Archive for the ‘Obama scandal’ Category

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.


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.

A Step Towards Respect of Our Laws and The Social Mores by Legalizing Drugs

June 29, 2008

June 29, 2008 by zachjonesishome

(An Approach to Change That Might Lessen Our Tax Burden)

By ZachJonesIsHome

Have you ever asked the question, “Why do so many people bend, break, and/or ignore the law?” I have – and I think it comes down to a pervasive belief (on some level) that many of our laws are not reasonably related to the protection of our society. Many of our laws are intended to restrict decision-making that should be strictly personal in nature. The law caudles us, treats us like children – without the experience to make informed decisions. Instead of developing only laws that address conduct that has the potential of harming others in our society, we develop laws that tell the individual adult that he or she cannot consider a decision they are facing, together with its possible consequences and then choose to live with those consequences.

As stated by George Orwell, On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”

As a result, the consequences (if you will) are that many adults will decide to do the thing they are considering (even if it is illegal) and take the risk. And from that very act, one loses a certain degree of respect for the sanctity of all laws and may become more likely to shrug their shoulders when they see someone else violating some other law(s) that could be construed as an unreasonable infringement on free choice. The individual might also feel the need to cover up his/her indiscretion. (Maybe by lying on applications to licensing boards, lying on tax returns, doing favors of position to others to attempt to cover up, lying to the courts, etc.) Furthermore, it could be argued that it would then become against that person’s best interest to voluntarily help the police by providing information to them regarding other matters – the danger being that if they get involved one might draw more attention than they want. That’s too bad, since the police have historically relied on that type of assistance in its effort to combat crime. And it is always important to remember that children are watching parents violate the law and will learn that they too should be able to pick and choose which laws they are willing to follow….

In conclusion, it is the sanctity of the system of laws that is at issue here. That system can only be respected if it is clearly, rationally related to trying to protect us from harm from others. However, it fails when the system attempts to usurp decisions from us that are clearly ours to make.

So therefore Senator Obama, you can come clean to me about the allegations of your use of illicit drugs and having gay sex with Larry Sinclair in 1999. Just do it. And where is the American media in this? AWOL. Cowards!

Read the complete article here.


To Follow this story and for real time live information and up to date information regarding Mr. Larry Sinclair’s allegations, “Senator Obama and Larry Sinclair engaged in the illegal use of cocaine and engaged in gay sex in 1999”, see links below:

Larry Sinclair’s Blog

CitizenWell’s Blog Blog

When Are The US Attorney and FBI Going To Take Threats Of Murder Seriously, After I am Killed?

June 29, 2008

From Larry Sinclair’s Blog:

Posted by Larry Sinclair on Sunday, June 29, 2008

The DC Office of the FBI and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia has some explaining to do in regards to this guy threatening me on the day they claim they put an end to his threats.

As with his first Youtube account, he opened the account sent the threat and then closed the account. If the US Attorney for DC and SA Born of the DC FBI do not identify this individual and arrest him then I will take legal action against both offices for the emotional stress they have caused me by my having to deal with repeated death threats from an individual they (the FBI and US Attorney and DC Police) have claimed they contacted after the first threats.

I just happened to log in to my Youtube account and look what I found in my Youtube email box:


Jun 15, 2008

What happened to Tim Russert could happen to you….

What is the perfect murder? A murder that doesn’t get ruled a murder. Sinclair, there is no amount of security that can protect you from me. Do you really believe the FBI is going to investigate your death threats on Youtube? You really are a delusional little man. Your followers are even more pathetic than you are. I recieved several threats in my PM box shortly after you put my message in your blog. One of your followers even claimed to be an FBI agent. I can only imagine the look on her wrinkled face when I replied, revealing the fact that I know her full name. I know alot more than that. I can gain access to anyone’s personal information on the internet. Your internet detectives and profilers are clowns.

I assure you that you should take this threat very seriously. I can kill you any time I want. You could die of a heart attack or a seizure tommorow and the police would never rule it a murder.

