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?
Showing posts with label tyranny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tyranny. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Audemus jura nostra defendere
Audemus jura nostra defendere
We Dare defend our rights! This is the motto of the State of Alabama. Taken from a poem by Sir William Jones, an eighteenth century English philologist titled "An Ode in Imitation of Alcaeus", also known as "What Constitutes a State". In that, he declares:
It seems to be somewhat more common recently to question anyone who would dare quote or base opinions on that tired old document known as the Constitution of the United States of America. We've heard such dependence on and adherence to called into question by legislators at all levels, the President, courts, up to and including the Supreme court and of course, the media. We've even heard them question whether or not the Founders really meant what they said when they wrote it.
I stand firm in my belief that not only did they mean what they said, but they were some of, if not the greatest visionaries the world has ever seen. They knew full well that we would encounter men who would make it their business to undo the freedoms that they expressed in their writings. The freedoms that Crispus Attucks, widely considered the first man to die in the American Revolution to Jamar Hicks, the most recent to die (as of this writing) in the ongoing war in Afghanistan, died for. The freedoms that roughly 2.75 millions Americans have died or been injured fighting to protect. The freedoms that have been and are now, systematically being rolled back, dismantled and outright abolished in many cases.
John Adams, a decade before the American Revolution, was already speaking of the necessity to defend our rights when he said:
James Madison, in 1792, said:
There are so many wise words, far beyond the few I've quoted here on how important our rights are and to what extent we should go to protect them.
You often hear the question, what would the founders do if they were alive today. I don't think that is difficult in the least to answer. Just read what they had to say. They would do everything in their power, which is well laid out in the Constitution, to return our rights to us and return our government to us, as it was designed, not this aberration that we have lording over us today. More than that, I think that the task they would face would be far less than that which we face, because they would have never let it become what it has. One things is for sure, they would wholeheartedly believe in the concept of audemus jura nostra defendere, we dare defend our rights!
Sam Adams summed it up well in 1771, when he said"
Not only should we dare to defend our liberty, but we have a duty to do so. A duty! We have a call to be responsible with our liberty, for it is not ours alone, we share it with our fellow men. If one of us shirks this duty, it diminishes the ability for other men to fight for theirs! We are at a place in history where it seems there are more people who are denouncing their responsibility to fight for their liberty than there are those who are standing up for it. If this trend continues, we as a nation will lose the ability to stand up and proclaim, audemus jura nostra defendere!
I dare, do you?
We Dare defend our rights! This is the motto of the State of Alabama. Taken from a poem by Sir William Jones, an eighteenth century English philologist titled "An Ode in Imitation of Alcaeus", also known as "What Constitutes a State". In that, he declares:
Men, who their duties know,But know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain,
Prevent the long-aimed blow,And crush the tyrant while they rend the chain
It seems to be somewhat more common recently to question anyone who would dare quote or base opinions on that tired old document known as the Constitution of the United States of America. We've heard such dependence on and adherence to called into question by legislators at all levels, the President, courts, up to and including the Supreme court and of course, the media. We've even heard them question whether or not the Founders really meant what they said when they wrote it.
I stand firm in my belief that not only did they mean what they said, but they were some of, if not the greatest visionaries the world has ever seen. They knew full well that we would encounter men who would make it their business to undo the freedoms that they expressed in their writings. The freedoms that Crispus Attucks, widely considered the first man to die in the American Revolution to Jamar Hicks, the most recent to die (as of this writing) in the ongoing war in Afghanistan, died for. The freedoms that roughly 2.75 millions Americans have died or been injured fighting to protect. The freedoms that have been and are now, systematically being rolled back, dismantled and outright abolished in many cases.
John Adams, a decade before the American Revolution, was already speaking of the necessity to defend our rights when he said:
Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.
James Madison, in 1792, said:
As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.We own our rights and we have the right to own them! A couple of days later, Madison wen on to say:
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his ownOur rights are to be protected by our government, not taken away!
There are so many wise words, far beyond the few I've quoted here on how important our rights are and to what extent we should go to protect them.
You often hear the question, what would the founders do if they were alive today. I don't think that is difficult in the least to answer. Just read what they had to say. They would do everything in their power, which is well laid out in the Constitution, to return our rights to us and return our government to us, as it was designed, not this aberration that we have lording over us today. More than that, I think that the task they would face would be far less than that which we face, because they would have never let it become what it has. One things is for sure, they would wholeheartedly believe in the concept of audemus jura nostra defendere, we dare defend our rights!
Sam Adams summed it up well in 1771, when he said"
The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.
Not only should we dare to defend our liberty, but we have a duty to do so. A duty! We have a call to be responsible with our liberty, for it is not ours alone, we share it with our fellow men. If one of us shirks this duty, it diminishes the ability for other men to fight for theirs! We are at a place in history where it seems there are more people who are denouncing their responsibility to fight for their liberty than there are those who are standing up for it. If this trend continues, we as a nation will lose the ability to stand up and proclaim, audemus jura nostra defendere!
I dare, do you?
Friday, August 16, 2013
Courage
Recently, I saw this photo that really struck me:
As with any photo, there is a story behind it. It turns out neither the guy about to die, nor the executioners are anyone I'd associate with. The guy was a member of the German Communists who were defeated, rounded up and executed in 1919. The armed squad were German Socialists, who would eventually give rise to the National Socialists. You probably remember them as the Nazi Party. All of that being what it is, this photo still says so much. The young man is defiant. He looks less scared than some of those holding rifles to me. The message I get from this photo is, you could not kill my spirit, so you are forced to kill me instead.
Now I certainly hope I'm never put into a position like this, nor anyone else for that matter, but I wish more people had this man's attitude right now. Stand for what you believe in!
This photo reminded me of another historical photo that speaks to me in a very similar way.
As with any photo, there is a story behind it. It turns out neither the guy about to die, nor the executioners are anyone I'd associate with. The guy was a member of the German Communists who were defeated, rounded up and executed in 1919. The armed squad were German Socialists, who would eventually give rise to the National Socialists. You probably remember them as the Nazi Party. All of that being what it is, this photo still says so much. The young man is defiant. He looks less scared than some of those holding rifles to me. The message I get from this photo is, you could not kill my spirit, so you are forced to kill me instead.
Now I certainly hope I'm never put into a position like this, nor anyone else for that matter, but I wish more people had this man's attitude right now. Stand for what you believe in!
This photo reminded me of another historical photo that speaks to me in a very similar way.
In this huge crowd of people who may either believe in whatever Nazi propaganda they are hearing or not, there is one guy who is not capitulating. All of the others have given up. Not him. He stands there with his arms crossed just daring anyone to question why he is not saluting. There almost seems to be a human buffer around him because no one wants to be mistaken as being with him. Maybe they just want to avoid the errant shot. Whatever the reason, they stand in support of something that he perceives as evil. He is the only one willing to stand for what he believes in. Granted, some of the crowd may have been taken in, but almost all of them seem to be civilians. Most civilians at that time still held that status because they had not joined the Nazi party. That is what leads me to my conclusion that he is one of the few that is standing for what he truly believes. We don't know the exact fate of this man, but we do know this. Live or die, he had courage.
