 Almost before the dust and smoke cleared away from yesterday’s terror attack at the Boston Marathon, the socialist left began their own attack on conservatives. Several leftist journalists began speculating that the attack was the responsibility of conservatives on the right. Charles P. Pierce wrote in Esquire magazine warned his readers to avoid jumping to conclusions and to avoid blaming the attack on “foreign terrorism.” He then went on to remind his readers that the bombing coincided with Patriot’s Day, and the then connected it all to Timothy McVeigh – the Oklahoma City bomber. He apparently struck a chord with his socialist liberal readers, as one commenter wrote, “I’ll bet good money it’s a right-wing nutjob. Today is April 15, Boston Harbor was where the original Tea Party took place and the on-going gun-safety legislation makes it [the Tea Party] the mostly likely culprit.”
Peter Bergen, a “National Security Analyst” with CNN, speculated that the bomb used could have been made with “conventional explosives, … that might be another kind of right-wing extremism.” Al Sharpton’s radio producer Nida Khan offered her speculation in a Tweet in which she wrote, “We don’t know anything yet of course, but it is tax day & my first thought was all these anti-gov groups, but who knows.” And Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times also took to Twitter in order to connect the attack to the GOP. He wrote, “explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment.”
ABC News consultant Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent who claims to be an expert in Criminal Investigations, offered his speculations on the “ABC Monday” program. Garrett explained that it was possible that a domestic right-wing extremist could have carried out the attack. He based his speculation on the date of the attack, saying that other domestic extremist events had occurred during the date range of April 15-20, including the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings. It should also be noted that Garrett himself has admitted that he has not had one single “conversation with the FBI or anybody else about investigating terrorism.”
MSNBC “reporter” Chris Matthews also offered his speculation within just hours of the attack. Matthews said, “Normally domestic terrorists, people, tend to be on the far right.” And even president Obama, according to his former advisor David Axelrod, speculated the attack may been carried out because it was “tax day” (a day often cited as a day of rebellion by anti-government groups).
With all of the “speculative possibilities” being tossed around by the socialist left like Frisbees at a beach party, I have to wonder why they are automatically pointing the finger at conservatives as being responsible.
“Speculative Possibilities” are just that – speculation, and in the case of the above examples they are speculation based not on any evidence (circumstantial or otherwise), but solely on the bigoted bias of those who are making these statements. They are, or should be aware, that their words carry weight due to their status as public figures. Although they (for the most part?) qualify their speculations with poorly worded caveats after the fact, they have made their statement, and their followers, especially those who tend to more weak-minded, will parrot those speculations, often referring to them as fully evidenced fact. These socialist liberal talking heads will have sent their message out to the masses: “It was conservatives who blew up the Boston Marathon.”
This, of course, again begs the question of why? Why would they intentionally ignore any vestige of journalistic ethics or morals, and lay the blame for this obvious terror attack at the feet of conservatives? Why would they be so willing to spread such a rumor without any evidence whatsoever to support it? It is my opinion that they sincerely hope this attack can be linked somehow to a conservative or right-wing individual or group. In fact, I believe they want this so badly, so passionately, that they will spin this attack in any way they can to support their perverted desire. For if it can be linked in any way to a conservative or right-wing individual or group, the socialist left will use it to further vilify and slander those on the right, and they will use this attack to press for further erosion of our legal rights – just as they used the Sandy Hook Massacre to justify their attack on the Second Amendment.
In closing, I would like to point out that as of this moment, there have been no suspects named or indicated in this terrible attack. That being said, however, there have been news reports today (and yesterday) that an unnamed Saudi national has been detained (voluntarily and not arrested) is being questioned. His residence has been searched and items have been removed. It is entirely possible that he will be cleared of any involvement.
In addition, an al-Qaeda propagandist suggested last year that al-Qaeda members and affiliates currently in the United States should target a sporting event for a terrorist attack, as a way to punish America for its interference in the Middle East. He wrote “This is done by targeting human crowds in order to inflict maximum human losses. This is very easy since there are numerous such targets such as crowded sports arenas, annual social events, large international exhibitions, crowded market-places, skyscrapers, crowded buildings … etc. It is possible for ordinary Resistance fighters among the Muslims residing in America and the allied Western countries to target them, in order to participate in the jihad and the Resistance, and to stretch out a helping hand to the mujahidun.”
And, there have been unconfirmed reports of known muslim jihadists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan being arrested in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing, and there have also been reports that in its online forum, al-Qaeda is being credited with carrying out yesterdays terror attack as a response to a U.S. military airstrike last week that killed several Taliban leaders.
At no time, however, have any conservative or right-wing individuals or groups claimed responsibility, or been arrested, or questioned, or implicated by any reputable law enforcement agency or spokesperson – in spite of the socialist left’s attempts to spin the attack in that direction.
Sources:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/roommate_calls_saudi_national_quiet_vKFFJMC0WCaQmAofxNDHmO
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-usa-explosions-boston-idUSBRE93F06T20130416
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/axelrod-obama-thinks-boston-bombings-could-be-related-tax-day_717924.html
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/16/muslim_brotherhood_conspiracy_boston
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/al-qaeda-propagandist-called-attacks-sports-events
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/arrests-in-pakistan-afghanistan-in-boston-marathon-probe/
http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-normally-domestic-terrorists-tend-be-far-right
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/15/boston-marathon-explosions-already-being-blamed-on-the-right/
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/former-fbi-agent-brad-garrett-aka-dr-death/
 Today, alleged “comedic actor” Jim Carrey released his new music video titled “Cold Dead Hands,” which is his response to Second Amendment advocates who believe, as the Second Amendment guarantees, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In an attempt to give Mr. Carrey the benefit of the doubt (or perhaps I am a glutton for punishment and I somehow secretly desire to be offended), I viewed the video. As I suspected, it is not funny and is in fact patently offensive. In the video, Carrey mocks and degrades not only those who support the Second Amendment as a whole, but also rural American’s, country music fans, Charleton Heston, and Sam Elliott. His alleged “humor” (which he calls “biting political satire”) is nothing more than 6th grade playground toilet humor and sexual innuendo. But then, what can you expect from someone who has made a career of mocking disabled people, people with special needs, and lighting his farts on fire. Not exactly what one could call intellectual humor or even political humor.
As a result, I have drafted an open letter to Jim Carrey, not only detailing my disgust with his juvenile attempt at humor, but also offering an alternative method of expressing his anti-Second Amendment beliefs, and also the offer of open debate. Somehow I don’t think I should hold my breath awaiting his response. His kind generally do not respond to such offers, usually resorting to more name calling and insults. Well, we’ll see. I have posted the following Open Letter to Carrey’s Facebook page.
An open letter to Jim Carrey:
Dear Mr. Carrey, I want you to know that I do not find you even remotely amusing. Your films are not funny, nor are they dramatic. They are, quite simply, a waste of time and energy and film resources. Why anyone would patronize your films escapes me. Perhaps they are still in the 6th grade, mentally, and they still find toilet humor and derogatory jokes humorous. Well, there is no accounting for the proclivities of the emotionally stunted (such as yourself).
While I defend your First Amendment right to speak out against other amendments and rights guaranteed by our Constitution, and your attempts to have those rights infringed; I am offended by your juvenile approach and ad hominem arguments which you falsely claim are “biting political satire.” Your attacks on a specific group of people simply because of their beliefs – their constitutionally protected beliefs, I might add – are uncalled for, unfunny, and disgusting. That you would attack the individuals with such vitriol and violent rhetoric, rather than speaking rationally and logically against their position, reveals how truly ignorant you are.
If you sincerely believe what you claim to believe – that private ownership of firearms should be banned, then I would suggest you educate yourself (or have someone better equipped do it for you) on the merits of your position, and present them logically and rationally in an open debate with individuals who believe in and support the Second Amendment.
Rather than take an intelligent approach to changing America to become more in line with your beliefs, however, you simply resort to insults, derogatory comments, character assassination, name calling, and hate speech. Your approach shows that either you are completely incapable of intelligent and rational thought, or, your position on banning private ownership of firearms is completely without merit. Or both.
Please feel free to comment at your leisure.
 Sen. Cruz (left) & Sen. Feinstein (right) “Everything about the left is perception, manipulation, and lies. Everything. Everything is 'Wag the Dog.' Everything is a structured deception.”- Rush Limbaugh
On Thursday, March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing and accompanying debate on Senator Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), began by giving a very respectful, logical, common sense speech pointing out the uselessness of the assault weapons ban, and he put forth some very important points that should have been included in the ban, but surprisingly (or not) were not included in the ban. Here is a video (and transcript) of Senator Cruz’s speech:
“Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think all of us understand the passions that this topic elicits, but in my view, decisions in this body, on everything, and especially on this topic, should be driven by facts and the data and by the Constitution, not by passion. So I’d like to make four points briefly.
Number One: Machine guns are already functionally illegal. When this topic is discussed in the public forum a great many people when they hear the phrase “assault weapon” believe that what is being discussed is fully automatic machine guns. Senior senator from California made reference to an AK-47, I believe wielded by a gang member. An AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun that is functionally illegal today. Tragically, gang members don’t tend to follow gun laws.
Number Two: This bill, the data demonstrate would be singularly ineffective in preventing violent crime. That, I think, is not surprising because as the hearing s on this bill demonstrated, the weapons that would be prohibited by this bill are functionally identical to semi-automatic deer rifles, millions of which are in circulation, and this bill targets cosmetic features on guns, cosmetic features that at the end of the day make the guns appear scary, but does not alter the basic mechanism; and I would note that we don’t have to hypothesize about the effectiveness because we, in fact, have seen what happens when a very, very similar bill is in effect. The prior assault weapons ban was in effect for a decade. Three times the department of justice funded studies on that assault weapons bill, and three times the studies were not able to find any statistically significant impact on violent crime, as a result of the assault weapons ban. That’s three studies in a row which is very difficult to get away from, and indeed, since the assault weapons ban expired we now see murders by rifles are roughly half today what they were when the assault weapons ban is in effect. So this is not a law that I think has any reasonable prospect of reducing violent crime. Something I know everybody on this committee would like to see violent crime reduced. Indeed, I would suggest as my third point:
That if the real objective is reducing violent crime we should be devoting our time to far more effective steps. We should be devoting our time to laws that target violent criminals; we should be devoting our time to laws that improve the next background check. We have heard testimony that 18 states right now have submitted one hundred or fewer mental health records to the background check program. That’s a serious problem. I would note that my home state of Texas has submitted over 200,000 mental health records to that background system. And, I fully expect to support on the floor legislation that is targeted at violent criminals and not at law abiding citizens. Indeed, if we wanted to go further, and really consider significant steps to stop violent crime, I would suggest we could consider legislation, or a constitutional amendment, to alter or repeal the exclusionary rule in criminal proceedings. Now there is a rule that consistently excludes evidence of guilt from violent criminals, and has resulted in violent criminals being freed over, and over, and over again. If the passion that is focused on this issue right now were targeted at preventing violent crime, I would suggest considering the impact of the exclusionary rule would be a far more fruitful area for actually stopping violent crime, because I too, as have many of the members of this committee, have worked in law enforcement for many, many years have dealt with victims of crime and think we need to be serious about protecting Americans from violent crime with every tool at our disposal.
