The Cricket Awards

18 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by in Media Bias, The Obama Presidency

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

What do gas, vacations, war, and golf have to do with one another?

Meet some contenders for the selective journalism award I’ve just created. I’ve decided to call it “The Cricket,” in honor of the sound we so often associate with dead air. . . you know, “cricket. . . cricket. . . cricket. . .” We’ve been through this the last 4 years, and for countless topics- the media has remained silent on every hypocritical move the president makes, while history lends us quite the opposite picture of the media during the “hated” years of George W. Bush. Granted, far more than four qualified contenders could make this list (taxes, immigration, debt, deficit. . . . you name it) , but do you really want to read a blog post the size of War & Peace?

Contender A: Gas Prices

During the 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency, I watched the media scream like a stuck pig every time the gas prices rose. . . and then subtly (or maybe not so subtly) insinuate that Dick Cheney and his pals at Halliburton had some hidden stockpile of gasoline somewhere that they were just sitting on. . . just for kicks and giggles. According to the Business and Media Institute, “as gas prices rose in 2008, network reporters mentioned President Bush in 15 times as many stories, than they brought up President Obama in a similar period in 2011. Comparing a 20 day span of rising gas prices in 2008 to 24 days of rising prices in February 2011, the Business & Media Institute found the networks did more than 2 ½ times as many stories during the Bush years versus Obama.” This is interesting, considering that from the day Obama was inaugurated to today, gas prices have risen 67%, as compared to the 22% overall increase during the same period under George W. Bush. As we all know, by the end of Bush’s second term gas prices came down considerably; something that is unlikely to occur this time around because, as the Heritage Foundation puts it, “. . .President Obama’s policies are rooted in unilaterally shutting down the domestic oil industry amidst rising prices and a struggling economy.” 

Gas prices have risen every single day for the past 31 days, resulting in a national average of $3.73/gallon for regular grade gasoline. The media certainly has a great deal of catching up to do on the number of stories linking the president to the high gas prices. .  . but I wouldn’t bet on it.

(Courtesy of the Heritage Foundation)

(Courtesy of the Heritage Foundation)

Contender B: Vacations, Vacations, Vacations

I believe most would agree that the American Presidency is one of, if not THE most, stressful job on planet earth. After all, most people don’t want the stress managing their local Homeowner’s Association, let alone the free world. In other worlds- no one is saying the president can’t take a break.

Here’s the deal, though- there’s a vast difference between taking the traveling White House to one’s home as in the case of Ronald Reagan’s Rancho del Cielo or George W. Bush’s Texas digs. They went HOME. Once again, the media cried foul. The Washington Times posted a piece entitled “Vacationing Bush Poised to Set A Record,” in which the author took swipes at the number of time Bush took his work to his Crawford, Texas ranch:

“By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.” (in reference to his 5 week trip away from the White House)

“. . . roughly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president’s travel than the White House itself;” 

 ”. . .they [the trips] symbolize a lackadaisical approach to the world’s most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush’s periodic two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends.” (Lackadaisical might better describe President Obama’s “checking out” at around 5 pm the night of the horrendous Benghazi attack, but then again who’s keeping track.)

The article even went on to insinuate that had Bush spent a little less time at the Ranch. . . 9/11 might not have happened.

To a couple of WashPo staff writers who are so deeply interested in the historical trends of presidential “vacations,” I’d expect subsequent pieces on the extensive nature of this president’s vacation habits would be readily at hand. . .so I did a quick Google search of the article’s authors (there are two: Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker) plus the words “obama vacations.” Shocker- not a peep. Well, if we’re being honest, Peter Baker did write a piece on how Michelle Obama’s Spain extravaganza was heavily criticized. . .though the piece was hardly as critical nor as opinionated as the former piece. Then there’s his riveting report on the president’s free-time reading. . .

Keep in mind also, that there’s a vast difference between what the press liked to refer to as Bush’s working “vacations” and a pleasure trip; to date, the Obama family “pleasure trips” far outweigh his predecessor’s. Call me crazy, but a  multi-million dollar jaunt to Spain or luxury accommodations in Aspen is just a bit different than heading home to one’s ranch. The Obama family also seems to relish in taking separate trips (just like this week’s, where Michelle was in Aspen and Obama was golfing with Tiger), or separate fully staffed planes on the same trip, incurring even more cost. Aside from all of that, the Obama family’s four trips to Hawaii top $20 million alone. Keith Koffler puts it well:

“The Obamas get plenty of vacation. They have sojourned every summer in Martha’s Vineyard except for last year, when campaigning and pre-election concern about appearances got in the way. They often take a side trip somewhere else during the year, and Michelle goes skiing annually out West. At the very least, they could spend their Christmas holidays at Camp David or at one of the many fine resorts outside of Washington, which would require only the use of the presidential helicopter to get them there.”

Alas, the first family must have trips to only the best beaches, ski at only the best resorts, summer holiday in Martha’s Vineyard, and hang out in only some of the best hotel rooms Spain has to offer. George Bush went to . . . Texas. Crawford. . . Texas. To his (gasp) HOME. I might add that these trips to Texas took place at an Air Force One hourly cost of approximately $68,000, which incidentally is a far cry from Obama’s $181,000/hr. (Hint hint, Mr. President, maybe your fuel bill wouldn’t be so high if you didn’t have drilling in a choke hold. . .food for thought.)

Here’s some perspective for you: while the ENTIRE British Royal Family costs the British taxpayers a mere 60 million a year, the FOUR members of Obama family cost the American taxpayer 1.4 BILLION per year. Billion, ladies and gentleman. As in 20 times the cost of the ENTIRE ROYAL FAMILY. Now, granted, that includes all costs of maintaining the First Family, including the lavish vacations no one seems to want to criticize in these tough times. Sure- the presidency is expensive. But just how expensive is justifiable? According to Robert Gray in an interview with the Daily Caller (as reprinted here) “$1.4 billion spent last year is the ‘total cost of the presidency,’ factoring in the ‘biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,’
and ‘Air Force One ‘running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.’”

I realize that presidential vacations aren’t cheap. I realize that with the president must travel a full staff and security, each incurring an extra expense; the difference, naturally, is that when one chooses to simply go HOME rather than on 4 million dollar Christmas trips to Hawaii, there’s a disconnect. “But Hawaii IS his home!” snapped a Democratic strategist on Fox News this evening. Au contraire; Obama hasn’t lived in Hawaii since his younger years; while both Michelle and the family they then had made their life in Chicago. Would it kill the First Family to consider the “optics” (and the price tag of a trip on Air Force One at a mere $181,000 an hour) of a trans-Pacific flight to Hawaii versus a more sensitive cross-country jaunt to their home in Chicago? Whether or not the President chooses to blame himself for the economic straights we’re in, he can’t deny that Americans are suffering. Yet he soaked up the sun in Hawaii anyway.

Care to venture a guess as to how much Bush spent on those ghastly trips to his personal ranch over the COURSE Of his presidency? A paltry $124 million. That comes out to roughly $15.5 million a year on vacation over the course of EIGHT years. Heck, Michelle alone spent close to that in ONE YEAR with her 40+ days of vacations without Commander and Chief.

Anyone?

Contender C: Rounds of Golf

Bush was again heavily criticized for his rounds of golf, which he eventually stopped doing after feeling that it sent the wrong message to the hurting families affected by the war. Bush is quoted as saying that he thought “playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf.” Obama, who has now golf four times as much as Bush did in 8 years, doesn’t seem to concern himself with how his carefree relaxation on the best of courses with only the best of players looks to Americans suffering in their upside down home, next to their unemployed spouse, with a meal purchased with food stamps on the dining room table. And where’s the mainstream media on this travesty? Instead, the New York Times presents a hard-hitting piece on how President Obama was honoring his past predecessors on this President’s Day by. . . chilling out? After a quick joke about chilly temperatures and a “chill” President (haha) NYTimes kept it going: “All told, the weekend offered another sign of a president who is freed from worry about running for election again.” Ah yes- never mind that this president has played more golf in 4 years than the oh-so-criticized Bush did in 8 years. . .the New York Times certainly could care less. They continue: “The president’s aides say he takes fewer vacations than many of his predecessors did, and even then he often cannot catch a break, with crises at home or abroad interrupting.”

First of all, we’ve just established that the idea of  Barack Obama as the occasional vacationer is hardly reality. Second of all, poor Barack! You mean, the President of the United States; the leader of the free world must concern himself with the pesky interruptions like “crises at home or abroad” that dare to interrupt his million dollar trip-ettes?

Contender D: Wars

We all remember the Code Pink days, with their often controversial, anti-war, anti-Bush protests. The media followed suit, criticizing Bush for his use of enhanced interrogation, Guantanamo Bay, and the war in general. Meanwhile, Barack Obama takes credit for nabbing Osama bin Laden on intelligence gleaned from the interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others, Guantanamo Bay is still wide open, and while the wars are “ending,” the Obama presidency has decided to take matters into their own hands by using drones to take out their targets. These drones work quite well in the context of the battlefield; however things get a little sticky when the administration starts using them to take out an American citizen without due process. Naturally I’m speaking of Anwar al Awlaki, who I personally feel should fry for what he did; nonetheless he was an American citizen who was entitled to his day in court. Where’s the media hysteria?

So now, dear readers, it’s your turn to participate. Vote below to elect A Future Free’s first ever Cricket Award Recipient!

