Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

A Comprehensive List of Obama's POSITIVE Accomplishments As A "Public Servant"

This depiction is as close to "positive" as I could find. Based upon verifiable fact, Obama has positively ruined our economy.

We can expect no positive change prior to November of 2016, and then, only if the supporters of the left choose to forgo their own selfish interests for the benefit of our Republic.

Thank you for your interest.

(You may now return to what remains of 8 years of utter disappointment in the majority of your countrymen.)

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Death By A Thousand Cuts - The Gradual Destruction of Our Constitution

The Obama Administration has proven time and again its disdain for the U.S. Constitution - which is viewed as an impediment to accomplishing their surreptitious goal of imposing their will on the American people.

Yes, this Architect of  Destruction was re-elected by a majority of voters. That particular majority is composed of those who benefit primarily from government "entitlement programs", such as Welfare and Medicaid, in which the beneficiary has no investment. Programs into which the worker's taxes are diverted to support those who are uninterested in becoming self-supporting. This is an obvious conflict of interest, and these people should not be allowed to vote. Who comprises this "majority of voters"? Single issue voters - the under-informed and those unconcerned about the continued success of our country - they are the, "What's in it for me?" crowd.

·        Those who choose to let the government support them, as opposed to those who are self-sufficient - 4th and 5th generation welfare recipients. For them, living off the earnings of others has become the "family business", passed along from parent to child. They are lured into the voting booth by the promise of continued - and increased - government support. (Single issue voters)
·        Those who are in this country illegally, who also benefit from those same government entitlement programs, and who are promised amnesty and citizenship by the government's incumbent leadership, as a reward for circumventing our country's immigration laws. They are criminals from the day they enter our country… if not before. (Single issue voters)
·        The extended resident families of illegal residents, who wish their relatives to be closer so they can interact with them on a more regular basis. (Single issue voters)
·        Socialist-"Progressives", who believe that the fruits of those who labor should be evenly divided between the worker and those who choose not to work. These people are the self-appointed "social conscience" of our nation. They have a warped philosophy that demands those who do nothing for themselves have an inherent, God-given right to live as well as those who actually work to provide for themselves and their family. (Single issue voters)
·        Those who suffer from White Guilt Syndrome, and who feel the only cure is to vote for anybody who is not of the Caucasian persuasion. (Single issue voters)
·        Those who are unfamiliar with, and unconcerned about, the overreaching long-term effects of socialist-style governance. The "Can I reasonably expect this to have any  impact upon my daily life?" gang. (Single issue voters)

Swatches of Obama's life reveal little… but, when viewed as "whole cloth", the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.
I will now introduce Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, authors of …

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

This strategy was first seen in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors - Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz encapsulates it thusly:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:
"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. "When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to 'live up' to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist 'rule book' with a socialist one."

Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:
By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:
1.     The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2.     The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits. 
3.  The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

The preceding is Cloward-Piven in a nutshell (see diagram of C-P at the end of this post - for specific details Google Cloward Piven Strategy). This constitutes the crux - the backbone - of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Now, in light of this explanation of strategy, look back and review Obama's actions over the past four years…
·        Extending unemployment benefits beyond anything this country has ever seen. As the economy slowly tanked, due to the surreptitious efforts of our currently left-wing dominated government, unemployment naturally increased. If people are buying fewer products made by XYZ Corporation, XYZ will necessarily have to reduce their overhead costs of production in order to satisfy their obligations to stockholders. Where can they most easily do this? The costs of labor and quality of materials used to produce the product. This is achieved through layoffs of ambiguous/redundant personnel, and reduction in the quality of ingredients/ parts/components used in the manufacturing process. These reductions also activate "trickle down unemployment", in that their suppliers of materials may be forced to follow suit in their factory based upon reduced product demand, and on and on. (See above C-P "…thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.")
·        Increasing Welfare benefits by providing goods and services well beyond those of "necessities". Instead of  providing only food "staples" (Flour, Wheat, Salt, Pepper, Rice, Dried Beans, Yeast, Butter, Milk, Cheese, etc.), EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) Cards can be used for frozen meals, cut meats, sectioned poultry, shrimp, lobster, etc. - food items that many working people cannot afford. They can now even be used at fast food restaurants! (Another wound "…thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.")
·        The "Occupy" movement(s) - designed to disrupt the flow of various private financial, educational and government institutions. (C-P strategy: "Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest." and "… thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.")
·        Creating a Cabinet replete with persons whose political philosophies are inimical to the interests of the United States, and giving aid and support to foreign political entities (like Egypt, now run by the Muslim Brotherhood, and linked to numerous terrorist organizations, to whom our government just sold 20 F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abrams M1 tanks) whose avowed goal is the annihilation of Israel, and the establishment of a world-wide Islamic theocracy and Caliphate, governing by the draconian laws of "Sharia". Giving "aid and support" to our enemies was once considered to be an act of treason. Why has Obama not been impeached for this treasonous act (just one of his many violations of our Constitutions)?