My fourth and final point is that the constitution, in my opinion, should be the touchstone of everything we do. Some have suggested in this hearing that the role of Congress is to pass laws, and it’s up to the court to consider constitutionality. I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the constitution, and that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body. There has been some suggestion that Heller would allow this regulation. I would point out I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented 31 states before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case. So I have an intimate familiarity with that case having been an active part of litigating it and winning 5-4 before the Supreme Court. And, what the Supreme Court said in Heller, it did say are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissible, and for example it specifically identified the current prohibition on fully automatic machine guns. But it also said that weapons that are in common use, such as in that case, handguns were the principal issue being discussed, and the same arguments that have been suggested here about why so-called assault weapons can be banned were made by the District of Columbia in Heller for why hand guns could be banned. And the Supreme Court said, “No, if they’re in common use for self-defense they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.”
We have heard testimony that there are some four million weapons that would be covered by this bill, I would suggest on any measure, four million weapons qualifies as “in common use” and so, under the terms of Heller they cannot constitutionally be prohibited.
The final point I would make on the Constitution is some have pointed to public opinion polls. In my view, the Constitution is particularly important when the Bill of Rights is unpopular. That was the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights. When our rights are popular, we don’t need the Constitution. The purpose of it is to stand for the rights of the minority when the majority is acting to strip their rights. And I would note the senior Senator from New York asked about other rights. I think we should be vigorous in protecting every right in the Constitution. Just last week a number of us spent some 13 hours on the floor of the senate defending the Fifth Amendment and in particular the right of Americans not to be denied their life without due process of law. And, indeed, Senator Rand Paul and I have introduced legislation to make clear that the United States government cannot use a drone to kill a U. S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat, and I would certainly welcome support from any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on that important protection of the Fifth Amendment. Likewise, earlier this week, this committee voted to fund a study of the impact of films and video games on violent crimes, and I would note that I voted no against that as well because I believe in the First Amendment, I believe in the Second Amendment, I believe in the Fifth Amendment, and I would suggest that every one of us has an obligation to the Constitution; I will happily welcome support from anyone who wants to stand and fight for the Constitution, because in my view, that should be our principal responsibility and obligation. Thank you.”
As the question and answer debate began, Senator Cruz continued standing on logical arguments and posited a very pointed and logical question to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Rather than answer the question (which Feinstein never did), Senator’s Leahy (Judiciary chairman), Feinstein (the bill’s author), and Durbin took the opportunity to attack Senator Cruz personally. Here is a video (and transcript) of that exchange:
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Cruz.
CRUZ: If I might pose a question to the senior Senator from California? In your response to Senator Cornyn you mention that there’s some 100 pages of the bill that specify particular firearms that if this bill were passed, Congress would have deemed prohibited. It seems to me that all of us should begin, as our foundational document, with the Constitution.
FEINSTEIN: M-hm.
CRUZ: And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The term, “the right of the people”, when the framers included it in the Bill of Rights, they used it as a term of [order?], that same phrase, “the right of the people” is found in the First Amendment: “The right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances.” It’s also found in the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
And the question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is, would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Would the senator yield for a question?
FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response.
One, I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, I mean, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit, your used the word prohibit, it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so. So I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Durbin, is that {garbled).
DURBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can’t add anything to that.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I would ask yet another, or, another question of the senior Senator of California. I think nobody doubts her sincerity or her passion, and yet at the same time I would note that she chose not to answer the question that I asked, which is, in her judgment would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not, and to use the specific number … (interrupted by Senator Feinstein)
FEINSTEIN: The answer is obvious, no.
CRUZ: And may I ask … (interrupted by the Chairman)
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Could we keep on the, and I appreciate that we have a discussion on books, I know that they have that in your state of Texas where your educational board tells people what books they should or should not read in their schools, something that we would not do in Vermont, but you know we’re not going to talk about your right, but let’s stick to guns, I know Senator … (Feinstein begins to speak. Then Cruz speaks)
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your acknowledging the state of Texas allows books, I would specify a little more bluntly … (interrupted by Chairman Leahy and Senator Feinstein)
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Pornography books?
UNKNOWN VOICE: Child pornography? Protected by the First Amendment?
FEINSTEIN: It’s obvious that there are different tests on different amendments. And I think what the senator’s going to point out is something that didn’t occur to me at the moment, there are certain kinds of pornographic materials that would not be covered by the First Amendment.
CRUZ: And is it the view of the senior Senator from California that Congress should be in the business of specifying particular books, or for that matter with respect to the Fourth Amendment particular individuals who are not covered by the Bill of Rights?
FEINSTEIN: Sir, Congress is in the business of making law. The Supreme Court interprets the law. They strike down the law, they strike down the law. The tests in Heller, with respect to unusual weapons and to other things, I think do not cover, in other words, they cover an exemption for assault weapons. And if this is brought up before the court, if it should pass, I’m sure that argument will be made.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: The Senator from Illinois wish…
DURBIN: That’s exactly the point. The senator knows having attended law school and professes to have some experience in the Constitution; none of these rights are absolute. None of them. And the Heller decision goes specifically to the question of this amendment and tells us, when they were asked in the Heller decision, a panel, [hour?] two, a panel of Republican appointed judges rejected a Second Amendment challenge to DC’s assault weapons ban and magazine limits. A Second Amendment challenge. The DC Circuit Court held that such laws, quote, do not effectively disarm individuals … [end of video]
I find it interesting that Senator Cruz asks a simple question, which frames his thoughts on the subject. It is not an attack on Senator Feinstein (or anyone for that matter), just a simply stated, and politely stated question. Not only does Feinstein refuse to answer the question, but she resorts to an attack on Senator Cruz himself, accusing him of lecturing her on the Constitution, and then moves into a very patronizing speech of her own, pointing out that she has 20 years experience as a senator (implying that Senator Cruz is only a junior senator, with less experience, and should sit by and be quiet while the adults talk and make the decisions). Before long, Senator Feinstein is joined by Senator Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, and he too begins to attack and patronize not only Senator Cruz, but also Cruz’s home state of Texas, by pointing stating that Texas tells people what they can and cannot read in the schools – something Leahy says his state of Vermont would never do; and before long other democrat senators jump in and claim that Cruz and his home state of Texas approve of child pornography.
To his credit, Senator Cruz does not take the bait, and he sits patiently while senator’s Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin and others clearly show to the world that they are completely without ethics, completely without manners, that they are patronizing, ignorant, liars. Senator Cruz made a valiant attempt to remove from the eyes of the public, the rose colored glasses that Feinstein and other socialists in our government have foisted upon the American people by playing on their fears and desire for safety, and politicizing tragic events such as the Newtown Massacre in order to further their agenda.
Within days of the debate, Senator Feinstein was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Here is a transcript of that interview:
[Here is a link to the video of that interview: http://mrctv.org/videos/senator-dianne-feinstein-i-felt-patronized-ted-cruzs-questions-constitution]
WOLF BLITZER: Feinstein is joining us now from Capitol Hill, Senator, clearly you were insulted by what Senator Cruz said, walk us through your thinking.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Well, I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it, and when you’ve come from where I come from and what you’ve seen, and when you’ve found a dead body, and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons. And then as you go up the technical ladder with these weapons and they become more sophisticated and more the product of a [garbled word] and you’ve got these huge clips or drums of 100 bullets out there that people can buy. When you see these weapons becoming attractive to grievance killers. Now people who take them into schools, into theaters, into malls, you wonder, does America really need these weapons? My answer to that is no. And, so, it’s based on my experience, and I think, well, the bottom line is we passed the bill out of committee by a vote of 10 to 8*, the President has issued a very strong statement in support of it, so … (interrupted by Blitzer)
BLITZER: You think he’s doing enough though? You think he’s doing enough behind the scenes to help you get this passed through the senate?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I think it’s now going to begin. I think it’s now out of committee. Every Democrat voted for it. Hopefully we will have the debate before too long on the senate floor and we will see. It’s going to be my intention to divide the question, so that hopefully, I want to sit down with the leader, there will be two votes, one on the entire bill and one on the part that prohibits clips and ammunition feeding devices of more than 10 bullets.
BLITZER: Did you have a chance to speak to Senator Cruz after that public exchange?
FEINSTEIN: No. I needed to cool down.
BLITZER: Have you cooled down yet?
FEINSTEIN: I’m cooled down.
BLITZER: So when you see him the next time, what will you say?
FEINSTEIN: Oh yes, oh yes. Well, I did say, “look, I’m sorry, but, you know, this is one thing I feel very passionate about, and I appreciate the lecture, but,” and that’s all I’m going to say.
[* note that there are 10 democrats and 8 republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which tells you that what the democrats propose, will likely automatically pass. Debate, such as on this bill, is only a formality as the passing is likely a foregone conclusion.]
In this clearly biased “interview,” Feinstein claims, “I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it, and when you’ve come from where I come from and what you’ve seen, and when you’ve found a dead body, and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons.” And, “I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode.”
As with many politicians (and others in the public eye), Feinstein is not above lying I her attempt to sway opinions in her favor, and this situation is no different. Of the claims she makes (as noted above), only one is true. She has seen a dead body. On November 27, 1978, former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White climbed through a first-floor window on the side of City Hall carrying a .38 revolver and 10 rounds of ammunition. With that weapon and ammunition, White shot and killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk. As a member of the board of supervisors, Feinstein was nearby, and heard the gun shots. Upon investigating, she discovered Harvey Milk’s body.
Her other claims, that she saw people shot, that she has looked at the bodies of people who have been shot with assault weapons, that she has seen bullets that implode, and that she put her finger in bullet holes, are all untrue. Lies, plain and simple. Unless, of course, she has some sort of bizarre bullet hole fetish and she makes midnight visits to the local morgue so she can stick her fingers in them. Unlikely, but, hey, who knows? And “bullets that implode”? Sorry senator, there’s no such thing. It is nuclear weapons that implode, not bullets.
The weapon that Dan White used, was a .38 caliber revolver, and he carried 10 bullets with him. The gun is legal, the number of bullets is legal, and they appear nowhere on Feinstein’s list of weapons she wants to ban. So the murders committed by White aren’t really pertinent to the discussion. It is only a tool being used by Feinstein in an attempt to sway people to accept her agenda; and that agenda is, plain and simple, to disarm the American public. Her proposed ban does not extend to government employees, law enforcement and retired law enforcement. It does absolutely nothing to disarm criminals (as do none of the Democrat sponsored gun control bills – but is what Senator Cruz attempted to integrate into the bill, and the Democrats argued against it), it will only disarm the law abiding public, those who would not commit the horrible crimes that Feinstein is claiming she wants to protect us all from.
Clearly, protecting the American people is not important to Senator Feinstein, and is only a ploy she is using to promote her agenda – an agenda shared by all socialists throughout history, the disarming of a population. Why? The answer is found throughout history as well - a disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to - and dependence upon - the organs of a parental state. Adolph Hitler, a self-admitted socialist, once said, “The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed public can't fight back.”
