Many years ago, growing up in the Midwest, I was as normal and playful as any kid. We played back-lot baseball, football, hide-n-seek, flashlight tag, played with Tonka toy trucks and earth movers, buried green Army men in dirt trenches, and I had a very prised Hopalong Cassidy gun-belt and holster set (complete with black hat and black shirt!). And yes, we did play "Cowboys and Indians".
As I got a bit older, I had a "Fanner 50" western six-shooter, that used a roll of caps, as well as a "coon-skin cap" and musket that fired caps. When I got the "Burb-gun", machine gun with a windup key for making shooting sounds, I was the soldier in a make believe battlefield.
Before long, I graduated, as it were, to BB guns, and would shoot the green army men, that I had hid in the dirt, pretending they were "Germans" or those commie North Koreans. I'd shoot targets, clods of dirt, and cans. Cans were the best!
Since I was old enough to hold a toy gun, I had some kind of gun. When I was old enough, I was introduced to a pump shotgun, and a .22 rifle. I didn't own either, but used my great Uncle's on his farm. And I loved shooting crows, always watching my background, as Uncle Ray taught me.
When I entered the Army, I was again shooting something. We were introduced to the 1911 .45 Auto pistol, and the M-14. Later, I was shooting the M-16. While I learned other weapons to later be used in war, I was especially taken with the M-14 and the M-16. I shot well with both.
A few years after my tour, I began a career in Law Enforcement. By then, I had acquired a .22 Six-shooter, a .22 semi-auto rifle, and had friends with bigger guns that I was planning to pick up some day. Upon becoming a LEO, I bought my first Smith & Wesson .38 spl, followed by a Colt Detective, then a Browning Hi-Power 9mm semi-auto pistol, and on to more handguns and rifles and shotguns.
I've been a shooter of some kind of "gun" most all my life. I've shot trap, handgun and rifle silhouette shooting, was a sergeant on a Police SWAT team, and have competed on a Police Pistol Team. I've also taught 4-H Shooting Sports "air rifle" to 10-18 year olds. I own many of the guns I've enjoyed shooting throughout my life, to include enough ammo on-hand to go to the range on any given day, and enjoy more than a box or two of shooting fun. Some of those guns, include "military" type firearms that are made for civilians. To some people, and the "lame stream media", I'd be considered a "gun nut".
Aside from serving my country in the jungles of Vietnam, this "gun nut", has been a Deputy Sheriff and a Police Officer, served on the board of a local CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate), volunteered time and energy to the American Red Cross, was an active member of a local Optimist Club, and delivered "meals on wheels". I have grown professional kids, with one of them serving our country today. And I am also a Life Member of the National Rifle Association.
Even after serving my country (with honor) and my communities, some would still think I was some kind of ticking time bomb of a gun nut, as well as come kind of extremist who doesn't care about our communities or our children, because I like shooting and belong to the NRA.
With all that said, I am an absolute believer in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and still honor my personal commitment to protect OUR rights and OUR country, in what ever capacity I might find myself in. If someone wants to paint me as a "nut" of any kind, I can't stop them. But there are a great many NRA members (4 million strong) who are very much the same kind of person I am. And while some critics won't care, those who know me, know that I would be there for them in times of trouble, with a helping hand, or armed defense!
I also believe that our government has the ability to go outside its design, and take OUR freedoms away (it's already happening). And with that, it is my absolute belief that OUR 2nd amendment is OUR back-up to prevent such government from taking all our rights away. If that makes me a nut, then I'm a nut! But I won't let my rights, OUR rights, be taken away without resistance.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I AM the NRA
For those who aren't avid hunters, sport shooters, competitors, firearms enthusiasts or such, the NRA (National Rifle Association) may seem like some ultra right-wing organization. At least that is what most of the mainstream media and those in the anti-gun camp would have you believe.
However, all anyone would need to do is pick up a copy of any of the NRA publications, like the American Rifleman or the America's 1st Freedom magazine, and check near the back of the magazines. What one would see, are listings of all the NRA is involved in. Most might never guess that the NRA is a foremost supporter of Law Enforcement, and provider of related marksmanship, instructor certifications, and police department armorer training. Many would not know that the NRA is a strong supporter of tough sentencing for those who use a firearm in the commission of a felony. The NRA was a huge sponsor of such gun laws, like in Virginia in 2007, when the Democrats with NRA support, improved background check systems for purchasers. The NRA also has safety related classes, such as the Refuse to be a Victim, or the Eddie Eagle firearms safety program for school kids. And the NRA is our strongest supporter of our 2nd amendment right, for ALL lawful citizens, not just the rich, politically connected, or whom ever the "government" wishes to grant special privileges to.
Of the 4 million strong membership, the general public would likely be surprised to find that membership is made up of citizens from all professions and economic backgrounds. Which brings me to this -
I AM a NRA member. I come from modest means and background, but am a Combat Veteran, a former Law Enforcement Officer/Detective of many years, a former Cub Scout Leader, former 4-H Shooting Sports instructor, a formerly served on the Board for a local Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for children, have been a past President of an Optimist Club, have volunteered my time and labor for the Red Cross and community projects, donated blood, raised honest and hard working professional children, make donations to Veteran and community related non-profits, and support my community. I am not the bogey man, or an extremist, or a potential home grown terrorist. With that, I'm here to say that - I AM the NRA.
