Looking to the Jewish Passover to Understand American Dependency, Gun Control and Senator Rand Paul’s Filibuster

March 18, 2013

Looking to the Jewish Passover to Understand American Dependency, Gun Control and Senator Rand Paul’s Filibuster

From time to time events – current, past, and those of daily life will converge to shine light on something oft neglected but in frequent need of attention – FEAR. Sen. Rand Paul’s recent filibuster enthralling millions was such an event. It was David versus Goliath and Mr. Smith goes to Washington all rolled up, reminding us that uncontrolled government is a danger to our freedom. Sen. Ryan gently stirred our fears of being bullied and feeling helpless to do anything about it.

However, not all catalysts need to be as big as Sen. Paul’s filibuster. A simple and benign act of buying Matzahs for our Passover Seder served as one last week. It caused me to reread and reconsider the Book of Exodus describing the Jews’ delivery from generations of slavery in Egypt.  It surprisingly tells a story of deep imbedded fear in the Jewish people.  The Exodus illuminates a fear so deep, so intense that it caused doubt and second-guessing in the Jewish People, even after witnessing miracle upon miracle, plague upon plague, bestowed on their behalf so that they might be free. The Exodus is a story of oppression on a huge scale.

What struck me most about the Exodus story is that the effects of the Jewish oppression are not so unlike the effects of oppression being experienced by millions of Americans today. Symptomatic of both is a resignation, a settling for the smallest crumbs of security, lashing out and blaming people who are trying to help, taking steps only when there are no other options, and not seeing alternatives as being worth their price.

Fear is something that alters our perceptions, defines perceived choices, keeps us safe and can ruin our lives. And when fear is coupled with chronic societal oppression (real or imagined) and dependency on government it can easily become an intergenerational obstacle to leading full lives (even for God’s chosen people).

Vivir con miedo, es como vivir a medias!

(A life lived in fear is a life half lived)

Strictly Ballroom

It searches for voice, understanding and clarity but mostly remains shadowed, hidden, ignored or denied. But, what FEAR needs is to be recognized, inspected and dealt with so it doesn’t lead to poor decisions, violence, submission, paralysis, or wearing blinders that prevent growth or seeing the truth.

Fear can be either paralyze or empower life – which is why it needs our focused attention.

It serves as a reflection of the human condition and our societies. It underlies most of our history. It caused Hitler’s to rise to power and caused his defeat. It has effected how our history is written, rewritten, and emphasized by those in power; and has even caused some of it to be completely erased from society’s common knowledge, moved to waste bin of history.  It causes paranoia or keeps us on our toes, vigilant against the abuses of others.

In politics, it can be played or preyed upon by the unscrupulous or simply bushed aside, replaced by false certainty.  Fear allows for oppressors to keep and assume power, over and over again.

Fear allows people to walk past a man, woman or child being beaten, or worse. It rationalizes disappearing within one’s self, slipping past a person being ridiculed or vilified.  There’s nothing I can do. What if they turn on me?

Fear of losing employment can nudge people into looking the other way when something untoward occurs.

Fear allows bullies to thrive.

But remember, fear can also make heroes out of the ordinary man, woman, reporter, and yes – even a politician.

Sen. Paul had been attempting for months to get Obama and Eric Holder to simply and unequivocally state, commit to writing, that they recognize that they do not have the Constitutional authority to order a drone strike against an American citizen in the United States who is not engaged in combat.

Amazingly, it has been like pulling teeth for Sen. Paul with Obama and Holder dancing on the head of pin to keep from admitting anything is beyond their power. Everything cumulated Wednesday, March 6, 2013, in something America has not seen in a very long time, an honest to God filibuster that lasted nearly 13 hours.   As a former criminal defense attorney, I was glued to the television for about 5 hours. Sen. Paul definitely exceeded my expectations by being excellent in both presentation (calm, collected, soft spoken but passionate) and substance (knowledge of Constitutional law, understanding of the issues and consequences).  I thoroughly enjoyed it and I sincerely hope Sen. Rand Paul runs in 2016.

It took courage for Rand Paul to stand and challenge the President with his filibuster (no one else really has, not the media nor the Parties).  The fear that this administration sees no limits to their power and that it believes that Americans’ freedoms and liberties come solely from government surely motivated Sen. Paul’s action.  Sen. Paul’s was not a fear causing paranoia but one that required his vigilance and action. After all, Obama has a substantial record of going around Congress and the Constitution to get what he wants.

It’s not a paranoid fear of heights if you’re in a tree and watching someone chopping it down. You yell stop chopping my tree.

And how did Senators McCain and Graham react?  Almost immediately after wining and dining with the President, they grabbed their megaphones and condemned Sen. Paul. They accuse him of being a grand stander, trying to fire up impressionable Libertarian kids in college dorms, being unserious, abusing Senate rules, etc.  Well, I might not be as impressionable as Sen. McCain thinks college kids are, but I can recognize fear when I see it.  I respect both Senators McCain and Graham (especially Graham when he’s wearing his JAG lawyer’s hat), but it’s fairly clear that they are the aging bulls in the pasture, afraid of becoming irrelevant and jealous of a new young bull sniffing around their herd.

Sen. Paul’s illustrative quotes referenced during filibuster definitely struck a nerve with me.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. James Madison

Madison’s quote clearly reflects the drafters of our Constitution understood human nature and had a healthy fear of it.  This fear coupled with their own history (common sense), must have been a driving force urging the Founders to divide power and put in place safeguards and checks against the possibility of abuse – abuse that could easily give rise to authoritarian or tyrannical governance.  They had lived it under the King; and as such, they were well studied in the hearts of men and how dark they could become. Like Sen. Paul’s fear, theirs inspired vigilance, preparation and planning.

The truth is that there is a basic desire in most of us (even those of us who own guns) to want to know that a trusted someone will be there like God, a parent, a neighbor, a pastor, the sheriff, or almost anyone when times are really hard or our neighborhood becomes increasingly unsafe.

However, if the Founders (being principled men) were here today, I would expect them to warn us to be very careful in whom we place our trust – to look first to ourselves and our families, then to our neighbors, and remember to make sure we let our guns be our constant companion. I’m positive they’d never advise giving complete trust to any government.

The very least we should do is to raise questions like Sen. Paul did.  Why should we trust what your doing?  Do you trust us? Your past actions indicate there might be more to what you’re doing? Are there less intrusive measures to be taken? Is this authorized by the Constitution?  Will I be less free or more free tomorrow?

Trust is an especially perilous temptation when times are hard or when dangerous conditions exist because of the natural tendency to look for any connection (commonality) that we might have with those extending their hands, even something as trivial as belonging to the same Party. (Fear of being alone in hardship.) Unfortunately this is the perfect opportunity for the wolf in sheep’s clothing.   I’m sure you’ve noticed that when someone makes a decision to trust, they seem to go out of their way in failing to see what’s right before their eyes that would easily prove their decision unwise.

Who was it that said never let a crisis go to waste? It was Rahm Emmanuel and this statement reminds us that we need to keep Rahm’s practice always in mind when dealing with this Administration.

Politicians in this Administration (knowing they have loyal media cover) prefer not to answer real questions; instead they opt for simply stating or implying that we need to trust them. ‘Yes we can’? Regarding drones they say trust us, we haven’t killed anyone yet – we don’t intend to, but we “might” use a drone strike on an American citizen  “in extraordinary circumstances”[i] – or if there’s an imminent threat (even though imminent threats might also include not-so-imminent threats) – and by the way,  we’ll decide if the 5th Amendment applies.  Yes, they normally throw in a little social justice, fairness, greater-good, yes we can, we’re moving forward, do your fair share; but it’s meant to convey the message TRUST US!

If you’ve been paying attention, you must certainly know that everything we’re learning about Obama and Holder (Fast and Furious hearings and Obama claiming Executive Privilege, the Benghazi hearings and Obama being AWOL while 4 Americans are murdered, the cover-ups, the DOJ retaliating against whistleblowers, Obama’s constant exaggeration about the Sequester effects and intentionally making them worse) points to only one reasonable conclusion.

They are in fact not angels.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. James Madison

This was one of Sen. Paul’s major points. The Obama administration (and seemingly Senators Graham and McCain) are intent on making the whole world a battlefield, a war zone which presents the ability to suspend the protections under the Bill of Rights – such as the Fifth Amendment protecting life, liberty and property being taken without due process. This is how the government interned Japanese Americans in WWII.

Under the guise of temporary security during war, anything and everything can be justified, including the confiscation of every privately (legally) owned firearm in this country. It doesn’t matter if you are a woman, disabled, black, white, Hispanic living in a rough neighborhood and need a gun for your family’s protection.  You are just SOL.

They say Americans will never need firearms to protect their freedoms in this country. Tell that to the GI’s returning home after WWII in Athens Tennessee in what came to be known as The Battle of Athens. (I’d never heard of, nor was taught about this in school.  Thanks to Real News on The Blaze doing a segment about it.)

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. Benjamin Franklin

This is an interesting quote of Ben Franklin’s.  It seems harsh at first glance, but it has to be to sufficiently reinforce the need to be on constant guard, constantly inspecting our fear (of losing security), deeply appreciating our of gifts of liberty – ultimately, flipping fear’s influence from submission to defiance. (It should be noted that the Founders had pledged their lives and fortunes for freedom, so it’s easy to imagine how they might feel about those who had not made such sacrifices.)  Remember, history demonstrates that trading liberty to the government is nearly always a permanent surrender of those rights, especially if there’s a disarmed populace that can’t fight back.

Can there be a ‘permanent security’ that one might justify trading some or all of their fundamental liberties?

I don’t think so.

I once heard a Professor at the School for International Training counsel a young woman going to live in a Palestinian community on the Israeli border.  The woman, in her early twenties was obviously scared.  The Professor gave the following advice: You should not let your fear keep you from following your passion because personal safety is just an illusion. This liberal Professor was right.

Just as personal safety needs to be understood as illusion, so should a government’s guarantee of temporary or permanent security (crumbs) – and attachment to either must not keep us from protecting our liberty.  As in the epoch of the Pharaohs, Obama’s government does not hold its promises sacrosanct.  We were promised that there would be no death panels in Obamacare, but fast forward and we learn that the Progressive left has always understood they would limit care to the old.

Would you give up your firearms if it were a condition to receive Social Security?

Would you give up your Second Amendment rights in return for a welfare check?

Would you give up your firearms in return for the child tax credit on your income taxes?

Would farmers give up their firearms if they receive federal subsidies?

How about for a drivers license, federal employment or unemployment insurance?

Would you ever get the right to a firearm back? Please tell me you don’t believe you would. 

Such carrots would be very powerful temptations to many struggling and middle-class Americans. The rich of course would easily be able to deal with such disempowering choices. Thankfully (if our justice system is properly functioning), the Founders memorialized our natural rights and liberties in the Constitution, and that should be the end of the discussion because such coercion would be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there are those in both Parties (and many Judges) who see the breadth of our liberties as impediments to their goals.

These hypothetical questions (because they’re easily imaginable) illustrate why we need to support candidates who value and will fight hard for our liberty. Every person (black, white, Hispanic, Democrat, Republican, etc.) needs to get away from the Parties and focus on liberty.

Obama and the Progressive left are always choosing their words and phrases carefully. (They’ve been targeting our schools for years.) They choose words for their import, the imagery each produces, how they define the arguments – words like social justice, progressive, moving forward, the greater good, pro-choice, for the children, fair share, etc. These types of words are used as a drumbeat to imply that they are on our side, that we should trust them, they have our best interests at heart, they’ll protect us and they know better than others what’s good for us.  Of course, those making arguments against their policies are vehemently portrayed as being against justice, reasonableness, protecting children, progress, government, moving towards the future, choice, etc. They use the Siren’s song of the seductive imagery to lure people into giving up their rights and liberties in exchange for a dream, something that can’t be guaranteed – personal safety and security.  We have to stop falling for this cheap trick.

We all want to be free but many are afraid of freedom’s consequences and responsibilities (not quite as much dependence on centralized government). This is the crack (fear) where Obama slips his crowbar to loosen our grip on the things that really matter.

I agree with Benjamin Franklin but I also recognize that millions in our modern American family have been patiently, intentionally conditioned and oppressed (victimized) into a dependency that will take patient, understanding, reassuring voices and actions (jobs) to free them from their addictions and internalized oppression so they can hear truth more easily and live fuller lives. Case in point, a new study shows that many of the benefits Americans receive are set up in such a way that penalizes good people who want to work (or marry) but by doing so would cause them to become ineligible to continue their benefits (poverty traps).

Which brings me to shopping for Matzah at the supermarket.

In Egypt, some three thousand years ago, the Jewish people languished in servitude and enslavement by the Pharaohs.  Finally, the day drew near when Moses[ii] would approach the elders of the Jewish people and tell them that God had sent him to free them from their brutal masters.  Moses knew (and told God) that the Jewish people, who had been battered and beaten for generations, would doubt his words. So Moses had been provided (by a slightly annoyed God)[iii] with ‘the rod of God’ with which to do signs that would cause the people to listen and believe him.  And they did – well, at least until the first bump in the road.

The doubt and reluctance of the Jewish elders shows that people who have long suffered and have been conditioned to believe they have no alternative futures are hard to reach. Even though their existence was brutal under Pharaoh, it offered just enough of the crumbs of security to keep them loath to follow Moses into the wilderness of the unknown. It’s not unlike our citizens holding tightly to the scant security provided by welfare, food stamps, and the like that keeps them shackled, deterred from exploring their own dreams.

The Jewish elders did, with trepidation, take the small step of allowing Moses and his brother, Aaron, to approach the Pharaoh to seek their freedom.  Of course Pharaoh, a tyrant not accustomed to challenge, scoffed and refused Moses.  In fact, as punishment, Pharaoh ordered that the people of Israel not be given straw with which to make bricks and ordered more work be laid upon his slaves.  The people were beaten and the Jewish people of course blamed Moses and Aaron – not Pharaoh.[iv]  So naturally, being new to the workings of God and faith, Moses questioned God’s motives.