Clearly, a disarmed population is far easier to control than an armed population. So the real question that should be asked is, why does the government, specifically the socialist members of the government, want a disarmed populace? Could it have anything to do with what appears to be the stripping of our constitutional rights? Interestingly, during the course of the debate between Senator Cruz and Senator Feinstein, it was Senator Dick Durbin who joined the fray and stated, “The senator [Cruz] knows, having attended law school, and professes to have some experience in the Constitution, none of these rights are absolute. None of them.”
Aside from Durbin’s snarky comments, what is important to note is his comment that not one of the rights contained in the U.S. Constitution is absolute. Not one of them. According to the esteemed socialist senator from Illinois, we can, at the whim of Congress, lose our constitutionally protected rights. The right to freedom of speech is already being infringed due to HR 347 which was signed into law in 2012. The right to keep and bear arms is slated to be infringed, if Senator Feinstein gets her way. What will be next? Will Congress establish or promote a specific religion, or prohibit a specific religion or religions? Will we be required to allow members of the military, such as military intelligence operatives to live in our homes, or in our assigned living areas? Will warrantless searches be allowed – oh, wait, they already are.
Well, what about our right to a speedy and public trial when we are accused of …. Wait, never mind, I forgot about NDAA. That’s already gone as well; as is the right to be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process – NDAA took care of those rights as well. I would suggest reading the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, so that you too can see what rights you used to have as a free citizen in America. Rights, that as Senator Durbin pronounced, are not absolute, not guaranteed, and subject to elimination at the whim of those enemies of America who are currently embedded in Congress, and other positions of power in our government.
 Ideological closets tend to shelter skeletons that current adherents would much rather remain hidden. The closet belonging to the socialist left, however, contains more than most and one of the more horrendous skeletons is their fascination with eugenics.
In a nutshell, eugenics is the belief that a society can be engineered (or re-engineered) through selective breeding, sterilization and “merciful” life terminations. The purpose of eugenics is to remove from said society those whom said society deem inferior. The inferiority of those deemed so is based on several criteria such as physical defects, insanity, criminality, alcoholism, pauperism, epilepsy, feeblemindedness, and in some cases homosexuality and the “inferior races.” Basically increasing the quality of the herd – the “Human Herd,” by weeding out the runts.
 To most, the very idea of eugenics is extremely abhorrent, but at the turn of the 20th century the ideology of eugenics was very popular among the socialists, or social progressives of the day, many of whom are revered even to this day by the socialist left. George Bernard Shaw, playwright, devoted social progressive, and darling of today’s leftist elite once said, “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of man.” His answer to the “problem” of “inferior” individuals who were already alive was to employ what Shaw called a “lethal chamber.” (Eerily reminiscent of the Nazi gas chambers).
Proponents of eugenics firmly believed they were working toward the betterment of society as a whole, and that they were doing so by utilizing what they believed to be irrefutable scientific methods. They considered those who were inferior to be a burden on society that had to be carried along and supported by those who were superior; and the best way to benefit society would be to ensure there were less of the inferior or weak in society and more of the strong or superior to carry them along.
Eugenics was popular among socialist progressives through the 1960’s, but experienced a definite decline in popularity amongst the general public by the end of World War Two. The reason for this was the embracing of eugenics by Nazi Germany, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with anything even remotely connected to the Nazi’s. Interestingly, however, it was through the work of American eugenicists that the Nazi’s learned of eugenics. Pioneering eugenics researcher Harry Hamilton Laughlin was fond of noting that his Model Eugenic Sterilization Laws had been adopted in Nazi Germany. In fact, Laughlin was awarded an honorary doctorate for his work on eugenics as a means of “racial cleansing” from Heidelberg University. Laughlin was the founding president of The Pioneer Fund, Inc., a socialist organization that is still in existence today, which promotes the ideas of genetic superiority of certain groups, particularly those of Northern European descent.
Adolph Hitler and the Nazi’s were not satisfied with the somewhat slow progress the socialist American eugenics movement was making, so they took eugenics to its next logical level. Not only did they enforce mandatory sterilization of those whom they considered inferior (something America had been doing since the 1920’s, and continued well into the 1960’s), and not only were they enforcing mandatory abortions (something American eugenicists had talked about), but they began two programs that America had only toyed with, and had experienced only limited success with: selective breeding and euthanasia.
 American eugenicists had been promoting the idea of selective breeding by encouraging those who possessed what they considered superior traits to marry only their equals. Misogyny was openly discouraged, as were marital unions with any who possessed any of the “inferior” traits. Although marital relationships between the “inferiors” was frowned upon, it was not discouraged as long as those “inferiors” were first sterilized, by mandate if necessary. It is estimated that as many as 100,000 Americans were sterilized by force by 1968. One of the most famous was 17-year old Carrie Buck.
Carrie had been taken away from her mother shortly after her birth, and was placed with a foster family named Dobbs. At the age of 17, Carrie was raped by the Dobbs’s nephew. Almost immediately the Dobbs’s family had carried institutionalized in the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. They claimed that Carrie was feebleminded (she wasn’t, and had maintained an A/B average in school), incorrigible (again, her school records show she was well behaved), and promiscuity. The fact that she had been raped by a member of her foster family was a consideration only in that it embarrassed the family, and Carrie’s incarceration was a way to save the family future embarrassment.
As an inmate at the Virginia Colony, Carrie was considered an inferior woman, who, according to Virginia’s mandatory sterilization laws was eligible for said mandatory sterilization. She gave birth to a baby girl she named Vivian. Because she had been labeled as an inferior, Carrie was deemed incapable of caring for a child, and Vivian was taken away and placed for adoption. It was the Dobbs family, Carrie’s former foster family, who adopted poor Vivian.
Although she was to have been forcibly sterilized, Carrie decided to fight the Virginia law. After losing her case at the state level, she continued to fight until her case was finally heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1927. The infamous case is known as Buck v. Bell, and the court ruled 8-1 against Carrie Buck. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision which said, “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Carrie was forcibly sterilized only five months after the court made their decision.
As with America, Nazi Germany also enforced the mandatory sterilization of “inferiors,” and as also with America, they practiced selective breeding. While America only encouraged the practice, the Nazi’s embraced the practice with a scientific zeal. Beginning in 1935, the Nazi’s began selectively breeding members of the Schutzstaffel (the SS – all considered to be of pure Aryan blood) with approved German women who had met or exceeded the programs stringent qualifications. The program, known as the Lebensborn Program, was founded by Heinrich Himmler (head of the Gestapo and the Waffen-SS, and the Nazi Minister of the Interior) for the purpose of creating an Aryan Master Race. Although it is generally believed that the Lebensborn Program ended in 1945 with the defeat of the Nazi’s, there was speculation that Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazi “Angel of Death,” continued his experiments after escaping to South America at the end of the war. Interestingly, beginning in 1963, a small remote, outback town in Brazil began experiencing a dearth of twins. In fact, one in every five births in the village of Candido Godoi (population approx. 6,000) are twins. Blonde haired, blue eyed twins. The natives have long attributed the phenomenon to the work of an itinerant physician named Rudolph Weiss. The name is a known alias of Mengele. Lebensborn South American Style.
A form of selective breeding is alive and well in America today. Gender/sex selection is a form of eugenics practiced in places like China and India, where couples have used pregnancy screening to abort female fetuses. But it is also used America, as way to achieve ones personal preference. There is no connection to population reduction as there is in China and India. Here it is simply a personal preference of the parents. In other words, population engineering.
 If you want a boy but your baby is a girl, or vice-versa, simply abort and try again. If you want to garner even more control over the selection process, you can use a sperm donor. How would you like a son that resembles Mel Gibson or Stephen Baldwin? Maybe Heath Ledger or Vin Diesel? Would you like a chess player, an artist, a business owner, an athlete or a musician? Would you like your child to possess compassion, charm, empathy, a drive to succeed, and a sense of humor? Perhaps you would like your child to be bilingual (French? German? Spanish? Any combination thereof?), intelligent, capable of attaining a Master’s Degree? All of these are possible (imply the sperm donor corporations) with the use of a “premium” sperm donor. With enough money, patience and determination you too can contribute to the new society and the master race. The American Lebensborn Program.
The Nazi’s did not limit their expansive zeal for eugenics to the Lebensborn, as we all are quite aware, and as Auschwitz- Birkenau, Belzec, Treblinka and other death camps grimly attest. Beginning in 1941, the Nazi’s began the systematic extermination of those whom they considered undesirable and inferior, in an attempt to facilitate their plan for a racially pure Aryan population in Germany. They targeted Jews, Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, and all non-Europeans. As with the American eugenicists, however, the Nazi’s also considered mental and physical deficiencies as well as undesirable personality traits and personal beliefs contrary to Nazism to be inferior genetics as well. Consequently, the Nazi’s also targeted people with physical and mental disabilities, Homosexuals, the elderly, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Freemasons, and any who openly expressed criticism of Hitler or the Nazi party for extermination.
Although many (if not most) of today’s socialist left deny any connection to Adolph Hitler and the Nazi eugenics program, it doesn’t take much research to clearly see that they are very much connected. Hitler was an avowed socialist. He said of himself and the Nazi party in a speech given on May 1, 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”(sound familiar?)
Also, as with many socialists today, Hitler was vehemently anti-smoking. He was a vegetarian, an environmentalist (creating several national parks and “sacred” forests in Germany), and an avowed health fanatic. His Hitler Youth movement strongly promoted good health practices and exercise, along with healthy eating habits to defeat obesity, and strengthen the Aryan population.
By the end of World War Two, however, anything associated with Hitler and the Nazi’s was frowned upon, and that included the American eugenics movement which quietly died away. Or did it? Clearly the “pro-choice” abortion movement is frighteningly similar to the eugenics abortion program. In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a long time member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society. She was notoriously anti-Semitic as well as racist, and considered both Jews and Blacks as inferior races. One of her greatest fans was Adolph Hitler, who was open in his praise of Sanger’s work in eugenics. Her Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an extension of the earlier eugenics movement.
Clearly then, the eugenics movement did not simply die away after World War Two. It simply quieted itself, left the public eye, and split into several separate groups and movements, all promoting and advocating for different agendas found within the earlier eugenics movement. Planned Parenthood is one branch of the eugenics tree. Other “branches” include the Zero Population Growth Movement, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, the Green Movement, and other such groups that promote the removal of inferior humans by various means.
Although the Nazi exterminations were anything but merciful, because of the reasoning behind those exterminations (an attempt to eradicate the inferior to make way for the superior), they can rightfully be called (at least a form of) euthanasia. Another branch of the eugenics tree, that was and is still practiced in America.
The euthanasia movement began in America in the early part of the 20th century with extensive political debate over legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide in both Iowa and Ohio. The movement reached its peak in the 1930’s and soon went into decline, only to be revived again in the 1960’s and 1970’s ostensibly as “physician assisted suicide” (remember Dr. Jack Kervorkian and his death van?).
The movement foundered somewhat for a few decades, but is once again in the public eye, primarily due to: 1) a lack of funding for the socialist touted ObamaCare plan to insure those who are uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition; 2) a recently leaked government funded mortality survey; and 3) an incident in a California assisted living facility in which a nurse refused to allow CPR to be administered to save an elderly resident who had stopped breathing.
