Making The Case For INCREASED Gun Ownership

There is a city in Cobb County, GA called Kennesaw  – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’

In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

The city's website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populous counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most liberal gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises.

Statically, it has been shown that - nationwide - as legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens increases, violent crime decreases.  Yet the left (including the socialist-dominated United Nations) constantly argues for greater restrictions on private firearms ownership.

There is a discomfiting pattern developing in the USA.  One of increased government intervention in, and control of, our Constitutional rights. One of collusion on an International scale, and one which could very easily permit Obama to abrogate his presidential responsibilities in favor of UN demands. The left-wing Obama administration is "chomping at the bit" for an opportunity to sign on to the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. That way - when the international gun grab begins - Obama can maintain a high degree of deniablility from the actions. There is much more to the UN ATT than meets the eye. It is worded in such a fashion that loopholes large enough to drive a military tank through exist... possibly for the purpose of actually driving military tanks through them, and down Mainstreet, USA, as the jackbooted, blue-helmeted UN thugs kick down doors and confiscate whatever they determine to be "illegal firearms". The goal of the "United Nations" is WORLD DOMINATION, and the majority of the 192 country/states that make up the UN are inimical to the USA, our successes, our freedom, and our way of life in general.

Contact your Senators and demand that they OPPOSE the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. It's not good for American citizens, and it's not good for the USA. In WWII, the Japanese decided against a land battle within the USA because - according to Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy - "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It is our ability, as a nation, to defend our country, our culture, our sovereignty and our Constitution, particularly at the individual level, that keeps us free from land invasions (other than via our southern border, anyway. Mexico has been invading us for decades!).

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

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.)

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

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!

"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!

Obama Threatens August Social Security Checks

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.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH GOVERNMENT

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!

Some People May Think I Am Anti-Obama...

and those people would be absolutely correct! But let's not stop there... I am anti-anybody who would take steps to destroy our Republic and change it into a European-style socialist state. I stand against anyone who would introduce economic policies that will reduce the United States of America economically to the status of some Third World Banana-Republic Dictatorship! I am absolutely against anybody who spends our tax dollars frivolously - by supporting those who wish us nothing but harm; who bows to a Muslim king while failing to observe the same courtesy when granted an audience with a Christian queen; and also who snubs - and tries to dictate foreign policy to - our enduring allies.During these hard economic times I am totally UNsupportive of anyone who spends $73,000 of hard-earned taxpayer money for a "date night" in New York City, who rents a 28 acre Martha's Vineyard summer vacation estate for $50,000 a week, and who then hypocritically condemns "lavish lifestyles" and "saddling the rich with higher taxes".

Obama's motto seems to be, "There are some things money can't buy... and for everything else, there are taxpayers!

NOVEMBER 2ND IS LESS THAN SIX WEEKS AWAY! CHANGING OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAY SAVE OUR COUNTRY! WITHOUT THE RUBBER-STAMP SUPPORT OF A PREDOMINANTLY LEFT-WING CONGRESS, OBAMA CAN DO NO FURTHER HARM. REPLACE ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORTED OBAMA'S POLICIES WITH CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES AND RESTORE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES TO OUR GOVERNMENT!
PERHAPS THE NEW CROP OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL GET THE MESSAGE -
"WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEARD!"

What Will It Take To Return The USA To Its Intended Course?

We are on the banks of the Rubicon - that "point of no return" at which the Republic can be lost for the foreseeable future, if not lost forever! Should the current administration be permitted by We the People to continue on its present course, it will be a future of darkness, decline, and despair for our children and grandchildren. What can we as individuals do to redirect our government?

In a nutshell we must CHANGE THE SYSTEM FROM THAT WHICH IT HAS BECOME. And just how do we do that?

1. November 2nd, 2010 is election day. About half our national House of "Representatives" and 30-odd national Senators are up for re-election. DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENTS! They apparently have not understood our written requests, made using the English language, nor have they paid any attention to the poll results regarding Obamacare, or to the Tea Party activities, or the Town Hall Meetings. It is crucial that we communicate with them in a way they will understand - at the voting booth. Remove all the incumbents from office, and perhaps the remainder will finally understand our message.
2. TALK IS CHEAP! As we have known for decades - or perhaps centuries - the vast majority of politicians are professional liars. Lies, untruths, mistruths and technical omissions are their stock-in-trade. They will tell each audience addressed during their campaign, tailor-made lies designed to garner the majority of votes from that group of voters. For one group it may be "White is the new black!", and for another "Black is the new white!". Adapt the message to suit the desires of the audience. In order for our intended system of governance to be resurrected we must replace the incumbents with proven conservatives. And not just those who claim to be conservatives. We must replace them with politicians with documented, consistently conservative records. If there are none running in your district then it becomes a "best guess" situation, but do not re-elect incumbents! This is primarily those Democrats who sold their votes (Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Ohio's Kucinich - a really CHEAP date, etc.) and those Republicans who sold out the American people (Louisiana's Anh "Joseph" Cao, etc.). They have proven by their actions that they are not representing the will of the majority of voters. Also, see how many working-class candidates you can vote into office (see paragraph 5, below).