S.O.T.U. Address- Round 5

16 Saturday Feb 2013

Posted by in The Obama Presidency

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

“The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Article II, Sec. 3

Our Constitution requires that our president present a national progress report–which in effect is supposed to be somewhat of a score card for his work. . . or lack thereof–from time to time.  Commonly these become platforms for policy they’d LIKE to see implemented, and it was no different Tuesday night. While Wolff Blitzer and the gang at CNN are all wrapped up in uh-ohing  over whether or not Marco Rubio ended his Senate career by taking a sip of water mid-address–they hailed the president’s speech a resounding success. Let’s take a gander, shall we? While primarily grandstanding about future plans, the speech did contain some “status updates” on the so-called State of the Union:

Tonight, thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there is much progress to report. After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home. After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs. We buy more American cars than we have in five years, and less foreign oil than we have in twenty. Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients, and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before. Together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger.

  • WARS: Yes, the wars are ending, but what is the state of the world as it pertains to the terrorists who wish to see us eliminated?  Benghazi isn’t a hopeful sign. Furthermore, the sharp, sudden, drawback of troops (much like what was done in Iraq) in Afghanistan is drawing concerns about the future stability of the region. Specifically, “Army Gen. Lloyd Austin — who oversaw the final U.S. drawdown in Iraq — agreed that plans to sharply decrease the number of Afghan security forces after 2014 could open the door to more Taliban violence.”
  • JOBS: 6 million jobs created sounds GREAT. Let’s do the math though, shall we? When Obama took office in January of 2009, unemployment was at 7.6%. At present, it is an even worse 7.9%, with 12.3 million Americans jobless. As I’ve oft mentioned, this number is really far higher than 8, 9, or even 10%, but that’s a story for another day. The point is- can someone please explain how one starts a presidency at 7.6% unemployment, creates SIX MILLION jobs, and manages to be at 7.9% unemployment at the onset of his 5th year in office? Thankfully, Glenn Kessler over at the Washington Post took a stab at it: “The president is cherry-picking a number that puts the improvement in the economy in the best possible light. The low point in jobs was reached in February 2010, and there has indeed been a gain of about 6 million jobs since then, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. But the data also show that since the start of his presidency, about 1.2 million jobs have been created—and the number of jobs in the economy is about 3.2 million lower than when the recession began in December, 2007.” The low point Kessler was referring to was a month in which we were at 9.7% unemployment.  Then again, when this president and his administration are allowed to get away with claiming that jobs “SAVED” falls right into the same category as jobs CREATED. . . I suppose then 2+2 does in fact equal 5. Kessler is again correct in pointing out the number of jobs no longer part of the economy. “. . . 3.2 million jobs lower . . . ” This is called a “shrinking of the workforce.” Jobs from which people are let go, and those jobs simply never resurface or new work doesn’t resurface for those individuals. Remember folks, this works to the president’s advantage. When you take the total number of fairly recently unemployed and compare it to the workforce, instead of counting ALL unemployed who have given up looking for work, then presto-chango–the unemployment number falls!
  • AMERICAN CARS: The “foreign car” argument irritates me to no end. The way that the president and the rest of the union-backed Washington elite talk, you’d think we get Hyundais, Hondas, Kias, BMWs, and the rest shipped over here on trans-Pacific barges COMPLETELY MADE and ready to drive. Does anyone stop to think about the jobs that these “foreign companies” create by having their manufacturing plants all over the U.S.? Truly, it’s not like some kitchen appliance with “Made in China” stamped on its backside; “foreign cars” are made right here! Need some convincing? You might want to speak with the employees of the Kia Motors plant in West Point, Georgia; the Honda plant in East Liberty, Ohio; the Toyota plant in San Antonio, Texas; the Hyundai plant in Montgomery, Alabama; the BMW plant in Greer, South Carolina; the Mercedes-Benz plant in Tuscaloosa, Alabama; the Volkswagon plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee; . . . I could go on and on. Oh, and I might mention that Audi was considering opening a factory here as well, but in 2012 chose Mexico instead, citing that its choice “Mexico offers an excellent economic basis for Audi production operations.” Gee, I wonder why. Though this might ruffle some feathers (though, let’s be honest, MOST of what I have to say ruffles feathers), the U.S. is fast losing its status as an economic superpower. In the case of Audi’s choice, it’s worth noting that Mexico’s “Stock Exchange, the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores, has been the second-best performing stock market in the world, lagging only Germany’s.”
    Back to the argument at hand- YES, there has been a rise in “American” car purchases, but does it really matter? After all, I’ve already laid out that regardless of being “foreign,” most foreign car companies benefit Americans and the American economy directly. Whether it’s the plant in your hometown or the dealership owned by your neighbor, the benefits are there. And furthermore–to quote Hillary–”what difference does it make” if we contribute to a foreign economy via the purchase of a foreign car? I mean, after all, we owe foreign lenders TRILLIONS of dollars. . .so really . . .let’s be honest here. Lastly- it today’s uber-global world, I’m positive you’d have live in a cave, grow your own food, and use NO modern commodities whatsoever to avoid purchasing a foreign commodity.  Regardless, that cave is probably on some spot of land protected by some overarching, anti-constitutional UN environmental mandate anyway. . . . so. . . .? Then again, I’ve digressed.
  • OIL IMPORTS: Let’s revisit the oil import numbers from 1992, which was  20 years ago. Remember, the president said we’re buying less foreign oil than we have in 20 years. (By the way, somebody better tell Brazil’s Petrobras that by this measure, we’re probably not going to “be their best customer”!) According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the president isn’t even SORT of close. Then again, when you put a stop to domestic ventures like the Keystone pipeline and temporarily halt drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. . . what precisely does one expect?
  • HOUSING MARKET: Our housing market isn’t healing. It hasn’t been for years. To be sure, interest rates are low, making it easier to buy, but according to Robert Schiller of Yale University, (who incidentally also helped create the S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values.) ”. . . it’s also a very bad housing market in that most of the mortgages are being supported by the government, and we have the Fed and this buying program. It’s a very abnormal market. There’s a lot of uncertainty going forward.” Schiller goes on, “The housing market has been declining for something like six years now, it could go on, that’s my worry. The short-term indicators are up now, it definitely looks better, but we saw that in 2009.” If by “stronger protections” the president is referring to a housing market propped up by the federal government. . . well, it’s only as “strong” as the U.S. government is, and our  situation is anything but strong. “Strong” would be a market propped up by a healthy MARKET, not temporary fixes and cash-flow injections.

The president drawled on for another 2000+ words, digging in his heels deep into policies that have done nothing to benefit the economy in the last 4 years, yet he continues to place blame on a recession and a presidency that ended years ago. We’ve had stimulus. We’ve had “shovel ready” jobs. . . which turned out not to be so “shovel ready.”  We’ve had bailouts. We’ve had financial takeovers. We’ve punished the rich, bashed immigration laws with the race card, demanded a hundred and one things that sound just dandy on paper, yet haven’t ONCE worked. Oh, and he blamed Congress for the sequestration cuts that he and HIS party pushed. What a joke: “That’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as “the sequester,” are a really bad idea.”

Another few gems from the president’s speech?

  • Raising minimum wage to $9.00: Sounds fantastic on paper, but consider the implications. When you force the market to raise pay when neither merit nor financial success demand it, you put a squeeze on businesses. Either they are forced to pay everyone more, or they are forced to lay people off, and carry on with the same workload. . . only with less people. This has implications beyond those making minimum wage. What about the young kid who started an minimum wage 2 years ago, but has worked his way up to $9.00 an hour? He’s going to expect a raise as well, which triggers the guy above him to expect HIS raise, and on and on it goes. Moral of the story? You cannot legislate prosperity. Simply demanding that a company pay someone more doesn’t mean they CAN. Then again, when you’re operating under the assumption that the economy expands not from the top down but from the middle out, raising minimum wage is the perfect way to redistribute wealth in a fashion that guarantees across the board financial mediocrity.
  • Our wealthiest seniors should pay more: So, let me get this straight. Our golden generation; individuals who have worked and paid taxes their entire lives with the promise of programs like Medicare and Social Security (which for the record were bad ideas to begin with) and a stable retirement; individuals who haven’t seen a COLA increase in their Social Security checks in YEARS,  are now going to be asked to pay AGAIN? Remember, of course, that we’re operating in a world whose occupants think 2+2=5, and thus asking those who have already given so much doesn’t seem wrong. Remember also, that this is coming from the guy whose party claimed the Republicans wanted grandma dead (for DARING to suggest that we need to phase out Medicare in favor of a private system); meanwhile his health care law robbed over 700+ billion from Medicare to pay for it.

I could go on nitpicking- but it could take a while. Suffice it to say it was more of the same. Want a real life example of the plans laid out in Barack Obama’s State of the Union address? Just look at the last four years.

A Tail of Two Turbines: The Hypocrisy of Green Energy

05 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Economy, Media Bias

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

As I drove home from work this evening, my jaw dropped as I saw the gas prices jump nearly 20 cents from the last time I’d seen them, to a staggering $3.59 a gallon in my hometown. Where just 4 years ago the national average was just $1.87, our nation currently enjoys a national average of of just a few cents less than my bill, at $3.54. This is up from Friday’s jump to $3.46, which represented the “biggest one-day pop in pump prices in nearly two years.” In other words, instead of filling my tank up for approximately a third of the cost and using the the rest of the money to save for… gee whiz, I dunno, a down payment on a house or some other silly responsibility… I get to pay wildly above what its worth and continue to pinch my pennies.

