Ragnarok

JOSH POWELL - A TERRIBLY EVIL AND TRAGIC ACT!

2012-02-08T08:27:00.000-08:00

First, understand that I was not witness to any of the following acts, and that these are my personal thoughts about the chain of events which led up to the loss of two innocent young lives... at the hands of their FATHER! (And, keep in mind that "Monday morning quarterbacks" can always call the correct plays that would have won the game for their team.) I have no special knowledge - my evaluation of this process is based soley upon information reported in the media.

I believe there were errors made from the initial missing person report of Susan Powell's "disappearance" from her home in West Valley, Utah, through the horrific ending in Washington. Most of the errors were systemic, as opposed to individual oversights/mistakes. I believed from the outset that Josh Powell had, at the very least, knowledge of what had happened to his wife. He either covered up her murder, murdered her himself, or did so in concert with his father - a voyeur, collector of 'kiddie porn', and suspected child molester. In my heart of hearts I believed that Josh Powell had personally murdered her and disposed of her body.

The first red flag was his explanation of his whereabouts the night of Susan Powell's disappearance. His story was so lame, it would have had greater credibility had he claimed she was "beamed up" by aliens! He claimed he had elected to take their sons, ages 2 and 4 at the time, camping... at midnight... in the dead of a Utah winter... during a heavy snowstorm, in sub-freezing temperatures. Would that story have had the slightest ring of truthfulness to anybody with a functioning adult mind? Of course not! But, the police must have solid evidence before they can act to arrest anyone, whereas I already had Josh Powell tried, convicted and executed (in the 'court' of my mind) from day one.

The next red flag was when it was suggested that perhaps his wife ran away... leaving her purse, cellphone and other personal effects behind. What woman would do that? (Unless... she was intentionally trying to implicate somebody in her disappearance.) But again, the police must have acceptable evidence that a crime had been committed before they can arrest anyone.
There was at least one report that the carpet in the Powell home was "still damp" at some point during the investigation. However, I heard no reports on if samples had been taken from the carpet and processed. (I have to believe that - if that report was accurate - officials [u]did[/u] take samples as evidence, and that the results were "inconclusive" at best.)
First error (in my opinion): Josh Powell was a "person of interest" in the disappearance of his wife, Susan. The question in my mind is why his status in the investigation was never upgraded from that of "person of interest" to "suspect", and why, even as a "person of interest", he was permitted to leave Utah and take up residence over 1,000 miles away?

Now to the most recent event - his murder of his two sons, and the ensuing conflagration of the home in which he was living...
Second error: The children were delivered to him at his domicile for a "supervised visit". Why was he not required to perform this "supervised visit" at the local DSHS office, under the supervision of a Child Protective Service officer? Or, at the very least, in a public place with the same supervisor? They knew they were dealing with an individual who had no real alibi for his involvement in a missing person case, and who may have been involved in that "disappearance". There was a cloak of suspicion of evil surrounding Powell - trusting him was a big mistake.

There are those who believe the social worker had some responsibility for the fate of the children. I am not one of those people. She did her job. Her only "mistake" (if one can call it that) was in allowing the children to approach and enter the house ahead of her, which gave Powell the opportunity to exclude her from entering. Do I believe the outcome would have been any diffferent had she been allowed to enter the house? Of course not! Powell had murdered before, and planned to murder his own young sons! Why would he not take the life of someone for whom he had no feelings at all? The only change in outcome would have been in the body count - +1.

According to media reports, Powell opened the door, grabbed the boys, pulled them into the house, and then closed and locked the door. The social worker than called her supervisor asking for guidance, because she had no prior experience of that kind. Personally, I believe she should have called the police first because Powell had violated the court-permitted "supervised visit". But, once again, I don't believe the outcome would have been any different had she taken a police officer with her on the visit. How much time would it take him to close and lock a door, then strike his children with an axe, and light a match? Less than a minute, I'm sure. How much time does it take for that action to fully register with the people on the other side of the door? 5-15 seconds? Then there is the procedural time wasted notifying headquarters of the act (unless the officer considered it an "exigent circumstance"). That's at least another 10-15 seconds. Then there is the banging on the door, establishing the authority and issuing commands - "This is the police! You are in violation of a court order - OPEN THIS DOOR!" More time wasted. By now the children have both been struck several times with an axe, and are probably lying on the floor unconscious, as their father lights the match that causes causes the house first to explode, and then immediately become an inferno. The lives of two innocent children were taken that day. Children whose only mistake was to (according to reports) "adore" their father... a man who was the embodiment of evil! According to reports, approximately 10 minutes elapsed between the time the children were taken by Powell, and the explosion. Apparently he felt that he had time to execute his plan - and his children - before anything could be done to stop him.

There are other suggested (ex post facto) alternate scenarios for the visit. The DSHS offices or a public place? Powell acquires a gun, takes it with him, and kills the boys and himself. Deny him visitation rights? Powell finds the boys, kidnaps them, and kills them. There was no possible "happy ending" for this story based upon what information we have at this time. The police were apparently unable to find sufficient evidence - required by the state prosecutor's office - to support the issuance of an arrest warrant. Was any evidence overlooked, or classified as irrelevant or insignificant? We don't know. What we do know is that the laws and the judicial system failed to properly protect Charles and Braden Powell, whose short lives were ended on February 5, 2012, in a final act of selfishness by their father. His final claim was that he "couldn't live without my boys", totally ignoring the fact that they could have lived without him.

My hope is that there is a special chamber in hell for Josh Powell, and those like him, where he will suffer for all time and eternity. God bless the little children, and care for their precious souls.

Who Will Be America's Next "One-Eyed Man"?

2012-01-17T09:32:00.000-08:00

The evidence from the 2008 election clearly shows that the USA is truly the land of the blind... for "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King." Our current one-eyed man sees himself as King, but he is in the now underwhelming minority (no pun intended). Understand that - at best - the one-eyed man has no depth perception, and this one is in WAY over his head yet he continues to dig. But that's not really the main thrust of this blog post... it's really intended for those who practice or endorse 'religionism'.

For my entire life (well, up until 9/11/2001) I supported everyone's right to believe as they may choose, so long as their beliefs caused no indentifiable difficulties for anyone else. We KNOW who the Democrats will run for the office of POTUS, but who will oppose their one-eyed socialist-progressive? The only viable opposition is whoever the Republican Party nominates. There is no "third party" strong enough yet to overcome the political machines of either of the two established parties, much less the two combined. There is no single "write-in" candidate, with the national name recognition or personal popularity (with the possible exception of Justin Bieber - who doesn't meet the age requirement) to oust the incumbent. That leaves us with the Republican nominee - whosoever he or she may be - as our only hope to restore our Constitution and save our Republic!

I am politically non-aligned. Why? Because I don't believe either of our two predominant political parties have the best interests of our country in their collective minds! As of this writing the Republican field of potential nominees has been reduced to a single handful. Of these five, it appears that - at this time - Mitt Romney will prevail as the Republican nominee for POTUS. I'm not WILD about any of the offerings of either party, but I shall vote for any viable candidate who runs against NObama. What does Mitt have that is working against him as the successor to NObama? His personal arrogance (which is quite common among politicians), RomneyCare (which is only about a nickels difference from NObamaCare), and his religious belief system. The first two items are easily understood by most people. However, his religious belief system is not well-regarded by most mainstream Christians, simply because they don't understand it. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which many mainstreamers consider to be a cult.

I happen to live in Utah (aka: the Land of Zion), and I am not an active member of any religion - which allows me to be a bit more objective than many folks. Although I am not an "expert" on any religion, I have been exposed to many religious belief systems during my lifetime, and find that the LDS/Mormon Church differs from the Christian mainstream in only minor ways. (The following is anecdotal in nature, and is not the result of intense study or exhaustive statistial analysis...)
The Mormons are believers in Jesus the Christ, they are not Satan worshippers.
The LDS doctrine is Bible based, however, their "Bible" is a bit different from that of the mainstream Protestants and Catholics (which, btw, also differ from one another), as is their manner of worship. Although written by man (as are all books), they believe (as do all "Christians") that their bible - and the "Book of Mormon" - are "the inspired word of God" (nobody's "holy book" has ever been carved in stone by a lightning bolt).
They do not perform sacrifices of any kind - human, animal, vegetable, or mineral.
Neither the Mormon congregates nor their leadership have horns - which some people actually believe.
An LDS house of worship and "altar" is quite minimalistic compared to that of the Catholic Church, and impresses me as similar to those of the Baptists, Methodists and Evangelicals. There are no unnecessary decorations; no stained glass, no banners and no representation of the crucifixion of Christ on display. There are no frills or gee-gaws in a LDS Church.
IMHO, the Mormon Church - as an organized body - does a much better than "average job" of shepherding/guiding and caring for their own... and - frequently - assisting those who are not members of their church.
John F. Kennedy, a member of the Catholic Church, was elected President even though there were those who believed that - as a practicing Catholic - he could not win the election because his first allegiance was to the Pope.
On the whole, I see where the "gentiles" (those who are not of the LDS faith) really have nothing to fear from the LDS Church membership or leadership. They are generally responsible, good and caring neighbors who will lend a hand when needed.

We all have our personal faith-based belief systems, even if we put our faith in non-belief, and that's why these beliefs are referred to as our "faith". Mitt Romney may not be a "saint" in the generally accepted sense of the word, but then, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". We tend to fear that which we do not understand, and accept as fact those propositions which feed into those fears.
RomneyCare is virtually identical to NObamaCare, so there's no real point in discussing it. It's expensive on both ends, and - in violation of the Constitution - the government is telling us how we must spend our money. Where do we get the qualified medical personnel to effectively care for 50,000,000 (fifty million) additional patients in a timely manner... as in, before many of them die from lack of, or insufficient treatment?
That takes care of the few negatives surrounding Romney's campaign. What positives are there?
Romney is a successful businessman, he is an experienced state executive and he claims that he would seek to reduce the size of our government. The people of Massachusetts seem satisfied with his job performance, but that doesn't mean that the entire country would be equally satisfied with him at the helm of our "ship of state". And all politicians claim to want whatever it may be that their audience of the moment desires. Sadly, we are more-or-less forced to vote for the one whose lies are most in agreement with our own desires for our country. We will never find a candidate whose position is completely in agreement with ours... unless we run for the office ourselves!

My personal mantra for November of 2012 is:

ANYBODY BUT NOBAMA!

If NObama is re-elected, the United States of America LOSES!!

The preceding is just one man's opinion, and most of us know what opinions are like... if that's true, we have an "opinion" sitting in the Oval Office!

William Daley, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Resigns

2012-01-10T21:55:00.000-08:00

Another rat leaving the sinking ship?

The Next Election Is Not About Who Will Become Our Next President...

2012-01-08T14:52:00.000-08:00

it's about who will work to restore our Democratic Republic! The socialist who is in the White House right now has shown that he is totally incompetent as your president, but extremely competent at destroying this once-great nation. The upcoming November 2nd election is all about saving the USA! If you don't vote against NObama, or don't vote at all (which is essentially the same as voting for him), you will voting for the continuation of this Constitution ignoring charlatan's term in your country's highest office.

