Unless you are one of the lifetime welfare recipients in the country, chances are you either have a job or have had a job at some point in your life. Most employers have a set of guidelines that dictate how employees have to behave and how they have to perform while at work. This can include anything from how to dress, to what language they can use, production quotas, grooming standards, behavior models and any number of other things that are designed to maximize the benefit of the company and in lots of cases, the safety of the employees.
Often, these guidelines are in the form of an employee handbook. I have seen these come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them as small as a few pages stapled together, some of them professionally bound books of hundreds of pages. Typically, employees will have to sign a letter acknowledging that they have read, understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth within. Failure to do so can be met with discipline or even termination. Company also have agreements where employees can be prosecuted or even sued for breaking certain rules.
Everyone from McDonalds to Fortune 500 companies feature some form of employee handbooks. When a company hires an employee, it is no small thing for them. It often involves quite an investment of time and money. They expect the employee to step in and do the job they were hired to do and often put a lot of money into the process of making sure they are equipped to do so. When an employees fails to live up to his end of the bargain it can cost him his job and it can cost the company a great deal, from money, to time lost, to production lost or could make customer service suffer leading to loss of business. It is no small thing. Companies have the potential to be so adversely affected by this that it can lead to business failure in extreme cases. There is a reason that companies put so much effort into the crafting of these handbooks.
To a business owner, the vitality, growth and survival of the company is of immense importance. A company's survival and ability to thrive can also affect the lives of hundreds or thousands of other people. There was an essay written years ago called I, Pencil, by Leonard Read which describes among other economic ideas, the fact that the creation of an object as simple as a pencil involves the work, brainpower and capital of thousands of people. The catastrophic breakdown of any of the parts of such a system could negatively impact the entire process and send ten of thousands of people in search of another job. That may seem extreme, but the reality is, most businesses are just one such failure away from extinction.
What if there were such a business that could negatively affect the entire population in such a way? If the failure of this business could send the country into financial and social upheaval, shouldn't we all be concerned about its functionality? Of course we should. If its failure could send you to the poorhouse and put you in the city block long lines to obtain potatoes or toilet paper, you should be concerned. Concern is but a fraction of what you should be, you should take a vital interest. The same way that a small business owner takes a vital interest in the daily functions of his company. There is such a business, if you haven't guessed it by now, the federal government. It shouldn't be such a business, but here we are, it is what it is.
It be nice, if we, the people, as "owners" of this business could at the least expect the employees to operate by a code of conduct, an employee handbook. We should be able to hold our employees accountable for their performance, conduct and anything else that influences the way they perform the job we have hired them to do. This should apply to everyone from entry level employees of the myriad of agencies all the way up to the President of the United Stated. They should be contractually obligated to perform in the manner laid out in such a handbook. If they fail to uphold their end of the contract, they should be dealt with in such a way as is most beneficial to the company. We, as owners, should be able to set these terms. It should be laid out in as simple, yet the most all-inclusive way possible.
Mark Levin has a new book called the Liberty Amendments. In it he lays out how we, the people, through Article V of the Constitution can make amendments through a process on state levels. Congress will never make amendments that would curtail their power. The days of such men in office has passed, long passed. We cannot count on them to police themselves any longer. We need to be able to set the rules and enforce them. This "employee handbook" is my proposal to reign in the power hungry employees who have taken over the business and now dictate to the owners.
The time has come for us to take our country back.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
California Gun Grabbing
Two recent stories that caught my attention should send chills down your spine. The first talks about a recent session inside the Public Safety Committee of the California State Legislature. In that meeting, a total of six bills were advanced out of committee. All six bills are gun-grabbing measures advanced by the usual suspects in war on the second amendment. As part of the process, the committee heard testimony from both sides of the argument. One exchange featured Leland Yee, state senator and Sam Paredes, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California. During this exchange, Paderes called Yee out and corrected the fallacy that because of some "loophole" in a previous gun ban, there were now illegal guns on the street. Yee confronted Paderes and let his anger over being called out over his misrepresentations be known. You can read the story for yourself here, Inside the Committee. You can also watch just the video exchange between Yee and Paredes.
If Yee put half as much energy into getting criminals off of the streets as he does into creating new criminals out of law-abiding citizens, he might actually do some good for the state. His misguided progressive vision of Californian Utopia prevents him from doing anything that actually advances the cause of freedom and upholds our constitutional rights.
What troubles me, among many things, is illustrated by Yee every time he speaks on the subject. He has no idea what he is talking about. He ignores facts, makes up his own version of reality and uses this erroneous information to demolish the constitution which he is paid to and swore to uphold. He and his ilk are absolutely relentless in the pursuit of this end. Why do people continue to vote for people like Yee? I believe that there is a large chunk of society, that is otherwise smart enough to see the truth, that don't necessarily believe what these people say, but they want for it to be true. If they desire a thing to be true hard enough, maybe it will magically transform into truth. I don't know about you, but I don't like my liberties being decided by fairy tales.
Another story highlights the recent resolution passed by the Los Angeles Community College board of trustees to ban all firearms on all nine of its campuses. This effectively put an end to gun safety courses that had been taught here for the past six years. These courses were co-sponsered by the National Rifle Association and taught by Gerry Koehler, an NRA certified pistol instructor who is also certified by the California Dept of Justice for Handgun Safety training[1]. Koehler asked for an exception to use plastic toy guns in the classes, but they are specifically banned as well. No word on whether he could use Pop Tarts or not. The resolution goes so far as to ban use of the word "gun" in campus literature. That should make you feel safe.
The lunacy of this is far reaching. Board of Trustees Vice President Scott Svonkin had some very interesting things to say regarding this decision. Among them, this:
Why should you not expect them to protect you? Isn't that their job, to serve and protect? Not according to the supreme court, who spoke to the matter in Castle Rock v Gonzalez in 2005. Its not just an opinion of some NRA approved Dirty Harry, it's the law.
This is what I find scary. The law says, you are responsible for your own safety, yet the lawmakers are increasingly saying you are not responsible enough to defend yourself and are systematically taking your means to do so out of your hands. We can only hope that Sam Paderes and those like-minded individuals will ride this wave all the way to the supreme court and once there that the supreme court will uphold our second amendment rights as they have in the Heller decision.
Is hope enough? Don't rely on it. Don't rely on others to speak up for your rights. Don't become dependent on someone who is not responsible for your safety and freedom. You are responsible. Be so.
If Yee put half as much energy into getting criminals off of the streets as he does into creating new criminals out of law-abiding citizens, he might actually do some good for the state. His misguided progressive vision of Californian Utopia prevents him from doing anything that actually advances the cause of freedom and upholds our constitutional rights.
What troubles me, among many things, is illustrated by Yee every time he speaks on the subject. He has no idea what he is talking about. He ignores facts, makes up his own version of reality and uses this erroneous information to demolish the constitution which he is paid to and swore to uphold. He and his ilk are absolutely relentless in the pursuit of this end. Why do people continue to vote for people like Yee? I believe that there is a large chunk of society, that is otherwise smart enough to see the truth, that don't necessarily believe what these people say, but they want for it to be true. If they desire a thing to be true hard enough, maybe it will magically transform into truth. I don't know about you, but I don't like my liberties being decided by fairy tales.
Another story highlights the recent resolution passed by the Los Angeles Community College board of trustees to ban all firearms on all nine of its campuses. This effectively put an end to gun safety courses that had been taught here for the past six years. These courses were co-sponsered by the National Rifle Association and taught by Gerry Koehler, an NRA certified pistol instructor who is also certified by the California Dept of Justice for Handgun Safety training[1]. Koehler asked for an exception to use plastic toy guns in the classes, but they are specifically banned as well. No word on whether he could use Pop Tarts or not. The resolution goes so far as to ban use of the word "gun" in campus literature. That should make you feel safe.
The lunacy of this is far reaching. Board of Trustees Vice President Scott Svonkin had some very interesting things to say regarding this decision. Among them, this:
“I believe that the NRA’s goal is to promote gun ownership, and that guns lead to deaths,” he said. “So, not having the NRA teach classes, not having the NRA classes on our campuses, is a good thing. I’m much happier with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department protecting our students and our staff and our faculty than having some random person who took a three-hour class and thinks that they’re Dirty Harry.”
The implication that the NRA's goal is the cause of death by gun violence is pathetic. No one on that side of this debate ever seems to take into account personal responsibility. It is always the fault of the gun or an organization or something other that the person perpetrating the crime.
He is also happier with law enforcement protecting his campus. How happy was he when John Zawhari killed three people on campus before police could respond and kill him? This was after killing his father and brother then setting the house on fire. The same John Zawhari who several years earlier had threatened students and been found to have bomb-making materials in his possession. That infraction cost him the ability to own a firearm for 5 years. The killings took place seven years later. Maybe Leland Yee should think about a law where someone so demented should be locked away instead of counseled for a bit and then set free to do what he ultimately did.
Svonkin didn't mention how well he thought law enforcement protected his students, he just took the opportunity to equate students taking a gun safety course to legally armed citizens who could have protected themselves and others and possibly saved lives in that incident. Oh, but they couldn't have done that, right? Because they are just "Dirty Harrys". No, because that campus was already a "gun free zone" at the time of the rampage. That rampage was part of the reason they widened the "gun free zone" to all nine campuses. Great plan, allowing a killer to come unchallenged onto the campus and take three lives worked so well, that they have extended the plan to create the same scenario in eight other places ripe with defenseless targets. It boggles the mind...
Koehler is the only one who had anything sensible to say regarding this:
“Don’t expect the police or the government to protect you. YOU are the only one that can protect you and your family. Learn how to do it right. Learn how to do it safely.”
Why should you not expect them to protect you? Isn't that their job, to serve and protect? Not according to the supreme court, who spoke to the matter in Castle Rock v Gonzalez in 2005. Its not just an opinion of some NRA approved Dirty Harry, it's the law.
This is what I find scary. The law says, you are responsible for your own safety, yet the lawmakers are increasingly saying you are not responsible enough to defend yourself and are systematically taking your means to do so out of your hands. We can only hope that Sam Paderes and those like-minded individuals will ride this wave all the way to the supreme court and once there that the supreme court will uphold our second amendment rights as they have in the Heller decision.
Is hope enough? Don't rely on it. Don't rely on others to speak up for your rights. Don't become dependent on someone who is not responsible for your safety and freedom. You are responsible. Be so.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Trust
Trust me. We've all heard those words. We all have someone we trust, unconditionally. If they say they will do something, you can absolutely count on it. We've all had our trust taken for granted as well. Someone that we thought trustworthy let us down at a most inopportune time. It hurts. It is not so hard to build up trust, but it is extremely difficult to rebuild trust once broken. It's like bailing water out of a leaking boat using a bucket filled with holes. The only way to repair trust is to be trustworthy once again. Generally speaking, there is no way to rebuild it if it is broken a second time. The old adage, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" comes to mind.
What is trust? It has been defined as the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something;Confident expectation of something.