Other members, run the diverse gambit from construction worker to surgeons, lawyers to home-makers, from Cops to Active Duty Military, and every other occupation one could think of. We, all 4 MILLION members, are "law abiding" citizens, interested in maintaining our 2nd amendment rights, who "bear arms" for any and every legal reason we choose.
If you're not a NRA member, I encourage you to join. If you are, then jump in here and say, I AM the NRA! If you are not a member, then please check out the website and join the NRA - https://membership.nrahq.org/
If you choose to still bash us, and the NRA, then read the history and the purpose of the NRA first. Otherwise, you just don't know what you're talking about.
Our 2nd amendment rights depend on the strongest support possible. And those rights, are for ALL of us.
However, all anyone would need to do is pick up a copy of any of the NRA publications, like the American Rifleman or the America's 1st Freedom magazine, and check near the back of the magazines. What one would see, are listings of all the NRA is involved in. Most might never guess that the NRA is a foremost supporter of Law Enforcement, and provider of related marksmanship, instructor certifications, and police department armorer training. Many would not know that the NRA is a strong supporter of tough sentencing for those who use a firearm in the commission of a felony. The NRA was a huge sponsor of such gun laws, like in Virginia in 2007, when the Democrats with NRA support, improved background check systems for purchasers. The NRA also has safety related classes, such as the Refuse to be a Victim, or the Eddie Eagle firearms safety program for school kids. And the NRA is our strongest supporter of our 2nd amendment right, for ALL lawful citizens, not just the rich, politically connected, or whom ever the "government" wishes to grant special privileges to.
Of the 4 million strong membership, the general public would likely be surprised to find that membership is made up of citizens from all professions and economic backgrounds. Which brings me to this -
I AM a NRA member. I come from modest means and background, but am a Combat Veteran, a former Law Enforcement Officer/Detective of many years, a former Cub Scout Leader, former 4-H Shooting Sports instructor, a formerly served on the Board for a local Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for children, have been a past President of an Optimist Club, have volunteered my time and labor for the Red Cross and community projects, donated blood, raised honest and hard working professional children, make donations to Veteran and community related non-profits, and support my community. I am not the bogey man, or an extremist, or a potential home grown terrorist. With that, I'm here to say that - I AM the NRA.
Other members, run the diverse gambit from construction worker to surgeons, lawyers to home-makers, from Cops to Active Duty Military, and every other occupation one could think of. We, all 4 MILLION members, are "law abiding" citizens, interested in maintaining our 2nd amendment rights, who "bear arms" for any and every legal reason we choose.
If you're not a NRA member, I encourage you to join. If you are, then jump in here and say, I AM the NRA! If you are not a member, then please check out the website and join the NRA - https://membership.nrahq.org/
If you choose to still bash us, and the NRA, then read the history and the purpose of the NRA first. Otherwise, you just don't know what you're talking about.
Our 2nd amendment rights depend on the strongest support possible. And those rights, are for ALL of us.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Tragedy in Connecticut
Today marks another very sad day. A deranged man, entered an elementary school and murdered staff members, and 18 kindergarten kids. As horrible event as one could imagine. Deep sadness across the country, and even more so with those families who lost children. No matter our views on various subjects, this is a common sadness, and God Bless those families.
No political argument can change what happened. Yet, the first knee-jerk reaction for many, is to blame the guns, and push for more gun control.
For some, that is a reaction for the lack of knowing "why", and "how" such a thing could happen, and desperately wanting to stop the madness.
For others, it is another call for gun controls that they always call for.They just don't want guns in the hands of anyone, believing that would keep guns out of the hands of the bad people.
While the investigation continues into the school shooting, and what possible motivation drove such a person to do that, the arguments are under way for and against gun control. And I'll dive in as well.
First, we must understand, that we DO HAVE gun control. We have loads of gun laws. And, for the law abiding 70+ million legal gun owners (who killed NO ONE!), they work. For the criminals, well ... they're "criminals", and they don't care. Not one Gun Free Zone sign has stopped anyone, and I expect that school had signs posted. If anything, it's a false security.
I just read about the school board in the Newtown area, where a board member said she did not feel safe at the meetings, and asked that the board meetings be transferred to a school building so as to ensure no firearms would be present. The schools are posted for No Firearms Allowed.
Secondly, there are over 300 million firearms in the USA alone. So in the US, that genie is already out of the bottle. Add to that, another 500 million in foreign citizens hands, and the numbers are staggering. And, military around the world, pro-freedom and dictatorial nations, and there is such a number, that the black market is staggering already.
Third, and I've written before on this, SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles, of a military style, are legal and plentiful. So many so, the the one-of-three guns used in Newtown, is just ONE of over 80 million such rifles! Fact is, if Patrick Henry could have had a choice, as a citizen ready to defend his country, wouldn't he have had an "assault weapon"?