That brings me to one more photo that I absolutely love.
I know nothing about the history of this photo except that it appears to be from World War 2. I have imagined what appears obvious. The soldier being carried was wounded to the point of not being able to walk. He has also lost his rifle, either literally or from lack of ammunition or the ability to fire it. His buddy gave up his ability to fight in order to carry him, who knows how far, through ankle deep mud while still being accosted by the enemy. The injured soldier returns fire with his side arm.
This photo speaks to me on a couple of levels. First, you are not out of the fight until you are no longer able to fight. Never give up! Second, never leave a man behind. This guy is risking his own life to save his injured comrade. This photo is one of my favorites from World War 2. There are a lot of great photos out there, some depicting some incredibly important, transcendent and historical moments, but this one tells an incredible story.
All three of these photos speak loudly to the value of human spirit. In the face of some of the most horrible situations men have ever faced and most of humanity will never face, courage shined through. We should take these example and be inspired by them. What our nation is facing right now is bad, no doubt about that. Are we, as individuals, facing situations as perilous as these four guys though? Well, that is debatable. In the present, probably not. But if we don;t have the courage to stand up fpr what we believe in, for what believe to be right, then we may as well be facing the same thing these guys faced. If we don;t stand now, we may actually face something like this in the future. I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but I would bet that none of these men felt they would have to face what they are facing in these photos 5 years before they were taken. I would imagine, based on these photos, if they did know what they would be facing, they would have stood even more firm in resistance.
I don't know about you, but if there is a way to turn things around by standing up now for what I believe in, I find that much more appealing than having to stand up the way these men did, after the fact. You may not feel that you need to stand up now, but I wonder what you'll feel if you ever have to stand and face what these men faced. I much prefer the former over the latter.
Abraham Lincoln had something to say about this. Consider these two quotes and then determine for yourself, where and how you stand.
Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.
I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Ambushed: A Comparison
If you were in a war and found yourself in an ambush situation, there are a few things you would rely heavily on to stay alive.
Movement- A stationary target soon becomes a dead target.
Return fire- Take every opportunity to shoot back. If you can eliminate the threat, you don't die.
Firepower- Pull out the biggest, meanest weapon you have. Don't rely on a .45 when you have an M16.
Ammunition- If you don't have enough ammunition, you may as well not have a gun.
Support- If you have buddies around you or even better, air support to drop the big guns on them, use them.
Training/Intelligence- The skills you have been taught and as much information as you can find about the current situation.
Tenacity- Use every skill and trick that you know to keep your enemy off balance and on the run.
Perseverance- Never give up.
If you were to employ all of these, together, you would stand a decent chance of not only surviving, but winning your battle. You could also be defeated. If you take that attitude into a battle, however, you have given yourself a huge setback right from the start. General Eisenhower once said, "Pessimism never won any battle". If you don't think you can win, why are you there in the first place? Knowing that you may die, but fighting like you have to win, means the battle is worth fighting. If a battle is worth fighting, then it's worth fighting to the finish and fighting to win.
We need lawmakers who understand that this can apply to any battle they face, not just one where bad guys are trying to shoot you with an AK-47. How does this apply to congress?
Movement. Don't just stand still and become complacent. The status quo will get nothing done. Being conservative does not, as some would have you believe, mean fighting change. If you want to define so simply, it means fighting against progressives and their freedom destroying ideals and fighting for those freedoms that are God given and constitutionally protected. They need to get busy. Don't just stand there and watch our country fall further into the post-constitutional soft tyranny that it is rapidly becoming. We aren't paying them to hold the carpet down in congress, we are paying them to work, for us.
Return fire. When we are in the minority, it seems to become the modus operendi to just try and rely on "no" votes. News flash, when you are in the minority, "no" won't do it. They need to fire back with every tool they have. Create useful legislation. Put people's feet to the fire by bringing votes to the floor. Work behind the scenes in committees. Use the power that they have, and they have many. Stand in front of every camera that presents itself and get the message out to the public. Let the public join the fight in contacting their representatives. There are countless ways to fight back, but occasionally pointing the legislative "weapons" that they possess will do nothing unless they pull the trigger!
Firepower. Pull out the big guns, don't just sit around occasionally firing a cap gun. We have a few Senators that are not afraid to make some noise in this manner, far too few. When Rand Paul stood up and filibustered for half a day, it made noise, a lot of noise. He was cheered wildly from one side and attacked viciously from the other. He was noticed, to say the least. When Ted Cruz stands up and speaks his mind, people know it. When he challenged Dianne Feinstein over the second amendment, she was visibly upset. Although I'm sure she has spoken, I can't remember very much news about her since that happened. This was a freshman Senator taking on an establishment Senator that has been in office for over twenty years. He was armed to the teeth when he did that. A constitutional lawyer who argued the Heller decision before the Supreme Court taking on a lifetime politician who doesn't know the difference between a handgun and a rifle. These and a few others are not afraid to stand up and speak for what is right, regardless of any perceived consequences they may incur. We need more who will use the power that they have been given to do what the people expect of them.
Ammunition. Occasionally one will stand up and fire a shot off. Then the progressive machines throws a fusillade back at them and they slink back behind their desk and start worrying about re-election. What they need to do is re-load! Facts are deadly to the left. There is a never-ending supply of facts on most of the issues that we face, from gun control to health care to environmental issues. Nothing irritates me more that when some well-meaning person uses the phrase in a gun control debate, "guns don't kill people...", and then have not mush else to say. They are right in that statement, but it is useless by itself. There is an almost unlimited amount of data surrounding this issue. Why won't they use them? John Lott has written several extremely useful books on the subject. He is not alone. We need to get these facts into the fight. This issue is only one of the many examples where this is true.
Support. When Rand Paul filibustered, he started out alone. When he finished, it was standing room only, not just in the Senate chambers, but around the country. He had people like Cruz and Lee and dozens of others take stretches of his time to not only give him a breather, but also to throw a few volleys of their own. We sometimes see one of them reach out to the public for assistance on various issues, petitions, rallies and the like. We need to see them call for support from experts on issues, from each other and from the general public more often. Ronald Reagan reached out to the public often, with great success. One Senator doesn't stand much of a chance against the other ninety-nine. But one Senator with a great idea who can enunciate that to his comrades and to the millions of constituents across the country can soon amass an undefeatable force. They need to be willing to not only ask for help, but accept it when offered.
