that they are afraid to point out each dagger he drives into America? Are they afraid they will be called racists? I would rather be falsely labeled a racist and maintain my freedom than eschew the misnomer by succumbing to slavery.

So, I ask again. How far is too far? The radical left will not complain because Obama is taking us into an era of Soviet-style governance. But my other countrymen, the rational, thinking Americans, where are they? And when will they wake and demand Mr. Obama abide by the Constitution or find himself impeached?


Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner, second amendment | Posted on 12-06-2009


First they came for the the banks,
          But I didn’t care because I wasn’t a banker;

Then they came for the car companies.
          Since I wasn’t the CEO of GM, I didn’t care;

Then they attacked healthcare.
          Not being a doctor, I had nothing to fear.

Then they abused the smokers.
          I thought it was nice they cared about clean air.

Tomorrow they will go after overweight people.
          Always thin, I won’t care when they forbid some people from eating cake.

Then they’ll come after my thoughts.
          Everyone else will cheer that I’m finally a helpless target too.

History has a horrible way of repeating itself and we are seeing that repetition today. While at this point, our place in history bears no moral resemblance to the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis, we are going through the same steps of every past dictatorship. None began with pogroms. They gradually built their way up to genocide.

First, the dictators consolidated power and disarmed the populace both mentally and physically. Using the media as its constant propaganda arm and controlling most methods of production, these past governments chose their targets wisely. They went after the small groups–the homosexuals, the criminals, the disabled. Since the majority of people are none of these things, the majority kept their silence. More than that, the citizens bought the government’s rhetoric when it said it did these things for the greater good.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all targeted the capitalists. They pointed out and played upon the disparity between CEOs and the unskilled workers. They all used class warfare, manipulating man by his jealous nature, as a way of organizing the masses beneath a common banner.

Then they found subsequent targets. For some reason, the Jews have always tended to be one of those easy targets. Perhaps this is because of their small populations or their tight knit community. Whatever the reason, these despotic governments have blamed the Jews for a host of national and worldly ills.

Today, we have a president who won election through manipulation of the masses, playing upon their jealousies. He has consolidated his power, attacking capitalism at its core; removing a CEO who disagreed with him; nationalizing industries; violating contract laws. The majority of Americans seem to support this abuse of power because they do not see how it affects them.

Our current leader further manipulates Americans by their jealousies and fears, convincing them that everyone has better healthcare than they do and by promising them they will surely die if they do not allow the government to socialize medicine.

The government has picked its targets wisely. Now it is going after the smokers and the pig and cow farmers.

At the same time, Obama has begun his anti-semitic rhetoric. His speech to the Muslims of the world, his refusal to treat terrorists as the enemy, his bow to the Saudi king, and his nod to Iran in their pursuit of nukes all signify that Israel stands alone. If that wasn’t enough, we have his pastor claiming “Them Jews” won’t allow Obama to talk to him.

There are only two more steps left to complete. First, the complete prohibition or a drastic reduction in private gun-owner rights so we cannot defend ourselves from the government. Then will come the Holocaust 2.0. My guess is, this one will also begin with the Jews and every one of us that dares try to defend them. After that, anyone who disagrees with the government will be fair game.

Let’s Get It Right: He’s a Leftist Murderer

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 11-06-2009


The media is enjoying an opportunity to lie to Americans. Unfortunately, many Americans are buying their garbage. Take for example the article posted by yesterday in which they label James von Brunn as a right wing extremist.

Mr. von Brunn is accused of killing 39 year old Stephen Tyrone Johns, who worked as a security guard at the Holocaust museum in DC.

It has been reported and confirmed that von Brunn is a white supremacist. His website has been pulled from the Internet, but you can still find cached copies in Google. So, there is no doubt von Brunn is a radical. The question is, upon which side of the political spectrum does he fall?

To answer that question, we must first consider the spectrum.

Many people improperly believe the spectrum looks like this:


There is a serious problem with this thinking. For starters, Nazism is a shortened form of the Nazi Party’s name, National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party. Are we seriously to believe that socialism can stand on both ends of the political spectrum as exact opposites? That’s about as foolish as saying the opposite of smoking is not-not-smoking.