In February of this year, an 87-year old woman who was residing in the independent living section of an assisted living facility in Bakersfield, California began having difficulty breathing. A nurse at the facility called 9-1-1, and was asked by the 9-1-1 operator to begin CPR. The nurse not only refused (due to a company policy forbidding staff administered CPR), but also refused to allow a non-staff member to administer the life saving procedure. As a result, the elderly woman died. The incident created a national uproar with conservatives protesting the nurse’s actions and socialists defending it.
During a discussion on NBC’s Today show, advertising executive and television host Donny Deutsch put forth a decidedly socialist viewpoint when he said, “It's obviously a very sad story, but it really brings up, I think, a larger issue that we've got to get our arms around, that 25% of the health care costs are against people in their last year of their life, the 4 or 5% of people, keeping people alive. Now of course, if it's my mom and dad, I want to do the same, but we maybe need to give hard looks that some of the procedures being done to extend lives six weeks, eight weeks, ten weeks, that maybe that money could go to saving little babies.” It was almost as if Deutsch was channeling former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm (a self-described Progressive) who once told a meeting of the Colorado Health Lawyers Association at St. Joseph’s Hospital, “You've got a duty to die and get out of the way. Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.”
Also recently reported in the news (although quietly and without fanfare, almost buried amidst the fluff non-news stories) was the fact that at least half of the $5 billion set aside by President Obama to ensure that those with pre-existing medical conditions (who had long been denied health insurance) could no longer be denied medical insurance, is now gone. On the surface this segment of ObamaCare seems to be a pretty good deal, and the socialist left had long been promoting it as one of the primary reasons for Congress to pass the ObamaCare legislation. But now, those who have not yet applied for the “high-risk-pools” will be denied, and left to manage their own medical issues. Issues that are always chronic, and often terminal. In other words, in keeping with a long held socialist eugenics agenda, these “inferior” members of our society will be left to die, sometimes painfully and horribly, all in the name of pursuing the socialist eugenics agenda of purging society of the unwanted burden of the inferior.
In 1999, a new government sponsored survey, known as the “UCSF 10-Year Mortality Index for Older Adults,” was made available to physicians across the country to use as a tool to help determine what level of care should be given to older (60+ years old) patients. The survey assesses these “older” patients by assigning points to certain factors. If the patient is male, that’s 2 points. Overweight (1 point), has smoked in the past week (2 points). If the patient has certain medical issues such as diabetes (1 point), chronic lung problems (2 points), cancer (2 points), heart problems (2 points), or is on oxygen (2 points). The survey also addresses a patient’s ability to perform simple tasks such as: does the patient have trouble bathing (2 points), walking (2 points), moving a chair (1 point) and managing their finances (2 points). Points are also assessed for the patients age (60-64 = 1pt, 65-69=2pts, 70-74=3pts, 75-79=4pts, 80-84=5pts, 85+ = 7pts). The more points the patient has, the less care is recommended for the patient.
According to the authors of the survey, the justification given for this “death test” is that the benefit of life saving preventative medical practices (i.e. cancer screenings, glycemic control for diabetics, etc.) for certain patients are outweighed by the patients estimated life expectancy. Their life expectancy is determined by the point system. The more points you have, the lower your life expectancy. (I would suggest cheating on this test if you’re over 60 and you want to receive medical care).
To illustrate the faulty logic of the mortality index, I offer the following scenario. Based on the point system used with this “death test,” a 75 year old man who has just smoked his first cigarette ever, has arthritis in his knees, and has never learned how to balance his checkbook, is given a total of 12 points and would likely be refused medical treatment, including preventative treatment. On the other hand, a 69 year old woman with breast cancer and congestive heart failure only has 6 points and is therefore considered more deserving of treatment. Clearly the “test” is nothing more than a justification to eliminate those who considered inferior and not worthy of life saving medical care.
These incidents are all reminiscent of the 1960’s socialist youth mantra of “Never trust anyone over 30,” or the 1976 film “Logan’s Run” (based on the 1967 book of the same name) which depicts a future society in which the societal population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in balance (such as is promoted by the Zero Population Growth Movement) by simply killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, thus preventing overpopulation. It is the euthanasia branch of the eugenics tree.
The ideology of eugenics has been a foundational fixture of the socialist movement since its inception, including the philosophy of euthanasia. The packaging may have been updated, and made more palatable, more acceptable, but the product – the end result – is still the same. Removal of those considered inferior in order to promote the promulgation of those considered superior by the socialist left.
The earlier American Eugenics Movement has been acceptable and can now be considered as the Modern Socialist Eugenics Movement (which we will call MSEM). This movement still strives to “improve” society (although the term society now refers to the global population) through the exact same means and methods utilized by the early eugenics movement: Abortion, Sterilization, Selective Breeding, and Euthanasia. The removal of the burdensome inferior to make way for the socialist superior.
| To read or download the UCSF 10-Year Mortality Index for Older Adults, just click on the file link at the right---> | |
 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Filibusters the Senate. On March 6, 2013, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), conducted an impressive filibuster to protest and/or delay the appointment of John Brennan as director of the CIA. Since Brennan has made public statements that appear to be supportive of islamic terrorism, and he has made statements that appear to be anti-Israel, should have been enough to spur a legitimate investigation into his viability as the director of the CIA. The accusation that he is a muslim convert and that he has colluded with members of the Saudi government and also with individuals with known terrorist ties should have demanded such an investigation. Apparently they did not.
The premise of Paul’s 13-hour filibuster speech involved the possibility of the president ordering the use of weaponized drones against American citizens on American soil. Sen. Paul asked for assurance from the Obama administration that this possibility could not happen. IN response, Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Paul which stated: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.” The filibuster ended, and today the senate voted to approve Brennan’s appointment.
One would think that this is all there is to this story, but alas, there is more to it, much more, and the implications are mind staggering.
To begin with, although Eric Holder did state that the President does not have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American on American soil, a close look at Holder’s letter reveals that Holder introduced some qualifiers to his statement. The President is not authorized to order such an attack upon Americans “not engaged in combat on American soil.” So, the question is, how does Obama and his administration define “combat.”
This is a legitimate question, especially in light of Holder’s later statement in which he said (regarding weaponized drone attacks against Americans on American soil), “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” In other words, the answer to Sen. Paul’s question is actually, yes, the President could conceivably order such an attack in an extraordinary circumstance. Not a very comfortable thought is it? So does the Obama administration define “combat”? According to a news article reported on Breitbart.com, virtually anyone who disagrees with the Obama administration could be considered an enemy of the state. This includes those who sympathize or agree with the Tea Party movement, or those who support the Second Amendment. (Read the Breitbart report here) Clearly, according to Holder’s own words, the concerns expressed by Sen. Paul are legitimate concerns, and should be shared by each and every American regardless of political persuasion.
What should also be of concern is the reaction of certain politicians to Sen. Paul’s speech. Not surprisingly, Sen. Paul was completely disrespected and dismissed by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who told the senate that their work was done and that they should simply go home. What was a little surprising, however, was the response from the so-called conservative leadership who also dismissed Sen. Paul’s concerns, and went out of their way to publically lambast him. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on the record saying that the idea that the President would use a drone to attack an American in America was “ridiculous.” Personally, I think that in light of Eric Holder’s statement that the President could authorize such an attack, that Graham’s statement is ridiculous.
Even more surprising was the reaction of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who said in response to Sen. Paul’s speech, “I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday. I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded. I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy -- and even may demonstrate against it -- is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false. It is simply false.” [Note: During his speech, Sen. Paul made reference to Jane Fonda and the possibility of the government using a drone to kill her during the Vietnam War- TP]
I must say, McCain’s words hit me like high fly ball into center field, or left field as the case may actually turn out to be. Not only should he (and Graham) be supporting a senator from their own party, but they are supposed to be senior members of that party. They are supposed to be conservatives, or at least they lay claim to that label.
McCain’s statement that Jane Fonda was simply exercising her constitutional rights when she visited North Vietnam in 1972 (while America was at war with that country), posed on a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft battery (the same weapon used to attack Americans), and made propaganda radio broadcasts from North Vietnam. It was during those broadcasts (she made ten in all – broadcast to American servicemen and women) that she told our soldiers and sailors that they were “war criminals.” She called the President of the United States a “War Criminal” and a “True Killer,” accusing him of attacking North Vietnam in an attempt to colonize the country. Fonda went on to talk to Americans through her North Vietnamese propaganda broadcasts that she had witnessed the “systematic destruction of civilian targets” such as “schools … hospitals … [and] homes,” and she lavishing unceasing praise on the North Vietnamese trained female militia who became “such good fighters,” and NVA guerrillas who infiltrated into South Vietnam and killed Americans. Fonda said of them, “They did their job well.”
Jane Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-Aircraft gun in 1972.
If “Hanoi Jane” Fonda had limited her anti-war rhetoric to stateside activities, then she would have been exercising her constitutional rights. However, since she engaged in them in an enemy country, while that country is at war with America, then she was committing seditious and treasonous acts.
Sedition is the act of stirring up rebellion against the government in power. Since Fonda was encouraging the soldiers and sailors toward whom her propaganda broadcasts to aimed, to rebel against the orders of their President and Commander-in-Chief, she was clearly being seditious. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one’s country by aiding and abetting that country’s enemies during a time of war.
Just as “Axis Sally” (Mildred Gillars) had done during World War Two, when she aided and abetted Nazi Germany by making propaganda radio broadcasts during which she called American soldiers and sailors war criminals, and launched verbal attacks at the President, so did “Hanoi Jane” when aided and abetted communist North Vietnam during a time of war. Mildred Gillars was tried and convicted of treason against the United States (serving federal prison time for her crimes against America). Jane Fonda, however, had the benefit of both money and political connections which were used to ensure that she not be punished for her acts of sedition and treason.
That John McCain, a former prisoner-of-war in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” would defend such a person as Jane Fonda by saying she was only exercising her constitutional rights is a slap in the face to all veterans, especially Vietnam Veterans, and even more so those who suffered as POW’s in Vietnam. That John McCain and Lindsey Graham would condemn Rand Paul for taking a stand in support of all Americans, in defense of all Americans, in order to ensure the safety of all Americans (especially in light of Holder’s statement), tells me that McCain and Graham at least tentatively support the use of weaponized drones against Americans on American soil; and that is, to me, a treasonous stand against all Americans.
Simply put, Rand Paul was right, and McCain and Graham were wrong. At the very least they should be made to resign from the Republican party. If they want to join the democrat party (which would seem to be the logical choice given their stand) then so be it. If they want to continue as independents, then so be it. They are, however, an anathema and a pariah to me.
[As a side note (and I have said this before), the question of weaponized drone attacks against American citizens, seems to find its birth in the killing U.S. born al qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. I would point out, however, that at the time of his death, al-Awlaki was a citizen of Yemen, and not an American citizen. He had renounced his U.S. citizenship (which is required to become a citizen of Yemen), and he was a ranking member of al qaeda. His death was fully justified as an enemy combatant.]
 As a Christian, and as an American, it seems almost surreal to even ask this question, but I think it does need to be asked, and seriously considered. Within the past week two Coptic Christians were murdered by a muslim. They were beheaded and had their hands cut off as well. As horrendous as this sounds, we have become somewhat desensitized to reports such as these coming out of Egypt and various muslim controlled areas of the Middle East. The problem, however, is that this report comes out New Jersey.