Training/Intelligence. I keep using Ted Cruz as an example because he is such a good one. He is an expert in constitutional law. I suspect he and many of our representatives were schooled in debate. We have doctors, lawyers, military, businessmen and who knows what other areas of expertise representing us in Washington. All have a unique set of qualifications and educational experiences. Yet when they get there, most seem to forget that and just engage in verbal jousting. This is falling into the trap and the method of the progressives. They need to use what they know to take the fight to them, not let the other side use what they know to accomplish this endless cycle of derision while they pass unconstitutional liberty-killing laws behind our backs. They also have an unlimited network that can keep them up to speed on what is going on. They need to use this intelligence. How often do we here, "I don't know" when asked a question on an issue? They should be well versed on the issues and able to speak clearly about them. Ignorance is no excuse.
Tenacity. This is a tactic where conservatives could learn a thing or two from progressives. If the left loses a vote, they bring another. If that fails, they use some administrative agency or executive order. If that fails, they bring a lawsuit. If that fails, they do it anyway. Meanwhile, the progressive mouthpieces, like Jackson, Sharpton, Moore, Gore and the media never stop spewing rhetoric and shouting down their opponents. The progressives have been working hard at turning this country upside down since the late 1800's, and they have made huge strides in doing so. Those of us who wish to see the country returned to the guiding principles that the founding fathers put into place have been complacent, at best, collectively. We too often think the next election or next vote can turn things around. Remember how long long it has taken the progressives to get us into this position, it will probably take us that long to get it back if we ever get ourselves together. We cannot sit back and hope something changes. We have to change it and we have to be ever vigilant as we do so. The progressive never stops attacking, we have to have that mentality if things are to be changed.
Perseverance. Once we get all of that together, we cannot stop, ever. If this country is ever to remain what it was founded to be, we have to be constantly on guard. Evil isn't going away any time soon, and until it does, we have to guard against it. We, those who love and remember why we exist as a nation, are not just the best hope, we are the only hope. We need to return to, depend on and defend those principles that made America the great nation that it was and can be again. We need leaders, from among us, that will stand for these ideals.
Cicero once said:
Our biggest battle for the survival of this nation has not and will not be fought on the battlefields of the world, it has been and will continue to be fought in the halls and chambers of our houses of government. On every level from school boards to city councils to the houses of congress in Washington DC. We cannot lose this battle.
Movement- A stationary target soon becomes a dead target.
Return fire- Take every opportunity to shoot back. If you can eliminate the threat, you don't die.
Firepower- Pull out the biggest, meanest weapon you have. Don't rely on a .45 when you have an M16.
Ammunition- If you don't have enough ammunition, you may as well not have a gun.
Support- If you have buddies around you or even better, air support to drop the big guns on them, use them.
Training/Intelligence- The skills you have been taught and as much information as you can find about the current situation.
Tenacity- Use every skill and trick that you know to keep your enemy off balance and on the run.
Perseverance- Never give up.
If you were to employ all of these, together, you would stand a decent chance of not only surviving, but winning your battle. You could also be defeated. If you take that attitude into a battle, however, you have given yourself a huge setback right from the start. General Eisenhower once said, "Pessimism never won any battle". If you don't think you can win, why are you there in the first place? Knowing that you may die, but fighting like you have to win, means the battle is worth fighting. If a battle is worth fighting, then it's worth fighting to the finish and fighting to win.
We need lawmakers who understand that this can apply to any battle they face, not just one where bad guys are trying to shoot you with an AK-47. How does this apply to congress?
Movement. Don't just stand still and become complacent. The status quo will get nothing done. Being conservative does not, as some would have you believe, mean fighting change. If you want to define so simply, it means fighting against progressives and their freedom destroying ideals and fighting for those freedoms that are God given and constitutionally protected. They need to get busy. Don't just stand there and watch our country fall further into the post-constitutional soft tyranny that it is rapidly becoming. We aren't paying them to hold the carpet down in congress, we are paying them to work, for us.
Return fire. When we are in the minority, it seems to become the modus operendi to just try and rely on "no" votes. News flash, when you are in the minority, "no" won't do it. They need to fire back with every tool they have. Create useful legislation. Put people's feet to the fire by bringing votes to the floor. Work behind the scenes in committees. Use the power that they have, and they have many. Stand in front of every camera that presents itself and get the message out to the public. Let the public join the fight in contacting their representatives. There are countless ways to fight back, but occasionally pointing the legislative "weapons" that they possess will do nothing unless they pull the trigger!
Firepower. Pull out the big guns, don't just sit around occasionally firing a cap gun. We have a few Senators that are not afraid to make some noise in this manner, far too few. When Rand Paul stood up and filibustered for half a day, it made noise, a lot of noise. He was cheered wildly from one side and attacked viciously from the other. He was noticed, to say the least. When Ted Cruz stands up and speaks his mind, people know it. When he challenged Dianne Feinstein over the second amendment, she was visibly upset. Although I'm sure she has spoken, I can't remember very much news about her since that happened. This was a freshman Senator taking on an establishment Senator that has been in office for over twenty years. He was armed to the teeth when he did that. A constitutional lawyer who argued the Heller decision before the Supreme Court taking on a lifetime politician who doesn't know the difference between a handgun and a rifle. These and a few others are not afraid to stand up and speak for what is right, regardless of any perceived consequences they may incur. We need more who will use the power that they have been given to do what the people expect of them.
Ammunition. Occasionally one will stand up and fire a shot off. Then the progressive machines throws a fusillade back at them and they slink back behind their desk and start worrying about re-election. What they need to do is re-load! Facts are deadly to the left. There is a never-ending supply of facts on most of the issues that we face, from gun control to health care to environmental issues. Nothing irritates me more that when some well-meaning person uses the phrase in a gun control debate, "guns don't kill people...", and then have not mush else to say. They are right in that statement, but it is useless by itself. There is an almost unlimited amount of data surrounding this issue. Why won't they use them? John Lott has written several extremely useful books on the subject. He is not alone. We need to get these facts into the fight. This issue is only one of the many examples where this is true.
Support. When Rand Paul filibustered, he started out alone. When he finished, it was standing room only, not just in the Senate chambers, but around the country. He had people like Cruz and Lee and dozens of others take stretches of his time to not only give him a breather, but also to throw a few volleys of their own. We sometimes see one of them reach out to the public for assistance on various issues, petitions, rallies and the like. We need to see them call for support from experts on issues, from each other and from the general public more often. Ronald Reagan reached out to the public often, with great success. One Senator doesn't stand much of a chance against the other ninety-nine. But one Senator with a great idea who can enunciate that to his comrades and to the millions of constituents across the country can soon amass an undefeatable force. They need to be willing to not only ask for help, but accept it when offered.
Training/Intelligence. I keep using Ted Cruz as an example because he is such a good one. He is an expert in constitutional law. I suspect he and many of our representatives were schooled in debate. We have doctors, lawyers, military, businessmen and who knows what other areas of expertise representing us in Washington. All have a unique set of qualifications and educational experiences. Yet when they get there, most seem to forget that and just engage in verbal jousting. This is falling into the trap and the method of the progressives. They need to use what they know to take the fight to them, not let the other side use what they know to accomplish this endless cycle of derision while they pass unconstitutional liberty-killing laws behind our backs. They also have an unlimited network that can keep them up to speed on what is going on. They need to use this intelligence. How often do we here, "I don't know" when asked a question on an issue? They should be well versed on the issues and able to speak clearly about them. Ignorance is no excuse.