3. Procedural Changes in Congress. Bills may be written by anybody - as is obvious in so much of our legislation, which makes so little sense. But a bill must be introduced into the legislative process by a member of Congress. From the time of introduction the bill then follows a rather circuitous route within Congress to committees, hearings, debates, etc., in both the House and the Senate. That's all fair enough, I suppose... insuring that the bill is (ostensibly) properly reviewed prior to acceptance or rejection. But there is a problem in the procedure - one that is known but never acknowledged within that legislative body. If a bill passes the hearing stage it then goes for "markup", and this is where the problem lies... markup is where the AMENDMENTS are placed in the bill. The problem is that amendments that are totally unrelated to the issue(s) addressed (I call them "hitchhikers") by the bill are - more often than not - attached to the bill. When was the last time a bill establishing a military budget passed that only included things related to the military? Hitchhikers for education, welfare, bridges to nowhere, and aircraft that the military neither requested, nor wants, nor needs are attached to the bill! A bill should pass or fail on its own merits, or be rejected in the next step of the process and returned for reconsideration if it contains requests that are unrelated to the basic intent of that bill. Bills should also be of reasonable readability in both language and length. If it takes more than 50 pages to say what you want then there is something terribly wrong. If it takes more than 100 pages somebody is trying to pull a fast one. More than 200 pages, and the sponsor should be required to defend the bill in open session, and be subject to censure and a fine for wasting the time of our legislature. When it takes more than 50 pages to ask for something that is truly needed, then the bill is rife with smoke, mirrors and earmarks. Congress should follow the KISS rule - Keep It Simple, Stupid - and NO HITCHHIKERS!
4. Eliminate access to Congress by professional lobbyists and special interest groups. One team of no more than three entity-employed volunteer representatives PER INDUSTRY or UNION would be acceptable, with no budget allowance other than employer provided transportation and lodging reservations, and reimbursable food expenses not to exceed $50 per day. Such restrictions would certainly impede, if not eliminate, the buying of Congressional favors.

5. Take the government back from Big Money. It should be obvious - to anybody that is not comatose (or already deceased) - that our elected officials are incapable of representing the working-class in a responsible manner. Would you spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays $174,000 per year? Not if you had any sense. Perhaps campaign spending limits of $350,000 for State legislators would level the playing field, and make it possible for a working-class candidate to actually get elected. If one couldn't raise that kind of money for their campaign then they probably shouldn't be running for office. After all, it's just $2,000 more than the job pays in 2 years, and would only be an average of a $5 contribution from 70,000 people.

Once upon a time, our Congress was composed of volunteers. These volunteers were men who so believed in our Republic that they worked to establish it without pay. (In 1813 they granted themselves a pay of $8 per day... paid only for the days which they actually attended to the business of the government.) Originally they were men of some learning, but mostly men of native intelligence, common sense, honor and the courage of their convictions. Open and vigorous disagreement and debate was commonplace. There was no strict party affiliation at the outset, rather, separation among Americans was primarily along philosophical lines, rather than party loyalties. Most were what we would call "Independents" today. (The earliest American political parties were the Federalists and the Republicans. George Washington declined labels, but was philosophically aligned with the Federalists, as was John Adams, Washington's VP and his successor as the 2nd President of the United States of America. The Republicans became the Democratic Party in 1828, with the Federalists becoming the Whigs in 1840 [having consumed the supporters of the Anti-Masonic Party in 1838] and finally morphing into the Republican Party in 1856. Yes, it did become a bit confusing back then.)
Our government has become an all-consuming Behemoth, that repeatedly ignores the expressed will of We the People. Government is nothing more - or anything less - than a necessary evil, of which WE are - Constitutionally - the masters... yet the government ignores our commands and turns upon us. The Obama regime goes so far as to label those citizens who would have the government follow the Constitution - upon which our nation was founded - as "terrorists" and "anarchists". Perhaps no government is better than unresponsive government, and perhaps those labeled as "terrorists" by the liberal left "progressives" are recognized as "patriots" by the conservative right.
OUR NATION WAS NOT FOUNDED ON A PHILOSOPHY OF "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH" OR "SOCIALIZED" ANYTHING. IT WAS FOUNDED UNDER THE CONCEPT OF GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS TO REAP THE BENEFITS OF THEIR OWN LABORS -

INDIVIDUALLY!