We also have an abuse of power through Executive Order. Obama uses it as a tool to bypass Congress when he doesn't want a vote. "Executive Order 13621: WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS" is a prime example of this. Executive Office racism! Why should African-Americans - specifically - need an edict from the White house on "educational excellence"? Why not specify Native Americans, or Latino Americans… or simply Americans in general? Why not issue an EO demanding that all Americans become self-motivated to excel in their educational endeavors?

An Executive Order becomes law 30 days after signing… unless it is challenged by Congress.  Where are the Congressional challenges? Where are our "checks and balances"? Where are the few elected representatives of the people who may have the cojones to question the demands of The Great Usurper? (I say "may" because the existence of any such people in Congress is highly questionable.) The demonstrated irresponsibility of our "leadership" in all three branches of  Government is appalling! (More wounds to the Constitution)

Socialism as a practical form of government is anathema to a still slight majority of Americans…  those who yet believe in the Democratic Republic, and those who toil for wages. As Margaret Thatcher so succinctly worded it, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”

Obama's solution to that noteworthy "problem", is to borrow more money to distribute frivolously, and then, to print more money which is worth less because there are no reserves behind the paper that it's printed on! We are not only on the financial path to becoming the world's next Greece, we are on the Hyperinflation Expressway to becoming the world's next Zimbabwe. (During the height of inflation from 2008 to 2009, it was difficult to measure Zimbabwe's hyperinflation because the government of Zimbabwe stopped filing official inflation statistics. However, Zimbabwe's peak month of inflation is estimated at 6.5 sextillion percent in mid-November 2008. In March of 2008, a loaf of bread cost 10,000,000 $Z. Yes, that's TEN MILLION ZIMBABWE DOLLARS! In 2009, Zimbabwe abandoned its currency. As of 2012, Zimbabwe still had no national currency; currencies from other countries are used.)

Monday, January 21, 2013


The "Hot Button" issue involving our Constitution today is the Second Amendment. Our natural, God-given RIGHTS are simply affirmed by the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which are known as the "Bill of Rights". Understand that these freedoms are not granted by the Government. The Bill of Rights simply recognizes and affirms that these RIGHTS are natural and God-given.  The combination of the human heart-mind desires freedom at birth, yet in some cultures those natural desires are - figuratively speaking - "beaten out of" the populace beginning at birth. These cultures will never drink of the refreshing waters of freedom.

 Our linear-thinking founders chose to compose the Bill of Rights delineating those rights in order of importance.

"Amendment I
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."

The First Amendment affirms our rights to freely express ourselves - to speak our mind; to practice - or not - a religious belief system; to peaceably come together in a group of unspecified size for an unspecified purpose; and to "petition the Government" if they are doing something which we believe is not in the public interest.

The First Amendment has been slowly-  but consistently - assailed by the liberal left, and the ACLU. The best known, most obvious - but least recognized as such, are the recent concepts of "Political Correctness" and codification of "Hate Crimes". It is PC not to use the dreaded "N" word. Not that anybody should use that word, but those who do now become social pariahs. Granted it is just one word... but, the loss of freedom begins with just one freedom.
"Amendment II
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."

The left wants to argue the semantics of  this plain-English statement. They believe that a "Militia" is the military, and only the military. Let's clarify that from one English language dictionary:
"Definition of MILITIA
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service" (emphasis added for clarity)
(The Government recognizes two classes of "militia" the organized militia and the unorganized militia. The organized militia is generally accepted to be the National Guard of each of the 50 U.S. states. The unorganized militia are those citizens who stand ready to protect the country in the case of an extreme emergency.)

Notice the Second Amendment's reference to "the security of a free State", not a free nation. (However, by logical extension, the 50 "free states" combine to maintain a free nation.) Anybody with any level of literacy must admit (even if it goes against their personal beliefs) that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" needs to further explanation. It is the RIGHT of the PEOPLE, requiring no permissions from the Government.
"Infringed" is a word the left loves to argue. I'm sorry, but the word was defined for us 500 years ago:
"Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate" (emphasis added)
The Constitution is the supreme law, the basis for all laws and constraining those whom we elect to govern us. Any impediment  or obstacle to the free ownership, possession and use of firearms by law abiding citizens, created by the Government is an infringement!
"Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

I don't believe any further explanation of this amendment is necessary.
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We should all be aware of the assault on the Fourth Amendment, in the form of the "Patriot Act" and the "National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)" both of which infringe on each of the rights specified therein. Warrantless searches, and indefinite detention of Americans by the military, only upon "suspicion" have been authorized by these acts.
Amendments V thru VIII do not appear to be worth efforts of usurpation by the liberal left or the ACLU. In the interest of brevity I will not discuss those here.
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

A bit vague, but the implication is that we have more natural rights than those specified in the BoR.
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