NObama was put into office by the millions of people who wish to suckle at the government teat (most of whom are shiftless parasites), that prefer to have others pay for their existence, rather than become productive, taxpaying members of our society. They are still out there in sufficient numbers to continue draining our economy, and increasing our national debt. Although the more intelligent Obamabots, which are relatively few in number, have awakened to the pitfalls of socialism, there will always be those who put their personal welfare above that of their country.

The portion of the North American landmass we occupy is known as the United States of America, or USA. It is NOT the United Socialist States of America (although, with czars as the senior advisers to the current occupant of the White House, we are rapidly heading toward becoming the USSA). You can see a complete list of NObama's czars in my blog of July 26, 2011, complete and correct as of that date.

Granted, the Republican candidate for the office of the president, will be nothing to get excited about, and there are no Democrats other than the incumbent who have officially announced their candidacy for the office, so our choices are quite limited. Personally, I would vote for almost anybody other than Barack NObama. He has done nothing to improve our lives - his policies give with one hand, and he takes away with the other. Obamacare promises medical coverage for all... and then it limits what care you can get, and establishes conditions and limits on when! At the same time -as good as 'healthcare for all' sounds to some - the odds are severely against the timely availability of critical care, because of the sharply increased patient-to-physician ratio! His fiscal policies are bankrupting our country, and I have reached the point where I would vote for almost anybody who runs against NObama - including Rocky Suhayda, Chairman of the American Nazi Party. I realize that is a very extreme position to take, but at least Suhayda is honest and upfront about who and what he is - a white supremacist, life-long racist and Aryan revolutionary. I don't agree with his views any more than I do NObama's policies, but I will vote for the opponent of NObama regardless of who he or she may be. And, keep in mind that if you vote for somebody just because of their race, you're as much a racist as anybody who votes against that person for the same reason. My vote will be a "just because this person is not NObama" vote, and has nothing to do with his race. I would vote for Alan Keyes, Alan West, Condie Rice or any other person of color that ran against Obama... IF they were Constitutionally conscious, fiscally aware, and American by birth!

IN 2012 THE KEY TO THE SURVIVAL OF OUR NATION IS THE REMOVAL OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
(And, come to think of it... we wouldn't notice MUCH
difference if there was NO replacement elected.)

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY... WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

2012-01-03T08:23:00.000-08:00

Of all the things that are bought and sold in this country, there is one that you and I have probably never purchased. Partly because, We won't find it on the shelves at WalMart, Kohls, Target, or any of the other places that working-class Americans usually shop. However, if you book a flight into Dulles Airport or National Airport you'll be in the general vicinity of this rare commodity. It's just a taxicab ride away from either airport. A left turn here, a couple of right turns there, and before you know it you'll be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an old - but very spacious - residence. Yes, the White House is auctioned off once every four years to the highest bidder.

I was in the car the other day, listening to the radio as I drove, when I heard a newscast that proclaimed (and I am paraphrasing, I'm sure - but I'll use quote marks nonetheless), "Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum are lagging far behind Ron Paul in fundraising..." blah, blah, blah. It was then that I was struck by the thought, "What does 'fundraising' have to do with the character (or other qualifications) of candidates to occupy the Oval Office, and why should it have any impact upon the electoral process?" Based upon our last presidential election, and those of the past 150 years, neither character nor "other qualifications" have anything to do with being elected. It's all about the money!

The next question raised in my mind was, "Where does that money come from? Their personal bank accounts? I'm sure a bit does, but where does the bulk of it come from? Could it be from those $10, $20 or $100 donations 'the little people' in the 'fly-over states' make individually?"

Here's the way I see it... the office of POTUS is bought and paid for primarily by corporate, union and PAC money. These entities don't consider it a 'campaign contribution'... their money is basically gambled on the candidate(s), and considered invested when they are elected. Perhaps John and Jane Q. Public, did out-contribute the big money interests $20 at a time, but... the hundreds of thousands of individuals who constitute John and Jane Q. are not easily identifiable! Who is easily identifiable are those corporations, unions, and PACs that invested tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, or millions) of dollars to make - for example - Barack Hussein Obama president of these United States.

Politics is like WalMart, in that you don't get much for $20 these days, or the "Big Three" motor companies - you don't get much of a vehicle for $15,000 any more (thank the UAW for that). But, they have to make up those campaign investments somehow, don't they? Oh sure... the federal election law prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit, and far be it from me to even suggest that there is anything that is not completely honest and aboveboard in the election process. However, there is a limit of $2,500 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

Now, let us just suppose that - hypothetically - this month, January of 2012, every one of the 1,000 employees of XYZ Corporation gets a $3,000 "performance bonus". There is an unwritten caveat (admonishment) attached to that "bonus" though: $2,500 of it must be contributed to the corporation's presidential candidate of choice, and the remaining $500 is the employees to do with as he or she chooses. That gives the corporation $2.5M of investment in the election of their candidate. Unions and PACs can do the same thing, and I'm fairly certain that they have much smarter (and more devious) people than I, finding loopholes and back-doors that allow them to do so without technically violating the FEC laws.

Poor John Q. Public (or his lovely wife, Jane - to be PC) who toils for a living stands no chance of ever being elected to anything of greater importance than perhaps president of his local Rotary Club or Elks Lodge. The Public family lacks the personal money, prestige and financial/political connections to run for a federal, or even state, political office. Personal qualifications be damned! If we weren't born into big money, or personally accumulated big money, our government will always be controlled by those who DO have big money... their own, or that of someone else; some shadowy figure waiting in the wings for that eventual return on his/her investment. Big money has bought and paid for our government! Government of the people, by big money, and for big money...

Am I possibly cynical? Without a doubt! Is that cynicism justified? Inasmuch as it is my personal opinion, it is fully justified - in my own mind anyway, and that's the only place I really have to justify anything.

The preceding is not meant to convince anybody of anything, it is simply offered as a personal viewpoint. I could be as wrong as wrong can be... and the sun may not rise in the east tomorrow morning.

If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge in New York City and some very wet land in Florida that I'd like to offer you... at fair market value, of course.

An email I received this morning - all I can add is SEMPER FIDELIS

2011-12-28T09:09:00.000-08:00

I thought this was worth passing along...

I hope this poster circles the globe.

God Bless America!

If it weren't for the United States military, there would be NO United States of America!

THE FINAL

INSPECTION

The Soldier stood and faced God,

Which must always come to pass.

He hoped his shoes were shining,

Just as brightly as his brass..

'Step forward now,Soldier ,

How shall I deal with you?

Have you always turned the other cheek?

To My Church have you been true?'

The soldier squared his shoulders and said,

'No, Lord, I guess I ain't.

Because those of us who carry guns,

Can't always be a saint.

I've had to work most Sundays,

And at times my talk was tough.

And sometimes I've been violent,

Because the world is awfully rough.

But, I never took a penny,

That wasn't mine to keep...

Though I worked a lot of overtime,

When the bills got just too steep.

And I never passed a cry for help,

Though at times I shook with fear..

And sometimes, God, forgive me,

I've wept unmanly tears.

I know I don't deserve a place,

Among the people here.

They never wanted me around,

Except to calm their fears

If you've a place for me here, Lord,

It needn't be so grand.

I never expected or had too much,

But if you don't, I'll understand.

There was a silence all around the throne,

Where the saints had often trod.

As the Soldier waited quietly,

For the judgment of his God.

'Step forward now, you Soldier,

You've borne your burdens well.

Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,

You've done your time in Hell.'

Author Unknown~

It's the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us the freedom of the press.

It's the Soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us the freedom of speech.

It's the Soldier, not the politicians
That ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..

It's the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag.

If you care to offer the smallest token of recognition and appreciation for the Military,
Please pass this on and pray for our men and women
Who have served and are currently serving our country
And pray for those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for freedom....

THESE COLORS DON'T RUN

AMEN!

For Those Few of You Who May Remember...

2011-12-24T10:00:00.000-08:00

as I do, the original version of "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful" was written in Latin (not the most common of communication languages today), and is generally accepted to have originated around the 13th century. There is some discussion over who originally authored the piece - John of Reading, or John Francis Wade. The earliest existing manuscript, showing both words and tune, is attributed to Wade in 1751. For your enlightenment and enjoyment, both versions follow. (I wouldn't be surprised if the Latin version wasn't used yet today by Catholic choirs - the Catholic Church is steeped in tradition, and seems to be relatively slow to incorporate/accept change):

Adeste, Fideles

		English Version: O Come, All Ye Faithful
Adeste Fideles Laeti triumphantes Venite, venite in Bethlehem Natum videte Regem angelorum Venite adoremus, Venite adoremus, Venite adoremus, Dominum Cantet nunc io Chorus angelorum Cantet nunc aula caelestium Gloria, Gloria in excelsis Deo Venite adoremus, Venite adoremus, Venite adoremus, Dominum Ergo qui natus Die hodierna Jesu, tibi sit gloria Patris aeterni Verbum caro factus Venite adoremus, Venite adoremus, Venite adoremus, Dominum		O come, all ye faithful, Joyful and triumphant, O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem; Come and behold Him, Born the King of Angels; O come, let us adore Him, O come, let us adore Him, O come, let us adore Him, Christ, the Lord. Sing, choirs of angels, Sing in exultation, O sing all ye bright host of heaven above; Glory to God, All glory in the highest; . O come, let us adore Him, O come, let us adore Him, O come, let us adore Him, Christ, the Lord. Yea, Lord we greet thee, Born this happy morning, Jesus, to thee be all glory given; Word of the Father, Now in flesh appearing; O come, let us adore Him, O come, let us adore Him, O come, let us adore Him, Christ, the Lord. MERRY CHRISTMAS IN EITHER LANGUAGE!!

Electric Vehicles - Here's What Happened in 2011

2011-12-22T12:54:00.001-08:00

Here's an interesting video I borrowed from SmartPlanet .com, and cut about 01:20 from the middle of it so it would fit here...

The items omitted were things I considered less interesting, but you might like to see this in its entirety - http://www.smartplanet.com/video/electric-vehicles-2011s-hottest-headlines/6332292?tag=search-river

ENJOY!!

Iran "Captures" U.S. Drone

2011-12-20T10:11:00.000-08:00

I have to ask... How and why? How did they get their hands on a U.S. drone aircraft (in one piece) in the first place, and why was it not outfitted with a fail-safe internal or operator remote-control destructive device if these drones are such a big deal? We have the technical capability for either... or both!

The other question that crossed my mind is:
If the RQ-170 Sentinel drone's stealth technology is so relatively unimportant that we don't bother to protect it properly, why the heavy media coverage? Is it truly newsworthy, or is it "much ado about nothing" on an otherwise slow news day? I think the stealth fuselage itself would be worth protecting.

Just curious...

FBI Violent Crime Statistics vs Concealed Carry Permits

2011-12-19T10:28:00.000-08:00

Recently released FBI Violent Crime Statistics report that "preliminary January-through-June figures showed the number of violent crimes declined 6.4 percent from the previous year, led by a 5.7 percent drop in murders and a 5.1 percent decrease in rapes. In other violent crime categories, robberies declined 7.7 percent while aggravated assaults fell 5.9 percent. The FBI's regular statistical report did not give any reasons for the lower crimes nationwide."

