Reactionaries and guns; This could be about any number of people who over-react, misrepresent, lie, freak out or attack over the sight of a gun. We have an unlimited supply of those who fit any or all of these descriptions it seems. I want to focus on two recent stories however.
Recently in New Jersey, a man posted a photo on facebook of his son holding a .22 rifle he received for his 11th birthday. Some busybody friend of his(presumably on facebook) reported the the family to the Department of Children and Families(DCF). The DCF along with the Carneys Point Police Department soon paid them a visit[1]. After much duress and discussion with the police and the DCF, Moore was able to keep all of them out of his residence without having to show anyone anything. This was three days ago and no further action on the part of authorities has taken place. We can only assume that they were satisfied and legally restricted from acting any further.
This man, Moore is a certified firearms instructor for the National Rifle Association,
an NRA range safety officer and a New Jersey hunter education
instructor. In short, there are probably few people in the state any more qualified to own a gun or to teach his own son about gun safety. Even the child has a New Jersey hunting license and recently passed the state’s hunter safety course. He too is probably more qualified than most in the state when it comes to handling a firearm. You can even see in the photo that he is following safety guidelines in the manner in which he is holding the rifle. You can't tell from the photo, but I would bet you any amount that the gun is not loaded.
Someone who probably knows next to nothing about firearms, other than how evil they must be, decided that they were acting in such a reckless manner that they were obviously endangering the welfare of the child by allowing him to pose with his new rifle. To the point that child protective services must be called. If Moore didn't have the wherewithal to call his lawyer, he could very well have had his child taken by these reactionary thugs. The DCF worker that came to the home wouldn't even identify themselves when asked. What kind of policy is that? Luckily, the police had a little bit of sense in the matter and the constitution stood.
What about the person that reported this to begin with? Are they responsible for starting a witch hunt that produced no witches? Not according to a spokesperson for the DCF, "the person who reported the false allegations of abuse cannot be held liable", she noted.
“You can’t be prosecuted for making an allegation of child abuse –even if it’s false" Why not? You can be prosecuted for false allegations for anything else. Couple this with the recent news that New York is planning on rewarding citizens $500 for reporting anyone for illegally owning a gun if it leads to an actual conviction. Again, in this scenario, you don't(you can't as far as most cases would go) even have to prove an illegal gun is possessed, you just make the accusation and let the snowball start rolling. This is bad news for all of us, not just for someone illegally possessing a weapon.
In the case of Mr. Moore and the photo of his son, so far, it has turned out ok. They left him alone when he confronted them with his legal rights. It is still a scary situation for anyone to have gone through. I fear that we will hear many more stories like this in the near future.
UPDATE ON THE MOORE CASE : 3-26-2013 Governor Christie gets involved
On the other hand, there is a completely different kind of lunacy at work on this front. Take the well publicized story of 7 year old Josh Welch from Maryland[2]. He had the recent misfortune of being suspended from his second grade class for bringing a fully automatic Thompson Machine Gun, fully loaded, with a plan to... Wait, wrong story. He actually had a Pop-Tart that his teacher decided had been nibbled into the shape of a gun. She alone was offended by this. No students complained, no one was injured, no one even knew about it until the teacher went ballistic. Welch was suspended, notes were sent home with the rest of the kids explaining that an incident had happened and there would even be counselors available for whom ever needed them after this horrible traumatic event.
I have very little to say about this that doesn't personally attack the intellect of all of those, except Welch, involved. Seriously, if anything, give the kid credit for being possibly the only 7 year old who knows what a Walther PPK looks like(if in fact, he intended to nibble himself a gun). He claimed he was making a mountain. Oddly enough, it is the teacher and school that ended up making a mountain out of a misidentified molehill.
Reason and accountability may prevail in this case as well. Sen. J. B. Jennings, a Republican representing Baltimore and Hartford
counties, introduced Senate Bill 1058 -- "The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013" on Thursday. The bill would,
absent a direct act of violence on school grounds, prohibit students
from being suspended for "making a hand shape or gesture resembling a
gun" -- the bill would also stop principals from expelling students who
bring to school "any other object that resembles a gun but serves
another purpose." Like a creatively nibbled-on Pop-Tart, a piece of torn notebook paper or a map of Florida.
It is a sad state of affairs when someone feels the need to introduce a piece of legislation to encourage teachers to stop being complete pantywaists and use 1/10 the amount of common sense it would take to blow their nose. But, I guess this is what we've come to. You have the leaders of our country brainwashing people into believing that guns are evil and evil people are not to blame for evil acts. You have lawmakers from the top down trying to ban guns in every way imaginable while letting 1000's of dangerous, hardened criminals out of jail to wreak havoc on society at large. You have the VP giving seriously detrimental advice on how to use guns to protect ourselves and senators giving equally bad advice on how to check for a pulse if you happen upon a homicide victim in your office.
We have to start educating people and we have to start now. We are in a war right now. It is a war of words, ideas and ideals. It is a war that can be won by telling the truth. Truth can not be refuted. We need to arm ourselves with as much truth as we can find and refuse to fight battles based in emotion. The opposite of truth is deception. Lies are being told by so many people and they have to be confronted. They have to be confronted. The truth doesn't have much of an outlet right now. You won't hear it on the evening news. The only way the truth is going to be heard is by us shouting it from every pulpit we have at our disposal.
This is no time to be silent. Stand up for your rights. Speak up for yourself. You have to believe that no one else is going to do it for you. If you believe otherwise, you may as well travel to Washington DC and kiss the constitution goodbye.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Deceptive Media
Thomas Jefferson said. " If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The people cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe." He also said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."
It used to be mostly true that those in the media would gather facts and report those facts in a clear, concise manner. This served the very useful purpose of presenting the public with news about events. By having the information, generally speaking, people were able to make well-informed decisions about things. Being well-informed did not always mean they made good decisions, but that is another discussion.
Among other things, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of... the press. This means that the press is free to print whatever they wish, with the exception of defamatory or indecent content. This is largely still upheld to be the case. Freedom of the Press in generally alive and well.
I do not think freedom of the press is being attacked openly or overtly currently. I think most of the problem with what we are being disseminated comes directly from the free will of the press. The bias of the media is undeniable. Those who would deny it are either stupid or they are in on it. This is why it is so important for people to become educated. John Adams said "Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people". Our liberties are being assaulted, in part, because people are too ignorant to see that they are being lied to.