These sound like the problems of a nation mired in economic troubles, and to make matters worse, a nation devoid of its own natural resources.

We are one of those things, but we certainly aren’t the other. And furthermore, we are in the mess we’re in by choice. We (I say that loosely- I am not one of “we”)  chose to elect a man whose big, bright idea was to spend our way out of debt, and then we elected him again. That, however, is a topic for another debate.

Let’s talk fossils.

Fossil fuels, that is.

If the wildly successful North Dakota is any indicator, the United States would effectively be the Saudi Arabia of coal, and potentially natural gas if the chains that tether American industry in the name of “environmentalism” were loosed.

We hear time and again that fossil fuels are horribly destructive to our environment. Hollywood tries to scare us with movies like Promised Land that display the so-called evils of hydraulic fracking–which simply aren’t true– and Al Gore and the rest of the green movement have spent years telling us that the polar ice caps would be gone by 2012. Well, we just rang in 2013, and unless the sun got a few inches closer to the earth recently, the polar caps are still pretty “polar,” and Mr. Gore just sold Current TV to oil-backed Al-Jazeera. What a crock.

Meanwhile, as we continue to pay through the nose to other nations for the “privilege” of driving our car of choice, our ever-growing individual tax bill continues to fund such boondoggle projects as Wind Farms, while funding a Department of Justice and an EPA that are so lawsuit-happy you’ll be hearing from their lawyers if you dig a hole in the wrong place or God-forbid, accidentally kill a field mouse with your lawn mower.

Ah, windmills. Those 400 foot tall white monstrosities sprinkled across the fruited plain. . .  the stuff of Don Quixote and his imaginary battles. . .  kind of. These owe-so-”valuable” eyesores received, per the Heritage Foundation, a government subsidy “already equivalent to 50 percent to 70 percent of the wholesale price of electricity.” In fact, “according to Larry Bell, a Forbes contributor, in many parts of the country the PTC [production tax credit] actually exceeds the wholesale price of power.” Some had their fingers crossed that this subsidy would go over the cliff with the rest of the negotiations, but sadly, it was renewed for at least a year. In other words, it’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Aside from being terribly INEFFECTIVE in its supposed purpose of generating the energy needed to support our country…the hypocrisy surrounding the wind energy industry is epic.

Fiscal insanity aside for a moment, let’s take a peek.

Windmills kill birds. Quite a few, in fact. With its massive blades, wind turbines are said to be responsible for the death of over 500 birds at one SINGLE wind farm this last year alone. Meanwhile, Continental Resources, an Oklahoma oil company, was hauled off to court for supposedly ”killing one bird “the size of a sparrow” in its oil pits“

Per the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was, as of spring 2012, “considering loosening regulations on the killing of bald eagles, the national bird of the United States, to accommodate the development of wind energy sources. A draft regulation first filed in April would allow businesses to apply for 30-year permits allowing them to kill bald eagles in the course of other legal activities.” In other words, the government recognized that the wind industry poses a serious threat to birds, including our treasured Bald Eagle, and yet their solution was to simply make the killing of them in certain circumstances . . . such as at the top of a spinning wind mill. . . “legal.” Of course, if Joe Nobody cuts down a tree that happens to contain an eagle’s nest full of baby eagles, it’s a federal offense. But wind turbines that kill thousands of birds a year–in the name of environmental consciousness of course–is a-okay.

A piece put out by the U.S. Geological Survey had me chuckling recently. “Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines: Investigating the Causes and Consequences” was the name. While it made the claim that “the general impact of wind turbines on the environment is likely far less than that of conventional power sources,” the USGS still can’t quite figure out the “cause” of the bat fatalities at Wind Turbines. The article’s author anxiously continues “. .  .is it a simple case of flying in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are bats attracted to the spinning turbine blades? Why are so many bats colliding with turbines compared to their infrequent crashes with other tall, human-made structures?” Gads. Hey fellas- try putting a giant fan in the middle of your daily commute to and see if you can drive fast enough through the moving blades. Goodness. We’re talking about 136 foot blades with an optimum wind speed of 25-35 mph, at which speed the blades rotate at 14 rpm, giving “them a speed of 105 mph at the tip.” Do we really need a USGS study to figure out how it is that bats, even with their superior sense of direction, are continuing to die as a result of wind turbines?

While the environmental community likes to paint terrible pictures of commonplace flaming water and sludge-filled ponds resulting from fracking and drilling, it’s simply not happening. Meanwhile, detriment to the environment and to human safety abounds in the wind industry. Did I mentioned that aside from the avian bloodshed, these wind turbines can also send giant slabs of ice in any direction at high speeds? While the American Wind Energy Association likes to deny the fact that ice can build up on the blades, as “ice can end up at places other than exactly at the base of the turbine, but it’s a myth that a turbine will (and can) operate at high speed with ice on it and fling ice for miles,”  according to New York Times article quoting a 2006 publication by G.E. Energy, “rotating turbine blades may propel ice fragments some distance from the turbine — up to several hundred meters if conditions are right.” For your viewing pleasure:

Don’t get me wrong- I realize that over the course of human events, certain forms of wildlife are going to perish along the way. Should we be careful? Of course. We are, after all, to be good stewards of the earth God gave us. The point is simple- when one industry is sued into oblivion for slight infractions of this kind of collateral damage, while another walks away scott-free from far worse transgressions simply because it happens the favorite child of power brokers in Washington- shouldn’t that bother people?  Alas, “going green” truly is where the power’s at. As long as it’s profitable for a few, we’ll all be pushed in to heating our homes less, filling up our cars less, driving larger cars less, using electricity less, all in the name of “saving our planet.” Just as Al Gore’s sale of Current TV to Al-Jazeera, and the wind turbine industry’s epic bird problem shows us, it’s never been about the environment.

And, as the gas prices continue to rise and the economy continues, CONTINUES to tank, our dear leader busies himself by talking about the vital issues- gun control, legalizing illegal aliens. . . among others. Just as a magician achieves his trick by successfully drawing his audience’s attention away from what the other hand was doing. . . such as the tail of our current state of affairs.

Tea with Terrorists: Chuck Hagel’s Dismal Record of Appeasement

02 Saturday Feb 2013

Posted by in Radical Islam, The Middle East, The Obama Presidency

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As we watch our ally Israel prepare for a potential attack at their northern border, we witnessed the confirmation hearings of Senator Chuck Hagel as he attempts to secure the post for which President Obama has nominated him- Secretary of Defense.

As the most powerful civilian commander of our military forces–after the President–the Secretary of Defense should, at least one would expect, have the best interests both of the U.S. and our allies in mind as he navigates the murky waters of the terror-filled world in which we currently find ourselves.

A rarity in a sea of liberal fops, Ted Cruz emerged as a principled conservative willing to deny confirmation even to one in his own party– Senator Hagel is a Republican. From speeches to video clips with Al Jazeera (you know, the oil-backed Islamist newsreel joint to which environmental prince Al Gore sold his TV network), Cruz demanded answers for Hagel’s less-than-appropriate stance on radical Islam and Israel. Watch the full exchange here:

<script src=”http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?height=326&embedCode=p5NGR4ODrltzQh1K8RYgMktEy40cHbz8&video_pcode=Q2cHA61kNSkkZTQQ6grpeuAc28Oq&width=580&deepLinkEmbedCode=p5NGR4ODrltzQh1K8RYgMktEy40cHbz8″></script&gt;

From a 2009 Interview with Al Jazeera, in which it was suggested that Israel had committed war crimes, to which Hagel responded “I think that’s exactly right.” When pressed by Senator Ted Cruz, after have just played video evidence of the same, Hagel backtracked.

Another reference from 2006 shows Hagel giving a speech on the Senate floor in which Senator Cruz recalls that Hagel “referred to Israel’s military campaign against the terrorist group Hezbollah a ‘sickening slaughter.’” Senator Cruz again pressed him for answers. Hagel AGAIN flopped around, saying he’d have to re-read his own speech to determine what he had meant.

Meanwhile, The Daily Beast tried to lessen the intensity of the comments, quoting a portion of the aforementioned speech:

“The sickening slaughter on both sides must end, and it must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop. The Middle East today is more combustible and complex than it has ever been. Uncertain popular support for regime legitimacy continues to weaken governments in the Middle East. Economic stagnation, persistent unemployment, deepening despair, and wider unrest enhance the ability of terrorists to recruit and succeed.”

The Daily Beast: “Yes, what a terrible thing to say. At this point, Hagel seems to be to the left of his President on the Israel/Palestine issue, but mourning the price of constant war is not a smear on Israel. It’s a reaction to violence and human suffering. Hagel was not accusing Israel of being at fault for the “sickening slaughter. 

 Indeed, read these paragraphs from later in Hagel’s speech:

The world has rightly condemned the despicable actions of Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel has the undeniable right to defend itself against aggression. This is the right of all nations.”

True- Hagel does go on to point out that Israel WAS attacked by terrorists, and had the right to defend themselves. So– why refer to the actions of BOTH sides as a “sickening slaughter”? Ted Cruz’s attack was hardly (as Slate.com puts it) “bogus.” Remember– Hagel urged President Obama to open up DIRECT negotiations with Hamas. Last time I checked, we don’t negotiate with terrorists. Furthermore, Hagel refused to sign a letter in that SAME YEAR (2006) which would have labeled Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Do your research, Ye Old Beast. 