Why am I not afraid to tell you this? Because you claim that your death should be ruled a homicide anyway and that you get death threats all the time. It doesn’t matter what you know, it’s what you can prove. You’ll never find me and I will get away with killing you. By the way, Chicago is a very nice city. I visited last December. Sinclair, you don’t want to end up like Russert, Palfrey and Young. This isn’t a game. Don’t attend this Press Conference. If you don’t die the next day I promise you, you won’t live to see the 4th of July.

The above is from the same 22 year old DC resident that US Attorney Taylor and the FBI refused to identify to me and my Attorney, and refused to prosecute.

The law seems to only apply to when it is being used to try and screw me, but not when it is 22 year old guy living with his parents in the DC area (this info was obtained through a DC Police officer involved in the original report filed on 6-13-08 after the first threats of 6-10 & 12-08) threatening for the third time to murder someone (ME) for speaking out about Barack Obama.


To Follow this story and for real time live information and up to date information regarding Mr. Larry Sinclair’s allegations, “Senator Obama and Larry Sinclair engaged in the illegal use of cocaine and engaged in gay sex in 1999”, see links below:

Larry Sinclair’s Blog

CitizenWell’s Blog Blog

The Audacity Of Opposing Obama Has Given Rise To A Plethora Of Serious Threats.

June 28, 2008

From Mr. Sinclair’s Blog:

Yet More Threats From The Obamanots

Posted by Larry Sinclair on Saturday, June 28, 2008

The following was sent to me

John Reader Says:
June 28, 2008 at 6:21 am

Listen Larry, and listen Good, you dirty criminal scum bagging felon piece of filth. Remove my posts on your syncopate suckers web site post haste. You are playing with fire; I can, and will, follow you personally to each, and every, house of incarceration and personally speak to your incarcerators/jailers from now until the day you depart this earth—Do you get the picture feces? I don’t just talk, I act, and you are starting to offend me big time. I am doing the same service for a local corrupt sheriff indicted and sentenced on federal charges who had the audacity to mess with me. I am ready, willing and able to follow your useless crime filled life you shit head criminal. You don’t know trouble is until you mess with me you putrid mess. I love to put bullying, victimizing perp criminals in their place—You know what jail is like, don’t you perp criminal? I am timing your filthy ass, and the posts should be down shortly you filthy, dung pile cretin criminal. Don’t test my patience; You may have messed with others, but I know how to deal with people like you. How about some federal time to go with your state time? Huh? Now, do you hear me perp, do you get the picture? I will say it louder—I WILL SEE YOU IN A FEDERAL INSTITUTION FOR YOUR CRIMES…GET IT?

I guess all I can say is BRING IT ON!! AGAIN!

Mr. Sinclair continues to stand strong and many others from all different walks of life are also lending their support to his right to assert his allegations in the public square. Where is the Media???? Cowards!

No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
Edward R. Murrow

Did Rezko prosecutors protect Obama?

June 27, 2008

Rezko Watch Reports:

Friday, June 27, 2008

Did Rezko prosecutors protect Obama? Or should he be worried about what comes next?

“No matter how much he kicks them in the ribs, they still protect him,” one RezkoWatcher commented only this morning when speaking of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Let’s hope that this is not true.

We learn from the Chicago Sun-Times that “[n]ewly unsealed documents show that prosecutors sought to call witnesses to testify” about convicted political fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s ties to Sen. Obama. For whatever reason, “prosecutors opted against bringing Obama into the mix” during Rezko’s recently concluded two-month trial.

“And references to Obama were not only kept out of the trial during his run for the primary—it was kept under seal,” Natasha Korecki reported June 26, 2008. “Until today.”

What we do not learn is why prosecutors did not bring up Obama’s name more often, particularly since U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve “ruled that they could.”

Korecki wrote:

The filing indicates that the prosecution wanted witnesses to talk about Rezko’s prowess as an Obama fund-raiser and his influence in getting two others — Joseph Aramanda and Semir Sirazi — to donate Rezko money to Obama’s campaigns in their names. The money kicked into Obama’s campaigns came from an illicit kickback scheme. Obama has since donated that money to charity.