One common thing I notice in news stories is that the headline, all too often presents a thought that never gets addressed or backed up with facts in the story. I was reading up on Zerlina Maxwell, the lady that recently argued on national television that instead of women arming themselves for protection against violence, we should just tell men not to rape them in the first place. I only bring that story up to remind you about who the lady is. I don't have room here to address that nonsense.
I came across an article she had written for EBONY online. I found the article because I was interested in a quote I read from her stating "black women are also among those groups more likely to be impacted by voter ID laws". This grabbed my attention because I fail to understand how requiring someone to show an ID could impact any group other than those who don't have IDs. This quote showed up in an article titled: VOTER SUPPRESSION:Why Black Women Are Under Attack.[1]
Black women are under attack? Why, I wondered, as would anyone who read that headline. So, I read the article. I encourage you to do the same. I could find absolutely no evidence of black women being under attack in the realm of voter suppression(or any other realm). The article spoke at length about just the opposite actually. The main theme was how black women had the highest voter turnout of any group. How they are being registered to vote by organizations like the NCCP and the NAACP. How Michelle Obama urged them to register during her speech at a Black Caucus event. Nothing I could find short of the statement I quoted about voter ID and the following statement mentioned anything to back up the assertion that they were under attack. She also stated, "this year, like so many before it, they are on the front lines to protect and exercise their fundamental rights in the face of opposition."
I applaud black women(and all people) who are getting out there and voting, except maybe that poll worker in Cincinnati that voted six times[2]. I don't encourage that at all. But all who legally vote, that is a good thing.
Ms. Maxwell, however, is irresponsible in her journalistic efforts. Most people aren't going to comb through stories and try to find facts, much less search out other sources to independently verify what they are reading or hearing. I don't have data, but I have read articles that lead me to believe my thinking is on track about headline skimming. People see the headline and little else, especially online. If there isn't a photo or video, there is a good chance that it gets ignored beyond the headline. When people use headlines that have almost no basis in fact, they are going a long way towards insuring those quotes by Jefferson and Adams will come true.
I believe that is the intent in many ways. Our freedoms are being directly assaulted by the dumbing down of Americans. If we don't take responsibility and educate those around us, we don't deserve to be trusted with our own liberty. Another great American, well, not really, he's a drummer in a Canadian rock band, said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." What choice are we going to make? We have the responsibility not only to educate ourselves, but also those around us so that we can all take part in our God given liberty!
It used to be mostly true that those in the media would gather facts and report those facts in a clear, concise manner. This served the very useful purpose of presenting the public with news about events. By having the information, generally speaking, people were able to make well-informed decisions about things. Being well-informed did not always mean they made good decisions, but that is another discussion.
Among other things, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of... the press. This means that the press is free to print whatever they wish, with the exception of defamatory or indecent content. This is largely still upheld to be the case. Freedom of the Press in generally alive and well.
I do not think freedom of the press is being attacked openly or overtly currently. I think most of the problem with what we are being disseminated comes directly from the free will of the press. The bias of the media is undeniable. Those who would deny it are either stupid or they are in on it. This is why it is so important for people to become educated. John Adams said "Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people". Our liberties are being assaulted, in part, because people are too ignorant to see that they are being lied to.
One common thing I notice in news stories is that the headline, all too often presents a thought that never gets addressed or backed up with facts in the story. I was reading up on Zerlina Maxwell, the lady that recently argued on national television that instead of women arming themselves for protection against violence, we should just tell men not to rape them in the first place. I only bring that story up to remind you about who the lady is. I don't have room here to address that nonsense.
I came across an article she had written for EBONY online. I found the article because I was interested in a quote I read from her stating "black women are also among those groups more likely to be impacted by voter ID laws". This grabbed my attention because I fail to understand how requiring someone to show an ID could impact any group other than those who don't have IDs. This quote showed up in an article titled: VOTER SUPPRESSION:Why Black Women Are Under Attack.[1]
Black women are under attack? Why, I wondered, as would anyone who read that headline. So, I read the article. I encourage you to do the same. I could find absolutely no evidence of black women being under attack in the realm of voter suppression(or any other realm). The article spoke at length about just the opposite actually. The main theme was how black women had the highest voter turnout of any group. How they are being registered to vote by organizations like the NCCP and the NAACP. How Michelle Obama urged them to register during her speech at a Black Caucus event. Nothing I could find short of the statement I quoted about voter ID and the following statement mentioned anything to back up the assertion that they were under attack. She also stated, "this year, like so many before it, they are on the front lines to protect and exercise their fundamental rights in the face of opposition."
I applaud black women(and all people) who are getting out there and voting, except maybe that poll worker in Cincinnati that voted six times[2]. I don't encourage that at all. But all who legally vote, that is a good thing.
Ms. Maxwell, however, is irresponsible in her journalistic efforts. Most people aren't going to comb through stories and try to find facts, much less search out other sources to independently verify what they are reading or hearing. I don't have data, but I have read articles that lead me to believe my thinking is on track about headline skimming. People see the headline and little else, especially online. If there isn't a photo or video, there is a good chance that it gets ignored beyond the headline. When people use headlines that have almost no basis in fact, they are going a long way towards insuring those quotes by Jefferson and Adams will come true.
I believe that is the intent in many ways. Our freedoms are being directly assaulted by the dumbing down of Americans. If we don't take responsibility and educate those around us, we don't deserve to be trusted with our own liberty. Another great American, well, not really, he's a drummer in a Canadian rock band, said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." What choice are we going to make? We have the responsibility not only to educate ourselves, but also those around us so that we can all take part in our God given liberty!
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Speak Up and Shut Up!
When given the opportunity to talk, our legislators infrequently resist. Especially when they are talking about eroding liberties. There are countless examples of this. Instead of trying to list them here, which would probably well exceed any amount of bandwidth I could obtain, I'm just going to highlight two recent examples I've seen.
Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative for Illinois 9th Congressional District, was recently speaking at the "One Billion Rising" rally in Washington DC on February 14th, when Jason Mattera[1] was able to have a brief conversation with her regarding gun control. Jason presented himself as someone who seemed to agree with her views and she was more than happy to talk to him.
Among other things, she spoke of the proposed assault weapon ban being just the beginning. She mentioned background checks, according to the Brady Campaign, being one of the "most effective" tools to reduce gun violence. We know that "reduce gun violence" actually means "increase gun control". She went on to say, "we are going to push as hard as we can, as far as we can". She stated, "I mean, I'm against handguns(I know, big surprise there)". She then backed up her stance with the very factual sounding comment, "In Illinois, we have the Council Against Handgun... something". I'm guessing here, but I think she means The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV), "the oldest and largest statewide organization in the U.S. working to prevent the devastation caused by firearms, founded in 1975".
