Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Monday, June 20, 2011

First, Second and Fourth Amendments To Our Constitution? Kiss Them Goodbye!

Kenneth Melson, the acting director of the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms (ATF), is expected to step down in the wake of the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme in which weapons were sold to Mexico’s drug cartels.

"Melson, who has been acting director since April 2009, is likely to resign within the next couple of days", says CNN.

Under Operation Fast and Furious and its sister program Project Gunrunner, about 2,500 weapons were sold to so-called straw buyers, who in turn sold them on to the cartels. The idea was that it would allow the ATF to trace the weapons and discover who was selling them on.

But the plan went disastrously wrong and the weapons have been used in at least 150 shootings. The ATF now admits it lost track of two-thirds of the guns. The "plan went disastrously wrong" because of disastrous decisions made by those responsible for enforcement of our firearms laws!

The controversy came to a head in December when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered in Arizona and two weapons discovered at the scene were found to have been part of Project Gunrunner. Brian Terry was only one of several law enforcement officers and civilians who have been murdered by guns sold illegally to these straw buyers... sold at the direction of ATF agents.

President Barack Obama has acknowledged that the plan was flawed. “There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made. If that's the case then we'll find out and we'll hold somebody accountable,” he said in March. Obama said he had no prior knowledge of the operation.

I don't think that having "no prior knowledge" is an acceptable excuse from the Head Monkey of any organization, much less the Federal Government. After all, a military commander can be held accountable for the actions of all the men who serve beneath him, why is Obama any different. And, Obama is the cherry on the top of the chain of command sundae. Certainly underlings wouldn't be allowed to do anything as illegal as knowingly encouraging firearms sales to those who are fully expected to transfer control of those firearms to Mexican drug cartels. But the ATF DID! They coerced law-abiding, federally-licensed firearms dealers into making these otherwise illegal sales. How did they manage to do that? The ATF determines who does - or does not - get issued a license to sell firearms. You can probably work out the intricacies of the "how" question for yourself.

I mentioned in a recent blog that politicians will "create the conditions" if none exist "to support their claims". The Obama administration is, almost to a man, anti-Second Amendment, and virulently against any form of private gun ownership in the USA. Marx, Lenin, Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung were smart enough to recognize that the only way to enslave their people was to remove their means of resistance, and put all the firearms in the hands of their military.

Would our military support a government that turns against the will of the people? Would our military attack the civilian population? There is a little-known, and never taught, historical precedent for exactly such an action by our military.

In the spring-summer of 1932 - in the midst of the Great Depression - roughly 43,000 people descended upon Washington D.C. - approximately 17,000 WWI veterans, their families and "affiliated groups", demanding immediate cash payment of their service certificates. According to the "World War Adjusted Compensation Act" of 1924, Congress entitled each veteran to a "bonus pay" of $1.00 per day (not to exceed $500) for each day of domestic service, and $1.25 per day (not to exceed $625) for each day of overseas service. Amounts of $50 or less were paid immediately. These were Americans who had served our country honorably when it called upon them, yet they were unable to provide for their families... while the government wanted to sit on the bonuses that they were promised until 1945.

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. The D.C. police were met with resistance, shots were fired, and two veterans were wounded, only to die later. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the Army to clear the veterans' campsite. Two men touted as American "heroes" were dispatched to do the deed - Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur, who commanded the infantry and cavalry, backed by six tanks, and then-Major George S. Patton who led the cavalry charge. The Bonus Army veterans, with their wives and children, were driven out of Washington D.C. and their shelters and belongings burned. And that should answer the question of "Would our military attack the civilian population?".

Thanks to the reinstatement and extension of the so-called "Patriot Act", almost any federal law enforcement agency can now ignore the requirements of the First, Second and Fourth amendments to the Constitution. They now have the Congressional approval to search and seize without a warrant, and to wire tap any and all forms of communications - like this blog - with only a letter from a federal field agent. Your mailman may bear close watching now, along with the storm troopers of the Department of Education (mentioned in a previous blog).
The BATF now has all the authority of Russia's FSB (previously known as the KGB), or Secret Police for Internal Affairs.
God save us from the sheer socialist folly of our leadership...

Wednesday, June 15, 2011


From the Declaration of Independence, dated July 4th, 1776...