Is it possible that there are more troubling days ahead for Sen. Obama—particularly since rumors are rumbling around Springfield that either 1.) impeachment may be on the table for Blagojevich or 2.) Rezko’s prosecutors are ready to paint a target on Blagojevich’s back? Either way, speculation abounds that Blagojevich is no Rezko; he may not be willing to so quickly exchange his mansion for a jail cell.

h/t Bill Baar, who agrees: “Walls are closing in and the air is getting thin for the Governor. He won’t go down alone.”

Related articles:

· Natasha Korecki, Who lied, witnesses — or gov? Feds reveal he denied pay-to-play remarks described by 2 in court, Chicago Sun-Times, June 27, 2008.

· Jeff Coen and Bob Secter, Feds quizzed Blagojevich. Records show talks in Rezko inquiry, Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2008.

Larry Sinclair and We All Need The Abuse of Legal Process Questions Answered!

June 24, 2008

CitizenWell’s writes this evening:

Larry Sinclair is free, Why was Sinclair arrested, Another failed attempt to smear Sinclair, Parties responsible should be held accountable

June 24, 2008 · No Comments

Larry Sinclair was transported to Delaware and appeared before a
judge. Sinclair was allowed to return home.

Why was Sinclair arrested?

I have it on authority that they tried to arrest Sinclair before
the news conference began.

Did the DC police fabricate a warrant in order to arrest Sinclair?
First Axelrod and the Obama Campaign attack and try to discredit

Next multiple death threats were made.

Then Jane Hamsher, on her website, encouraged Obama supporters
to sign a petition to try to prevent Sinclair from speaking at
his news conference.

Then Sinclair is arrested before he can answer more questions.

Is this the kind of change you want? This is the kind of change
the German people got with the Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

I intend to get to the bottom of this chicanery.

Larry Sinclair? Obama? Political Prisoner? Hmmmm? Biden? Really? Hmmm?

June 22, 2008


When Politicians exert such power and influence that it causes the altering of normal processes of law enforcement solely to preclude the sounds of dissenting voices – we have all lost a tremendous amount.

It could be argued that a very determined dissenting voice has been incarcerated by political influences on law enforcement this past June 18, 2008. It is past time for the authorities to free Larry Sinclair who is now possibly being held as a Political Prisoner. Hmmmm?

Let’s think about this for a moment. Hmmmm?

Mr. Larry Sinclair was arrested on June 18, 2008, after his presentation before The National Press Club (NPC). There are reports that the arrest was intended to take place prior to Mr. Sinclair’s presentation before the NPC wherein he made allegations that in 1999 Sen. Obama and he ingested crack cocaine and engaged in homosexual activities. Hmmm?

Joseph Robinette “Beau” Biden III (born February 3, 1969) is an American politician and lawyer from Wilmington, in New Castle County, Delaware. He is a member of the Democratic Party and is the incumbent Attorney General of Delaware. He is the son of U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Hmmm?

VP speculation swirls around Sen. Biden

…”Biden’s name has been among those often mentioned, largely for the same reason the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman is often touted as a possible candidate for secretary of state…. Hmmm?

Joseph R. “Beau” Biden, III took office as Delaware’s Attorney General in January 2007…. …. Hmmm?

Late Addition:  CitizenWells writes today on Mr. Sinclair’s blog: “…I have information from two reliable sources that Sinclair’s record was thoroughly checked in January 2008 and there were no other outstanding warrants….” Hmmm? So there were no active arrest warrants in Delaware for Mr. Sinclair in January of this year, 2008.  Hmmm?

Let’s see –

What would it take to cause law enforcement from Delaware to arrange the arrest of Mr. Larry Sinclair in Washington, D.C.? Hmmm?

Is this how Delaware’s law enforcement normally goes about executing an arrest warrant? Hmmm?

Whose signature would be required? Hmmm?

Whose direction could instigate it? Hmmm?

For what purpose could it serve? Hmmm?


Article: Is 1st Amendment on life support?

June 22, 2008

Very good article from National Press Club perspective.

I took exception to Ms. Smith’s statement in the article:

….My point is that the very thing the people who advocated blocking Sinclair’s press conference said they feared – widespread media coverage – simply didn’t happen because no credible news outlet would publish those kinds of allegations without first verifying them….

My response:

The problem is that No Credible News outlet has tried to do either – verify or disprove Mr. Sinclair’s allegations.