At last count, thirty three states had found it necessary to reaffirm their sovereignty to the Federal Government. They did not take such actions because they had nothing better to do at the time - they did so because they could sense the threat of tyranny emanating from the White House and Congress
Our Founding Fathers gave our right to keep and bear arms the prestigious second position in our Founding Document. Amendment II does not say, or even imply, that this right is only for hunting, or competitive shooting. It does not say we can only have a musket (which was state of the gunmaker's art at the time of it's writing), ten musket balls and one powder horn. It gives us the RIGHT to own whatever arms technology is offered to the general population. One lame argument against the "military-style assault weapons", is that our founders didn't have semi-automatic weapons. They also didn't have automobiles, radio, television, cellphones, or electric anything! Should we then ban anything our Founders didn't have? The left would have us believe that the Founders had no idea that there would be technological advances -  that they were ignorant of the fact that there would be technical progress beyond that which they possessed!

The Second Amendment is to protect the citizens of the United States of America against the establishment of a tyrannical, dictatorial, or purely democratic form of government. This is why our foundation is that of a Democratic REPUBLIC, as opposed to a "Democracy". The Second amendment is the keystone of the Constitution's Bill of Rights - if it falls the rest will follow shortly thereafter.

I personally have taken an Oath to, "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies foreign and domestic", three times in my life. That Oath has no expiration date. What is an "oath" you ask?
"Definition of OATH
1a (1) : a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says (2) : a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words
b : something (as a promise) corroborated by an oath"
 An oath is an expression of fealty, a unilateral bargain insured by one's personal honor. I understand that "honor" is considered an archaic concept in today's world. Honor is viewed as a silly anachronism - perhaps by many - but believed in, and defended by more.
Those who would circumvent, usurp or otherwise reduce or thwart the intent of our Founding document ARE domestic enemies. The marginalization of our rights, for any reason, is unconscionable to a free people. Defense of the Second amendment IS defense of our Constitution! Don't drink the leftist Kool-Aid - protest loudly and resist any and all attempts to modify this document. A Document which has served the PEOPLE well for 236 years!

 Just my thoughts...

Thursday, January 17, 2013


I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this "health care reform" seems a bit out of kilter to me. If it was made by Bally's the "Health Care Thrills" pinball machine's TILT light would be flashing and the buzzer would be blaring loudly! Here's what I see as the best way to get health care costs under control - with very little actual government control:

We begin at the source of skyrocketing health care costs - the pharmaceutical companies, and the medical equipment manufacturers -
  1. Pharmaceuticals (prescription drugs) in the US cost anywhere between 3 and 10 times what the same drugs are being sold for in both the northern and southern parts of North America (for those of you who failed geography, that's Canada and Mexico). And, in 3rd World, or "developing" nations, the disparity becomes even greater! Why is it that the USA gets to pay the premium price for necessary medical supplies when they are created within our own borders? Because the PharmCo's think we can afford the outrageous prices, and that we should pay for all their R&D. Granted, Research and Development of medicines is an expensive proposition, but why do Americans have to bear those costs alone? And why do the PharmCo's seem to believe they should recoup those expenses in the first 6 months of sales? Those costs are passed on at your neighborhood pharmacy as well as at your local hospital. Why does the same Band Aid, or USP formula aspirin that sells for $4.00 per hundred at Rite Aid or Wal-Mart, cost you $5.00 per pill on your hospital bill? Because those of us who actually pay our medical bills (with or without medical insurance), pay our medical bills... and we foot the costs for those who do not!
  2. Medical equipment costs are outrageously expensive, due to a captive audience (where else ya gonna go?) and no hospital is considered a hospital these days if they don't have a CT Scanner or MRI Scanner. R&D costs to develop safe and effective medical equipment are at least equal to those of the pharmaceutical industry. Where is it written that being a manufacturer of anything is cheap? They are in these businesses because they can make a fortune producing items that are essential to keeping people alive! A "decent' Magnetic Resonance Instrument costs your hospital between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000, and a top-of-the-line MRI is more than that! Why are these machines that expensive? The manufacturers, like all corporations, have stockholders who expect a return on their investment in a (un)reasonable period of time and, to meet those expectations, R&D costs (investment $$) must be recouped in the shortest amount of time possible.
  3. Here's a question that boggles the most brilliant minds - even mine... (almost)! Why is a one week stay in the hospital after a heart attack, billed at $38,000, but settled for at $8,000 with your insurance company? Because they know that the insurance company can and will pay that $8,000, and if they had to depend on an uninsured, minimum-wage, working-class person to pay that $38K bill, it would take decades to get their money. It's the practical application of the "bird in the hand" principal. "Eighteen percent of something is better than one hundred percent of nothing."
    "So, Mister Smartypants, what can be done about it?" you ask.. 
  • IF the government must get involved let it be in the structuring of the health care system, not the administration thereof. The responsibility should rest with Congress to initiate legislation prohibiting profiteering (not to be confused with reasonable profit) in any health-related industry at any time. Further, prohibit profiteering in any critical industry at any time.