This ‘it’s your fault we suffer’ mentality, blaming the ones trying help instead of the source of hurt is a natural reaction of those engulfed by internalized oppression. It’s something we need to keep in mind as we offer a hand up to those who have become overly dependent on government.

And God comforted Moses – “see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land”. Moses went and told the people what God had said but they didn’t listen to Moses for ‘anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage’. [v]

Again the effects of oppression and fear, they didn’t want to hear anything more from someone rocking their boat.

And so began the confrontations with power and destruction that Pharaoh could never have imagined the people of Israel had supporting them. Moses, with the rod of God turned the water of the Nile into blood, fish died, the water stank and became undrinkable, and there was blood throughout Egypt.  Next came the frogs, then lice, flies, then the cattle of Egypt dying, boils, pestilence, hail with fire mingled, locusts, and three days of darkness so dense it could be felt.

Every time Moses told Pharaoh to ‘Let my people go’, but he refused.  You see, God had hardened his heart.[vi] God wanted all of Egypt to see clearly who the children of Israel were being delivered by.

Only one plague remained.

The last plague would kill the every first-born in every family, even the families of the beasts throughout Egypt. Only the houses of those whose doorways were marked with the blood of a lamb were spared death (which is where we get the name Passover (Pesah), God passed over these houses without harm).

It was this final plague that broke the Pharaoh because it took his only son. The Pharaoh finally ordered Moses to take his people and go.

Over six hundred thousand men, beside the women and children of Israel, journeyed from Rameses to Succoth on foot (being led by God in a pillar of cloud by day and by night in a pillar of fire) from where they would eventually make a camp by the Sea.  (Imagine 600,000 men (some 2 million counting women and children) following the dream of freedom.)

Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story – for the Pharaoh and Egyptian people had had a change of heart and came chasing after the Jews.

When the Jewish people saw that the Pharaoh and all the Chariots of Egypt had found them, one would think that after witnessing all the miracles and wonders they had seen God and Moses do, they would demonstrate some degree of confidence?  Nope.

Oppression is a tough nut to crack.

They panicked, cried out to the Lord and turned on Moses telling him that it would have been better if Moses had never come to them so they could have continued to serve the Egyptians rather than be led into the wilderness to die. “Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.”

Isn’t this just priceless, and a perfect illustration of why people should never fully trust the promises of government not run by Angels.  Resting one’s fate wholly on the vague promises and assurances of a narcissistic leader is a bad idea everywhere. Fortunately for the Jews, they had God.  Fortunately for you and I, the Constitution provides us with an enforcement provision that we all pray will never be needed, the Second Amendment.

This is where Moses took the Rod of God and divided the sea so that the people of Israel could walk to freedom. With no other options available, the Jewish people overcame their terror and walked on the sea floor towards freedom on the other side.  With hardened hearts, the Egyptians raced after them. When the Egyptians were past the water’s edge, God caused the wheels to come off the chariots and Moses, at God direction, caused the water to collapse on them behind the Jewish people.

And so the Jewish people became free by taking control of their own futures with their first steps into the divided sea.

And rest assured, it will likely take just as many acts and reassurances to demonstrate to Americans trapped in their oppression that a better future is ahead of them if they take control and reclaim their independence and personal responsibility.

Do you think these 600,000 Jewish men would have been so fearful if they had carried AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and a few thousand of Joe Biden’s shotguns?

Are you pointing that sword at me šaabb (young man)?

[i] Op-Ed: Was Rand Paul being ‘ridiculous’ about drones, as McCain said? No This article made an important point that the police have already blurred the line between domestic murder and terrorism in the case of LAPD Office Dorner.  “Dorner wound up dying in a cabin into which police say they fired “pyrotechnic tear gas” cannisters. How far in the future are drone attacks for the ostensible prevention of “future crime?””

[ii]Moses was a Jew, who as a baby had been saved and raised by the Pharaoh’s own sister from an order that Egyptians drown every male Jewish newborn to keep their numbers manageable.

What will happen if Obama Orders the U.S. Military to Confiscate Guns in America?

March 4, 2013

 (Are you sure? A military comprised primarily of sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of gun owning families.)

It is time for Americans to start thinking seriously about the possibility that their sons and daughters may be put in the untenable position going house-to-house, confiscating firearms and ammunition from their friends and family? What will they do?

Throughout the military – the kids, grandkids, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews and friends of veterans and gun enthusiasts are likely weighing the possibilities of such an order and just how far they personally would be willing to go in carrying out something that would rip the very fabric of this nation apart and go against everything they’ve sworn to protect.  In thinking the unthinkable, certainly they must be questioning the end game and who are the real good guys. Especially, when they see this President fail to pay homage to the recent death of the greatest American Sniper in history, Chris Kyle.  When they see this Commander in Chief fail to engage while our Ambassador in Benghazi and former Navy Seals are in the fight of their lives, wouldn’t a reasonable soldier reevaluate Obama’s fidelity to the code – we leave no one behindWhen Janet Napolitano’s Homeland Security Report labels returning Veterans and Tea Party people as potential terrorists, one has to ask what the heck is going on. When they see towns putting in place plans for confiscation of firearms from the “unruly” during emergency, when veterans are receiving letters deeming them incompetent to own firearms without due process – aren’t those in service wondering if they themselves will be the ones seen as threats, will they be the “unruly” that towns are talking about?

Will soldiers look closely if they are ordered to search American families’ homes?  Will most intentionally not see the old double barrel shotgun in the closet of another soldier’s father or grandfather? Will they speak quietly to local veterans and relatives telling them where they might search next? Will enough refuse, making it impossible for those like Hagel, Kerry, Brennan and certain military brass to fully weaken America and her future?  The veterans I know understand that the Second Amendment is in fact the keystone of the Constitution and without it – all the others would be put in jeopardy (if not now, then surely in a disarmed future). The Founders certainly understood this, why can’t Obama and his friends?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do know the time is close when each of us will need to choose our paths. It may not be today, but I can see it coming just over the horizon.

Can you?

[If one listens only to the mainstream media, you probably can’t. I would suggest you broaden your information base.]

Will a young soldier choose Obama and their personal career over the Constitution, over the freedom of their families and their families’ families, over the sacrifices of veterans in whose boots each soldier now walks; over the ability of their own wives, daughters and sons to defend themselves; and over the ability (in an increasingly dangerous world) of ordinary Americans to stand against tyranny?  What choices will local Sheriffs, FBI agents, ATF agents, local police make? What do you think?

If you are on the ‘progressive’ left, what do you think?  Are you sure?  Really?

As you can see, both Democrats and Establishment Republicans are moving in the same direction towards less freedom.

As you can see, both Democrats and Establishment Republicans are moving in the same direction towards less freedom.

Let’s look at a few demographics that might cause you on the left to reassess your certainty.

In 2001, a survey was completed by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in North Carolina of the 50 states, DC and Territories asking people nationwide if there are any guns in their homes.  The percentage of people having guns in their homes ranged from 59.7% in Wyoming to 3.8% in Washington, D.C. with an average in the 50 states (plus DC) of 37.6%. Even though this poll is somewhat dated, it’s sufficiently accurate for purpose of this article (if anything the percentage of gun owners in many states is rising now).

The military also tracks statistics regarding its forces.  In 2010, the available pool of 18-24 years old enlistees was 29,004,915 and the number of actual recruits was 156,289 – just .005% (half of one percent).  Additionally, they calculate the numbers of recruits coming from the various states in terms of the number available in relationship to the number of recruits actually provided. For example: The state pulling the most weight compared to the others was Florida (+2.30%) by providing 7.50% of military recruits even though they have available only 5.20% of the nation’s 18 to 24 year olds.  (Note: comparing Florida’s recruiting numbers with its gun numbers is interesting because the gun percentage has been negatively effected, skewed downward, by the massive number of retirees in Florida with no guns.) The state puling the least weight compared to the others was – wait for it – New York.  NY had 6.6% of the nations’ available 18 to 24 year olds but provided only 4.10% of the nation’s recruits for a net contribution of minus -2.5%New York is not contributing its ‘fair share’.

The regional numbers gives us a sense who’s doing their fair share (in terms of slacking or pulling their weight) providing for the defense of the nation:

  • NORTHEAST REGION had 18.2% of the available pool of recruits but provided only 12.7% of recruits giving a contribution number of –5.5%.
  • NORTH CENTRAL REGION had 23.3% of the available pool of recruits but provided only 20.2% of recruits giving a contribution number of –2.1%.
  • SOUTH REGION had 35.8% of the available pool of recruits but provided only 43.4% of recruits giving a contribution number of +7.6%.
  • WEST REGION had 23.7% of the available pool of recruits but provided only 23.6% of recruits giving a contribution number of -.1%.  (This group would have been a net positive contribution region but for the presence of California’s minus 1.6%.)

[22 of 50 states did not provide a percentage of actual recruits equal to or greater than their percentage of available 18 to 25 year olds]

Now let’s look at how the above numbers relate to the percentage of guns in homes in each state. The 22 states plus DC with a net negative contribution to the nation’s defense had an average of 31.26% of their households having guns. The 27 states having a net positive contribution to the nation’s defense had an average of 42.07% of households having guns.

The 10 states (plus DC) with the lowest percentage of guns in households had 33% of the national pool of available 18-24 year olds and only provided 25.02% of recruits.  They had an average of 16.45% of households having guns. Slackers.

The 10 states with the highest percentage of guns in households had 9% of the national pool of available 18-24 year olds and provided 10.81% of the nations recruits. They had an average of 52% of their households having guns. Oorah!

Conclusions to be drawn from the above percentages are that states with the lowest number of households having guns are the biggest slackers when it comes to the nation’s defense and states with the highest percentage of guns in their households make the biggest contribution to the nation’s defense.

I’m not knocking the recruits from the above states that failed to provide their ‘fair share’ of recruits.  I honor them, like I do all veterans. It’s not their fault where they live.  But how much do you want to bet these recruits from slacker states overwhelming came from the families having guns in their households?

My brothers and I all have guns; we’ve had guns since we were very young. I used to take my shotgun to the middle school I attended and keep it in my locker so I could shoot a few squirrels after the school day. No big deal. I’m the youngest of four boys and every one of us joined the military because our father served in WWII (he was in General Patton’s 3rd Army, fought in the Battle of the Bulge, was a guard at the Nuremberg War Trials). I can say without doubt it mattered a lot to me that my dad served; and I would suspect that that still matters to those who serve that some of their family members also served. When I served, most of the men and women in our P-3 squadron had family who had served before them.  I think it is safe to assume that prior military service of family members is a common trait of today’s soldier (by their fruit you will recognize them).

Additionally, military families are much more likely to have guns in their households than civilian families; and thus it stands to reason, that families who have family members who have served are also more likely to have guns. (Guns are fun – whether for hunting, target shooting, competition events for men, women, boys and girls, gay, lesbian, LGBT, etc. – and guns are necessary for self-defense and unfortunately for keeping the politicians from slipping over the line into tyranny.)

Regretfully for today’s young people, (according to a 2009 Gallup Poll) “Veteran status is just slightly above 10% for men under age 35, rises slightly among men between 35 and 54, and then begins to rise sharply among men 55 years of age or older”.  In 2009, only about 7% of men 18-24 years old and 2% of women the same age were either veterans or on active duty.  Men 80-84 years old in 2009 (WWII service), 74% were veterans. This decline in reported veteran/active duty status correlates perfectly to the end of the draft in 1973 (Vietnam war ended in 1975). However, given that every man and woman currently serving are volunteers (about 1,350,000 in 2006), I would expect that most of these soldiers come from families with brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, or grandfathers who served; and as such, are from families who are more likely to have guns.

How about political party affiliation, the military and guns?

Gallup reported that 34% of veterans and those on active duty (2009) identified as Republicans, 29% identified as Democrats (coming from gun families I bet), and 33% as Independents. An interesting tidbit in the 2009 Gallup Poll, is that the number veterans of the WWII generation identifying as Republicans was only 2 percentage points greater than non-veterans identifying as Republicans, which indicates to me that almost everyone knew WHY they were fighting (both parties knew).

[From visiting military forums from time to time, I get a sense that the number of military identifying as Independents and Libertarians is growing.]

However, I have two polls for you to consider, one from 2008 showed that McCain had support of 68% of the military and the other in 2012 showed that Romney had support of 66%.  So let’s just say that the Republican candidate (or the not Democrat candidate) is likely to get over 60% of military support.  Unfortunately, many times it appears (for some mysterious reason) difficult to get ballots to our overseas military in a timely manner (40% of 2012 Connecticut military ballots were never received).

Regarding guns in homes and Party identification, the NYT (can’t believe I’m citing the NYT) had an interesting article this past December.  The article broke down the likelihood of having guns in voters’ households by various factors such as Party, race, gender, region, population density, etc. based upon 2008 exit polling.  Overall, in 2008, 42% of all voters had guns in their households.  However, only 31% of Democrats had guns in their households in 2008 and that number has been decreasing for the past 40 years. Republicans had a respectable 56% of their voter households having guns.  So we have a military that consistently votes Republican, military families more likely than civilians to have guns, gun states provide more than their ‘fair share’ of military recruits and Republican families more likely to have guns. All good. (Unfortunately, the exit polling reflected in the article did not provide info for Independents, etc. It does cite a survey indicating about 30% of Independents, 50% of Republicans, and 22% of Democrats had guns in 2010.) Given the current Obama assault on the Second Amendment, I would expect that the number of Republican, Libertarian and Independent gun owners is increasing, sales certainly are.

Obama evidently won the firearms salesman of the year in New Hampshire gun store.

[If we could only get Democrats to start enjoying gun activities more, maybe we could bridge the partisan divide.]