The question has been asked, repeatedly, do you trust the government. It was first asked, at least in a scientific poll back in November, 1958, during Eisenhower's second term as President. At that point, it was about 73% positive trust. It is currently(and I think optimistically) at 26% positive trust. What happened? With little exception, one being the Reagan era, the other being the post 9-11 patriotic surge in general sentiment, the rate of trust has hovered right around 30%. This graph appears in a Pew Research study on the subject[1]
What happened is that we have been inundated with so-called leaders that have shown themselves time and again to be untrustworthy. Moral character has not been a prevalent trait in our leaders for a long time. We have had scandal after scandal, abuse of power piled on top of itself, self-serving, liberty stealing individuals have dominated the national stage, and as such, public trust has plummeted. Is this a surprise? It shouldn't be. The government is not working that "fool me once/twice" game on us anymore, they are working the "fool me as many times as you can and dare me to do anything about it" game, and they have it down to a science.
Our founding fathers knew that our government's ability to defend and protect our liberty was dependent upon men of character being trusted with the task. They said so often. They knew, as wise men before them knew, that power corrupts. They argued about it, they debated the solutions and they wrote mechanisms into our constitution to battle such corruption. The problem we face, however, is that the corrupt have corrupted the process and found ways to ignore and supersede the protections.
Alexander Hamilton, in January of 1790, said:
Notice who he charged with keeping an eye on these scoundrels? You and I. We are responsible. While 26% of us seem to think they are trustworthy, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, 74% of us believe otherwise. It would be interesting to know the motivations behind those feelings of distrust. I suspect some of us "just feel" it. We need to be vigilant and stay on top of what is going on in Washington to the best of our abilities. We need to know how they have broken our trust. We need to share those reasons with others. We need to be careful though, we need research our facts so that when we are confronted, we can be sure about what we are saying. The danger of doing otherwise, is that we, ourselves, can become untrustworthy. For the sake of liberty, we need to be trustworthy.
There is a reason for the motto, "In God We Trust". He is the only one worthy...
What is trust? It has been defined as the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something;Confident expectation of something.
The question has been asked, repeatedly, do you trust the government. It was first asked, at least in a scientific poll back in November, 1958, during Eisenhower's second term as President. At that point, it was about 73% positive trust. It is currently(and I think optimistically) at 26% positive trust. What happened? With little exception, one being the Reagan era, the other being the post 9-11 patriotic surge in general sentiment, the rate of trust has hovered right around 30%. This graph appears in a Pew Research study on the subject[1]
What happened is that we have been inundated with so-called leaders that have shown themselves time and again to be untrustworthy. Moral character has not been a prevalent trait in our leaders for a long time. We have had scandal after scandal, abuse of power piled on top of itself, self-serving, liberty stealing individuals have dominated the national stage, and as such, public trust has plummeted. Is this a surprise? It shouldn't be. The government is not working that "fool me once/twice" game on us anymore, they are working the "fool me as many times as you can and dare me to do anything about it" game, and they have it down to a science.
Our founding fathers knew that our government's ability to defend and protect our liberty was dependent upon men of character being trusted with the task. They said so often. They knew, as wise men before them knew, that power corrupts. They argued about it, they debated the solutions and they wrote mechanisms into our constitution to battle such corruption. The problem we face, however, is that the corrupt have corrupted the process and found ways to ignore and supersede the protections.
Alexander Hamilton, in January of 1790, said:
States, like individuals, who observe their engagements, are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct.Fifteen years earlier, Samuel Adams said:
Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.
Notice who he charged with keeping an eye on these scoundrels? You and I. We are responsible. While 26% of us seem to think they are trustworthy, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, 74% of us believe otherwise. It would be interesting to know the motivations behind those feelings of distrust. I suspect some of us "just feel" it. We need to be vigilant and stay on top of what is going on in Washington to the best of our abilities. We need to know how they have broken our trust. We need to share those reasons with others. We need to be careful though, we need research our facts so that when we are confronted, we can be sure about what we are saying. The danger of doing otherwise, is that we, ourselves, can become untrustworthy. For the sake of liberty, we need to be trustworthy.
There is a reason for the motto, "In God We Trust". He is the only one worthy...
Monday, August 19, 2013
Back to School
It is that time of year when students venture into the first day of school in the classrooms of America, some for the first time, some for the last. Some are excited, some are nervous, some are scared and some couldn't care less. They are about to embark upon a year of learning. They may learn some incredibly valuable things over the next few months which will inform and direct their lives in a particular direction. They may learn some things that they never thought possible. They could learn concepts that send them in a direction towards the cure of cancer. They may learn that the guy two rows over that just stuck his tongue out at them will go on to be the best friend they will ever have. They may learn that with enough effort, anything is possible. They may learn that some people are just cruel.
There is no end to the possibilities. The future is an empty canvas, waiting to be filled with the most magnificent beauty imaginable. We can't teach them what to paint, only that painting is possible. We can't teach them what to see, only that they need to open their eyes and look. There are many things that we can't teach, but there are none that can't be learned. Let the journey begin.
History is filled with great teachers. We all have our favorites, those who reached us in a way that others didn't. Those who reached out to us in ways no one else tried. Those who understood their role as teachers and the importance of that job. That teacher in my life was a man named Tommy Esslinger. He didn't teach classic literature, American history, physics or some other subject thought to be "important". What subject he taught is largely irrelevant. What he taught was what no textbook ever included. He taught me that I mattered. He took the time to let me know he genuinely cared for me, not so much for what skill I learned in his classes, but for me, a fellow human being. He was not always the nicest guy. But he was always genuine. He taught me one other thing that I am forever indebted to him for. He taught me that it was OK to make a mistake or to fail, but it was not OK to let the mistake win. Tommy Esslinger was the favorite teacher of many students who came into contact with him. This is not by chance. Mr. Esslinger was a great teacher.
My wife and I debated at length about the education of our children. We finally decided that it was in their best interest to be home schooled. We are very fortunate to have someone in our lives who has helped us in this process, very fortunate. The things we try to teach them goes beyond reading, writing and arithmetic. We try to teach them everything that life will demand that they know if they are to be successful. At this point, the public schools here are not only abandoning those kinds of things, but they are teaching them things that are detrimental to that.
Samuel Adams, while Governor of Massachusetts, addressed the legislature in 1794. Included in his speech was the following passage: (emphasis mine)
Show me a public school, especially one operating under the tragedy of Common Core teaching, where they will learn those things. Reverence of God? Love of country? Search for truth? I see just the opposite in many, many instances.
I have no doubt that there are many great teachers in the system, I know several personally. I am confident that they do all they can to influence the students in their class in the ways that the Tommy Esslingers of the world do. What I do doubt, is that they have the freedom to do so effectively. The education system, as a whole, is a huge funnel, directing as many students as possible in a certain direction. I am not comfortable with that direction. I think it is dangerous and counter-productive to the future of our nation.
I encourage you to research what your child is being taught, and how. Find out for yourself what is being splashed across your child's canvas. If you don't like what you see, do something about it. But don't wait too long, paint dries fast and they only have one canvas.
Thank you Mr. Esslinger for everything you did.
There is no end to the possibilities. The future is an empty canvas, waiting to be filled with the most magnificent beauty imaginable. We can't teach them what to paint, only that painting is possible. We can't teach them what to see, only that they need to open their eyes and look. There are many things that we can't teach, but there are none that can't be learned. Let the journey begin.
History is filled with great teachers. We all have our favorites, those who reached us in a way that others didn't. Those who reached out to us in ways no one else tried. Those who understood their role as teachers and the importance of that job. That teacher in my life was a man named Tommy Esslinger. He didn't teach classic literature, American history, physics or some other subject thought to be "important". What subject he taught is largely irrelevant. What he taught was what no textbook ever included. He taught me that I mattered. He took the time to let me know he genuinely cared for me, not so much for what skill I learned in his classes, but for me, a fellow human being. He was not always the nicest guy. But he was always genuine. He taught me one other thing that I am forever indebted to him for. He taught me that it was OK to make a mistake or to fail, but it was not OK to let the mistake win. Tommy Esslinger was the favorite teacher of many students who came into contact with him. This is not by chance. Mr. Esslinger was a great teacher.
My wife and I debated at length about the education of our children. We finally decided that it was in their best interest to be home schooled. We are very fortunate to have someone in our lives who has helped us in this process, very fortunate. The things we try to teach them goes beyond reading, writing and arithmetic. We try to teach them everything that life will demand that they know if they are to be successful. At this point, the public schools here are not only abandoning those kinds of things, but they are teaching them things that are detrimental to that.
Samuel Adams, while Governor of Massachusetts, addressed the legislature in 1794. Included in his speech was the following passage: (emphasis mine)
It has been observed, that "education has a greater influence on manners, than human laws can have." Human laws excite fears and apprehensions, least crimes committed may be detected and punished: But a virtuous education is calculated to reach and influence the heart, and to prevent crimes. A very judicious writer, has quoted Plato, who in shewing what care for the security of States ought to be taken of the education of youth, speaks of it as almost sufficient to supply the place both of Legislation and Administration. Such an education, which leads the youth beyond mere outside shew, will impress their minds with a profound reverence of the Deity, universal benevolence, and a warm attachment and affection towards their country. It will excite in them a just regard to Divine Revelation, which informs them of the original character and dignity of Man; and it will inspire them with a sense of true honor, which consists in conforming as much as possible, their principles, habits, and manners to that original character. It will enlarge their powers of mind, and prompt them impartially to search for truth in the consideration of every subject that may employ their thoughts; and among other branches of knowledge, it will instruct them in the skill of political architecture and jurisprudence; and qualify them to discover any error, if there should be such, in the forms and administration of Governments, and point out the method of correcting them.
Show me a public school, especially one operating under the tragedy of Common Core teaching, where they will learn those things. Reverence of God? Love of country? Search for truth? I see just the opposite in many, many instances.
I have no doubt that there are many great teachers in the system, I know several personally. I am confident that they do all they can to influence the students in their class in the ways that the Tommy Esslingers of the world do. What I do doubt, is that they have the freedom to do so effectively. The education system, as a whole, is a huge funnel, directing as many students as possible in a certain direction. I am not comfortable with that direction. I think it is dangerous and counter-productive to the future of our nation.
I encourage you to research what your child is being taught, and how. Find out for yourself what is being splashed across your child's canvas. If you don't like what you see, do something about it. But don't wait too long, paint dries fast and they only have one canvas.
Thank you Mr. Esslinger for everything you did.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Audemus jura nostra defendere
Audemus jura nostra defendere
We Dare defend our rights! This is the motto of the State of Alabama. Taken from a poem by Sir William Jones, an eighteenth century English philologist titled "An Ode in Imitation of Alcaeus", also known as "What Constitutes a State". In that, he declares:
It seems to be somewhat more common recently to question anyone who would dare quote or base opinions on that tired old document known as the Constitution of the United States of America. We've heard such dependence on and adherence to called into question by legislators at all levels, the President, courts, up to and including the Supreme court and of course, the media. We've even heard them question whether or not the Founders really meant what they said when they wrote it.