I find it odd, that in support of her being against handguns, she couldn't remember the name of that organization, the oldest in the nation, based in her home state. You would think someone in her position would have been working hand-in-hand with an organization like that for years. It wouldn't seem so since she can't even remember the name of the group. The part she could remember was "council against handgun", that's the important part I guess.
She goes on to talk about a possible way to be able to ban handguns being the rights of municipalities, communities and states. We can see how well this has worked in Chicago over the years. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation has resulted in one of, if not the highest murder rate in the country. Meanwhile, the ICHV website states:
So, beyond this, the ICHV, which is so endeared by Schakowsky, has accomplished, according to its website, six other notable things, five of which are directly tied to gun control and the suppression of our liberties. The sixth is a poetry contest...
While Schakowsky is more than happy to talk to Mr. Mattera about taking away our rights, another Congressman, Jim Moran, during a townhall meeting recently, was less than eager to speak up[2]. He was asked by a participant in the audience why lawmakers are less than eager to support a woman's right to defend herself. His response was to ignore her question completely and move on to the next guy. When someone asked why he wouldn't answer, he responded, "I'm choosing to move to the next question".
There is really no other way to describe his actions other than cowardly. He could have dodged her question in any number of ways. Don't they teach these guys how to avoid the tough questions in Liberal Logic 101? Instead, he basically told her to shut up.
A tale of two liberal positions. They speak up when the opportunity to quash freedom exists and they tell you to shut up when you dare ask a question that makes them uncomfortable. The bully pulpit is alive and well.
We need to continue to expose these people for who they are. They don't care about freedom. They don't care about people. They care about power. They care about progressive, statist agendas. They care about themselves, plain and simple.
If we care about the future of our country, we better start speaking up about it. also, when we are told to shut up by bullies, we need to stand up to them. The only way to stop them is to fight back.
Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative for Illinois 9th Congressional District, was recently speaking at the "One Billion Rising" rally in Washington DC on February 14th, when Jason Mattera[1] was able to have a brief conversation with her regarding gun control. Jason presented himself as someone who seemed to agree with her views and she was more than happy to talk to him.
Among other things, she spoke of the proposed assault weapon ban being just the beginning. She mentioned background checks, according to the Brady Campaign, being one of the "most effective" tools to reduce gun violence. We know that "reduce gun violence" actually means "increase gun control". She went on to say, "we are going to push as hard as we can, as far as we can". She stated, "I mean, I'm against handguns(I know, big surprise there)". She then backed up her stance with the very factual sounding comment, "In Illinois, we have the Council Against Handgun... something". I'm guessing here, but I think she means The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV), "the oldest and largest statewide organization in the U.S. working to prevent the devastation caused by firearms, founded in 1975".
I find it odd, that in support of her being against handguns, she couldn't remember the name of that organization, the oldest in the nation, based in her home state. You would think someone in her position would have been working hand-in-hand with an organization like that for years. It wouldn't seem so since she can't even remember the name of the group. The part she could remember was "council against handgun", that's the important part I guess.
She goes on to talk about a possible way to be able to ban handguns being the rights of municipalities, communities and states. We can see how well this has worked in Chicago over the years. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation has resulted in one of, if not the highest murder rate in the country. Meanwhile, the ICHV website states:
ICHV successfully advocates for policies designed to minimize the impact gun violence has on Illinois residents. As a result, Illinois has some of the most progressive gun laws in the country, and we are recognized as a model for other state based gun violence prevention groups. Over our long history working together with our dedicated members and coalition partners, not only have we defeated many of the gun lobby’s key measures, we have also made numerous other accomplishments...Of the accomplishments they list, one is [c]ontributing to a 20% decrease in the number of Illinois residents killed by guns since 1995, and a nearly 60% decrease in the number of children and teens killed by guns during that time. That stat must not include Chicago's, roughly, 10,500 murders since 1995. Chicago apologists will tell you that crime has been on the decrease since the gun ban, and they are right, sort of. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Additionally, Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.
So, beyond this, the ICHV, which is so endeared by Schakowsky, has accomplished, according to its website, six other notable things, five of which are directly tied to gun control and the suppression of our liberties. The sixth is a poetry contest...
While Schakowsky is more than happy to talk to Mr. Mattera about taking away our rights, another Congressman, Jim Moran, during a townhall meeting recently, was less than eager to speak up[2]. He was asked by a participant in the audience why lawmakers are less than eager to support a woman's right to defend herself. His response was to ignore her question completely and move on to the next guy. When someone asked why he wouldn't answer, he responded, "I'm choosing to move to the next question".
There is really no other way to describe his actions other than cowardly. He could have dodged her question in any number of ways. Don't they teach these guys how to avoid the tough questions in Liberal Logic 101? Instead, he basically told her to shut up.
A tale of two liberal positions. They speak up when the opportunity to quash freedom exists and they tell you to shut up when you dare ask a question that makes them uncomfortable. The bully pulpit is alive and well.
We need to continue to expose these people for who they are. They don't care about freedom. They don't care about people. They care about power. They care about progressive, statist agendas. They care about themselves, plain and simple.
If we care about the future of our country, we better start speaking up about it. also, when we are told to shut up by bullies, we need to stand up to them. The only way to stop them is to fight back.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Senator Chris Murphy, Bully
Senator Chris Murphy hates the NRA. This is my determination. He has released no less than seven press releases concerning the NRA since his swearing in in January. Some of his words to describe them include bizarre, unhinged, depraved, extreme and out of touch[1]. He further believes that they show a "disregard for public safety" and endanger law enforcement by supporting a bill in Indiana that was passed by an overwhelming majority and had support from numerous law enforcement agencies. His reasons for non-support was in direct opposition of Governor Mitch Daniels, who said:
One of his most recent press releases concerns a letter[3] he wrote to Brian France, Chairman and CEO of NASCAR. He wrote a letter in regards to NASCAR's decision to partner with the NRA in having them be the primary sponsor for the upcoming race at Texas Motor Speedway. The event will be known as the NRA 500. In the letter, he repeatedly accuses NASCAR of inserting itself into political debate. Also showing itself to be an ally of the NRA in the current gun debate. He also accuses them of taking sides against the families in Newtown tragedy. He rattles of a series of statements intended to make the NRA look exactly as he sees them, evil. He asserts that NASCAR has historically been careful not to insert itself, and its hard-earned good reputation, into political and legislative fights.