From the same poll, let’s look at race and guns in American households. The article indicates that 37% of white Democrat voters have guns in their households and 55% of white Republicans; 28% of Hispanic Democrats and 32% of Hispanic Republicans voters have guns in their households; 5% of Asian Democrats have guns in their households and 22% of Asian Republicans; and 17% of Black Democrat voters have guns in their households and 41% of Black Republicans have guns.  Again Republicans (probably mostly conservatives and independents, as opposed to establishment GOP) of every ethnic group have a much greater likelihood of having guns in their homes.  I would suggest a substantial majority of those from every ethnic group serving likely come from families that have guns in their households.

I’m encouraged by the percentage of Black voters having guns in their homes. Recently, many Americans have been reintroduced to the fact that historically gun control has been about black people control and that the NRA was founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect freed slaves from the KKK.  In fact, recently the NRA introduced a young black man, Colion Noir, as a new contributor.  Mr. Noir apparently has a remarkable ability to present the issues concerning gun control in an easily understandable manner (he also has a nice Facebook page).

In 2010, the breakdown according to race and gender of the military’s Active Component Enlistment was basically 69.2% White (72% of male recruits are White, 57.9% of female recruits are White), 18.2% Black (15.8% of male recruits are Black, 27.9% of female recruits are Black), 15.7% Hispanic and 80.3% non-Hispanic (a bit confusing because numbers don’t add up – maybe some recruits are reporting multiple ethic backgrounds – like Sen. Elizabeth Warren saying she’s Native American when she’s not).  Women make up 14% of today’s Active Component of Enlistment in the military (18-44 year olds).

Women gun owners are rising fast in their numbers.  Seventy Three percent of gun dealers said the number of women buying guns has increased in 2011.  There’s also been a 51.5% increase in the number of women participating in target shooting from 2001 to 2011, just over 5 million women.  The number of women owning firearms has jumped too – from 13% in 2005 to 23% in 2013. Excellent!

So what does this mean?  It means that the vast majority of military would have to disarm members of their own families, or their friends’ families if Obama gives the order to confiscate the firearms owned by law abiding Americans.

Would they?  I don’t know. I hope not, given that their allegiance is supposedly to the Constitution and not Obama. I can’t believe that our military would go in lock step to implement such an order.

Would they sabotage Obama, Holder and Napolitano’s efforts? I don’t know. I think that’s possible, maybe ever probable.

I do hope that those in the military are seriously considering their options.  Maybe they will follow the lead of Obama’s union buddies and organize a massive sit-down strike or a massive resignation based upon a reasonable belief that the order is unlawful and in violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Who knows? Maybe a few in the JAG Corps are privately preparing (at least thinking though the procedures, arguments and process) a possible legal action challenging the lawfulness of such an order to the Federal Courts.

I do believe that it won’t be pretty.

[Even some people in Russia are advising Americans to never give up your guns.]

Don’t the Occupy Wall Street types realize that they too will have their guns taken?  Don’t they realize the really rich they hate will probably always have access to guns?  It could be a reason why some legislators are turning to the ideas of having expensive liability insurance for gun owners and high taxes on ammo. Poor and middle class people couldn’t afford to own or enjoy guns – leaving only government people, criminals and the well off having guns.

So what do I think gun owners might be thinking about these days?

I suppose some urban gun owners (where confiscation would likely first occur) are thinking about moving some of their guns to rural friends or family (maybe to family living in the south or Texas).  Probably, some rural people are starting to hide a few of their weapons here and there.  A few are probably buying guns that can’t be traced to them personally.  People might be acquiring an old, broken gun or two, from friends or family to have something available to turn over if there’s an unlawful search by the powers that be (giving local law enforcement a reason to move on to the next house).  A few people may be exploring the new reality of printing guns with 3D printers. Many, many people are buying up ammo and ordering new guns. People are buying guns in other states. I expect that many returning veterans and civilians thinking about talking to their doctors about some emotional issue, like a mild depression, are reconsidering it out of fear their doctor will rat them out and keep them from owning guns.  Many people have joined the NRA, many are now networking, tens of thousands are protesting.

We all need to do what we can!  Gun people need to get to know and support their local sheriff, talk to those in the military, talk to veterans, find attorneys who will represent those who are arrested for refusing to turn over firearms, support lawsuits against new gun laws, get involved in your community, get organizations to set up shooting competitions in their town for young people, get your kids involved in shooting competitions, call elected officials, and work to get those with a gun control fetish thrown out of office.  We can’t allow the nanny state progressives to succeed in painting gun ownership and sport as anything other than something everyone should want to take part in (except those with serious mental illness; and no, having a sad day every once in a while is not a mental illness).

I pray confiscation doesn’t happen, but people in both the military and civilian worlds need to be prepared for the worst and decide how they will manage to hold to their principles. It could be that if millions of Americans (civilian and military) are prepared to be arrested for their right to keep firearms (taking a page from Martin Luther King), the government’s efforts would fall apart.    However, if our military does prove itself to be willing to confiscate law abiding American citizens guns, then maybe we don’t deserve our freedoms – and all the sacrifices of all veterans who have come and gone before will have been for naught.

The Media, Politicians and Uninformed Citizens are a Bigger Threat than Guns

February 25, 2013

The hyperbole, the high and mighty discussions, the knee-jerk legislative reactions surrounding the gun debate (assault on the Second Amendment) these past few months have been absolutely crazy, shortsighted, misinformed, misdirected, unconscionable and potentially dangerous. There are moves in the works to require every gun owner in New York state to carry 1 million dollars worth of liability insurance estimated to cost between $1,600 to $2,000 annually, which would mainly prevent the poor and struggling families from having access to guns for self-defense.  In Washington State a legislator was trying to require certain gun owners to allow the sheriff to inspect their homes once a year.  A lot of veterans, hundreds perhaps thousands, are receiving letters that they cannot own or process firearms, deemed incompetent without due process Even though the above attempts have strong arguments against them on Constitutional grounds (2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 14th), that does not make them in any way palatable. 

The fact that veterans’ are having their rights taken away without due process raises another concern.  Who will say, and what standards will be used to say, a person is competent enough to own a firearm or not?  What about a person with a chronic back issue who was referred to a counselor because he or she felt a little blue and might benefit from talking with someone about dealing their new limitations?

Would Obama say this or that person is unfit to own a firearm?  (It might depend on his or her political Party registration with Obama.) 

No matter what the media and politicians around the nation are saying and trying to do, the real issue is not the Constitutional right of competent people in the United States to own firearms.  The Second Amendment my friend is a good thing, a necessary thing for everyone’s protection.

In our American tapestry, guns in the hands of competent law abiding citizens are a big net positive. They provide an effective deterrent to many types of crime (random assault, home invasion, burglary, rape, etc.).  Doesn’t it make sense that a violent predator or burglar would be much more likely to target those people (older, smaller, weaker, or disabled) who they have reason to believe are unarmed, or to target homes believed less likely to be protected by people with firearms?  Thus, having a significant portion of our responsible population armed also protects those who are not armed raising uncertainty in the mind of criminals.

Case in point, most of the recent mass killings in the news took place in venues that were expected not be adequately protected. In fact, most occurred in gun free zones, which is like putting up a sign that says ‘Look, Easy Pickings’(Just to note, the vast majority of violent crimes do not involve the actions of strangers.  They are committed by someone know to the victim – friends, family, acquaintances.) However, the focus of this article is not primarily about guns.

It’s about politicians and media taking advantage of every crisis, real or manufactured, to further their agendas and misinform the vast majority of those who are too busy to pay close attention.  Regarding the gun issue (like they do nearly every other issue), the U.S. media consistently fails to cover the issue fairly and honestly; and most times they fail to present all the relevant facts.  When they report statistics about gun violence, they nearly always fail to even attempt to report on a number that I’m sure would dwarf the number of people killed or injured by disturbed and violent people using firearms for nefarious purposes.  This number is the number of deaths, injuries, robberies, rapes, assaults, or burglaries that did NOT occur; or where damages and injuries were reduced; or criminal activities were forced to end early because the criminal(s) were thwarted, because there was an armed victim, an armed guard, an armed civilian intervener, or common knowledge that many people in this state or neighborhood might be armed, or something as innocuous as an NRA bumper sticker on a car.

They fail to report on nations like Switzerland that requires all men 20 to 42 to own automatic rifles (their lack of gun crime) or a survey of 9 countries gun laws and gun crime in Foreign Policy magazine that “…did not find any correlation between firearm control and ownership on the one hand and violent crime on the other….”

Sorry to use this well worn cliché, but it is very true.  When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have gunsHave you read the stories about it now being possible to print guns, gun magazines and gun parts with 3D printers?  These guns could be made in a way with a 3D printer as to be nearly undetectable. Now that’s a scary thought.

Is the government going after 3D printers, then crossbows, machetes, knives, martial arts schools, etc.? Everyone knows criminals are not going to buy liability insurance, are not going to register their guns, they simply are not going to comply and they will find or make the weapons they want.  This leaves the real purpose of these current legislative efforts – to make gun ownership too burdensome and expensive for ordinary law abiding Americans (except for the rich and powerful), for now.

While I hope that these zealot ‘progressive’ legislators will discontinue their insistence on going down the path of disarming the nation because it will surely nudge many reasonable law abiding people to consider disobeying the law, I’m afraid that they are too blinded by their ideology.  The 2nd Amendment (which protects all the other Amendments) is extremely important to tens of millions of Americans and for good reason. And when the left’s endgame is apparent to the vast majority, we can expect many if not most of these good folks to not take these efforts lying down.

Thankfully, today there are some standing up to these purveyors of deceit, those peddling a notion that Americans’ ability to adequately defend themselves against thugs, rapists and murderers needs to be castrated and turned over to the government.  How dare they dictate to a woman, an elderly person, a disabled person, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, or any person how they can or cannot defend their person, their family, their property, or their home against violence.  Everyone knows that by the time the police (in almost every case) get to the scene of an attack or burglary – they are there mainly to collect evidence, call the ambulance, or the coroner, or both.  Several Sheriffs around the country have made it clear that they will not be enforcing  new gun control measures that curtail their citizens’ ability to defend themselves and their homes. Many legislators in gun friendly states are making efforts to quash the current volley of attacks on the 2nd Amendment. Forty-four Gun companies are refusing to sell their products to law enforcement agencies in states that are attacking the 2nd Amendment.  Everyone needs to stand up and support these companies, legislators, Sheriffs, organizations like the NRA, and supportive media personalities.

There is however one specific action in defense of the 2nd Amendment that I would love to see happen and Texas is the place I like to see it happen.

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.

What if a state like Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, were to say that it desires to maintain a WELL REGULATED standby militia and that every adult in the state, who applies and passes a background check, would be registered on a confidential list (not shared with the fed)?  Then each person would be requested to safely maintain at least 1 firearm, up to 20 (assault weapons allowed), in their home.  They would not be subject to sales taxes on said arms and ammunition, nor would they be subject to the legislative imposition of mandatory individual liability insurance on said weapons?  Each person could be issued a card that identifies the person’s special skills in the event of an emergency (CPR training, life guard experience, military experience, helicopter pilot, truck driver, fire fighter, police training, diver, etc.)  This could be a real program with a real purpose for Texas.

Guns will always be with us, but the real question is how we will recognize and treat those with hearts and minds so damaged that they should not be allowed to own a firearm? The media apparently doesn’t really care about this question.

Our genuflecting media is in reality more interested in disarming those Obama, Holder, Napalotano and they themselves disagree with, or think they disagree with, or think they might disagree with in the future when they make more progress on their agendas – than they are in protecting victims and the rights of the American people. Regretfully, people armed merely with pitchforks and shaking fists do not worry these genuflecting fools, given they believe they are protected by Obama and Holder.  First they came for the Jews…and I did not speak out.

These proposed gun control laws will not work; and unfortunately, many times they will have the opposite effect.   Did you know that states with the most legal gun ownership have seen the largest reductions in violent crimes? The only thing these regulations and banning might do is to cause the uninformed person feel a little bit better because he or she believes that at least ‘they’ are doing something. Obama’s trying!  [Honey it’s so good they are trying to ban those nasty assault machine guns. Honey could you pass me the remote? Honey, who’s on Saturday Night Live tonight?]

Here’s a quote that a visiting scholar, John Lott, at the University of Chicago reported Obama having said to him when discussing the gun issue:  “I don’t think people should be able to own guns.”

This statement reflects what the vast majority of people who support the Constitution believe to be the heart’s desire of Obama, of many on the ‘progressive left’, and of most in mainstream media.

It’s not about guns. It’s about agenda for the left and not having anyone who can stop it.  It’s about proposing extreme measures so that when additional gun restrictions are put in place people will accept them because they are not as bad as they could have been.  Then they start with the next round, and so on.

[Putting a frog in a pot and turning up the heat slowing so it won’t notice until it’s to late comes to mind.]

The real issues regarding violence, and gun violence in particular, are that severe mental disorders are not being properly identified or managed effectively in our society and that many societal factors are desensitizing the psyches of troubled individuals to extreme violence. Many of these people are young, still developing their sense of right and wrong.

Some examples of societal factors that might play a part in the desensitizing process to violence are violent video games, extreme violence in movies, RAP music that denigrates women and glorifies violence, late-term abortions and infanticide of babies who survive abortions (supported by Obama) demonstrating a growing lack of respect for life, spousal abuse, the how our society treats our elderly (warehousing and hoping they will die), the moral relativism of this administration (i.e. drone attacks on American citizens without any due process of law), gang culture in cities, violence caused by there being so MUCH profit in illegal drugs, Obama and Hillary basically shrugging their shoulders at the deaths of 4 Americans they left behind in Benghazi (“What difference does it make now?”), etc.,  etc.