I stand firm in my belief that not only did they mean what they said, but they were some of, if not the greatest visionaries the world has ever seen. They knew full well that we would encounter men who would make it their business to undo the freedoms that they expressed in their writings. The freedoms that Crispus Attucks, widely considered the first man to die in the American Revolution to Jamar Hicks, the most recent to die (as of this writing) in the ongoing war in Afghanistan, died for. The freedoms that roughly 2.75 millions Americans have died or been injured fighting to protect. The freedoms that have been and are now, systematically being rolled back, dismantled and outright abolished in many cases.
John Adams, a decade before the American Revolution, was already speaking of the necessity to defend our rights when he said:
James Madison, in 1792, said:
There are so many wise words, far beyond the few I've quoted here on how important our rights are and to what extent we should go to protect them.
You often hear the question, what would the founders do if they were alive today. I don't think that is difficult in the least to answer. Just read what they had to say. They would do everything in their power, which is well laid out in the Constitution, to return our rights to us and return our government to us, as it was designed, not this aberration that we have lording over us today. More than that, I think that the task they would face would be far less than that which we face, because they would have never let it become what it has. One things is for sure, they would wholeheartedly believe in the concept of audemus jura nostra defendere, we dare defend our rights!
Sam Adams summed it up well in 1771, when he said"
Not only should we dare to defend our liberty, but we have a duty to do so. A duty! We have a call to be responsible with our liberty, for it is not ours alone, we share it with our fellow men. If one of us shirks this duty, it diminishes the ability for other men to fight for theirs! We are at a place in history where it seems there are more people who are denouncing their responsibility to fight for their liberty than there are those who are standing up for it. If this trend continues, we as a nation will lose the ability to stand up and proclaim, audemus jura nostra defendere!
I dare, do you?
We Dare defend our rights! This is the motto of the State of Alabama. Taken from a poem by Sir William Jones, an eighteenth century English philologist titled "An Ode in Imitation of Alcaeus", also known as "What Constitutes a State". In that, he declares:
Men, who their duties know,But know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain,
Prevent the long-aimed blow,And crush the tyrant while they rend the chain
It seems to be somewhat more common recently to question anyone who would dare quote or base opinions on that tired old document known as the Constitution of the United States of America. We've heard such dependence on and adherence to called into question by legislators at all levels, the President, courts, up to and including the Supreme court and of course, the media. We've even heard them question whether or not the Founders really meant what they said when they wrote it.
I stand firm in my belief that not only did they mean what they said, but they were some of, if not the greatest visionaries the world has ever seen. They knew full well that we would encounter men who would make it their business to undo the freedoms that they expressed in their writings. The freedoms that Crispus Attucks, widely considered the first man to die in the American Revolution to Jamar Hicks, the most recent to die (as of this writing) in the ongoing war in Afghanistan, died for. The freedoms that roughly 2.75 millions Americans have died or been injured fighting to protect. The freedoms that have been and are now, systematically being rolled back, dismantled and outright abolished in many cases.
John Adams, a decade before the American Revolution, was already speaking of the necessity to defend our rights when he said:
Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.
James Madison, in 1792, said:
As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.We own our rights and we have the right to own them! A couple of days later, Madison wen on to say:
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his ownOur rights are to be protected by our government, not taken away!
There are so many wise words, far beyond the few I've quoted here on how important our rights are and to what extent we should go to protect them.
You often hear the question, what would the founders do if they were alive today. I don't think that is difficult in the least to answer. Just read what they had to say. They would do everything in their power, which is well laid out in the Constitution, to return our rights to us and return our government to us, as it was designed, not this aberration that we have lording over us today. More than that, I think that the task they would face would be far less than that which we face, because they would have never let it become what it has. One things is for sure, they would wholeheartedly believe in the concept of audemus jura nostra defendere, we dare defend our rights!
Sam Adams summed it up well in 1771, when he said"
The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.
Not only should we dare to defend our liberty, but we have a duty to do so. A duty! We have a call to be responsible with our liberty, for it is not ours alone, we share it with our fellow men. If one of us shirks this duty, it diminishes the ability for other men to fight for theirs! We are at a place in history where it seems there are more people who are denouncing their responsibility to fight for their liberty than there are those who are standing up for it. If this trend continues, we as a nation will lose the ability to stand up and proclaim, audemus jura nostra defendere!
I dare, do you?
Friday, August 16, 2013
Courage
Recently, I saw this photo that really struck me:
As with any photo, there is a story behind it. It turns out neither the guy about to die, nor the executioners are anyone I'd associate with. The guy was a member of the German Communists who were defeated, rounded up and executed in 1919. The armed squad were German Socialists, who would eventually give rise to the National Socialists. You probably remember them as the Nazi Party. All of that being what it is, this photo still says so much. The young man is defiant. He looks less scared than some of those holding rifles to me. The message I get from this photo is, you could not kill my spirit, so you are forced to kill me instead.
Now I certainly hope I'm never put into a position like this, nor anyone else for that matter, but I wish more people had this man's attitude right now. Stand for what you believe in!
This photo reminded me of another historical photo that speaks to me in a very similar way.
As with any photo, there is a story behind it. It turns out neither the guy about to die, nor the executioners are anyone I'd associate with. The guy was a member of the German Communists who were defeated, rounded up and executed in 1919. The armed squad were German Socialists, who would eventually give rise to the National Socialists. You probably remember them as the Nazi Party. All of that being what it is, this photo still says so much. The young man is defiant. He looks less scared than some of those holding rifles to me. The message I get from this photo is, you could not kill my spirit, so you are forced to kill me instead.
Now I certainly hope I'm never put into a position like this, nor anyone else for that matter, but I wish more people had this man's attitude right now. Stand for what you believe in!
This photo reminded me of another historical photo that speaks to me in a very similar way.
In this huge crowd of people who may either believe in whatever Nazi propaganda they are hearing or not, there is one guy who is not capitulating. All of the others have given up. Not him. He stands there with his arms crossed just daring anyone to question why he is not saluting. There almost seems to be a human buffer around him because no one wants to be mistaken as being with him. Maybe they just want to avoid the errant shot. Whatever the reason, they stand in support of something that he perceives as evil. He is the only one willing to stand for what he believes in. Granted, some of the crowd may have been taken in, but almost all of them seem to be civilians. Most civilians at that time still held that status because they had not joined the Nazi party. That is what leads me to my conclusion that he is one of the few that is standing for what he truly believes. We don't know the exact fate of this man, but we do know this. Live or die, he had courage.
That brings me to one more photo that I absolutely love.
I know nothing about the history of this photo except that it appears to be from World War 2. I have imagined what appears obvious. The soldier being carried was wounded to the point of not being able to walk. He has also lost his rifle, either literally or from lack of ammunition or the ability to fire it. His buddy gave up his ability to fight in order to carry him, who knows how far, through ankle deep mud while still being accosted by the enemy. The injured soldier returns fire with his side arm.
This photo speaks to me on a couple of levels. First, you are not out of the fight until you are no longer able to fight. Never give up! Second, never leave a man behind. This guy is risking his own life to save his injured comrade. This photo is one of my favorites from World War 2. There are a lot of great photos out there, some depicting some incredibly important, transcendent and historical moments, but this one tells an incredible story.
All three of these photos speak loudly to the value of human spirit. In the face of some of the most horrible situations men have ever faced and most of humanity will never face, courage shined through. We should take these example and be inspired by them. What our nation is facing right now is bad, no doubt about that. Are we, as individuals, facing situations as perilous as these four guys though? Well, that is debatable. In the present, probably not. But if we don;t have the courage to stand up fpr what we believe in, for what believe to be right, then we may as well be facing the same thing these guys faced. If we don;t stand now, we may actually face something like this in the future. I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but I would bet that none of these men felt they would have to face what they are facing in these photos 5 years before they were taken. I would imagine, based on these photos, if they did know what they would be facing, they would have stood even more firm in resistance.
I don't know about you, but if there is a way to turn things around by standing up now for what I believe in, I find that much more appealing than having to stand up the way these men did, after the fact. You may not feel that you need to stand up now, but I wonder what you'll feel if you ever have to stand and face what these men faced. I much prefer the former over the latter.
Abraham Lincoln had something to say about this. Consider these two quotes and then determine for yourself, where and how you stand.
Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.
I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Ambushed: A Comparison
If you were in a war and found yourself in an ambush situation, there are a few things you would rely heavily on to stay alive.
Movement- A stationary target soon becomes a dead target.
Return fire- Take every opportunity to shoot back. If you can eliminate the threat, you don't die.
Firepower- Pull out the biggest, meanest weapon you have. Don't rely on a .45 when you have an M16.
Ammunition- If you don't have enough ammunition, you may as well not have a gun.
Support- If you have buddies around you or even better, air support to drop the big guns on them, use them.
Training/Intelligence- The skills you have been taught and as much information as you can find about the current situation.
Tenacity- Use every skill and trick that you know to keep your enemy off balance and on the run.
Perseverance- Never give up.
If you were to employ all of these, together, you would stand a decent chance of not only surviving, but winning your battle. You could also be defeated. If you take that attitude into a battle, however, you have given yourself a huge setback right from the start. General Eisenhower once said, "Pessimism never won any battle". If you don't think you can win, why are you there in the first place? Knowing that you may die, but fighting like you have to win, means the battle is worth fighting. If a battle is worth fighting, then it's worth fighting to the finish and fighting to win.
We need lawmakers who understand that this can apply to any battle they face, not just one where bad guys are trying to shoot you with an AK-47. How does this apply to congress?
Movement. Don't just stand still and become complacent. The status quo will get nothing done. Being conservative does not, as some would have you believe, mean fighting change. If you want to define so simply, it means fighting against progressives and their freedom destroying ideals and fighting for those freedoms that are God given and constitutionally protected. They need to get busy. Don't just stand there and watch our country fall further into the post-constitutional soft tyranny that it is rapidly becoming. We aren't paying them to hold the carpet down in congress, we are paying them to work, for us.
Return fire. When we are in the minority, it seems to become the modus operendi to just try and rely on "no" votes. News flash, when you are in the minority, "no" won't do it. They need to fire back with every tool they have. Create useful legislation. Put people's feet to the fire by bringing votes to the floor. Work behind the scenes in committees. Use the power that they have, and they have many. Stand in front of every camera that presents itself and get the message out to the public. Let the public join the fight in contacting their representatives. There are countless ways to fight back, but occasionally pointing the legislative "weapons" that they possess will do nothing unless they pull the trigger!
Firepower. Pull out the big guns, don't just sit around occasionally firing a cap gun. We have a few Senators that are not afraid to make some noise in this manner, far too few. When Rand Paul stood up and filibustered for half a day, it made noise, a lot of noise. He was cheered wildly from one side and attacked viciously from the other. He was noticed, to say the least. When Ted Cruz stands up and speaks his mind, people know it. When he challenged Dianne Feinstein over the second amendment, she was visibly upset. Although I'm sure she has spoken, I can't remember very much news about her since that happened. This was a freshman Senator taking on an establishment Senator that has been in office for over twenty years. He was armed to the teeth when he did that. A constitutional lawyer who argued the Heller decision before the Supreme Court taking on a lifetime politician who doesn't know the difference between a handgun and a rifle. These and a few others are not afraid to stand up and speak for what is right, regardless of any perceived consequences they may incur. We need more who will use the power that they have been given to do what the people expect of them.
