Misinformation

If you are reading this, you more than likely have a Facebook account or a Twitter account. Both are very useful tools for sharing information. Unfortunately, both are also very useful for spreading misinformation.

Occasionally, this misinformation can lead to instanced of localized hysteria. You've seen it. One friend posts some story they saw on someone else's wall and like a cancer, before too long, 10 of your friends have posted the same thing. Even if the story is debunked in the first comment, people will still post and comment as if it were true.

Social media is an increasingly powerful tool we have at our disposal, but it must be used responsibly. Sharing "bananas cure cancer" and "Abe Vigoda has died(for the 30th time)" without checking the facts, which are almost always readily available, makes you look bad, lose credibility and can sometimes cause more serious problems. It takes very little effort to determine the veracity of something you see on social media.

Don't you think if one third of Americans had indeed been "infected with cancer" from the polio vaccination, it would be a huge news story? If bananas were found to cure cancer, don't you think someone besides that guy you dated in high school would have the information? If Ted Cruz had announced he was running for President, don't you think his own social media pages and website would have information about it? Instead, they actually have detailed denials on the subject, right there, for anyone who cares to look for the facts.

When you post something on social media, without any comments regarding your position on the matter, what you are actually saying is, "I believe this to be true". When you speak to someone, face to face, it can be assumed that what you are saying is what you believe. Posts online are no different. You have the freedom to post or say whatever you desire to say(with limited exceptions). You also have a responsibility to not pass on misinformation. If you fail to act responibly, you may reap the negative rewards that go along with that, and you deserve to as well.

Sadly, most people won't learn the lesson they need to learn. Why not? Because there will be a line of people behind them eagerly waiting to pass on the misinformation. How can we stop this? You have to be someone who is willing to stand up and confront this garbage. You are more than able. Willing is the key.

I think most people will stand up for the truth if put in a position to do so. If the truth involves your reputation or that of your family, it is easy, right? If it is a truth that might affect you in a major way, financially for instance, it isn't hard to stand up for it. What if it were a truth that could affect the very heart of information technology?

People, en masse, tend to believe everything they see on news sources. Major news media has proven this over and over. More and more, television news is being replaced by online sources. It won't be too many years before the balance has completely shifted toward the internet. It already has for some demographics. If we can't trust what we read, what we read will become nothing but a tool for those who would have us to believe what they want to. This would be a disaster. I don't see the current state of information dissemination being too far removed from this reality. The ONLY way to combat this, short of some sort of horrible legislation that would ultimately do more harm than good, is for the common citizen to speak up every time they see garbage being spread.

You will be held up to be a trouble-maker. You will hear the arguments that the person spreading the lies are "well-intentioned", good people. You will hear that you are an agitator. You will lose friends. You will be flooded with garbage. You will have all the tools that those who spread misinformation have at their disposal thrown at you. For this reason, you must stand up to it.

It may seem like a small, innocuous thing to say something when you see some stupid internet meme being spread. In reality, it is a huge responsibility to do so. The truth is the truth. Whether we are talking about Abe Vigoda's health, the cure for cancer, or the coming of Jesus Christ, the truth is the truth! There are no shades of grey. Truth is a black and white issue. Stand up for it, no matter how small of a truth it seems to be.

Truth is worth preserving and if we don't do that, what do we have left? You can answer this question for yourself, If you don't stand up for truth, aren't you just as guilty as the one spreading the lie?

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. 

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.

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.

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:

"[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,
 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 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.

Senator Murphy can be reached here.
NASCAR can be reached here.

We have a responsibility to let our voices be heard.

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:

 “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.”

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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!

Responsible Liberty

Ronald Reagan said, “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.” 

The responsible liberty that Reagan speaks of is not some new idea that he invented. He understood full well what our founding fathers and those who have followed meant when they spoke of our freedoms, given to us by our Creator, as unalienable rights. He understood that liberty without responsibility is the road to anarchy. He understood that responsibility without liberty is the road to tyranny. Anarchy and tyranny are ideas that we, as Americans should never accept. We must maintain the necessary dependency of liberty upon responsibility and vice versa. They cannot exist, meaningfully, without one another.

Reagan also said ,“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” Government power consumes liberty. An unchecked government will abuse and add to its power until we, the people, stop it from further doing so. The Constitution of the United States was not meant to restrict what the people could do, it was written to restrict what the government can do. We must not allow the government to ignore and trample on the Constitution any longer. The founding fathers knew this. We must not forget. John Adams said, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”Read that again, liberty, once lost, is lost forever. It is our duty as Americans to insure that this never happens.