The morays and principles of our society and our politicians are degenerating before our eyes.  Do we really want the only ones with guns to be the current bunch of degenerates in charge of taxing, spending, setting the agenda, controlling our lives?  Can’t you imagine where this government, with its questionable sense of morality and priorities, will lead us?  Or the next? Can’t you imagine the possibility of tyranny?  Don’t you know that disarming a country’s citizens is a fundamental step of tyrants throughout history?

However, these factors are not the focus of the media because they on board with Obama’s belief that private citizens should not own guns.  So the agenda driven media is all in regarding putting in forth the fairy tale that guns are the issue. It’s just like with Benghazi – it was the video!

Today’s naïve, agenda driven, media is the omnipotent villain (dare I say evil villain) in the current narration of America, an America where the majority of her people are desperately clinging to the ideas of representative government and individual freedoms. It is an America in a state of anger and resentment, simmering, intentionally polarized; being constantly prodded by Obama, the left and their friends to find her breaking point (trying to force churches and people of faith to be complicit in abortions and contraceptives, vilifying gun owners, encouraging people to be dependent on the government, vilifying the religious communities, setting Israel up for destruction, ignoring Constitutional constraints, vilifying business, ignoring a national debt that will cripple us, destroying our healthcare system, increasing the costs of energy though destructive energy policies, persecuting whistleblowers, vilifying ordinary Americans like those in the Tea Party, vilifying  Palin, Cruz, Rubio, Romney, etc.).

Almost everyone knows things are really screwed up, but they differ on where to place blame and how to resolve things.  And I strongly believe that the vast majority of America’s informed citizens (those paying attention to multiple media sources other than, or in addition to, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Current TV, John Stewart, Charlie Rose, Entertainment Tonight, or NPR) are completely aware that, but for a corrupt, compliant media, this unbridled centralized government taking shape under Obama would be impotent in its relentless quest make our rights and privileges as citizens subservient to the tenets of the few.

We are awake to the fact that this government relies on its media friends to keep the American people misinformed, confused and blaming straw men.  We are fully aware that this media keeps Obama from having to take responsibility for the messes that he creates, and keeps him in campaign mode where he excels.  (And the uninformed masses become sheep bleating baah, baah – which means we think Obama is fighting for us against ‘them’.)

I use the adjective naïve to describe today’s media because it, they, appear so completely oblivious to the great likelihood that the path they are trying to direct America’s future will inevitably lead to they themselves becoming nothing more than mouthpieces for those in charge.

[The ‘Hunger Games’ comes to mind.]

As history has shown over and over – the keepers, distributors, and controllers of critical information, written history and ‘truth’ hold the real power in any society though its ability to shape and direct the awareness and emotions of the multitude of those too busy working and/or struggling to survive.

Such power so wielded is the power of ‘revelation and empowerment’ or ‘control and tyranny’, depending on the character of those who have near exclusive access to news worthy information. Unfortunately, today we have an ideologically simpatico media that has ceded its duty to be journalists for the American people. They (the media) have become so seduced or conditioned to the notion that ‘we’ would be much better off being subservient to the enlightened few (the Progressive Left) leading this nation to its rightful place of mediocrity (merely a nation among nations), undergoing a managed decline in our living standard, being unburdened by arcane notions of religion or higher powers, being unrestricted by the Constitution subject only to ‘progressive’ whims and visions, making decisions as to who is worthy of life, at what age we become a burden and unworthy of medical treatment, deciding whose opinions should be heard, what is acceptable thought, who should be disarmed, and dictating that we will be governed by an all powerful centralized government.

[The Borg Collective from Star Trek comes to mind, however resistance in our case is a necessary for all those who yearn to be free.]

Thankfully, because secondary sources of information are rapidly expanding though of the marvel of the Internet (citizen journalists, bloggers, etc.) and private ventures like Glenn Beck’s network– the mainstream media is in fact losing a substantial amount of its credibility and influence story by story, with each demonstration of selective editing, unjust vilification, or omission of relevant facts and opinion.  And one day, the day will come that the powers that be will offer ‘journalists’ little or no choice in how or what information they can share – and America’s people will hear the ‘media’ call out to those who for so many years they have betrayed – help us, please!

[It’s the story of the boy who cried wolf one too many times (or hugged Obama one too many times).]

How far journalism has fallen and will likely continue to fall from its noble role as protector of democracy, informers of the uninformed, standing up to power and corruption, through its embrace of infatuation and ideology over responsibility.

When the real, I mean truly big crisis(s) comes, as surely it will, I can only pray that the American people who will likely suffer the most (the poor, the unemployed, those in big cities, those with high debt, those on fixed incomes, me, my wife, etc.) will be wise enough not to allow their anger and rage to turn to violence against the targets Obama and his courtier media have so artfully and so wrongly identified as the causes of their problems – businesses (small and large), the Tea Party, the wealthy, people doing somewhat okay, people living in suburbs, Banks, Wall Street, Romney, anyone named Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, big whatever (oil, insurance, etc.), the  GOP, Conservatives, Libertarians, people of faith, and NRA members (of which I’m one).

I would pray that what happened in Germany seventy something years ago, when Hitler so artfully and so wrongly targeted the Jews as the source of Germany’s problem, does not happen again.  I hope the people see clearly and take their pitchforks to stand on the doorsteps of those who have truly lied, stretched and manipulated ‘truth’, vilified, shaped and conjured the ‘facts’, over and over again, and hold them accountable.  Politicians and media who have sacrificed truth and service to Americans for an unsustainable corrupt agenda (questing for personal power and dependent voters, an agenda appropriate only for sheep and tyrants) are the ones who need to answer.

WHY have you done this to America?

But remember, they don’t fear people armed merely with pitchforks and clinched fists.


I made a chart based on a chalkboard drawing that Glenn Beck uses from time to time to illustrate that both Parties are moving towards less freedom.  The main difference is that the Democrats are moving at a greater speed than the establishment Republicans.  It’s worth spending a little time thinking about and deciding where you fall on the line of freedom.

As you can see, both Democrats and Establishment Republicans are moving in the same direction towards less freedom.

As you can see, both Democrats and Establishment Republicans are moving in the same direction towards less freedom.


November 14, 2012


Social and Fiscal Conservatives May Want to Take a Second Look at the Libertarian Party.

Well, on November 6, the American people went to the polls to select a Santa – hmmm – President. It turned out to be a very sad day for both America and Israel. The outcome deeply disappointed many millions of voters because it became crystal clear that there are sufficient numbers of takers to overcome reason regarding economics, sustainability, the rule of law, the Constitution, and the negative impacts of big government.  They, the takers, seem completely at ease with subjugating the rights and liberties of everyone else in order get their stuff. Welcome to higher taxes, fewer jobs, death panels, more government control, longer lines, etc.

However, it’s now time to get back up, dust ourselves off and get back to work.

Emerging from this election were several lessons that the GOP must learn. First, the media will always aid the Democrat candidate’s effort to get elected, will twist the Republican candidate’s beliefs and record into something extreme regardless of what the truth actually is and will even go so far as to ignore and shape news that might negatively impact their candidate.  Second, election fraud is alive and well in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Minnesota and other battleground states in sufficient degree to overcome the will of the people.  And third, the GOP must keep its principles or disband.  (I suppose one first has to define its principles, which might be different for the big government establishment of the Party.)

If the GOP elite are willing to toss away the principles of the majority of the Party (limited Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, helping those in need get to their feet without creating dependency/enslavement) then they can count on many social conservatives, fiscal ‘Tea Party’ conservatives and many in between staying home.  Principles must not only be important to the GOP, but also to a sufficient majority (enough to overcome voter fraud) if the nation has any chance to survive and avert becoming an authoritarian state.

Principles are not something to run away from. This is the argument the GOP must make to conservative Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.  Unfortunately right now, it appears that the vast majority of minorities are either completely brainwashed by the media and the Democrat Party or simply more interested in voting for what they misperceive as being in their best interest.  That’s a real tragedy because what they are really voting for is allowing their potential lives to pass them by, being told where to go, when to go and why to go.  Sad.

However, there might be another option disenfranchised GOP voters might take. They (as individuals) might decide that for the good of the nation they can reach an understanding, accommodation, and/or alliance with the Libertarian Party and put the GOP out of its misery unless it wakes up.

If one really thinks about it, the Libertarian Party might be a much better philosophical match for many people of faith and fiscal conservatives.  There’s a quiz on the website that might surprise you.  Before you take the quiz, I hope you read 3 articles I wrote concerning marriage, abortion, and drug legalization. Marriage is the Domain of the Church and God proposes that government should not be in the business of marriage at all. Obama Would Evidently Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater looks at Obama’s position and balancing interests along the timeline of pregnancy. A Step Towards Respect of Our Laws and The Social Mores by Legalizing Drugs is self-explainatory.

But first an admission – I was a bit angry with Gov. Gary Johnson for not throwing his support behind Gov. Romney to prevent Obama from further damaging the nation and the economy. However, after a few days, with reflection, I am now able to recognize (admit) that it is a principled act to vote for the person with whom you most agreed with.  But for me, even though I almost always self-identify as a Libertarian, I vote mainly Republican because they are the most likely to slow down the train on its journey to collapse of the economy and liberty.

So how can Social Conservatives possibly come to support a Party that could support legalization of drugs, prostitution and gay marriage without sacrificing their principles?

The answer goes back the very foundation of Christianity. Freewill, faith, and living a Christ like (spirit focused) life.  (Note – my personal beliefs have been shaped by family, study in college, and my own experiences through living, succeeding, failing, reflecting. It’s not my intention to endorse any particular path over any other here.)

Freewill is the essence of being a human being – the ability and right coming from God to make choices. Freewill applies to everyone (with the ability to make informed decisions, i.e. adults); even when we do stupid, self-destructive acts.  It’s what Obama and his supporters would like to remove from those with whom they disagree.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

Whatever your interpretation of these passages, they certainly involve choices freely made and carry consequences expressed and implied.  Even though different thoughts comes to each person’s mind when reading the words and phrases ‘love’, ‘soul’, ‘Lord your God’, ‘eternal life’, ‘your neighbor as yourself’, and ‘you will live’; I do hope they don’t involve giving the government power to limit your conscience and dictate what beliefs are acceptable.  (Even for the non-believer, these passages describe a process that could lead to a deep level of self-discovery.)

The above passages might also explain why the Bible says, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”  Can’t the same be said for all of us – we’re all damaged goods to some degree? We all struggle separated from our lives’ potential and/or the spirit by our own attachments (money, drugs, alcohol, jealousy, envy, power, wants, porn, politics, video games, iPhone 5,the Internet, dependency on government).

However, I do believe that one person’s problematic attachments can’t be universally applied to everyone else. Do you?

Separation is the issue and that which causes separation is the problem for the individual.  Those of faith can’t bring others to understanding or conformity simply by enacting laws forbidding objectionable conduct. It’s their journey and their decisions. You only make criminals of them and make it harder for them leave it behind when they come to their senses.  People of faith can only act as examples, live honestly, live with principles, raise strong families, voice their opinions, help their neighbors, find support in like minded people and vote. (We can rightly strengthen laws aimed at preventing the injurious consequences of bad decisions like drunk or drugged driving to the innocent.)

Those of every faith trying to live spiritual, reflective, loving lives are important because they act as examples of stability, responsibility, love and principle. They serve as models (for those caught up in the satisfy and serve me, me, me of today’s world) of thousands of years of understanding of what works, even today. Recognizing something bigger than yourself, raising a responsible family, redemption and achievement are not bad things.

Personal salvation (religious or otherwise) is not achieved through government action implementing its version of ‘social justice’ (code for socialism).  It is not social justice when the government steals from those who have struggled to be successful to ‘help’ thoseit chooses (creating dependency in exchange for dependable votes).  In fact, most times it makes it more difficult for those called (love your neighbor as yourself) to help the poor, the innocent, and those in need.  Take for example, the attack on the ‘religious liberty’ rights of employers (Catholic Church) by forcing them to pay for abortions and contraceptives vis-à-vis providing health insurance that must cover contraception and abortions.  To be true to Catholic beliefs about life beginning at conception, they will need to stop providing any health insurance to their employees, possibly close their hospitals.  This is actually what Obama wants. He wants to destroy the private insurance market so the government (while blaming believers and secular employers who can’t afford Obamacare) will be ‘forced’ to go to a single payer system with them (death panels) saying who is worthy of life and medical resources.

I’m sure the Libertarian Party would support the Religious Liberty rights of those (seeking to contract for appropriate health insurance) with deeply held beliefs struggling against intrusive government.

Thankfully, the Catholic Church is saying there’s a 100% chance of civil disobedience if the feds don’t back off.  I’ll be there with them, will you?

The current path the government is on (dominated by socialists and leftists) is one of dictating what people must believe, how they must act, how they must think, what choices they have available, what recourse (lack of recourse, i.e. guns) they have available to stand up against unjust, dishonest, authoritarian government today and in the future.

The proper role of our federal government is intentionally limited and is meant to protect the space around the individual for him or her to make their choices and reach their potential (or not).  The path of Obama’s government can only lead to mediocrity and dependency for the masses.  It’s one with no real future or choices for anyone, especially the very old and the very young.  Surely people of faith must find such a future where freewill plays such a minimal role abhorrent.  It’s the Story of the Tower of Babel being repeated – turning Americans into uniform bricks.

It’s not a course for those who truly want to be free.

American Democracy and The Voting Booth – a Sanctum for Informed Decision, Ignorance or Acquiescence?

September 28, 2012

American Democracy and The Voting Booth – a Sanctum for Informed Decision, Ignorance or Acquiescence?

On November 6th, the curtains will be drawn closed and a voting booth will be transformed into an adytum of democracy for a single American Voter, a confessional of the individual voter’s core. But will the voter closing those curtains be aware of just how special this privilege is? Will he or she be intimately aware of how many lives have been sacrificed to guard and protect the right to enter this revered space? Will they feel any responsibility if they make an uninformed decision? Will they be aware of the burden their decisions carry?