Ammunition. Occasionally one will stand up and fire a shot off. Then the progressive machines throws a fusillade back at them and they slink back behind their desk and start worrying about re-election. What they need to do is re-load! Facts are deadly to the left. There is a never-ending supply of facts on most of the issues that we face, from gun control to health care to environmental issues. Nothing irritates me more that when some well-meaning person uses the phrase in a gun control debate, "guns don't kill people...", and then have not mush else to say. They are right in that statement, but it is useless by itself. There is an almost unlimited amount of data surrounding this issue. Why won't they use them? John Lott has written several extremely useful books on the subject. He is not alone. We need to get these facts into the fight. This issue is only one of the many examples where this is true.
Support. When Rand Paul filibustered, he started out alone. When he finished, it was standing room only, not just in the Senate chambers, but around the country. He had people like Cruz and Lee and dozens of others take stretches of his time to not only give him a breather, but also to throw a few volleys of their own. We sometimes see one of them reach out to the public for assistance on various issues, petitions, rallies and the like. We need to see them call for support from experts on issues, from each other and from the general public more often. Ronald Reagan reached out to the public often, with great success. One Senator doesn't stand much of a chance against the other ninety-nine. But one Senator with a great idea who can enunciate that to his comrades and to the millions of constituents across the country can soon amass an undefeatable force. They need to be willing to not only ask for help, but accept it when offered.
Training/Intelligence. I keep using Ted Cruz as an example because he is such a good one. He is an expert in constitutional law. I suspect he and many of our representatives were schooled in debate. We have doctors, lawyers, military, businessmen and who knows what other areas of expertise representing us in Washington. All have a unique set of qualifications and educational experiences. Yet when they get there, most seem to forget that and just engage in verbal jousting. This is falling into the trap and the method of the progressives. They need to use what they know to take the fight to them, not let the other side use what they know to accomplish this endless cycle of derision while they pass unconstitutional liberty-killing laws behind our backs. They also have an unlimited network that can keep them up to speed on what is going on. They need to use this intelligence. How often do we here, "I don't know" when asked a question on an issue? They should be well versed on the issues and able to speak clearly about them. Ignorance is no excuse.
Tenacity. This is a tactic where conservatives could learn a thing or two from progressives. If the left loses a vote, they bring another. If that fails, they use some administrative agency or executive order. If that fails, they bring a lawsuit. If that fails, they do it anyway. Meanwhile, the progressive mouthpieces, like Jackson, Sharpton, Moore, Gore and the media never stop spewing rhetoric and shouting down their opponents. The progressives have been working hard at turning this country upside down since the late 1800's, and they have made huge strides in doing so. Those of us who wish to see the country returned to the guiding principles that the founding fathers put into place have been complacent, at best, collectively. We too often think the next election or next vote can turn things around. Remember how long long it has taken the progressives to get us into this position, it will probably take us that long to get it back if we ever get ourselves together. We cannot sit back and hope something changes. We have to change it and we have to be ever vigilant as we do so. The progressive never stops attacking, we have to have that mentality if things are to be changed.
Perseverance. Once we get all of that together, we cannot stop, ever. If this country is ever to remain what it was founded to be, we have to be constantly on guard. Evil isn't going away any time soon, and until it does, we have to guard against it. We, those who love and remember why we exist as a nation, are not just the best hope, we are the only hope. We need to return to, depend on and defend those principles that made America the great nation that it was and can be again. We need leaders, from among us, that will stand for these ideals.
Cicero once said:
Our biggest battle for the survival of this nation has not and will not be fought on the battlefields of the world, it has been and will continue to be fought in the halls and chambers of our houses of government. On every level from school boards to city councils to the houses of congress in Washington DC. We cannot lose this battle.
Movement- A stationary target soon becomes a dead target.
Return fire- Take every opportunity to shoot back. If you can eliminate the threat, you don't die.
Firepower- Pull out the biggest, meanest weapon you have. Don't rely on a .45 when you have an M16.
Ammunition- If you don't have enough ammunition, you may as well not have a gun.
Support- If you have buddies around you or even better, air support to drop the big guns on them, use them.
Training/Intelligence- The skills you have been taught and as much information as you can find about the current situation.
Tenacity- Use every skill and trick that you know to keep your enemy off balance and on the run.
Perseverance- Never give up.
If you were to employ all of these, together, you would stand a decent chance of not only surviving, but winning your battle. You could also be defeated. If you take that attitude into a battle, however, you have given yourself a huge setback right from the start. General Eisenhower once said, "Pessimism never won any battle". If you don't think you can win, why are you there in the first place? Knowing that you may die, but fighting like you have to win, means the battle is worth fighting. If a battle is worth fighting, then it's worth fighting to the finish and fighting to win.
We need lawmakers who understand that this can apply to any battle they face, not just one where bad guys are trying to shoot you with an AK-47. How does this apply to congress?
Movement. Don't just stand still and become complacent. The status quo will get nothing done. Being conservative does not, as some would have you believe, mean fighting change. If you want to define so simply, it means fighting against progressives and their freedom destroying ideals and fighting for those freedoms that are God given and constitutionally protected. They need to get busy. Don't just stand there and watch our country fall further into the post-constitutional soft tyranny that it is rapidly becoming. We aren't paying them to hold the carpet down in congress, we are paying them to work, for us.
Return fire. When we are in the minority, it seems to become the modus operendi to just try and rely on "no" votes. News flash, when you are in the minority, "no" won't do it. They need to fire back with every tool they have. Create useful legislation. Put people's feet to the fire by bringing votes to the floor. Work behind the scenes in committees. Use the power that they have, and they have many. Stand in front of every camera that presents itself and get the message out to the public. Let the public join the fight in contacting their representatives. There are countless ways to fight back, but occasionally pointing the legislative "weapons" that they possess will do nothing unless they pull the trigger!
Firepower. Pull out the big guns, don't just sit around occasionally firing a cap gun. We have a few Senators that are not afraid to make some noise in this manner, far too few. When Rand Paul stood up and filibustered for half a day, it made noise, a lot of noise. He was cheered wildly from one side and attacked viciously from the other. He was noticed, to say the least. When Ted Cruz stands up and speaks his mind, people know it. When he challenged Dianne Feinstein over the second amendment, she was visibly upset. Although I'm sure she has spoken, I can't remember very much news about her since that happened. This was a freshman Senator taking on an establishment Senator that has been in office for over twenty years. He was armed to the teeth when he did that. A constitutional lawyer who argued the Heller decision before the Supreme Court taking on a lifetime politician who doesn't know the difference between a handgun and a rifle. These and a few others are not afraid to stand up and speak for what is right, regardless of any perceived consequences they may incur. We need more who will use the power that they have been given to do what the people expect of them.
Ammunition. Occasionally one will stand up and fire a shot off. Then the progressive machines throws a fusillade back at them and they slink back behind their desk and start worrying about re-election. What they need to do is re-load! Facts are deadly to the left. There is a never-ending supply of facts on most of the issues that we face, from gun control to health care to environmental issues. Nothing irritates me more that when some well-meaning person uses the phrase in a gun control debate, "guns don't kill people...", and then have not mush else to say. They are right in that statement, but it is useless by itself. There is an almost unlimited amount of data surrounding this issue. Why won't they use them? John Lott has written several extremely useful books on the subject. He is not alone. We need to get these facts into the fight. This issue is only one of the many examples where this is true.
Support. When Rand Paul filibustered, he started out alone. When he finished, it was standing room only, not just in the Senate chambers, but around the country. He had people like Cruz and Lee and dozens of others take stretches of his time to not only give him a breather, but also to throw a few volleys of their own. We sometimes see one of them reach out to the public for assistance on various issues, petitions, rallies and the like. We need to see them call for support from experts on issues, from each other and from the general public more often. Ronald Reagan reached out to the public often, with great success. One Senator doesn't stand much of a chance against the other ninety-nine. But one Senator with a great idea who can enunciate that to his comrades and to the millions of constituents across the country can soon amass an undefeatable force. They need to be willing to not only ask for help, but accept it when offered.
Training/Intelligence. I keep using Ted Cruz as an example because he is such a good one. He is an expert in constitutional law. I suspect he and many of our representatives were schooled in debate. We have doctors, lawyers, military, businessmen and who knows what other areas of expertise representing us in Washington. All have a unique set of qualifications and educational experiences. Yet when they get there, most seem to forget that and just engage in verbal jousting. This is falling into the trap and the method of the progressives. They need to use what they know to take the fight to them, not let the other side use what they know to accomplish this endless cycle of derision while they pass unconstitutional liberty-killing laws behind our backs. They also have an unlimited network that can keep them up to speed on what is going on. They need to use this intelligence. How often do we here, "I don't know" when asked a question on an issue? They should be well versed on the issues and able to speak clearly about them. Ignorance is no excuse.
Tenacity. This is a tactic where conservatives could learn a thing or two from progressives. If the left loses a vote, they bring another. If that fails, they use some administrative agency or executive order. If that fails, they bring a lawsuit. If that fails, they do it anyway. Meanwhile, the progressive mouthpieces, like Jackson, Sharpton, Moore, Gore and the media never stop spewing rhetoric and shouting down their opponents. The progressives have been working hard at turning this country upside down since the late 1800's, and they have made huge strides in doing so. Those of us who wish to see the country returned to the guiding principles that the founding fathers put into place have been complacent, at best, collectively. We too often think the next election or next vote can turn things around. Remember how long long it has taken the progressives to get us into this position, it will probably take us that long to get it back if we ever get ourselves together. We cannot sit back and hope something changes. We have to change it and we have to be ever vigilant as we do so. The progressive never stops attacking, we have to have that mentality if things are to be changed.
Perseverance. Once we get all of that together, we cannot stop, ever. If this country is ever to remain what it was founded to be, we have to be constantly on guard. Evil isn't going away any time soon, and until it does, we have to guard against it. We, those who love and remember why we exist as a nation, are not just the best hope, we are the only hope. We need to return to, depend on and defend those principles that made America the great nation that it was and can be again. We need leaders, from among us, that will stand for these ideals.
Cicero once said:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
Our biggest battle for the survival of this nation has not and will not be fought on the battlefields of the world, it has been and will continue to be fought in the halls and chambers of our houses of government. On every level from school boards to city councils to the houses of congress in Washington DC. We cannot lose this battle.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Illegitimi non carborundum
I watched a film a while back called, Agenda:Grinding America Down. In the film, there was a phone message left by an older gentleman to a state representative. He was giving his support for a position the representative had taken on an issue. He ended the brief call by saying, "don't let them grind you down". The sincerity of the man along with the message and specifically, this phrase, struck me. I began using the phrase quite a bit when giving support to people, mainly on Twitter. It seemed to be a very appropriate thing to say to encourage someone to keep up the good fight. I love the phrase.
I believe that we not only have the freedom to speak up, but we have a responsibility to do so. I spoke of this in my initial post here. You can read that if you would like to know more of my thoughts on that. Responsible Liberty
If we don't take an active role in our own freedom, who will? Our government is one that is hell-bent on removing the freedoms that we so enjoy. If we don't speak up, we might just soon find out that our silence is no longer optional.