In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Manure is what Washington has been feeding us for decades. Let us tell them we're full - and we will have no more of it!

LET'S TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME - DEFINING "RIGHTS" UNDER THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"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 sentence is not about Constitutional guarantees, nor are they even Constitutional issues. They were a Jeffersonian philosophy defining the main issues that fomented the American Revolution, and he put them to paper in the Declaration of Independence.

Looking at that sentence logically, we know immediately that all men are not created equal in neither the physical, intellectual nor emotional sense. Jefferson was talking about the equality of their God given rights! And it's not just "men" who have these rights, women have them as well. "Men" was the predominant term in the 1700's because women had few officially sanctioned and supported rights at that time. In fact, in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified proclaiming that all citizens were granted the protections of the Constitution against unjust state laws. This Amendment was also the first to define "citizens" and "voters" as "male." It wasn't until 1920 that women were granted the right to vote in the United States, after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.

The "right to Life" should be obvious, inasmuch as we have laws prohibiting the unlawful taking of a human life. The only discussion now appears to be one of establishing beyond any question precisely when "life" begins. That's a subject for an entirely different blog.

The "right to Liberty" would insure our ability to come and go freely. We should remain unrestrained and unmolested in our travels within the United States, and need not request permission from anyone to move freely from point to point within those borders. This right, and all the others, are guaranteed by the Articles of our Constitution!

Which takes me to the "right to the pursuit of Happiness". Evidently this one is a bit difficult for some people to grasp. It is not a right to always be happy, and to think so would be an indication of mental deficiency. The English dictionary defines "pursuit" thus:
transitive verb
1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2 : to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek
The implication here is that one must take action, or chase after a thing to be pursuing it. We do that through personal effort, using whatever physical, mental or emotional skills and talents with which we were blessed and/or developed. Pursue does not mean we sit on our butt and wait for happiness to come wandering by so we can grab a handful. It means that you have a right, through you own efforts, to chase after those things which you feel will bring you "happiness". You do not have a right to take from someone else without just compensation, nor do you have the right to take rewards from the taxed labors of others. When the ants tire of supporting the grasshopper, the grasshopper will eaten by them. And, as William Shakespeare wrote, "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; he thinks too much; such men are dangerous."

Barack Obama - Leader of the Quisling Party!

I have seen no indications to the contrary... Obama is the leader of the de facto Quisling Party. I understand that most of us have never heard of Vikdun Abraham Lauritz Jonnsøn Quisling. His is a name hidden in history's Vault of Shame. He was Norway's version of our own Benedict Arnold. Quisling assisted Nazi Germany in conquering his own country, and then ruled the collaborationist Norwegian government. The term 'quisling" is synonymous with one who collaborates with the enemy - a traitor.

Quisling even captured a spot in our dictionary as: n. A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country. We do have enemies in our midst... some are in your neighborhood, many are in your town, thousands are in your city, and tens of thousands are in your state. They do not meet the military definition of "occupying forces", but they are "occupying" much of America's real estate.
Obama showed his true colors with his appointment of communists, Marxist-socialists, and others who despise America as it is and has been for over two centuries, to power positions within our government. If "a man is known by the company he keeps", we now know Obama.
His "borrow, tax and spend" philosophy is textbook Cloward-Piven strategy, designed to collapse the system by creating crisis where there is none, and then correcting those man-made crises by throwing money at them, thereby overloading the system with unrealistic financial burdens - such as welfare for non-citizens and those capable of working, and other give-away programs. The Cloward-Piven strategy has not yet achieved its goal of total system breakdown and the establishment of a Marxist state... the key word being yet. Our current administration is doing everything it can to move us in that direction. The Cloward-Piven strategy is, quite simply, economic sabotage.

The 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" imposed time linits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Cloward and Piven were in attendance when President Clinton signed the act into law. However, the Obama administration has for any practical application suspended the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, with multiple extensions on unemployment compensation, and the granting of welfare to illegal aliens - just two more means of overburdening the financial system.