  • To that end, Congress would make it incumbent upon any manufacturer of health-related products or services products to recoup R&D costs for each successful development over a period of 10 years, with fines equal to or exceeding the profits found to be in excess.
  • Allowable costs for prescription medicines and equipment, would be universal, and Pill X would cost no more in the USA than it would cost in Johannesburg, or Athens. Just my thoughts.
  • Two First-Graders Suspended For Playing Cops & Robbers... UNBELIEVABLE!

    Here's a disturbing excerpt from today's Political Outcast:
    "Just a couple weeks ago, a 6-year-old student was suspended for pretending to “shoot” another student with his hand and saying, “Pow!” He was playing of course, but the school officials were alarmed by the boy’s behavior and suspended him. In the assistant principal’s letter to the student’s parents, she wrote that their son “threatened to shoot another student.” After the parents secured a lawyer, they appealed the decision of the school, and the school overturned the student’s suspension. This very thing just happened again earlier this week to two other 6-year-olds in a Talbot County, Maryland school. A local CBS affiliate reported:
    “There’s controversy at a Talbot County school after two 6-year-old boys were suspended while playing cops and robbers during recess and using their fingers to make an imaginary gun.”
    And these gun control zealots claim that gun owners are the paranoid ones. They love to poke fun of us for thinking that our government will become tyrannical to the point that we’ll need only the most powerful guns to defend ourselves. How silly, naïve and paranoid we must be to think that our government would plan to completely oppress us once they leave us defenseless."
    Read more:
    Did I somehow miss this in the lamestream media? How feeble-minded are today's school administrators? Part of the problem in this country is that our educators are primarily left-wing liberals, who are so concerned about showing themselves as paragons of PC that they have disposed of whatever common sense they may have once had. This seems to be especially true at the college/university level. but in order for the professors to successfully indoctrinate their students, the indoctrination process must begin at the entry level of their education.

    With so few exceptions that they aren't worth mentioning, virtually ALL little boys of my generation played "cops-n-robbers" (and even "cowboys-n-Indians") while using their fingers as make-believe guns. And ya know what? None of those kids I grew up with ever shot anybody unless it was in a military "shoot or be shot" confrontation. Most children have very active imaginations... cops-n-robbers and cowboys-n-Indians are really nothing more than noisy variants of hide-n-seek. But, allowing a child the freedom to explore his/her imagination is a bad thing, because it allows the child to sample things as they think things should be, rather than accepting things as they are instructed to by "The Authorities". Socioeconomic progress depends upon imagination! If the world had stifled the imaginations of people like Marie (and Pierre) Curie, Nikola Tesla, A.G. Bell, Einstein, and Paul Winchell (ventriloquist/inventor of the first "artificial heart") we would be that much poorer for it today.

    America's students now lag behind much of the world in the fields of mathematics and science... why is that? Because they are being trained to think inside the box, and to stay inside the lines when coloring. The expressing of an individual's inquiring mind is simply not supported. And, in many cases creative thought is actually discouraged for fear of hurting the delicate egos of the less intelligent students. Many of our "educators" today have an arrogance about them - an attitude that they are the fountain from which all necessary and useful knowledge flows, and that any thoughts or ideas which conflict with that attitude are obviously wrong. It takes an observant student roughly three class days to determine which teachers/profs those are, and how they need to "play the game" in order to complete that class satisfactorily. But... I am beginning to drift from my post's title.

    I suppose the bottom line for all of us is to reduce violence in our society. I'm all for that! However, I don't believe that the answer is to essentially criminalize children's game-play any more than it is to ban/restrict/register firearms. Just my thoughts.

    Wednesday, January 16, 2013

    Obama Recruits Health Care Professionals to Report Gun Ownership...

    Isn't that just wonderful? One of Obama's EO's would require medical doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists, to inquire about gun ownership - how many, how do you store your guns and ammo, etc., whenever one uses their services. Here's how the conversation should go:
    Doctor: Do you own any firearms (or guns)?
    Patient's CORRECT answer: NO. (thereby ending the discussion)
    Patient's Incorrect answer #1: Yes. (inviting further intrusion into your private life, which must be reported to "The Authorities)
    Patient's Incorrect answer #2: That's really none of your business. (the assumed implication being that you do have guns, which must be reported to "The Authorities")
    Patient's Incorrect question: How is that related to identifying and treating the condition that brings me to your office today? (indicating resistance to the Emperor's Imperial edict, which would probably be reported to "The Authorities"

    The obvious loophole in that idiotic requirement is that patients visiting a health care provider are not under any kind of oath to reply honestly. The downside (there is no upside) to such a requirement is, that people who need emotional/mental health help will be reluctant to seek that help for fear of being put on some obscure - but restrictive - "government list of (fill in this space with your favorite socialist label)". The potential harm of such a requirement is overwhelmingly plain - people who need treatment for controllable mental health issues will not seek such help, and their condition may deteriorate to the point that treatment may no longer be practical, or that they may have "an episode" in which others are injured or killed. Just my thoughts. Personally, I think anybody who submits such a blatantly ridiculous proposal is mentally deficient and a threat to others, and should immediately be placed on the aforementioned "obscure government list". Just sayin'...