Have any of you voted for the lesser of two evils? I’ve heard this comment every election cycle. I’ve said it. I think it generally arises because voters feel like they are so far removed from the candidates that they never can never properly size up a candidate and really know what is true or not true about them.  It seems to be an acknowledgment they are going with associations, their gut, their expectations, but nothing really grabs them(It also seems to help when talking to neighbors who voted for the other guy.)

The candidate belongs to my Party, my church, has been recommended by someone I trust, comes from my part of the country, looks like me, seems to agree with me on something, etc.  Seems reasonable when that’s all you have. In 2008, Obama, with a little help from the media, tapped into the ‘I finally have something to grab on to’ vote and people jumped on board enthusiastically and emotionally.  Given Obama’s lack of experience, the race thing, whether we want to admit it or not, was a big part of it the 2008 – first black President, breaking barriers, making history, end of racism, the guilt for America’s past could be assuaged.  Thankfully all that’s been done; and hopefully, we have more than just that today if we’re willing to do a little Internet digging. Did race play a part in your vote? Will it play a part this election?

Have any of you regretted a vote you made?  I have. My first Presidential election in 1976, I was a registered Democrat, my parents were Democrats, all my brothers were Democrats, so I voted for Jimmy Carter; no thought given; no investigation made, zip, zero, nada. I then had the opportunity to serve under him in the United States Navy, watched my father’s building business collapse, my family suffer, my older brother was forced to drop out of college, gas and food prices soared and I began thinking that I might need think a little deeper about government, economics and my decisions. And, I had to accept responsibility for my part in electing Carter and his subsequent actions as President. It’s all part of moving on.

When you vote this time what’s going to be the basis of your decision?  The incumbent’s record, the economy, what the media suggests, what your family thinks, is the candidate in your Party, of your race, your church, your religion, rebellion, does he somewhat match your beliefs, do you trust him? Voting for Carter really opened my eyes because for the first time in my life it really hit home that these things matter and can have dire consequences.

Now, unlike in 76, I’m conscious about giving myself permission to vote for the candidate I believe to be best suited to deal with the issues facing the nation today and going into the future.  I’ll be the only one present in the Adytum, the inner sanctum. I have permission to vote against Party, family, spouse, religion, region, race, gender – whatever might draw me into an emotional, uninformed selection.

I wonder how many others are going to even think about permission to vote differently than their friends, family, associations, Party, or race?

I can imagine how hard it must be for a person of color, or a college student on a liberal campus to express how they might be feeling about Obama now. Just this week comic actor, John Leguizamo, said, “Latin people for Republicans are like roaches for raid”?  Really? Really?  Really? Really?  The ease with which some spew vitriol if someone dares to hold an opinion or gives support to a candidate that differs from the ‘sanctioned’ choices for a particular group is truly amazing and disheartening.

I wonder if this fear of attack is being reflected in the polling today?  I can certainly imagine a person of color, or a person in a deep blue state, who may hold conservative views and is leaning towards Romney, being afraid to honestly voice their opinion to a pollster on the phone.  Just think about recent polling that finds blacks in Pennsylvania support Obama by 93 to 3%.  What does that say?  Given Obama’s support for late-term abortions and gay marriage, the call of some black pastors to stay home – can that poll be right?  I don’t think so but given such polling, I fully understand African-Americans being very reluctant to express support for Romney.

Thankfully, the Adytum for voting is a safe place once the curtains are drawn.

This article arose because I saw a question posed in an article at Catholic Online and it caused me to think – and that’s the point.  I’m not a churchgoer; however, you and I (we all) have issues related to issues being faced by people of faith, the freedom to hold private and profound beliefs, express those beliefs and not be forced by the government to compromise our consciences.

…. Authentic participation… requires one’s proper exercise of the right and duty to vote. But that cannot occur in the absence of careful, reasoned and informed moral discernment; nor can it occur if the hierarchy of evils is ignored when voting. The most relevant question is this: when I stand before Jesus Christ, will I be able to justify my voting choices, or will whatever I say merely be an attempt to rationalize them? The answer to that question makes all the difference….

Whether you believe ultimately you will be held to account before God, or that at some latter time you will be somehow profoundly reminded that your every decision has consequences – what will your failure to vote, voting for a third party or not treating your vote with the respect it deserves say?  What responsibility will you carry for the foreseeable consequences that follow your action in the voting booth?  Will you be one who says, God help me, what have I done?

For all people, of all faiths, in every church or home, there are numerous political issues that touch upon accountability to one’s personal conscience; and they are on the ballot this year in the choice for President.  The differences between the two candidates could not be more dramatic.

The biggest rub for the Catholic Church, and employers morally opposed to abortion, came last year when Obama’s HHS Administration dictated that employers, if they provide health insurance, would be required to pay for plans that include coverage for contraceptives and abortions.  The media and the Obama campaign quickly joined forces to frame the issue as being a broad attempt to deny women access to contraception.  The nonexistent ‘Republican War on Women’ was born.  (If the media really wanted to find a war on women, they scratch beneath the surface of the Arab Spring & Sharia.)

The real issue is can the federal government force a person of conscience, who believes that human life begins at conception, to pay (directly or indirectly) for an abortion.  Surely people can see that this is the government forcing those deeply opposed to abortion to become an accomplice to an act they believe to be reprehensible.  This is not a Women’s access to contraception issue; it is a Religious Liberty issue that is Constitutionally protected.  If this can be done to them, what else can be done?

Romney would not place pro-life employers in such an untenable position.

Regarding the act of abortion, it is an extremely difficult issue for almost everyone involved.  And, it is not fair and it is far from simple to put people in an entirely pro-life or pro-choice group and ridicule their beliefs.  Every pregnancy exists in relation to a timeline that begins with conception and normally ends with a natural birth.  People who self identify as being pro-life or pro-choice can co-exist in parts of that line.  A person (me included) may consider himself or herself pro-life but would suggest that a woman has the exclusive right to choose an abortion up to a certain point (many are somewhere in the 1st trimester camp).  However, Obama is in the camp that it is a woman’s unrestricted right to choose throughout the pregnancy.

OBAMA more Pro-Choice than NARAL

…In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions…

Romney, personally believes abortions should be limited to cases of rape or incest.  It’s clear he sees abortion as an issue that states should determine.

Do most people believe that a healthy fetus in the womb of a healthy mother at 7, 8 or 9 months is just a mass of cells or a human life, a baby? If you believe it is a baby, is it reasonable to accept there is some decree of responsibility that attaches as a consequence of a vote for a person who would facilitate such abortions?  Or can one simply say, I’m not voting on that issue?  Thankfully, there’s indication that some are thinking about this issue and finding Obama’s position troubling.

Which brings us to the issue of Obama’s support for gay marriage and how it might become a Religious Liberty issue.  First Obama was against gay marriage, then he was for it after Biden announced his beliefs.  Then it became part of a non-existent Republican War on Gays.  (It’s interesting though that Obama hasn’t said boo about how the Muslim Brotherhood feels about gay marriage.)  Personally, I’m not concerned by same sex unions or gay marriage. What does concern me is that the government is in any way involved in the business of recognizing or defining marriage.  Marriage is the domain of the Church and God.  If a couple can find a church to marry them, go for it.

Mitt Romney has been consistent in his support for traditional marriage and believes it too is a state-by-state issue.

However, take a look at how easily Obama is trying to run over the religious liberty rights of the Catholic Church and others by directing them to become complicit in abortion and contraception.  In a second term, what will stop Obama from telling every church that it must perform and/or host gay marriages regardless of their teachings?  A court in Denmark recently held that a gay couple could marry in any church they choose.  Think it couldn’t happen here if Obama gets to appoint a couple of new Supreme Court Justices?  Could anti-discrimination lawsuits be coming against clergy who refuse to perform gay marriage? The answer to that is yes.

Will the believing black, white, and Hispanic voters place their beliefs about marriage and their love for the church in the back seat when they draw the curtains? Will people feel somewhat responsible or complicit if Obama tries to further gut the essence of religious belief, the right to believe and live in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and the Church?  It does seem to be a certainty that more limits will be imposed on what we can think, feel, do, believe and say in an Obama second term.

‘more limits will be imposed on what we can…say’ This is one the biggest dangers under a second Obama term that everyone should be concerned about. Obama is evidentially ready to sign another Presidential Executive Order to get around Congress to authorize the emergency shut down of Internet.   Look at what has happened during the past few weeks regarding the rape and murder of our Ambassador in Libya and the Obama focus on trying to blame this terror attack on some little anti-Muslim film.  Even though everyone knew almost instantly that the attack had nothing to do with the film and Obama’s Administration has been forced to admit it was plainly 9/11 terror, Obama went before the UN this week and tried impute blame to the film again.  And right now, the filmmaker’s liberty is in jeopardy if a court finds that publishing the film (free speech) somehow violated his probation.  Yes, in America this has been done.

Concurrently we have Egypt’s President Morsi telling the U.N.: Insults to Muhammad are ‘unacceptable’

“We reject this. We cannot accept it,” Morsi said, his voice thin with anger. “We will not allow anyone to do this by word or deed.”

Right on cue, we watch the discussion in the UN turn into calls to criminalize criticizing Islam.  Why has Obama attempted to keep the focus on the film?  Why have Obama and Hillary kept apologizing?

The Arab League is calling for criminalizing blasphemyA top Muslim leader is calling on UN to criminalize speech. Eqypt’s Prime Minister calls for criminalizing speech.  Yes, Obama and Hillary do give lip service to free speech.  But are they really committed to free speech or just tilling the soil to make Americans receptive to limiting speech?  What responsibility should attach to your vote should the UN manage to put duck-tape on parts of our Constitutional?  Which candidate would stand firm against the UN?

With the crumbling of the Arab Spring that Obama tried to take credit for early on and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran, there’s one nation whose very survival is in jeopardy – Israel.  Enemies more emboldened, enraged, and determined to wipe Israel and her people from existence surround this tiny nation.  And what does Obama do?  He labels their concerns about Iran as merely noise.  He refuses to meet with Netanyahu and goes on The View and describes himself as eye candy.

When Ahmadinejad starts insulting Israel at Monday’s UN meeting, the US delegation refuses to walk out when the Israeli delegation did. Walking out in solidarity is something the US would have done in the past when Israel was directly attacked.

Today, Netanyahu called for clear Red Lines to prevent Iran for obtaining the bomb.

“At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs and that’s by placing a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Netanyahu said in a speech at the U.N. General Assembly. “Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war.”

He indicated further that Iran could have bomb by next summer if it does not face a ‘red line’

Predictably Obama continues to resist and Muslim Brotherhood strengthens its connections in the US as they have been doing for years.

Finally, Ahmadinejad plays the apocalyptic card talking about the return of the Mahdi that will mark the beginning of the end times.

It all seems pretty hopeless.

Do you believe Israel has a friend it can count on in Obama?  Personally, I believe if Obama is elected, Israel and her people will face the strong likelihood of another genocide of the Jewish People throughout the Middle East in the near future.  What do you believe?

Do you believe Israel’s chances of survival are better with Obama or Romney?  What have Obama’s actions said?  These are the questions that each of us must answer.

This article has focused on the seriousness of just a few issues and the personal responsibility for a person’s vote. So what is the personal responsibility of the spoilers? As someone who considers himself more of a Libertarian than anything else, I have to say that I have been disappointed that Gov. Gary Johnston (a person I like, agree with, and could support if he had any chance) hasn’t thrown his possible support to the only viable candidate who will do the most to protect the individual liberties of all Americans.

Regarding the economy, I’ll be brief.  Obama received four Pinocchio’s for his recent statement that of the 5 trillion dollars of new debt, 90% of it is Bush’s.  Obama’s statement is such a blatant falsehood, which he does often (every single day). If people don’t understand it, can’t get it, can’t see though it – I can’t help you.  Maybe this headline will give you something to think about – Red states’ income growing faster than blue states’

Only an aware person casting her or his vote can accept responsibility for reasonably predictable consequences flowing from their voting decision.  I do pray that when people go into the voting booth they will not be voting in ignorance or for what stuff they can get from a candidate, or voting in a state of being mesmerized.  It is past time to get beyond that sort of decision making because the dangers are too great.  I really do not want to have to tell anyone I love that this mess is partly your fault.

Hands of Illusion Masquerading as Journalists, Pollsters, Economists and Politicians

September 23, 2012

Hands of Illusion Masquerading as Journalists, Pollsters, Economists and Politicians

Unfortunately today, it seems that everyone I know (seniors, the young, conservatives, liberals, the in betweens, those receiving government benefits, taxpayers, employees, employers, low income, high income) needs to be constantly on guard against the sleight of hand of those seeking to shape the news and direct the outcome of the upcoming Presidential election.

What worries me is that this election is in fact the most important election in my lifetime and I feel like many are not doing their due diligence in trying to get as close to the truth as they can before making their decisions.  It worries me that millions may not fully understand the consequences of their decisions – consequences to the economy, jobs, free speech, personal liberties, religious liberties, self-determination, to our very democracy.

If people vote for Obama or Romney with their eyes wide open, based upon true and accurate information, based upon their personal core values; it might be possible for us to come together after the election.  However, if the masses are forced to endure severe consequences, loss of democracy and personal liberties coming because many (in what looks like a slim majority) did not do their research, are simply voting for free stuff, did not look at various news sources to base their opinions, did not investigate the backgrounds of the candidates, did not question the media, and/or did not try to understand what’s coming – then heaven help us all.

The blatant manipulation this year is so bad that each of us needs to remind ourselves every time we watch or listen to the news, pundits, talk shows, and pollsters that up might in fact be down, down might be up, that a stupid movie is not the cause of a planned terror attack in Libya, that what today’s media seeks to portray is rarely close to being real or truthful, that truth and reality are in fact lying behind a curtain painted by charlatans dressed as journalists and pollsters?  And they, the mainstream media, are in fact America’s true enemy because they are choosing to put careers in a predominately leftist media and/or their own progressive/socialist agenda (which they seem to consider fashionable and titillating) ahead of the country, what it means to be a journalist, and truth.