Forth, such assailants, most ALWAYS choose easy, defenseless, targets. Gun Free Zone signs pretty much assure no citizen will be armed. In the case of this school, the murderer knew the school, and knew there was no School Resource Officer, so NO ONE would be armed. Sitting ducks. These kinds of people, will not take on the police, because they know they will likely die before they can get their deed done. And THAT, is the crux of the problem I see in today's "gun culture" (like it or not, we're there). He KNEW, that he would most likely NOT face anyone with a gun to stop him!
Fifth, we will be hoping to learn about any mental issues that person may have had. I can not imagine anyone who would do such a horrible crime, and NOT be mentally ill. But from what I have known, working a short time in a jail, about 40-60% of those in jail, have mental health issues that have gone untreated or unaddressed. We had people with serious problems, short of total lock-down, who were always in trouble, because they stayed off their meds. We are NOT taking care of those people, and how many are walking around, like walking time-bombs?
We need to discuss how to better address the mental health issues, and better mental health facilities for such people that have exhibited violent behavior. Our jails are NT equipped to handle many of them, and there are MANY!
Lastly, it is simply wrong in a free society, to restrict the "rights" of the many, just to punish the very few. We have the laws, we need to better enforce those, and we need to a better job of reporting suspicious behavior. But then, law enforcement has to have a place to evaluate them and hold them.
For my views on "assault weapons", check out my prior blog entry,
http://american1st.blogspot.com/2012/01/the-2nd-amendment-and-you-updated.html
No political argument can change what happened. Yet, the first knee-jerk reaction for many, is to blame the guns, and push for more gun control.
For some, that is a reaction for the lack of knowing "why", and "how" such a thing could happen, and desperately wanting to stop the madness.
For others, it is another call for gun controls that they always call for.They just don't want guns in the hands of anyone, believing that would keep guns out of the hands of the bad people.
While the investigation continues into the school shooting, and what possible motivation drove such a person to do that, the arguments are under way for and against gun control. And I'll dive in as well.
First, we must understand, that we DO HAVE gun control. We have loads of gun laws. And, for the law abiding 70+ million legal gun owners (who killed NO ONE!), they work. For the criminals, well ... they're "criminals", and they don't care. Not one Gun Free Zone sign has stopped anyone, and I expect that school had signs posted. If anything, it's a false security.
I just read about the school board in the Newtown area, where a board member said she did not feel safe at the meetings, and asked that the board meetings be transferred to a school building so as to ensure no firearms would be present. The schools are posted for No Firearms Allowed.
Secondly, there are over 300 million firearms in the USA alone. So in the US, that genie is already out of the bottle. Add to that, another 500 million in foreign citizens hands, and the numbers are staggering. And, military around the world, pro-freedom and dictatorial nations, and there is such a number, that the black market is staggering already.
Third, and I've written before on this, SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles, of a military style, are legal and plentiful. So many so, the the one-of-three guns used in Newtown, is just ONE of over 80 million such rifles! Fact is, if Patrick Henry could have had a choice, as a citizen ready to defend his country, wouldn't he have had an "assault weapon"?
Forth, such assailants, most ALWAYS choose easy, defenseless, targets. Gun Free Zone signs pretty much assure no citizen will be armed. In the case of this school, the murderer knew the school, and knew there was no School Resource Officer, so NO ONE would be armed. Sitting ducks. These kinds of people, will not take on the police, because they know they will likely die before they can get their deed done. And THAT, is the crux of the problem I see in today's "gun culture" (like it or not, we're there). He KNEW, that he would most likely NOT face anyone with a gun to stop him!
Fifth, we will be hoping to learn about any mental issues that person may have had. I can not imagine anyone who would do such a horrible crime, and NOT be mentally ill. But from what I have known, working a short time in a jail, about 40-60% of those in jail, have mental health issues that have gone untreated or unaddressed. We had people with serious problems, short of total lock-down, who were always in trouble, because they stayed off their meds. We are NOT taking care of those people, and how many are walking around, like walking time-bombs?
We need to discuss how to better address the mental health issues, and better mental health facilities for such people that have exhibited violent behavior. Our jails are NT equipped to handle many of them, and there are MANY!
Lastly, it is simply wrong in a free society, to restrict the "rights" of the many, just to punish the very few. We have the laws, we need to better enforce those, and we need to a better job of reporting suspicious behavior. But then, law enforcement has to have a place to evaluate them and hold them.
For my views on "assault weapons", check out my prior blog entry,
http://american1st.blogspot.com/2012/01/the-2nd-amendment-and-you-updated.html
Thursday, December 13, 2012
What Separation of Church and State?
Not long ago, I was listening to a radio talk show and the general topic was about the so-called "separation of church and state". On the air, was someone representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They profess to be protecting the constitutional principle of the "separation of church and state".
Now, as I often will do, I offer this disclaimer: I am NOT a constitutional or historical scholar. So with that, take what you wish from my words and viewpoints.
Being the simple man that I am, I tend to look at this subject in a simplistic way, believing that our Constitution was written for me, as well as you, and it isn't that complicated. I also think we should not stray from the principles of that document, and instead, find ways in our modern world to go back and really apply those ideas and principles to our country today.