Illegitimi non carbonundrum! Don't let them grind you down!
Last week, after posting a letter I had written to quite a few state representatives regarding multiple new pieces of gun control legislation I oppose, A friend of mine, who I admire, politely suggested that maybe I should be careful about voicing such an opinion to those in positions of power in our government. His thought was that I could very easily end up on some list targeted by the government. My response in part said that if I wasn't already on every list they have, someone wasn't doing their job properly. I suspect, as many list as exist, I am on a number of them for various reasons. My stance on liberty, the constitution, gun rights, abortion, environmental issues and displeasure with our current president among others. They know I'm out here. I want them to know that I'm out here.
When I thought about what my friend said, it really illustrated a large part of the problem to me. The powers that be want for us to be silent. They want for us to be afraid to speak up. They want for us to slide back into the herd and let them lead us around the pastures of their choosing. People that speak the truth are a danger to this administration. As long as truth exists, they can;t hide behind lies. Truth exists on its on, but it also needs a voice to proclaim it to those who are otherwise deaf and blind to it.
As I was thinking about writing this, I was drawn back to the phrase, "don't let them grind you down". That is the goal, to shout down those that would speak the truth, to badger them into submission, and to silence them and the truth they proclaim. I will not, willingly, be silenced. I don't think anyone who chooses to speak up should ever bend to the pressures to be quiet. The progressives/liberals/statists use this as one of their main tactics to get what they want. Silence the opposition and the opposition, in essence, goes away.
I was trying to remember, specifically, where I heard the phrase so I could include it here. It took me a few minutes to dig it up, but in the process, I found all kinds of information on it. Information I had previously been unaware of. It originated during World War II and has been used by General "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell, Barry Goldwater and oddly enough, current speaker of the house, John Boehner(who has seemed to do just the opposite and let them grind him down). Illegitimi non carborundum is the phrase originally used and is a kind of fake Latin aphorism meaning "Don;t let the bastards grind you down". Learning this, I was even more enamored with the gentleman in the movie who used the phrase. I can only guess, he knew more of it's history than I did.
Our founders and others knew the importance of being able to speak our minds. The first amendment to the constitution tells us this to begin with. Freedom of speech is essential in maintaining liberty. Benjamin Franklin wrote years before:
Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.Frederick Douglass said of free speech:
To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.Charles Bradlaugh, a famous atheist who I disagree with on many things, said:
Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful.With that, I agree whole-heartedly. This is the beauty of free speech, it gives those with a voice, the freedom to use it. We don't have to agree with what is being said, but we must agree with our rights to say it. If we abridge unpopular speech, we have essentially abridged speech of any kind, especially in the partisan world in which we live today.
I believe that we not only have the freedom to speak up, but we have a responsibility to do so. I spoke of this in my initial post here. You can read that if you would like to know more of my thoughts on that. Responsible Liberty
If we don't take an active role in our own freedom, who will? Our government is one that is hell-bent on removing the freedoms that we so enjoy. If we don't speak up, we might just soon find out that our silence is no longer optional.
Illegitimi non carbonundrum! Don't let them grind you down!
Saturday, June 29, 2013
An Open Apology
I feel that I must apologize for something.
My family of four was sitting in Chic-Fil-A eating dinner last night. We were enjoying our sandwiches, nuggets and salads like we do any other time we eat there. There was a group of four young people sitting nearby, laughing, eating and generally acting like 17 tear old people act. During the course of dinner, in the midst of their loud conversation, one of them started berating someone they knew. She talked about how much she hated her and capped it off with, "F--- her!" My wife and I both spun around and gave her the evil eye of disapproval. She turned, kind of half-way embarrassed and said "sorry", with a laugh in her voice and her eyes. My wife, who was probably equally embarrassed, said "that's OK", to which I loudly replied, "no, it's not OK".
I know that no less than 3 other families heard her loud and clear. She made no effort to apologize to any of them and really only ceremoniously did so to my wife. The teens continued their conversation much in the same way, but I never heard any other profanity.
I fought with myself for the rest of dinner to get up and say something to her. I'm not quite sure why I didn't. Maybe it was out of respect for the restaurant, not wanting to make a scene. Maybe it was the thought that these four teens might react in a way that would cause someone to get hurt, either me, them or any of the other people sitting nearby. Whatever it was that kept me from getting up, I regret. I should have gotten up.
So now, I want to apologize. I want to apologize to that young lady.
You were sorry? No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you grew up in a home where respect for other people was not taught. I'm sorry that your parents are part of a society that places no value in values. I'm sorry that you were never taught what it means to be polite or to respect your elders, like the elderly couple that was sitting at the table next to you. I'm sorry that you weren't shown by example how to respect children, like mine, 8 and 5, or the other four sitting nearby of similar ages. I'm sorry that our culture is such that you think its acceptable to speak that way in public.
I'm sorry that none of the friends you were with were even slightly embarrassed at your behavior. Their parents also are failing them in allowing them to grow up with the attitudes they possess. I'm sorry that your parents place whatever ideals it is that they place ahead of raising children. I'm sure they provide for your needs as you all had iPhones and nice clothes. I'm sorry that they haven't taught you the value of hard work. I'm sorry that they haven't instilled in you any values or moral code that would make you feel even slightly remorseful for the way you behave. I'm sorry that you were never disciplined.
I'm sorry that your schools are filled with the thoughts of encouraging you to do whatever you want to do without regard for consequences. I'm sorry that they are so afraid to instill real values into your education that they are handcuffed by fear of what your parents or the courts might do to them if they actually have the nerve to teach you or discipline you when you act this way in class. I'm sorry that they feel that it is more important to suspend you for chewing a pop-tart into a banned shape instead of teaching you how our founders and subsequently millions of soldiers used weapons that were not pop-tarts to establish and defend this country from our enemies. I'm sorry.
I want to further apologize to you for having to live in a society where people like me feel like trying to do the right thing and show you the error of your ways may cause us to be arrested or sued. I'm sorry that our justice system is tilted in the favor of those who will sit still for anything over those who will stand for something. I'm sorry that our society places more value in things that degrade the family instead of building it up. I'm sorry that they can't see the results, but that my family has to witness the results while trying to enjoy dinner. I'm sorry that they will push even harder to get across the next hurdle to breaking down the family for good.
I'm sorry that you are so inspired by our leaders who will apologize all over the world for being a nation that had values that we stood by for so many years. I'm sorry that our leaders will praise celebrities who display values that go against the kind of values that create people who don't behave in the way that you do. I'm sorry that our nations highest courts, lawmakers and executives lead you by example in the way they display a lack of morals and no desire to strive for what is right. I'm sorry that society has practically abolished the concept of right and wrong or good and evil.
I'm sorry that you can't pick up a magazine or go to a movie or see a television show where sex and violence isn't the main theme. I'm sorry that Hollywood has chosen to do as much as it can to separate you from reality. I'm sorry that the games you have to play have to include a warning on the box for violence and adult themes. I'm sorry that the music you listen to is so full of vile ideas and words that would cause Paula Deen to lose her career but the people that sing the songs are hailed as heroes and role models. I'm sorry that your biggest influence growing up was probably Spongebob Squarepants.
Above all, I'm sorry that I didn't get up and say all of this to you in person. I'm sorry that I spared you the discomfort of hearing someone tell you what they think about your behavior. I'm sorry that I didn't make you squirm in your seat for fifteen minutes while I tried to do what all of these influences in your life failed to do. I'm sorry that so many other people will have to hear you say the same kinds of things, over and over until you are replaced by your own children.
I am truly sorry...
My family of four was sitting in Chic-Fil-A eating dinner last night. We were enjoying our sandwiches, nuggets and salads like we do any other time we eat there. There was a group of four young people sitting nearby, laughing, eating and generally acting like 17 tear old people act. During the course of dinner, in the midst of their loud conversation, one of them started berating someone they knew. She talked about how much she hated her and capped it off with, "F--- her!" My wife and I both spun around and gave her the evil eye of disapproval. She turned, kind of half-way embarrassed and said "sorry", with a laugh in her voice and her eyes. My wife, who was probably equally embarrassed, said "that's OK", to which I loudly replied, "no, it's not OK".
I know that no less than 3 other families heard her loud and clear. She made no effort to apologize to any of them and really only ceremoniously did so to my wife. The teens continued their conversation much in the same way, but I never heard any other profanity.
I fought with myself for the rest of dinner to get up and say something to her. I'm not quite sure why I didn't. Maybe it was out of respect for the restaurant, not wanting to make a scene. Maybe it was the thought that these four teens might react in a way that would cause someone to get hurt, either me, them or any of the other people sitting nearby. Whatever it was that kept me from getting up, I regret. I should have gotten up.
So now, I want to apologize. I want to apologize to that young lady.
You were sorry? No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you grew up in a home where respect for other people was not taught. I'm sorry that your parents are part of a society that places no value in values. I'm sorry that you were never taught what it means to be polite or to respect your elders, like the elderly couple that was sitting at the table next to you. I'm sorry that you weren't shown by example how to respect children, like mine, 8 and 5, or the other four sitting nearby of similar ages. I'm sorry that our culture is such that you think its acceptable to speak that way in public.
I'm sorry that none of the friends you were with were even slightly embarrassed at your behavior. Their parents also are failing them in allowing them to grow up with the attitudes they possess. I'm sorry that your parents place whatever ideals it is that they place ahead of raising children. I'm sure they provide for your needs as you all had iPhones and nice clothes. I'm sorry that they haven't taught you the value of hard work. I'm sorry that they haven't instilled in you any values or moral code that would make you feel even slightly remorseful for the way you behave. I'm sorry that you were never disciplined.
I'm sorry that your schools are filled with the thoughts of encouraging you to do whatever you want to do without regard for consequences. I'm sorry that they are so afraid to instill real values into your education that they are handcuffed by fear of what your parents or the courts might do to them if they actually have the nerve to teach you or discipline you when you act this way in class. I'm sorry that they feel that it is more important to suspend you for chewing a pop-tart into a banned shape instead of teaching you how our founders and subsequently millions of soldiers used weapons that were not pop-tarts to establish and defend this country from our enemies. I'm sorry.
I want to further apologize to you for having to live in a society where people like me feel like trying to do the right thing and show you the error of your ways may cause us to be arrested or sued. I'm sorry that our justice system is tilted in the favor of those who will sit still for anything over those who will stand for something. I'm sorry that our society places more value in things that degrade the family instead of building it up. I'm sorry that they can't see the results, but that my family has to witness the results while trying to enjoy dinner. I'm sorry that they will push even harder to get across the next hurdle to breaking down the family for good.
I'm sorry that you are so inspired by our leaders who will apologize all over the world for being a nation that had values that we stood by for so many years. I'm sorry that our leaders will praise celebrities who display values that go against the kind of values that create people who don't behave in the way that you do. I'm sorry that our nations highest courts, lawmakers and executives lead you by example in the way they display a lack of morals and no desire to strive for what is right. I'm sorry that society has practically abolished the concept of right and wrong or good and evil.