    Saturday, January 12, 2013


    There is a little-known move afoot to use excess military drones in the surveillance of our civilian population. Not just to observe criminals, or areas with inordinately high crime rates, but to watch everybody, everywhere! Yes, the government will be overhead... watching your pool parties and cookouts, and they are capable of peering into your bedroom.

    It has some people concerned about privacy. They don’t like the idea of local and federal governments and police departments using drones to watch us.

    As of last week, the Federal Aviation Administration has approved 348 unmanned aircraft for domestic use. Most of the applications were from the Defense Department. 7% were from law enforcement agencies, and 24% were from universities, which are researching their use in disaster response, agriculture and other areas.

    The use of surveillance drones on Americans would be a violation of the 4th Amendment, because it would be subjecting us to searches without their ascertaining probable cause and obtaining a search warrant. But thanks to the war on terror and the destruction of the 1st Amendment, the government can easily bypass the 4th Amendment. And it’s this kind of thing that is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment.

    The government is eating the (Constitutional) elephant - one bite at a time, as they must. Legislators of several states have introduced bills at the state level to severely restrict the use of drones to monitor the general population. I would suggest that all who read this contact your state and national representatives and demand that they take action to protect the citizenry from this expanded governmental intrusion into our daily lives.

    Friday, January 11, 2013

    Russians Understand THE CONSEQUENCES of Gun Control Much Bettter Than Do Americans...

    And, so do the Aussies, the Brits, and every other country where gun "privileges" are severely restricted. Here's an excerpt from an article on, titled "Illinois Considers Statewide Gun Ban":

    "This push for more gun control comes as statistics show that in Chicago last year, a total of 532 people were murdered. That’s about 1.5 people every day. In more realistic terms, that’s 3 people every 2 days. That means that more people were murdered on an average day in Chicago last year than people were murdered in Kennesaw, Georgia in 25 years.
    Even a writer for the Russian news outlet Pravda excoriated gun control trends in the U.S. In his article, Stanislov Mishkin wrote of the history of gun control in his own country. 'There was a time', he said, 'when everyone carried a gun of some sort, much like gun owners here in the U.S. carry. But the height of their oppression came when their government disarmed the populace:

    “One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were.”

    Mishin concluded by exhorting Americans not to give up their 2nd Amendment rights and not to fall for the politicians’ fake promises of security and safety:

    “No, it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressive leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in [the hands of] those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect."

    Since the dissolution of NYC's political Tammany Society (Democrats) in the 1960's, Chicago has had the dubious unofficial distinction of being the most politically corrupt city in the USA. An excerpt from the Huffington Post (one of my least favorite sources of left-wing propaganda):
    "Chicago was given the unfortunate title of "most corrupt" city in America (and by extension the entire State of Illinois, as HOME OF the most corrupt city) in a new study by the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Illinois' Institute of Government and Public Affairs.
    The report cites federal data showing that, between 1976 and 2010, there were 1,531 convictions for public corruption in "the federal district dominated by Chicago," according to the Associated Press. Since the 1970s, four of seven Illinois governors have been convicted, along with 31 members of Chicago's city council.

    "The two worst crime zones in Illinois are the governor's mansion ... and the city council chambers in Chicago," Dick Simpson, a former Chicago alderman, told the AP. "No other state can match us."
    I don't know that I'd be 'crowing' about that if I were a former Chicago alderman. The public reaction to such a statement would likely be, "Hey, look! Here's one that didn't get caught!"... if the Chicago public would even be moved to have a reaction to the fact that Chicago was horribly corrupt, as it was probably long-standing common knowledge. Chicago's political machine today hasn't changed one iota since the days of Al Capone.

    The Russian's view of our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is one we should focus upon, and share with our liberal friends (assuming we have any liberal friends), for his view is anecdotal - one of BT-DT. Illinois' proposed approach to curing their share of the "gun problem" is Constitutionally wrong... but, whattaya do when your confinement facilities are filled with politicians? Take something away from those who ARE NOT criminals, with the expectation that doing so will somehow deter those who are criminals. How about this - let's have summary executions for anyone who employs a firearm during the commission of a crime of which they have been convicted - whether the gun is fired or not. Guilty today, executed tomorrow! I can pretty-much guarantee that THAT would have a much greater impact upon the use of guns in crime, than punishing the LAC and/or their guns. Blaming the tool is the act of a fool! Just my thoughts.

    Remember that the Federal Government of the 1800's made "promises" to the Native Americans - which, by and large were not made in good faith, and were therefore eventually broken. Do I trust the government? Not by any stretch of the imagination! Why? Because the government is run by politicians, whose stock-in-trade is the untruth, the misdirection, doublespeak and flat-out LIES. And, to answer the unasked bleeding-heart question: "What if the conviction was wrong?" Waaaaah, waaaaah, waaaaah! File it under "collateral damage" - they shouldn't have done anything that would even have made them a suspect of committing a crime. Where's Judge Roy Bean when we need him? Dead... for 110 years!