But, what does the Constitution say about the so-called, "separation of church and state"? Well, as it is written, it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." Well, I do not see today, anywhere, that our Congress (or any town or city government) has made a law that has established a religion. Where is it that the "state", by way of Congress, or any state or city, has a law that has established a religion? Does a prayer, permitted in public, establish a religion? Do the words, In God We Trust, establish a religion? And, who has been denied ANY governmental services, or even protection, because they were not of a particular religious persuasion? If so, WHAT religion has been established? Point out to me, what religion a law has established!
If you look at the word, "establish", one can easily find as part of the definition,
1 : something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially: a code of laws b : established church
The 1st Amendment does NOT protect people from being offended. And that, my friends and readers, is what this is really all about. Some people don't want religion in any public view and it offends them that "God" is mentioned! The fact is, no one has been harmed. No one has been denied ANY services or protection, because God is somehow mentioned in the public arena. As long as the government does not pass a law, that establishes a religion, then what is the problem? Just being offended, isn't good enough!
For over 235 years, there has NOT been any government established religion! NO ONE, is required in any way, to follow any particular religion, and NO ONE has been denied services or protections, or any of their constitutional RIGHTS, by the mention of God in a public place, or the word God on our currency and landmarks, or a public display of a Nativity scene! NONE of those, causes anyone to follow any religion. But everyone has a right to follow NO religion, if they wish, and there isn't any violation of any law, and with that, no fine or penalty for doing so, or not doing so. NO ONE would be denied any of constitutional rights, for not following some religion. NONE!
I DO NOT want our government to dictate what religion (or no religion) I must follow. We sure don't need to be denied rights, because we didn't follow some government supported religious doctrine. Our government has not, and should never, dictate that a religion must be followed. THAT would be an establishment!
In today's America, with groups such a Freedom From Religion, and Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, "religion" IS under attack. And they are trying to use that so-called "separation of church and state" to beat us up in the weak kneed courts over it. I think cities everywhere, should stand up and demand to know, which law has been passed that establishes a religion? If they can point to a law, then let's review that for validity. But short of that, get over yourselves! Such expressions, even in public, DO NO HARM. Being offended is NOT a harm. So, be offended. I am offended when such groups try to force me to keep my religion (or any religion) behind private doors!
As it is, there is NO any such "separation of church and state", ONLY that the government shall make no law, establishing a religion. And how about that. There isn't ANY such law, and no government established religion. Only a government allowing the recognition that religion exists, and our people follow historic traditions that we first began a nation with. It just happens, that our founders brought with them, a predominately "christian" following, but they were very specific, that government DID NOT make law, that would establish any religion. I'd suggest, that also clearly says that the government shall not make any law that would prohibit the free exercise thereof. Law suits to take religion out of the public square, is doing just that! Such passages of laws, or granting for the anti-religious petitioners in civil courts, DOES prohibit the free exercise thereof!
There's my two dollars, and two cents!
Now, as I often will do, I offer this disclaimer: I am NOT a constitutional or historical scholar. So with that, take what you wish from my words and viewpoints.
Being the simple man that I am, I tend to look at this subject in a simplistic way, believing that our Constitution was written for me, as well as you, and it isn't that complicated. I also think we should not stray from the principles of that document, and instead, find ways in our modern world to go back and really apply those ideas and principles to our country today.
But, what does the Constitution say about the so-called, "separation of church and state"? Well, as it is written, it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." Well, I do not see today, anywhere, that our Congress (or any town or city government) has made a law that has established a religion. Where is it that the "state", by way of Congress, or any state or city, has a law that has established a religion? Does a prayer, permitted in public, establish a religion? Do the words, In God We Trust, establish a religion? And, who has been denied ANY governmental services, or even protection, because they were not of a particular religious persuasion? If so, WHAT religion has been established? Point out to me, what religion a law has established!
If you look at the word, "establish", one can easily find as part of the definition,
1 : something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially: a code of laws b : established church
The 1st Amendment does NOT protect people from being offended. And that, my friends and readers, is what this is really all about. Some people don't want religion in any public view and it offends them that "God" is mentioned! The fact is, no one has been harmed. No one has been denied ANY services or protection, because God is somehow mentioned in the public arena. As long as the government does not pass a law, that establishes a religion, then what is the problem? Just being offended, isn't good enough!
For over 235 years, there has NOT been any government established religion! NO ONE, is required in any way, to follow any particular religion, and NO ONE has been denied services or protections, or any of their constitutional RIGHTS, by the mention of God in a public place, or the word God on our currency and landmarks, or a public display of a Nativity scene! NONE of those, causes anyone to follow any religion. But everyone has a right to follow NO religion, if they wish, and there isn't any violation of any law, and with that, no fine or penalty for doing so, or not doing so. NO ONE would be denied any of constitutional rights, for not following some religion. NONE!
I DO NOT want our government to dictate what religion (or no religion) I must follow. We sure don't need to be denied rights, because we didn't follow some government supported religious doctrine. Our government has not, and should never, dictate that a religion must be followed. THAT would be an establishment!