Remember when NASCAR's top tier changed its name to the Nextel/Sprint Cup? Remember what it was called before that? The Winston cup. Winston as in RJ Reynolds flagship brand of cigarettes. RJR was the primary sponsor for NASCAR from 1970 until 2003. Thirty three years of sponsorship that resulted directly from the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1971. If you'll recall, tobacco companies and the government were in a virtual war for much of that 33 year period. RJR, not NASCAR finally succumbed to the laws and regulations of the FDA and were forced to cease advertising in sports. NASCAR has also been involved in controversies relating to safety mandates and fuel consumption. It has only flinched in so much as it was forced to do so as a matter of federal regulations. So, the senator is dead wrong in his opinion of NASCAR not concerning itself with its reputation as seen by federal regulatory acts.
His intent in this letter is to intimidate NASCAR into backing out of the relationship it has with the National Rifle Association. There can be no other way to describe it. In response to this, I wrote the Senator a letter. The following is the full text of that letter.
Senator Murphy can be reached here.
NASCAR can be reached here.
We have a responsibility to let our voices be heard.
"[C]ontrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them." Governor Daniels went on to explain, "So as a matter of law, law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so."[2]He, being a senator from Connecticut, was no doubt affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary killings. He has also released nine press releases regarding this incident or things directly related to this incident, such as Obama's statements on gun violence in general. I am not condemning the man for his desire to prevent things like that from happening again.
One of his most recent press releases concerns a letter[3] he wrote to Brian France, Chairman and CEO of NASCAR. He wrote a letter in regards to NASCAR's decision to partner with the NRA in having them be the primary sponsor for the upcoming race at Texas Motor Speedway. The event will be known as the NRA 500. In the letter, he repeatedly accuses NASCAR of inserting itself into political debate. Also showing itself to be an ally of the NRA in the current gun debate. He also accuses them of taking sides against the families in Newtown tragedy. He rattles of a series of statements intended to make the NRA look exactly as he sees them, evil. He asserts that NASCAR has historically been careful not to insert itself, and its hard-earned good reputation, into political and legislative fights.
Remember when NASCAR's top tier changed its name to the Nextel/Sprint Cup? Remember what it was called before that? The Winston cup. Winston as in RJ Reynolds flagship brand of cigarettes. RJR was the primary sponsor for NASCAR from 1970 until 2003. Thirty three years of sponsorship that resulted directly from the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1971. If you'll recall, tobacco companies and the government were in a virtual war for much of that 33 year period. RJR, not NASCAR finally succumbed to the laws and regulations of the FDA and were forced to cease advertising in sports. NASCAR has also been involved in controversies relating to safety mandates and fuel consumption. It has only flinched in so much as it was forced to do so as a matter of federal regulations. So, the senator is dead wrong in his opinion of NASCAR not concerning itself with its reputation as seen by federal regulatory acts.
His intent in this letter is to intimidate NASCAR into backing out of the relationship it has with the National Rifle Association. There can be no other way to describe it. In response to this, I wrote the Senator a letter. The following is the full text of that letter.
Dear Senator,Senator Murphy and his "esteemed colleagues" in Washington seemingly have no regard for our Constitution. They will subvert it in any way they see fit in order to achieve the goals that they have set for themselves. Recently we've heard Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Colorado representative Joe Salazar and numerous others make some of the most bizarre statements in support of gun control. Murphy is not only jumping on that bandwagon, but also getting very specific in targeting a well-respected, law-abiding American institution. The intent is clear, change your mind or your reputation will be at risk. That would not occur without throngs of loud-voiced bullies shouting them down.
I am a U.S. Citizen, a staunch supporter of our Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment and a longtime NASCAR fan. I went to my first NASCAR race the year you were born. You are right about NASCAR's fans(at least this one) inferring its support of the NRA. I applaud them.
It is no secret how you view the NRA, calling them bizarre, unhinged, depraved, out of touch and extreme. You even say the have no regard for public safety. None of this could be further from the truth. I don't expect to change your views, but I do respect your rights to express them. We are guaranteed that right in the Constitution that you swore to uphold in your oath of office.
NASCAR is a private enterprise. They have the freedoms to make such associations and business partnerships as they see fit as long as they are not breaking laws in doing so. No law is being broken in their partnership with the NRA. The only thing that is being hurt are people's feelings. There is no right to not have your feelings hurt(currently anyway). Government and elected officials should not meddle in the affairs of those whom they disagree with solely because they disagree with them. If you don't like the way a business operates, you don't have to give them your support. Consumers do this all the time. It is called free enterprise. Trying to coerce a business into complying with one's ideals is pure and simple thuggery. If government is left to act this way it leads to tyranny. Our constitution, the one you swore to uphold, does not support this way of thinking.
You were elected by the people to do a job. Part of that job is certainly not strong-arming business to intimidate them into supporting your agenda.
I hope you hear from many NASCAR fans on this subject, as I'm sure you will.
Respectfully,
Senator Murphy can be reached here.
NASCAR can be reached here.
We have a responsibility to let our voices be heard.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Hunting Humans and the Advent of PTSD
Dianne Feinstein, who has stated her intent is to ban ALL guns [1], just came out and said that hunting humans is legal[2]. In the article referenced, she states the following:
Legal to hunt humans? I have scoured the Constitution, state, county and local city ordinances and I have yet to find any law that contends that to be true. Yes, I realize she was being dramatic. Yes, I realize she probably doesn't really believe that is factual. That isn't the point. She said it. She said it on a national stage. It was on TV and now it is the heads of the public. Just like that.“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”
"Of course there's a war - I saw it on TV." --Robert De Niro, WAG THE DOG.Not only is it a lie, but it is peppered with factual sounding information to make it even more believable. Comparing it to duck hunting laws? Duck hunting, by the way, is legal. Murder is widely regarded as illegal. Maybe she was confusing real life with the Hunger Games. Maybe, she's becoming senile. Maybe, she's so hellbent on destroying the Second Amendment and the rest of our liberties that she's willing to say or do anything that furthers her stated agenda.