In the cases of communism, socialism, national socialism, etc. these political ideologies rely on a couple of similar tenets. First, they are collectivist, rather than individualistic. That is, they emphasize collective or social unification over individuality. People under these dictatorships often are compelled to do things in the name of the state or the “greater good.” Second, there is an authoritarian government. Only this government can determine what is best for the whole. To maintain control of the government and properly direct society, the politicians implement various laws that severely limit or eradicate individual rights. For example, the Germans had the racial laws forbidding Germans from marrying Jews. Likewise, the Chinese currently block websites that promote democracy or representative government. Third, the economies are tightly controlled by the government.

In short, the left is:

  • Authoritarian
  • Collectivist
  • Anti-capitalist

The opposite of this must be a society that believes in and promotes:

  • Individual liberty
  • Free market principles (capitalism)
  • Zero government

In this respect, the spectrum looks like this:


Our founding fathers created an extremely limited, relative weak government. It would fall about where the harsh marks are below. (The N represents where we are now with out government)


In his book, Kill the Best Gentiles,” von Brunn said

There is a conspiracy, working at this moment, to destroy Western Civilization and the Aryan Nation that created it. This is not a new conspiracy. It began over 3000-years ago as spoken tribal legends, which eventually were collected in the Torah (c. 900 B.C.), a tapestry of myths and tales plagiarized, largely, from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Greece. The Mosaic Law, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the story of David, all came from non-Hebraic sources. The idea of monotheism was borrowed (c. 1400 B.C) from Pharaoh Iknaton. Into this rich tapestry the Hebrews wove threads of their own history as they believed it to be, or desired it to be — the modus operandi of Hollywood scriptwriters today. The fictitious protagonist of these self-serving tales is Yahweh (Adonai, Jehovah, God): a jealous, vengeful, wrathful, genocidal, anthropomorphic tribal god, created in the image and likeness of the Hebrews who created him. Naturally, this BIG HEBREW in the sky LOVES the HEBREWS.  All other nations are considered cattle to be used, milked and exterminated.

So, we can see von Brunn is an anti-semitic collectivist. He views the world and society in terms of two groups–Jews and Gentiles. He also states:

Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God’s children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal.

These statements are not those of one who loves individual liberty, but the rantings of a man who believes there should be government intervention in the private association rights of man. This promotes authoritarian governance over society.

The Washington Examiner states:

After the war, von Brunn moved to New York City. By the 1980s, von Brunn had developed ties with anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi groups, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based organization that tracks hate groups.

With ties to national socialists (and presumably racial socialists as many racists call themselves now) and his penchant for government control, we must place Mr. von Brunn where he belongs, on the far left side of the spectrum along with other collectivists and authoritarians like Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Yosef Stalin.

The problem with gun laws & state sovereignty

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner, second amendment | Posted on 06-06-2009


I think it’s great that Tennessee and Montana are reasserting their rights via new gun laws, but I can already see the problems.

For those not aware, the resolutions say some guns will be manufactured within the state and stamped “Made in [insert state].” Guns made within the state, purchased by residents, and remaining within the state will not be subjected to any federal laws.

By our Constitution, that’s how it should be. That is not how it will play out, however.

There is absolutely no doubt this will go to the Supreme Court. The Federal leviathan is unwilling to part with any of the rights it has stolen from the states and citizens.

When it gets there, the court will look at other previous bad law such as Wickard v. Filburn. In so doing, they will determine that weapons manufactured in Montana, sold in Montana, and remaining in Montana are a part of “interstate commerce.” The federal government will argue that even though the weapons do not cross lines, they might. And if they do, they might be sold to someone in Kansas. Therefore, there is a potential for interstate commerce. More than that, the government will argue that some parts likely came from another state, thereby making them a part of interstate commerce. Then, as its final argument, the government will state that even if the parts come from within the state, when a person in Montana purchases one of these weapons, it means he is not purchasing one made in Utah. Not purchasing a gun made in Utah affects interstate trade because the amount of weapons crossing the state line is diminished. Therefore, by reducing interstate trade by means of self-sufficiency, the state is engaging in interstate commerce.

The SCOTUS will decide in favor of the federal beast. My guess is it will be at least 7-2, possibly even 9-0.

Friday Humor – Ronald Reagan – video

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Humor | Posted on 05-06-2009


Ahh… I am in a Reagan kind of mood.

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.8.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.