One morning recently, I was half listening to NPR and they were busy harping on Mitt Romney’s comments that 47% of the population don’t pay taxes, are dependent on government and are highly unlikely to be persuaded to vote for him.  I totally understood what Romney was getting at, and given the context, it should not have offended reasonable people.  Yes, it could have been said better.

Romney is right that there is a large percentage of the population not paying federal income taxes and many millions are receiving government benefits.  However, I would suggest that at least half of the people receiving benefits are the ones for whom the benefits (the safety-net) were meant to aid – the truly disabled at work, those unable to work through no fault of their own, etc.  Many of these folks, I would suggest, are people who could or should be strongly supportive of Romney’s positions if they are fully explained because most know that the benefits they receive are being jeopardized by excessive government spending and the millions who are fraudulently signing up for benefits.   If Romney approached this issue in terms of making programs sustainable for those who truly need the assistance it would be a much stronger argument.   If you are one receiving government benefits that you are not truly entitled to and need, then SHAME on you.

IF the US economy collapses, if the government goes broke – then who will be receiving any vital benefits?  Will Social Security payments go out? Will Medicare and Medicaid exist? Will Worker’s Compensation benefits exist?  Will Social Security Disability payment be made if the economy collapses and the government is bankrupt?   Everyone has to know that these programs have to be fixed to ensure they are there for those truly in need and those who have paid in to programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Anyone who’s ever been on temporary worker’s compensation or disability understands that it could be a temptation to not want to come back to work as soon as possible.  Especially, if a person is receiving a substantial check in their mailbox every few weeks, there is just not the pressure to move too quickly.  Imagine though the conflict of interest in those receiving a check on a more or less permanent basis and one Party is constantly accusing the other Party of planning to cut you off. That’s what’s happening with the Democrat Party and their cohorts in the media.  It is not true. There are good people in both Parties who understand the obligation to help people get to their feet and to continue assistance if a person really can’t.  The temptation to cast a vote for one candidate or another based solely on what the media says must be resisted.  Look closely at the candidates’ agendas, the person, their history, etc. and then cast a vote for sustainability, honesty, values and principles.  If your candidate doesn’t have a plan that is sustainable then we all will lose and lose big, not just in terms of your check in mailbox but in terms of individual liberty and freedom.

As anyone who has read my posts before would know, I have some real issues with Glenn Beck, however he has provided a valuable piece of video for the voter who wants to cast an inform vote. Mr. Beck (not a consistent fan of Romney) recently did a segment on his show looking at a few amazing selfless acts in Romney’s life that Romney never sought to promote.  I would urge anyone who wants to look behind the curtain painted by the media and gain a little insight about who Romney might really be to take an hour to watch it.  If you want to know who Obama might be behind the media’s curtain, I would urge you to watch 2016 Obama’s America – Love Him, Hate Him, You Don’t Know Him.   There is another documentary out that I haven’t seen yet that could be helpful – ‘Occupy Unmasked’.

What is true is that the government is broke and the whole system will collapse if changes are not made to keep the safety nets in place for those in true need (being a bit lazy or being taught you are entitled is not true need).  When people get up and look in the mirror, can each one look at their reflection and honestly say that the benefits they are receiving were meant for them?  The ones who answer yes, these benefits were meant for me in my situation, then they must come to understand that their benefits are being threatened – not by one Party or another – but by an out of control government spending meant to pander for votes, as a temporary means to an end (government control) by creating dependency in both the truly entitled and those wrongfully hopping on the train.

If one needs further proof of the media’s blatant taking sides through mischaracterization and/or omission in this election allow me to point out just a few other recent instances where bias has been on parade.

Regarding the Romney segment about the 47% not paying federal income taxes:  

In addition to the one to two minutes of the speech edited out, the MSM failed to adequately report on the much more important segment of Romney’s speech. Mr. Romney presented an understanding of what the Federal Reserve is doing with QE3, printing money, and it’s consequences.  Further, the Mainstream Media failed to give other than minimal time to Obama’s recorded comments that he actually believes in redistribution of wealth and seems to not understand why Obama’s comments are controversial.

Regarding the recent rape and murder of our Ambassador to Libya:

I’m sure everyone is aware of the tragic events that took place across the Middle East on September 11th.  In Libya however, the tragedy turned even darker with the rape and death of the US Ambassador to Libya and three others. Had one listened or watched only the main stream media, one would be tempted to believe that the tragedy in Libya had come about solely in reaction to a poorly made, comical video called ‘Innocence of Muslims’. However, anyone with small measure of common sense or prior military service understood right away that the timeline and normal procedures, and the lock step circling of the media wagons to blame a stupid video indicated something else going on. We were not being told the truth and/or maybe there was someone’s butt they were trying to protect, Obama’s.

First of all, the facts are still being investigated and being uncovered in Libya, which should have been the Administrations response for the first few days.  Within the first 24 hours there were reports from sources in the region that the US had been warned several days in advance, the attackers were heavily armed, and the attack had been planned in advance. Even without warning, on 9/11 of all days, the Embassies around the world should have been on high alert.  On Thursday the 20th, a week later the spokesperson for the President finally had to admit that the event had been a terrorist attack on American Soil (the Embassy).  However, even after that admission, the President in a town hall event held by UniVision was still trying to blame the events in Libya on the movie. In Pakistan, the Embassy they are even running TV spots apologizing for the video.

All the media/Administration shaping of the news regarding the events in Libya early on and continuing for over a week begs the question of what is so damaging to Obama that the media would risk further damaging their own credibility to spin nonsense. The possibilities are getting interesting and it’s easy to see how the Administration might be desperate to make it all go away.

One speculation is that Ambassador was actually an Ambassador in name only while he and/or his companions were actually working for the CIA  to recover of the ocean of high tech weapons Obama rained down for the Libyan revolt.  This actually makes a lot of sense given the timeline of events, the lack of normal security measures for an Ambassador, and given that …”before his death, Glen Doherty, one of the former SEALs who was killed alongside Stevens, told ABC News about that he was looking for weapons in Libya”.  The speculation in the article is compelling.

There’s also another possibility that Ambassador Stevens was killed by a group affliated with a group in Syria that Obama is supporting.

What is clear is that Obama and the media do not want the truth to come out before the election.  Had this event had involved President Bush there would have been reporters standing on each others shoulders trying to ask probing questions.

Regardless of what the facts turn out to be, every American should be shocked that the Obama Administration and the media were/are so quick to throw the First Amendment free speech protections under the bus and apologize to appease a group who clearly wants to cause the West to kowtow to their supposed sensitivities.  How far will Obama and Hillary go to appease?  Will they seek to make it illegal to criticize Muhammad? The movie creator has already been perp-walked as an appeasement. They certainly wouldn’t want to limit the free speech of people criticizing Jesus, even though I’m fairly sure followers of Jesus can take it.

Thankfully people are waking up and don’t trust the media; however, it is important to remember not to let down your guard.

Regarding the Media failing to report the internals of recent polls:

There seems to be a lot of over sampling of Democrats in most of the recent polls or over sampling a subset of persons who at this time support Obama more than Romney such as women and minorities. Is there much if anything about this from the mainstream media?  Dick Morris has an article up this morning addressing how polling is fudged by using variations of the 2008 voter turnout numbers.  He has Romney leading when these factors are compensated for.  I personally don’t trust polling at all, especially in today’s high tech world.  For one thing, millions of people have cell phones and no landline.  Morris points out there would be an effect on outcomes by that fact alone.  Furthermore, if many people are like my wife and I, we don’t answer a call if it’s from a number we don’t recognize.  Any effect?  I bet so, but no analysis by the mainstream media.

Other Issues:

Regarding other issues reflecting serious media bias, the list is exhausting. The lack of coverage of Obama/Holder’s Fast and Furious arms dealing (that resulted in the death of a US Boarder Guard and somewhere around 200 Mexicans) which was seen as a way to gain public support for stricter gun regulation has not been covered fairly or in-depth other than to characterize it as a Republican witch hunt.  There is total lack of coverage by the mainstream media of comments made by leaders and clerics in the Middle East calling for the destruction of Israel and regarding Obama’s refusal to meet with Netanyahu while agreeing to meet with Muslim Brotherhood.  The Catholic Church, affiliates, and religious employers’ lawsuits against Obama’s new HHS instruction that they would be required to provide insurance that includes coverage for contraception and abortion have been subjected to minimal mainstream media coverage that seeks to mischaracterize/transform the fundamental religious liberty issue to a right to conception issue. This is a fundamental Religious Liberty issue at its heart.   And finally, Obama is evidentially ready to sign another Presidential Executive Order to get around Congress to authorize the emergency shut down of Internet.  This final issue is one the left, right and center should be able to passionately rally against.

But where are the hard questions from the media?

Larry Sinclair – Lawsuit Against Him Dismissed – Parisi failed to show Sinclair had published any knowingly false statements – Zimmerman Might NOT be a Racist – The BOPAC Report

April 26, 2012

The BOPAC Report

Larry Sinclair’s Journey –

Larry Sinclair has always been under threat from Obama's minions for daring to disclose allegations of sex, drugs, and other things involving Obama. Take Care Larry.

Good news for Larry Sinclair.


Libel case against Obama’s ‘gay’ accuser tossed

Larry Sinclair claimed president’s campaign paid to rig polygraph

byJerome R. Corsi

A federal judge has dismissed a libel case against a homosexual who claimed Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign paid to rig a polygraph test regarding his sensational charge that he had sex and used drugs with the future president.

Larry Sinclair – who claims he twice engaged in sexual activity and used cocaine with Obama in 1999 when Obama was an Illinois state senator – was accused by Internet publisher Daniel Parisi of making false and damaging statements that led to the demise of Parisi’s porn website, Whitehouse.com, in 2008.

The alleged defamation did not center on Sinclair’s charges of sex and drugs with Obama but on Sinclair’s claim in his 2009 book that the Obama campaign and top adviser David Axelrod had agreed to pay Parisi $750,000 to rig the results of a polygraph test.

Parisi failed to present any evidence that Sinclair’s claim about Axelrod and the Obama campaign was false, wrote U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon in his Feb. 28 opinion dismissing the case.

Parisi filed March 30 jointly with Sinclair a “Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal,” which effectively ended Parisi’s claims against Sinclair and Sinclair Publishing.

Sinclair recounted in his book, “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder,” Parisi’s offer to pay him $10,000 to take a polygraph test regarding his charge that he engaged in sexual acts with Obama in Chicago.

In the deal, Parisi would pay $100,000 if the polygraph showed Sinclair was telling the truth. In a modified agreement, Sinclair was paid $20,000 to take the test. He failed it, according to an examiner’s report, and two other examiners corroborated the result, the judge’s opinion said.

Parisi alleges Sinclair made defamatory statements in the book, including his assertion that “the polygraph was rigged and was arranged by Dan Parisi and Obama Campaign advisor David Axelrod.”

The judge, however, said Parisi failed to show Sinclair had published any knowingly false statements and concluded that he had taken appropriate steps to verify the information before publishing it….

George Zimmerman –

The Journolist Truth Assassins - careless with truth regarding little things, big things and all things in between. Do you doubt the "Journolists Truth Assassins" were involved in shaping the news regarding Obama's lack of eligibility?

The story keep coming out and they point to the need to let the process play out and avoid the media hype.  The following story should have been done much, much earlier and maybe the race baiters would not have been out in force and maybe there would have been no bounty on Mr. Zimmerman’s head.

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting

By Chris Francescani

SANFORD, Florida | Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:20pm EDT

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) – A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.

The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law’s dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.

“Don’t use pepper spray,” he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. “It’ll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you,” he said.

“Get a gun.”

That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits. In early December, another source close to them told Reuters, the couple bought a pair of guns. George picked a Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, a popular, lightweight weapon.

By June 2011, Zimmerman’s attention had shifted from a loose pit bull to a wave of robberies that rattled the community, called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol – a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines but not a crime.

Few of his closest neighbors knew he carried a gun – until two months ago.

On February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in what Zimmerman says was self-defense. The furor that ensued has consumed the country and prompted a re-examination of guns, race and self-defense laws enacted in nearly half the United States.

During the time Zimmerman was in hiding, his detractors defined him as a vigilante who had decided Martin was suspicious merely because he was black. After Zimmerman was finally arrested on a charge of second-degree murder more than six weeks after the shooting, prosecutors portrayed him as a violent and angry man who disregarded authority by pursuing the 17-year-old.

But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman’s past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.

Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.

The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

“Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.”…

The rest of the story reveals a very different Zimmerman than the one the media and others created.

Ji’Obama’had –

In the basement of the United Universal Church of Obamboozle, Captain Taqiyya (Obama's alter ego) makes a sacrifice of a Tea Party Terrorist.

If HillBuzz recommends it, it’s probably worth a look.

HillBuzz Open Thread, Thursday, April 26, 2012

Posted on April 26, 2012 by TheTamminator // Hillbuzz

If you haven’t had a chance to see the latest documentary by Glenn Beck, I have to tell you that it’s a MUST SEE. I watched the premiere early last evening, and it was frightening. It’s called “Rumors of War III” and you can find it on GBTV...

Read more http://hillbuzz.org/hillbuzz-open-thread-thursday-april-26-2012

Commentary –

The Permanant Handout Herd is Leading America to Slaughter! Everyone Needs a Hand Up from Time to Time, but Expecting it to be a Permanent Fixture is Distructive to America!

If the Oath to protect the Constitution is not important today, why don’t we just change the oath of allegiance to reflect our current level of commitment?

I, _______, do solemnly swear to protect ME and I will try to defend the Constitution as long as it doesn’t adversely impact the aforementioned ‘ME’.

Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Albert Einstein

Other News:

Worried-Yet The Barack "The Borg" Obama Collective is coming! Resistance is Necessary to Save America from Mediocrity and Less Liberty!



No Quarter


 Official DisclosureJust to be clear, my graphics depict almost all members of the BOPAC Administration as being full of crap.  They do not actually look like turds – one needs special ‘full of crap’ glasses to be able to see the core of those who continually feed America BS.  I treat everyone equally – when Glenn Beck goes off on those who reasonably question Obama’s eligibility, he gets a half-full of crap depiction.

Natural Born Citizen – Kabuki Dance of Deception being played by those in the legal and academic communities – Glenn Beck and Rick Santorum on Marriage – The BOPAC Report

January 6, 2012

The BOPAC Report

Natural Born Citizen –

The Journolist Truth Assassins - careless with truth regarding little things, big things and all things in between. Do you doubt the "Journolists Truth Assassins" were involved in shaping the news regarding Obama's lack of eligibility?

Two interesting articles that expose the kabuki dance of deception being played by those in the legal and academic communities to support a stretch, rewriting of the original meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’ for your consideration.

January 6, 2012

Academia Shrugs: Obama’s Citizenship and the Presidency

By Cindy Simpson

The obstacles in Barack Obama’s path to the presidency have been overcome, or covered over.  Rather than merely avoiding the contentious question of Obama’s “natural born” eligibility, America’s academic establishment has muffled discussion on the inextricably related issue of citizenship law in our country, in the greater context of immigration reform.

The first instance of academia’s cloak-throwing was noted in an American Thinker article which described the revision made by Professor Larry Solum to his scholarly paper that addressed Senator McCain’s eligibility, “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship Clause.”  The original version was published in 2008.  Without saying it explicitly in his footnote of explanation, Solum’s revision implied, subtly, that he also supported the eligibility of Obama, with his one citizen parent instead of two — yet Solum did not include citations or references that defended his rationale for the change, nor has he published papers since that discussed this aspect of the issue.

Solum’s unsupported rewriting was mentioned again in the more recent article, “The Great American Memory Hole.”  That column also described the strange and related story of “JustiaGate” — the “mangling” of text and citations, for approximately a three-year period beginning mid-2008, on Justia’s database for 25 Supreme Court decisions that directly cited the particular case of Minor v Happersett.  It so happens that Minor contains a succinct definition of “natural born” citizenship (essentially, born in the country to citizen “parents,” plural) that attorney Leo Donofrio contends represents binding precedent.  In addition to the anomalies noted at Justia, Donofrio discovered a complete block of relevant text missing from Ex Parte Lockwood at Cornell — a case that Donofrio argues further proves his assertion that Minor‘s statements on citizenship are binding precedent vs. dicta.

Cornell’s Professor William Jacobson countered that Justia is not utilized by “practicing lawyers,” but it is revealing to note that both Jacobson‘s Legal Insurrection blog and the WSJ Law Blog, for example, recently and frequently link to Justia’s Supreme decisions, and that Google searches often list Justia as a top hit — reinforcing the reality that Justia’s Supreme Court database does indeed maintain a significant voice in the court of public opinion. 

Shortly after Donofrio’s findings and further claims regarding the precedent set by Minor, Professor Jonathan Turley published a post by contributor David Drumm entitled “Holdings, Dicta, and Stare Decisis.”  The last sentence of Drumm’s post refers to the Wikipedia article on Minor as further support for his assertion that the “natural born” comments are dicta; however, that particular Wikipedia entry was revised only a couple of months ago (soon after Donofrio’s assertions) to include the very paragraph that Drumm cites.  Comments on Drumm’s post now number over 1,300, bearing witness to an ugly war that continues to rage among anonymous commenters.  The revision history for the Wikipedia entry reveals similar battle scars.

“In the Spirit of Truth,” Donofrio has, via his “Natural Born Citizen” blog, invited other attorneys to directly challenge his assertions:

The definition of natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent;  Ex Parte Lockwood acknowledged Minor as precedent for the definition of federal citizenship; and the statements in Minor fit the description of precedent established by the Court in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States.

Will any accept the offer, or, along with other legal academics, will attorneys continue the “bizarre birther intellectual dance” described by Jacobson that sidesteps reasonable questions of law and spins around only the infamous birth certificate?….

AND this article is included because it answers the question of why.

The Universal United Church of OBamboozle! State Run Media Always Welcome! Every Secret Well Kept! Kal Penn, Larry Sinclair, not a Natural Born Citizen, Bill Ayers, Reggie, etc., etc., etc.

January 6, 2012

The Heart of the Clause 5 Issue

By Bruce Walker

… What if Obama, to take his case as an example, was really the son of a man who was a natural-born American citizen?  The more we poke into this area, the murkier it can get.

So why does the Obama birth certificate issue still matter to so many people?  It has much less to do with how we read the Constitution than it does with Obama hiding key documents and probably lying to the American people.  What if Obama had said from the beginning something like this?

“I think I was born in Hawaii, but honestly, I can’t be sure; I was a newborn at the time, and my mother moved around a lot.  I cannot even say for sure who my father was — just as most of us cannot know who our father with absolute certainty.  But I believe that I am perfectly eligible to be president, and I will gladly open any records in my power to open.  I ask over the next 60 days that every constitutional professor and lawyer discuss and debate this issue.  I hope, after we have gone through this process, that the issue can finally be put to rest.”

Would we still be discussing his qualifications to be president?  Certainly not.  The problem with Obama — and this is a crucial distinction from the eligibility of Rubio or Jindal — is skullduggery and mischief, not constitutional eligibility per se.  We need to keep that sneakiness the vital point in our Article I, Section II attack.  Rubio and Jindal are not hiding anything from us.  No one is accusing them of lying to the American people.

Honest differences about what the Constitution means are qualitatively different from maliciously concealing facts which relate to constitutional issues.  Honest differences of fact on issues like paternity are also qualitatively different from concealing relevant information.  Obama, so typical of all leftists, is hiding evidence and very likely lying.  That is our issue.  That is also a winning issue with the American people…

As I was about to post these I read a quote that seems perfect for the Obama ‘natural born citizen’ discussion:

“When truth is not given complete freedom, freedom is not complete.”

Václav Havel, the first president of the Czech Republic and a prominent figure in its struggle for democracy during the communist era, passed away on December 18th, 2011…

See also: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10454-georgia-court-to-hear-question-of-obamas-qualification-for-president

2012 Elections –

As Aretha Franklin says: You better think, think, think what you do to me! Will the 2010 Turdado reappear in 2012?

I just heard Glenn Beck talking about the spat Rick Santorum got into with a few students about gay marriage and I think I need to repost an article written a year or so ago about marriage that supports Glenn Beck’s position.  Rick Santorum is correct in posing the questions he did about how far marriage might be extended.

Marriage is the Domain of the Church and God –

Market Risk is the Domain of Individuals and Business –

Neither is the Domain of the Federal Government.

This morning I heard Glenn Beck talking briefly about gay marriage, civil unions and the possibility that triad couples (between more than 2 people) could soon start demanding the same rights. After I finished rolling my eyes, I began thinking about the issue and quickly came to the same opinion that I hold concerning gay marriages and marriage in general.  Marriage is an issue for the church, consenting adults, and God.  If there are some churches that recognize gay marriages, fine (as long they are between freely consenting adults).  If there are some churches that recognize marriage between more than two people or communal families, fine (as long as they are between freely consenting adults).  I’m not in the religion or morality business as long as actions don’t hurt others or infringe upon their rights.

Why in the world is the government, any government, state or federal, in the business of sanctifying or recognizing any marriage?  It has always been clear to me that when government makes it possible for people who are “married” to have benefits and rights (social security or medical decision making) different from “non-married” people, it is a violation of both the equal protection clause (14th Amendment to the Constitution) and the prohibition respecting the establishment of religion (1st Amendment to the Constitution). 

Social Security benefits accruing to surviving spouses are probably the main reason people are upset about the federal government not recognizing gay marriage in general.  I agree completely that gay and single couples both have a legitimate right to be upset.  Where does the idea and definition of marriage come from?  It comes from the church. (Particularly churches of the Judea/Christian tradition.)

In this country, the Christian church’s biblical interpretation that marriage is only between one man and one woman is engrained in literature and history as the rule.  However today, there are churches that recognize and perform marriages between couples of the same sex, transgender persons, and even between a man and a woman.  So, when official government process bestows benefits to those individuals who are in “traditional marriages”, the definition of which was establish by the Judea/Christian beliefs, there is clearly a preference being made for one religion’s or church’s definition of marriage over those found in other religions or churches. 

When government goes down the “we benefit you, but not you” path; it sure seems like government is either involved in establishing a particular religion or government is not providing equal protection and opportunity for “single” individuals who wish to consolidate and share their resources as “partners” or “significant others” the same as “traditionally married” people.  Government should either benefit people equally or don’t benefit anyone.

It seems so easy for the federal government to remedy the social security surviving spouse benefit problem.  All the Social Security Administration would need to do is to have a provision for the pooling of social security earnings and benefits.   If Joe and Mary, or Joe and Sam, or Joe, Mary, & Jane said to the government that we want to pool our social security contributions from this date forward, then every participant’s individual social security contributions would be pooled and the sum would be divided by the number of people involved and that amount would be credited to each person’s individual social security earnings account.

This would allow the stay-at-home mom or dad to make contributions to their individual social security account as if they were “working” (half of the family’s income would be credited to each person in the relationship).  It would work the same way for gay couples or communal families.  Each person in such an arrangement would have some measure of protection vis-à-vis social security.  There would be no surviving spouse benefit because they would have their own social security. Primary income earners or those with a bigger income could direct part of their social security contributions to another’s account because they are committed to the other person (or people) and/or recognize the value of another person(s) non-monetary contributions such as raising children, gardening or taking care of the house.

I would think that most people would not have a problem with such a restructuring of Social Security because the government would be recognizing the limits of its power by saying we are not going to involve ourselves with the definition of the term marriage.  Marriage is within the domain of the church, the consenting individual(s), and their God.

It amazes me that the government doesn’t try harder to stay out of the business of limiting the rights of individuals more.  It seems like politicians want division so they can play each side off the other and maintain their grip on power.  Every time the government and politicians get involved in anything they create fear and uncertainty; and then use that uncertainty to their own advantage.  One only needs to look at the current financial mess that the economy is in.

Obama likes to say that he inherited the mess and he is only doing what has to be done.  However, the truth is that he and many Democrats in Congress share a great deal of the blame for the economic mess and Obama is using this crisis to get his political objectives accomplished.  The entire mess can be traced back to when government (mostly Democrats, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd) decided it wanted to get into the business of setting up regulations that created opportunities for groups like ACORN to pressure banks into lending to people who were not able to afford mortgages. This led to many of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems; which coupled with packaging these sub-prime assets into financial bundles and selling them round the world; it caused the global house of cards to collapse.

The government was trying to manipulate business RISK principles and it backfired.  Banks wound up being in the position of making risky loans that could be sold to the government (or guaranteed) and the bank’s RISK of losing its own money was greatly diminished.  It’s a lot easier to play fast and loose with other people’s money. 

Market Risk is the Domain of Individuals and Business.

Now, people are getting excited that the stock market appears to be signaling the end of the crisis.  Think again.  The news of the past few days paints a much bleaker picture.  Consider the following:

With passage of Obama’s budget, the government will have to borrow almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year.

The Federal deficit will be greater than 1.8 trillion dollars this year.

Social Security and Medicare financial projections have been revised to reflect that they are going broke sooner than expected.  Medicare is already losing money by the truckloads and Social Security will be sending out payments faster than money coming in by 2016. That’s only 7 years away! Congress is not only spending money like drunken sailors but they are also so afraid of risking the votes of senior citizens that they are unwilling to effectively address the Social Security/Medicare problem.  (That’s the problem with creating dependency for voter loyalty, the bill always comes due.  Then it comes down to who can be blamed.  With the American media’s proclivity for supporting Democrats, blame usually finds it way to Republicans regardless of facts to the contrary.)

Last week, the Treasury auction went poorly and Treasury yields soared.  This means that the government has to pay much more interest on the amounts they are borrowing.

This week, the government was buying their own securities to bring the yields back down some.  Where are the funds coming from to for the Fed to do all this buying?  They have the printing presses running overtime.  This will, in the not too distant future, damage severely the value of the dollar and cause a substantial rise in inflation.  The price of everything will go up and foreign countries will be reluctant to purchase our debt to keep the charade going.

China, who holds a great deal of our debt, will be looking for treasuries paying higher interest in order to entice them to purchase more debt. 

The more the government prints money out of thin air, the more the dollar’s value will be affected.  There will more money available to buy the same number of goods – causing inflationary pressure. Demand will likely take a downturn once consumers figure out they need to be protecting bank balances.  However, with a decline in dollar’s value, it means that many goods will cost more to produce because the materials required for production will cost more. Therefore producers will either need to raise prices, lower profit margins, lower labor costs (lower wages and/or cut jobs), and/or relocate to areas where the costs of production (taxes etc.) are lower.  However, even with these actions, consumers may not buy at higher prices (or even current prices) and businesses will go under.

So why are stock going up?  I believe that many people are being led to think the crisis is ending by Obama and the media and they want to be in on the bull market.  I also believe that many people are moving out of U.S. Securities because the yields are relatively low right now, some stocks price/earnings ratios look attractive comparatively and some investors are starting to believe that Treasuries are too risky and could collapse in the future.  I think people are buying stocks because they feel like they are buying something tangible like buildings, machinery, etc.   I bet buyers are looking at companies that don’t have high debt to equity ratios.  Stocks just look better than most of the other choices right now.  Now is the operative word because once interest rates on government securities are forced to rise to 6 or 7%, a lot of investors will shift back trying to stay ahead of the calamity that’s nearly certain to come.  This amount of debt and planned taxation is not sustainable.