    If you will, think of the U.S. Constitution as the menu of a left-wing restaurant, and the Second Amendment is the appetizer course -  elephant. The left-wing wants to eat everything in sight, but they must eat the elephant first. How does people eat an elephant? One bite at a time! A bite here, a nibble there, and before you know it the entire elephant is gone. This particular "elephant" protects the citizens of the USA from the imposition of a tyrannical government. Once it is out of the way, government can order anything it wants from the remaining menu, without fear of effective demonstrations of outrage from the people.

    The Obama administration has, on several occasions, usurped, contravened, or otherwise circumvented the intent of our Constitution, and has done so with impunity from impeachment. He has done so through abuse of the Executive Order, and bypassing Congress when it was in session, abusing the "recess clause"! Our Congress seems to lack the courage to impeach this charlatan who inhabits the White House, all the while masquerading as the president. Obama has engineered the destruction of our Republic, and our representatives in Washington D.C. apparently do not care to challenge his authority to do so.
    We have midterm elections coming up for Congress (House and Senate). If we can't change their attitudes, at least we can change their faces!

    Monday, January 7, 2013

    Nidal Malik Hassan - The Fort Hood Murderer

    I've been trying to keep up with the U.S. Army's feeble attempts to try "Major" Nidal Malik Hasan for his actions in Nov 2009 - more than THREE YEARS AGO! The apparent foot-dragging in prosecuting this case makes me wonder exactly what is going on behind the scenes.

    Are the delays perhaps the results of actions taken (or not taken) in response to directions from the White House or the DOJ? The trial has been delayed twice because Hasan has a beard - which is in violation of Army regulations! If he is still IN the Army, which he is - retaining his rank, and pay (?) of Major, Hasan should be given two choices: (1) he must shave it off, or (2) have MPs remove it from his cowardly, traitorous face. The defense claims that he has the beard for "religious reasons", yet those reasons did not exist for the 13+ years he was in the Army prior to massacring those people at Fort Hood, TX.? Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?

    The most recent information I have been able to locate on Hasan's trial, comes from the August 17, 2012 edition of the Killeen (TX) Daily Herald - "A federal judge ordered that evidence against the accused Fort Hood shooter obtained through classified intelligence gathering methods will be allowed in trial.
    Lawyers for Maj. Nidal Hasan challenged the constitutionality of using the evidence, stating it constituted an illegal search or seizure and prevented Hasan from confronting his accusers.
    Federal Judge Walter Smith denied the request Wednesday after reviewing the evidence and classified information outside of the court.
    Smith made the ruling the same day a high military court ordered a halt to all proceedings at Fort Hood until it decides if the judge in Hasan’s court-martial can have him forcibly shaved.
    With the high court’s ruling, Hasan’s court-martial has little chance of beginning Monday.
    Authorities obtained the unspecified evidence from electronic surveillance that falls under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Though investigators found evidence that may be used against Hasan, the structure of FISA rules appears to indicate that authorities were targeting someone outside the country.
    It leads to the possibility that the evidence could be communications between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaida cleric who was slain last year in Yemen. Hasan sent a series of emails to Awlaki in the months leading up to the Nov. 5, 2009, mass shooting on post. It led agents from the Joint Terrorism Task Force to monitor Hasan’s communications, though the 41-year-old Army psychiatrist was never taken in for questioning.
    In Smith’s ruling, he states that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder provided a sworn declaration that disclosure of FISA materials would create a danger to national security. Smith also refused to allow the defense and prosecution to argue the matter.
    The ruling marks the end of the federal case, which was transferred to the Waco court because of jurisdictional issues in July."

    WHAT?? The crime was committed upon a federal military reservation, against government personnel, by a military officer. Why does the federal government lose jurisdiction based upon FISA information? The purpose of the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act", is to gather intelligence on foreign soil. It is not the fault of the intelligence community that Hasan chose to communicate with someone who was under that surveillance. (File his blunder under "collateral damage", and give him 3 punches on his T.S. Card!) A Military Courts Martial is a type of "federal court". Does the ruling mean that the military no longer has jurisdiction over Hasan? Do the top powers in the administration not wish to see the name of their beloved Islam besmirched? Is this a "Protect Islam at the cost of justice" move from - or directed by -  the White House? In this administration (which has all the transparency of Mount McKinley), nothing should surprise us. Any action that may result in the subversion or nullification of our Constitution by the Obama administration - and it's associated Communists - is totally unsurprising to anyone who is paying the least bit of attention to the goings-on in Washington D.C.

    Friday, January 4, 2013

    A Prime Example of Deficient Thought...

    On September 13, at the behest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York City Board of Health banned the sale of soda and other sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. Did it also cancel the First Amendment - the parts referring to freedom of speech and expression?