In today's America, with groups such a Freedom From Religion, and Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, "religion" IS under attack. And they are trying to use that so-called "separation of church and state" to beat us up in the weak kneed courts over it. I think cities everywhere, should stand up and demand to know, which law has been passed that establishes a religion? If they can point to a law, then let's review that for validity. But short of that, get over yourselves! Such expressions, even in public, DO NO HARM. Being offended is NOT a harm. So, be offended. I am offended when such groups try to force me to keep my religion (or any religion) behind private doors!
As it is, there is NO any such "separation of church and state", ONLY that the government shall make no law, establishing a religion. And how about that. There isn't ANY such law, and no government established religion. Only a government allowing the recognition that religion exists, and our people follow historic traditions that we first began a nation with. It just happens, that our founders brought with them, a predominately "christian" following, but they were very specific, that government DID NOT make law, that would establish any religion. I'd suggest, that also clearly says that the government shall not make any law that would prohibit the free exercise thereof. Law suits to take religion out of the public square, is doing just that! Such passages of laws, or granting for the anti-religious petitioners in civil courts, DOES prohibit the free exercise thereof!
There's my two dollars, and two cents!
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Is America Dying?
Our America is in trouble. She's sick and down. From the looks of her, she could be dying. Many have attacked her, wounded her, trampled on her, tried so hard to make her disappear from the planet. But today, she is under such extreme attacks, and this time, from within her own family, and even from her own head of state. If America goes, the last vestige of hope and freedom, may die with her.
I love America - Oh, how I love my country! She has never been perfect, only because men have tried to mold her into their own liking. How sad, of what far too many are trying to do to her, make her become, make her into what she was never meant to be. Our own President, has stated that he wants to "fundamentally change" her. He is on his way to doing just that, and at a time where it is critical that we RETURN to our foundations. But our foundations, do not fit his master plan for America, and he is being aided by like minded people, as well as fools who are following the tune of a "pied piper".
Today, the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", has been plowed under by the swarm of power hungry politicians and bureaucrats. The "government", has become the BIG manager in most all aspects of our lives and businesses, and that process is growing each day. With each cut of dissection, "we, the people" are losing more and more of what freedoms we have. Now, with trillions of dollars of taxpayer money, BIG government has now decided what to do with OUR money...and the future money of our children...and our very lives today and tomorrow.
This past year, the President of Mexico was permitted... encouraged and applauded...to address our congress, and criticise one of our own states, Arizona. THIS government, OUR government (to include Arizona) has turned on one of our own. If they succeed, with the help of foreign countries, then who, or what state, will be safe in challenging the Federal "government" on the next issue?
Add to that, we see today, President Obama taking sides WITH unions, and AGAINST another state, and against those citizens who want to be free to NOT join a union, in order to be "allowed" to work. The PRESIDENT of the United States, taking sides with one group of Americans, over another group of Americans? This IS NOT a role of a United States President. Yet, this president is choosing to take sides, and further split our nation, and to drive wedges between us for his own goals. The heart of America, must be weeping.
I am absolutely convinced that our forefathers would be up-in-arms over what they see today. In fact, they WERE up-in-arms some 235+ years ago. They were fed up with the strong arms tactics, and the imposition of unfair taxes, upon the colonies and the citizens of the New World. Britain, at that time, WAS the government. And that government wanted to impose its will, and taxes, in every way it saw fit to do, unimpeded by "the people". Sound familiar? Obama and company, are doing that very same thing today!
THIS is NOT America. I am sick at what some want to make us. And in 2008, and again in 2012, we (I say we, because WE are all in this together.) voted in the biggest bunch of power hungry people in the history of our nation. And with that, we are being sold out. I weep for my America. I weep for the country that has spread freedom around the world, and helped other people and countries in times of natural disaster and tyranny. I weep for those who came before us, and died in an effort to keep America free, and keep America as a land of "for the people, by the people". The people we have in Washington today, are NOT "the people", but they are there...BECAUSE we let them be there. The personal agendas and greed for power, seems limitless with those we have in Washington now. And Americans put them there. Shame on us.
So, I sit by the death bed of the America I love and have believed in. I watch, feeling helpless, as she succumbs to the trampling on the long held belief of a nation of free people and non-intrusive government. Before long, her colors could remain, but the stripes will be removed, the stars gone, and some new "Obama-like" symbol will replace her. Letters and emails have failed, and I know of no cure to help, as long as good men sit by, while other men want to turn off her life support machine. Freedom of her people is old fashioned, in the eyes of our new power mongers. That has to end.
Pardon my ramblings, and perhaps lack of delivery in this addition, but my sadness is deep, and the grief I am feeling for what I fear is coming, has a grip on me. I prayed for HONEST change this past November 6th. But there are those who would rather be spoon fed and federally supported, than to be free to choose their own destiny. But we still MUST make them understand, that those voted, and appointed, to their seats are a temporary ones, and granted by US, to serve US - Not to rule us. While that seems lost on them for now, we MUST keep up the drumbeat of our cries for real freedom, and to get America back to health.