Is it just a coincidence that in 1980 there were only one million concealed firearm permits in the USA, and that today there are over six million concealed firearm permits issued? Is it simply another coincidence that the FBI - an agency of the currently left-wing federal government - "did not give any reasons for the lower crimes nationwide."? Or, is it possible that the leadership of the FBI, fearing reprisal from within the liberal, Marxist-Socialist Obama administration, opted not to suggest that contrary to the administration's position on gun control (which position is contrary to the Second Amendment), the vast majority of gun owners in our country are responsible, law-abiding citizens?

Eric Holder's Department of "Justice" was recently caught up in the tangled web of "Operation Fast and Furious", a government sponsored program that forced several border state gun dealers to sell some serious firearms (fully-automatic machine guns, sniper rifles, etc) to straw buyers for the Mexican drug cartels. Why? So the administration could say, "American guns are being illegally sold to, and used by, Mexican drug lords. We need more stringent restrictions on gun ownership in this country!!" The administration wasn't about to mention that those illegal gun sales were conducted at the direction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). And, by the way, the BATFE issues and controls licensing and inspections of firearms dealers. That control was used to leverage gun dealers into cooperating in "Operation Fast and Furious"... which resulted in the deaths of two federal agents, and the feds inability to account for more than half of the 2,200 firearms illegally sold under their direction. Technically, our government is probably one of - if not the - largest illegal firearms traffickers in North America!

Amendment II of the US Constitution closes with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Therefore any modification of the 2nd Amendment is a violation of what is arguably our most important Constitutional right. The 2nd Amendment insures "We the People" have the capability to keep all the other rights.

Sculpture in front of United Nations

What To Expect When the Economy Collapses

2011-12-14T07:49:00.000-08:00

Times are tough. The U.S. dollar is losing ground as an acceptable currency for International trade. But then, so are most national currencies, with the single exception of the Chinese yuan, which is being touted in the U.N. as a replacement for the dollar as the reserve currency (the "reserve currency" is that currency which is used for International trade.).

Why is the dollar being devalued? Among the many reasons, two reasons immediately jump out at even the mentally insufficient in Washington D.C. (who choose to ignore it).
1. Our national debt is moving ever-upward on the express elevator.
2. Our government believes our economic salvation must take the form of:
a. borrowing more money from China (which will immediately be consumed by U.S. "foreign aid") - thereby deepening our own debt
b. printing more dollars - thereby reducing the buying power of the few dollars we may have because there is insufficient negotiable natural resource (gold, silver, diamonds, oil, etc) behind them.

As of today, our national debt tops 15 trillion dollars. That means that every man, woman and child in the USA "owes" over $48,000 to the government. From a per taxpayer standpoint, the amount skyrockets to more than $134,000 per taxpayer. The per taxpayer figure is the only realistic one, since the government gets its money solely from the taxpayers. With an average annual income of $26,364, each U.S. taxpayer would have to forfeit 100% of his/her wages for 5.08 years to eliminate their personal portion of the national debt... if the deficit were to freeze at todays level! Unfortunately, the government will continue to spend like they really have money, and in 5.08 years the national debt will - in all likelihood - have increased! This is a serious "doom-and-gloom" scenario for American workers, with no relief in sight for not just several, but many generations.

What can we expect in terms of practical effects from this doom-and-gloom scenario? As jobs become even more scarce and the unemployment rate continues its upward climb, times will become even more desperate. There is an axiom (of indeterminate age) that states, "Desperate times call for desperate measures", and it is generally accepted as a truism. As civilized as we might like to think of ourselves, human beings still have a survival instinct, and when it moves into the forefront we will then (to paraphrase an old Chinese saying) certainly "live (or die) in interesting times".

We can expect to witness the following behaviors - in no particular order:
Extreme pressure will be brought to bear upon the elected officials of the federal government to resolve our financial calamity. This pressure will experienced by respective governments world-wide, since the financial crisis is currently projected to be global in scale.
As unemployment grows, and food becomes scarce, outrageously expensive, or both, and people become unable to provide for their families, we can expect severe civil unrest, rioting, and a tremendous increase in criminal behaviors. Looting, assaults, burglaries, armed robberies and other forms of theft, will become so commonplace that law enforcement agencies will be overwhelmed. The "law of the land" will be "the survival of the fittest". Everyone - outside of the protected elite (government officials, corporate executives, the very wealthy, etc) - will become potential victims, and we will probably be further victimized by the imposition of martial law in an attempt to preserve whatever semblance of "peace" there may be.
The exchange system will probably shift to the barter system, since the dollar will have little or no value. Food (and any means by which to acquire food) will be the primary commodities. Farmers will be forced to guard their fields, and ranchers will have to protect their herds and flocks. Food distribution centers and detention centers may be established by FEMA with the use of U.S. Army "Internment/Resettlement Specialists" (31E). The 31Echo specialists "are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel." The I/R specialty also includes "Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of an Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) camp" and "command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (DC) resettlement facility". (the red was added by me for emphasis - for details see: http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292 .

The potential for a very ugly future does exist. Whether or not it becomes a reality depends upon so many variables that I can't even begin to list them. Although doom-and-gloom is not my favorite subject, reality is. This is simply the sharing of my reality as I see the world condition today. Another part of my reality is that it is better to be aware of potential dangers than to be surprised by their unexpected occurrence.

I truly hope and pray that none of the preceding scenario ever happens... but I won't be taken by surprise if it does.

Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law

2011-12-13T07:24:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court? THE Supreme Court? Is that a bit extreme, or am I the only one who sees it as overreaching? True, Arizona's new immigration law is essentially an insignificantly "tweaked" version of the unenforced USC, Title 8 (Chapters 6 and 12 inclusive) "Immigration and Nationality". However, it is not the legality of the federal law being challenged, nor is it the failure of the federal government to enforce the provisions of USC, Title 8 that's being challenged. What is under siege by the Obama administration's DOJ lackey, Eric Holder, Jr., is the right of the states to create their own laws. Here comes that pesky Constitution again...

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."

The Constitution gives the United States the power to make laws... it also charges them with the responsibility to enforce those laws! The logical questions seem to be; If the United States chooses to abdicate its responsibility to enforce certain laws, does the enforcement of those laws not fall to each of the respective states, to deal with as they see fit? Also, do the states not then have the responsibility - and the right - to create specific laws that are applicable within the geographical boundaries of those states to insure that persons within their borders are legally entitled to be there? If the protections of our national sovereignty and citizenry are not enthusiastically pursued by the federal government, is it not then incumbent upon the states to provide such protections?

Logic aside (which is always the federal government's position), the Obama administration wishes to pick and choose which laws they will enforce. The United States of America is being invaded by illegal aliens on a daily basis. Who are they? Indeed, some are hard-working, law-abiding people looking for a better way of life. Some are criminals of varying degrees (ALL illegal aliens are technically criminals, because they have violated USC Title 8 upon crossing our border without legal authorization). Some come here for the entitlement benefits, such as public assistance (welfare) and free medical care. Their reasoning makes no difference - if they are not legally entitled to be in this country, they are de facto criminals. But, for some strange reason, these non-citizens are permitted to vote, and those votes are what Obama and the Democrats want. Votes that will enable them to continue to lead this country into economic disaster and soon achieve what we now refer to as "Third World" status.

In the meantime, the Holder-controlled DOJ bypasses the Arizona State Supreme Court, which (again, logically) should decide cases relating to Arizona State law under the Arizona State Constitution. Why? Probably to insure the court hearing the case will be more inclined toward supporting the position of the Federal Government, under the precept of what I call "circumventional victory" (which basically says, "If you don't feel that you can beat them on the appointed field, move the game to your home town"). The feds rarely lose a case in front of the SCOTUS, but the good news is that they don't always win! Finally, there is "hope" - although not of the kind Obama promised, and "hopefully" the "change" will come in November 2012, when Obama is replaced... before he and his cronies completely destroy our Democratic Republic! Keeping the borders open, overwhelming our public assistance programs, borrowing money, and the endless printing of more dollars (thereby devaluing those few that we may have in our possession) is the key to bankrupting the USA.

For further information on the mechanics involved in destroying a nation, Google the "Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis".

Of course there is always the possibility that I could be wrong about all of the above. The odds of that are about the same as the odds against the rising of the Sun in the east tomorrow morning. I may not have all the answers, but I do know what questions need to be asked.

"UNITED WE STAND" - Is It Just A Motto, and Not A Creed?

2011-12-08T07:10:00.000-08:00

I was out and about today when I noticed a bumper sticker... one that I have seen probably a thousand times in my life. It stated simply, "United We Stand", but, for some reason, it struck me as odd this time.

Odd that we have it as our national motto, odd that it appears on our money (in Latin, no less; "e pluribus unum" - which translates as "From the many, one"), and even more odd that some people actually choose to display that sentiment on a lowly bumper sticker. It may have applied during our War of Independence -also known as the Revolutionary War - when we had a population of approximately 497,000. But, this antiquated sentiment has little application in the 21st Century, and for reasons of pure selfishness. (How old is this sentiment? Its origins have been traced back to the Greek slave, Aesop, who lived in the 6th and 7th century B.C.)

The current administration is working diligently to undermine our laws by discounting Congress and usurping our Constitution - that document which (until recently) was the foundation of our country's management philosophy, and is the basis for all United States laws (English Common Law notwithstanding). This so-called "transparent" administration relies almost exclusively on smoke, mirrors, misinformation, disinformation and flat-out lies. Obama's attempts to destroy our culture and our economy, incorporates the core precepts of the Cloward-Piven Strategy (Google it if you have no idea how to destroy a country), and is divisive in its implementation.

The areas of division are many, including (but certainly not limited to) these few:

Class Divisions - the old "have-nots vs haves", the rich vs the significantly-less-than-rich

Employment Divisions - the labor unions vs supporters of the right to work, and workers vs the indolent

Religious Divisions - the atheists vs religious, Christianity vs Muslims, Muslims vs the World

Educational Divisions - the educated vs dropouts,

Sexual Preference Divisions - "gays" vs "straights"

Racial Divisions - the whites vs non-whites

and last, but certainly not least...

Political Divisions - Republicans and Democrats are obviously the two major political divisions, but there are several smaller - virtually impotent - political parties. These two parties control our legislative process, and both claim to want what's best for the country. However... their philosophies are diametrically opposed, so it follows that neither is 100% engaged in what is best for the United States. Each is so busy trying to undermine the plans of the other that, more often than not, each party is overlooking any good that the other may proffer! Who the hell is looking out for our Democratic Constitutional Republic?? If you chose "none of the above" as your answer, you're probably right.

The Obama administration is replete with left-wing, "redistribute the wealth", disarm the citizenry (except them), Socialist-Progressives and communists, as I reported in this blog on August 2, 2009. Let's look at the techniques they are implementing to facilitate the destruction of the United States of America as we know it.