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Many people feel that our present government is betraying the principles upon which this once-great nation was founded. It is not just the Obama Administration and the current Congress that have erred in the navigation of the "Ship of State". This erosion of principle has been going on for decades, in the same fashion as one would eat an elephant - one bite at a time. There have been rare occasions where an administration has gone on a diet, and taken smaller bites of the elephant - but they ate nonetheless. There have, however, been more frequent instances of the government gorging itself on the elephant... and then taking slices of it with them that they may have a late-night snack. Congress "legally" embezzled our Social Security Fund, and now they're trying to blame the lack of funding on what? Too many elderly people that paid into it are now expecting their return? Obama adviser Cass Sunstein has the right idea... eliminate the elderly! Anthropophagically speaking, his solution is reminiscent of the movie "Soylent Green". (If you aren't old enough to remember it, Google it)

Although the president himself is not blameless in this Democratic Detour, neither is he solely to blame for our loss of direction. He has his majordomo - now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelousy - her in-house crew of sycophants, and a fairly large number of other mutineers who wish to divert our ship of state from its originally intended course. Add to those numbers the Democratic Senators who feel they must maintain the "party line" in order to have party support in their next re-election bid, and you create a government of Titanic proportions.

There have been questions raised, such as "Why doesn't the Congress impeach Obama?" The answer is not terribly complicated. Impeachment proceedings must be initiated in the House of Representatives, where the most junior of our elected "representatives" reside (I hesitate to use the word "work" when referring to politicians). We must also understand that roughly 90% of our "representatives" are attorneys. Do you know why sharks won't eat attorneys? It's called "professional courtesy." Unless they are caught in a compromising situation which they cannot intimidate, lie or buy their way out of, politicians won't eat other politicians. They realize that "there but for the Grace of God...", and that awareness keeps them guarding one another's back. If you believe that our "representatives" represent anybody other than themselves and their largest financial supporters, I have this land in Florida I'd like to sell you. It borders a large body of water known as the Everglades. (I would venture a guess that perhaps 1% - certainly no more - 1% of our elected officials at the national level can even recognize integrity, much less possess any themselves.)

Besides... Congress - both the House and Senate - are co-conspirators in the ongoing reduction of the United States of America from world leader and world power, to the insignificance of a 3rd World Banana Republic. Who impeaches the Congress? According to the existing laws, nobody. And who wrote those laws? Congress. Does this seem like a Catch-22 situation to anybody besides me? Why aren't those laws that grant specific rights and benefits for Congress placed on the ballot for a public referendum? That would be their "report card"! Why do members of Congress have the power to grant themselves rights and benefits that no other citizen has? Because they can. The laws they have both created and approved allow it. These 535 people control the fate of an nation of 308,000,000 - and they don't really give a rat's ass about the other 307,999,465 - except for those who financed their campaigns, of course.

All of us have "feet of clay"... those (usually) hidden flaws and weaknesses that make us human. Our imperfections are what make us "perfect", in that our Creator designed us to be imperfect. Unfortunately, some humans nurture their imperfections, rather than strive to minimize their impact upon others. In the world at large we refer to them as criminals... and in the practice of government we call them politicians. (We can't really call government "business", because any business that was run like our government would be bankrupt!) Oh, come to think of it... (never mind - I rest my case.)

And, yes, my introduction was the document our founding fathers created, and the government they were revolting against was that of King George II of England. Do the words still count? Do they carry weight? The principles those words identify are timeless. We are being led "down the garden path" while wearing "rose colored glasses". Even if everything looks fine to you, be careful where you step... the garden path is covered with bullshit!

Tuesday, June 14, 2011


On Wednesday, May 24th, 2010 my blog headline proclaimed,
At that time, I posed the question "WHY does the Department of Education need combat-ready riot shotguns? Well, today the answer was provided to me by the NAGR (National Association for Gun Rights) in an email. I quote from that email...

"Have you ever had student loans?

Did you ever think that the Department of Education would send their SWAT teams in to collect on them, if you did?

If you’re anything like me, you were probably surprised to find out that the Department of Education even has a SWAT team.

What on earth for?

In this day and age of ever-increasing government intervention and militarization, even seemingly-benign agencies are training and using heavily armed agents against citizens.

In Stockton, California this week, one such unit of “operators” -- a term almost exclusively used to refer to military special operations personnel like Navy SEALs and Delta Force -- was used to assault the home of a person who owed money on their student loans.

The man of the house and his children were drug out into the street in their underwear by ski-masked thugs working for the federal government.

“They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids,” the man said.

And it wasn’t even him that the police were after.

A lot of people mocked some of the statements about the so-called Patriot Act, but this story is a perfect example of how police state action can get wildly out of hand quicker than most realize."