A second expert of the interview showed Hagel responding to a question in the same Al Jazeera interview that suggested that the United States was the “world’s bully.” In context: “‘can the rest of the world be persuaded to give up their arsenal when the image of the United States is that of the world’s bullying, don’t we indeed need to change the perception and the reality before asking folks to lay down their arms, nuclear or otherwise?’ (Hagel): Well her observation is a good one and it’s relevant. Yes, to her question.” Cruz pressed him by asking if he thought it was “appropriate for the chief civilian officer of the U.S. military forces to agree with the statement that both the ‘perception’ and the ‘reality’ that the United States is ‘the world’s bully?’ Hagel brazenly responded that he hadn’t fully heard the question in that interview and further, that he “didn’t think he had agreed with it.” For your reading pleasure, Hagel’s answer to that question, once again:

“Well her observation is a good one and it’s relevant. Yes, to her question.”

Cruz, visibly frustrated yet calm and collected, responded that “the United States has spilled more blood, more treasure, standing for freedom, liberating people across the world, and to go on Al Jazeera, a foreign network, broadcasting propaganda to nations that are hostile to us, and to explicitly agree with the characterization of the United States as ‘the world’s bully’ I would suggest is not the conduct one would expect of a Secretary of Defense.” 

Despite being on TAPE responding in the affirmative, Hagel continued to deny the charge.

For your viewing pleasure, here is the interview with Al Jazeera in its entirety:

This shouldn’t surprise us, however, as these were not isolated incidents in the life and times of Senator Chuck Hagel.

-Hagel is a proponent of the “Global Zero” initiative, which seeks to eliminate all nuclear weapons world-wide. That’s an awfully nice sentiment, and one I believe most would like to agree with. Until you can convince terrorists willing to blow themselves up in the name of jihad to quit doing what they’re doing; until you can convince the Muslim world to respect Israel rather than referring to its people as “descendants of apes and pigs” and wish their total “elimination,” I’m not holding my breath for them to give up their nuclear capabilities. And as long as they don’t, we KEEP our stockpile. In other words, we live in a nuclear world. Call me crazy, but  I want the biggest pile.

-The controversial Muslim group CAIR is cited as having praised Hagel on their website for his statements on a Mideast cease-fire. That group also endorsed Hagel as a potential presidential candidate in 2008.

-”While in the Senate, Hagel voted against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, refused to call on the E.U. to designate Hezbollah a terrorist group, and consistently voted against sanctions on Iran for their illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons capability”

  • “In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.
  • In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yasir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.
  • In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran’s nuclear program at the G-8 summit.
  • In December 2005, Hagel  was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.”

A few more gems from The Republican Jewish Coalition’s observations:

In a world in which nine-tenths of our international threats come from the world of radical Islam and the governments that prop it up. .  . Hagel seems an obvious NO. Remember, however- it’s politically incorrect to insinuate that Islam isn’t the peaceful religion everyone says it is. Don’t get me wrong- I KNOW peaceful Muslims, who wouldn’t hurt a fly. It MUST be understood, however, that if anything, THEY are the radicals- breaking ties with the violent example and even more violent teachings of their religion’s founder.  Read the Qur’an and the Hadith — the fundamentalists are just that- adhering to Muhammad’s teachings word for word. Forgive my momentary digression.  . . back to the soon-to-be-approved leader of our armed forces; a man whose words should flat-line his approval  - yet if I know anything about our irresponsible Senate, Mr. “They Aren’t REEEEALLLY Terrorists” will likely sale through with flying colors. Then again, this is the same Senate that can’t seem to find time in their busy interview-filled days to pass a budget. . . so I suppose we shouldn’t let their lack of discretion surprise us.

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) has issued a petition to stop the confirmation of Senator Hagel. You can sign the petition here. 

KrisAnne Hall: The Genealogy of the Constitution

23 Wednesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Founding Principles, The Tea Party

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

“Our country’s like a car broken down at the side of the road. You open up the hood and see that all the hoses and wires have been slashed. You don’t know why; you don’t know how. . . all you know is they are inoperable. So, you simply change drivers, hoping that this will fix the problem. The same goes for our contry. Today, we need mechanics, not new drivers.” [paraphrased] -KrisAnne Hall

If we’re ever to get out of the mired, tangled, dirty mess stewing in Washington, we need someone who understands the inner workings of our nation’s foundation–”a mechanic,” as opposed to yet another face placed at the helm of a broken down heap.

To be sure, our nation isn’t a broken down heap. Remember, a wonderful car won’t move an inch if its inner workings have been slashed; if the lifeblood it needs to survive can’t reach the motor. Such is the state of affairs in our country. For years, certain factions within our nation have attempted to cleverly dismantle, shove aside, or shred entirely the Constitution; the very building blocks that unleashed the freest nation on earth.

The arguments are legion. “It isn’t relevant because it was written by old white men,” or  ”It was written by slave owners, therefore it must be flawed,” or my personal favorite, “How could men who lived 250 years ago possibly understand the intricacies of today’s modern society?”

KrisAnne Hall, a former assistant state attorney (FL), was fired for teaching the Constitution and its rich history to Tea Party groups on her own time. Her then-employer gave her a ultimatum- either quit teaching to Tea Party groups (which were “racist,” in the eyes of her employer), or you’re fired. In a bold move many would find hard to do, she chose the latter. Today, after having won her federal lawsuit against her employer, she goes around the country, teaching for hours on end. . . for free.

This past Saturday, the North Metro Tea Party Patriots led by Jack Rogers, and flanked by local conservative talk show hosts Benjamin Kruse and Jack Tomczak of The Late Debate, were honored to host Ms. Hall at Blaine High School for one of her famed five-hour Constitutional seminars. The five hours flew, as she systematically dismantled the arguments so often propagated by the American Left, and brilliantly portrayed the Constitution’s vibrant thousand-year (yes, thousand-year!) history without so much as a teleprompter in sight. A few glances at a note card; a quick peek at a binder and her smartphone. . . these were all the prompts she needed as she seamlessly spoke her way through a history most have never been taught.

   Brad BrandonPastor Brad Brandon gives the invocation

Jack RogersNorth Metro Tea Party Patriots’ Jack Rogers

Jack and BenJack and Ben of The Late Debate

KrisAnnHall1

KrisAnne Hall

KrisAnnHall2

KrisAnne Hall

(All photos courtesy of the North Metro Tea Party Patriots)

Would it surprise you to discover that hardly a concept in the Bill of Rights was “new”?  Would it surprise you to discover that the problems the Founders faced and addressed with the Constitution were scarcely novelties? And, as Ms. Hall points out, liberty was not invented in their generation-they simply learned from their history and avoided its mistakes, while gleaning from its highest points. Our Constitution has an “English Family Tree” nourished by the understanding Natural Law, and the precepts of a Judeo-Christian world-view, and it was this genius set into motion in the form of a document by a few providential men, that unlocked a free nation unlike any other.

While many excellent points were made (as she does in fact pack approximately four years of collegiate level study of the Constitution and its history into just five hours), the overriding theme was simple- our Constitution is NOT a living document, and was not “created on a whim.”

Beginning in 1066 just before William I, she traces the Constitution’s genealogy all the way through to George III, whereupon the Founders we all know and admire come on to the scene.

She traces the concept of participatory government, due process, taxation without representation, Congressional (Parliamentary) authority to draft law, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and many other concepts that emerged from the struggles and difficulties of generations past. From England in 1066 to King John and the Magna Carta; from King Charles and the Petition of Rights in 1628 to King James II and the Glorious Revolution of 1689–each fight for liberty studiously observed by our Founders, and from which such important concepts as the aforementioned are gleaned.

She teaches that if the document had no heritage; no foundation in past victories- then we can certainly assume that a document which emerged simply from the imaginations of a few 18th century men could very well indeed be a fundamentally flawed document. This isn’t, however, the case.

This isn’t to say that the Founders weren’t an exceptional group of men. Ms. Hall notes that a fairly small percentage of the colonists actively stepped forward to participate in this revolution, and of these those who openly signed their name to the Declaration of Independence were even fewer. Thus it was indeed providential that the group of men were able to get together and agree upon precisely which portions of English history to focus. They were also, contrary to what modern day history books tell you, God-fearing men. It was this understanding of the hand of God in the rights of mankind coupled with the Founders’ expansive knowledge of their own heritage’s successes and failures that produced the wildly successful document we know as the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Hall reminded the crowd of Benjamin Franklin’s sage words:

“In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” (July 28th, 1787)

Just imagine for a moment, that the same argument that plagues our nation today plagued it in 1787. Today it is often said that the Constitution can’t possibly be relevant because it’s nearly 250 years old. That is tantamount to those in the Founders’ day rejecting the ideas the Founders included because they were “700 years old.”

Liberty wasn’t invented in the generation of the Founders. Nor was it invented in the days of William I in 1066 or Charles I in 1628, for mankind does not “invent” liberty. Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are bestowed upon us by our Creator, not a king; not a president. Liberty does, however, require that mankind constantly guard it from such evil and oppressive leadership. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” 

We don’t need new ideas. We need a mechanic who can effectively put back into motion the ones we already have.

To learn more about the genealogy of our Constitution from start to finish, please visit KrisAnne Hall’s website at www.krisannehall.com where you can access her books, and DVD sets of her presentations. 