Pitting the "have-nots vs the haves" has probably been going on since the beginning of time. The most successful of the hunters and gatherers were undoubtedly envied and/or resented by those who either lacked the requisite skills/sufficient motivation to develop/improve those skills. But, without lifting a finger (with the possible exception of the middle one), they were allowed to gnaw the residual meat from the bones the hunters discarded, and eat the nuts and berries accidentally dropped by the gatherers. However, the insufficient felt that they too should be able to feast on the flesh of the animals and sit close to the fire. Unfortunately for them, this was the time during which the biggest, strongest and smartest made the law. When the do-nothings complained about their place in the Neanderthal society, the tribe either beat them into submission and forced them to work in some capacity, or banished them from the safety and security provided by the tribal lifestyle. Harsh treatment was necessary in order to insure the survival of the many in those harsh times... it was primarily a PoP (Produce or Perish) social structure. The term "entitlement" had not yet been accepted by society.

The employment divisions are equally clear, and is simply a variation of "haves vs have-nots". However, the right to work class struggle, strangely enough, is initiated by those who have. In order to protect themselves, members of labor unions believe that all skill marketing should be strictly controlled within the domain of the union. As tribes expanded into villages, and villages grew into towns, there became a need for job specialization within the community. Initially the specialization process was one of hit-and-miss. Successes were rewarded, failures were not. Trade "guilds" (first formed in the 14th century) were the forerunners of labor unions, and the concept was quite simple then. A youngster was "apprenticed" to a skilled artisan, where he/she would learn that trade from the ground up - first doing the most menial of tasks (many of which were probably not job-related), and eventually developing the skills of the trade. During this apprenticeship the "pay" was provided in the form of room and board. After a period of several years, the master craftsman would recommend his apprentice to the local guild, which body then decided if the apprentice was qualified to set out on his/her own. Today, union membership is about keeping jobs and pay raises for the less-than-qualified and the totally incompetent. The important thing is continuing the influx of union dues. My personal belief is that we have an inherent right to profit from our individual labors... not from those of our neighbors.

Religious divisions are slightly more difficult to identify, but just as easily provoked by those who wish to pit one belief system against another. Each belief system is certain that theirs in the only true belief. Quite simply then, if any one belief is true, then all others are - by default - false. This creates an ideal condition for fomenting inter-religious and, by extension, interpersonal discord! And, by way of comparison, the Judeo-Christian system(s) are primarily ones of tolerance and acceptance of variations in doctrine, whereas the Muslim/Islamic system is one of intolerance toward, and total rejection of, all other belief systems. Even within the Judeo-Christian system there are those who preach divisiveness for a myriad of reasons - most of which have no basis in fact or reality. Nonetheless, they seem to be at least minimally effective in creating those divisions. Everyone in this country has the right to believe - or not believe - as they so choose.

Educational divisions are relatively easy to pinpoint. Those with advanced education are generally in executive and management positions within an organization, and those with insufficient education are more likely to be found in the labor intensive jobs. This does not mean that one is superior to the other as insofar as their worth as human beings is concerned. It just means that one has taken greater advantage of their educational opportunities to prepare them for a work experience that provides them with a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, the professors of academia are overflowing with left-wing liberal Socialist-"Progressives" who subscribe to the Marxist philosophy of "to each according to his needs, from according to his ability", and thus it is taught, provoking discord between liberals and conservatives. The proper philosophy for a Democratic Republic should be, "to each by his own means", reflecting that we may only prosper from our own labors.

The sexual preference division is a relatively new social partitioning, and has been accomplished via the granting of "special protections" which are above and beyond those provided to the general populace under the Constitution. These special protections put the minority "homosexual community" at odds with the majority heterosexual community. In essence, it places them on some type of "endangered species" list... which may be an accurate description, since they cannot reproduce strictly within their own community. The creation of "hate crime" laws was instrumental in creating this division, and it includes other minorities including but not limited to, racial, religious and ethnic minorities. Such laws are totally unnecessary, because any physically aggressive action is well-covered in previously existing laws. Laws against assault, battery, theft, maiming, manslaughter, homicide, etc., have been around for centuries, and provide for "equal protection under the law". "Hate crimes" cover the state of mind of a transgressor - or quite plainly put, how he/she felt about the group in which the victim is identified, and the reason they took criminal action against them. Reason makes no difference - a criminal act has taken place, and should be punished under the law based upon that fact alone!

Racial divisions are fairly obvious since identification is based upon stereotypical physical features such as skin color and facial features. According to our president (lower case "p" is intentional), apparently white people don't like anybody of color just because they are "of color". We especially don't like Blacks because of the high contrast, and illegal aliens because most of them are brown (certainly not because they violated our laws entering this country). But, as long as the government can benefit (somehow?) from portraying the majority (white Christians) as basically racist, they will continue to do so. The only possible "benefit" to the political party is at election time, when they capitalize on this strategy at the voting booth. This brings me to...

Political divisions. Political divisions are similar in one respect to religious divisions; we are greatly influenced in our choice of each by the authority figures in our life... mainly our parents. All parents want their children to be "more" than they are, so we intentionally try to pass along our traditional belief systems (which most of us inherited from our parents) to our children. This is not exactly fair of us, but it is "normal" human behavior. It diminishes, to some degree, the child's right to choose. But, to permit that total freedom of choice would imply that we were not strong in our own beliefs, so we indoctrinate our children.

I have a personal theory that we are each endowed by our creator (your choice here - intervention by a "Supreme Being" or the sperm donor's DNA) with a unique internal "blueprint" for our life. My theory goes on to postulate that this unique internal blueprint is socialized out of us, beginning almost at the moment of birth. This is the "Cookie Cutter Mentality" at work. (If you want to be a socially acceptable "cookie" you have to fit the same mold as all the other little cookies.) It has its good points, and a multitude of bad points. What would happen if we were allowed free reign, with the exception of say, physically aggressive behaviors? There would likely be little if any prejudice in the world, because prejudice is a learned behavior, and there is no innate dislike of the unlike.
Reducing learned prejudices from our repertoire of behaviors, would result in minimal racism and less "my belief system is better than your belief system". With little physical aggression, there would be fewer boundary disputes between neighbors, whether next door or across the national border. It's a nice theory, but given human nature, it is not practical to expect such radical changes. We humans are fallible creatures. On the whole, we are not solitary beings, and we do tend to "go along with the crowd" in order to insure and preserve our acceptance in the society into which we were born. And therein lies the rub - to get along, one must go along. But, I digress...

With so many divergent social paths available in a free society, is it any wonder that free societies can be torn asunder from within? Yet oppressive societies also suffer from a similar tearing apart, by the inherent yearning that all people have for certain freedoms, especially the freedom to choose.

The above is not meant to be a "lesson", but rather to provoke thought and perhaps stimulate social discourse. Most sentient beings find it enjoyable to simply think, and consider it good fortune to have someone to share their thoughts with. Try thinking outside the box... you may like it! And remember, "United we stand, divided we fall"... it must be more of a creed than an empty motto, or we shall surely perish!

Pay Freeze for Queen in UK Austerity Measures!

2011-12-05T17:01:00.000-08:00

"In a sign of dire economic times across the pond, Queen Elizabeth II will see six consecutive years of frozen pay, as new austerity measures in the U.K. have cut funding for the royal household."

In the interest of "belt tightening" the leaders of our government should lead by example. But something more significantly more immediate than a "down the road" approach. It's as easy to tell the populace to tighten their belts, as it is to spend other peoples money - which is what the Socialist-Progressives in our government do with great aplomb, and impunity.

Here's my suggestion: Every government official, being paid with our money in Washington D.C., should take an immediate 50% cut in pay and benefits (staffing allowances, etc), and a staff reduction of 30%. Then eliminate their retirement benefits and place them all into the Social Security retirement system. Cut the freebies - haircuts, lunches, healthcare, vehicles, drivers, and education packages for their children. I think most of us could live very well on $87,000 per year... that's one-half of the salary with which a Congressman begins his "government service" experience.

And, as long as I'm running the country, let's revert to the system under which elected officials were originally paid in 1813. No, not the $8 per day, that's just too severe. They were paid only for the days they were in session, ostensibly doing the necessary work required to satisfy the people. Not themselves, or the labor unions (which didn't exist back then), or some major corporation in which they were deeply invested. They were "the servants of the people"!

Then let's see how many of them want to make a career out of government "service". My best guess is that we would have about 500 vacancies to fill in the combined House and Senate. They are not royalty! They deserve nothing better than that which the average person has in the way of pay, benefits and perks.

Have you ever wondered why anybody in their right mind would spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays $174,000 per year? Well, they're spending other peoples money, most of whom consider the expense to be more of an investment than a "donation". Could there possibly be a hidden agenda there? Could there be more "perks" for our elected representatives than simply their pay and allowances? Politicians would sell their mothers if they thought it would benefit them!

We know that they are all liars, and that they will play to whatever audience is in front of them during their campaign, only to do the bidding of their major contributors after they are elected. Knowing this full-well, we vote for them anyway, fearing that if we don't go to the ballot box, some other liar (the one whose lies we don't like) will get elected. We have no true leadership, only fools who have fooled us into electing them to run our country. If they ran a McDonald's franchise the way they run our country, it would be the only McDonald's to ever go bankrupt! If they were in charge of Utah's Bonneville Salt Flats, it would be depleted of salt within 90 days. Send Washington D.C. a message in 2012... replace them ALL!

And Now... For Something Completely Different

2011-12-02T12:37:00.000-08:00

Everybody who likes school drumlines, raise your hand... well, mine went up, did yours? Perhaps it's because I was in the Disston Jr High Marching Band and Orchestra in St. Petersburg, FL, as a teenager, but I have always enjoyed a good drum cadence - or "street beat" as we called it back then. I wasn't a drummer, which is a good thing, since I undoubtedly lack the hand coordination and pure, unfailing sense of rhythm necessary to play a percussion instrument. In the mid-1950s South, there were still racially segregated schools, and as good as our school drumline was, the all-black 16th Street Jr High was far better. When they would begin to warmup at a parade staging area, all the white kids would be tapping their feet. 16th Street Jr High put on a magnificent "show"! Here's a "little something" for those of you who do enjoy a good drumline (if you think enjoying a drumline is a bit weird, check out the one below)...

I think I must have been a Scotsman in a previous life. There's something about the skirling of the (bag)pipes and the cadence of the (generally accompanying) drums that stirs my soul. I know... most Americans find the sound produced by the bagpipes to be something less than musical, but to me "the pipes" are felt as much as heard - it's a visceral experience. I was fortunate enough to see, live and in concert at the Dee Events Center in Ogden, UT, the premier pipe band in the world - the Black Watch (3rd Battalion, Royal Highland Regiment of Scotland) twice, 11 years apart. So this one is primarily for those of my friends and family of Scottish descent, but the rest of you may find that, when done well, the pipes may also move you...

Okay... one more for the Scots! If there was ever a man to play the lead in the movie "Rob Roy", it would be the first piper shown (and a couple of more times) in the following video - "Mull of Kintyre". If he's not the stereotypical highlander, nobody is...

I hope you enjoyed watching these videos as much as I enjoyed bringing them together for you!

Man-made Super-Flu Could Kill Half of Humanity

2011-12-01T10:05:00.000-08:00

The following quote from an Internet source presents an interesting paradox for us, if it is true...