One would think that defaulting on a student loan would be like failure to repay any loan, and it would be incumbent upon the lender to initiate litigation against you in order to get a court judgment for the total amount (or the outstanding balance thereof). What's next? A visit from the Bank of America Goon Squad, instead of just repossessing that 1988 Yugo that you were two weeks late making that last payment on?

It sounds like something the Russian Government would do, using the KGB or FSB...
But then, we ARE dealing with a liberal-progressive, socialist-Marxist-style government now, aren't we? It also occurred to me that the government itself has defaulted on repaying the money the Congress embezzled from the Social Security Fund... and THAT'S why Social Security is in the dumper! Should we send a battalion of old people to D.C. to arrest Congress?

Wednesday, March 24, 2010


This is a shining example of how politicians think: “If you can’t make your case, create the conditions that will make your case for you.” Here’s how the morons running our country operate…

Considering our uber-liberal president's true beliefs on guns -- and the anti-Second Amendment stance of the leftist base of his party -- it shouldn't surprise anyone to read about the most recent scandal involving the Justice Department, guns, and law-abiding citizens. There seems to be a little problem the administration doesn't want to talk about: Operation Fast and Furious. Because of this botched operation, thousands of guns have been put into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, Americans have been killed, and now legal gun-shop owners are in the White House's crosshairs.

The lethal project [Operation Fast and Furious] was conducted under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), which is overseen by the Justice Department. Operation Fast and Furious is a product of the Obama administration and was conducted under a pilot program started by the Bush administration in 2005 called Project Gunrunner. Project Gunrunner allowed ATF agents to watch the purchase of weapons by "straw men" outside American gun shops, and purchasers were immediately apprehended before crossing back into Mexico. But starting early in 2009, ATF's actions through Operation Fast and Furious had the opposite result: They actually allowed and encouraged the sale of weapons to known straw-man purchasers for the cartels and let the guns flow across the southern border into Mexico.

Reports have shown the ATF told gun shops to sell massive amounts of weapons to known drug cartel buyers, even after gun shop owners expressed discomfort in assisting the government in breaking federal law to arm known violent drug cartels. According to a CBS News report uncovering the scandal:

"In late 2009, ATF was alerted to suspicious buys at seven gun shops in the Phoenix area. Suspicious because the buyers paid cash, sometimes brought in paper bags. And they purchased classic 'weapons of choice' used by Mexican drug traffickers -- semi-automatic versions of military-type rifles and pistols. ...

"Several gun shops wanted to stop the questionable sales, but ATF encouraged them to continue. ...

"ATF managers allegedly made a controversial decision: allow most of the weapons on the streets."

How many guns did the ATF ultimately let go? The same CBS News report revealed that the number is in the thousands: "On the phone, one [Operation Fast and Furious] source (who didn't want to be identified) told us just how many guns flooded the black market under the ATF's watchful eye. 'The numbers are over 2,500 on that case by the way. That's how many guns were sold -- including some 50-calibers they let walk.'" (For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, the .50 caliber Barrett is a long-range sniper rifle.)

The project didn't sit well with many ATF agents, either. CBS also reported, "One agent called the strategy 'insane.' Another said: 'We were fully aware the guns would probably be moved across the border to drug cartels where they would be used to kill.' For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border but were ordered to let them go. One distraught agent was often overheard on ATF radios betting and pleading to be allowed to intercept transports. The answer: 'Negative. Stand down.'"

The consequences of the operation have been deadly. ...

This process, better known as "letting guns walk," has left at least two U.S. federal agents dead -- Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jamie Zapata -- and has contributed to the deaths of thousands of innocent Mexican citizens.

Though the ATF had hoped tracing the guns into Mexico would lead to the busts of cartel kingpins, the operation hasn't lead to a single arrest of a cartel leader -- or, for that matter, the actual tracing of the firearms. Instead, the guns have been lost in Mexico until they show up at crime scenes.

But was Fast and Furious really about tracing drug cartels? Or was it about "proving" false statistics liberal gun control advocates like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Eric Holder have been throwing out for years? If it was a legitimate operation, who did the U.S. government intend to prosecute after the guns crossed the border, considering officials in the United States don't have jurisdiction in Mexico and the Mexican justice system is essentially nonexistent? It turns out law-abiding gun shop owners wound up in their crosshairs.

In early 2009, when the bulk of the operation got started, Clinton, Obama and Holder all stated that nearly 90 percent of guns in Mexico being used by cartels were coming from the United States. A WikiLeaks cable from the State Department recently showed that 90 percent of guns in Mexico actually come from Central America and others are bought in bulk from Russia and China. The 90 percent figure blaming U.S. gun shop owners has been discredited multiple times by the National Rifle Association, law enforcement officers at the federal, state and local levels and even by ATF officers. ...