She went on to talk about the opportunity to take down a gunperson(don't want to offend any one's feminist sensitivities) when they are forced to reload because of a magazine capacity limit. I recently saw a video of a sheriff doing a field study of this concept[3]. As you may have guessed, the theory is not true. The time it takes to reload a modern weapon is negligible. Especially telling in the video is the portion where someone tests the limits of disarming someone in the midst of a reload. These are people in a controlled environment with no risk of being killed. They are not kindergarten teachers hiding in a closet in a gun free zone during a massacre. Also, you'll notice that they didn't explore the time it would take for an armed citizen to blow the killer's head off.
Feinstein went on to enlighten us about PTSD:
“The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”PTSD, a new phenomenon? It is statements like this that seriously draw her credibility on anything into question. PTSD dates back to the early 19th century and one doctor even suggests it was described by Shakespeare and Homer[4]. In any case, it has been formally recognized for over 30 years. The exact timeline is not as important as Feinstein's ignorance surrounding it. Again, by declaring what she did, she set two thoughts in motion. The idea that PTSD is a new thing and the idea that the Iraq war(which everyone knows was evil in and of itself) is the cause of it. She did not state that by mistake. It probably won't be long until someone makes the connection and declares that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is George Bush's fault.
Again, this garbage is being disseminated to the mainstream media consuming public en masse. Feinstein is using the First Amendment to destroy the Second Amendment. When, in fact, the Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment. She. along with all of us have the responsibility to use our freedoms wisely. Comments like the ones referenced here are doing anything but that. Lest ye think I'm picking on her, there are countless individuals that are doing the same thing in regards to this current gun control madness that is occurring. The only conclusion that I can draw from all of this is that our liberties are not important to these people. If they were, they would be focusing on real solutions, not feigned outrage and reactionary behavior.
Our constitution is being ignored, evaded, trampled on and outright assaulted on multiple fronts. We, as responsible patriots, have a duty to protect it. We, does not mean us versus them, we includes them. The only difference between "us" and "them", is that they took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. It is up to them to do that. It is up to us to ensure that they do. It is our responsibility.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Joe Fudd Addendum
I wish I had seen this before I posted that last piece. During a facebook townhall meeting last month, Joe "Fudd" Biden told us to expect new legislation that would ensure "that a loaded weapon is not in the reach of a stranger or a family member who is not competent to use it.” Let that sink in for a moment. Joe Biden is going to lecture us on being "competent" enough to use a gun. If you are unsure what competent means, I encourage you to look it up. I'm going to assume that you know for the purposes of this blog.
Competent enough to use a firearm would entail things like not randomly firing one into the air, having no idea where the projectile might end up. Also, not firing one blindly through the door of your home without knowing who or what stands on the other side of it. Basically, competent enough not to let Joe Biden anywhere near your gun.
There are statistics out there(which I'm not going to quote here) that lead us to the logical conclusion that legal gun owners are some of, if not the most, responsible single group of people in America today. To have someone as irresponsible as Joe Biden(see previous post) lecturing us on competency and responsibility in the area of gun safety is beyond ridiculous. He is part of an administration and collective of people who between the top 10 of them would not likely be able to tell you the basic rules of gun safety.
That leads me to my next point. In the same meeting, Joe "Fudd" told us that he also supported the idea of parents checking on how friends store weapons before they allow their children to go to other peoples’ houses. “That’s a judgement for every parent to make,” Biden said. "I don’t think it’s irrational for you to ask whether or not there are guns in the home and how they are stored.”
While I think it is a very good idea to know as much about where our children are going and who they are associating with, I think if someone that I didn't already have some kind of relationship with asked me those questions, I'd just tell them they should probably have little Johnny play somewhere else if they were concerned about the safety of my home. As for my children, they will know the rules of gun safety. They won't put themselves in dangerous situations where someone might just have guns laying around. They would know to leave, immediately, if someone started playing with a gun or asking them if they wanted to see or play with a gun. They would know right away upon entering a home whether or not the occupants seem like responsible people. This kind of training starts at home. I am much more able to trust that my properly educated child can assess the situation than I would be by asking someone those questions. If they were responsible owners, they would probably tell me exactly what I would tell them. If they weren't responsible gun owners, they probably wouldn't tell the truth anyway. What Joe "Fudd" is suggesting, on the surface seems well intentioned enough. But deeper down, what I believe he is suggesting is very intrusive. I think it is in line with the thinking of doctors asking whether or not there are guns in the home.
Gun safety begins with the gun owner. It is his or her responsibility to make sure they are doing everything possible to ensure the safety of themselves and anyone else who may happen upon their gun. Accidents happen, but in most cases of unintentional shootings, it is negligence and irresponsibility that lies at the heart of the cause. I don't believe that anyone ever accidentally shot themselves while cleaning a gun. If you follow the basic safety rules(and common sense), it will not happen. I abhor reading a story about these incidents. Irresponsible gun owners do more harm to those of us who understand what gun ownership means than people like Piers Morgan does in spewing his nightly diatribe.
So, Joe "Fudd" Biden, do us a favor and stick to what you know. That may take a while to figure out, but at least you'll be kept busy.
Competent enough to use a firearm would entail things like not randomly firing one into the air, having no idea where the projectile might end up. Also, not firing one blindly through the door of your home without knowing who or what stands on the other side of it. Basically, competent enough not to let Joe Biden anywhere near your gun.
There are statistics out there(which I'm not going to quote here) that lead us to the logical conclusion that legal gun owners are some of, if not the most, responsible single group of people in America today. To have someone as irresponsible as Joe Biden(see previous post) lecturing us on competency and responsibility in the area of gun safety is beyond ridiculous. He is part of an administration and collective of people who between the top 10 of them would not likely be able to tell you the basic rules of gun safety.
That leads me to my next point. In the same meeting, Joe "Fudd" told us that he also supported the idea of parents checking on how friends store weapons before they allow their children to go to other peoples’ houses. “That’s a judgement for every parent to make,” Biden said. "I don’t think it’s irrational for you to ask whether or not there are guns in the home and how they are stored.”
While I think it is a very good idea to know as much about where our children are going and who they are associating with, I think if someone that I didn't already have some kind of relationship with asked me those questions, I'd just tell them they should probably have little Johnny play somewhere else if they were concerned about the safety of my home. As for my children, they will know the rules of gun safety. They won't put themselves in dangerous situations where someone might just have guns laying around. They would know to leave, immediately, if someone started playing with a gun or asking them if they wanted to see or play with a gun. They would know right away upon entering a home whether or not the occupants seem like responsible people. This kind of training starts at home. I am much more able to trust that my properly educated child can assess the situation than I would be by asking someone those questions. If they were responsible owners, they would probably tell me exactly what I would tell them. If they weren't responsible gun owners, they probably wouldn't tell the truth anyway. What Joe "Fudd" is suggesting, on the surface seems well intentioned enough. But deeper down, what I believe he is suggesting is very intrusive. I think it is in line with the thinking of doctors asking whether or not there are guns in the home.