Published: June 22, 2008 6:00 a.m.

Is 1st Amendment

on life support?

Commentary by Sylvia A. Smith

Commentary by Sylvia A. Smith
Washington editor

WASHINGTON – After a week of relentless e-mails and phone calls from people who were outraged at the prospect of a guy scheduling a press conference to make allegations about Barack Obama, I’m not sure extreme CPR could resuscitate the idea of free speech in some Americans’ minds.

The message they sent was that the guy is a crackpot and a felon and therefore should be prevented from speaking.

Let me fill you in on what happened.

As you might know, I’m the president of the National Press Club this year. The Press Club is a major venue for newsmaking in Washington. We invite lots of interesting, provocative and newsy people to speak here.

But we also rent our meeting rooms to people and groups. They might have a private event (a wedding reception or a conference limited to their own members). Or they might rent space to conduct a press conference.

When that happens, the NPC functions essentially as a conference center.

A couple of weeks ago, one of our meeting rooms was reserved by a customer for a press conference. As it turned out, Larry Sinclair wanted to say he had done illegal things with Obama.

There’s lots of stuff going on in Washington that competes for journalists’ time and attention. The likelihood of much media coverage for this fellow was pretty low because of the outlandishness of his claims and (if anyone had done a Google search on him) his dicey background.

But then a few blogs got wind of the event. They huffed and they puffed that Obama was being unfairly attacked. They detailed Sinclair’s allegations. They stoked their readers to try to force the National Press Club to silence him….

The underlying message I got from the callers and e-mailers was that the First Amendment and free speech are an impediment to the way they think things ought to be. Or that while some people are free to speak, others should not be.

That way of thinking is a lot scarier than allegations from Larry Sinclair…

Go to Article

If These Three Strikes Were Committed By Sen. John McCain

June 21, 2008

The United States Main Stream Media Would Have Called Senator John McCain OUT!

The Critical Question:

Do we have an impartial umpire calling the 2008 Presidential Election?

It is clear from the actions of Senator Obama, that he has little or no appreciation for the laws, customs and traditions of The United States of America.

It is clear from his actions that he believes that any such laws, customs and traditions should only apply to the bitter people who cling to their guns and religion.

Strike 3 for Senator Barrack Hussein Obama

It can be argued that Senator Obama and his handlers knowingly and intentionally violated a criminal law set forth in The United States Code.

§ 713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress

Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both….

(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.….

(f) A violation of the provisions of this section may be enjoined at the suit of the Attorney General, (1) in the case of the great seal of the United States and the seals of the President and Vice President, upon complaint by any authorized representative of any department or agency of the United States…

The Charge:

On or about June 20, 2008, Sen. Obama and his staff did knowly and intentionally violate § 713 (a) and (b) of the United States Code.

The Proof:

A photograph was taken of Sen. Barrack Hussein Obama engaging in this criminal conduct.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a meeting of Democratic Governors at the Chicago History Museum in Chicago Friday, June 20, 2008. A new seal debuted on Obama’s podium Friday, sporting iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal, the blue background, the eagle clutching arrows on left and olive branch on right, but with symbolic differences. Instead of the Latin ‘E pluribus unum’ (Out of many, one), Obama’s says ‘Vero possumus’, rough Latin for ‘Yes, we can.’ Instead of ‘Seal of the President of the United States’, Obama’s Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama’s eagle wears his ‘O’ campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead.

Strike 2 for Senator Barrack Hussein Obama

Senator Obama does not reflect any knowledge that there is a big difference between Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day.

Barack Obama’s Memorial Day speech, in which he said, “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong” and talked about how his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, a task actually accomplished by the Red Army. (Late Tuesday, Obama’s camp clarified that the candidate meant to say Buchenwald, not Auschwitz.)

Strike 1 for Senator Barrack Hussein Obama

This clear violation of custom speaks for itself.

The Question once again:

Do we have an impartial umpire calling the 2008 Presidential Election?

To this point the media has shown nothing but distain for the concept of fairness in vetting the candidates.

When will the Media investigate Larry Sinclair’s allegations of gay sex and drug use with Senator Obama?