Tenacity. This is a tactic where conservatives could learn a thing or two from progressives. If the left loses a vote, they bring another. If that fails, they use some administrative agency or executive order. If that fails, they bring a lawsuit. If that fails, they do it anyway. Meanwhile, the progressive mouthpieces, like Jackson, Sharpton, Moore, Gore and the media never stop spewing rhetoric and shouting down their opponents. The progressives have been working hard at turning this country upside down since the late 1800's, and they have made huge strides in doing so. Those of us who wish to see the country returned to the guiding principles that the founding fathers put into place have been complacent, at best, collectively. We too often think the next election or next vote can turn things around. Remember how long long it has taken the progressives to get us into this position, it will probably take us that long to get it back if we ever get ourselves together. We cannot sit back and hope something changes. We have to change it and we have to be ever vigilant as we do so. The progressive never stops attacking, we have to have that mentality if things are to be changed.
Perseverance. Once we get all of that together, we cannot stop, ever. If this country is ever to remain what it was founded to be, we have to be constantly on guard. Evil isn't going away any time soon, and until it does, we have to guard against it. We, those who love and remember why we exist as a nation, are not just the best hope, we are the only hope. We need to return to, depend on and defend those principles that made America the great nation that it was and can be again. We need leaders, from among us, that will stand for these ideals.
Cicero once said:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
Our biggest battle for the survival of this nation has not and will not be fought on the battlefields of the world, it has been and will continue to be fought in the halls and chambers of our houses of government. On every level from school boards to city councils to the houses of congress in Washington DC. We cannot lose this battle.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
The Bully Pulpit
Theodore Roosevelt coined the term "bully pulpit" to describe the great platform that the White House was for advocating an agenda. His meaning was that he had a national stage on which to speak, unencumbered for the most part. Many presidents have used this platform very effectively to communicate ideas and proposals to the American people. Ronald Reagan did this often, with amazing results in many cases.
Today, word "bully" means something entirely different. It has a completely negative meaning, "harasser of the weak". Bullying is almost universally frowned upon by society. The only people that seem accepting of the practice are themselves, bullies. We have recently seen a tidal wave of backlash against bullying. Government has addressed it on local, state and even federal levels. The medical and psychological professions have joined the cause. Celebrities have spoken out against it. It can do great harm and is rightly being addressed more so than ever.
When I was young, the only recourse one had against a bully was to stand up to them. Generally speaking, if you did that, even if you got your block knocked off, the bullying would stop. The bully was either put in his place or he gained enough respect that someone would stand up to him that he focused his energy on someone else.
The bully pulpit has changed as well. It no longer seems to be a platform to take your case to the people in order to gain their support. The White House is still a platform where that can be accomplished, no doubt. Although it has really been "fundamentally transformed" into something entirely different. It is much more imbued by the current definition. In that sense, our current president is using the bully pulpit to present himself as the bully in chief.
This administration has taken bullying to a new level. It is not an isolated incident. It is not an isolated agency. It is certainly not isolated to the president himself. He has cultivated a culture of bullying that has no equal. From the top down, we are being pushed around. The intent is no different than that of the playground bully in 1974. Power. The only difference is that in 1974, the power could only be used to determine which swing could be used or in what order you could enjoy the slide. In 2013, that power is being used as a form of tyranny, increasingly to tear down our fundamental and constitutionally protected rights as citizens of the United States of America.
The examples are too numerous to include them all. Most are probably yet unknown, new examples are exposed every day. Some of the highlights include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(Obamacare). The number of Americans, including representatives and health care industry experts that are against this monstrosity is overwhelming. That doesn't matter, it was pushed through anyway.
The administrative state that we live in has bullied us for years. It is so out of control that a solution seems completely out of reach at this point. They tell us everything we are allowed to do and how to do it. The cost of enforcement of regulations alone is well over $1 Trillion per year. That doesn't include all of the costs to devise, implement, litigate and staff the people in order to push us around this way. They dictate about toilets, light bulbs, gas, water usage, cars, diapers, cribs, milk, cleaners, medicines, restaurants and a practically endless list of other things.
That is bad enough. Regulatory and legislative bullying have completely changed the way we are allowed to live our lives. In the last few years, though, the bully pulpit has taken on an entirely more sinister feel. The bully in chief and his culture of corruption have taken it upon themselves to get far more tyrannical in their actions. Some examples of this are the current IRS situation, the Associated Press situation, the FOX news situation, and the HHS situation. These, while not at this point resolved, appear on the surface to include broken laws and conspiracies that could reach all the way to the bully himself. If it doesn't reach him in direct involvement, it seems almost certain to me that his influence in all of this is deep and meaningful.
There was a witness in front of the Way & Means committee today named Becky Gerritson. She gave very impassioned testimony about her involvement in the IRS scandal that I think everyone should see. Becky Gerritson She spoke what, I believe and overwhelming number of Americans think. I believe we have a responsibility to do exactly what she is doing, standing up to the bully. This is an entirely different kind of bully than we faced on the playground as children. It will take an entirely different kind of standing up than it took back then.
Our Founding Fathers knew this. We are given so many examples of their thinking. The United States was founded on several noble principles, one of the main ones being the standing up to a bully, King George III. This country has a history of standing up to bullies, and winning! We have no less of a responsibility right now to do just that. Stand up now, or sit down forever. It is your choice.
Today, word "bully" means something entirely different. It has a completely negative meaning, "harasser of the weak". Bullying is almost universally frowned upon by society. The only people that seem accepting of the practice are themselves, bullies. We have recently seen a tidal wave of backlash against bullying. Government has addressed it on local, state and even federal levels. The medical and psychological professions have joined the cause. Celebrities have spoken out against it. It can do great harm and is rightly being addressed more so than ever.
When I was young, the only recourse one had against a bully was to stand up to them. Generally speaking, if you did that, even if you got your block knocked off, the bullying would stop. The bully was either put in his place or he gained enough respect that someone would stand up to him that he focused his energy on someone else.
The bully pulpit has changed as well. It no longer seems to be a platform to take your case to the people in order to gain their support. The White House is still a platform where that can be accomplished, no doubt. Although it has really been "fundamentally transformed" into something entirely different. It is much more imbued by the current definition. In that sense, our current president is using the bully pulpit to present himself as the bully in chief.
This administration has taken bullying to a new level. It is not an isolated incident. It is not an isolated agency. It is certainly not isolated to the president himself. He has cultivated a culture of bullying that has no equal. From the top down, we are being pushed around. The intent is no different than that of the playground bully in 1974. Power. The only difference is that in 1974, the power could only be used to determine which swing could be used or in what order you could enjoy the slide. In 2013, that power is being used as a form of tyranny, increasingly to tear down our fundamental and constitutionally protected rights as citizens of the United States of America.
