Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Tuesday, May 24, 2011


There has been much discussion over our Constitutional guarantee, as explained in the Second Amendment, of the "right to keep and bear arms". The divergence of understanding of this right is not one of language, but rather one of reader intent. In our Constitutional Republic, unlimited power is not automatically bestowed upon the government to cavalierly change those first ten amendments - also known as "The Bill of Rights". According to the Constitution, which at least for the time being is - ostensibly - the supreme law of the land, our government gets its power from the consent of the people! And, how do we exercise that "consent"? By way of elected "representatives". These "representatives", for more than a century and a half, have represented their own best interests... which are determined by a minuscule (but wealthy, influential, and therefore powerful) portion of their constituency. Can we correct this gross deviation from the intent of our Constitution? Idealistic desires aside, my answer is probably not.

Corruption is self-propagating, and corruption is rampant within our government. Not just in the present administration, but most likely in all administrations since our founding. In the beginning it may have been just a few minor officials who were corrupt, but corruption spread like a cancer to all levels. Today, our elected officials are simply better at concealing their corruption than were their predecessors and foreign counterparts. They are like rodents, in that for every one that is exposed for corruption, there are ten others that haven't yet been discovered. There are few persons of true "honor" left in the world of politics. Why would I say such a thing? Because in today's world it takes many millions of dollars to mount an election campaign. and where do politicians get that money? For the most part from donors. Oh, sure, you donated - but your ten, twenty or even one thousand dollar donation is insignificant. If you are lucky, you will get a letter of thanks from the campaign headquarters, complete with an electronic signature from the candidate. "Every man has his price", is a well-known quote from Robert Bolt, author of "A Man For All Seasons", referring to Thomas Cromwell's corruption in the service of his King. Cromwell's price - power - was met by the King, and to fail the King would result in the removal of Cromwell's power... and his head. The less obvious, underlying tenet in that quote was a reflection of Sir Thomas More's philosophy: "The integrity of oneself should be one's major goal. Without it, life is really not worth living. Death is unpleasant, but losing that part of oneself that guides our actions on the path that we deem to be correct would be unbearable." A philosophy in which principles cost Sir Thomas his own head. Politics is ruled by the fear of possible loss... loss of stature, loss of reputation, loss of position, loss of power, loss of money, and in extreme cases, the possibility of loss of life, etc. But, I digress...

The First Amendment requires that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It establishes basic individual freedoms concerning religious belief (or non-belief), the freedom to speak against those things we determine to be inimical (even within our government) to our Constitutional freedoms, it protects the left-wing media as well as the minority right-wing media, and our right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (such as forcing Obamacare upon us, and the so-called "Patriot Act", which identifies military veterans as "potential terrorists", etc.). The Second Amendment received the prestigious second spot because it insures the citizens right to protect all the other rights and freedoms established by our Constitution. A citizenry, disarmed, are called subjects. They cannot protect themselves, or their countrymen, from the whims of those who would rule rather than govern. It was said in "Cato's Letters" (England, early 1720s) that "Power is like fire. It warms, scorches or destroys, according as it is watched, provoked or increased." Power, when not watched and controlled, is also all-consuming. The more power an individual (or government) has, the more they want.

A government that is unanswerable to its people is a dictatorship. Ours has not yet reached that stage of development. They are still technically answerable to the people... they just choose to ignore our inquiries and our expressed desires! Why? Because Big Brother knows better what is right, fair and just for its people, and they will determine what rights and freedoms are appropriate for those of us with less intelligence than they, and relatively little power to change things. We have three choices: vote for a different, but no less corrupt replacement, at the ballot box; reinstate the same corrupt individual at the ballot box; or, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." As unpalatable as the third option may be to Americans, is it not better than the loss of our Constitution, our freedoms, and the consequent subjugation and enslavement of a free people? (The downside to a second American Revolution would be that all those who envy and despise us [i.e. - the 191 "United Nations"] would seize such a discordant opportunity to conquer, subjugate and enslave the survivors of such an action, and then divide the spoils among themselves.)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF "HOMELAND SECURITY"! Without it, we have none. The current administration (Obama, Clinton, Holder, et al) has designs upon dismantling as much of the Constitution as meets their desires to rule. Should they be successful in infringing upon our Second Amendment rights, all the other rights will fall like standing dominoes.