Pomp and Partisanship: Barack Obama’s 2nd Inaugural Address

21 Monday Jan 2013

Posted by in The Obama Presidency

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Today the president was sworn in publicly, after which he gave yet another partisan speech in true Barack Obama form.

While we know him to be one of the most partisan presidents of our history, he is still the President of the United States, and thus serves as every American’s president. Sadly, today, he demonstrated his affinity for “serving” or “catering” to a select few Americans, so long as they fall into certain racial, economic, political, gender, or other social categories. If you’re not a progressive, a woman, an immigrant, a homosexual, you weren’t honored into today’s speech. Rather, if you’re anything but what the president lauded, you were being scolded. You were being preached at from the very city on the very day honoring a man who hoped to live to see a day in which each American would live free of the chains of racism, while at the same time admonishing his following not to “seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” A wonderful man Martin Luther King Jr. was; so far greater a man than the one who swore his “oath” of office his very Bible today.

Buckle up, readers- this is another long one . . . though nothing like the next 4 years will be.

It had the feel of acid clothed in silk, if you can imagine such a thing. Clothed in flowery words and historical pomp, the undertones were anything but free from “bitterness.”

Some of the gems:

 “Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution.”

Says the man who seems to delight in trampling that very document:

Consider:

-Obamacare, which for the first time in U.S. history, requires that each citizen purchase something (in this case, health insurance) as a condition of being ALIVE.

-The “Anti Conscious” Mandate, which violates the right of religious institutions and organizations to provide or not provide—based on their conscious—birth control in its various forms to their employees/students etc.

-Obama’s unconstitutional appointments.

-Obama’s Executive Order “dictating that the Dream Act be implemented by fiat”—in other words, without Congressional approval.

-Obama’s arbitrary change to welfare work requirements.

The list goes on. And on. And on.

“. . .Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time.”

Translation: In other words, how can we continue to bend and interpret the Constitution to our hearts’ content?

“. . .Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free.  We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”

While our nation began realizing the ills of slavery as early as the Founders themselves, and later remedied the 13th and 14th amendments . . . and through Civil Rights, Obama loves to bring up this portion of history and continue to pick at it. He does say we “made ourselves anew,” yet I’m still waiting for him to retract his 2001 comment that the Constitution was “deeply flawed.”

“. . . Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.”

To be certain, no one expects us to keep trucking around in the horse-drawn carriage of the Founders’ day, but we certainly aren’t to expect full federal funding and control of the aforementioned. And yet, see it every day.

“. . . Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.”

If he truly believed in a free market that thrives when there is competition and fair play, would he mind explaining to me how it was “fair” to chooses winners and losers by bailing out a failing GM—which by all definitions of a free market should have gone under to allow for a better, more efficient, SUCCESSFUL alternative to surface—was “competition?” Furthermore, it is the federal government’s modus operandi to get involved in interstate commerce ONLY if one state prohibits another from participating in said commerce. . . not at the behest of one’s biggest donors or other advantageous political moves.

“. . .Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.”

Except instead of “aiding” the vulnerable, his administration has overseen the massive expansion of the poverty rolls and food stamp recipients. . . not because under prior administrations nobody cared, but because under HIS administration and HIS dismal economy, the need GREW and continues to grow exponentially. How about we “care for the vulnerable” with an economy that fosters JOBS?

“. . . Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.  Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.”

“We” have never relinquished our skepticism of a central authority? Barack Obama is clearly no skeptic. He’s done everything within his power to make sure he IS that central authority.

Furthermore, if he celebrates the initiative of enterprise, hard work and personal responsibility, he owes Mitt Romney a massive apology.

“. . .But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.  For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.”

Translation: “We need to scrap the Constitution because it doesn’t let me do what I want. It’s commendable, but at the end of the day a worthless relic of a primarily white, male, slave-owning past.”

“. . .This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience.  A decade of war is now ending.  An economic recovery has begun.  America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands:  youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.”  

Translation “Unless you get rich within the private sector. Then we’re going to demonize the heck outta ya. Oh, and we’ll approach these coming years with a mind open to diversity. .  .so long as you aren’t pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage. . . basically, as long as you agree with me.”

“. . .For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.  We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.  We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship.  We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.”

This president acts as though no one in this nation has ever been able to rise from the depths of poverty to the rafters of success. He acts as though there are castes in this nation. It’s not a lack of opportunity holding back the next generation in this nation; it’s the mountains upon mountains of regulations that make everything from groceries to gasoline to healthcare massively expensive; regulations that make it nearly impossible to start a business; taxes that make it nearly impossible to KEEP that business. In a span of just a few generations, we went from driving horse-drawn carriages to putting a man on the moon. Don’t sit there and tell me our nation doesn’t foster prosperity. . . something it was doing quite well until the iron grasps of collectivism began to sink its unrelenting teeth into it.

By the way. . . it won’t be prosperity resting on the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. . . it will be poverty. We cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, redistribute wealth in the manner he describes. It always has been, and WILL be poverty that is redistributed, for “socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.” Unless he’s speaking of a expanding middle class thanks to a healthy, capitalist economy (and clearly, he’s not), this will not succeed. History shows us no such outcome.

“. . . But while the means will change, our purpose endures:  a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American.  That is what this moment requires.  That is what will give real meaning to our creed.”

Still waiting for that apology to Mitt Romney, and the rest of America’s “rich.”

“. . . We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.  For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.  We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”

America cannot care for its future if we chain our future generations to the slavery of massive debts and deficit. He’s certainly one to talk about tackling the deficit- he’s accumulated more debt per his policies than any other president from George Washington to George H.W. Bush, combined. This is also a president who promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first time, yet somehow managed to nearly triple it. That’s right- Bush left what the Huffington Post called in 2008 a “record deficit” of 455 billion dollars (boy, don’t we yearn for those days?), and in October of 2012 that same publication had to write that Obama’s 1.1 trillion dollar deficit  was “higher than any other year since 1947.”  By the way, that same publication fibbed when it reported that he “inherited . . . a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.” WRONG.

It’s not the American people or the House Republicans who have spent away the next generation’s future- it’s leadership like his.

 “. . . We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity.  We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.  Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science. . . .

 . . .  That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.  That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.”

“The overwhelming judgment of science”? Hardly. I seem to have missed the day when science declared global warming anything other than a theory. In fact, I’d think the Prince of Green himself—Al Gore’s recent sale of his TV channel to Al Jazeera speaks volumes as to the validity of the green movement’s claims. It’s not about the environment, campers—it’s just not.

Funny how he demands that we preserve our planet, commanded to our care by GOD. . . yet he seems to skip over that passages when life is addressed as beginning at conception; or that marriage is between a man and a woman; or that thou shalt not STEAL. . .I suppose when one is too busy updating the Presidential Twitter account in church, it gets a little hard to remember everything.

“. . .We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.  Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage.  Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty.  The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm.  But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.”

No, no- it doesn’t require perpetual war, but it does require a deep respect for our allies and a firm hand towards our saber- rattling enemies, something which seems to have alluded our dear leader. I hope the knowledge of their sacrifice stays impressed upon his mind, as more men and women in uniform have died under his watch than during the 8 years of Bush.

“. . . We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law.  . . We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.”

It’s a little difficult to talk about upholding values both here and abroad through the rule of law when he doesn’t don’t seem to care much for the ones we have here. It’s also a bit hard to hear him talk about strong alliances when he’s all but spit in Benjamin Netanyahu’s face, and a first in his repertoire of “international affairs” consisted of returning a bust of Winston Churchill to the United Kingdom. His intent to “spread democracy” certainly has been more subdued than his predecessor’s, yet his desire to apologize to the world, and in some cases to appease our enemies has been tenfold.  Where was he in 2009 when the Iranian people had a shot at democracy—and even reached out to the great “supporter of democracy”—and nothing but crickets were heard from the White House?

“. . .We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.”

Martin Luther King Jr. talked about uniting a people. Obama has divided a nation; he’s pitted rich against poor; and if we’re being honest, race against race. He hardly earns the right to evoke Martin Luther King Jr. in the context of HIS presidency.

“ . . .For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.  Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.  Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.  Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

Oh this is too much. The President has the nerve to talk about equal pay when the women in his administration STILL make less than the men? Please.

“Until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote”? What is that supposed to mean? And furthermore, what is he suggesting? I must say- I’m at a loss for this one.

I couldn’t agree more with him as it pertains to making it easier for those who wish to immigrate here LEGALLY. He has done nothing but propagate illegal entry by sending a message to all who do so—-“wait long enough. . . and your sin of crossing the border illegally will be absolved.”

“. . .That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values – of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American.  Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness.  Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.”

“Life,” Mr. President? Say that to the hundreds of thousands of souls that are extinguished each year through the practice of abortion; a practice he refuses to condemn; a practice he, to this day, condones.

Liberty has but one definition. Liberty, simply put, is freedom, plus morality. Where one may differ is one’s definition of happiness. Liberty, however, has one definition.

There is no “debate” as to the role of government. Our Founders were quite clear, and it worked quite well. Where debate has surfaced it has been men like Barack Obama who insist upon veering from those principles. He has caused the debate. Not the Founders.