I'm sorry that you can't pick up a magazine or go to a movie or see a television show where sex and violence isn't the main theme. I'm sorry that Hollywood has chosen to do as much as it can to separate you from reality. I'm sorry that the games you have to play have to include a warning on the box for violence and adult themes. I'm sorry that the music you listen to is so full of vile ideas and words that would cause Paula Deen to lose her career but the people that sing the songs are hailed as heroes and role models. I'm sorry that your biggest influence growing up was probably Spongebob Squarepants.
Above all, I'm sorry that I didn't get up and say all of this to you in person. I'm sorry that I spared you the discomfort of hearing someone tell you what they think about your behavior. I'm sorry that I didn't make you squirm in your seat for fifteen minutes while I tried to do what all of these influences in your life failed to do. I'm sorry that so many other people will have to hear you say the same kinds of things, over and over until you are replaced by your own children.
I am truly sorry...
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
The Bully Pulpit
Theodore Roosevelt coined the term "bully pulpit" to describe the great platform that the White House was for advocating an agenda. His meaning was that he had a national stage on which to speak, unencumbered for the most part. Many presidents have used this platform very effectively to communicate ideas and proposals to the American people. Ronald Reagan did this often, with amazing results in many cases.
Today, word "bully" means something entirely different. It has a completely negative meaning, "harasser of the weak". Bullying is almost universally frowned upon by society. The only people that seem accepting of the practice are themselves, bullies. We have recently seen a tidal wave of backlash against bullying. Government has addressed it on local, state and even federal levels. The medical and psychological professions have joined the cause. Celebrities have spoken out against it. It can do great harm and is rightly being addressed more so than ever.
When I was young, the only recourse one had against a bully was to stand up to them. Generally speaking, if you did that, even if you got your block knocked off, the bullying would stop. The bully was either put in his place or he gained enough respect that someone would stand up to him that he focused his energy on someone else.
The bully pulpit has changed as well. It no longer seems to be a platform to take your case to the people in order to gain their support. The White House is still a platform where that can be accomplished, no doubt. Although it has really been "fundamentally transformed" into something entirely different. It is much more imbued by the current definition. In that sense, our current president is using the bully pulpit to present himself as the bully in chief.
This administration has taken bullying to a new level. It is not an isolated incident. It is not an isolated agency. It is certainly not isolated to the president himself. He has cultivated a culture of bullying that has no equal. From the top down, we are being pushed around. The intent is no different than that of the playground bully in 1974. Power. The only difference is that in 1974, the power could only be used to determine which swing could be used or in what order you could enjoy the slide. In 2013, that power is being used as a form of tyranny, increasingly to tear down our fundamental and constitutionally protected rights as citizens of the United States of America.
The examples are too numerous to include them all. Most are probably yet unknown, new examples are exposed every day. Some of the highlights include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(Obamacare). The number of Americans, including representatives and health care industry experts that are against this monstrosity is overwhelming. That doesn't matter, it was pushed through anyway.
The administrative state that we live in has bullied us for years. It is so out of control that a solution seems completely out of reach at this point. They tell us everything we are allowed to do and how to do it. The cost of enforcement of regulations alone is well over $1 Trillion per year. That doesn't include all of the costs to devise, implement, litigate and staff the people in order to push us around this way. They dictate about toilets, light bulbs, gas, water usage, cars, diapers, cribs, milk, cleaners, medicines, restaurants and a practically endless list of other things.
That is bad enough. Regulatory and legislative bullying have completely changed the way we are allowed to live our lives. In the last few years, though, the bully pulpit has taken on an entirely more sinister feel. The bully in chief and his culture of corruption have taken it upon themselves to get far more tyrannical in their actions. Some examples of this are the current IRS situation, the Associated Press situation, the FOX news situation, and the HHS situation. These, while not at this point resolved, appear on the surface to include broken laws and conspiracies that could reach all the way to the bully himself. If it doesn't reach him in direct involvement, it seems almost certain to me that his influence in all of this is deep and meaningful.
There was a witness in front of the Way & Means committee today named Becky Gerritson. She gave very impassioned testimony about her involvement in the IRS scandal that I think everyone should see. Becky Gerritson She spoke what, I believe and overwhelming number of Americans think. I believe we have a responsibility to do exactly what she is doing, standing up to the bully. This is an entirely different kind of bully than we faced on the playground as children. It will take an entirely different kind of standing up than it took back then.
Our Founding Fathers knew this. We are given so many examples of their thinking. The United States was founded on several noble principles, one of the main ones being the standing up to a bully, King George III. This country has a history of standing up to bullies, and winning! We have no less of a responsibility right now to do just that. Stand up now, or sit down forever. It is your choice.
Today, word "bully" means something entirely different. It has a completely negative meaning, "harasser of the weak". Bullying is almost universally frowned upon by society. The only people that seem accepting of the practice are themselves, bullies. We have recently seen a tidal wave of backlash against bullying. Government has addressed it on local, state and even federal levels. The medical and psychological professions have joined the cause. Celebrities have spoken out against it. It can do great harm and is rightly being addressed more so than ever.
When I was young, the only recourse one had against a bully was to stand up to them. Generally speaking, if you did that, even if you got your block knocked off, the bullying would stop. The bully was either put in his place or he gained enough respect that someone would stand up to him that he focused his energy on someone else.
The bully pulpit has changed as well. It no longer seems to be a platform to take your case to the people in order to gain their support. The White House is still a platform where that can be accomplished, no doubt. Although it has really been "fundamentally transformed" into something entirely different. It is much more imbued by the current definition. In that sense, our current president is using the bully pulpit to present himself as the bully in chief.
This administration has taken bullying to a new level. It is not an isolated incident. It is not an isolated agency. It is certainly not isolated to the president himself. He has cultivated a culture of bullying that has no equal. From the top down, we are being pushed around. The intent is no different than that of the playground bully in 1974. Power. The only difference is that in 1974, the power could only be used to determine which swing could be used or in what order you could enjoy the slide. In 2013, that power is being used as a form of tyranny, increasingly to tear down our fundamental and constitutionally protected rights as citizens of the United States of America.
The examples are too numerous to include them all. Most are probably yet unknown, new examples are exposed every day. Some of the highlights include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(Obamacare). The number of Americans, including representatives and health care industry experts that are against this monstrosity is overwhelming. That doesn't matter, it was pushed through anyway.
The administrative state that we live in has bullied us for years. It is so out of control that a solution seems completely out of reach at this point. They tell us everything we are allowed to do and how to do it. The cost of enforcement of regulations alone is well over $1 Trillion per year. That doesn't include all of the costs to devise, implement, litigate and staff the people in order to push us around this way. They dictate about toilets, light bulbs, gas, water usage, cars, diapers, cribs, milk, cleaners, medicines, restaurants and a practically endless list of other things.
That is bad enough. Regulatory and legislative bullying have completely changed the way we are allowed to live our lives. In the last few years, though, the bully pulpit has taken on an entirely more sinister feel. The bully in chief and his culture of corruption have taken it upon themselves to get far more tyrannical in their actions. Some examples of this are the current IRS situation, the Associated Press situation, the FOX news situation, and the HHS situation. These, while not at this point resolved, appear on the surface to include broken laws and conspiracies that could reach all the way to the bully himself. If it doesn't reach him in direct involvement, it seems almost certain to me that his influence in all of this is deep and meaningful.
There was a witness in front of the Way & Means committee today named Becky Gerritson. She gave very impassioned testimony about her involvement in the IRS scandal that I think everyone should see. Becky Gerritson She spoke what, I believe and overwhelming number of Americans think. I believe we have a responsibility to do exactly what she is doing, standing up to the bully. This is an entirely different kind of bully than we faced on the playground as children. It will take an entirely different kind of standing up than it took back then.
Our Founding Fathers knew this. We are given so many examples of their thinking. The United States was founded on several noble principles, one of the main ones being the standing up to a bully, King George III. This country has a history of standing up to bullies, and winning! We have no less of a responsibility right now to do just that. Stand up now, or sit down forever. It is your choice.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Fundamental
Fundamental
Those are straight-forward definitions of what the word means. I'd like to look at each definition as it relates to the founding of our country.
This country was formally founded by the Declaration of Independence. A document declaring our natural rights as human beings ,giving the reasons for our desire and right to separate ourselves from the tyrannical rule of King George III of England and finally, the declaration of our country as independent among the nations of the earth. This established the people living in the colonies as the United States of America. This was no small thing, as the last words of the document state:
The constitution is the original document laying out how this country should operate. It was not the first document to govern life in the colonies, but it was the first post-independence document that had authority over all of the states. It was the origin and source that generated our laws. As the basis supporting our existence(our Declaration of Independence) it works to establish the essential structure and function of our government in the way that the founders envisioned. We declared our existence and then said this is how it will work.
It deals with the essential structure and function of our government. Essential, as in, absolutely necessary. If we take away the constitution, we are left with nothing. The meaning of central importance can't describe any better what the constitution means to our country, not only the founding, but the basic survival. No law, agency, politician, position or party even comes close to being as important as the Constitution is to the US.
It is the life-blood of America. It is a written representation of what our founders saw as the characteristics of what a country steeped in liberty should be. It literally mirrors the characteristics of the founders at large. They fought and died for the belief that we, as human beings deserved to live by our God given rights that are described in the Declaration and defined and expounded upon in the Constitution. Not only they, but many more since have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and many have done so to the point of death in defense of it.
When you think of America and apply the word fundamental to it, you are left with these two documents. They are bound to each other. They cannot be separated without taking away part of the other. They function together as the reason and capacity for our existence as a nation. They are the cornerstone of this great United States of America. Without them, we as a nation, are doomed to become but a memory of what once was.
With this in mind, I want you to think back to October 30, 2008, when Barack Obama said "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America".
Looking back on the last 5 years, there can be little doubt what he meant when he said that. If has kept any campaign promise, it was this one.
The presidential oath of office as spelled out in Article II, Section I, Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United States of America says this:
Any questions?
12: of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts ; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application3: of central importance4: belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : deep-rooted
Those are straight-forward definitions of what the word means. I'd like to look at each definition as it relates to the founding of our country.
This country was formally founded by the Declaration of Independence. A document declaring our natural rights as human beings ,giving the reasons for our desire and right to separate ourselves from the tyrannical rule of King George III of England and finally, the declaration of our country as independent among the nations of the earth. This established the people living in the colonies as the United States of America. This was no small thing, as the last words of the document state:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.Soon, the realization that the Articles of Confederation were not up to the task of being the supreme law of this newly formed great nation, the leaders met again to draft what would live up to that task. The Constitution of the United States was soon ratified and included the first ten amendments as was declared necessary for the ratification. The Constitution is the fundamental bedrock for the way this nation was supposed to operate. With that, let's take a look at what fundamental means in relation to this document.
The constitution is the original document laying out how this country should operate. It was not the first document to govern life in the colonies, but it was the first post-independence document that had authority over all of the states. It was the origin and source that generated our laws. As the basis supporting our existence(our Declaration of Independence) it works to establish the essential structure and function of our government in the way that the founders envisioned. We declared our existence and then said this is how it will work.
