Happy Birthday

Ronald Reagan was born February 6, 1911. There is no shortage of information about his life, his work or his political career that can be found all over the place. On this, his birthday, I wanted to share some quotes that really point to who he was and what he believed.

"A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill."

This portion of the speech he gave when he announced his candidacy for President in 1979 emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility in such a beautiful way. He spoke of the "city on a hill" often, but in this instance, he makes it clear, that it isn't just going to build itself. It is going to take the hard work and dedication of a nation of individuals who rely on and indeed, uphold these principles.

He emphasized the need for personal accountability for many years, as he did when speaking as Governor of California in 1968:

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

Not only are people responsible for themselves, but he added the following in a different speech:

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

He held that people should be responsible, period.

He also had a great sense of humor, which occasionally was used to try to get him into trouble. Here are a few quotes that showed us that he actually enjoyed life and didn't take himself too seriously when he didn't have to.

Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.

I never drink coffee at lunch. I find it keeps me awake for the afternoon.

Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.

No matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.

He firmly believed in the value of human life, as can be drawn from the following:

I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.

We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child.

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone.

If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.

I could go on and on because he said so much worth repeating. He spoke often about his faith in God. He spoke often of his love for his family, especially that of Nancy. He gave us so many choice words on the value of conservative ideals. He spoke often of governments true role and the value that we should place on the ideals and words of the founders. He was a true nature lover and spoke about the joy he derived from the outdoors and the ways we should responsibly protect it.

One of my favorite quotes of his is short, but so valuable, especially in the politically correct world we live in today. He simply said, "Don't be afraid to see what you see". Eight simple words that say so much. He saw what he saw and he lived his life to embrace the good and reject the bad.

I miss you Mr. President. Happy Birthday.

How Do You Stomach This Stuff

I was recently asked, "How do you stomach this stuff?". This was after a comment on the Bill O'Rielly interview with Obama. "This stuff" refers to all of the political and current event stories dealing with our country that we are absolutely flooded with.

We are being fed stuff every day, from everybody who has something they want us to swallow. We have three basic choices; We can eagerly swallow it, we can hold our nose and reluctantly swallow it or we can push it back across the table and refuse to swallow it.

The third option is my answer to the question. I don't swallow it. You have to be vigilant. How can you be vigilant if you don't examine everything that is placed in front of you. We are asked to believe all kinds of garbage by everyone, from the president, congress, media, friends and so on. If you can't discern what is truth and what is agenda-driven fiction, you are going to swallow some bad stuff.

Lies come at you in many forms. Skewed numbers, bad data, flawed studies, twisted words, misinformation and bald-faced lies. You have to be able to see things for what they are. You have to be able to dig into things and find the truth. You have to be able to see past this stuff. If you just swallow it, willingly or unwillingly, you are not merely going with the flow. You are helping to create the current.

The question I pose is this. How can you NOT stomach it? How can you idly sit by and not speak up? If you believe in this country, if you believe in what the founders put together in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you need to be prepared to prove it. I'm not suggesting you have to be a constitutional scholar or an expert debater, but you need to at least, understand some basic things and be willing to expose lies when you see them.

The premise and the driving theme of this blog is that we have rights and freedoms granted to us and we have to be responsible in the way we live in order to maintain these liberties. There is an insidious ideology that has been creeping and gaining steam for the last 100 years or more called progressivism. It is called by many names including liberalism and statism. We are living in a time when it is no longer creeping, it is standing tall and declaring itself as the only way. It is willing to knock anyone to the ground who disagrees. There have been generations blinded by this. We have two choices, close our eyes or do everything we can to open the eyes of others.

How can I stomach this stuff? Because I don't believe I have a valid option.

The Age of Responsibility

I recently discovered that until my child is 7 years old, he may not be left in the car by himself. Unless, of course, someone at least 12 years old is there with him, or unless there is nothing to harm him present. Also, if I take my keys with me...  Or, maybe not. The law is not very specific on just exactly what all of this means. It is fairly specific on how I can be punished and how the allocation of funds from my fine would happen... Well, you and your lawyer can read it here for yourself, Kaitlyn's Law. 

I'm not here to debate the merits of this law, I just use this as one example. How can an adult be deemed not responsible enough to determine the safety of their own child in any given situation where he might leave the child for a moment, but a 12 year old is, by law, deemed responsible enough to handle the situation in his absence? What makes 12 years of age the magic number of responsibility? I contend, nothing. It is a purely arbitrary number decided upon because, well, some number had to be decided upon. Also, what makes a 6 year old child unable to care for himself in a way that a 7 year old child all of a sudden can? Do most children, at 7 years old become to heavy for the average would-be abductor? Is a 7 year old more likely to be able to discern the need to roll down the window if it becomes too hot all of a sudden? Maybe. Is a 7 year old more more apt to behave himself outside the presence of an adult than a 6 year old? This all depends on the situation, the child, the parent and probably unforeseen outside influences as well. You could just have well made the magic age 7 or 9 or 15. It is purely arbitrary. If not, why then is a 7 year old able to be left alone, but not able to oversee another, younger child. For the record, the impetus of this bill was a six month old child that died from heat after being left in a car alone. I get it... For the record, I believe an adult should behave in a responsible manner that puts the safety of his children above the need to "just run in and get a quick mocha".