God Bless America, for as long as we still have her. - Dan
I love America - Oh, how I love my country! She has never been perfect, only because men have tried to mold her into their own liking. How sad, of what far too many are trying to do to her, make her become, make her into what she was never meant to be. Our own President, has stated that he wants to "fundamentally change" her. He is on his way to doing just that, and at a time where it is critical that we RETURN to our foundations. But our foundations, do not fit his master plan for America, and he is being aided by like minded people, as well as fools who are following the tune of a "pied piper".
Today, the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", has been plowed under by the swarm of power hungry politicians and bureaucrats. The "government", has become the BIG manager in most all aspects of our lives and businesses, and that process is growing each day. With each cut of dissection, "we, the people" are losing more and more of what freedoms we have. Now, with trillions of dollars of taxpayer money, BIG government has now decided what to do with OUR money...and the future money of our children...and our very lives today and tomorrow.
This past year, the President of Mexico was permitted... encouraged and applauded...to address our congress, and criticise one of our own states, Arizona. THIS government, OUR government (to include Arizona) has turned on one of our own. If they succeed, with the help of foreign countries, then who, or what state, will be safe in challenging the Federal "government" on the next issue?
Add to that, we see today, President Obama taking sides WITH unions, and AGAINST another state, and against those citizens who want to be free to NOT join a union, in order to be "allowed" to work. The PRESIDENT of the United States, taking sides with one group of Americans, over another group of Americans? This IS NOT a role of a United States President. Yet, this president is choosing to take sides, and further split our nation, and to drive wedges between us for his own goals. The heart of America, must be weeping.
I am absolutely convinced that our forefathers would be up-in-arms over what they see today. In fact, they WERE up-in-arms some 235+ years ago. They were fed up with the strong arms tactics, and the imposition of unfair taxes, upon the colonies and the citizens of the New World. Britain, at that time, WAS the government. And that government wanted to impose its will, and taxes, in every way it saw fit to do, unimpeded by "the people". Sound familiar? Obama and company, are doing that very same thing today!
THIS is NOT America. I am sick at what some want to make us. And in 2008, and again in 2012, we (I say we, because WE are all in this together.) voted in the biggest bunch of power hungry people in the history of our nation. And with that, we are being sold out. I weep for my America. I weep for the country that has spread freedom around the world, and helped other people and countries in times of natural disaster and tyranny. I weep for those who came before us, and died in an effort to keep America free, and keep America as a land of "for the people, by the people". The people we have in Washington today, are NOT "the people", but they are there...BECAUSE we let them be there. The personal agendas and greed for power, seems limitless with those we have in Washington now. And Americans put them there. Shame on us.
So, I sit by the death bed of the America I love and have believed in. I watch, feeling helpless, as she succumbs to the trampling on the long held belief of a nation of free people and non-intrusive government. Before long, her colors could remain, but the stripes will be removed, the stars gone, and some new "Obama-like" symbol will replace her. Letters and emails have failed, and I know of no cure to help, as long as good men sit by, while other men want to turn off her life support machine. Freedom of her people is old fashioned, in the eyes of our new power mongers. That has to end.
Pardon my ramblings, and perhaps lack of delivery in this addition, but my sadness is deep, and the grief I am feeling for what I fear is coming, has a grip on me. I prayed for HONEST change this past November 6th. But there are those who would rather be spoon fed and federally supported, than to be free to choose their own destiny. But we still MUST make them understand, that those voted, and appointed, to their seats are a temporary ones, and granted by US, to serve US - Not to rule us. While that seems lost on them for now, we MUST keep up the drumbeat of our cries for real freedom, and to get America back to health.
God Bless America, for as long as we still have her. - Dan
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Are We the Frog in the Pan?
For many years, I was a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), having worked for a sheriff's office and a police department. I worked in Patrol, as a Patrol Supervisor, a Detective, and a Detective Sergeant. I was fortunate enough to work most every aspect of law enforcement, including 4 years in Narcotics.
While I was far from perfect, and made my share of mistakes, I truly wanted to be a Good Cop, and serve my communities well. In doing so, I executed Arrest Warrants, Search Warrants, Warrantless Searches on Probable Cause and Search Incident to Arrests, etc. I've broke up fights, drew down on armed or suspected of being armed, suspects, and was in just one Officer Involved Shooting.
Every good LEO will work their hardest to get "the job done". In the course of doing that, split second decisions are made every day. It could be the taking of a life. Most often, it concerns the "rights" of individuals, on one side or the other. And in courts of law, maybe months or years later, lawyers and juries will have all the time in the world to decide the fate of those involved, criminally or civilly.
A LEO has to decide, in a split second or over many hours, the legality of his/her actions. LEOs depend on their knowledge, training, and experience to guide them through. They also FOLLOW ORDERS of those above them. I have been on both side of the ordering business.
Long way to the barn, and I apologize. - But all this leads me to an important question and dilemma in today's world. In MY humble opinion, I see our communities and nation, being more and more lead by people who will stretch, if not outright break our civilian laws, and knowingly violate our Civil Rights. I have know LEOs who would "just follow orders" and not question the actions they should know are illegal by violating the civil rights of people.
