Back to the present

Try to imagine with me, an early America, and our founders were working feverishly to wove together this new nation. In their way, was the army of King George, imposing British law and stifling the attempts of the Colonists to separate from the grasp of British rule.

The pens of those who helped craft our founding documents, were busier than their weapons. But that was soon to change. While the pens were mighty, so too were the muskets of the British, and their well documented Brown Bess rifle. In an effort to counter Britain's advance on Concord, the local militia was called upon to fight. And fight they did.

That was the "back" side of this writing to consider.

The "present", remove the 234 years or so. Let's really stretch your imagination with this.

That local militia was then armed with Brown Besses, Pennsylvania Rifles, or maybe a Club Butt Country Fowler. What ever they had to hunt and to protect their families with, that's what they brought to the fight. And just like firearms owners of today, they bought what they could get, or afford.

But what if? What if they could get and afford a better rifle? A multi-firing rifle? A lighter rifle? A more accurate rifle? An assault rifle?

Do you really think, for a Lexington minute, that any one of the colonists would not have bartered or bought an AR-15? Does anyone really think that any one of them, would not have traded most anything for a firearm that would more than meet the stronger and more professional soldiers and firepower of King George's army? Does anyone think that if any farmer turned Minuteman would not have latched on to such an arm? (By the way, my father-in-law, rest in peace, was a farmer and loved his Mini 14. He was shooting coyotes from his tractor long before the words "assault weapons" hit the lips of liberals.)

I think that far too many, even some well heeled "sportsmen", tend to think a true hunter doesn't really need an "assault rifle". Well, it is my belief that the men of that revolutionary era would have grabbed onto such guns, in a heartbeat. Let's keep in mind, it wasn't just for hunting and family protection, it was for the ready protection of freedom. It was to fight well armed foes. The 2nd amendment, was written to reinforce the 1st amendment, when the words penned so well before, failed to stop the lead of the British.

Don't be fooled. There are those, who after they grow tired, or win, at the health care issue, will take a breath and then come after their next target...the assault weapons (by what ever definition they attach to it next time). This is a fight we must win, and that means we all have to fight it. Be prepared to call, write, and voice your objection of any such attempts. It really is about FREEDOM.

The Death Penalty

As of April 16, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the death penalty, by lethal injection. With that, states are now continuing with those on death row and are sentenced to die.

I am all for the Death Penalty. Always have been. However, my view has changed a bit, and I offer up the following for your consideration.

Not long ago, Texas, and Dallas County in particular, has released a man, falsely convicted of a serious crime. The man spent some 23 years in prison, for a crime he did not commit. DNA set him free. It was primarily a "photo line-up" that convicted him. While he was not on death row, this in part is why I have changed my position, in part anyway.

Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate. Same can be said for other types of "circumstantial evidence", when considered without enough collaborative evidence. Most cases ARE "circumstantial", but most good cases have an abundance of it that supports but one conclusion.

My "death penalty" view has changed, in a large part, because of DNA. Dallas County has now had 16 people set free by DNA. "16" people, wrongly convicted. How would YOU like to have been one of those!

I would like to see a change in death penalty cases, and I submit the following:

1. Death Penalty sentences should be reserved for those people who are guilty beyond ALL doubt, not just "reasonable doubt". Those, like Jeffrey Dahmer, comes to mind. As does Charles Manson, a gleeful bragger of his acts, and proud of those who followed him. Or Dennis Rader, the BTK killer. Fast-tracks for all of them.

2. All such cases where ONLY "circumstantial evidence" brings about a "reasonable doubt" conviction that could warrant a death penalty, should NOT receive the "death penalty", but instead, a mandatory LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. This way, should new evidence come into play later on, the person would still be here for a new trial, or release.

3. ALL death penalty cases, under example #1 above, should be "fast tracked" through the system, and the penalty should be carried out within 1 year after conviction. When such a conviction was obtained with NO DOUBT, supported by the evidence and confessions, then why the wait?Once judicial checks have been reviewed, then git'r done.

The above, while still not perfect, may do several things.

a. Eliminate a wrongly convicted person from being put to death by our system.

b. Keep open the possibility of a new trial for those who may have been wrongfully convicted.

c. And lastly, fast-track, keeping the long and expensive "appeals" to a minimum, the sentencing for a swifter adjudication.

Any man, or woman, who should commit such an act that would warrant the death penalty, and does so in such a manner where NO DOUBT is left as to that person's guilt (so much so, that no other possibility could exist), then such a swift death penalty could bring about a new "deterrence" for such acts.Even if it didn't, that person could never kill again, including killings of guards and other prisoners.

ABC's Charlie Gibson

Some may ask, "Why didn't Charlie Gibson know about the ACORN accusations?"

Well, in all fairness to Charlie, he had no way of knowing. When the main stream media awaits for their news from The White House, they will only know what The White House tells them. And let's be honest, The White House, in particular Obama, who was ACORN'S legal counsel, and who reaped huge benefits from the activities of ACORN, is not about to tell Charlie Gibson. And, I expect Obama is just hoping that the media will not bother with REAL journalism and discover things for themselves.