"A virus with the potential to kill up to half the world’s population has been made in a lab. Now academics and bioterrorism experts are arguing over whether to publish the recipe, and whether the research should have been done in the first place.

The virus is an H5N1 bird flu strain which was genetically altered to become much more contagious. It was created by Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who first presented his work to the public at an influenza conference in Malta in September.

Fouchier said the strain circulates in animals, particularly birds, but rarely affects humans.
In the ten or so years since bird flu first emerged in Asia, fewer than 600 cases have been reported in humans. But the H5N1 strain is particularly vicious, killing roughly half of patients diagnosed with it. What stops it from becoming a major threat to public health is that it does not readily transmit from human to human. Or at least it didn’t – until now.

Researchers in Fouchier’s team used ferrets – test animals which closely mimic the human response to influenza – and transmitted H5N1 from one to another to make it more adaptable to new hosts. After 10 generations, the virus had mutated to become airborne, which means ferrets became ill from merely being near other diseased animals.

A genetic study showed that the new, dangerous strain had only five mutations compared to the original one, and all of them were earlier seen in the natural environment – just not all at once. Fouchier’s strain is as contagious as the human seasonal flu, which kills tens of thousands of people each year, but is likely to cause many more fatalities if released."

The question arises; why wasn't Fouchier tarred, feathered and run out of the Netherlands in fear of his life? And this is where the paradox comes in... the scientific community seems to believe that (given time) this adaptive mutation could have occurred naturally. If it had, we would initially be defenseless against it and scrambling for a vaccine. Therefore Fouchier's research allows the strain to be studied and - hopefully - an effective vaccine developed. But, here's "the rub"... Fouchier wants his study to be published! So does virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka, who led similar research in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and the University of Tokyo, and reached comparable results. And it is up to NSABB to give them the green light.
The other part of the paradox is, that many academics and biosecurity experts are naturally cautious about releasing information which could provide any bioterrorist with a ready recipe to hold the world to ransom. Some argue that such work should never have been done in the first place and call for international monitoring of potentially harmful research.

Assuming the natural mutation did happen someday, it would have yielded calamitous results for much of the world's population. Yet if it never happened naturally, somewhere in a laboratory (or two) there is now a man-made virus with the potential for mass destruction. I hope those labs have better security than the U.S. borders!

The Headline: "Eurozone ministers try to beef up rescue fund"

2011-11-29T17:08:00.000-08:00

Personally, I was surprised when the Euro succeeded for more than 18 months! There were so many countries included with failing economies, that the other more solvent countries wound up subsidizing them to their own detriment.

What is causing the decline of the Euro? The same thing that is calling the US dollar into question as the "reserve currency" for International trade. Incompetent leadership, elected primarily by people who want a "nanny state" to support their laziness!

What will save the Euro? Greater employment and the internal production of consumer goods. Outsourcing only benefits major corporations, it does nothing for the workers of the country except place them on the unemployment lines instead of the production lines.

The USA should adopt an total isolationist policy for five years, and severely tax any corporation that outsources jobs - to the tune of paying FULL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for one American for every job they outsource overseas. We should also eliminate all foreign aid until we are free of debt... or at least have reduced our debt to a reasonable level. We provide foreign aid to approximately 90% of the world... of which 99% are ungrateful! We must also secure our borders, keeping those who have not been properly authorized out of our country. To make matters worse, almost all of our foreign aid goes into the pockets of those officials charged with the proper distribution of those monies!

We shoulder the cost of freeing those peoples subjected to tyrannical dictatorships, without just compensation or repayment. Instead, after freeing them (or even after not freeing them), we then pay to rebuild their country!

The working and retired taxpayers support the indolent through "welfare assistance", which should only be made available to those unfortunates who are physically and/or mentally incapable of getting or maintaining gainful employment. For the employable, welfare should NOT be "the family business", passed on from generation to generation. Welfare for the healthy should be of a specified and limited duration... say 18 months, during which time the recipients receive job-skills training and placement support.

Welfare must NO LONGER be a reward for creating more welfare recipients via the delivery rooms of the local hospitals. Let's say the first one is "on" the system... okay, but, each succeeding child reduces the welfare benefits by half. By the time the third child is born, the welfare benefit is reduced to 25% of what it was initially. Can't live on that? Then GET A JOB! The only person that is responsible for you is you! You are not entitled to live from the work efforts of others (unless you are a politician).

We should also follow the example of Italy's Premier Monti, who recently dissolved the existing government and installed a new one... with NO POLITICIANS in it! They're all cut from the same cloth - greedy, self-serving bastards, who couldn't care less about the people they supposedly represent, or the country they have taken an oath to protect.

The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part 2 of 2 Parts

2011-11-24T11:08:00.000-08:00

Today is Thanksgiving, and we, as citizens of these United States of America, have a lot for which to be thankful. First and foremost are our protections under our Constitution. With that in mind, let's pursue Part 2 of my topic. (This blog is not meant as the "be all and end all" for firearms. Rather, it is an introduction covering only the basics.)

We've established that you have a "right to keep and bear arms", and that you may have determined you need to exercise that right by legally purchasing a firearm for home defense. Again, there are significant variations in state laws regarding such purchases, and the storage and use of a firearm, so be familiar with the laws of your state prior to buying a gun.

Let's begin by exploring the question "How much gun do I really need?" There are so many to choose from - long guns, handguns, shotguns, rifles, revolvers, auto-loaders, single-shot, high capacity - sometimes just the thought of selecting can be mind-boggling. As far as caliber goes, currently there's everything from a .22 caliber to a .50 caliber, and pricing runs the gamut from dirt cheap to ridiculously expensive (the main thing to keep in mind is to always buy the best you can afford). As with most things you buy, you pretty much "get what you pay for". Dirt cheap. more often than not, is unreliable and frequently may be downright dangerous. Quality can be had - inexpensively - if you know how to shop.

For a home defense long gun, I would recommend the Mossberg 500 in 12 gauge in any of its variations. They are reasonably priced at $250-$350 - if you shop around, and are as reliable as a Remington 870 costing $330-$1,100. You may feel that the recoil generated by a 12ga is too much to handle though, so don't be afraid to consider a 20gauge. One of the most intimidating sounds in a darkened house, is the unnerving sound of a pump action shotgun having the slide "racked", and an intruder can't tell the difference between the sound of a 12ga or a 20gauge slide being activated. Personally, I have a Mossberg "riot gun" that's 35 years old, and still works like the day it was new. Quality does not have to bankrupt you, and a short-barreled shotgun is excellent in a confined space, such as the hallways and rooms of a "normal" household structure. The main advantage of a shotgun over a firearm using a metallic cartridge and a solid projectile, is the dispersal of the pellet payload, and a minimal chance of over-penetration. One doesn't have to be an expert marksman to hit a target within 30 feet. A carbine length rifle also handles fairly well indoors, but the condition of over-penetration still exists. The "Glaser Safety Slug" offers a solution to over-penetration. This excellent round uses a copper jacket and it is filled with a compressed load of either #12 or # 6 lead shot. It is then capped with a round polymer ball that enhances feeding and reloading. It is now available in four rifle calibers from .223 to 30-06. The Glaser Safety Slug is recommended for the urban dweller and anyone who is concerned with over penetration.

The handgun for home defense has the advantage of being the easiest to handle in a confined space, but requires more practice and skill to use effectively than does a shotgun. A handgun also shares the rifle's potential for over-penetration. However, Glaser has handgun calibers available from .25 auto to 45 Colt. Handguns are available in calibers from .22 to .50, and the recoil increases with each upward step. Personally, I feel that any handgun of less than .38 Special caliber is "iffy", and I do not recommend the .25 auto or the .32 caliber handguns simply because they are generally considered ineffective. Although I own a few 1911's in .45acp and a couple of .357 magnums, my personal preference is for what I refer to as the "mid-class" handguns - chambered for the .38 Special and the extremely popular 9mm. The lighter recoil of the mid-class rounds facilitates quicker recovery on-target, and placement of a slightly quicker, more accurate second shot if needed.
Felt recoil is a combination of several factors - the caliber and weight of the handgun, the weight of the projectile, the amount of powder in the case, etc. Since most people buy their ammunition "off the shelf", as opposed to loading their own, they have no control over the amount or type of powder in their ammo. They do, however, have control over three factors: the caliber and weight of the handgun they choose, and the weight of the bullet in the ammo they choose. Generally speaking, the larger the caliber the greater the felt recoil; the lighter the gun weight the greater the felt recoil; the heavier the bullet, the greater the felt recoil. And, in the case of a firearm, the word "magnum" means even bigger felt recoil. The best handgun for home defense is one with which you can consistently hit a target within 30 feet. Some people find the recoil of even a mid-class round to be intimidating, while others can easily deal with the recoil of a .44 magnum. If you believe you would be bothered by the perceived recoil of a .40 caliber (or larger) handgun, then buy in the .38 Special/9mm class, and get something with a 3"-4" barrel length (a bit more weight, a bit less recoil than those cute little snub-nose revolvers).
Who makes the best guns? Ask that question in a room full of gun enthusiasts and you will start a never-ending discussion. We all have our personal likes and dislikes for rifles, shotguns and handguns. In sporting rifles and shotguns, the most popular names are Mossberg, Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Savage and Marlin in no particular order. In tactical rifles and shotguns, you have the same popular names (and throw in Kel-Tec, who is coming on strong) - plus 100 or so others, most of whom are "custom builders").
The list of leaders in handgun manufacturing is a bit longer and introduces some other names. Glock, Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, SIG, CZ, Heckler & Koch, Taurus, Kahr and on and on. A handgun must fit your hand properly! If it doesn't feel comfortable in your hand, or if it doesn't point naturally, you may as well be holding a brick. A relatively recent innovation in handgun design is the interchangeable grip/back-strap, which can resolve fitment problems for almost anybody, no matter what size your hand.
I own 15 handguns from 8 different manufacturers, and enjoy them all, but... I have a personal preference for the Glock pistols. They fit my hand, they point very well, they consistently hit where they are pointed, and Glock pistols are virtually indestructible: dropped from an airplane at 500ft into a field recovered and fired; run over by a truck picked up and fired; buried "naked" in soil for 2 years, dug up, hosed off and fired; and 1,000 rounds put through one in 14 minutes and it never failed to fire. G L O C K - that's how I spell dependability.
But, the bottom line is - get what works for you. Fit, function, and affordability... those are the key considerations.

The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part I of 2 Parts

2011-11-18T12:17:00.000-08:00

And now for something completely different...

Most Americans with any interest in their Constitutional rights, are at least familiar with the wording of Amendment II. It's pretty straight-forward: "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."

Today there are those who would argue the semantics of the Second Amendment, while ignoring its intent. How does one define a "well regulated militia"? That depends upon where one looks for their definition of the word "militia" (the "well regulated" part could easily be construed as a reference to the inclusion of prunes in their diet)...

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Definition of MILITIA

a : 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

However, current federal law defines "militia" thusly:

USC TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The government therefore basically defines the "militia" (after cutting through and eliminating all the political smoke) as being composed of: "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." and blah, blah, blah. Paragraph 311(b)(2) essentially says the "unorganized militia" are those able-bodied males, ages 17-45 whose only other qualification is that they are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Ageism aside, today that's roughly 61 million males that qualify as "militia"!