As might be expected, the dominant liberal media outlets have been conspicuously quiet about this crime, especially since the perpetrator is a practicing muslim and the victims were Christians. The last thing MSNBC, CNN, and the others want is to be perceived as “islamophobic.” And in all honesty, there has been nothing noted anywhere that these murders were religion motivated. Well, nothing other than the koran, which states, “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.’” (koran 8:12).
So, I ask the question again, is America safe for Christians?
In spite of the continual debate between the left and the right, and Christians and atheists concerning the spiritual mindsets or tendencies of the founding fathers, there are certain facts that simply cannot be ignored. Such as:
- During the Revolutionary War, the supply of Bibles to the United States was cut off. As a result, on September 1, 1777, the Continental Congress ordered the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from “Scotland, Holland or Elsewhere.”
- On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken, a printer, asked Congress to officially sanction a publication of the complete Bible. In response, Congress approved his request and noted that they “highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion … in this country, and … they [Congress] recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.”
- On July 4, 1776, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were appointed by Congress to devise the official seal for the United States of America. Franklin proposed a seal based on Moses parting the Red Sea. Jefferson proposed a seal featuring the “Children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night.” Jefferson later rejected his own proposal and embraced Franklin’s idea of Moses parting the Red Sea. Although neither of these proposals were accepted, the simple fact that both Franklin and Jefferson proposed them shows that these two theological liberals still felt that Biblical imagery best represented America.
- During the War of Independence, Congress proclaimed May 17, 1776 (and annually) as a “Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer,” while urging Americans throughout the colonies to “confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease His [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” Massachusetts took it one step further, and to the Congressional proclamation they added, “God Save This People.”
- Congressional proclamation set December 18, 1777, as a day of thanksgiving and encouraged the American people to “express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor” and on which they might “join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance.” Congress also recommended that Americans petition God “to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”Similar Congressional proclamations were issued annually.
- Congress was also concerned about morality in the military, and ordered that Christian services be held each Sunday (and twice a day while on board ship), with stiff penalties for officers who did not attend, and even stiffer penalties for any who misbehaved or acted irreverently during those services.
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the Federal Government, and indeed, even state governments not only supported Christianity, but on numerous occasions even endorsed Christianity, and did not publically malign Christianity at any time. As late as 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States pointedly declared, “This is a Christian nation.” Then came the 20th century.
The change was not immediate, although there were sporadic “outbreaks” of anti-Christian bias, most notably coming from groups and individuals rooted in fascism and socialism – especially during the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s. By the 1950’s and 60’s, however, communism put forth a concerted effort to infiltrate and influence American society, and unfortunately they managed to gain a firm toehold. A toehold that has since become a death grip.
The result is that today, anti-Christian bias and bigotry is rampant in America, and is taught, supported, condoned and even encouraged by the state run schools, courts and governmental agencies across the nation, all in the name of diversity. It is a diversity, however, that is in reality, a one-way diversity. It has become more than apparent that the homosexual community, radical homosexual “activists” in particular, who have taken up the role of “shock troops” in this war against Christianity. For example:
- On Sunday Night September 19, 1993 a group of angry homosexuals stormed the Hamilton Square Baptist Church, of San Francisco, California. They were trying to stop the Sunday Night service because they disapproved of the speaker.
- In November 2008, a mob of homosexual “activists” stormed a Christian church in Lansing, Michigan and began shouting profanities, blasphemies, and anti-Christian hatred, while vandalizing the church and terrorizing the congregation.
- In October 2011 radical homosexual “activists” threw bricks through a church window in Arlington Heights, Illinois. They later released a statement to the press in which they not only admitted their violent actions, but promised to continue if the church did not bow to their demands.
- In April 2012, a homosexual “activist” organization calling itself “Angry Queers” claimed responsibility for throwing baseball-sized rocks through the windows of a Christian church in Portland, Oregon. The group released a statement that any terrorist would be proud of. In it the group said they hope their “small act of vengeance will strike fear into the hearts of” Christian leaders who teach traditional sexual morality. Their message was clear. Denounce Christ or the terror will continue.
Nor are these the only attacks against Christianity. The list goes on and on and on. In 2012 alone, Christian nativity scenes were vandalized across the nation. A very brief search of news reports on these attacks (all from the 2012 Christmas season) showed dozens of attacks on Nativity scenes in dozens of cities across America. Included in these attacks were physical attacks on Christians. One Christian pastor in California was busy decorating his church and was beaten so badly he was left in critical condition. In another attack, the baby Jesus was lynched.
Perhaps what is the most shocking development in all of these attacks, both on nativity scenes, and on Christian churches and their congregations is, that in not one single instance have I been able to find any indication that anyone was ever convicted, or even arrested. Nor have I been able to find any indication of law enforcement, or liberal dominant media outlet, or politician calling this attacks for what they are – hate crimes. Anti-Christian bigotry and hate.
I have been left pondering if the reason for this lack of recognition of anti-Christian bigotry and hate is because law enforcement, politicians, and the liberal dominant media simply do not recognize anti-Christian bigotry and hate. After all, if you do not accept that truth is absolute and believe it to subjective and relative to the individual, then it isn’t really bigotry or hate, it’s just a crime, and not all crimes are solved, and not all criminals are caught. Especially if it is a crime against a group of people who are held in low regard. Which, of course, begs the question, are Christians (and consequently, Christianity) held in low regard by the groups I mention? There is evidence that this is so.
- In April 2008, Crystal Dixon, a Christian, was fired by the University of Toledo in Ohio. Not because she violated any University rule or regulation, but because she wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, disagreeing with an op-ed which put forth the premise that homosexuals have suffered the same way that Blacks have with regard to civil rights. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth, and Miss Dixon stated this in her letter. She did so as a private citizen, and she did not utilize any university property, equipment or time. She simply expressed her “personal, Christian viewpoint on homosexuality” and she was fired for doing so. Miss Dixon took the university to court for wrongful termination. The court ruled that the school’s “diversity” outweighed Miss Dixon’s First Amendment rights. Although the case is currently in appeals, the governmental judicial system set a precedent by holding Christianity in low regard by stating that the “feelings” of those homosexuals at the university were more important than Miss Dixon’s constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech, and the free exercise of her Christian beliefs.
- Dan Savage, the founder of the “It Get’s Better Project”, which is designed to prevent bullying of homosexuals, and help homosexuals who feel they are being bullied, is, in reality, a bully himself. Savage takes every opportunity to bully Christians because of their belief. Not only has he recently mocked and bashed the Pope, but Savage has been more than willing to turn his bullying on children, as he did at a high school in Southern California. I don’t know about you, but in my world when an adult bullies children, it is known as child abuse. However, considering that Savage has publically condoned incest and other deviant behaviors. When you get right down to it, based on Savage’s words and behaviors, he is really no different than Westboro Baptist Church (which is NOT a Christian church). But the world is full of sick and twisted people, you may ask, so why am I singling out Dan Savage? Because Dan Savage, the anti-Christian bigot and bully, is officially endorsed by no fewer than 13 United States Senators, AND President Barack Obama. In spite of Savage’s unabashed bigotry, our nation’s leaders continue to support and endorse him, and in doing so, they are officially supporting and endorsing his bigoted anti-Christian views, and officially holding Christianity in low regard.
- In October 2011, when Washington state residents signed a petition to repeal the states homosexual partnership law failed, homosexual “activists” demanded the names of all who signed the petition. A homosexual “activist” group from Massachusetts calling itself “Know Thy Neighbor” took up the cause (as they had in similar situations in Arkansas, Florida and Massachusetts) and publically stated they wanted to publish the names of those who signed the petition to repeal the homosexual partnership law in an online searchable database. The purpose for this was, they said, to provide those names to homosexuals so they could confront those who object to the homosexual agenda. U.S. District Judge Benjamin settle ruled that every name and address of every individual who signed the petition was to be published. It didn’t take long for the homosexuals to begin confronting those who signed the petition. One family who was victimized as a result of “Know Thy Neighbor’s” actions related that they received a phone call from a man who got their name and number from published list. The family was gathered in their dining room when the phone rang. The son answered, and an anonymous male caller announced, “I’m going to kill you and your whole family.” Again, because the judge cared not one whit for the safety of those who signed according to their Christian beliefs, he held their beliefs, their safety, their wellbeing, and Christianity as a whole in low regard.
- The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization ostensibly formed to advocate for civil rights of minorities, openly engages in anti-Christian bigotry by grouping Christians and Christian organizations with Nazi’s, White Supremacists, and other openly virulent racist groups. The SPLC’s “Hate Map” and “Hate Group” list is used extensively by law enforcement and government agencies as the ultimate authority on hate groups and individuals. Since the SPLC holds Christianity in such low regard, they influence those who utilize their “hate database” to also hold Christianity in low regard.
- At a fundraiser held last October, President Barack Obama quoted one of the most famous statements in American history when he said, “What makes this place [America} special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’” Did President Obama purposely omit the reference to God that is contained in Declaration of Independence (from which the statement comes)? Apparently so, since he did the exact same thing in September 2010 when addressing the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. The original sentence found in the Declaration of Independence reads “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.” President Obama consistently removes the reference to God that was originally placed there by our Founding Fathers, and thus sets the tone for the country he was elected to lead by consistently holding Christianity in low regard.
(Curiously, when asked by reporters for an explanation for refusal to include God in his quote, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained it by saying, “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.” Nothing could be clearer, right?)
Clearly, President Obama holds Christianity in low regard, and perhaps this is the reason that the Democratic Party was so determined to remove references to God from their 2012 Party Platform. Another instance of America’s alleged leaders holding Christianity in low regard.
The most recent example of our government holding Christianity in low regard is perhaps the most blatant and most obvious example of anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination that I have seen from elected government officials. Just within the past week Colorado Democratic Senate Leader Pat Stedman, who is openly homosexual, pronounced the passage of Colorado’s homosexual partnership law through the state house. Not content with simply getting the law passed, Steadman insisted upon the removal of a provision that had been included in the law, which would have allowed Christian business owners to make faith-based decisions on how they would provide their own services.
Steadman expressed that he has absolutely no tolerance for Christians who subscribe to the Biblical view of marriage which has always been part of the Christian faith. In reference to any objections Christians may have toward the bill, Steadman said of them, “Get thee to a nunnery, and live there then. Go live a monastic life, away from modern society, away from people you can’t see as equals to yourself … Go some place and be as judgmental as you like, go inside your church, establish separate water fountains if you like. But don’t tell me that your free exercise of religion requires the state of Colorado to establish separate water fountains.”
Steadman’s equating of Christianity to the racism of the deep south of decades ago is not only insulting and offensive, but it is as intolerant an example of bigotry from an elected public official as I have ever heard. So vile and so virulent is Steadman’s unfettered hate that one would expect the rest of the Colorado State Legislature to offer at least a weak condemnation of his words, or at the very least a murmured excuse along the lines of “he was just misunderstood.” Shockingly, however, all of the Colorado Senate Democrats joined Steadman in condemning Christians, and have unanimously supported Steadman’s comments!
The message the State of Colorado has sent is loud and clear. Not only is Christianity officially held in low regard by the State of Colorado, but if Christian’s want to practice their faith, they had better do so behind closed doors as there is no place for them in society. Christians are not welcome in Colorado.