“. . . For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay.  We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

He certainly is one to talk about absolutism. He who shreds the Constitution in the name of progress, and attempt to smear, silence, and destroy those who disagree with his practices. . . he is the absolutist. “Spectacle?” He forced his healthcare bill through without a single bipartisan vote. He has spent like a drunken sailor and then demanded that the Republicans “pay their bills.” He speaks of future generations, yet doesn’t seem to worry about the terrible legacy of debt and deficit he’s leaving behind. “Name calling”? Dare we remember the little nuggets from his friends in the media that the president refused to condemn? Then there’s always his little gems:

Americans who “cling to their guns and religion.”

Republicans are “social darwinists.”

Republicans want “dirty air, dirty water…”

Then of course there’s the legions of names and accusations the Obama campaign threw at Mitt Romney. . . my persona favorite? Mitt Romney’s a tax cheat, a felon, and a murderer.

 “. . . My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service.  But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream.  My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.”

No different than the oath a soldier takes when he or she signs up for duty or when an immigrant realizes his or her dream? Might I remind him of those oaths—both of which include the phrase “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . ”

Unless he plans to change his ways, he took no such oath today. That is, he took no such oath truthfully.

“. . . You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.”

If he were to simply embrace the value system he personally touts without shrouding it with the veneer of constitutionalism and respect for the Founders, I MIGHT have a shred of respect for the man, despite my utter disagreement with his policies. But the fact that he insists upon appearing like the constitutionalist he ISN’T while he governs like the socialist he IS, is absolutely beyond me.

“. . .With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.”

Our future is uncertain thanks to men like Barack Obama and the mortgage they have taken out on my future, and those of millions of Americans yet to come. THAT will be our “common” demise.

Welcome to the next 4 years of our lives.

President Obama’s Executive “Actions”

17 Thursday Jan 2013

Posted by in Freedom, Gun Control, Health Care, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Yesterday the President Obama announced and publicly signed 23 executive actions in response to the violence at Sandy Hook, as well as called for Congress to restore a ban on military-style assault weapons and to implement 10-round limit for magazines.

As New York Magazine correctly noted, he did not signed executive orders, but rather executive “actions” which “is a vague term that can refer to anything done by the executive (the president). Some of the items on the White House’s list of 23 ‘executive actions‘ such as ‘Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health’ and ‘Nominate an ATF director’ are more like personal priorities.”

He did sign 3 presidential memorandums:

  1. Presidential Memorandum — Tracing of Firearms in Connection with Criminal Investigations
  2.  Presidential Memorandum — Improving Availability of Relevant Executive Branch Records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
  3.  Presidential Memorandum — Engaging in Public Health Research on the Causes and Prevention of Gun Violence

According to a 1999 Congressional Research Service report, a presidential memorandum and an executive order are identical, save for the name itself. The power it has is the same. These three memorandums essentially guarantee him the power to do most of what he describes in his 23 “actions.”

It’s interesting to note that for DAYS leading up to this speech,  news outlets all over the nation referred to these as Executive ORDERS over and over and over again, leading me to believe that the president decided to go back-door on us.  Everything we heard and were told led us to believe that they would be executive orders, not “actions.” Let’s take a gander at a few of those pre-press conference pieces, shall we?

January 14th- New York Times: Obama Plans 19 Executive Orders on Gun Control 

January 16th(6:30 am.)-The Washington Post: How President Obama’s executive orders on guns might doom a big bill

January 16th- Fox News: Sources say he’s [Obama] weighing as many as 19 possible actions he could take through executive order. 

January 15th- American Thinker: Obama looking at 19 – count ‘em, 19 – executive orders on guns

January 15th- New York Magazine: Obama Considering Nineteen Executive Orders on Gun Control; Republicans Freaking Out 

I think that he [Obama] fully intended to announce 19 executive orders yesterday, and the news outlets across the board knew it. Instead, he called them “actions” and added 4 more to the list, in what I feel was a move to help dilute the intensity of some of the “actions.” You know, surround them with fluff, and they don’t seem as harsh. By signing just three “memorandums” or “executive orders” that in an underhanded way give him quite broad authority, he ensured that his “actions” would have power behind them without giving the appearance of such sweeping power. I believe that by doing it this way, he was able to avoid the mounting backlash for abusing executive power. . . and to be perfectly blunt, he simply gets to be sneakier about it now.

So what do his 23 executive actions mean, and if they’re not “orders,” should we be concerned?

Let’s take a look at those 23:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

#1, #2, & #3 expand the federal government’s involvement in the flow of information for background checks. Currently, the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) exists to perform an instant check for prospective buyers, prompting denial of the purchase if the person has a criminal record. Thus far, of the over 100 million inquiries made, 700,000 denials have also been issued. If a system is already in place at the federal level to check whether or not a person has a criminal record, what need is there to “prioritize” the collection of information from the several states to supplement what the NICS already does? As I have mentioned in previous conversations, I do believe mental health records could play a role in background checks, but at a state level, as each state government determines. Federal HIPPA laws as they pertain to privacy standards for each patient–including those with mental health problems–would currently stand in the way of performing such an action. This could be remedied differently and less intrusively (and I would certainly advocate that mental health patients who present a serious danger should have their mental records available as part of a background check), but per these actions it appears that the president’s desire is to involve the federal government itself in gleaning that information from the states to then be used in a far more centralized repository, and this naturally raises concerns.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

#4 seems logical at first, but quite vague, and frankly unnecessary  Consider the current categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun:

  1. Someone under indictment or convicted of a felony
  2. A fugitive from justice
  3. Someone who abuses any controlled substances
  4. Any person that has been adjudicated as suffering from mental health issues
  5. An illegal alien, or an alien admitted under a non-immigrant visa
  6. Someone dishonorably discharged from the Armed forces, or
  7. Someone who has renounced his or her United States citizenship

Criminals, certifiably crazy people, illegals, and expatriates. That seems to just about cover it, no?

If the NICS is already in place “to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible [per the aforementioned categories] to make a purchase,” what need is there for the Attorney General to determine “further categories” of dangerous individuals? This seems to leave the door wide open for interpretation.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

The assumption would be that if one’s gun has been seized  there’s a problem with one’s background, or with current actions which would interfere with legal gun ownership, so this statement seems a little superfluous. However (though I cannot yet confirm this), I’ve heard some discussion around the idea that this could be construed to mean that if a gun owner happens to live with someone who then breaks the law, that gun owner’s firearm could be seized  and a full background check must be performed on the owner before it is returned. If this is indeed true, this treads on dangerous grounds as to the rights a lawful citizen has to his or her property.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing  guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

This refers to transactions carried out between two private individuals outside the setting of a licensed gun dealer. That is, if I have a gun and wish to sell it to a friend, I could technically sell it without performing a background check; though the person would still be breaking the law if he or she fell into one of aforementioned categories of individuals not permitted to own a gun. Sounds great, especially in light of the fact that the president has often claimed that 40% of all gun sales fall under this category. However, as John Fund notes, “The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks — which is actually 36 percent — comes from a small 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton administration. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.” 

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Ah yes, because responsible gun ownership stops crazy people and criminals.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Another moment of brilliance. Ah yes- because stricter rules on gun locks and gun safes will deter a crazy person or a criminal hell bent on committing an atrocity.

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Too bad the president can’t particularly take credit for this epiphany. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s (via the ATF) Firearms Tracing Guide, “firearms tracing is the single most important strategy in determining sources of crime guns, linking suspects to firearms in criminal investigations, and developing strategies to address firearms-related violence.” (November 2011)

I wonder if this also means that Eric Holder must trace Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s killer’s gun, as well as the gun of slain ICE agent Jaime Zapata’s killer– back to himself, since (oh darn it) he and his Department of Justice was responsible for the failed gun-running Operation Fast & Furious. I won’t be holding my breath.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Maybe we’ll get a report on how the DOJ “lost” the guns involved in Operation Fast & Furious.

In all seriousness though, by law you are required to report a lost or stolen gun within 48 hours to local law enforcement, and the ATF. All this would do would allow local law enforcement to be aware of national levels of lost and stolen guns. What precisely would this have done to stop Adam Lanza or James Holmes?

11. Nominate an ATF director.

The nomination of an ATF (The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), director signals a vast strengthening of this federal organization; the usage of which has been aimed primarily at firearms. This can hardly be considered only a “to-do,” as the President has already chosen his nominee (pending Congressional confirmation), B. Todd Jones.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

An example of the “fluff” I referenced. Sounds great-looks great- but this sort of training is already in place. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, “an inter-agency law enforcement training organization. . .which provides services to state, local, tribal, and international law enforcement agencies,”  has a program known as ASTTP or “Active Shooter Threat Training Program” directed at none other than “instilling the knowledge and skills to successfully handle an active threat event.”

Whoops.

The Federal Government has a crisis management training manual in place for schools as well, including but not limited to school shootings. 

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

This “priority” is also quite vague and open to interpretation. This, combined with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s promise yesterday that the Department of Homeland Security will “expand and formalize coordination of ongoing efforts prevent future mass casualty shootings, improve preparedness, and to strengthen security and resilience in schools and other potential targets,” indicates a far stronger federal involvement in many issues that should constitutionally fall to the states.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This is yet another vague directive. A 10 year old–I daresay even one of the few standing behind Obama yesterday–can you tell you what causes gun violence. Crazy people, and evil people. It’s as simple as that. We’ve already established that the mentally incapacitated cannot own a gun, nor can the lawbreaker. . .so . . .?