The left-wing socialist-progressives are using our system to destroy our system. Inflation due to unbelievable debt, permitting outsourcing of American jobs (thereby adding to already high unemployment) because of exorbitant union wages , pushing "amnesty" for tens of millions of illegal aliens (essentially buying votes for socialist-progressive politicians), and blatantly buying votes in the House and Senate to support Obama's health care program with political plums. Obama refused to host the traditional "National Day of Prayer" for Christians, yet worshiped at a mosque with his Muslim co-conspirators. Isn't that de facto promoting of one religion over another?

The unofficial Quisling Party moves forward under the direction of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, et al. Those elected officials in Washington who lack the courage to stand against the Quislings are as much to blame as those active participants in the destruction of our Republic!
TAKE A STAND AMERICA! TELL THEM "TOO MUCH"! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD THIS NOVEMBER, AND SEND THIS MESSAGE:

GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS EXPOSED!

Here's a new acronym for some of you out there - IANSA. This is how they describe themselves: "The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global movement against gun violence - a network of 800 civil society organisations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons." Sounds innocuous enough, eh? After all, nobody is in favor of gun violence. They go on to say,"IANSA seeks to make people safer from gun violence by securing stronger regulation on guns in society and better controls on arms exports. It represents the voices of civil society on the international stage, for example in the UN process on small arms, and draws on the practical experience of its members to campaign for policies that will protect human security."

The UN (which recently described its "process on small arms" activity as "Throughout October 2008, governments are attending the First Committee, which proposes and adopts resolutions on disarmament and international security. Their discussions include resolutions on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and small arms control.") is notoriously anti-gun simply because civilians owning guns are an indication of a free people, and those who enjoy freedom just may make it difficult for the UN to establish itself as the One World Government.

Sculpture outside the U.N. Secretariat in New York City

What exactly is the United Nations, and how does it relate to the United States Constitution? The United Nations is an association of non-elected representatives from approximately 192 nations around the world. During the 20th century, only 31% of the human population lived in fully democratic nations, the remaining 69% are limited democracies, communist states, one-party rule, autocracy, traditional monarchy, military junta, or have no government. Which means that more than 2/3 of the U.N. is occupied by something other than fully democratic nations. The bulk of these nation's representatives are motivated by resentment, envy, jealousy, fear and hatred of Democracy - Democratic Republics in-particular - as demanded by their leaders (possible exceptions: UK, Scandinavian countries, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand... maybe France).
You should be able to determine for yourself how the U.N. relates to the United States Constitution by now - but, in case you can't, the answer is... NOT AT ALL! The vast majority of U.N. representatives fear our Constitutional guarantees, and look for every opportunity to reduce our nation's citizens to the same subservient status as their own.

Back to IANSA... IANSA is funded by socialist-progressive organizations including George Soros' "Open Society Institute", and liberal foundations including the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. IANSA's postion on "Women and Guns" is ludicrous: "It is overwhelmingly men who buy, sell, and use small arms around the world, while women are victimised to a disproportionate degree. This dynamic is often overlooked in discussions of armed violence." There is nothing in our country stopping women from "buying, selling, or using small arms", other than lack of interest or personal choice. And armed citizens - male or female - are significantly less "victimised" than are unarmed subjects. The Brady (Gun Grab) Campaign/Center is one of the 700+ members of IANSA, and I'm certain they would have the support of Bandits Without Borders. IANSA is "on board" with the UN's "process on small arms".

In October of 2009, Obama made a couple of moves to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations. The upside of such a treaty for Obama would be deniability - "I didn't revoke the 2nd Amendment, I simply signed a UN treaty. It's not my fault they want to take your guns away." The downside for Obama and the UN is that, according to the Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by Congress before they become binding. I don't know that Congress is willing to completely abdicate our sovereignty in such a fashion... not if they're half as smart as they want us to believe they are, anyway.

Eliminating guns will not eliminate violence. Inasmuch as they are known for breaking the law, criminals will still have guns - but their innocent victims won't. They will be left defenseless. Baseball bats, golf clubs, machetes, kitchen knives, bricks, rope, ballpoint pens, lumber and automobiles have all been used as weapons to commit intentional acts of violence, but they aren't particularly effective against a criminal armed with a firearm. Your survivors can have "First Runner-up" engraved on your grave marker. Australia's relatively Draconian gun restrictions resulted in a substantial increase in violent crime. In the United States, those states with the least restrictive firearms laws have the lowest violent crime rates!