Before the public, the media and even the Mexican government knew about what the ATF was doing, President Obama met publicly with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and blamed violence in Mexico on gun shop owners in America, saying the U.S. government needed to do a better job of tracing guns into Mexico. ...

"What we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across the border, is illegal," he continued, "and that is something we can stop."

But the ATF did it anyway. At the same time President Obama was saying the U.S. government can stop the trafficking of guns into Mexico, that same government's ATF was ordering gun shop owners to sell weapons to cartels.

Holder denies having known anything about the operation, although he is responsible for the oversight of the ATF as the head of the Justice Department, but he did say in a press conference that he believes ATF agents do a good job at stopping the flow of illegal guns across the border.

Of course, much of the liberal media have been happy to do the White House's bidding and blame law-abiding gun shop owners, making them scapegoats for violent crimes happening in Mexico and the United States.

Friday, June 10, 2011


If you do not have a "certified copy" (the one with the State Seal on it, not the hospital issued birth certificate) get ready to jump through some hoops - especially if you were adopted!

I relocated back to Utah last year, and went down to get a Utah driver's license. I was told that a federal law took effect in 2009, and that I had to have a certified copy of my birth certificate in order to get a driver's license now.

Well, here's where things become even more complicated, because I was born in NJ, and adopted by my maternal grandparents in NY when I was 5 years old. Not only do I need the certified birth certificate to get my driver's license, but I need a certified copy of the Final Order of Adoption from NY State to prove the name change. What does NY want from me to get the Adoption Order? A certified copy of my birth certificate from NJ! I'm jumping through more hoops than a circus dog, in order to prove - after 67 years on Earth, 53 years of paying income tax, and 20+ years in the US military - that I am indeed a bona fide American citizen. BUT... in order to get the Adoption Certificate I have to have "certified copies" of my grandparents (the adopters) Death Certificates, to which I never had access. Tracking those down will probably take a month or so, dealing with the bureaucracies of Pinellas County. Florida and some other county in NY, who will also probably want copies of whatever!
To make matter even worse, in my case all of these things must be taken care of through the US Postal Service. That means delays of at least one week in each direction if everything goes smoothly... which it never does! I figure, with any luck, I should have my Utah driver's license sometime in 2012. My retired Air Force ID means nothing in this process, much like my Top Secret clearance status while I was on active duty, or the fact that the FBI approved me to buy several firearms just last year.

This is not just a Utah law! Proof of citizenship is now required by Federal law prior to issuing a driver's license, so, my advice to you is this: if you are a native-born American, and you don't have a certified copy of your birth certificate, complete with the state seal, and your current driver's license was issued prior to 2009, get a certified copy of whatever you need before you find yourself in the same bureaucratic quagmire that I'm in! Especially if you were adopted!!

Luckily, my Oregon driver's license doesn't expire until 2015. With any luck this should be resolved by then. Does this keep illegal aliens from driving? NO! - they'll drive without a license, which is a minor offense compared to violating our border. Or, they'll have somebody illegally create the required documents to obtain a license. If Obama can do it, why can't they?

Thursday, June 2, 2011


You don't have to live in Wisconsin to appreciate the financial and physical dangers of forced union membership, which is what Wisconsinites are faced with today - and what the entire nation may be faced with tomorrow.

American labor unions outlived their usefulness decades ago. The original intent of organized labor was good, even though their objectives in those "formative years" were achieved primarily through violence. Employers weren't, as a general rule, paying workers a decent living wage. Some companies did provide "company housing" (substandard), and a company-owned version of a general store which carried basic necessities. But, both were provided at a premium price. By the time the company extracted the employees "rent", and items charged at the store each week, the worker's take-home pay was approximately the equivalent of one of today's dollars.

Today, labor unions function primarily through leveraged "negotiations" - using the implied threat of a production-ending strike to achieve their goals. A strike is essentially a variation on your basic blackmail scheme - "If you don't give us what we want, we will ruin you (financially) by shutting down your business until we get what we want."

In the most recent skirmish in the battle over the right to work in Wisconsin, a Dane County Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of the unions, saying the state legislature violated the state's
open meeting law. Apparently the unions own some judges in Wisconsin. The media are reporting the Wisconsin law as an "anti-union" law, when the proper way to look at it is as a pro-worker law.