It deals with the essential structure and function of our government. Essential, as in, absolutely necessary. If we take away the constitution, we are left with nothing. The meaning of central importance can't describe any better what the constitution means to our country, not only the founding, but the basic survival. No law, agency, politician, position or party even comes close to being as important as the Constitution is to the US.
It is the life-blood of America. It is a written representation of what our founders saw as the characteristics of what a country steeped in liberty should be. It literally mirrors the characteristics of the founders at large. They fought and died for the belief that we, as human beings deserved to live by our God given rights that are described in the Declaration and defined and expounded upon in the Constitution. Not only they, but many more since have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and many have done so to the point of death in defense of it.
When you think of America and apply the word fundamental to it, you are left with these two documents. They are bound to each other. They cannot be separated without taking away part of the other. They function together as the reason and capacity for our existence as a nation. They are the cornerstone of this great United States of America. Without them, we as a nation, are doomed to become but a memory of what once was.
With this in mind, I want you to think back to October 30, 2008, when Barack Obama said "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America".
The presidential oath of office as spelled out in Article II, Section I, Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United States of America says this:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”Clause VI speaks of the president's inability to discharge his duties. As far as I can tell, that would be his only defense of his gross dereliction of duties to uphold and defend the Constitution. In that defense, I would not argue with him at all. He seems supremely in-able.
Any questions?
Thursday, April 11, 2013
First They Came...
There was a Lutheran pastor named Martin Niemöller that lived in nazi Germany. He suffered greatly at the hands of Hitler after believing the lies Hitler told him regarding potential persecution of the church and of the Jews. Hitler was a fantastic liar. He got an entire country to believe him. He convinced them of mighty things and better ways of life, and they believed him. They voted for him. They followed him. Then, when he had all the power he needed, he showed them who he really was. That whole episode didn't really turn out that well for a whole bunch of people.
Mr. Niemöller wrote this little verse at some point, presumably after everything fell apart.
We Americans are in the cross hairs of a very similar "they" referred to in his poem. They aren't nazis. They are best described as statists, as defined by Mark Levin. They are those who want state, or government control of everything. Every aspect of our lives would be controlled and limited as they see fit. These statists aren't limited to liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, left or right, young or old, no, they are a disgusting mixture of everything. Labels like those are merely hiding places for these would be tyrants.
They aren't rounding people up, putting them on trains and sending them off to camps, or worse. They aren't that bold yet. Hitler worked fairly quickly. Stalin wasn't much of a dawdler either. Mao made quick work of his people. America's statists have been very determined and have been working for well over 100 years. Woodrow Wilson could rightly be called the modern father of progressivism. FDR took the ball and ran. LBJ continued and modern liberals have been the main group for the last 40 years or so.
What has been the main tools they use in this creeping tyrannical oppression? The two I contend that have had the biggest impact are the administrative state and judges that have legislated from the bench by way of the decisions they made. The examples are many in both instances. Some examples of the administrative state gone wild are the multitudinous regulations forced upon us by the likes of the FDA, EPA, IRS and countless other agencies that are accountable to no one. I could post specific examples, but the number of pages of law they have created was well over 75,000 last time I looked at it. Meanwhile the federal courts at all levels have been acting as lawmakers with very little oversight for over 200 years. If you don't know how Roe v Wade came into being for example, it's a fascinating, yet maddening read. It has far less to do with abortion than you would imagine. It is just one example of how judges have picked out a word or phrase here and inserted a word or phrase there in order to change meanings and open up door that had been shut either legislatively or by popular vote.
So, back to Mr. Niemöller. How are "they" coming for us? I believe they are coming one freedom at a time. His poem could be re-worded to fit our time.
I enjoy what freedom I have by virtue of being born an American. If you sit silent and watch me lose my freedoms and wind up in the same train car, rest assured, I'm going to punch you in the throat.
Wake up America. Be responsible with the liberty you still have.
Mr. Niemöller wrote this little verse at some point, presumably after everything fell apart.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
We Americans are in the cross hairs of a very similar "they" referred to in his poem. They aren't nazis. They are best described as statists, as defined by Mark Levin. They are those who want state, or government control of everything. Every aspect of our lives would be controlled and limited as they see fit. These statists aren't limited to liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, left or right, young or old, no, they are a disgusting mixture of everything. Labels like those are merely hiding places for these would be tyrants.
They aren't rounding people up, putting them on trains and sending them off to camps, or worse. They aren't that bold yet. Hitler worked fairly quickly. Stalin wasn't much of a dawdler either. Mao made quick work of his people. America's statists have been very determined and have been working for well over 100 years. Woodrow Wilson could rightly be called the modern father of progressivism. FDR took the ball and ran. LBJ continued and modern liberals have been the main group for the last 40 years or so.
What has been the main tools they use in this creeping tyrannical oppression? The two I contend that have had the biggest impact are the administrative state and judges that have legislated from the bench by way of the decisions they made. The examples are many in both instances. Some examples of the administrative state gone wild are the multitudinous regulations forced upon us by the likes of the FDA, EPA, IRS and countless other agencies that are accountable to no one. I could post specific examples, but the number of pages of law they have created was well over 75,000 last time I looked at it. Meanwhile the federal courts at all levels have been acting as lawmakers with very little oversight for over 200 years. If you don't know how Roe v Wade came into being for example, it's a fascinating, yet maddening read. It has far less to do with abortion than you would imagine. It is just one example of how judges have picked out a word or phrase here and inserted a word or phrase there in order to change meanings and open up door that had been shut either legislatively or by popular vote.
So, back to Mr. Niemöller. How are "they" coming for us? I believe they are coming one freedom at a time. His poem could be re-worded to fit our time.
First, they came for the guns,There is no time to wait. This is no time to be silent. They have been and continue to get more bold as they come for our rights as American citizens.Our constitution was written to be the law of the land. There are provisions within the document that lay out, very clearly, how to amend it. The back door to the constitution has been left open for too long now. We can not afford to let progressive statism run rampant any longer. This is a critical point in the history of this great nation. Should we let our freedom be taken away, like John Adams said, it will be gone forever.
I didn't speak because I wasn't a gun owner.
Then they came for the gas-guzzling cars,
I didn't speak because I drove a Prius.
Then they came for the right to speak against the government,
I didn't speak because I said no such things.
Then they came for the right to vote,
I didn't speak because I wasn't registered.
Then they came for the churches,
I didn't speak because I'm not religious.
Then they came for me...
I enjoy what freedom I have by virtue of being born an American. If you sit silent and watch me lose my freedoms and wind up in the same train car, rest assured, I'm going to punch you in the throat.
Wake up America. Be responsible with the liberty you still have.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Target Corporation and Your Personal Information
I recently read an article about a gentleman who encountered Target's policy of "swiping" your driver's license in order to purchase nicotine patches for his son[1]. The story contains links to several other instances of related experiences at Target. I became very interested in what they are doing and why.
Last week I had the occasion to visit Target in order purchase a bottle of NyQuil. I had the story in the back of my mind when I reached the check-out line. Sure enough, upon scanning the single 12 oz bottle of NyQuil, the computer informed the cashier(who was brand new) that she needed to scan my ID. She asked to see my ID, and I opened my wallet to the window where it is and showed it to her. She then informed me that she needed for me to give it to her in order to scan it. I told her(as I had read in the story) that she could do a manual check and have a manager override the computer. Being new, she seemed reluctant. I told her just type in the birth date and it will ask for a supervisor. She did and it did as well.
When the manager came over and saw the screen prompting her for a password, without asking me or the cashier anything, she blindly typed it in, thereby giving the system approval to sell me the NyQuil. Only at that point did she realize why she was being asked for a password. She never addressed me or even made eye contact with me. She told the cashier, "oh, its because it is medicine, we have to swipe the ID, I'll show you how later". With that, she turned and walked away. The cashier apologized for the time it took to get that done and finished the transaction. I assured her that there was no problem and that I appreciated her taking care of my request.
When I got home, I wrote Target Corp. an email asking why they require an ID to be swiped when purchasing NyQuil as I had done. It was a simple request to see if they would let me know what their policy is in this matter. A couple of days later, I received the following response. (Emphasis mine)
Oh. Well, that explains nothing. So I responded to "Beth" with the following:
What I found was that the PSE restrictions were in an amendment that attached to the Patriot Act of all things. So all of this was George Bush's fault apparently(I kid). There were quite a few restrictions surrounding products containing PSEs. Most of them however, would require you to buy around 400 bottles of NyQuil in order to sound the alarms. 400 bottles in one single day. Somewhere around 1000 bottles in a month. Now seriously, who besides a meth producer would ever purchase such quantities of NyQuil? As far as I could tell, in the bill, there was no such restriction, but a lot of retailers will only allow you to purchase 2 separate medicines in a single purchase. I don;t like that policy, but I can see where they are just trying to protect themselves completely.
So back to Proctor & Gamble. How much were they actually putting into NyQuil? Turns out, none. Only one variety of NyQuil used PSE, NyQuil D, and that had been discontinued in 2010. This changed everything. I wrote "Nancy" with my findings.
You would think "Nancy" would have known that before sending me that email, wouldn't you? I was beginning to suspect Nancy and Beth were probably used to responding to people who thought dog toys should be on aisle 17 close to the dog food, instead of on aisle 19 closer to the bird and cat toys. But I admired their effort... The next response I got from Target was as follows:
I decide, since "Katherine" mentioned only media reporting on kids misusing the product and "retailers" taking steps to control it, that I wouldn't bring up any laws surrounding the product. She didn't appear to know any such laws exist and why should I be the one to fan her flames. I saw her response as more of a brush-off than any of the others so far. It kind of angered me that they were unwilling to engage in a real conversation about why they have a policy to swipe and store personal information when the law didn't require them to do so. So, I responded to them again with the following:
It is no secret that Target Corporation is very liberal. You can see this by who they regularly support. What troubles me the most is what we don;t yet know about them. What is this national database? Who has access to it? What will it be used for once the (un)Affordable Heath Care Act goes into full swing?
Once you establish a customer ID at Target, everything you purchase is tracked. It is tracked every time you use a credit or debit card or when you allow them to scan your ID. Target has come under a little bit of fire for this, and that is good. What is bad, though, is the number of other businesses that are doing the exact same thing that have been able to fly under the radar so far. Call me a kook if you will, but then research it for yourself. It is happening and it will continue to happen on a much larger scale.
What can be done about it? Well, you could always just use cash. Lots less convenient and some have even suggested doing that will land you on a watch list. I've heard the term "potential terrorist" associated with the practice. Big Brother is watching folks. But the scary part is we are opening up our windows, in most cases, for him to stick his head into. Government as we know it wants to be involved in every aspect of our lives. This is one way they are succeeding. Be careful out there...
Last week I had the occasion to visit Target in order purchase a bottle of NyQuil. I had the story in the back of my mind when I reached the check-out line. Sure enough, upon scanning the single 12 oz bottle of NyQuil, the computer informed the cashier(who was brand new) that she needed to scan my ID. She asked to see my ID, and I opened my wallet to the window where it is and showed it to her. She then informed me that she needed for me to give it to her in order to scan it. I told her(as I had read in the story) that she could do a manual check and have a manager override the computer. Being new, she seemed reluctant. I told her just type in the birth date and it will ask for a supervisor. She did and it did as well.