IANSA, it's members and the United Nations combined, are a greater threat to American sovereignty than many people realize. The IANSA/UN partnership is second only to the current administration in that regard.

IMPEACH OBAMA, HIS CZARS, AND THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!

AMERICA STANDS ON THE BANKS OF THE RUBICON

On the 10th of January, 49BC, Julius Caesar dispatched one Roman Legion across the Rubicon - a 29 km long river in northern Italy. The river flows from the Apennine Mountains to the Adriatic Sea through the southern Emilia-Romagna region between the towns of Rimini and Cesena. The act of soldiers "crossing the Rubicon" initiated a civil war in the region. The rebellion was squelched, and Caesar became the unrivaled leader of the Roman world - and "crossing the Rubicon" became a popular idiom meaning to pass a point of no return.
The "leadership" of the United States of America now stands on the banks of our own Rubicon. "They" - the legislative and executive branches of our government - have ignored the expressed will of "We the People" for many years. However, since our most recent election, the disdain of our arrogant leadership for its people has been in plain view.
The liberal-progressive left wants a revolution. They ignore our Constitution. They wish to rebuild the United States using the socialist foundation of Marx and Engels... an overhaul which the conservative-traditional right stands firmly against. The liberals are in the process of destroying our economy. Revolution, like most other things in this world, is not free - it comes with a definite price. They may well get a revolution... but it will not be the revolution they desire.
Are "they" willing to pay the price to support the government's attempt to enslave a free people? Perhaps... but they find our Constitution to be a bothersome impediment to their agenda.
Are those who espouse freedom willing to pay the price to maintain it? From every indication I have seen the answer is YES, they are.

HEALTH CARE QUICKIE... YOU DO THE MATH

Here's a little logic test for you. The Democrats health care plan is basically unchanged. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md, insists that the goal remains the same: "to pass far-reaching legislation that would (1) expand coverage, (2) reduce costs and (3) improve quality."

Expanding coverage of exactly what? It would be simple enough to expand the number of people covered by 40-50 million - all that it requires is a stroke of Obama's pen on the Democratic legislation. Swell - now we have 40-50 million more people using existing medical facilities and existing medical personnel!

Jumping over #2 - "reducing costs" (I'll come back to that) - let's go to #3... Improve quality. How do we accomplish that with the same number of hospitals and medical personnel, while providing services to an additional workload of 40-50 million patients? WE DON'T!! You cannot improve the quality of anything by simply increasing the workload. And, if we do not increase the facilities and personnel, the quality - and availability - of treatment will necessarily decrease.

Reducing costs is therefore impossible. You must expand existing facilities and/or build new ones, and increase the number of personnel accordingly. Who will provide the materials and labor for construction without cost? George Soros? NO! Will the medical equipment and supplies manufacturers donate their equipment and supplies? NO! Will the roughly 500,000 additional medical personnel work around the clock without pay? NO! The American taxpayer will pay for these "improvements" by way of higher taxes - that's how 30 million additional citizens, and 20 million illegal aliens will be covered under a national health care program.
The Democrats have no sense of reality when it comes to the government competing with private industry in health care insurance and treatment. The majority of Americans do not want a government health program of any kind. It is not in the government's business to compete with private industry - the government's business is strictly that of legislation and regulation. "Voodoo economics" fixes nothing, yet it is being used to peddle this outrageously expensive health care system just as it was used to "create jobs". Every single job created by the "Stimulus Package" cost the taxpayers more than $461,000.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS VOTING POSITION

It is past time to tell the government "Enough!". It's time to tell the government "NO MORE!" A little socialism is way too much!

RECOVERING AMERICA - What Will It Take Get Our Republic Back?

It will be no surprise to anyone who has been paying the least attention since January 20th, 2009, when I say that our country has been diverted from the path of the Democratic Republic upon which it was founded. The left-wing loons would even have to admit that their Messiah has hijacked our country, and is leading it down the "yellow brick road" to Socialism.

Perhaps I have an over-simplified opinion of what it would take to return our nation to the destination which our founding fathers originally intended, but...