The examples are too numerous to include them all. Most are probably yet unknown, new examples are exposed every day. Some of the highlights include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(Obamacare). The number of Americans, including representatives and health care industry experts that are against this monstrosity is overwhelming. That doesn't matter, it was pushed through anyway.
The administrative state that we live in has bullied us for years. It is so out of control that a solution seems completely out of reach at this point. They tell us everything we are allowed to do and how to do it. The cost of enforcement of regulations alone is well over $1 Trillion per year. That doesn't include all of the costs to devise, implement, litigate and staff the people in order to push us around this way. They dictate about toilets, light bulbs, gas, water usage, cars, diapers, cribs, milk, cleaners, medicines, restaurants and a practically endless list of other things.
That is bad enough. Regulatory and legislative bullying have completely changed the way we are allowed to live our lives. In the last few years, though, the bully pulpit has taken on an entirely more sinister feel. The bully in chief and his culture of corruption have taken it upon themselves to get far more tyrannical in their actions. Some examples of this are the current IRS situation, the Associated Press situation, the FOX news situation, and the HHS situation. These, while not at this point resolved, appear on the surface to include broken laws and conspiracies that could reach all the way to the bully himself. If it doesn't reach him in direct involvement, it seems almost certain to me that his influence in all of this is deep and meaningful.
There was a witness in front of the Way & Means committee today named Becky Gerritson. She gave very impassioned testimony about her involvement in the IRS scandal that I think everyone should see. Becky Gerritson She spoke what, I believe and overwhelming number of Americans think. I believe we have a responsibility to do exactly what she is doing, standing up to the bully. This is an entirely different kind of bully than we faced on the playground as children. It will take an entirely different kind of standing up than it took back then.
Our Founding Fathers knew this. We are given so many examples of their thinking. The United States was founded on several noble principles, one of the main ones being the standing up to a bully, King George III. This country has a history of standing up to bullies, and winning! We have no less of a responsibility right now to do just that. Stand up now, or sit down forever. It is your choice.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Fundamental
Fundamental
Those are straight-forward definitions of what the word means. I'd like to look at each definition as it relates to the founding of our country.
This country was formally founded by the Declaration of Independence. A document declaring our natural rights as human beings ,giving the reasons for our desire and right to separate ourselves from the tyrannical rule of King George III of England and finally, the declaration of our country as independent among the nations of the earth. This established the people living in the colonies as the United States of America. This was no small thing, as the last words of the document state:
The constitution is the original document laying out how this country should operate. It was not the first document to govern life in the colonies, but it was the first post-independence document that had authority over all of the states. It was the origin and source that generated our laws. As the basis supporting our existence(our Declaration of Independence) it works to establish the essential structure and function of our government in the way that the founders envisioned. We declared our existence and then said this is how it will work.
It deals with the essential structure and function of our government. Essential, as in, absolutely necessary. If we take away the constitution, we are left with nothing. The meaning of central importance can't describe any better what the constitution means to our country, not only the founding, but the basic survival. No law, agency, politician, position or party even comes close to being as important as the Constitution is to the US.
It is the life-blood of America. It is a written representation of what our founders saw as the characteristics of what a country steeped in liberty should be. It literally mirrors the characteristics of the founders at large. They fought and died for the belief that we, as human beings deserved to live by our God given rights that are described in the Declaration and defined and expounded upon in the Constitution. Not only they, but many more since have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and many have done so to the point of death in defense of it.
When you think of America and apply the word fundamental to it, you are left with these two documents. They are bound to each other. They cannot be separated without taking away part of the other. They function together as the reason and capacity for our existence as a nation. They are the cornerstone of this great United States of America. Without them, we as a nation, are doomed to become but a memory of what once was.
With this in mind, I want you to think back to October 30, 2008, when Barack Obama said "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America".
Looking back on the last 5 years, there can be little doubt what he meant when he said that. If has kept any campaign promise, it was this one.
The presidential oath of office as spelled out in Article II, Section I, Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United States of America says this:
Any questions?
12: of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts ; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application3: of central importance4: belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : deep-rooted
Those are straight-forward definitions of what the word means. I'd like to look at each definition as it relates to the founding of our country.
This country was formally founded by the Declaration of Independence. A document declaring our natural rights as human beings ,giving the reasons for our desire and right to separate ourselves from the tyrannical rule of King George III of England and finally, the declaration of our country as independent among the nations of the earth. This established the people living in the colonies as the United States of America. This was no small thing, as the last words of the document state:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.Soon, the realization that the Articles of Confederation were not up to the task of being the supreme law of this newly formed great nation, the leaders met again to draft what would live up to that task. The Constitution of the United States was soon ratified and included the first ten amendments as was declared necessary for the ratification. The Constitution is the fundamental bedrock for the way this nation was supposed to operate. With that, let's take a look at what fundamental means in relation to this document.
The constitution is the original document laying out how this country should operate. It was not the first document to govern life in the colonies, but it was the first post-independence document that had authority over all of the states. It was the origin and source that generated our laws. As the basis supporting our existence(our Declaration of Independence) it works to establish the essential structure and function of our government in the way that the founders envisioned. We declared our existence and then said this is how it will work.
It deals with the essential structure and function of our government. Essential, as in, absolutely necessary. If we take away the constitution, we are left with nothing. The meaning of central importance can't describe any better what the constitution means to our country, not only the founding, but the basic survival. No law, agency, politician, position or party even comes close to being as important as the Constitution is to the US.
It is the life-blood of America. It is a written representation of what our founders saw as the characteristics of what a country steeped in liberty should be. It literally mirrors the characteristics of the founders at large. They fought and died for the belief that we, as human beings deserved to live by our God given rights that are described in the Declaration and defined and expounded upon in the Constitution. Not only they, but many more since have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and many have done so to the point of death in defense of it.
When you think of America and apply the word fundamental to it, you are left with these two documents. They are bound to each other. They cannot be separated without taking away part of the other. They function together as the reason and capacity for our existence as a nation. They are the cornerstone of this great United States of America. Without them, we as a nation, are doomed to become but a memory of what once was.
With this in mind, I want you to think back to October 30, 2008, when Barack Obama said "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America".
The presidential oath of office as spelled out in Article II, Section I, Clause VIII of the Constitution of the United States of America says this:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”Clause VI speaks of the president's inability to discharge his duties. As far as I can tell, that would be his only defense of his gross dereliction of duties to uphold and defend the Constitution. In that defense, I would not argue with him at all. He seems supremely in-able.
Any questions?
Thursday, April 11, 2013
First They Came...
There was a Lutheran pastor named Martin Niemöller that lived in nazi Germany. He suffered greatly at the hands of Hitler after believing the lies Hitler told him regarding potential persecution of the church and of the Jews. Hitler was a fantastic liar. He got an entire country to believe him. He convinced them of mighty things and better ways of life, and they believed him. They voted for him. They followed him. Then, when he had all the power he needed, he showed them who he really was. That whole episode didn't really turn out that well for a whole bunch of people.