For this writing, I will address the 2nd amendment in particular, and a citizens RIGHT to bear arms. I know of some LEO command types, who believe that only the military and police should have guns. They think that a call to 9-1-1 is all a citizen should do, and the Police will take care of it. Got news for those idiots ... That 9-1-1 call is usually AFTER there is a crime committed, and a victim has been harmed!
In todays world of Obama-types, they believe in gun control. At the very least, they believe in banning all weapons THEY deem as inappropriate for "citizens" to own. It is MY fear, that at the pace this president is going in bypassing Congress and thumbing his nose at the constitution, we could actually see some form of gun "confiscation". Such "confiscation" would be against the constitution, but I expect they will justify it as taking away ONLY those firearms THEY believe are dangerous in the hands of citizens.
But to do that, they will need one or both of two things. They will need an obedient Law Enforcement, and/or an obedient Military, to do the street work of going house to house and "ask" for any of the listed firearms to be "turned over". While I know many would think this is a stretch, I don't think it is. I think its worth the discussion, and to guard against. I believe it is more than a possibility, and is headed toward a probability. We have just such power hungry types in DC already.
But my question is this - Where does a Cop stop, when asked to do something that should be expected as being against citizens "rights"? Germans, during the WWII war crimes trials, claimed to have "just followed orders". I can't help from wonder, how gradual was that transition, before they were well outside the scope of proper human and even military conduct? Look at the Jews of those times, they were slowly moved into smaller and smaller areas, corralled as it were, until lead to the slaughter!
As the old tale goes, put a frog into a pan of cool water and it won't jump out. Then slowly turn up the heat, and the frog won't know its in trouble until its too late. The everyday German soldier was the frog, as were the Jews.
Are WE the frog in the pan? Are we already in hot water and don't know it? Our challenge, is to stay out of that pan. The challenge to Cops and Military, is to KNOW what is right, and what is NOT, and conduct business accordingly. Their "oath" is to protect the Constitution, from enemies foreign AND domestic. It could be a tough business, should the Obama types extend more control "over the people", more than what this government has already been doing for decades.
I am and have always been a "law and order" type person. But I don't believe I would follow orders that I know were wrong. But as a citizen, I do NOT intend to sit by, until the heat is too much. I WILL resist anyone who should come to my door, and violate MY rights. That isn't a threat. That's an American, who will not surrender my Rights, and am prepared to stand for those Rights we have.
While I was far from perfect, and made my share of mistakes, I truly wanted to be a Good Cop, and serve my communities well. In doing so, I executed Arrest Warrants, Search Warrants, Warrantless Searches on Probable Cause and Search Incident to Arrests, etc. I've broke up fights, drew down on armed or suspected of being armed, suspects, and was in just one Officer Involved Shooting.
Every good LEO will work their hardest to get "the job done". In the course of doing that, split second decisions are made every day. It could be the taking of a life. Most often, it concerns the "rights" of individuals, on one side or the other. And in courts of law, maybe months or years later, lawyers and juries will have all the time in the world to decide the fate of those involved, criminally or civilly.
A LEO has to decide, in a split second or over many hours, the legality of his/her actions. LEOs depend on their knowledge, training, and experience to guide them through. They also FOLLOW ORDERS of those above them. I have been on both side of the ordering business.
Long way to the barn, and I apologize. - But all this leads me to an important question and dilemma in today's world. In MY humble opinion, I see our communities and nation, being more and more lead by people who will stretch, if not outright break our civilian laws, and knowingly violate our Civil Rights. I have know LEOs who would "just follow orders" and not question the actions they should know are illegal by violating the civil rights of people.
For this writing, I will address the 2nd amendment in particular, and a citizens RIGHT to bear arms. I know of some LEO command types, who believe that only the military and police should have guns. They think that a call to 9-1-1 is all a citizen should do, and the Police will take care of it. Got news for those idiots ... That 9-1-1 call is usually AFTER there is a crime committed, and a victim has been harmed!
In todays world of Obama-types, they believe in gun control. At the very least, they believe in banning all weapons THEY deem as inappropriate for "citizens" to own. It is MY fear, that at the pace this president is going in bypassing Congress and thumbing his nose at the constitution, we could actually see some form of gun "confiscation". Such "confiscation" would be against the constitution, but I expect they will justify it as taking away ONLY those firearms THEY believe are dangerous in the hands of citizens.
But to do that, they will need one or both of two things. They will need an obedient Law Enforcement, and/or an obedient Military, to do the street work of going house to house and "ask" for any of the listed firearms to be "turned over". While I know many would think this is a stretch, I don't think it is. I think its worth the discussion, and to guard against. I believe it is more than a possibility, and is headed toward a probability. We have just such power hungry types in DC already.
But my question is this - Where does a Cop stop, when asked to do something that should be expected as being against citizens "rights"? Germans, during the WWII war crimes trials, claimed to have "just followed orders". I can't help from wonder, how gradual was that transition, before they were well outside the scope of proper human and even military conduct? Look at the Jews of those times, they were slowly moved into smaller and smaller areas, corralled as it were, until lead to the slaughter!