But, that's just the way I see things. Perhaps my world view is naive... idealistic... perhaps it is "radical"... or perhaps it is realistic. No matter... it is what it is. And, at least for the time being, my world view is protected under the First Amendment, which is protected by the Second Amendment. I do not encourage a second American Revolution, but I do see it as a possibility when individual freedoms are infringed upon or removed by any government.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Australians Protest Government Gun Grab - Are We Americans Next?

Most Americans, whether for or against our Constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment, are aware that our "right to keep and bear arms" is under assault from our home-grown left wingers. This, in itself, is nothing new - it has been going on for decades! What is "new" is that the radical, anti-gun left, now IS running our government. They will throw all kinds of unverified statistics into their sales pitch, in an attempt to convince the citizens that banning any/all individual firearm ownership is the key to improving personal safety and national security. Dictators around the world are in agreement - the best way to subjugate the people is first to disarm them, and the Obama administration is in full agreement with that philosophy, hence the "back door" approach to gun confiscation via the signing of a small-arms "treaty" with the U.N. It accomplishes one of Obama's primary goals, while simultaneously providing him with a high degree of deniability - "I didn't do it, the U.N. did!"

For a change, I'm not going to go into a lengthy typed rant about gun control vs. the 2nd Amendment, but watch this video to see just how secure the Australians are after their government's gun grab...

The increase in crime statistics speaks for itself. Who speaks for US?

Monday, May 16, 2011

Reality Shows... Or, More Likely, It Doesn't!

I, for one, am abysmally tired of the so-called "reality shows" on TV. Some may have "realistic situations" in them, designed obviously to entertain the audience through reenactment, but the majority of these shows have more scripting than the collected works of William Shakespeare's plays, and more choreography than a performance by the Bolshoi Ballet. All-in-all, they have about the same amount of reality as does an episode of "The Simpsons" or a few rounds of "World Wrestling Entertainment"! I gave up on them years ago, after the first two episodes of "Big Brother" and about three episodes of "Survivor".

Who, in this extremely litigious American society, is dumb enough (other than Obama supporters) to believe that any broadcast corporation would strand two dozen people on a deserted island with no food, no water and no medical aid available? The networks ownership would probably change hands on a bi-weekly basis if that were the case!

And then, there are what I call the "fluff shows" - "The Bachelor", followed by "The Bachelorette", "Dancing With The Lepers", etc. These are apparently designed primarily to lure the lady viewers into the clutches of their sponsors. Who really cares if Kirstie Alley can do the foxtrot? Let the stars do what they are noted for. I don't care if Johnny Depp can change the oil in his car... show me Johnny Depp acting (when he isn't busy trying to commit career suicide with efforts like "Sweeny Todd" and "What's Eating gilbert Grape")!

There. I feel MUCH better now! How about you?


WHO THE HELL IS HERMAN CAIN? Besides being the Tea Party's candidate for the office of POTUS next year that is...

I don't see this as a particularly good move for the Tea Party's first ever Presidential nominee. It appears they are taking a page form Obama's play-book - a man without a nationally recognized name, and no political experience, but... he is also a man who appears to have a silver tongue with which to mesmerize audiences. I'm not certain we need another snake-oil pitchman in the White House.