We have come a long way from the days when the Congress of the United States officially endorsed Christianity and the Supreme Court of the United States declared that “this is a Christian nation,” to Christians are not welcome.
So I ask again, is America safe for Christians? Clearly, in light of the evidence, the answer is no.
 I have been intending to write an article revolving around the current gun control issue, but with today’s announcement of President Obama’s 23 “executive actions” concerning the issue, I can wait no longer as his list contains some very troubling aspects. Is this the big gun grab that so many have feared? Or, is this a legitimate effort to protect Americans? My opinion is that it is neither. At least not completely. I do see some elements that could be considered legitimate and good, however, I see many more that could easily lead to the abolishment of the Second Amendment as we (and our founding fathers) know it.
I believe, as I said, that Obama’s list of executive actions reveals quite a bit about what we can expect regarding our Second Amendment rights and his gun control agenda, so let’s take a look at them.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
This is the first mention in these 23 “executive actions” of the “Federal Background Check System.” Translation: Federal Gun Registration of all LEGAL gun owners. I emphasize the word “legal” here, since clearly criminals do not and will not ever register their guns, or participate in any background checks related to the guns they possess. More importantly, it is not the criminals who would or will take up arms against a tyrannical government (with the possible exception of the white supremacist hate groups), therefore, it is not the criminal element the government is truly concerned with. In fact, common sense tells us that if crime were actually wiped out, even if 50 % of all crime were to be eliminated, the economic ramifications to governmental agencies would be terrifying (to them)! A huge number of governmental agencies would no longer be able to justify their existence, and many more would be forced to drastically scale back their operations. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of governmental employees (federal, state, county and city) would have to be laid off. Entire companies and corporations would suffer the same fate. We must face facts, crime is big business, and although many prisons are bursting at the seams, crime does pay – and it pays well to both sides legal fence. Think about it. Crime is not, I repeat, NOT, the primary issue here. Like I said, think about it.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
At first glance, this hardly seems applicable to the issue of gun control. The HIPAA act? Doesn’t that have to do with the privacy of your medical information? In a word, yes. However, that privacy is not as restricted as you might think, and as you read on, you will (or should) realize just how and why your medical information and the HIPAA act are integral to Obama’s gun control agenda.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
On the surface, this could be a good idea. That is, of course, assuming that Obama’s gun control agenda is a constitutionally legitimate one. One that has the purpose of ensuring the safety of the American people. When taken in the context of Obama’s entire 23 executive actions statement, it does not appear to serve the greater good, as will be seen.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Think about this for a brief minute. The Attorney General is Eric Holder. He authorized the sale of firearms to straw purchasers who then smuggled those firearms to Mexico and into the hands of violent and vicious drug cartel members. Eric Holder. Fast and Furious. And he is going to decide which Americans should be allowed to own or possess a gun? What could possibly go wrong here?
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
This is nothing more than a method for registering every single gun and legal gun owner in America. When combined with the points I’ve already commented on, and those left on Obama’s list here, it is clear that this is exactly what this is.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Note the language here: “background checks for private sellers.” In other words, you may not sell or give away any firearm in your possession unless you do so through a federally licensed gun dealer. This has nothing to do with going to your local Walmart or Sporting Goods store to purchase a firearm. This relates only to a gun owner privately selling his or her privately owned firearm to another individual. This is clearly a method of registering firearms currently in the hands of private law abiding citizens.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
This is known as a hunter safety course, and is already in place. Launching a “national” program run by the feds is simply a method of nationalizing hunter safety; which of course means more money for the feds, less money for other groups who currently run hunter safety courses, and which will also provide the federal government an opening for introducing all manner of propaganda to unsuspecting students. Once this takes effect, I would look for further legislation (likely via executive order) requiring enrollment in such a course as a prerequisite for purchasing a firearm.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. Kind of a touchy feely type of presidential decree designed to pacify both sides of the political fence. However, when combined with the next executive action listed by President Obama (#9 below), it could easily be used against law abiding gun owners.
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
This could be used to criminalize gun ownership, even if your gun has been stolen. For example, if your gun is stolen, and your stolen gun is used in a crime, can you be held accountable along with the criminal who used your stolen gun, much in the same way you could be held liable if you continue to serve alcohol to an already inebriated person who then drives, gets into an accident and kills someone? Much in the same way parents can be held criminally liable for the actions of their minor (under the age of 18 or 19) children? This could be especially true if you haven’t adhered to the standards set forth in number 8 above? What a financial windfall for the federal government! Hold the original owners of guns used in crimes financially accountable! Not just open to civil litigation filed by victims of those crimes, BUT ALSO liable for paying into victims assistance programs – FEDERAL VICTIMS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS – another taxpayer funded piggy bank just like social security!
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
A seemingly pointless (and expensive) point, unless taken in combination with the two executive actions immediately above.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
Really? Apparently it takes the massacre of school children to get Obama to do what he should have already done. Of course, it also helps Obama force his choice for ATF director on Congress, and get that person confirmed that much sooner, by politicizing the issue. Any congressman or congresswoman who fails to confirm Obama’s nominee will be seen as being anti-gun control and in favor of putting more school children at risk. Obama’s current choice is B. Todd Jones, who has been linked to the Fast and Furious scandal. ’Nuff said.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
This sort of training is already in place, or is at least already available. Especially since the Sandy Hook tragedy. IN making this “executive action,” however, Obama is announcing his intention to nationalize this form of training and place it completely in the hands of the federal government. This would not only take it out of the hands of the individual states and/or local jurisdictions, but would also place the federal government in direct competition with several private companies that provide this type of training.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
I believe this is what Chicago has been doing for quite some time. Factual statistics have proven that “maximized enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime” have not worked, do not work, will not work, and cannot work.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
Bad people do bad things. There, the first part of this is done, and without the need for a Presidential Memorandum! How to prevent it? Let’s look at Chicago (since Obama thinks Chicago is the poster child for how America should be). If the federal government regulates guns to point of virtually making all private gun ownership illegal, then firearm related crimes will drop dramatically, and possibly cease altogether. Right? Unfortunately, history has proven time and again that this just isn’t true. If gun control, even excessive gun control actually worked, there would be no firearm related crimes in Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in America. However, as we have recently learned, it doesn’t work! In Chicago alone, 532 people were shot to death in Chicago last year. Gun control, even excessive gun control doesn’t work! The government (federal, state, whatever) has not been able to stop gun violence after more than a century of trying (the first gun control law was passed in 1837 in Georgia – banning handguns. It was ruled unconstitutional and repealed). What makes them think they can do it now? Involving the Centers for Disease Control in this process also presents some interesting issues, which will be discussed below.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Legal gun enthusiasts already read just about everything available on gun safety technologies. Magazines such as Gun Digest, American Handgunner, Combat handguns, Gun World, Gun Hunter, Guns & Ammo, Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement, Shooting Times, and others all feature up-to-date articles highlighting gun safety technologies, and have for years. This executive action is a waste of time and taxpayer money. Nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors. It will do nothing other than give the federal government an opportunity to say, “We’ve tried everything, and nothing is working, so let’s just ban all guns period.”
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
The problems with numbers 16 & 17 should be obvious. Not only are they a way to build a database of all legal gun owners in the United States, but on a more ominous note, Obama is reminding health care providers of their obligation to report any threat of “violence to law enforcement authorities.” If your doctor believes (as some liberals do) that merely owning a gun makes you a threat, and your doctor then reports you as such, you can expect a visit from said law enforcement who will be visiting you while taking the standard precautions taken by all law enforcement in similar situations. If a threat is present (that would be you), and responding law enforcement is in danger (because you are threat, remember), they will likely execute a no-knock warrant with guns drawn. Any resistance will be met with overwhelming force, you will be arrested, questioned, and undergo a psychiatric evaluation. While this is happening your home will be searched and all firearms and/or potential weapons (which will include your computer) will be confiscated, and good luck trying to get any of it back.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
I know I said at the outset that I did see some good in this list, well, here it is. Putting an armed guard in every school will definitely reduce mass shootings in schools. Of course, most conservatives have been saying this very thing since Sandy Hook, however, since it really is the only thing that will work it is only natural that Obama take credit for coming up with the idea. Sort of like the bin Laden deal.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Here is another one that is not a bad idea, as long as these model emergency response plans are easy to understand, easy to implement, and don’t entail any unnecessary federal involvement. Explain what to do, explain how to acquire the resources and then get out of the way and stay out of the way. Simple.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Just in case the multitude of federal guidelines issued to all state health officials that explain ad infinitum and ad nauseum the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover hasn’t been enough. Send ‘em out again! Another pointless executive action, unless… (see below)
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Numbers 20, 21, 22, & 23: Obamacare rears its ugly head again! What’s interesting here is, however, the focus on mental health, ie: what is covered, what must be covered, see #16 & 17, and, I am sure, what is DEFINED as mental illness. Uh, oh! What is a mental illness? The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), published by the American Psychiatric Association and currently in its fourth edition (DSM IV) is the “bible” of mental disorders. It not only lists just what is (or is not) a mental disorder, but also lists criteria used to diagnose mental disorders. For the most part it could be a useful tool for mental health professionals (I promise not to allow my personal opinions of mental health professionals and practices to take over this article!), however, we must remember that it is not fool proof. Its contents are not written in stone, and are subject to change based on the current sociopolitical climate. Allow me to explain. Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and was listed as such in the DSM up until 1973 when homosexuality started to “come out of the closet” and become more socially acceptable, and pro-gay activists became more militant. Then, with just a quick swipe of the metaphorical pen, homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder.
Gender identity disorder is no longer considered a mental disorder – sorry Cpl. Klinger; and also Narcissistic, Paranoid, Schizoid, Histrionic and Dependent Personality Disorders will be dropped in the next edition, the DSM-V. Congrats to all schizoid’s, in just a few months you’ll no longer be crazy according to the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
But with the inclusion of executive actions 20-23 (as well as numbers 16&17) by President Obama, who is to say that a revised DSM will not include something along the lines of “Contra-Governmental Paranoia Disorder” to describe those who profess a distrust of the federal government, or possibly “Post-Military-Adjustment-Disorder” (PMAD) to describe veterans. If the APA were to include disorders such as these, the federal government could very easily make a legitimate (in their own eyes) case for making those diagnosed as such ineligible for owning or possessing any firearm of any kind. And while those of you currently suffering from what I call “Liberal Proclivity Disorder” are snickering at this conclusion, take note of some of the new disorders that are to be included in the DSM-V, such as: Binge eating disorder (you may be able to sue McDonalds for making you fat), Internet use gaming disorder (it’s not my fault I lost my mortgage payments playing Texas Hold’Em), Non-suicidal self-injury (dropped a hammer on your foot, no guns for you!), Hoarding disorder (your garage is too full of crap – no guns for you either!). Just sayin’.
As we can see, these 23 “executive actions” of Obama’s quite clearly set the stage for what I believe will be the total abolishment of the Second Amendment. It will not be an immediate confiscation of all privately owned firearms, as such an act would surely create such a violent reaction amongst the population that it would easily fail. No, the American people while far too apathetic, are not dead. Yet. A slow, subtle approach, however, will accomplish the same thing, and I believe that is what Obama and his socialist cronies are striving for.