Gun safety begins with the gun owner. It is his or her responsibility to make sure they are doing everything possible to ensure the safety of themselves and anyone else who may happen upon their gun. Accidents happen, but in most cases of unintentional shootings, it is negligence and irresponsibility that lies at the heart of the cause. I don't believe that anyone ever accidentally shot themselves while cleaning a gun. If you follow the basic safety rules(and common sense), it will not happen. I abhor reading a story about these incidents. Irresponsible gun owners do more harm to those of us who understand what gun ownership means than people like Piers Morgan does in spewing his nightly diatribe.
So, Joe "Fudd" Biden, do us a favor and stick to what you know. That may take a while to figure out, but at least you'll be kept busy.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Joe Fudd Biden
Joe Biden, our vice-president, recently encouraged us, if faced with imminent danger of some nefarious individual breaking into our homes to walk outside and "fire two blasts"[1] from our trusty double barrel shotgun. I'm writing here for a moment to those who are ignorant enough to actually follow this advice. This is bad advice, on a number of levels. First, if you have a double barrel shotgun as your means of protection and you empty it by firing into the air, you no longer have a double barrel shotgun as your means of protection. Now you have a very heavy, odd-shaped bat as your means of protection. Reloading a shotgun is typically not a very speedy process, especially with Mr. Nefarious bearing down own you. Secondly, You have broken three of the four basic rules of gun safety. The only one you haven't broken is to always assume every gun is loaded. By breaking the other three rules, you could potentially kill some innocent bystander as far as a mile away in some instances. Thirdly, you have more than likely committed a crime in most states by firing the gun in that manner. Potentially a crime that, if convicted, could remove your rights to ever legally own a gun again. In addition to these three things, you have probably wasted two shells as well. Priced ammunition lately?
Joe went on to say in a separate interview, in regards to self defense, "just fire the shotgun through the door.”[2] Logistically and legally speaking, this is no better advice than the first nugget he shared on the subject. In fact, in almost every case, it is a felony.
So here we have Joe Fudd consistently giving people horrible and likely criminal advice when it comes to self-defense. I have two questions, why does he do this, and is he liable when someone takes his advice?
Why would anyone give such poor advice from a national pulpit? Does he want people to commit such stupid acts? Is it his intention to create a network of idiots out there breaking gun laws? It would not surprise me in the least if that were the intent. Then we would have incident after incident of otherwise law-abiding gun owners acting recklessly with their evil firearms. The more evil and dangerous they can be depicted, the easier it will be pass laws further restricting the rights of non-idiot law-abiding gun owners. This current fight for our second amendment rights is being played out on multiple stages, and the court of public opinion is a huge stage. People are just dumb enough to believe what they are told in way too many cases.
Could he be liable for such crimes? I'm no law expert by any means. I would love to see this question addressed by someone who is. From my limited research, there could be levels of guilt attached to such a crime and they would depend on the state of the person that was actually enticed into committing the gun crime. I do believe even if he is legally at fault, there are very few prosecutors in the country that would touch that. There are probably even fewer judges that wouldn't throw it out as well. Still, I would love to see someone of stature ask the question.
Joe Fudd, criminally so or not, is one of the most irresponsible people in a position of authority that I can remember. The other that comes to mind is Bill Clinton, who wasn't advocating criminal activity, but was telling everyone that they could get away with adultery and all manner of reprobate behavior if they would just lie about it. Unfortunately, his impeachment hearings did nothing to discourage such behavior either. Bill will get you into dutch with the wife, while Joe will get you prison time if you aren't careful.
Responsibility is obviously not a strong point with either of these guys. Liberty doesn't appear to rank very high on their list of important things either. We have to be prudent in guarding both. We still have the freedom to own guns in this country and it is our duty to be responsible with them. For the most part, legal gun owners are very responsible. We can be counted on to do the right thing. We are not some pack of vigilantes and we aren't much of a danger to turn the movie theater into the wild west as some would have you to believe. Educate those who may not be as responsible and let them know that Joe Fudd and his ilk are not to be trusted with advice on any aspect of gun ownership. It is our responsibility to make sure this kind of stuff has a light shined upon it.
Molon Labe, Joe Fudd!
Joe went on to say in a separate interview, in regards to self defense, "just fire the shotgun through the door.”[2] Logistically and legally speaking, this is no better advice than the first nugget he shared on the subject. In fact, in almost every case, it is a felony.
So here we have Joe Fudd consistently giving people horrible and likely criminal advice when it comes to self-defense. I have two questions, why does he do this, and is he liable when someone takes his advice?
Why would anyone give such poor advice from a national pulpit? Does he want people to commit such stupid acts? Is it his intention to create a network of idiots out there breaking gun laws? It would not surprise me in the least if that were the intent. Then we would have incident after incident of otherwise law-abiding gun owners acting recklessly with their evil firearms. The more evil and dangerous they can be depicted, the easier it will be pass laws further restricting the rights of non-idiot law-abiding gun owners. This current fight for our second amendment rights is being played out on multiple stages, and the court of public opinion is a huge stage. People are just dumb enough to believe what they are told in way too many cases.
Could he be liable for such crimes? I'm no law expert by any means. I would love to see this question addressed by someone who is. From my limited research, there could be levels of guilt attached to such a crime and they would depend on the state of the person that was actually enticed into committing the gun crime. I do believe even if he is legally at fault, there are very few prosecutors in the country that would touch that. There are probably even fewer judges that wouldn't throw it out as well. Still, I would love to see someone of stature ask the question.
Joe Fudd, criminally so or not, is one of the most irresponsible people in a position of authority that I can remember. The other that comes to mind is Bill Clinton, who wasn't advocating criminal activity, but was telling everyone that they could get away with adultery and all manner of reprobate behavior if they would just lie about it. Unfortunately, his impeachment hearings did nothing to discourage such behavior either. Bill will get you into dutch with the wife, while Joe will get you prison time if you aren't careful.