The Japanese had no real desire to invade the United States during WWII. Why? Because, as Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II, said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." His statement was an acknowledgment that because of the Second Amendment the American people are well-armed, and we have significant experience in the use of firearms. The Second Amendment is also the only one that insures we retain all the other freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights! But, enough about the Constitution. Just believe, as I do... that, if the Second is modified or repealed, all the others will be in constant jeopardy. Here's what the U.N. thinks about our "right to keep and bear arms":

"As you enter the Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel."

The Second Amendment fits hand-in-glove with the Fourth Amendment: "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."

Now you have not only "the right to keep and bear arms", but also "the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects", but the Fourth is primarily a prohibition of government searches and seizures. Logically extending that prohibition, if the government can't do it then neither can some crack-head burglar! So, what do you do to protect yourself and your family? To insure a level playing field, and perhaps gain a lifesaving advantage, you may buy a gun. But, before you do that, there are a few questions you need to answer:

1. Do I have the mindset necessary to actually use a gun, in an action that - quite possibly - could result in my taking the life of another human being? (If you cannot truthfully answer Yes to this question, do not buy a gun. Go to your local Big 5 sporting goods store and buy a Louisville Slugger baseball bat.)

2. If I must use a gun in the protection of myself and/or my family or others, am I willing to face the consequences of my actions? (Once again, Yes is the only acceptable answer to this question. There probably will be some consequences. How many, and exactly what those consequences may be will vary from state to state. Expect, as a minimum, some intensive questioning from one of your local law enforcement agencies. At the other end of the "scales of justice", expect long-term housing to be provided for you by the state, and possibly an early death by execution.) The laws vary from state to state as to what constitutes "appropriate and necessary use of deadly force". Be very familiar with the laws of your state of residence!

If you answered No to either of the above questions, you may stop reading now and go hug Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. The rest of you may now move on to a few practical questions.

What type of gun do I need? There are several types of guns from which to select the one that's right for your intended purpose. The fall into two general categories: "long guns" - which are rifles and shotguns, and "handguns" - pistols and revolvers. What you need is entirely up to you, but it must be a gun with which you are comfortable, and one with which you can repeatedly hit your intended target. Here are what I consider to be the main characteristics of firearms...

For use as in-home defense, either a long gun or a handgun will do the job. There are also advantages and disadvantages to all of them. Rifles and shotguns weigh considerably more than most handguns, and may prove to be unwieldy in confined spaces such as hallways. Generally speaking, rifles are also more powerful than most handguns, and over-penetration may result. That means that, even if you hit your intended target, the projectile may pass through and strike someone not involved in the burglary/robbery/home-invasion. If you miss your target, the projectile will, in all probability, penetrate one or more walls, increasing the possibility of striking an innocent bystander. For home defense maneuverability, a carbine-length barrel (generally accepted as a rifle barrel under 20" in length) will improve maneuverability. However, caliber-for-caliber the potential for over-penetration remains the same. Long-barreled shotguns present the same problem for maneuverability in tight areas, but less possibility for over penetration. A short-barreled shotgun (also known as a "riot gun"), loaded with almost any upland bird shot would be a good choice for in-home defensive use. The unnerving sound of a shotgun chambering a round is almost universally recognized, and may make an intruder decide upon an immediate departure from your premises. Using pellet-filled shells, the need for precise accuracy is eliminated, and due to their dispersion pattern the potential for "collateral damage" is minimal. Most shotguns produce significant recoil, which some people find disconcerting, if not injurious.

Handguns for in-home defense have the advantage of high maneuverability, and work very well in confined spaces. They do, however, present an entirely different set of problems. There are two divisions of handguns; the auto-loading pistol (popularly, but incorrectly called "automatic pistols"), and the revolver. Auto-loaders have the advantage of increased ammunition capacity per load. Generally, an auto holds from 7-19 rounds of ammunition per magazine, whereas most revolvers hold 5-6 rounds of ammunition per cylinder load. Handguns take significantly more practice in order to gain marksman-like proficiency, than do a rifle or shotgun. Auto-loaders may be almost impossible for people with weaker hands to actuate the slide, which is necessary to make the pistol ready to fire. Many women, and men with arthritis (or even relatively minor hand injuries), find this to be true - after they have purchased an auto-loading pistol. Auto-loaders also have somewhat of a reputation for being less reliable than revolvers, although if properly maintained today's quality auto-loaders are extremely reliable. On the other hand, revolvers, if properly maintained, have fewer moving parts to fail, and are at least theoretically more reliable.

Think about these things while I work on Part Two - How Much Gun Do I Really Need?

Here's Some Old News That Is Re-Emerging...

2011-11-17T11:56:00.000-08:00

This was published about 2 years ago, but the issue remains open today - same requester, same amount, same Western nations targeted:

UN asks: How can we extract payment of $100 Billion a year from westerners to redistribute to other countries?

The Manchester (England) Guardian newspaper reports that Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economics adviser, George Soros, the hedge fund trader, Lord Stern, the economist, and others have met in London at the request of Ban Ki-moon to discuss ways in which $100 billion dollars a year could be raised from the citizens of western countries and redistributed to Africa, South and Central America and other poorer areas

QUOTE -

--------------------------------------…
"the world's top financiers have been told to work out how to raise at least $100bn a year for the rest of this decade, cash that will be used to help the world's poorest countries adapt to climate change.

"The prices we pay for our goods do not reflect one key cost: the damage that their production does to the planet's climate system," said Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE. "We need to find ways to extract payment from those who cause that damage and then use that money to fund developing nations so that they can protect themselves from the worst effects of global warming."

"The Trillion Dollar Question" The Guardian. Available online at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…
--------------------------------------…

To use their terminology for a moment, as we "Western nations" are "the ones causing the damage", how do you think the UN could best "extract payment" from us in the west to give to other countries?
Please keep in mind that it's only $100 Billion dollars PER YEAR, for at least a decade... so where will the money come from? Numerically speaking, we're talking about $100,000,000,000. That's a number that very few people can relate to, and I'm one of the majority who cannot. It boggles the mind! How does one quantify and visualize a number containing 12 digits? It has been estimated that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy - the Milky Way - but we can't see them all simultaneously. Besides, how many lifetimes would it take to count them?

Consider first of all, that the United Nations consists of 192 nations, most of which are communist, socialist, and/or dictatorships... which goes a long way toward explaining their failure to thrive. "Western Nations" - also known as "First World Nations" - are comprised, at the most, of only 25 countries (I say "at the most" because there is yet some discussion over exactly what qualifications a "Western Nation" must exhibit). The majority of those 25 nations are made up of Western European countries, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Assuming this "global warming debt" is apportioned equally, the cost per nation, per year, is $4,000,000,000 - that's 4 Billion USD per Western Nation. If, however, only the top ten industrialized nations are expected to foot the bill for the UN, that expense increases to $10,000,000,000 (10 Billion USD) per Western Nation.

The first question that comes to my mind is; Who objectively says there is such a thing as man-made global warming? Larry Summers, George Soros, and Lord Stern are all notorious left-wingers! Who were the "others"? Where is the balance in this meeting?
My second question is; Where does the U.N. get its authority to determine who must pay for this man-made non-problem?

How NOT To Advertize On The Internet

2011-11-16T08:21:00.000-08:00

I recently sent the following email to Shopko. I found their reply interesting enough to send them a second email, and this is how the exchange went:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Feedback received 11/16/2011:
Whoever thought it would be a great idea to put your Black Friday Sneak Peek online as a PDF file is an idiot! The ad presents so small that we can't see what the sale products are and when we zoom in (assuming everybody knows how to do that) to see the products, the description becomes so distorted that we can't read it! Somebody at ShopKo needs to pull their head out and take a look at what they've done to the BF sale.

Shopko's reply:
Hi,

The intention of the sneak peek was for customers to be able to see some of our best deals and to plan ahead for their shopping trips. We did not have it set up like our usual online ads where you can click through and get full product information because the offers are not available yet and we did not want to confuse people by linking through to our site that would show different pricing.

The ad will be posted in the same format as all other ads at shopko.com/weeklyflyer next Thursday and you will be able to zoom and get full product information at that time.

Thanks,

Liz

Liz Pedretti

Digital Marketing Specialist

Shopko Stores Operating Co.

I thought this was a surprisingly weak explanation, and replied:

Hello Liz,
The key word here is SEE. That's the whole idea in visual advertising, and the PDF approach failed to achieve its intended goal.
What was meant as an attempt to not "confuse people", I'm certain actually became an irritant to many besides me. The difference is that thousands of annoyed people will keep their annoyance to themselves, whereas I chose to share mine with you in the hope that you would seriously consider not using PDF files for advertising again. It was like offering to "show" photographs to Stevie Wonder! "Hey, Stevie... look at this!"
Many people aren't familiar enough with their PDF reader to even know they have a "zoom" feature in it, and probably thought "WTF?", (I speak from 20+ years experience with computers - many of those years being spent performing customer relations in my own computer business) and then they simply closed their reader since they couldn't identify anything in the ad after the first large graphic.
Just a little "food for thought"...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving credit where credit is due, Shopko DID reply to my concerns, even though their response didn't actually address the issue.

"Major" Malik Nidal Hasan Trial Date Set... AGAIN

2011-11-03T09:39:00.000-07:00

This will be short. For those of you who may have missed it in Section D, Page 33, (right under the ad for Discount Canary Lamination) , the terrorist, "U.S. Army Major" Nidal Hasan is now scheduled for trial on March 5th, 2012. If they get it right, he won't be in that wheelchair much longer...

TWINKLE, TWINKLE LITTLE CZAR - YOU'RE ALL COMMIES, YES YOU ARE!

2011-07-26T18:25:00.000-07:00

Here's a more detailed breakdown of what's running our government... God help us!

Richard Holbrooke/Marc Grossman

AfghanistanCzar

Richard Holbrooke, ultra-liberal, anti gun, former Gov. Of New Mexico, was.Pro Abortion and legalization of drug use. He was also in favor of disolving the 2nd Amendment. Fortunately, this loony died in Dec 2010, but was replaced by Marc Grossman as the “Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan”, aka “Czar”, on February 22, 2011. In 2007, Grossman was one of fifteen US administration officials who were subpoenaed in a case which dealt with giving sensitive information to Israel, in association with the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC. One of the fifteen was Richard Holbrooke, whose position he replaced as “Special Envoy to Afghanistan.” Grossman was named by Sibel Enmonds as being involved in illegal activity in connection to links with the Turkish and Israeli governments. She also revealed that he was under investigation by the FBI. (Edmonds' claim that Grossman was under investigation by the FBI was corroborated by John M. Cole, a former FBI manager. ) According to Edmonds: "Grossman became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as 'Susurluk' by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact ... Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. Grossman, although perhaps not proven guilty of anything, isn't exactly a choirboy, either.