Another example of age based responsibility is the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution. That gave 18 year old people the right to vote. Apparently, a lot of 18-20 year old people were protesting a lot in and around 1971. You may have heard about this... The amendment of the Voting Rights Act by Nixon and a couple of court cases, one which reached the Supreme Court in the name of Oregon v Mitchell, would precede the 26th Amendment in 1971, an amendment which still has not been ratified by 8 states. 

If this law were based on the responsibility of the potential voter and not just protests and the need to "feel like we are doing the right thing" it probably would not be law. I know that you can serve in our military and do some pretty amazing things as an 18 year old. I also know that as a 50 year old, you can be wholly irresponsible in practically everything you do. So again, I ask, what makes this age the age of responsibility in this realm?  President Nixon, who may or may not have shown a great deal of responsibility in his time as president, had this to say about it:

As I meet with this group today, I sense that we can have confidence that America’s new voters, America’s young generation, will provide what America needs as we approach our 200th birthday, not just strength and not just wealth but the “Spirit of ‘76’ a spirit of moral courage, a spirit of high idealism in which we believe in the American dream, but in which we realize that the American dream can never be fulfilled until every American has an equal chance to fulfill it in his own life.

I'm not sure I agree with everything he said there or even that it has any bearing on the ability of the young generation to vote responsibly, but there it is. In recent years, I contend that the dumbing down of the American voter has hit the youthful especially hard. They have most definitely been targeted as a vast audience, ripe for the picking. I kind of doubt that Congress, Nixon or the Supreme court of 1971 ever envisioned the need to "Rock the Vote". I'm not saying young people are dumb, I'm saying the concept of voting responsibly has been largely pushed to the side and they are unfortunate pawns in this game. 

One final example of age based responsibility in our laws has to do with the age at which a person is determined to be an adult fit to consume alcohol. That age at which it becomes legal to purchase it for one's self was set by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. Anyone under 21 may not do so, legally or the state will suffer the consequence of the federal government withholding funds, thus, they comply. But, only 15 states ban the consumption of alcohol by minors, the remaining either have no ban at all or require family member "supervision" or have location restrictions. 

Yes, I understand what prohibition caused. Yes, I understand that adults are basically free do do as they please. Yes, I understand that there are other laws that govern other aspects of what you may or may not do while under the influence. I also understand that roughly 30% of all vehicle crash related deaths are associated with drunk drivers.

There are a whole bunch of disturbing statistics on the M.A.D.D. website. One references 17 million people who have admitted to driving drunk. I suspect the number that have not admitted to it is probably at least triple that. Another states that the rate of drunk driving is highest in the 21-25 year old range. 21, the age at which it has been determined by law that one is responsible enough to purchase alcohol. 21, the age at which most people prove themselves to be completely irresponsible when it comes to alcohol. 

Is there a solution to this? Education and the self-imposed level of responsibility it takes not to do something stupid. Alcohol is a strange demon. The most responsible person in the world can become the exact opposite with about a 0.05 blood alcohol content. Probably less for most people. 

What do these three examples have in common? Not much on the surface, just an observation about the  varying ages of responsibility. One thing that is a constant, though, it is up to the individual to BE responsible. Without that, all kinds of things can go wrong. Things that can affect your life, the lives of your children, the lives of your fellow Americans. Responsibility is not determined by age, it is determined by maturity. We have some very responsible, mature young people in this country and we have some bery immature, irresponsible older people in this country. You can't choose your age, but you can choose how to behave. Be responsible. Teach your kids to be responsible. Encourage your friends to be responsible. Behave in a manner that demonstrates to others the power of responsibility.

Our liberty is being taken away in many ways. Don't let the failure to act responsibly be the catalyst for more of them to be taken away.

The Employee Handbook

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.

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:

“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. 

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: 

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...

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:

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 own 

Our 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?
  

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.

Fundamental

Fundamental

1

a : serving as an original or generating source 

b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function 

2

: of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts ; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application 

3

: of central importance 

4

: 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".

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:

“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?

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.

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,
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...

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 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.

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)

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,

Beth

Target Guest Relations

Oh. Well, that explains nothing. So I responded to "Beth" with the following:

Beth,

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 

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)

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,

Nancy

Target Guest Relations

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.

Nancy,

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

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.

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,

Nancy

Target Guest Relations

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.

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:

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, 

Katherine

Target Guest Relations

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.

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.

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

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:

Dear Chad Y,

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,

Katherine

Target Guest Relations

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.

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...

Reactionaries and Guns

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.

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!