Responsibility is obviously not a strong point with either of these guys. Liberty doesn't appear to rank very high on their list of important things either. We have to be prudent in guarding both. We still have the freedom to own guns in this country and it is our duty to be responsible with them. For the most part, legal gun owners are very responsible. We can be counted on to do the right thing. We are not some pack of vigilantes and we aren't much of a danger to turn the movie theater into the wild west as some would have you to believe. Educate those who may not be as responsible and let them know that Joe Fudd and his ilk are not to be trusted with advice on any aspect of gun ownership. It is our responsibility to make sure this kind of stuff has a light shined upon it.
Molon Labe, Joe Fudd!
Monday, March 4, 2013
Risk/Reward
Liberty is something worth fighting for. This is what our country was founded on. Entering into a fight has inherent risks attached to it. Those who stood up for our independence risked everything. Not only their lives(which is enough), but the lives of everyone who would come after them. If the tyranny of King George III had prevailed, it would not have been pretty for the colonists that remained. You can be sure that they would have been punished severely. They risked everything for Liberty.
Today, we are in a fight for our liberty as well. It may not seem so to most of the country. It may not be boatloads of Redcoats sitting offshore preparing to attack us because we would be so bold as to proclaim that "all men are created equal" and that we have unalienable rights bestowed upon us by our Creator. Most people have become so used to those rights being there that they, in their complacency, can't even see them being stripped away from us. They are daily being stripped away from us by OUR government. In the form of over-reaching laws, executive actions and runaway regulations. According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages. In 2009, the page count hit a record high of 163,333. You can bet that number hasn't decreased under Obama. In its first year, the Bush Administration issued only one major rule that increased regulation. President Obama issued 13 in 2009. President Bush was in his third year before new costs hit $4 billion. President Obama has achieved the same in one year [1]. These regulations are choking this country to death.
In today's fight for liberty, there are few who are willing to risk anything, much less anything important, to stand up and fight back. They are out there, however. A recent story came out regarding Bob Woodward, an admittedly liberal journalist who had the audacity to question the Obama administration on the specifics of the sequester. Instead of investigating the story or allowing that it had any merit, his peers have piled on in attacking his 40+ years of credibility. While I agree very little with Bob Woodward, he did something that took guts, he stood up to something he saw as wrong. When he got that email telling him he would be sorry, he did not back down. This has yet to play out, but it is clear that he isn't going to back down and they are in full attack mode to follow up on the threat. Two other notables have come out and said they received the same type of emails from the White House. All are risking careers. Good for them.
Amber Lyon, a now former CNN journalist, blew the whistle in a big way on governments paying CNN for content in the stories they ran. She not only lost her job, but also her pension and insurances for not backing down in the face of threats from CNN to stop talking. She risked a lot more than that while in Bahrain covering events there that led her to the discovery and subsequent actions of CNN.
There are a whole bunch of Sheriffs now standing up and saying they will not support laws which violate the 2nd Amendment. They have done so, not only individually, but some have even formed associations across the country to stand unified in the face of increasing danger to our rights and liberties. Richard Mack has created the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, which was started to fight against the Brady Bill. They will undoubtedly face enormous pressure in coming days. We need more people like this, sworn to uphold the constitution, to actually do it!
These are just a few examples of people out there who are willing to take the risk involved in fighting for the rewards of liberty that we, mostly, take for granted now. They don't need our admiration and that isn't why they are doing it in the first place, they need our help. Liberty demands that we be responsible. We have the right to sit on our collective butts and watch while others do the work. We also risk watching this great nation circle the drain by doing so. Going out to the polls once every few years, while MUCH needed, is no longer enough. There are people working very hard to take this country away. If we don't work just as hard, or harder, they will succeed. Its not just about the next election either, this is an ongoing battle that will have to be won for decades to turn this country around. Don't be fooled into thinking if we just elect a Republican or a conservative or another Reagan that all we be well. That is what got us into this mess.
The reward is worth so much more than the risk.
Today, we are in a fight for our liberty as well. It may not seem so to most of the country. It may not be boatloads of Redcoats sitting offshore preparing to attack us because we would be so bold as to proclaim that "all men are created equal" and that we have unalienable rights bestowed upon us by our Creator. Most people have become so used to those rights being there that they, in their complacency, can't even see them being stripped away from us. They are daily being stripped away from us by OUR government. In the form of over-reaching laws, executive actions and runaway regulations. According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages. In 2009, the page count hit a record high of 163,333. You can bet that number hasn't decreased under Obama. In its first year, the Bush Administration issued only one major rule that increased regulation. President Obama issued 13 in 2009. President Bush was in his third year before new costs hit $4 billion. President Obama has achieved the same in one year [1]. These regulations are choking this country to death.
In today's fight for liberty, there are few who are willing to risk anything, much less anything important, to stand up and fight back. They are out there, however. A recent story came out regarding Bob Woodward, an admittedly liberal journalist who had the audacity to question the Obama administration on the specifics of the sequester. Instead of investigating the story or allowing that it had any merit, his peers have piled on in attacking his 40+ years of credibility. While I agree very little with Bob Woodward, he did something that took guts, he stood up to something he saw as wrong. When he got that email telling him he would be sorry, he did not back down. This has yet to play out, but it is clear that he isn't going to back down and they are in full attack mode to follow up on the threat. Two other notables have come out and said they received the same type of emails from the White House. All are risking careers. Good for them.
Amber Lyon, a now former CNN journalist, blew the whistle in a big way on governments paying CNN for content in the stories they ran. She not only lost her job, but also her pension and insurances for not backing down in the face of threats from CNN to stop talking. She risked a lot more than that while in Bahrain covering events there that led her to the discovery and subsequent actions of CNN.
There are a whole bunch of Sheriffs now standing up and saying they will not support laws which violate the 2nd Amendment. They have done so, not only individually, but some have even formed associations across the country to stand unified in the face of increasing danger to our rights and liberties. Richard Mack has created the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, which was started to fight against the Brady Bill. They will undoubtedly face enormous pressure in coming days. We need more people like this, sworn to uphold the constitution, to actually do it!
These are just a few examples of people out there who are willing to take the risk involved in fighting for the rewards of liberty that we, mostly, take for granted now. They don't need our admiration and that isn't why they are doing it in the first place, they need our help. Liberty demands that we be responsible. We have the right to sit on our collective butts and watch while others do the work. We also risk watching this great nation circle the drain by doing so. Going out to the polls once every few years, while MUCH needed, is no longer enough. There are people working very hard to take this country away. If we don't work just as hard, or harder, they will succeed. Its not just about the next election either, this is an ongoing battle that will have to be won for decades to turn this country around. Don't be fooled into thinking if we just elect a Republican or a conservative or another Reagan that all we be well. That is what got us into this mess.