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

Translation- further federal regulations on how any gun can be produced. “Biden. Joe Biden” went all Hollywood on us the other day when he made reference to the Bond “smart gun,” which in the movie recognizes the palm of the owner, and operates only for that person. We’ll see if that’s possible in the future. For now, it’s simply the stuff of Tinseltown.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

This gets dicey. What this does is essentially deputize ALL in the medical profession and bring them into the gun control debate. The insinuation is that they must inquire as to the gun ownership status of a patient if they feel the “need.” Health professionals who become aware of a credible danger on the part of one of their patients is already obligated to report it–yet this takes a step further and involves the doctor him or herself in the private ownership of a gun. Rep. John Fleming, R-La., also a physician, noted today that Obama was “pushing the government further into the exam room. He’s trying to press doctors into government service by pushing them to ask patients, even child patients, if there are guns in their home. After more than thirty years of operating a family practice, I can tell you it should not be the business of a family physician to take inventory of the guns in a patient’s home,” he said, noting that there are already laws ensuring that doctors warn authorities about criminal activity.”

17. Release a letter to health-care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law-enforcement authorities.

This already exists for the proper medical professionals in the mental health field. “According to Dr. Keith Ablow, psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team, if a psychiatrist’s patient discusses a plan to do harm to someone during a therapy session, then the medical professional has a legal obligation to take action. . . ‘Psychiatrists who knowingly do not notify authorities when receiving this kind of information are subject to civil suits as well as disciplinary action from licensing authorities’”

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Resource officers? If by armed guards- I’m right there with the president on this. That NRA ad must have worked. Incidentally, the NRA was thoroughly blasted for bringing up the fact that Obama’s two daughters attend school under the protection of armed guards, yet the Obama administration was, until today, “skeptical” about putting armed guards in the rest of America’s schools. The NRA was blasted for using Malia and Sasha in the ad, something the White House called “repugnant and cowardly.” Funny how the White House didn’t find hiding behind a screen of children at the announcement of his gun control “actions” “repugnant and cowardly.” Le sigh.

19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

Refer to #12.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental-health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 

I’m confused. Wasn’t Obamacare supposed to remedy the problem of the “untreated” in this country? I guess not. I’m at a loss as to why we’re still talking about Medicaid, but oh well. Let’s look at what Medicaid already provides:

“Medicaid reimbursement is available for mental and behavioral health services covered under various service categories: physician’s services, inpatient and outpatient hospital services, licensed practitioner’s services, clinics, rehabilitative services, inpatient psychiatric hospital services for individuals under age 21, as well as, prescription drugs. Examples of Services in these categories include: Counseling, therapy, medication management, psychiatrist’s services, licensed clinical social work services, peer supports, and substance abuse treatment.  

Individuals may receive services in their homes, other residences, in schools, or medical institutions, if necessary. While states have the option to cover some of these services, EPSDT requires that children receive all medically necessary services, including mental health services. In addition to State Plan services, states may offer mental health benefits through home and community-based services (HCBS) waivers.”

Am I missing something? With the exception of certain variances depending state by state, all CHILDREN (under the age of 21) must receive mental health treatment if needed. Adam Lanza was 20.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

ACA= Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare.” I guess they’re still reading it “to find out what’s in it.”

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health-parity regulations.

See #21.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Yes- another mindless federal dialogue in which a room full of Ivy League graduates sit around and “talk” about the problem. I’m not sure I understand the need to hold national dialogues about mental health in this country as it relates to gun control, as we’ve already established that the mentally ill cannot own guns legally, and we’ve also previously established that per this administration, treatment for mental health issues should be entirely covered, and in fact “more accessible  (their words, not mine) to those who need it.

So there you have it- gun control a la Barack Obama.

I’ll leave you with a thought to consider:

Not ONE of the above “actions” would have done anything to stop Newtown.

Not one.

Food for thought.

The 2nd Amendment Explained

15 Tuesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Freedom, Gun Control

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The days and weeks following the tragedy at Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary school have been rife with debate over just how the 2nd Amendment is meant to be read. While it is certainly easy to become caught up in the emotions surrounding such horrific tragedies, I implore you to take a moment to consider not only the history and reasoning behind the Framers’ drafting of the Amendment in question, but also consequences of an unarmed populous.

Before I go any further, consider the following: If you study the Constitution—the distilled result of months upon months of debate and discussion between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists—you’ll notice a common theme. It isn’t written to set parameters around the people. Rather, it is written to set parameters around the federal government—what it must do, and what it cannot do. With this in mind, let’s consider the 2nd Amendment, which reads as follows:

“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.”

That is, that the federal government cannot take away a citizen’s right to own a gun.

The common arguments as to the meaning of the 2nd amendment typically find themselves centered on the portion that discusses “militia,” or on hunting, which interestingly enough, isn’t even delineated therein.

First, we’ll assume that members of a “militia” are the only ones meant to own a gun. By definition, a militia is typically understood to be a civilian protection force. As Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen note in A Patriot’s History of the United States, “The Second Amendment addressed Whig fears of a professional standing army by guaranteeing the right of citizens to arm themselves and join militias. Over the years, the militia preface has become thoroughly (and often, deliberately) misinterpreted to imply that the framers intended citizens to be arms only in the context of an army under the authority of the state. In fact, militias were the exact opposite of a state-controlled army: the state militias taken together were expected to serve as a counterweight to the federal army, and the further implication was that citizens were to be as well armed as the government itself.” (A Patriot’s History of the United States, p. 126)

In other words, by its very definition a “militia” is an armed citizenry. While the Founders (after much debate over the Articles of Confederation—a pre-cursor to the Constitution which created a far weaker union or “confederation” of the several states) allowed the federal government to provide for the common defense in the form of a “formal” military, the Founders recognized the inherent tendency of mankind to usurp power as a rule and, with the penning of the 2nd Amendment, put a stop to the idea of the government disarming its citizens, regardless of the “good intentions” of such a move.

The Founders could have ended the amendment directly after Militia, wording it simply “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed. . . ” had their intent been to keep guns solely in the hands of a formal defense group. Instead, they went on to specify “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” which assumes that each citizen is to be allowed to own a gun, and use it when needed.

It is also interesting to note that no limitations are placed upon the type of arms allowed. The Founders felt no need to do so, as a gun is a gun. “Armed” is armed;  it’s quite simple. If anything, this was left to the several states to discuss. Some have argued that since the high-powered weaponry that exists today didn’t exist at the time of the Founding, the 2nd amendment couldn’t possibly be construed to include those weapons. Antonin Scalia says it best in District of Columbia et al v. Heller:

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search …, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” (United States Supreme Court, June 26th, 2008)

As mentioned, many also take “gun rights” to mean that private citizens are allowed to use arms to hunt and gather. If I may be so frank, consider for a moment the stupidity of such an assumption. In the days of the Founders, nearly everyone owned some kind of gun with which they hunted for the family. With the exception of some of the larger cities of the day where markets did exist, most lived in small villages or on plots of land wholly isolated from the convenience of markets. To insinuate that the 2nd amendment was framed to protect hunting rights would be similar to Congress today drafting an amendment which ensured that the rights of each citizen to go grocery shopping at Wal-Mart “shall not be infringed.” Naturally, the Founders had personal defense in mind.

Lastly, though many are somewhat squeamish to touch on this topic, it must be noted that the Founders had in mind not only the defense of one’s private person, family, and home (a practice which was already commonplace), but also the citizens’ defense against a tyrannical, oppressive government.  An armed, responsible citizenry would serve to help stand as a bulwark against such aggression:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

An unarmed citizenry, no matter how innocent and “well-intended” such sweeping restrictions on gun ownership are, simply makes it easier for governments down the road to do as they please with it. As George Mason once noted in the Virginia Convention:

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”

Gun ownership as prescribed in the Constitution isn’t to be construed as a carte blanche to use guns in any way an individual sees fit, but rather solely for protection of one’s person. As John Adams put it:

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.”
—John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, 475 (1787-1788)

In other words, YES- there should be laws surrounding gun usage. For these reasons we have laws that delineate self-defense; laws that delineate the process through which guns may be lawfully attained; etc. The difference between regulating gun usage and gun ownership is vast. One prescribes the allowable actions of such ownership–primarily, self-defense; the other seeks to partially or entirely prohibit the ownership of some or all guns.

Interestingly, modern day studies continue to prove again and again the results of disarming a population. In an ironic twist, the cities, states, and nations with the strictest gun laws also tend to be the home of the highest rates of violent crime. Consider the crime rates of certain European countries as compared to gun laws/gun ownership in this study by Harvard University:

Gun Control Results

As Peter Tucci of the Daily Caller notes,  “But in general, gun control doesn’t make people safer. What it does do is needlessly send people to jail and rob law-abiding citizens of the dignity and peace of mind that gun ownership provides.”

Precisely. Folks, as sad as it is, evil exists in this world. The Founders recognized this, and ensured the right to protect oneself by putting this idea into words. I’m not sure that the Founders had any particular order in crafting the Bill of Rights, but is it not interesting to note that directly after the incredibly important right to speak one’s mind, comes one’s right to protect oneself against those who would them bodily harm? The original Bill of Rights certainly displays an intriguing trajectory beginning with rights associated with one’s mind; then one’s person; then one’s possessions; then one’s freedom as it pertains to warrants and trials. . . but I’ve digressed. The point is that the Founders found it so vital to the preservation of liberty that they placed this section at the very beginning, and minced no words about it. “. .  .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

Shall not be infringed.