So Charlie....I understand. It isn't your fault. It's not like you are a real journalist. It's not like you owe the American people anything. After all, we can still find the truth, we just have to look outside ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN.

Good night Chet....Good night David. Good bye REAL journalism.
Dan

PS. Tea parties? What tea parties?

What would TJ do?

I can't help but wonder... What would Thomas Jefferson do?

Just look at the size and power of today's government. It was NEVER intended to be this way. TJ and the boys would NEVER have let this happen. But WE did. I say WE, because as a nation, WE have let, and often demanded, that this government get this big.

All parties are guilty. This didn't happen over night. In my view, it has taken an even uglier pace in it's growth with Obama, but this has been coming for some time, and it's OUR fault.

But it isn't too late to turn the tide. It's time to get out the vote and vote OUT every person, regardless of party, who has voted for these expansive taxes, programs, and pork-barrel projects.

For the people...by the people. Professional, career, politicians are NOT "the people". They no longer are part of the working public, taking time off to represent us. Today's politician, for the most part, are too often people who want their terms to last until retirement. And when they MOVE to their Washington office, seldom to return to their beginnings, they take on that Washington mentality and become washed in the politics of the next term, NOT representing their constituents and the country's BEST interest.

Take back our country. Vote OUT everyone who has help grow the government, and not grow America!

Drug wars

While I completely DISAGREE with Hillary Clinton on the suggestion that our gun laws are helping the drug warring bad guys, I agree with with her, when she said, in essence, that America has to share the blame for the drug war, the murders, and the corruption in Mexico.

Let me say this - and LISTEN UP (if this applies to you) - IF you are even a "social" user of cocaine, then YOU share the blame for the drug related murders on either side of the border! YES, you do. Try to justify yourself all you want, but you do!

The lust for the dust, pays big money, and that money is what is fueling the killings. Billions go south - YOUR billions. If it weren't for your lust, your partaking of it, your acceptance of it, there would be no money in it for the drug lords.

Whoa.....did I hear some say, "Well, if they would make it legal, this wouldn't be a problem"? Did someone whisper that stupid argument?

To start with, the substance IS ILLEGAL. It IS A FELONY to possess. So, before we go down that road, and it's simply a road to excuse the use, IT'S A FELONY. So you are choosing to commit a felony at the get-go! You really want it? Get your legislators to pass a law legalizing it, and you can have it. But until then, IT'S A FELONY! It's illegal, like it or not, and you're choosing to commit a FELONY when you possess it, share it, consume it.

But, it's coke and you like it and you don't hurt anyone....blah blah blahhh. In case you missed it, it's a FELONY. So, from day one, you choose to commit the FELONY. NO ONE in the country doesn't know its illegal, so you are making the conscious decision to commit a FELONY. All other arguments come in after that. Want it legalized? Fine, get the law changed. Until then, STOP BEING THE CONSUMER WHO FUELS THE DRUG WARS AND MURDERS! IT'S A FELONY!

A lot of Mexican cops, justices, town leaders who oppose the drug trade, and the countless bystanders, have died because of the greed for the drug money. Of late, even those who were trying to get treatment for their addiction, in a rehab center just across the border, were executed by drug bandits. If you're a user...that means a small part of that is YOUR money to help fund those bad-guys!

By the way, that violence is here too! Arizona and Texas are seeing a huge growth in the drug related violence. Many people have been harmed and killed, because of the money involved. If you're a USER...and that means any dang socialite out there who just parties a little...then YOU contribute to the deaths. YES...YOU DO!

Now, for those who don't use, but stand while a friend uses ... then you are standing by while a felony is being committed. Don't. I'm just real enough to know you won't or can't turn in your friends or family, but put some distance between you and them. Not only to keep from being busted too, if it should come to that, but to show you do not condone it. Let them know, by your leaving their presence, that you don't like it and won't condone it.

Lastly - the mounds of money is the fuel that is burning violence in this drug war. While those in various uniforms fight that war, it is the end-user who can win it for us, by STOPPING their use. Even if all the so-called "social users" would stop, and shun those who didn't stop, could have an impact. And it would let law enforcement focus more energy on fewer people to target and prosecute.

JUST SAY NO.....shouldn't be a slogan, it should be an action!

I welcome your comments.

Obama and the CIA

Obama has seen fit to let those in his administration pursue an investigation into the conduct of some CIA field agents in war-time interrogations of those who would plot to kill Americans in mass. It would appear to me, that they WANT to prosecute any of those from the prior administration. And this, after it was already looked into and waved off as no prosecutable wrong-doings.

On the other hand, Obama served along side of Bill Ayers, in community committees and political activities. They may not have been "friends", but Obama had no problem having a political dinner with Ayers. And Ayers, along with others in a 70's radical group who plotted and bombed government buildings.

So... Investigate those charged with doing all they can to help protect America from another attack? Or... Associate oneself with the likes of Bill Ayers, who helped bomb OUR buildings, for political expedience?

Add to this, the blatantly obvious example of a person in a higher position than his experience can support. A person with NO past experience to be prepared for such a monumental task, and who is exposing himself every day, as an example of the blind leading the blind!

To the 53% of the voters who turned out to vote for Obama in 2008 - WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?