But that's really more about what he is, or isn't, rather than who he is... so, who is he? He is the CEO of Godfather Pizza, and he is a black American. I hesitate to use the term African-American for a couple of reasons:
1. The hyphen is a separator, not a unifier. I don't run around proclaiming myself to be Irish-American. I'm probably at least a 5th generation American of Irish descent, so the "Irish" part of my genealogical makeup is exactly that - genealogy - it is not who I am. I don't "celebrate" St. Patrick's Day, nor have I ever been to the "Shamrock Isle". I am an AMERICAN!
(Personally, I see those who use hyphenates to define themselves, to be more proud of the antecedent nationality than that which is subsequent)
2. Just a guess on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that Mr. Cain has never even been to Africa. Probably 90% of black Americans have never made the journey back to the Motherland. How do they then become hyphenated Americans?

The redeeming factor, or at least the single identifiable factor that distinguishes him from Obama, is that he is (apparently) a successful businessman. He has climbed the ladder of success - either by virtue of talent, or political devices, but nonetheless he has reached an enviable pinnacle in the business world. Obama has no such accomplishment on his personal résumé.

Does Mr. Cain stand a chance of success in the 2012 election? I think not. And it won't be solely because of his race, although for some that may strongly influence their decision at the voting booth.

There is a combination of things that will probably cause the demise of his bid for the presidency - chiefly his inexperience in "formal" politics (Yes, big business is fraught with politics, but it's a different kind of politics, and the fate of a nation does not ride upon a choice between pepperoni or Italian sausage). And, yes, some people did elect a relatively inexperienced man as president in 2008, and in 2012 they will have had 4 years in which to regret their decision (but... Americans apparently have become slow to learn from their mistakes, and many of them will choose to make the same mistake again in 2012). He also has to overcome his total lack of name recognition on "The Grand Scale" of national politics! That may or may not be provided by the national media. Then there are suggestions that Cain is a "mugwump", which, in politics, means he sits upon the fence with his "mug" on one side and his "wump" on the other. Herman Cain does not particularly present himself as one thing or the other, although to be the Tea Party candidate, he is most likely significantly more conservative in his "world view" than he is liberal. And then there is the matter of financial backing. The Tea Party better have a helluva "war chest" to promote a virtual nobody into the highest elected office in the country, because it will be an uphill battle all the way.

I guess Newt Gingrich wasn't available, nor was Sarah Palin, or any politically recognizable name. Now that he's really needed, where is Pat Paulsen? DEAD! (If you don't know who Pat was, Google him) If you choose to nominate a political weenie for President, Oscar Mayer would be your best choice. So, when you finally get your buns to the voting booth, remember the name Oscar Mayer! It's a weenie we all know...

Monday, May 2, 2011

Rejoice, Dear Hearts... OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD!

And the chances are excellent that he will be dead all week in the media. We'll get to hear about it until we're nauseous, since it's their biggest story since the Japanese tsunami. Bin Laden's prognosis is pretty much fixed... he won't be any more dead tomorrow or next week than he was yesterday.

Of course Obama is taking all the credit for it, but there are no photographs of him armed and wearing a ballistic vest. A U.S. Navy SEAL Team engaged in a firefight that lasted approximately 40 minutes in order to eliminate Bin Laden - which is really a remarkably short time considering the amount of security that Bin Laden reportedly had surrounding him.

And now the question becomes: "How long will it be before al Qaeda dispatches a team - from the middle east, or a domestic team from a sleeper cell - to assassinate Obama?" Or, will they begin by taking the "easy way" - murdering western embassy personnel abroad, or lesser national political figures in the U.S.? The overseas embassy personnel would be the most cost-effective inasmuch as they are geographically closer - and logistically easier - thereby requiring less for travel and per diem expenses, and allowing them to put more men on the job with less suspicion. Regardless, I fully expect a response from al Qaeda. Their tribal mentality cannot allow them to ignore the extermination of their "leader". Mark my words, we will see some aftershocks from the Muslim culture. Jihad recruiting will become easier, and their numbers will increase exponentially. They do not believe the old adage, "Revenge is a dish best served cold" (from the French - la vengeance se mange très-bien froide). But, more likely, they will react soon... "in the heat of passion".

Nonetheless, Osama will Bin Laden the dirt. And that idea puts a big smile on my face!