This crisis can only be overcome by returning to sound economic principles now.  Congress and Obama must stop trying to spend and tax our way out of this. The media needs to be telling the story of how to work toward healthy long term economic fundamentals and not just promoting Obama’s plan.  Obama’s massive stimulus is a short-term feel good illusion; but like social security, the bill will come due.

The media should encouraging Tea Parties instead of attacking them.  The media needs to tell the truth about Obama and his real objectives.  The media needs to investigate & report factually about Obama’s eligibility issue, Rezko, Ayers, Larry Sinclair’s allegations, Obama’s associations with ACORN, and the numerous other issues and scandals from Obama’s past. Before America can come together, these questions must be addressed fully. The media generated Obama “fairy tale” must stop because America’s future is at stake. The media needs to tell the truth and report the news.

We need to support companies like Ford who are not feeding off tax payers and taking direction from self-serving politicians.  Boycott companies like GM, Chrysler, Citigroup and others who undermine ingenuity and lead America to mediocrity.

Neither marriage nor market risk should be within the domain of the Federal Government.

Keeping with the Glenn Beck theme:

Unfortunately, I don't have to make a big leap to believe something like this actually exists in the Obama White House basement! Especially after the discovery of the existance of the 'Journolist' Truth Assassins - Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, The Constitution, our freedoms, etc. all appear to be in the BOPAC Administration's and their friends' (State Run Media, Journolist, NAACP, Black Panthers, Ayers, Rev. Wright) sights.


Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Albert Einstein

Other News:

Worried-Yet The Barack "The Borg" Obama Collective is coming! Resistance is Necessary to Save America from Mediocrity and Less Liberty!

American Thinker




Dr. Kate’s Review

Drudge Report

Hill Buzz

Jefferson’s Rebels

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Military Times

Natural Born Citizen

Orly Taitz, Esq.

Philip Berg, Esq.

United States Constitution

 Official DisclosureJust to be clear, my graphics depict almost all members of the BOPAC Administration as being full of crap.  They do not actually look like turds – one needs special ‘full of crap’ glasses to be able to see the core of those who continually feed America BS.  I treat everyone equally – when Glenn Beck goes off on those who reasonably question Obama’s eligibility, he gets a half-full of crap depiction.

The Marco Rubio Cube of Ambition, Principle, Politics, Duty, Constitution and Moral Relativism – The BOPAC Report

August 31, 2011

The BOPAC Report


Worried-Yet The Barack "The Borg" Obama Collective is coming! Resistance is Necessary to Save America from Mediocrity and Less Liberty!

The Marco Rubio Cube of Ambition, Principle, Politics, Duty, Constitution & Moral Relativism

Many decent Americans are beginning to find themselves facing something that if it happens must culminate with a vital but troubling individual action in 2012.  One American in particular, who clearly loves his country, ought to be tied in knots inside by that something. That particular American is Senator Marco Rubio and that something is the possibility that he might be selected as the running mate for the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Unless one has been living under a rock or getting their news only from the mainstream media, everyone should be aware of the problem Sen. Rubio, through no fault of his, has.  Unfortunately, Sen. Rubio is probably not a Natural Born Citizen as is required by the Constitution to be President or Vice-President.

If I were Sen. Rubio, I would certainly be tied up inside. If he’s not, then that’s a problem.  Had Sen. Rubio never gone to law school, never studied the Constitution, never served as an intern in Congress, or had never taken an Oath to support and defend the Constitution then maybe he could be excused if he’s not conflicted.  However, he has done all of those things and should hold himself to a higher standard.  So if he’s not conflicted, that speaks volumes about his ethics, morals, ambitions and respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law.  Personally, I believe he is conflicted – but has managed to compartmentalize and assuage his doubts and concerns by craftily working the Rubio (Rubik) Cube to arrange and rationalize most of the parts of his world and outward appearances to suit him.  I’m sure the power players will be telling him that everything looks fine; it’s no big deal.

However, one group of cubes that support Senator Rubio cannot be lined up so neatly is that of the millions of Americans who understand that the Constitution has a requirement that the President be a Natural Born Citizen and that there are legitimate questions and issues about what that means.  They understand that the media and both Parties would be satisfied if the Natural Born Citizen requirement would just go away. It’s clear that the players are pulling out all the stops to equate ordinary citizenship to natural born citizenship without going through the Amendment process.  However, most know that to be a natural born citizen requires that both of a candidates’ parents must have been American citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth in the U.S.  But even if the good Senator can manage to make the outward appearance his world look acceptable he should be left with a hodgepodge of internal doubts, conflicts and betrayals lingering to tarnish his possible service. However, there is a solution to Senator Rubio’s cube.

Given that the term Natural Born Citizen was not defined in the Constitution and courts have recognized that jurists must look outside the document to gleam the meaning and intent, there exists legal arguments that can be made urging the Supreme Court to refine the common historical definition of who is a Natural Born Citizen to incorporate situations the Founders may not have considered and that would not undermine the Founders’ concern that the President must have his or her sole allegiance directed to the United States.  Thus the Court would not be changing the definition but merely clarifying it.  It wouldn’t help Gov. Jindal but might help Senator Rubio.

The situation is the special case of the United States’ involvement and responsibilities to the people of Cuba in the early 20th century.  

Lame Cherry argues on her blog:

…Marco Rubio’s parents … Mario was born in 1927 and Oria born in 1931 were fully under the US protectorate status as much as Barack Hussein Obama sr. was under British Mandate status making him British.

This was further cemented in President Fulgencio Batista joining the allies in World War II in declaring war on Japan and Germany in December 1941 with Cubans fighting in concert with Americans in that global conflict.

The Rubios are not some post Castro globalists. The Rubios willingly came to America when afforded the opportunity…

Whether or not the Supreme Court would chose to interpret the term Natural Born Citizen to include the special situation of parents born under United States protection and clearly having no loyalty to the current dictatorship of Cuba is not the issue for Sen. Rubio.   The real issue is will Sen. Rubio respect the concerns of millions of Americans who are concerned that the Constitution is being treated as an impediment to the ambitions of politicians?  Will he seek a declaratory judgment from a federal court that indicates that Sen. Marco Rubio is indeed a Natural Born Citizen?

We understand that the Democratic candidate, Mr. Obama, will and has used every resource available to him remain in the Oval Office.  He has been described as a moral relativist; and as such, can justify or rationalize just about anything he does. One could justify everything from drone attacks, targeted assassination, infidelity, hiding school records and even Larry Sinclair’s allegations.

We understand that about Obama; but we do not want our candidate to be one whose life is based on lies, deception, and rationalizations.  We want someone we can be proud of.  Sen. Rubio can be that person if he squares his shoulders and faces the problem and doesn’t rely on Obama’s groundwork of deception.  He might just find a court in a mood to dispense justice and clearly define the term.

Not only does Sen. Rubio have this personal ethical problem to deal with, he is creating a serious ethical/moral conflict in each and every one who believes in their duty to honor the Constitution, especially when they go into the voting booth.  And it is not fair for the Senator to put his problem upon each of us.

If he does, then each one of us will have to examine our own ethics (always advisable), look at the consequences of another Obama term to further degrade America, consider the consequences to the Constitution of another 4 years of constant undermining, consider the lessons we are teaching our children and then try to rationalize our way into pulling the voting lever.  Many of us want to pull the lever for Senator Rubio but it would be nice not to need a shower afterwards.

Moral relativism is basically the idea that there’s no ‘real’ right and wrong; it’s culturally taught behavior; it’s situational ethics; it’s the context of ethical decisions; it’s outcome focused; it’s okay if I say it’s okay.  It’s relative. It’s BS.  If one knows something is wrong and they need to rationalize their action because they really want to do it, it degrades their principles and society in general.   It’s the mores that give rise to unsustainable entitlements and dependency. It’s desensitization to ethical and unethical conduct.  It’s the rioting mobs in Great Britain – it’s Donald Young’s murder – it’s the Jihad mentality and those obvious to it, and in the extreme it’s the fertile ground that gave rise to the holocaust and Rwanda. It leads to decay of both persons and societies.

Rationalization and consideration of the relative badness of outcomes may be necessary sometimes in situations such as war to protect others and their freedoms, in defense of one’s life, etc. but it should make one upset.  It’s supposed to do that. Unfortunately, many today treat morality and ethics as a game – the ME game. It may be a game but it is not without real victims.  Ask the spouse of an unfaithful partner or someone wrongfully imprisoned or the Chinese mother who finds out she’s pregnant with her second child.

Former Candidate Alan Keyes summed it up nicely in a recent article:

…I imagine such relativism works out pretty well for some folks. It always has. After all, moral relativism is simply the self-righteousness of the wicked masquerading as profound intellectual insight…

I don’t want to be forced to be working on ethics Rubik cube in the voting booth. I for one do not want to vote for someone who would intentionally cause me to have to rationalize my vote, twisting my principles upside down, compromising my ethics, undermining the Constitution, degrading my vote.

But given what’s at stake should Obama win – I probably will.

I will then take a shower and hope someone has the resources to file suit in an effort to defend the Constitution.


Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Albert Einstein

Other News:

American Thinker



Mario Apuzzo, Esq.


Natural Born Citizen

Orly Taitz, Esq.

Philip Berg, Esq.

The Jag Hunter

The Post Email


United States Constitution

Staff Sergeant Daryn Moran’s Journey – Refusing Obama’s Illegal Orders – The BOPAC Report

August 15, 2011

The BOPAC Report

Staff Sergeant Daryn J. Moran’s Journey –

In the basement of the United Universal Church of Obamboozle, Captain Taqiyya (Obama's alter ego) makes a sacrifice of a Tea Party Terrorist.

Unfortunately, Daryn J. Moran is choosing to following in Lt. Col. Lakin’s footsteps.  I admire his courage, but given the fact that the upper echelons of power (military included) are turning their heads, I fear his action will be in vain.  I think it would take an entire Platoon refusing Obama’s illegal orders before the Joint Chiefs would take any action whatsoever other than to allow the sacrifice another brave soldier on Obama’s alter to the death of truth.

Are there 30 or 40 men and women in our military willing to say, ENOUGH?

From CitizenWells:

Staff Sergeant Daryn Moran refuses orders, Obama birth certificate eligibility, Landstuhl Germany, Obama is a criminal

Staff Sergeant Daryn Moran refuses orders, Obama birth certificate eligibility, Landstuhl Germany, Obama is a criminal

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

Howard Coble, members of Congress, military officers, I hope that you are paying attention.

Another patriot has stepped forward.

From the Birther Report August 14, 2011.

“Air Force Staff Sergeant Refusing Orders Until Obama’s Eligibility Dealt With”

“Here is the email from Air Force Staff Sergeant Daryn Moran,
My name is Daryn J. Moran. I am a SSgt in the USAF stationed in Germany.

I called Pastor Manning of the Manning Report just recently (Youtube video posted below) to share my concern for our country. Boils down that I have not gone in to work last Thurs. and Fri. First time I was AWOL in nearly 13 years. Until B. Obama provides a birth certificate which stands up to professional examination, not even mentioning the seriousness of the fact that his father was never an American, I no longer serve the Armed Forces or take orders.

Basically, I’d rather follow Mr. Lakin, the ex-Army officer who went to Ft. Leavenworth, into war against our real enemies….Continue Reading

Commentary –

Obama's failure to be transparent about his possible lack of eligibility is tarnishing the currently serving military personnel's service! Will there be an update to the DD-214?

In support of Lt. Col. Lakin and Staff Sergeant Daryn Moran’s courage in seeking the ‘Truth’ (and as a former In-Flight Tech in the Navy), I urge all who have served or have friends/family in the military to ask the following question of those currently serving. 

Brothers and Sisters in the Military, when are you going to demand Obama establish that he is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve as Commander In Chief?  

The military is the only government organization that I continue to have respect for and it pains me criticize those serving.  And I understand the consequences of challenging Obama’s eligibility directly, but the continuing attacks against our Constitution by the left cannot be allowed to pass without objection in some form or another.  Acquiescence is not the only option.

Go to your Chaplin, write letters to editors of your local newspapers, write letters to the Military Times, call your Congressional Representatives, talk to your JAG Office, Tweet, contact the Joint Chiefs.  It will take many to defend the Constitution.  Hillary used to say it takes a village to raise a child.  It will take a dedicated Platoon or Company to raise the Constitution to its rightful place. 

Maybe military leadership could utilize the following provision?

§ 935. Art. 135. Courts of inquiry

(a) Courts of inquiry to investigate any matter may be convened by any person authorized to convene a general court-martial or by any other person designated by the Secretary concerned for that purpose, whether or not the persons involved have requested such an inquiry.

If the Oath to protect the Constitution is not important today, why don’t we just change the oath of allegiance to reflect our current level of commitment? 

I, _______, do solemnly swear to protect ME and I will try to defend the Constitution as long as it doesn’t adversely impact the aforementioned ‘ME’.

The Universal United Church of OBamboozle! State Run Media Always Welcome! Every Secret Well Kept! Kal Penn, Larry Sinclair, not a Natural Born Citizen, Bill Ayers, Reggie, etc., etc., etc.

Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Albert Einstein


Other News:

Rolling Over in the Tomb of Unknow Soldiers!

American Thinker




Dr. Kate’s Review


Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Military Times

Natural Born Citizen


Orly Taitz, Esq.

Philip Berg, Esq.

SafeguardOurConstituion – Lt. Col. Lakin’s Site

The Jag Hunter

The Post Email


The Steady Drip

United States Constitution

World Net Daily

 Official DisclosureJust to be clear, my graphics depict almost all members of the BOPAC Administration as being full of crap.  They do not actually look like turds – one needs special ‘full of crap’ glasses to be able to see the core of those who continually feed America BS.  I treat everyone equally – when Glenn Beck goes off on those who reasonably question Obama’s eligibility, he gets a half-full of crap depiction.