The reward is worth so much more than the risk.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Speak Up For Liberty
It is very easy for us to feel intimidated about speaking out on the issues that we think matter. What if someone disagrees? What if someone makes me look stupid? What if someone is offended, heaven forbid? We tend to look for reason not to speak up rather than finding reasons not to stay silent. What better reason to speak up than to defend the right to be able to speak up?
Our liberties are being squelched, marginalized, tampered with and ultimately removed at a staggering pace. In the form of over-reaching regulations like some of our hate speech laws. In the form of bullying by telling us how offensive everything we say is. In the form of attacking the source of news rather than the content of the news. Ultimately, in the tyrannical form of absolutely silencing those who would speak out. Reputations are sullied and careers are ruined over this. Students are expelled, reporters are fired and networks are censored.
Some people, however, see the problem, understand the objective and fear the results. These people come from all walks of life. They are you and I. They are people who feel helpless because of there perceived stature on the social ladder. They are people feel empowered by that very same stature. There are reporters, journalists, law officers, business owners and lawmakers who are speaking out in defense of the constitution every day. If they don't, they are not being responsible with the liberties they have. We have a responsibility to use our freedom of speech. We have the duty to protect our freedom of speech. If we don't, we will lose it.
I attended the Day of Resistance rally in Sacramento in February. There were 700+ liberty loving, law abiding patriots there who came to exercise the basic right to assemble and speak up about the problems they see in our country. There were several speakers who stood behind the microphone and let their voices be heard on the issues. These people were mothers, veterans, media, business owners and aspiring political leaders. They spoke passionately about what they believed. They spoke with determination to make a difference. They spoke because it was important to be heard. They spoke because they were exercising their God given rights to do so. We need to speak because there are those who desire to supersede God and take away those unalienable right granted to us by our Creator, guaranteed in our constitution!
There were 1400+ rallies just like this, most of them larger, that took place around the country that day. Conservative estimates place the number of attendees around 1 million. That's 1 million people who felt moved enough to get up on a Saturday morning and drive somewhere to stand around in the cold, rain, wind and in my case, glorious sunshine to exercise our liberties. That is encouraging. However, that puts the amount who were not there, in most cases by choice, at around 300 million. That is very discouraging. They sat in the relative safety of their homes instead of fighting for the liberties that they are losing, most without even knowing or caring. Benjamin Franklin said "[t]hose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin was a smart man.
There are numerous examples of those who have entered into this fight in a much more risky manner than I have. I will gives some examples in an upcoming blog entry of some people that are risking careers and much more by speaking out. I thank God for them. I thank God that they have the desire to fight for what is important, not just to them, but for all of us, for the future of our country. If you are not a person of action for whatever reason, there are still important things you can do. If you are a person of faith, pray. Pray for those who are standing behind microphones. Pray for those who stand in opposition to our liberties. Pray for those who may be led to do something more. You can also show your support by visiting Facebook pages and clicking "like". Follow them on Twitter. Hit that "contact me" button on blogs and web pages and say thanks.
You and I have a responsibility to our liberty. Freedom is never free. We owe a great deal to those who have come before us and fought and died for our liberty. They can't speak anymore. Their actions spoke loud and clear where they stood on the issue of freedom. You have a responsibility. Be loud. Be clear. Be free!
Our liberties are being squelched, marginalized, tampered with and ultimately removed at a staggering pace. In the form of over-reaching regulations like some of our hate speech laws. In the form of bullying by telling us how offensive everything we say is. In the form of attacking the source of news rather than the content of the news. Ultimately, in the tyrannical form of absolutely silencing those who would speak out. Reputations are sullied and careers are ruined over this. Students are expelled, reporters are fired and networks are censored.
Some people, however, see the problem, understand the objective and fear the results. These people come from all walks of life. They are you and I. They are people who feel helpless because of there perceived stature on the social ladder. They are people feel empowered by that very same stature. There are reporters, journalists, law officers, business owners and lawmakers who are speaking out in defense of the constitution every day. If they don't, they are not being responsible with the liberties they have. We have a responsibility to use our freedom of speech. We have the duty to protect our freedom of speech. If we don't, we will lose it.
I attended the Day of Resistance rally in Sacramento in February. There were 700+ liberty loving, law abiding patriots there who came to exercise the basic right to assemble and speak up about the problems they see in our country. There were several speakers who stood behind the microphone and let their voices be heard on the issues. These people were mothers, veterans, media, business owners and aspiring political leaders. They spoke passionately about what they believed. They spoke with determination to make a difference. They spoke because it was important to be heard. They spoke because they were exercising their God given rights to do so. We need to speak because there are those who desire to supersede God and take away those unalienable right granted to us by our Creator, guaranteed in our constitution!
There were 1400+ rallies just like this, most of them larger, that took place around the country that day. Conservative estimates place the number of attendees around 1 million. That's 1 million people who felt moved enough to get up on a Saturday morning and drive somewhere to stand around in the cold, rain, wind and in my case, glorious sunshine to exercise our liberties. That is encouraging. However, that puts the amount who were not there, in most cases by choice, at around 300 million. That is very discouraging. They sat in the relative safety of their homes instead of fighting for the liberties that they are losing, most without even knowing or caring. Benjamin Franklin said "[t]hose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin was a smart man.
There are numerous examples of those who have entered into this fight in a much more risky manner than I have. I will gives some examples in an upcoming blog entry of some people that are risking careers and much more by speaking out. I thank God for them. I thank God that they have the desire to fight for what is important, not just to them, but for all of us, for the future of our country. If you are not a person of action for whatever reason, there are still important things you can do. If you are a person of faith, pray. Pray for those who are standing behind microphones. Pray for those who stand in opposition to our liberties. Pray for those who may be led to do something more. You can also show your support by visiting Facebook pages and clicking "like". Follow them on Twitter. Hit that "contact me" button on blogs and web pages and say thanks.
You and I have a responsibility to our liberty. Freedom is never free. We owe a great deal to those who have come before us and fought and died for our liberty. They can't speak anymore. Their actions spoke loud and clear where they stood on the issue of freedom. You have a responsibility. Be loud. Be clear. Be free!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)