Mr. Niemöller wrote this little verse at some point, presumably after everything fell apart.
We Americans are in the cross hairs of a very similar "they" referred to in his poem. They aren't nazis. They are best described as statists, as defined by Mark Levin. They are those who want state, or government control of everything. Every aspect of our lives would be controlled and limited as they see fit. These statists aren't limited to liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, left or right, young or old, no, they are a disgusting mixture of everything. Labels like those are merely hiding places for these would be tyrants.
They aren't rounding people up, putting them on trains and sending them off to camps, or worse. They aren't that bold yet. Hitler worked fairly quickly. Stalin wasn't much of a dawdler either. Mao made quick work of his people. America's statists have been very determined and have been working for well over 100 years. Woodrow Wilson could rightly be called the modern father of progressivism. FDR took the ball and ran. LBJ continued and modern liberals have been the main group for the last 40 years or so.
What has been the main tools they use in this creeping tyrannical oppression? The two I contend that have had the biggest impact are the administrative state and judges that have legislated from the bench by way of the decisions they made. The examples are many in both instances. Some examples of the administrative state gone wild are the multitudinous regulations forced upon us by the likes of the FDA, EPA, IRS and countless other agencies that are accountable to no one. I could post specific examples, but the number of pages of law they have created was well over 75,000 last time I looked at it. Meanwhile the federal courts at all levels have been acting as lawmakers with very little oversight for over 200 years. If you don't know how Roe v Wade came into being for example, it's a fascinating, yet maddening read. It has far less to do with abortion than you would imagine. It is just one example of how judges have picked out a word or phrase here and inserted a word or phrase there in order to change meanings and open up door that had been shut either legislatively or by popular vote.
So, back to Mr. Niemöller. How are "they" coming for us? I believe they are coming one freedom at a time. His poem could be re-worded to fit our time.
I enjoy what freedom I have by virtue of being born an American. If you sit silent and watch me lose my freedoms and wind up in the same train car, rest assured, I'm going to punch you in the throat.
Wake up America. Be responsible with the liberty you still have.
Mr. Niemöller wrote this little verse at some point, presumably after everything fell apart.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
We Americans are in the cross hairs of a very similar "they" referred to in his poem. They aren't nazis. They are best described as statists, as defined by Mark Levin. They are those who want state, or government control of everything. Every aspect of our lives would be controlled and limited as they see fit. These statists aren't limited to liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, left or right, young or old, no, they are a disgusting mixture of everything. Labels like those are merely hiding places for these would be tyrants.
They aren't rounding people up, putting them on trains and sending them off to camps, or worse. They aren't that bold yet. Hitler worked fairly quickly. Stalin wasn't much of a dawdler either. Mao made quick work of his people. America's statists have been very determined and have been working for well over 100 years. Woodrow Wilson could rightly be called the modern father of progressivism. FDR took the ball and ran. LBJ continued and modern liberals have been the main group for the last 40 years or so.
What has been the main tools they use in this creeping tyrannical oppression? The two I contend that have had the biggest impact are the administrative state and judges that have legislated from the bench by way of the decisions they made. The examples are many in both instances. Some examples of the administrative state gone wild are the multitudinous regulations forced upon us by the likes of the FDA, EPA, IRS and countless other agencies that are accountable to no one. I could post specific examples, but the number of pages of law they have created was well over 75,000 last time I looked at it. Meanwhile the federal courts at all levels have been acting as lawmakers with very little oversight for over 200 years. If you don't know how Roe v Wade came into being for example, it's a fascinating, yet maddening read. It has far less to do with abortion than you would imagine. It is just one example of how judges have picked out a word or phrase here and inserted a word or phrase there in order to change meanings and open up door that had been shut either legislatively or by popular vote.
So, back to Mr. Niemöller. How are "they" coming for us? I believe they are coming one freedom at a time. His poem could be re-worded to fit our time.
First, they came for the guns,There is no time to wait. This is no time to be silent. They have been and continue to get more bold as they come for our rights as American citizens.Our constitution was written to be the law of the land. There are provisions within the document that lay out, very clearly, how to amend it. The back door to the constitution has been left open for too long now. We can not afford to let progressive statism run rampant any longer. This is a critical point in the history of this great nation. Should we let our freedom be taken away, like John Adams said, it will be gone forever.
I didn't speak because I wasn't a gun owner.
Then they came for the gas-guzzling cars,
I didn't speak because I drove a Prius.
Then they came for the right to speak against the government,
I didn't speak because I said no such things.
Then they came for the right to vote,
I didn't speak because I wasn't registered.
Then they came for the churches,
I didn't speak because I'm not religious.
Then they came for me...
I enjoy what freedom I have by virtue of being born an American. If you sit silent and watch me lose my freedoms and wind up in the same train car, rest assured, I'm going to punch you in the throat.
Wake up America. Be responsible with the liberty you still have.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Target Corporation and Your Personal Information
I recently read an article about a gentleman who encountered Target's policy of "swiping" your driver's license in order to purchase nicotine patches for his son[1]. The story contains links to several other instances of related experiences at Target. I became very interested in what they are doing and why.
Last week I had the occasion to visit Target in order purchase a bottle of NyQuil. I had the story in the back of my mind when I reached the check-out line. Sure enough, upon scanning the single 12 oz bottle of NyQuil, the computer informed the cashier(who was brand new) that she needed to scan my ID. She asked to see my ID, and I opened my wallet to the window where it is and showed it to her. She then informed me that she needed for me to give it to her in order to scan it. I told her(as I had read in the story) that she could do a manual check and have a manager override the computer. Being new, she seemed reluctant. I told her just type in the birth date and it will ask for a supervisor. She did and it did as well.
When the manager came over and saw the screen prompting her for a password, without asking me or the cashier anything, she blindly typed it in, thereby giving the system approval to sell me the NyQuil. Only at that point did she realize why she was being asked for a password. She never addressed me or even made eye contact with me. She told the cashier, "oh, its because it is medicine, we have to swipe the ID, I'll show you how later". With that, she turned and walked away. The cashier apologized for the time it took to get that done and finished the transaction. I assured her that there was no problem and that I appreciated her taking care of my request.
When I got home, I wrote Target Corp. an email asking why they require an ID to be swiped when purchasing NyQuil as I had done. It was a simple request to see if they would let me know what their policy is in this matter. A couple of days later, I received the following response. (Emphasis mine)
Oh. Well, that explains nothing. So I responded to "Beth" with the following:
What I found was that the PSE restrictions were in an amendment that attached to the Patriot Act of all things. So all of this was George Bush's fault apparently(I kid). There were quite a few restrictions surrounding products containing PSEs. Most of them however, would require you to buy around 400 bottles of NyQuil in order to sound the alarms. 400 bottles in one single day. Somewhere around 1000 bottles in a month. Now seriously, who besides a meth producer would ever purchase such quantities of NyQuil? As far as I could tell, in the bill, there was no such restriction, but a lot of retailers will only allow you to purchase 2 separate medicines in a single purchase. I don;t like that policy, but I can see where they are just trying to protect themselves completely.