The United States Declaration of Independence proclaims "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere in the Declaration is forced union membership mentioned! Nor is the payment of union dues by non-union workers, which is another desire of the union bosses! True liberty includes the liberty to perform labor under conditions to which the individual freely agrees - not under conditions of coercion by way of threats or acts of violence.

The man you made President of The United States - Barack Obama - during his campaign in 2008, made promises to the big unions that he must keep - or risk losing their support in the 2012 election. Among those promises was the unionization of all government workers, and the implied elimination of those unnecessary right to work laws... which the unions find to be bothersome.

How do the unions benefit their members? Not nearly so well as they benefit the union leadership. Granted, the members are making a "living wage" (and then some), but their wages are paltry compared to the salaries of their bosses. As an example, let's look at just the upper upper-echelon (the top ten officers) of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU - which is also the world's largest union):

Officers and Employees

  • Average Total Compensation: $62,170.21
  • Total Employees: 1,030
  • Employees Making more than $75,000: 321

Top Ten Highest Paid Leaders

NameTitleTotal Compensation
Andrew SternInternational President$306,388.00
David ReganExecutive Vice President$265,488.00
Dennis RiveraVice President$265,216.00
Anna BurgerInternational Sec-Treas$252,724.00
Eliseo MedinaExecutive Vice President$242,286.00
Mary Kay HenryExecutive Vice President$231,348.00
Gerald HudsonExecutive Vice President$230,671.00
Thomas WoodruffExecutive Vice President$218,723.00
Scott CourtneyOrganizing Dir$204,750.00
Kirk AdamsExecutive Board Member$197,939.00
The total compensation of the top ten SEIU officers costs the membership: $2,415,533 per annum

BUT... they have 1,031 employees whose average salary is $62,170.21p/a and that works out to a dues-paying membership cost of $64,035,316p/a just for the big shots. And 32% - almost 1/3 - of those officials make in excess of $75,000 per annum. The total compensation package of the "International President" of the SEIU is 65% (plus what he can steal from the membership) of that of the US President ($469,000 - plus what he can steal from the taxpayers)!

Since the big brouhaha over restricting union organization efforts in Wisconsin began, several months ago, and WI Governor Walker's attempt to keep Wisconsin a right to work state, there have been these developments...

"We will hunt you down . . . slit your throats . . . drink your blood. I will have your decapitated head on a pike in the Madison town square." Those are the words of a union militant aimed directly at a Wisconsin state legislator for daring to vote to restrict Big Labor's forced dues control over Wisconsin state workers.

There were literally dozens of similar death threats, along with acts of vandalism leveled against Wisconsin state legislators and Governor Scott Walker for not toeing the union boss line.

After reporting a timesheet-padding scheme, one of the whistle blowers was beaten so severely by union thugs he suffered two herniated discs and had to undergo knee surgery.

Another whistle blower found a dead rat in his locker, along with a note which said he would, "be taken care of." And another stated he was told: "If I continue to complain about their finances, they would have me killed."

Union bosses consider themselves to be above the law because -- they are -- thanks to the Supreme Court's infamous 1973 Emmons decision, granting union bosses immunity from prosecution for acts of violence and vandalism they orchestrate in the so-called "pursuit of legitimate union objectives." How stupid was that? Essentially it says that union bosses can instruct their minions to go forth and commit mayhem and murder so long as it is in pursuit of legitimate union objectives, and that the bosses themselves cannot be prosecuted for the directed actions of their subordinates.

Organized labor - on an interstate scale - has been with us since 1866, when the "National Labor Union" was formed. But, organized labor had little impact upon society-at-large until 1914, and the passage of the Clayton Anti-trust Act, which limited the use of injunctions in labor disputes and provided that picketing and other union activities are not illegal conspiracies or trusts.

In the mid-to-late 1800's secondary education and literacy among the working class were much less common than today. Perhaps there was a genuine need for organizing the workers back then. Maybe they were just too dumb to form their own independent groups to insure fairness in the workplace. But, in my mind anyway, 150 years later those conditions no longer exist. By comparison today's worker is highly educated, more aware of what constitutes fair working conditions and compensation, and what options are available to him/her should he feel the entity for which he toils is being less than equitable.

Forcing workers to either join a union, or pay dues to a union which one does not belong, makes about as much sense as going to the supermarket and being charged for all the groceries you didn't want!

Thomas Jefferson, the great American statesman, once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." We ALL need to be more vigilant in our observations of the processes of the government... before its unabated appetites allow it to completely consume our beloved Republic.

I'm Gil, (and you're not - be thankful!) and I approve this blog. I am an equal opportunity cynic and iconoclast.