    Does Bloomberg's idiotic "law" stop purchasers of sweetened drinks from buying more than one at a time? Or from bringing their own 40-ounce container, ordering two sweetened drinks, and pouring the contents of the 16-ounce containers into their personal 40-ounce vessel? Or - for those customers dining in - does it prohibit the business from increasing their price somewhat, and offering "Free Refills"? In fact, if there are any entrepreneurs left in NYC, they would probably stock 40-ounce insulated plastic mugs and offer them for sale to their customers, just so they could put two 16-ounce drinks in those containers.

    Why doesn't Bloomputz completely ban the sale of cigarettes, if he's so worried about the health of everybody? Because New York State imposes an excise tax on cigarettes at the rate of $4.35 per package of twenty cigarettes. New York City imposes a local excise tax at the rate of $1.50 per package of twenty cigarettes, bringing the combined tax rate in New York City to $5.85! That extrapolates toNYC taxes of $15.00 per carton of ten packages, and that's why cigarettes aren't banned in NYC! Bloomschwantz is only concerned about HEALTH ISSUES when they don't effect his tax base, so he's not really concerned about the health of the people. (Because of those outrageous taxes, NY also has a problem with "black market cigarettes". These are brought into NY from outside the state by illicit entrepreneurs, and being sold to the smoking public from the trunks of cars, and the back-end of trucks - which means NY gains no tax from those items)

    Humans are the sentient, creative beings on this planet. If they are faced with an obstacle to their enjoyment of life, it doesn't take them long to find a way around that obstacle. Some of these ways are in compliance with existing laws, and their creators are lauded as "genius" and "entrepreneurs". Others devise creative ways to circumvent those laws, and are known as "outlaws", and organized groups of outlaws are called "gangs". When 535 of these outlaws are assembled in Washington, D.C., plotting to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, we refer to them as Congress.

    The only true impediment to achieving one's goals in life, are those stumbling blocks we accept as "insurmountable obstacles" and then give them our permission to stop our progress. Humans, like water, tend to search for the path of least resistance. The successful ones find it.

    Thursday, January 3, 2013

    I Wish I Had Said That!!

    Today's report from informs us that House Speaker Boehner has finally grown a pair.

    "For all the complaints we conservatives have about Speaker John Boehner, there can be no denying that we felt a certain camaraderie with him, a certain pride that he is on our side, at least in party affiliation, when we learned that he told Senate Majority Leader Harry Read to “Go f*** yourself”–twice–after Harry Reid likened him to a dictator.
    “John Boehner seems to care more about keeping his speakership than about keeping the nation on firm financial footing,” said Reid, adding that the House was “being operated with a dictatorship of the speaker.”
    Politico reported that Boehner muttered his awesome rebuke the next day, when Boehner saw Reid at the White House.
    “Reid, taken aback, said, ‘What are you talking about?’ And Boehner repeated it. Boehner’s office has confirmed the validity of these claims, but offered no further comment on the matter.”

    Boehner, although indelicate about it, said what millions of Americans would like to tell Harry Reid... and Diane Feinstein... and several other members of Congress.

    The nation is NOT "on firm financial footing", nor has it been for some time. Every dollar that is printed today is essentially an I.O.U. from our government. There is no precious metal behind it, so it devalues the dollar that was printed the day before! Our dollars are backed only by money we have BORROWED from foreign governments. In what parallel universe do the members of Congress live? Theirs is an existence based upon the rarefied atmosphere of being supported by the labors of others, and uncontrolled "spending like drunken sailors". Sadly, they are not generally held accountable by "their constituency" once they assume the office to which they were elected. Elected to protect the interests of not only those citizens, but - as a collective body - to protect the interests of the citizens of the United States of America.

    Recall elections are one way of getting our government back on track. Although they take place at the state level, the procedures themselves are not terribly complicated. A petition, which in most states must show some form of malfeasance or misconduct while in office (indifference to the citizens expressed desires, may or may not qualify - but certainly SHOULD) must be identified by the petitioners (in 11 states there is no such requirement). Generally, to be considered for action, a petition must bear "X"-number of signatures (the minimum number of signatures and the time limit to qualify a recall vary among the states. In addition, the handling of recalls once they qualify differs. In some states, a recall triggers a simultaneous special election, where the vote on the recall, as well as the vote on the replacement if the recall succeeds, are on the same ballot). The petition is then sent to the state's election board/committee/supervisor for action as required by law. Recall elections are not as rare as one may think. (In 2011, there were at least 150 recall elections in the United States. Of these, 75 officials were recalled, and nine officials resigned under threat of recall - a success rate of greater than 50%. Recalls were held in 17 states in 73 different jurisdictions.)