I think we can expect that some guns will be banned outright, something that President Obama indicated today when he called for a ban on military style assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This seems to be nothing more than a ban on AR-15’s and similar rifles, but I believe it is actually only the beginning of what will ultimately be a complete ban of all privately owned firearms. Other types of semi-automatic firearms may not be banned outright, but we can likely expect they will be heavily regulated (as will ammunition, and accessories such as scopes, laser sights, flash suppressors, etc.) to the point that they will become too expensive for most people. I think we can also look forward to a mandatory registration requirement just to purchase ammunition and accessories; or possibly a national database upon which one’s name must appear in order to purchase, own or possess firearms, ammunition or accessories. Should this national database become a reality, of course, anyone caught in possession of a firearm, ammunition or firearm accessory could be arrested and prosecuted. Again, this is pure supposition, but in light of Obama’s 23 executive actions as released today, it is certainly within the realm of possibility.
And where does this leave the law-abiding gun owner? Eventually, I think we will reach the point where the law-abiding gun owners will have to make a choice – either comply with the orders of an increasingly tyrannical administration or become a felon. Door-to-door confiscation will not likely take place, however, as I have already stated, but there are ways to confiscate guns and ban the private ownership of guns that may take a bit of time to accomplish, but will be every bit as effective as an immediate gun grab. And let us not forget Obama’s “if you see something, say something” federal snitch program, which is sure to play an increasingly larger role in Obama’s gun control agenda.
And what of state’s rights? I don’t think this will actually become an issue. To be sure, some states are already promising to jail any federal employee attempting to enforce the new federal gun control laws, however, as we all know, state law cannot supersede federal law, other than to make it more strict; and attempts to secede from the union by peaceful means have already failed, with the Obama administration denying each and every secession petition just within the past few days. And if the states, any states attempt to stop Obama’s gradual gun grab, the federal government can easily stop them by simply withholding federal funds. It sounds like an overly simplistic solution, but we must admit that the individual states are more than a little beholden to the federal governments financial assistance, and it goes far beyond highway funds. During the civil war the practice was known as blockading. Same thing as withholding financial assistance, and the states, I assure you, will cave if it ever got that far (which I don’t think it will).
Will there be a revolution, or even an armed rebellion? I doubt it. The resources of the federal government far exceed any state or private resources that could be mustered to ensure a successful rebellion. Any such attempt would be brought down before it could even get started; and in all honesty, it is those who advocate such rebellion that will cause any such movement to fail.
On that note, I feel I must interject briefly into this article, some commentary on the stupidity of those who openly advocate rebellion. I am constantly amazed at these people. They repeatedly announce to the world (and the federal government) that this is what they intend! They post their intentions on their facebook walls, they tweet their intentions, they literally announce them all over the internet! Have these people ever heard of operational security or situational awareness? Do they really think that no one is watching? Do they really think the government doesn’t monitor blogs and social media (as well as email, and other electronic conversations)? The government has already announced, many times over, that this is exactly what they are doing! These people remind me of the character Edgar in the first Men In Black film. Edgar grabs his shotgun and goes to investigate the crash landing of an alien spacecraft on his property. The alien tells Edgar to drop his shotgun, and Edgar racks a round and with a voice full of bravado announces, “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands!” To which the alien responds, “Your proposition is acceptable” and promptly eats Edgar. This is what those who openly advocate for rebellion are doing! My advice – don’t be an Edgar! You will lose!
As I said, the federal government has vast resources at its disposal to put down any armed rebellion, and will do so without hesitation and without mercy. To be sure there are some who will not take up arms against their fellow citizens, but at the same time there are many more who will do so without a moments hesitation. To think otherwise is pure folly.
The ways and means of mounting an effective rebellion are not part of this article, nor will I write about such nonsense to be posted on the internet. I, for one, have no intention of encouraging sedition or treason, nor will I encourage anyone to engage in such folly; however, I do believe the time will come when small loosely organized groups of individuals will attempt it, and it will be a sad day indeed. The best I can hope for is a return to common sense, and a prayer for the safety of our country and my fellow Americans, for if and when such a day occurs we will all suffer together as the Jews suffered in Nazi Germany. This is my opinion, and I pray that time will prove me wrong.
Not a very uplifting message, not very encouraging, I know, but this is the way I see the gun control scenario playing out. I guess the best advice I can offer in this whole situation is, pray for the best, but prepare for the worst.
 Since the December 14th Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the dominant liberal media has been buzzing with commentators, activists, politicians, and celebrities calling for stringent gun control measures. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced a revision of the 1994 gun ban, which now includes virtually all popular handguns (in defiance of the Supreme Courts previous rulings) as well as “grenade launchers” and “rocket launchers” (which are already illegal to own). Michael Moore, the liberal version of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, has thrown in his two cents worth by trying to make gun ownership a racial issue, and CNN talking head Piers Morgan had called for a revision of the Second Amendment (as well as other sections of the U.S. Constitution and the Bible). Others have also jumped on the anti-gun band wagon like so many publicity hungry celebs busy muscling each other aside in order to get their five minutes of fame in front of the media’s cameras.
Naturally, the NRA and others on the right are trying to do their best to champion the Second Amendment’s guarantee of private gun ownership. In light of all the pro-gun and anti-gun hoopla, maybe it is time to tone it down a bit (or a lot!) and have a reasoned discussion on just how effective gun control really is.
In today’s news reports I have just read that Chicago has reached a total of 500 murders thus far this year. Of these homicides, all but 75 involved firearms. This is almost double the number of this year’s U.S. Troop casualties in Afghanistan as of December 6th! Amazing, especially when one considers that Afghanistan is a war zone and Chicago isn’t (or is it?). In addition to this horrendous number of homicides, Chicago has also experienced 2,640 non-fatal shootings as of December 19, 2012; and a total of 27, 982 violent crimes (including gun related crimes) thus far this year. The Chicago police department has stated that as of December 27, 2012 homicides were up 17 percent and shootings were up 11 percent over last year. By the way, in case you are now of the opinion that Chicago is a deadly city to live in, you should know that it did not make the FBI’s list of the 25 most dangerous cities of 2012. Yes, there are cities in America that are even more dangerous than Chicago!
In light of these shocking statistics from Chicago, one might come to the conclusion that Chicago must have some very lenient gun control laws. If so, however, one would be wrong. The fact is, Chicago has some very strict gun control laws. For example:
1. All residents of Chicago who wish to own a firearm are required to possess a “Firearm Owner’s Identification Card” or FOID (which is issued by the Illinois State Police) prior to owning a firearm in Chicago. Once the FOID application is submitted, the applicant must undergo an extensive background check which includes fingerprinting. If the FOID applicant has been convicted of a felony or an act of domestic violence, or is the subject of a protection order, or has been convicted of assault or battery, or has been a patient in a mental institution anytime during the five years preceding the application submission, or has been adjudicated as a mental defective, or is an illegal immigrant – the application is automatically denied and the applicant is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm in the city of Chicago.
2. Once the applicant passes the process and receives an FOID, the applicant will be required to have a Chicago Firearm Permit, before being allowed to possess a firearm in the city of Chicago. These permits cost $100 and must be renewed every three years. Before being issued the permit, the applicant must successfully complete a training course that includes at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time.
3. Once the FOID and the Chicago Firearm Permit are issued, the applicant must register each and every firearm with the Chicago Police Department, at a one-time cost of $15 per gun (plus an additional $15 for the registration of a handgun), and an annual registration report must be filed each year with the Chicago Police Department. Concealed Carry Licenses are not issued in the state of Illinois, and Illinois does not recognize any CCL issued by any other state. Open carry is also illegal in Chicago (and in Illinois, unless actively hunting or in a fixed place of business and with the owners permission). Gun possession is permitted only inside a dwelling. Not in a garage or outbuilding, nor on the outside grounds of the property; and only one gun at a time may be kept in a usable state. All others must be locked and or disabled and stored in the dwelling. When a firearm is being transported, it must be unloaded and enclosed in a case.
4. Possession and or ownership of the following firearms are strictly prohibited in the city of Chicago: Any fully automatic weapon; any assault weapon whether fully automatic or semi-automatic; any magazine that can hold more than 12 rounds (10 rounds in Cook County outside of Chicago city limits); short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns (historically accurate shirt barreled rifles are allowed if possessed for the purpose of historical reenactment by bona-fide members of a nationally recognized military reenactment organization). Chicago also prohibits the sale of firearms within the city limits.
And yet, in spite of these fairly stringent gun control laws, Chicago continues to experience thousands of gun related crimes each year. Clearly, Chicago’s gun control laws are not in the least bit effective.
Lest one may jump to the conclusion that Chicago’s horrendous crime rate involving firearms in spite of it strict gun control laws is nothing more than an anomaly, one need only take a look at the states of California, Alaska, Arizona, and Utah. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, California has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Conversely, Alaska, Arizona and Utah have the most lenient gun control laws in the nation. Lenient almost to the extent of being non-existent.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for 2011, California experienced 459,940 firearm related murders, 16,211 robberies in which a firearm was used by the criminals, and 16,965 assaults with firearms. These add up to a grand total of 493, 116 firearms related crimes in the state with the strictest gun control laws in the country. On the other side of the coin, the three states with the most lenient gun control laws (Alaska, Arizona and Utah) experienced a COMBINED total of 23,585 gun related crimes in 2011. According to these stats from the FBI, in the states where a large percentage of the population are armed, there are less gun related crimes than in the state with the strictest gun control laws.
Clearly, gun control laws are simply ineffective at reducing gun related crimes. At best, they do nothing more than keep honest people honest as the saying goes. So what is the problem, the real problem I mean. It obviously isn’t the guns themselves, and banning them or restricting them (or bullets) has never worked in any country, state or city that this has been tried. Every time gun control laws are enacted, the only people affected are those who are law abiding, and who would not use their guns to break the law. The only people who use firearms in the commission of a crime, are criminals, and that is who gun control laws should be targeting. This is a multi-faceted issue, however, and any solution offered must be multi-faceted as well.
The first issue that should be addressed is the number of firearms in the United States. No, I do not mean the legally registered firearms, nor even the total number of firearms owned by law abiding citizens. That number, or at least an approximation, is readily available. These guns, however, are not part of the problem. The number I am referring to here is the number of illegal firearms in the United States, and that number is unknown. Regardless of what anyone tells you, regardless of how “informed” they claim to be, no one really knows just how many illegal firearms are in the United States.
These illegal firearms are in the hands of criminals. They are in the hands of sociopathic and psychopathic individuals. Individuals who do not register their guns, who do not abide by any gun control laws, and who never will. These are the guns and “gun owners” who should be targeted by gun control laws, and not law abiding citizens.
Thousands of firearms are reported stolen each year. These firearms end up in the hands of criminals who either sell them on the black market, or use them to commit crimes, or both. Thousands of legitimate gun owners die each year. Their guns are likely to be given away, sold, destroyed, or turned in to local law enforcement. There is no way to accurately know just how many guns this entails, and some of those guns will likely end up in the hands of criminals.
At this point, many liberal gun control advocates will posit that if all guns were removed from the law abiding citizenry, then their guns will not end up in the hands of criminals. While is true to some extent, what they do not take into account is the comparative number of guns that criminals illegally acquire from legitimate gun owners.