A Letter to Speaker Boehner

08 Tuesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Budget Debates, Capitalism, Founding Principles, Freedom

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, ,

The following is a letter I sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on January 8th, 2013 in response to his leadership in the Fiscal Cliff Debates.

Dear Speaker Boehner,

My name is Mary Ramirez. I am 26 years old. The man in the picture is my husband Gilberto, and he is 29. That’s our dog, Zuzu. We have no children yet, because we’ve spent the last 4 years—the first 4 years of our marriage—trying to keep our heads above water in this economy, and while we paid off expenses for my husband to legally immigrant to this country from Mexico. We’ve just recently begun to tread water, and things were getting a little better, though things are beginning to once again get worse as our economy continues to worsen.

I lived for three years in Mexico while I studied Spanish and taught English. For those three years, I lived in a socialist nation, with socialist principles, socialized medicine, socialized taxes. . . the list goes on. I witnessed firsthand the effects of corruption in Mexico, as 2 of the children I taught lost their fathers to kidnappers.  Suffice it to say though it is a beautiful country, they are not free in the same definition that we understand “freedom” here in the United States.  As my now-husband and I progressed in our relationship, we made the decision that when I went back to the U.S., he would come with me.

He loves his country. He misses his country- he misses his family. Nevertheless, he came because, in addition to his desire to be with me, I told him that I grew up in the greatest, freest, most prosperous nation on planet earth, and that our lives could reach a much better place if we came here. He stepped off the plane onto American soil in August 2008, and President Obama was elected just a few short months later. I cried that night, because I was all too familiar with the nature of the plans this president had then, and has now for this country. I turned to my husband in disbelief, as I told him this wasn’t the America I grew up in.

Do you know where I grew up? Let me explain. Throughout the years that my mother lovingly sacrificed her own personal career to home-school my siblings and I, there hung on the wall a simple, type-written letter on White House stationary. It was addressed to my mother, from President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan selected just a few letters at a time from the hundreds he read each day, to which he provided a personal note. My mother was one of them. I used to sit and stare at that now famous signature in awe. I learned what patriotism was from my father, my mother, and the author of that letter on the wall. I grew up head over heels in love with what this country stood for, because I knew it meant I could grow up to reach the stars if I wanted to, as long as I worked hard enough. . . because this was America.

Today, thanks to the President’s repressive policies and radical, anti-American ideology, that is no longer true. I am 26 years old. Just twenty-six years old. And I will not live in the same America my parents did. The debt I am saddled with; the debt my unborn children will be saddled with; it is such that I fear a generation or more will pass before this is fixed. .  . if ever. When I am your age, Speaker Boehner, you will be long gone, but my husband and I, and our future children will still be here, living with the consequences of what you and your coworkers do every day. Do you realize that?

During this fiscal cliff debate, you had a chance to stand on principle. You had a chance to stand up for what makes this country different than any other place on earth. I am not suggesting that you dig in your heels “just because” in a fight like the one you just had in Congress- rather, I’m saying that when you’ve got something as good as what we’ve got here in the U.S., you stand up for that principle—hang the political “costs!” Though you may tell yourself that you did, you saved no one from a tax increase. Maybe my husband and I won’t see our Bush tax rate repealed (because we don’t make enough), but we’ll see it in our grocery bill, in our energy bill, in what our clothes cost, in what gas costs. . . everything. Taxes may not have gone up on the “poor” or most of the so-called “middle-class,” (though they did as it pertains to Payroll Taxes) but they went up on the job creators and the producers in this country. They must pass it along to stay afloat. We will see it.

You should have stood for what made this nation great. Instead, I think you thought you have a chance to win either in the eyes of the media, or down the road with the debt debate. Incidentally, what would posses you to believe that a man who finds it prudent support legislation that cuts $1 for every $41 in taxes would ever grant you ANYTHING in the debt ceiling debate? This is a man who to your very face denied that we have a spending problem! You had no leverage, and you have no leverage now. You were never going to win with these people. You aren’t going to win the media over. You aren’t going to win Progressive Liberals over. You’re not going to win Socialists over. You had no real choice but to stand on principle and win the American people over!  And you folded. For the first time in two decades, you hitched the GOP’s wagon to the idea that higher taxes COULD solve the problem. Sadly, this nation chose to elect a man wholly unsuited to lead, and thus for the time being he IS going to get his way either way. You had a chance to say, “Mr. President, you may have the power to veto my party’s choices. You may spit in our faces. But I cannot, and I will not cede the point that taxes will fix our problems. I cannot sign away our principles that have for years made this nation great.” Instead, you ceded that very point.

Do you realize that in the 200+ years since the inception of the United States, we went from doing things the same way they had been done for 5,000 years—i.e. the horse and cart, the same tools, the same medical procedures—to putting a man on the MOON? That wasn’t happenstance. What happened in this nation when our Founders signed away their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor when they autographed the Declaration of Independence was that for the FIRST TIME in human history a place was unleashed that would be based upon the understanding of the human nature, and the harnessing of the creativity of the free man. That, sir, is what propelled us to the heights we once found ourselves.

Nearly half of this nation now receives something from the federal government, and thus it is somewhat logical to expect that they would indeed reelect the man who has continued to promise them more. BUT, this nation also elected to keep a GOP-controlled House. You had the chance to serve a bulwark against the forces that wish to see our principles tossed aside. You still have that chance, though you have severely hurt it.

Lead, Mr. Speaker. Be the leader that this President has refused to be. Allow those under your leadership in Congress to lead as well, instead of the shameful way you removed certain conservative voices from key positions. Work FOR your country, not against (however inadvertently) what it stands for. Serve the American people— who pay your salary, and have entrusted YOU with their lives and their fortunes. Our future depends on it.

Sincerely,

Mary Carolyn Ramirez

Freelance Writer, www.afuturefree.com

A Politically Correct ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas

24 Monday Dec 2012

Posted by in Religion

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;

Corrected:

‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the Nation

Not a creature was stirring, not even a small endangered rodent

The synthetic wool foot coverings were hung by the non-wood burning fireplace with care,

In hopes that the non-religiously associated Mr. Claus would soon be there;

The children were nestled all snug in their beds,

While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads;

And mamma in her ‘kerchief, and I in my cap,

Had just settled down for a long winter’s nap,

Corrected:

The young people were nestled all snug in their beds

While visions of green toys and healthy foods dances in their heads;

And mamma in her non-gender specific PJs and I in my sweats,

Had just settled our minds for the nightly sleep trek;

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.

Away to the window I flew like a flash,

Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

Corrected:

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter.

I sprang from my bed to see was the matter

To the window I ran in such a great hurry

While popping back a few Tums to deal with that evening’s curry;

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow

Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,

Corrected:

The lunar sphere’s light on the sure-to-be highly polluted frozen H20

Gave the image of midday to my Prius below

When what to my wondering eyes did appear

But a smallish snow vehicle and eight size-challenged endangered reindeer;

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,

I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.

More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,

And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;

Corrected:

With a vertically challenged, elderly driver so lively and quick

I knew in a moment he must be Mr. Nick

Quicker than electric cars his size-challenged endangered reindeer they came

And he whistled and shouted and called them by name;

“Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!

On, Comet! on Cupid! on, Donner and Blitzen!

To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!

Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!”

Correction: (well, ok, this one can stay. . .as long as these size-challenged mammals are getting overtime. . . )

“Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now Prancer and Vixen!

On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donner and Blitzen!

To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!

Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!”

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky,

So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,

With the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too.

Correction:

As leaves that before the man-caused weather event fly,

When they meet with an obstacle and fly to the undoubtedly polluted sky;

So up to the housetop the size-challenged endangered reindeer they flew

With the winter vehicle full of responsible, eco-friendly child’s things, and Mr. Nicholas too—

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.

As I drew in my head, and was turning around,

Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.

Correction:

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

The prancing and pawing of each size-challenged hoof.

As I drew in my head, and was turning around,

Down the chimney Mr. Nicholas came with a bound;

He was dressed all in faux-fur, from his head to his foot,

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,

And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;

A bundle of toys he had flung on his back,

And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.

Correction:

And thanks to our woodless fireplace, his clothes weren’t all tarnished with ashes and soot;

A bundle of responsible, eco-friendly child’s things he had flung on his back,

And he looked like an authorized street vendor just opening his pack;

His eyes — how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!

His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!

His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,

And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;

Correction:

His eyes—how they twinkled! his dimples, how merry!

His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!

His quaint, size-challenged mouth was drawn up like a bow,

And the beard on his chin was as white as the frozen H20;

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,

And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath;

He had a broad face and a little round belly,

That shook, when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly.

Correction:

The stump of a pipe he did NOT hold tight in his teeth,

And naturally, no smoke encircled his head like the wreath of a tree we just killed;

He had a broad face and a size-challenged, spherical belly

That shook when he laughed, like a bowl full of sugar-free jelly;

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,

And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself;

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,

Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;

Correction:

He was unhealthily overweight, a right jolly, elderly little person,

And I laughed when I saw him. . .how rude was I!

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head

Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk,

And laying his finger aside of his nose,

And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;

Correction:

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

And filled all the synthetic wool foot coverings; then turned with a jerk,

And laying his finger aside of his nose,

And giving a nod, up the faux chimney he rose;

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,

“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night.”

Correction:

He sprang to his winter vehicle, to his size challenged endangered reindeer gave a whistle,

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard him exclaim, as he drove out of sight—

“Happy Holidays to all, and to all a good night!”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 295 other followers