    A Democratic Republic, such as ours, is by definition to be responsive to the expressed desires of  the people. To do otherwise is the hallmark of a Dictatorial Tyranny. There is an old Russian proverb which says, "A man is judged by his deeds, not his words." Although true for some perhaps, it is not a universal truth or Democratic Republics would all be lead by honest men, interested primarily in the success of their Republic. The reality is that honest, dedicated, patriotic men (and women) are a rare find in today's world, and those who possess those unusual character traits are soon either rendered ineffectual by - or expelled from - any ruling body. Just my thoughts...

    Tuesday, January 1, 2013

    You DO Have This Right - TODAY Anyway...

    The following is a post I made in a forum in which I participate. It is in response to the knee-jerk reactions of those we have elected to "serve" us...

     "I see that several of you folks have much more faith in the morons and sheeple that are "leading" our country than do I. The current administration is overflowing with left-wing socialist-"progressives", Marxists, Communists and others that would see our Republic crippled, if not destroyed. The picture we now have is one of reducing the size - and budget - of our military, and simultaneously crying out to essentially disarm the citizens so they cannot defend either themselves, their families or their country. To weaken our military is to encourage those who wish us harm to increase their endeavors. Attempting to eliminate the relatively ineffective personal weapons of private citizens is almost a guarantee that those who wish us ill shall take actions against us. Our armed populous would probably create the world's largest defensive force, even if they were relatively under-armed (as compared to military arms). Unarmed, Americans would soon become the world's largest collection of slaves."

    That's my take on National defense issues. As for personal defense, study after study has shown that in areas where more people are issued concealed firearm permits, the incidence of firearm involved crimes goes down significantly. Utah is an "open carry" state - which means that anyone not prohibited by law from possessing firearms may carry a handgun on their person so long as that handgun is, and remains, in plain sight at all times. However, even the vast majority of people who possess handguns and live in Open Carry states do not carry. That comment is based upon my anecdotal experience here in Utah: I returned to Utah about 2.5 years ago, and have a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit (last year there were over 77,000 CFPs issued by the Utah BCI - that number is projected to increase by 50%-100% this year). I OC primarily in the summer, and conceal my every day carry handgun, mainly when the ambient air temp is below 60º. In those 30 months, and with the singular exception of Impact Guns where many customers (and ALL employees) are openly armed, I have seen only 2 other people OC'ing in Weber County (population 231,834) that works out to only about .00013% of the population (somebody please check my decimal point - I'm not real comfortable with it). The question now is WHY?

    Why, when Utahan's have every legal right - in both the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Utah State Constitution - affirming our RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms), and to openly carry our handguns in public, does only one person in (roughly) every 79,000 people choose to Openly Carry? My "stat" is, without a doubt horribly skewed, but I can only relate those acts which I have personally witnessed. (I could find no official stats on the number of handguns, or even total firearms, in Weber County.) Why on Earth are we not more obviously armed in public? There are numerous reasons, among which I believe are:
    1. Most people do not wish to call undue attention to themselves in public. An openly displayed, holstered handgun will get people's attention, simply because it is not a common practice.
    2. Most people do not want to increase their chances of unnecessary contact with law enforcement officers (LEOs). Not all LEOs are well-informed about OC laws. And, even among those who are informed, some do not believe we should have that right, and will hassle OCers if only for the sake of making them feel uncomfortable.
    3. Most people do not wish to make other members of the public feel uncomfortable. (Granted, we are not responsible for the "feelings" of others, but that does not change the fact that seeing a handgun on the belt of someone other than LEOs or armed security personnel will make many people very uncomfortable.)
    4. Those people who are not truly firearms "enthusiasts", yet own one or more firearms, may not even be aware that the law allows us to OC. (As a side note, Utah has no legal limit on the length of a knife blade, but I have seen nobody OCing a sword or machete. In this case I believe it is because very few people know about the absence of a length law. And, the preceding reasons would apply to the lack of large knives being openly displayed as well.)
    5. Recent mass shootings have - understandably - made the public hyper-sensitive to the presence of firearms in public places.

    I'm sure there are even more personal "reasons" not to OC, but none of them comes immediately to mind. There are however, innumerable incidents where a legally armed citizen has intervened, in potentially deadly situations for many others, and successfully neutralized the attacker. You haven't heard of any? That's not the least bit surprising. The left-leaning media does not report anything that doesn't support their agenda of disarming the law-abiding citizens of this country. There are also many mass-murder tragedies that could have been minimized, had there been just one armed defender present. One of the best examples of that is provided by a Texas State Representative, who wishes she hadn't left her gun in her car. She provides an excellent defense of our 2nd Amendment rights -

    Mass murders occur in AREAS DESIGNATED AS GUN FREE ZONES, and it isn't because they don't read the signs - it's because that's where they are least likely to encounter armed resistance! The honest, law-abiding citizen is infinitely more likely to read and heed. "Gun Free Zones" should be renamed as - Abundant Victim Zones. There has never been a mass shooting at a gun store, gun show, shooting range or an NRA Convention... yet nobody wonders WHY? Because there are people there who can and will shoot back!! Just my thoughts on the subject.