Ed Montgomery

Auto Recovery Czar

Black radical, anti-business activist. Supporter of Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. U of Maryland Business School Dean, who teaches that US businesses have caused world poverty. Board menber of ACORN. Member of the communist DuBois Club. Montgomery was appointed on March 30,2010 as Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers, part of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry. In this capacity, Montgomery is responsible for coordinating a government-wide effort to help support the workers, communities and regions that rely on the American auto industry. Montgomery has never been directly involved with the Automobile industry, but he is radically ethnocentric, and that's enough qualification for Obama's team.

Jeffrey Crowley

AIDS Czar

Official title: “Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy”, Crowley is a radical homosexual, and Gay Rights activist. He believes in gay marriage and especially, a Special Protection Status for homosexuals only, including complete free health care for gays. He certainly is more than minimally qualified for this job.

Alan Bersin

Border Czar

The former failed superintendent of San Diego Schools. Ultra-liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. President Obama's appointment as "border czar", he essentially had the same job under President Clinton. This time, however, instead of serving under Attorney General Janet Reno, Bersin's boss will be Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who will expect him to handle illegal immigration and drug violence issues along the Mexican-American border. Bersin is used to jumping into jobs with almost no experience and he has somewhat of a leg up on this one. He enthusiastically supports “open borders”... how can he do THIS job?

David J. Hayes

California Water Czar

Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, "Progress Policy". No training or experience in water management whatsoever. He is however a staunch environmentalist, which may make him the closest thing to “qualified” of all Obama's appointments.

Ron Bloom

Car Czar

Ten years Experience as an investment banker. He has close ties to SEIU and United Steel Workers Unions. Anti business & anti nuclear. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business. Now he sits on the Board of Chrysler, which is Auto Union owned, and controlled by Italy's Fiat motors. His experience with cars has been restricted to driving them. How did this happen?

Dennis B. Ross

Central Region Czar

Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars. Ross' political stance is somewhat confused – or perhaps it's just “balanced” - but he appears to be primarily liberal (PhD from UCLA; executive director of the Berkley-Stanford program on Soviet International Behavior, ) and equally involved in both politics and education. Between short stints in both Republican and Democratic administrations, he has taught at numerous universities. His current position seems to be “Obama Apologist to the World”. He is typically liberal in his anti-gun and pro-abortion positions.

Lynn Rosenthal

Domestic Violence Czar

Official title: White House Adviser on Violence Against Women. Not important enough for Obama's personal attention, the announcement of this appointment was passed down to VP Joe Biden. Previously the Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Rosenthal is reputed to be a vicious anti-male feminist. Supposedly supports male castration (I agree with this, but only as a suitable punishment for rapists). I doubt that there is anyone that favors domestic violence – outside of its practitioners in Bubbaland – but, I don't believe that it requires the creation of another high government office to... do what? Domestic violence is against the law, and it has been for over a century, but it does not merit the creation of yet another government “plum” office. Domestic violence, like the vast majority of other crimes between persons, should be handled by the jurisdiction within which they occurred. Not every criminal act needs to be elevated to the federal level! The further removed criminal punishment is from the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred, the more power is given to the federal government, and the more dependent we become upon them... instead of depending upon ourselves!

Gil Kerlikowske

Drug Czar

devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of all drugs. He served as Police chief for the city of Seattle (since 2000); Deputy Director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (1998 to 2000); Police Chief for the city of Buffalo (1994 to 1998); Police chief of Fort Pierce, Fla. (N/A to 1994). Kerlikowske appears to be technically qualified for the job, but little is known about Kerlikowse's political inclinations. By virtue of his appointment by Obama, it can be safely assumed that he leans significantly to the left of center.

Paul Volcker

Economic Czar

Head of Federal Reserve under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed. Obama appointed head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board which engineered the Obama economic disaster to US economy. Member of the anti-business organization "Progressive Policy". Chairman, Federal Reserve (1979 to 1987); Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs, Department of the Treasury (1969 to 1974); Deputy Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs, Department of the Treasury (1963 to 1965). Once again, a man who is at least technically qualified for the job, but does not seem to be either capable of, or willing to, do anything worthwhile about our country's current financial disaster.

Carol Browner

Energy and Environment Czar (Position eliminated in 2011 budget cuts)

Political Radical Former head of EPA - known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership. Used to be listed as a member of the “Commission for a Sustainable World Society” for Socialist International. Thankfully there is one less socialist guiding our government.

Joshua DuBois

Faith-Based Czar

Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism. Anti gun ownership lobbyist. WHAT THE HELL DOES A FAITH BASED CZAR DO? The newly created (“political plum”) office "will be required to consult with the Justice Department on constitutional issues, including the issue of faith-based hiring." A rather undemanding position, created specifically to reward one of the Obama faithful. Apparently, there is no “separation of church and state”, other than for purposes of tax avoidance.

Cameron Davis

Great Lakes Czar

Chicago radical anti-business environmentalist. Blames George Bush for "Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink." No experience or training in water management. Former ACORN Board member That pretty much says it all. As head of the NGO “Alliance for the Great Lakes” from 1998-2009, Davis had reportedly made great strides in cleaning up the lakes. If the Alliance was doing so well, why do we need a federal “czar” to manage it? Another “political plum”.

Van Jones (since resigned and the position eliminated in 2011 budget cuts)

Green Jobs Czar

Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party, who said Geo Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. Black activist with strong anti-white views. Typical of Obama appointments, the only requirements are to be an Obama supporter, a socialist/communist/Marxist (all three is even better), way left of center, and preferably to be a black radical.

Daniel Fried

Guantanamo Closure Czar

Human Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists. Believes America has caused the war on terrorism. Believes terrorists have rights above and beyond Americans. A career Foreign Service Officer, and yet another left-wing, liberal nut-job, awarded a do-nothing position by Emperor Obama. How does somebody who is basically anti-American manage to become a career FSO??

Nancy-Ann DeParle. Ex-Health Czar (Position eliminated in 2011 budget cuts, January 2011 when DeParle was promoted to the position of Deputy White House Chief of Staff )

Former head of Medicare / Medicaid. Strong Health Care Rationing proponent. She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.

Vivek Kundra

Information Czar

Born in New Delhi , India . Controls all public information, including labels and news releases. Monitors all private Internet emails. (HUH? HOW? Although unconfirmed, it would seem that this would be limited to personal emails originating within, and entering, the Obama administration – which would in itself be a daunting exercise. Anything beyond that would be a physically impossible task!)

Todd Stern

International Climate Czar

Anti-business former White House Chief of Staff. Strong supporter of the Kyoto Accord and the Buenos Aires Climate Pact. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for Global warming. Anti-US business prosperity. One more “look busy, accomplish nothing” job.

~~Dennis Blair~~ (Resigned as Intelligence Czar, May 2010, replaced by: James R. Clapper)

Intelligence Czar

Ret. Navy. Stopped US guided missile program as "provocative". Chair of ultra liberal "Council on Foreign Relations" which blames American organizations for regional wars.

James R. Clapper

Intelligence Czar

Clapper is a retired USAF Lieutenant General, and one of the very few holdovers from the G.W. Bush administration. Strong background in intelligence gathering and analysis. Is known within the intelligence community as “The Godfather of Intelligence”. Appears to be politically moderate, and must be supremely qualified for Obama to keep him on-board.

George Mitchell

Mideast Peace Czar

Fmr. Democratic Senator from Maine, and left-wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into "2 or 3 " smaller more manageable plots". "Special rights" advocate. A true left-wing, Anti-nuclear, anti-gun & pro-homosexual liberal. Should do the country a favor and resign.

Kenneth Feinberg

Pay Czar

Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY. (“Guilt by association” – obviously a far left liberal in order to be the Head Monkey in Ted Kennedy's personal zoo)

Cass Sunstein

Regulatory Czar

Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the "common good". Essentially against 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th amendments. Rules against personal freedoms many times - like private gun ownership and right to free speech. Also believes in harvesting organs from living, but terminally ill, hospital patients. He sounds like a protege of the Nazi doctor, Josef Mengele... this guy should be tarred, feathered and run out of Washington on a rail!

John Holdren

Science Czar

Longtime Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training. Holdren's radicalism dates back to the late 1960's. In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.” How the hell does a “School of Government” weenie become the “Science Czar”? Oh, yeah... I almost forgot... he's a serious lefty... that explains it.

Earl Devaney

Stimulus Accountability Czar

Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico . Author of statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico . The fact is that the U.S. Department of Justice and BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) – yes, our own government agencies responsible for controlling such things – are forcing otherwise honest, licensed firearms dealers to sell guns to known Mexican drug dealers and gun runners. These actions are designed to advance the left-wing administrations desire to eliminate our Constitutional right to privately own firearms.

J. Scott Gration

Sudan Czar

Native of Democratic Republic of Congo . Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations. Our UN dues are higher than the next five nations combined! And they want MORE?? Remove ourselves from the UN, and send them all to France!!

Herb Allison

TARP Czar

Fannie Mae CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of people to lose their life savings. What else needs to be said about him?

John Brennan

Terrorism Czar

Anti-CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or government affairs. Believes in open borders with Mexico, a dialog with terrorists, and has suggested Obama disband US military. This man is a TOTAL MORON!!!!!

Aneesh Chopra

Technology Czar

No Technology training. Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti-doctor activist. Supports Obama Health care rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Government health care plan.

Adolfo Carrion Jr.

Urban Affairs Czar

Puerto Rico born Anti-American activist and leftist group member in Latin America . Millionaire "slum lord" of the Bronx , NY. Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from "sweetheart" deals with labor unions. Wants higher taxes on middle class to pay for minority housing and health care. Another IDIOT!

Ashton Carter

Weapons Czar

Leftist. Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America .. No Other "policy". The UN can't “ban” anything in the USA. We are governed by our Constitution... so far, anyway.

Gary Samore

WMD Policy Czar

Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith. Has no other "policy".

All these people were installed into powerful government positions by Obama, to facilitate his desire to destroy the Republic as we know it, and turn it into a socialist state.

Number of Czars per Administration

President's name	In office	Number of Czar titles	Number of appointees	Appointees not confirmed by Senate
Roosevelt	1933-45	11	19	17
Truman	1945-53	6	6	5
Eisenhower	1953-61	1	1	0
Kennedy	1961-63	N/A*	N/A*	N/A*
Johnson	1963-69	3	3	1
Nixon	1969-74	3	5	5
Ford	1974-77	2	2	2
Carter	1977-81	2	3	2
Reagan	1981-89	1	1	1
Bush #1	1989-93	2	3	0
Clinton	1993-01	8	11	7
Bush #2	2001-09	33	49	28
Obama	2009-?	37	41	32

(NOTE: Although the term “czar” is not the official title of any of these

appointees, the term has been heavily used by the media since the 1930's)

*Statistics on Kennedy appointees were Not Available (N/A)

EXACTLY WHO IS RUNNING OUR COUNTRY?? Read on...

2011-07-22T11:49:00.000-07:00

The following is a list of Obama's "Czars". These are the left-wing, "progressive" radicals that your president listens to for policy guidance. Policies that will destroy our Republic! A couple of these idiots are no longer officially in cabinet positions - like the infamous Van Jones - but there are plenty of unqualified morons left in his cabinet to ruin the USA...