It is much easier to stop a runaway train, than it is to reconstruct it after the wreck, and that is exactly what we have going on here - a train wreck in progress. I'm beginning to wonder if Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Erich Weisz (better known as Harry Houdini). David Copperfield must be quite envious of the skills which Obama has demonstrated in misdirection, sleight of hand, and the use of smoke, mirrors and trap doors! "The Great and Powerful Oz" is quite the showman, and that is exactly what he is - a showman - nothing more, nothing less. Obama is all show and no personal substance. He has no accomplishments in his life that are not products of his ability to BS other people into doing his will. He has never - not one day in his entire life - labored for wages... yet he claims to be the champion the working man and our corrupt labor unions. And (this is the truly amazing part) they believe him! But, I digress.

How do we stop this runaway train called the USA Express before it is destroyed? There are only two options -ballots or bullets. Ballots are certainly the preferred method of correcting our course before we are completely derailed, the question is do they truly work for us?

There was that strange bit of business with "chads" in Florida during the 2000 election, compounded by the Electoral College deciding what "We the People" really wanted, even though the popular vote didn't support that EC decision. The Electoral College serves no useful purpose, and should be done away with. The only purpose it does serve is to insure that, if the will of the people goes against that of "The Great and Powerful Oz" (the behind-the-scenes power brokers), the will of Oz prevails through the auspices of the Electoral College. Am I the only person who sees a problem with that arrangement? The term "electoral college" does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to "electors," but not to the "electoral college." The EC had no official, documented recognition prior to 1845 when the EC was included in federal law and, until that time, it apparently functioned primarily upon a knowing wink and a friendly nudge.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the ballot box does actually work for us. How do we correct our course? We vote the incumbents out of office!
We work especially hard to remove those who voted in support of legislation that brought us to this point, and replace them with true conservative traditionalists. The hard part will be discerning between the genuine conservative traditionalist candidates, and the IndePubliCrats. We have only two means of discernment available to us - record and instinct. A record will exist only for those who have a history of "public service" and that allows us to use both means. A political newcomer will have no record available for our review, and we will be forced to rely on "gut instinct" - that nagging feeling one gets when they sense that something is not quite right about what they are seeing or hearing. (We also have to keep in mind that candidates for elected office tend to tell each audience that which they believe that particular audience wants to hear, but in vague, non-specific and wishy-washy general terms which they can weasel out of later.)

At best our election process is flawed and imperfect, but at its worst it is still better than most processes of establishing a government. It is the best of that which is available. A "One World Government" would only rate about a half-point above a global dictatorship.
Bullets become a possibility when the will of the people is repeatedly thwarted by "the powers" - either those elected or those behind-the-scenes. It has been almost 150 years since the "Civil War" (aka: War Between the States), and the thought of Americans once again taking up arms against one another is abhorrent to most of us. However, 224 years ago, when our ancestors were ruled by that British tyrant, George III, they took up arms against the "government" to free themselves and created the Democratic Republic now known as the United States of America. Those who would rule us, rather than govern a free people, should remember that lesson from history, before they are doomed to repeat it. I don't believe that we have become so used to our freedom - because we have known nothing less - that we take it for granted. Are we so complacent in the assumption that no person living within our borders would wish to eliminate those freedoms, that we are no longer vigilant against internal threats? If we were to look closely at the "third world" countries, we would quickly realize that there are tyrants in the world today. Those who would rule their subjects rather than govern their citizens.
Awaken America! Awaken and understand that not all our enemies are foreign, nor are all those within our borders our friends. Our immigration policies - or lack thereof - have made it quite easy for those who wish us harm to locate themselves in our heartland. Case in point: Major Nidal Malik Hasan, United States Army Medical Corps, on November 5, 2009 murdered 13 people and wounded 29 others - ON AN ARMY BASE! Then there's Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, who tried unsuccessfully to blow up an Amsterdam-to-Detroit-bound commercial airliner carrying 300 people on Christmas day. Then we have the several hundred illegal aliens from Mexico, who now occupy our prisons for attempted murder, murder, multiple murders, serial murders, and other assorted "capital offenses". But... at least so far, none of the imprisoned, illegal Mexican nationals has been charged with acts of terrorism. I guess that's a point in their favor...
The politically correct "head in the sand" posture does not make threats disappear, it just makes them unseen. That hungry lion will still eat the ostrich, the ostrich just won't be able to see it coming. Have we become a nation of ostriches? We are faced with not just one... but several hungry lions! Ignoring them won't make them go away, it will just reduce the ostrich population. The leftists are a cancer upon America - and, if that cancer is not excised, it will continue to grow until it consumes us. Most of Europe, and all of the third world nations, would like nothing better than to see the USA fail. They would gladly sacrifice the foreign aid we provide them to see us reduced to their condition.