In a study done involving criminals who used a firearm in the commission of a crime, 37 percent stated that they could illegally obtain a gun in less than a week. Another 20 percent stated it would take only a day or less to obtain an illegal firearm on the black market. A 1997 survey of incarcerated felons who had committed a crime while using a firearm showed that fewer than 2 percent obtained their gun from a flea market or gun show. Clearly, regulating these venues would be pointless. Another 12 percent stated that they obtained their gun from either a retail outlet or a pawn shop. Again, the current regulations for these venues seems sufficient. A whopping 80 percent, however, stated they obtained the guns they used to commit crimes from illegal street sources. The black market. 80 PERCENT! And there is absolutely no possible way to regulate illegal street sales of firearms. There is no waiting period, no background check, and all you need to purchase a black market gun is money or some other valuable item with which to barter. And according to estimates the illegal gun market has quite a selection with an estimated three to four times as many unregistered guns in the United States as there are registered guns. In New York City alone, there are an estimated three million unregistered firearms (what say you to that Mayor Bloomberg?)
Is gun control needed? Absolutely, but there needs to be a common sense approach to gun control legislation, and not the knee jerk reactionary legislation that seems to follow tragedies such as Sandy Hook. I would offer the following as possible solutions to the gun control issue:
1. Secure the borders. With the immense amount of human smuggling and drug smuggling and terrorist smuggling occurring, it naturally follows that firearms are involved. Drug cartels have already entered the United States via our porous southern border and they have committed several crimes involving firearms in the United States. It is a safe bet to say that they did not head to the closest Walmart to purchase their guns. No, they brought them with them. This includes guns sold to the cartels through the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” program. These guns have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the border. Effectively securing our borders and ports could substantially limit the number of firearms imported illegally into America.
2. Strengthen current sentencing laws. Homicides are not the only violent gun related crimes committed in America. Assault, rape, robbery, hijacking, home invasions, and kidnapping all often involve the use of at least one firearm. In fact, these other crimes combined account for more firearm related crimes than do homicides. In spite of this, often times the criminals who commit these crimes are allowed to plea bargain to a lesser charge, sometimes omitting weapons charges completely. This must change. If a firearm is used in the commission of any crime, the law should automatically prohibit any plea bargaining. If a firearm is used in the commission of any crime, the law should provide for a mandatory 20 year minimum sentence upon conviction and served consecutively – not concurrently – with any sentence arising from other charges related to the same crime, and without the possibility of parole. If the victim or victims of that crime are injured in any way through the use of that firearm, the mandatory minimum sentence should be doubled to 40 years without the possibility of parole. If the victim or victims die from the use of a firearm used in the commission of a crime, the minimum mandatory sentence should be life without the possibility of parole. All appeals for these convictions should be limited to three in a three year period following the initial conviction. After the three appeals in a three year period, all appeals are then exhausted unless undeniable and incontrovertible evidence as to the innocence of the person convicted can be submitted to the supreme court of the state within which the initial conviction occurred, at which point the supreme court of that state will make a final and unappealable decision regarding the initial firearm conviction.
3. Prison should be a deterrent. Which, of course, it currently is not. With television (sometimes big screen televisions), radio, computers, hobby shops, video games, carpeting, vending machines dispensing soda and snacks, specialty canteen items, and recreational opportunities that are better than many schools, health clubs and resorts; prison is nothing more than a vacation from life on the streets. In addition, prison is to the younger and more inexperienced inmate, a “crime college” where the younger inmate is schooled by the more experienced inmates in the finer points of criminal activity. How to make, market and distribute methamphetamine. How to avoid detection by home owners and law enforcement. How to elude and escape law enforcement. How to refine home invasion, robbery, theft, rape, murder and other criminal activities for the maximum benefit and minimum danger for the criminal. There should be no luxuries in prison. None. Prison is a warehouse for criminals to keep them off the streets and away from law abiding citizens. Nothing more. Rehabilitation only works if the inmate has a desire to be rehabilitated, and those programs should be available, but on a limited basis, and only for lower security inmates. By the way, I make these suggestions with almost 25 years experience working in level 3, 4, and 5 correctional facilities.
4. If an accidental injury occurs due to the improper handling, storage or transportation of a firearm, then the owner of that firearm is clearly too stupid to own a firearm, and their firearms should be immediately confiscated by law enforcement. The owner should then be banned from owning a firearm of any kind for a period of five years, and a 40 hour minimum firearms training course which includes all aspects firearm safety, must be successfully completed during each year of the owners firearms ban. This training course should be at the owner’s expense. This ban is a one time ban. If the owner has a second accidental injury after having his or her firearms returned, the ban then becomes a lifetime ban. If the owner cannot or will not successfully complete the above mentioned firearm training each year during the five year ban, the ban then becomes a lifetime ban.
5. Anyone convicted of a felony cannot own or possess a firearm of any kind. Ever. Anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor cannot own or possess a firearm of any kind. Ever. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective cannot own or possess a firearm of any kind. Ever. All illegal immigrants are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm of any kind. Anyone who has been a patient in a mental institution for more than thirty days, or has been a patient in a mental institution due to a violent act, cannot own or possess any kind of firearm for a minimum of five years following their release from that mental institution.
6. Anyone who owns or possess a firearm of any kind, and who also has living in their home a person who has been adjudicated or diagnosed as a mental defective or as having a mental illness of any kind, must be required to store said firearms in a locked metal storage container, with all ammunition stored in a separate locked metal storage container. These containers must be kept locked at all times unless the firearm is in the process of being transported to another location, or if the firearm is needed for self defense and/or protection. One firearm may be kept loaded for the purpose of self defense and/or protection, but must be kept in a locked metal container separate from all other locked metal firearm / ammunition containers, until ready to use.
7. A national database should be maintained within every state, and open to all law enforcement agencies nationwide (including mobile law enforcement units), which contains the name, address and other identifying information of any and all individuals who are banned from owning or possessing any firearm of any kind. Medical and psychiatric professionals must be required to submit to their local law enforcement agency the name, address and other identifying information – including diagnosis, of any patient they have diagnosed as unfit or unable to own or possess any firearm of any kind, for the purpose of including that patient in the national database of individuals banned from owning or possessing any firearm of any kid. In other words, registering firearms will not keep anyone safe. Registering those who are banned from owning or possessing firearms may save many lives.
These are only suggestions, but suggestions I think are more common sense than the knee jerk, emotional reactionary gun control laws that are being suggested by the liberal left. Make no mistake, they will pass some form of gun control, and I am sure that it will be one more step toward a total gun ban for all law abiding citizens for I believe this is what they ultimately want. Common sense alone tells us this.
-------------
Sources:
Alaska: 112 total firearm murders; 126 total firearm robberies; 560 total firearm assaults.
Total Firearm Related Crimes = 798
Arizona: 14,208 total firearm murders; 3,250 total firearm robberies; 3,705 total firearm assaults.
Total Firearm Related Crimes = 21,163
Utah: 728 total firearm murders; 308 total firearm robberies; 588 total firearm assaults.
Total Firearm Related Crimes = 1,624
California: 459,940 total firearm murders; 16,211 total firearm robberies; 16,965 total firearm assaults.
Total Firearm Related Crimes = 493,116
23,585 total gun related crimes in 2011 in Alaska, Arizona, and Utah COMBINED as compared to 493,116 total gun related crimes in California in 2011. The three states with the most lenient gun control laws as compared to the state with the strictest gun control laws.
(figures taken from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2011)
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-control-unregistered-firearms-and-the-black-market
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=205421
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-453977.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NON+COMPLIANCE+WHY+HAVEN%27T+CALIFORNIANS+REGISTER%20ED+ALL+THEIR+ASSAULT...-a083498405
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1952
http://tuccille.com/disloyal/2010/07/15/court-decision-aside-scofflaws-have-long-made-gun-control-unenforceable/
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/24/us/california-gun-control-law-runs-into-rebellion.html
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-453977.html
www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/.../Commerce_in_Firearms_2000.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/afmer/
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/droschart2010.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2000-firearms-manufacturers-export-report.pdf
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-vs-vehicle-deaths#table-tab
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/deaths-due-motor-vehicle-accidents-100k-minus-deaths-due-injury-firearms-100k#table-tab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
http://www.car-accidents.com/teen-car-accidents.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Chinese-man-drives-car-into-students-injuring-13-4144574.php
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Man-stabs-22-children-in-China
http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/281854?doredir=0&noredir=1#ixzz2G6U7IkMt
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/guns-safer.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm
http://www.drug-rehabs.org/articles/471/United_States_Annual_Causes_of_Deaths
http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/causes.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1604771
http://www.electricemperor.com/enter/how.html
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death
http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/bullying-discussions/general-support/2625526-is-bullying-illegal
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=54&ContentID=23041
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5635a2.htm
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/28/chicago-crime-statistics-new-york
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-2012-homicide-toll-20121228,0,5456581.story
http://www.examiner.com/article/fbi-releases-top-25-most-dangerous-cities-america-list-for-2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/WY/
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-27/news/ct-met-shooting-no-cooperation-20120827_1_shootings-chicago-police-homicides-and-other-cases
http://gis.chicagopolice.org/website/clearMap_crime_sums/viewer.htm?SUM&SUMCATA=VIOL&SUMTIME=365
 From Newsbusters: School Removes God From First-Grader's Poem By Noel Sheppard When the word "God" becomes inappropriate in public schools, America really has ceased to exist. Consider the story of a first-grade girl in West Marion, North Carolina, who had the word "God" stripped from a poem she wrote and was going to read at her school's Veterans Day assembly earlier this month. The poem honored her two grandfathers who served during the Vietnam War. “He prayed to God for peace," she wrote of one of them. "He prayed to God for strength.” Unfortunately, a parent found out about this, and complained to the school district. At a McDowell County Board of Education meeting last week, employee Chris Greene said, "We had one parent concerned with the use of the word God in this program. This parent did not want the word God mentioned anywhere in the program. When the demand from this person was heard, the rights of another stopped. It did so by hushing the voice of a six-year-old girl.” "I believe that this little girl’s rights were violated," Greene continued, "and that those who worked so hard to prepare this program should receive an apology.” “We need to keep in mind what was our country founded on,” said McDowell County resident Esther Dollarhyde. “It was founded on God and Jesus Christ, and our veterans went out and fought for us so we would have a free country, but if we aren’t allowed to honor them the way that the children want to then America is getting lost.” School Board member Lynn Greene told McDowell News, "My understanding on the law is a teacher cannot promote any certain religion, but when it comes to students voicing their opinion or expressing themselves in a poem we pretty much have to give some leeway. To me this whole thing is a violation of that child’s rights. Nobody forced her to write the poem, that was her part of the program. She was asked to write a poem about veterans and she did. My personal opinion is that her rights were violated.” After fully examining the issue during the BOE meeting, President and Chief Executive Officer Ken Paulson stated the school did in fact have the right to remove the word "God" from the child’s poem. Continue Reading Here
 Another great one that I didn't write, but is oh so true. And I can say that I remember all the things mentioned in this article, and if more folks practiced what we did back then, just think how better off we would all be.
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.
The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."
The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment f or future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truly recycled.
But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribbling. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.
But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart aleck young person.
|
RSS Feed