So back to Proctor & Gamble. How much were they actually putting into NyQuil? Turns out, none. Only one variety of NyQuil used PSE, NyQuil D, and that had been discontinued in 2010. This changed everything. I wrote "Nancy" with my findings.
You would think "Nancy" would have known that before sending me that email, wouldn't you? I was beginning to suspect Nancy and Beth were probably used to responding to people who thought dog toys should be on aisle 17 close to the dog food, instead of on aisle 19 closer to the bird and cat toys. But I admired their effort... The next response I got from Target was as follows:
I decide, since "Katherine" mentioned only media reporting on kids misusing the product and "retailers" taking steps to control it, that I wouldn't bring up any laws surrounding the product. She didn't appear to know any such laws exist and why should I be the one to fan her flames. I saw her response as more of a brush-off than any of the others so far. It kind of angered me that they were unwilling to engage in a real conversation about why they have a policy to swipe and store personal information when the law didn't require them to do so. So, I responded to them again with the following:
It is no secret that Target Corporation is very liberal. You can see this by who they regularly support. What troubles me the most is what we don;t yet know about them. What is this national database? Who has access to it? What will it be used for once the (un)Affordable Heath Care Act goes into full swing?
Once you establish a customer ID at Target, everything you purchase is tracked. It is tracked every time you use a credit or debit card or when you allow them to scan your ID. Target has come under a little bit of fire for this, and that is good. What is bad, though, is the number of other businesses that are doing the exact same thing that have been able to fly under the radar so far. Call me a kook if you will, but then research it for yourself. It is happening and it will continue to happen on a much larger scale.
What can be done about it? Well, you could always just use cash. Lots less convenient and some have even suggested doing that will land you on a watch list. I've heard the term "potential terrorist" associated with the practice. Big Brother is watching folks. But the scary part is we are opening up our windows, in most cases, for him to stick his head into. Government as we know it wants to be involved in every aspect of our lives. This is one way they are succeeding. Be careful out there...
Last week I had the occasion to visit Target in order purchase a bottle of NyQuil. I had the story in the back of my mind when I reached the check-out line. Sure enough, upon scanning the single 12 oz bottle of NyQuil, the computer informed the cashier(who was brand new) that she needed to scan my ID. She asked to see my ID, and I opened my wallet to the window where it is and showed it to her. She then informed me that she needed for me to give it to her in order to scan it. I told her(as I had read in the story) that she could do a manual check and have a manager override the computer. Being new, she seemed reluctant. I told her just type in the birth date and it will ask for a supervisor. She did and it did as well.
When the manager came over and saw the screen prompting her for a password, without asking me or the cashier anything, she blindly typed it in, thereby giving the system approval to sell me the NyQuil. Only at that point did she realize why she was being asked for a password. She never addressed me or even made eye contact with me. She told the cashier, "oh, its because it is medicine, we have to swipe the ID, I'll show you how later". With that, she turned and walked away. The cashier apologized for the time it took to get that done and finished the transaction. I assured her that there was no problem and that I appreciated her taking care of my request.
When I got home, I wrote Target Corp. an email asking why they require an ID to be swiped when purchasing NyQuil as I had done. It was a simple request to see if they would let me know what their policy is in this matter. A couple of days later, I received the following response. (Emphasis mine)
Dear Chad,If a guest approaches checkout with an age restricted-item, cashiers are prompted to check ID and scan the guest's driver's license. Scanning an ID provides a more accurate way to verify date of birth and creates a quick and efficient checkout experience for our guests. The personal information collected is solely for legal compliance and fraud detection.When scanning an ID for this purpose, the systems only capture the same data that would be captured in a manual check: first name, middle initial, last name; ID type, ID number, ID state of issue; address, country; date of birth. The data is stored in a secure environment and is deleted at the end of the standard retention period that we have established for that data.
Sincerely,BethTarget Guest Relations
Oh. Well, that explains nothing. So I responded to "Beth" with the following:
Beth,I eagerly awaited for "Beth" to answer my questions. I was sure there had to be a reasonable explanation for all of this. Like I said in the above, no one else around here requires this in order to purchase NyQuil. Two days later "Beth" responded, or at least I assumed it was her... (emphasis mine)
Thank you for responding. I do, based on your response, have a few more questions about this policy. If the sole reason for scanning an ID is for legal compliance and fraud detection, why is ANY information other than that legally required to purchase a product(age) scanned? My address or middle initial or drivers license number is not required to determine my age. You state the system only captures the same data that would be captured in a manual check. Again, what manual check would ever look at anything besides date of birth?
I'm also curious what the "standard retention period" is for this information. What secure measures do you have in place? As far as I can tell, the consumer never signs or agrees to any sort of privacy policy before submitting this information via the license swipe.
I am a regular shopper at your store. We, in fact, do most of our shopping there. This policy troubles me greatly, however. There are many other stores in our area that do not practice this policy of information gathering for purchases of the same products. The law does not require it.
I look forward to further answers in regards to this matter.
Thank you
Chad
Well, what happened to "Beth"? Anyway, "Nancy" had taken over with much more official sounding information. More sinister as well. A national database that tracks my purchases at all retailers? Even the ones that don't require any sort of information scanning? I just had to know more... I was using my full name in the emails, for the record.Dear Chad,Thanks for taking the time to ask us about your purchase of Nyquil.Here is some helpful information for over the counter items containing Pseudoephedrine.The driver’s license (or other ID) number and guest information are used only to tie the sale of PSE to an individual purchaser in order to comply with local and state laws surrounding the purchase of PSE and is not used for any other purpose. We share information only when required with authorized entities in compliance with legal requirements. Many states have additional limits in place and Target follows whichever law is most restrictive: federal, state or local. We use a national database that tracks your purchases at all retailers.Thanks for writing.Sincerely,NancyTarget Guest Relations
Nancy,That seemed to be a simple enough request. Surely if they were complying with the law, they would know which law it was that they were, in fact, complying with. I eagerly awaited "Nancy's" response. Again, with my emphasis.
Was this in response to the email I sent to "Beth", the first person to respond to me? If so, why didn't she respond? Why doesn't anyone use a last name? If this is in response to the follow-up inquiry I sent to Beth, it failed to answer a single question that I asked. Can you tell me which SPECIFIC law you are following that requires you to swipe my ID(as opposed to simply verifying my age) and store the information contained therein? I have a hard time believing that Target is the only retailer in this area that complies with this law.
Any help in understanding this would be appreciated.