Richard Holbrooke	AfghanistanCzar	Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. Of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use. Dissolve the 2nd Amendment
Ed Montgomery	Auto recovery Czar	Black radical anti business activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. Univ of Maryland Business School Dean teaches US business has caused world poverty. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
Jeffrey Crowley	AIDS Czar	Radical Homosexual.. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and especially, a Special Status for homosexuals only, including complete free health care for gays.
Alan Bersin	Border Czar	The former failed superintendent of San Diego . Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno - to keep borders open to illegals without interference from US
David J. Hayes	California Water Czar	Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, "Progress Policy". No training or experience in water management whatsoever.
Ron Bloom	Car Czar	Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business. Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned. How did this happen?
Dennis Ross	Central Region Czar	Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars. Obama apologist to the world. Anti gun and completely pro abortion.
Lynn Rosenthal	Domestic Violence Czar	Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Vicious anti male feminist. Supported male castration.Imagine?
Gil Kerlikowske	Drug Czar	devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of all drugs
Paul Volcker	Economic Czar	Head of Fed Reserve under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed. Obama appointed head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board whichengineered the Obama economic disaster to US economy. Member of anti business "Progressive Policy" organization
Carol Browner	Energy and Environment Czar	Political Radical Former head of EPA - known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership.
Joshua DuBois	Faith-Based Czar	Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism. Anti gun ownership lobbyist. WHAT THE HELL DOES A FAITH BASED CZAR DO???????????
Cameron Davis	Great LakesCzar	Chicago radical anti business environmentalist. *Blames George Bush for "Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink."* No experience or training in water management. Former ACORN Board member (what does that tell us?)
Van Jones	Green Jobs Czar	(since resigned).. Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party who said Geo Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. Black activist with strong anti-white views.
Daniel Fried	Guantanamo Closure Czar	Human Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists. Believes America has caused the war on terrorism. Believes terrorists have rights above and beyond Americans.
Nancy-Ann DeParle.	Health Czar	Former head of Medicare / Medicaid. Strong Health Care Rationing proponent. She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
Vivek Kundra	Information Czar	Born in New Delhi , India . Controls all public information, including labels and news releases. Monitors all private Internet emails. (hello?)
Todd Stern	International Climate Czar	Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for Global warming. Anti- US business prosperity.
Dennis Blair	Intelligence Czar	Ret. Navy. Stopped US guided missile program as "provocative". Chair of ultra liberal "Council on Foreign Relations" which blames American organizations for regional wars.
George Mitchell	Mideast Peace Czar	Fmr. Sen from Maine Left wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into "2 or 3 " smaller more manageable plots". (God forbid) A true Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual "special rights" advocate
Kenneth Feinberg	Pay Czar	Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY. Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs. (horribly true)
Cass Sunstein	Regulatory Czar	Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the "common good". Essentially against 1st amendment. Rules against personal freedoms many times -like private gun ownership and right to free speech. This guy has to be run out of Washington!!
John Holdren	Science Czar	Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training.
Earl Devaney	Stimulus Accountability Czar	Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico . Author of statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico .
J. Scott Gration	Sudan Czar	Native of Democratic Republic of Congo . Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations
Herb Allison	TARP Czar	Fannie Mae CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of people to lose their life savings.
John Brennan	Terrorism Czar	Anti CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs. Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military A TOTAL MORON!!!!!
Aneesh Chopra	Technology Czar	No Technology training. Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist. Supports Obama Health care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov.. health care plan
Adolfo Carrion Jr.	Urban Affairs Czar	Puerto Rico born Anti-American activist and leftist group member in Latin America . Millionaire "slum lord" of the Bronx , NY.. Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from "sweetheart" deals with labor unions. Wants higher taxes on middle class to pay for minority housing and health care
Ashton Carter	Weapons Czar	Leftist. Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America .. No Other "policy"
Gary Samore	WMD Policy Czar	Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith. Has no other "policy".

Obama Threatens August Social Security Checks

2011-07-13T08:48:00.000-07:00

Our cowardly President, Barack Hussein Obama, in a last-ditch attempt to defeat the resistance of Congress (and therewith, the will of the people) to his beloved debt ceiling increase, threatens to withhold August social security checks if the ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd. And, from whom will he withhold this money? From people who have paid into the social security fund all their lives! People who were promised by the government that the money they "contributed" to the fund would be there to help them when they retired. He would rather do that, than reduce government spending by downsizing our government, or eliminating some of the true entitlement programs, such as welfare.

Here's my idea:

The entire Congress, along with the Executive and Judicial branches of government, take an immediate 50% pay cut.

The White House staff reportedly just got an average 16% pay raise, so let's take that away and reduce their pay by another 16%.

Repatriate 20-30 million illegal aliens to their country of origin, and then secure our borders, thereby eliminating trillions of dollars of unnecessary taxpayer expense in welfare payments, medical expenses, and financial losses by our hospitals.

Cut off all foreign aid to countries who have not proven themselves to be friends and allies. Why should our tax dollars be spent to support those who wish us nothing but harm?

Withdraw from the United Nations and require them to leave the country. The United Nations assesses dues upon all members, which is fair... but, the United States assessment is greater than the next top 5 nations combined! And, on top of that, we supply the meeting hall. Is this equitable?

The government should stop borrowing money for the purpose of lending it to other countries. Let them get their own financing!

And why are our tax dollars being spent to build/refurbish mosques in the oil-rich middle-east? These are the same countries that are gouging us for every drop of oil that they pump out of the ground. Our government doesn't spend our tax money on building or updating Christian or Jewish houses of worship here, and they shouldn't! STOP DOING THAT IN OTHER COUNTRIES!

Eliminate welfare as a family business - one that's passed along from generation to generation. Close the "Welfare-r-Us" businesses, and replace them with a program that provides the less fortunate with a subsistence income for 18 months. During that 18 months, they must attend a government-sponsored training program designed to provide them with a marketable skill upon completion. At the end of 18 months the recipients must report to the nearest State-run employment service, where they will be interviewed. This applicant will be given priority placement over anyone currently employed who is just searching for a new job. There is a big difference between indigence and indolence - let's not punish the indigent so that we may reward the indolent. Let the "grasshoppers" earn their way in society, just like the "ants"! Welfare should be a once in a lifetime condition of dependency. But, it should not be for a lifetime unless the recipients are physically or mentally incapable of supporting themselves (as verified by a medical evaluation board).

Eliminate the almost innumerable, and in most cases frivolous (as in a political "thank you for your support") grants for ridiculous things.

Obama apparently wants to be viewed as Emperor of the World, passing out trinkets to his subjects, while destroying the country we love. Anyone who votes for him in 2012 should be very careful sitting down... they're liable to break their own neck.

CASEY ANTHONY FOUND "NOT GUILTY" BY JURY

2011-07-11T13:17:00.000-07:00

Most of the country is well aware of the outcome of the Casey Anthony murder trial. She was accused of murdering her two year old daughter, Caylee Anthony, and - three years later - found "not guilty" by a Florida jury. That decision is not the same thing as proclaiming her to be innocent of the crime, it just means that the State of Florida failed to prove her guilt.

The preponderance of physical evidence was circumstantial, but the actions of the defendant were anything but circumstantial. Caylee's remains were found after spending more than three years in a swamp, making forensic evidence extremely difficult to recover. Follow this timeline:

June 18, 2008 - Caylee last seen alive leaving her grandparent's home with her mother, Casey. Casey borrows a shovel from neighbor Brian Burner, only to return it about an hour later.

June 20, 2008 - Casey photographed at the Fusion, in Orlando, nightclubbing and participating in a "hard Body" contest.

June 30, 2008 - Casey captured on surveillance footage shopping at J.C. Penney and Target.

(Apparently, Casey had little concern that her toddler daughter had "gone missing" - or worse - inasmuch as she had failed to file a missing child report with the Orlando police.)

July 15, 2008 - Casey tells her mother and brother that she hasn't seen Caylee in a month, and that an imaginary babysitter named Zanaida Fernandez Gonzalez (Zanny) kidnapped the child.

(Missing for a month? And STILL not reported to a law enforcement authority? Probably because she already knew what had happened to little Caylee.)

July 16, 2008 - Casey arrested on charges of child neglect and criminal obstruction.

August 11, 12 and 13 - Meter reader Roy Kronk calls the Orange County Sheriff's Office to report a suspicious-looking bag in a swampy area. On August 13th the area was cleared as a place of interest.

October 14, 2008 - Casey arrested on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter, and 4 counts of lying to investigators.

November 2008 - Orange County States Attorney turns over nearly 800 pages of documents showing that someone used the Anthony's home computer to do internet searches for things like "neck breaking" and "household weapons". (Not commonly items of interest for retired people)

December 11, 2011 - The skeletal remains of Caylee Anthony are discovered in a wooded area approximately one-half mile from the Anthony home... the same general area where Roy Kronk had reported the "suspicious-looking bag" - forty months earlier!

Casey Anthony had proven herself to be a liar many times during the investigation. A "babysitter" that people had only heard of, but which nobody had seen! A half-dozen story changes to police, attorneys, her parents, her brother, etc. Her attorney, Cheney Mason, kept her off the witness stand for a very good reason! The testimony of a pathological liar doesn't carry much weight with a jury.

As was his responsibility, Mason tried to shift the blame to almost everybody in the courtroom, with the possible exception of Judge Blevin Perry.

This question remains - if little Caylee Anthony was not murdered by her mother, then who took her life? Another family member? A band of wandering minstrels? A mentally disturbed alligator? Or, is it simply that Caylee became the youngest suicide ever recorded?

Not being able to prove something, does not necessarily mean that it didn't happen -just that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Or, in this case, a ridiculously unreasonable doubt. And, don't confuse "not guilty" as being synonymous with "innocent". Innocent is a statement of fact... not guilty is a statement of opinion.

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

2011-06-20T15:12:00.000-07:00

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...

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH GOVERNMENT

2011-06-15T20:28:00.000-07:00

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!

WELCOME COMRADES... WE ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU!

2011-06-14T16:55:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, May 24th, 2010 my blog headline proclaimed,

"RIOT SHOTGUNS ORDERED BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION!"

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

OUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT AT WORK (FOR WHOM?)

2011-06-14T08:28:00.000-07:00

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.

CAN YOU PROVE THAT YOU ARE A NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN? A PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE FROM RAGNAROK65

2011-06-10T13:57:00.000-07:00

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?

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN WISCONSIN...

2011-06-02T10:18:00.000-07:00

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

Name	Title	Total Compensation
Andrew Stern	International President	$306,388.00
David Regan	Executive Vice President	$265,488.00
Dennis Rivera	Vice President	$265,216.00
Anna Burger	International Sec-Treas	$252,724.00
Eliseo Medina	Executive Vice President	$242,286.00
Mary Kay Henry	Executive Vice President	$231,348.00
Gerald Hudson	Executive Vice President	$230,671.00
Thomas Woodruff	Executive Vice President	$218,723.00
Scott Courtney	Organizing Dir	$204,750.00
Kirk Adams	Executive 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.

THE "RIGHT" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

2011-05-24T09:05:00.000-07:00

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.

Australians Protest Government Gun Grab - Are We Americans Next?

2011-05-22T04:17:00.000-07:00

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?

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

2011-05-16T18:47:00.000-07:00

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?