When the manager came over and saw the screen prompting her for a password, without asking me or the cashier anything, she blindly typed it in, thereby giving the system approval to sell me the NyQuil. Only at that point did she realize why she was being asked for a password. She never addressed me or even made eye contact with me. She told the cashier, "oh, its because it is medicine, we have to swipe the ID, I'll show you how later". With that, she turned and walked away. The cashier apologized for the time it took to get that done and finished the transaction. I assured her that there was no problem and that I appreciated her taking care of my request.
When I got home, I wrote Target Corp. an email asking why they require an ID to be swiped when purchasing NyQuil as I had done. It was a simple request to see if they would let me know what their policy is in this matter. A couple of days later, I received the following response. (Emphasis mine)
Dear Chad,If a guest approaches checkout with an age restricted-item, cashiers are prompted to check ID and scan the guest's driver's license. Scanning an ID provides a more accurate way to verify date of birth and creates a quick and efficient checkout experience for our guests. The personal information collected is solely for legal compliance and fraud detection.When scanning an ID for this purpose, the systems only capture the same data that would be captured in a manual check: first name, middle initial, last name; ID type, ID number, ID state of issue; address, country; date of birth. The data is stored in a secure environment and is deleted at the end of the standard retention period that we have established for that data.
Sincerely,BethTarget Guest Relations
Oh. Well, that explains nothing. So I responded to "Beth" with the following:
Beth,I eagerly awaited for "Beth" to answer my questions. I was sure there had to be a reasonable explanation for all of this. Like I said in the above, no one else around here requires this in order to purchase NyQuil. Two days later "Beth" responded, or at least I assumed it was her... (emphasis mine)
Thank you for responding. I do, based on your response, have a few more questions about this policy. If the sole reason for scanning an ID is for legal compliance and fraud detection, why is ANY information other than that legally required to purchase a product(age) scanned? My address or middle initial or drivers license number is not required to determine my age. You state the system only captures the same data that would be captured in a manual check. Again, what manual check would ever look at anything besides date of birth?
I'm also curious what the "standard retention period" is for this information. What secure measures do you have in place? As far as I can tell, the consumer never signs or agrees to any sort of privacy policy before submitting this information via the license swipe.
I am a regular shopper at your store. We, in fact, do most of our shopping there. This policy troubles me greatly, however. There are many other stores in our area that do not practice this policy of information gathering for purchases of the same products. The law does not require it.
I look forward to further answers in regards to this matter.
Thank you
Chad
Well, what happened to "Beth"? Anyway, "Nancy" had taken over with much more official sounding information. More sinister as well. A national database that tracks my purchases at all retailers? Even the ones that don't require any sort of information scanning? I just had to know more... I was using my full name in the emails, for the record.Dear Chad,Thanks for taking the time to ask us about your purchase of Nyquil.Here is some helpful information for over the counter items containing Pseudoephedrine.The driver’s license (or other ID) number and guest information are used only to tie the sale of PSE to an individual purchaser in order to comply with local and state laws surrounding the purchase of PSE and is not used for any other purpose. We share information only when required with authorized entities in compliance with legal requirements. Many states have additional limits in place and Target follows whichever law is most restrictive: federal, state or local. We use a national database that tracks your purchases at all retailers.Thanks for writing.Sincerely,NancyTarget Guest Relations
Nancy,That seemed to be a simple enough request. Surely if they were complying with the law, they would know which law it was that they were, in fact, complying with. I eagerly awaited "Nancy's" response. Again, with my emphasis.
Was this in response to the email I sent to "Beth", the first person to respond to me? If so, why didn't she respond? Why doesn't anyone use a last name? If this is in response to the follow-up inquiry I sent to Beth, it failed to answer a single question that I asked. Can you tell me which SPECIFIC law you are following that requires you to swipe my ID(as opposed to simply verifying my age) and store the information contained therein? I have a hard time believing that Target is the only retailer in this area that complies with this law.
Any help in understanding this would be appreciated.
Chad
Finally, one answer. They were in fact responding to emails that I had sent. I asked that question only to be sure multiple people weren't responding to the same email. At least this time, "Nancy" was the respondent. I felt like we were developing some sort of relationship at this point. So I decided to dig deeper. This led me to research what law she was talking about. Also to research what Proctor & Gamble is actually putting in this, what seems to be, highly-regulated drug sitting on store shelves around the country.Dear Chad,Thanks for taking the time to write again. The emails you have received from Guest Relations are in response to your emails.Here is some additional information your requested. Federal law limits purchase of PSE products to 3.6 grams per 24 hours and 9 grams per 30 days. Many states have additional limits in place and Target follows whichever law is most restrictive: federal, state or local.We use a national database that tracks your purchases at all retailers.
We'll do our best to help you find what you're looking for at Target.
Sincerely,NancyTarget Guest Relations
What I found was that the PSE restrictions were in an amendment that attached to the Patriot Act of all things. So all of this was George Bush's fault apparently(I kid). There were quite a few restrictions surrounding products containing PSEs. Most of them however, would require you to buy around 400 bottles of NyQuil in order to sound the alarms. 400 bottles in one single day. Somewhere around 1000 bottles in a month. Now seriously, who besides a meth producer would ever purchase such quantities of NyQuil? As far as I could tell, in the bill, there was no such restriction, but a lot of retailers will only allow you to purchase 2 separate medicines in a single purchase. I don;t like that policy, but I can see where they are just trying to protect themselves completely.
So back to Proctor & Gamble. How much were they actually putting into NyQuil? Turns out, none. Only one variety of NyQuil used PSE, NyQuil D, and that had been discontinued in 2010. This changed everything. I wrote "Nancy" with my findings.
Dear Nancy,
That is informative. Thank you. However, Nyquil Cough contains NO PSE products. The only form of Nyquil that contains any PSE products is Nyquil D, which according to the manufacturer, Proctor & Gamble, they discontinued in 2010.
There are other aspects of that law which don't seem consistent with your policy of scanning and storing consumer information either.
So, why would Target require such information for the purchase of a product which does not require it?
Thank You
Chad
You would think "Nancy" would have known that before sending me that email, wouldn't you? I was beginning to suspect Nancy and Beth were probably used to responding to people who thought dog toys should be on aisle 17 close to the dog food, instead of on aisle 19 closer to the bird and cat toys. But I admired their effort... The next response I got from Target was as follows:
So my illusions about my relationship with "Nancy" were premature. "Katherine" sent me researching again. I found that there were a small amount of state laws dealing with DMX, mostly very similar to the laws surrounding PSE. The only Federal regulations on DMX are from the FDA and they involve nothing more than labeling restrictions and requirements. Senator Durbin introduced legislation that read almost identical to the Patriot Act provision, but it died in committee with no action in 2009.Dear Chad ,I believe Nyquil Cough contains Dextromethorphan, or DEX, is an intoxicating substance used in some cold medicines. It suppresses coughs safely, but in large amounts it produces a chemical imbalance in the brain that causes hallucinations, vivid dreams and a feeling of being outside of one's body.
Various media sources have described how teenagers use cold medication which contains DEX as an intoxicant.
Retailers are taking various steps to control how the product is sold in their stores.
Guests may also refer to Dextromethorphan as “DXM.”
Sincerely,KatherineTarget Guest Relations
I decide, since "Katherine" mentioned only media reporting on kids misusing the product and "retailers" taking steps to control it, that I wouldn't bring up any laws surrounding the product. She didn't appear to know any such laws exist and why should I be the one to fan her flames. I saw her response as more of a brush-off than any of the others so far. It kind of angered me that they were unwilling to engage in a real conversation about why they have a policy to swipe and store personal information when the law didn't require them to do so. So, I responded to them again with the following:
Hi Katherine, welcome to the conversation.I laid out, in full, how they had been avoiding my questions and summed it up with several direct questions. I told my wife that expected their next response to either refer me to their legal department or to tell me that they would no longer respond to my emails. This is what I got:
This is all in regards to Target's apparent policy of requiring the swiping and subsequent storing of personal information in order to purchase a bottle of Nyquil. First, I was told it was for legal compliance and fraud detection and was done to make my experience quick and efficient. Then I was told of all the information gathered(which goes well beyond age verification) and that it would be stored securely for a standard retention period(of which my inquiry as to how secure and for how long was ignored).
Then I was told the purpose was, "only to tie the sale of PSE to an individual purchaser in order to comply with local and state laws surrounding the purchase of PSE and is not used for any other purpose". When I asked which law Target was complying with, I was only given "Federal law limits purchase of PSE products to 3.6 grams per 24 hours and 9 grams per 30 days".
After researching and finding out that Nyquil doesn't even use PSE in it's product(something you would think retailers should know in order to be in compliance with federal law), I again asked why I was being asked to provide extensive information to be stored in a national database for the purchase of said product. Now you tell me that you "believe" Nyquil contains DMX and that various media has described how teenagers use it and that "retailers" are taking steps to control the sale of it.
Does Target have a written policy regarding age restricted products?
Does Target have a written policy regarding the sale of PSE products?
Does Target have a written policy regarding the sale of DMX products?
Does Target have a written policy regarding the way it confirms the age of the consumer?
I have read in other national media outlets that one can request that their info not be swiped/stored, that instead a manager can override the system and manually input the age verification data. Is this true?
Can you please answer the questions I have asked so that I can finally know what Target's policies are?
I have been a Target customer for many years and have spent a LOT of money in your stores. I think you owe me at least the courtesy of answering those questions.
Respectfully
Chad
Dear Chad Y,So, in the end, what have we learned? We have learned that they mine personal information for arbitrary reasons. They store and share this information with whom they see fit. They will not be forthcoming or honest in their responses. And, in previous documented cases, they have given altogether different answers than they gave me.
Thanks for taking the time to share your additional thoughts. I'm sorry we aren't able to help with this further.We have sent you our information regarding PSE, DEX and the reasons why we scan your driver's license.I've shared your comments with the appropriate team.Sincerely,KatherineTarget Guest Relations
It is no secret that Target Corporation is very liberal. You can see this by who they regularly support. What troubles me the most is what we don;t yet know about them. What is this national database? Who has access to it? What will it be used for once the (un)Affordable Heath Care Act goes into full swing?
Once you establish a customer ID at Target, everything you purchase is tracked. It is tracked every time you use a credit or debit card or when you allow them to scan your ID. Target has come under a little bit of fire for this, and that is good. What is bad, though, is the number of other businesses that are doing the exact same thing that have been able to fly under the radar so far. Call me a kook if you will, but then research it for yourself. It is happening and it will continue to happen on a much larger scale.
What can be done about it? Well, you could always just use cash. Lots less convenient and some have even suggested doing that will land you on a watch list. I've heard the term "potential terrorist" associated with the practice. Big Brother is watching folks. But the scary part is we are opening up our windows, in most cases, for him to stick his head into. Government as we know it wants to be involved in every aspect of our lives. This is one way they are succeeding. Be careful out there...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)