Chad
Finally, one answer. They were in fact responding to emails that I had sent. I asked that question only to be sure multiple people weren't responding to the same email. At least this time, "Nancy" was the respondent. I felt like we were developing some sort of relationship at this point. So I decided to dig deeper. This led me to research what law she was talking about. Also to research what Proctor & Gamble is actually putting in this, what seems to be, highly-regulated drug sitting on store shelves around the country.Dear Chad,Thanks for taking the time to write again. The emails you have received from Guest Relations are in response to your emails.Here is some additional information your requested. Federal law limits purchase of PSE products to 3.6 grams per 24 hours and 9 grams per 30 days. Many states have additional limits in place and Target follows whichever law is most restrictive: federal, state or local.We use a national database that tracks your purchases at all retailers.
We'll do our best to help you find what you're looking for at Target.
Sincerely,NancyTarget Guest Relations
What I found was that the PSE restrictions were in an amendment that attached to the Patriot Act of all things. So all of this was George Bush's fault apparently(I kid). There were quite a few restrictions surrounding products containing PSEs. Most of them however, would require you to buy around 400 bottles of NyQuil in order to sound the alarms. 400 bottles in one single day. Somewhere around 1000 bottles in a month. Now seriously, who besides a meth producer would ever purchase such quantities of NyQuil? As far as I could tell, in the bill, there was no such restriction, but a lot of retailers will only allow you to purchase 2 separate medicines in a single purchase. I don;t like that policy, but I can see where they are just trying to protect themselves completely.
So back to Proctor & Gamble. How much were they actually putting into NyQuil? Turns out, none. Only one variety of NyQuil used PSE, NyQuil D, and that had been discontinued in 2010. This changed everything. I wrote "Nancy" with my findings.
Dear Nancy,
That is informative. Thank you. However, Nyquil Cough contains NO PSE products. The only form of Nyquil that contains any PSE products is Nyquil D, which according to the manufacturer, Proctor & Gamble, they discontinued in 2010.
There are other aspects of that law which don't seem consistent with your policy of scanning and storing consumer information either.
So, why would Target require such information for the purchase of a product which does not require it?
Thank You
Chad
You would think "Nancy" would have known that before sending me that email, wouldn't you? I was beginning to suspect Nancy and Beth were probably used to responding to people who thought dog toys should be on aisle 17 close to the dog food, instead of on aisle 19 closer to the bird and cat toys. But I admired their effort... The next response I got from Target was as follows:
So my illusions about my relationship with "Nancy" were premature. "Katherine" sent me researching again. I found that there were a small amount of state laws dealing with DMX, mostly very similar to the laws surrounding PSE. The only Federal regulations on DMX are from the FDA and they involve nothing more than labeling restrictions and requirements. Senator Durbin introduced legislation that read almost identical to the Patriot Act provision, but it died in committee with no action in 2009.Dear Chad ,I believe Nyquil Cough contains Dextromethorphan, or DEX, is an intoxicating substance used in some cold medicines. It suppresses coughs safely, but in large amounts it produces a chemical imbalance in the brain that causes hallucinations, vivid dreams and a feeling of being outside of one's body.
Various media sources have described how teenagers use cold medication which contains DEX as an intoxicant.
Retailers are taking various steps to control how the product is sold in their stores.
Guests may also refer to Dextromethorphan as “DXM.”
Sincerely,KatherineTarget Guest Relations
I decide, since "Katherine" mentioned only media reporting on kids misusing the product and "retailers" taking steps to control it, that I wouldn't bring up any laws surrounding the product. She didn't appear to know any such laws exist and why should I be the one to fan her flames. I saw her response as more of a brush-off than any of the others so far. It kind of angered me that they were unwilling to engage in a real conversation about why they have a policy to swipe and store personal information when the law didn't require them to do so. So, I responded to them again with the following:
Hi Katherine, welcome to the conversation.I laid out, in full, how they had been avoiding my questions and summed it up with several direct questions. I told my wife that expected their next response to either refer me to their legal department or to tell me that they would no longer respond to my emails. This is what I got:
This is all in regards to Target's apparent policy of requiring the swiping and subsequent storing of personal information in order to purchase a bottle of Nyquil. First, I was told it was for legal compliance and fraud detection and was done to make my experience quick and efficient. Then I was told of all the information gathered(which goes well beyond age verification) and that it would be stored securely for a standard retention period(of which my inquiry as to how secure and for how long was ignored).
Then I was told the purpose was, "only to tie the sale of PSE to an individual purchaser in order to comply with local and state laws surrounding the purchase of PSE and is not used for any other purpose". When I asked which law Target was complying with, I was only given "Federal law limits purchase of PSE products to 3.6 grams per 24 hours and 9 grams per 30 days".
After researching and finding out that Nyquil doesn't even use PSE in it's product(something you would think retailers should know in order to be in compliance with federal law), I again asked why I was being asked to provide extensive information to be stored in a national database for the purchase of said product. Now you tell me that you "believe" Nyquil contains DMX and that various media has described how teenagers use it and that "retailers" are taking steps to control the sale of it.
Does Target have a written policy regarding age restricted products?
Does Target have a written policy regarding the sale of PSE products?
Does Target have a written policy regarding the sale of DMX products?
Does Target have a written policy regarding the way it confirms the age of the consumer?
I have read in other national media outlets that one can request that their info not be swiped/stored, that instead a manager can override the system and manually input the age verification data. Is this true?
Can you please answer the questions I have asked so that I can finally know what Target's policies are?
I have been a Target customer for many years and have spent a LOT of money in your stores. I think you owe me at least the courtesy of answering those questions.
Respectfully
Chad
Dear Chad Y,So, in the end, what have we learned? We have learned that they mine personal information for arbitrary reasons. They store and share this information with whom they see fit. They will not be forthcoming or honest in their responses. And, in previous documented cases, they have given altogether different answers than they gave me.
Thanks for taking the time to share your additional thoughts. I'm sorry we aren't able to help with this further.We have sent you our information regarding PSE, DEX and the reasons why we scan your driver's license.I've shared your comments with the appropriate team.Sincerely,KatherineTarget Guest Relations
It is no secret that Target Corporation is very liberal. You can see this by who they regularly support. What troubles me the most is what we don;t yet know about them. What is this national database? Who has access to it? What will it be used for once the (un)Affordable Heath Care Act goes into full swing?
Once you establish a customer ID at Target, everything you purchase is tracked. It is tracked every time you use a credit or debit card or when you allow them to scan your ID. Target has come under a little bit of fire for this, and that is good. What is bad, though, is the number of other businesses that are doing the exact same thing that have been able to fly under the radar so far. Call me a kook if you will, but then research it for yourself. It is happening and it will continue to happen on a much larger scale.
What can be done about it? Well, you could always just use cash. Lots less convenient and some have even suggested doing that will land you on a watch list. I've heard the term "potential terrorist" associated with the practice. Big Brother is watching folks. But the scary part is we are opening up our windows, in most cases, for him to stick his head into. Government as we know it wants to be involved in every aspect of our lives. This is one way they are succeeding. Be careful out there...
Sunday, February 24, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)