As the old tale goes, put a frog into a pan of cool water and it won't jump out. Then slowly turn up the heat, and the frog won't know its in trouble until its too late. The everyday German soldier was the frog, as were the Jews.
Are WE the frog in the pan? Are we already in hot water and don't know it? Our challenge, is to stay out of that pan. The challenge to Cops and Military, is to KNOW what is right, and what is NOT, and conduct business accordingly. Their "oath" is to protect the Constitution, from enemies foreign AND domestic. It could be a tough business, should the Obama types extend more control "over the people", more than what this government has already been doing for decades.
I am and have always been a "law and order" type person. But I don't believe I would follow orders that I know were wrong. But as a citizen, I do NOT intend to sit by, until the heat is too much. I WILL resist anyone who should come to my door, and violate MY rights. That isn't a threat. That's an American, who will not surrender my Rights, and am prepared to stand for those Rights we have.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Guns and Murder
In tragic news of late, a Kansas City Chief football player, committed the murder of his girlfriend, then a short time later, turned the handgun on himself. Two people dead. Many other lives affected.
In typical knee-jerk reaction, some have come out to blame "the gun", and/or our "gun culture". As Bob Costas said during a NFL Halftime show, repeating and agreeing with a sports writer, said that had the player not had the gun, they would both still be alive. Really? There is NO WAY for them to support that!
Fox Sports writer, Jason Whitlock, stated (and Costas agreed) that “if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kassandra Perkins would both be alive today,”. That statement is extremely presumptuous. For it presumes that the player would not have found another way to express his rage. To blanketly say such a things, is shear foolishness.
Secondly, I find it disheartening for such people, with audiences, to rush to judgement on such matters. We don't know yet the complete motive for the murder-suicide. In matters of rage, I can tell you that people have found all sorts of extremely brutal methods to exact some revenge. And a gun is simply a tool, but not the only tool. No doubt, a firearm is a very convenient weapon, but we need to look at the WHOLE picture, least of which is the primary importance of the 2nd Amendment rights, upheld by the Supreme Court as an individual right.
If you look at the 2011 statistical table (below), you will see that the number of murders, have DECREASED over the last five years. This, while firearms ownership is at an all-time high. Over 70 MILLION citizens lawfully own over 300 MILLION firearms. 70 MILLION citizens, compared to the overall murder rate? My math ain't great (nor my grammar?), but that firearms total murders of 8,583, looks like around .012 % of the firearms owners.
But look also at the other methods. Knives and cutting instruments alone, accounted for 1,587! The use of hands, feet, fists, etc, accounted for another 728 murders. Does anyone think for a minute that the NFL player couldn't have just beat his girlfriend to death in a moment of rage?
Of those other non-firearms related murders, are those victims less important and less dead, because a firearm wasn't used?
Check this out - While firearms are far less available in the Philippines, a man there murdered 10 people, and wounded 14 others (in 2007), while using a 21" knife! Rest assured, the victims didn't have gun to protect themselves, or the murderer wouldn't have caused so many victims.
I won't go into the whole 2nd amendment argument here, but I'll ask this ONE QUESTION:
With over 70 MILLION legal firearms owners, should we deny the rights of all, because of the abuse of the extreme few?
I know my answer. What's yours?
From the FBI's uniform crime reporting site: (go to site to see all 5 years)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
In typical knee-jerk reaction, some have come out to blame "the gun", and/or our "gun culture". As Bob Costas said during a NFL Halftime show, repeating and agreeing with a sports writer, said that had the player not had the gun, they would both still be alive. Really? There is NO WAY for them to support that!
Fox Sports writer, Jason Whitlock, stated (and Costas agreed) that “if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kassandra Perkins would both be alive today,”. That statement is extremely presumptuous. For it presumes that the player would not have found another way to express his rage. To blanketly say such a things, is shear foolishness.
Secondly, I find it disheartening for such people, with audiences, to rush to judgement on such matters. We don't know yet the complete motive for the murder-suicide. In matters of rage, I can tell you that people have found all sorts of extremely brutal methods to exact some revenge. And a gun is simply a tool, but not the only tool. No doubt, a firearm is a very convenient weapon, but we need to look at the WHOLE picture, least of which is the primary importance of the 2nd Amendment rights, upheld by the Supreme Court as an individual right.
If you look at the 2011 statistical table (below), you will see that the number of murders, have DECREASED over the last five years. This, while firearms ownership is at an all-time high. Over 70 MILLION citizens lawfully own over 300 MILLION firearms. 70 MILLION citizens, compared to the overall murder rate? My math ain't great (nor my grammar?), but that firearms total murders of 8,583, looks like around .012 % of the firearms owners.
But look also at the other methods. Knives and cutting instruments alone, accounted for 1,587! The use of hands, feet, fists, etc, accounted for another 728 murders. Does anyone think for a minute that the NFL player couldn't have just beat his girlfriend to death in a moment of rage?
Of those other non-firearms related murders, are those victims less important and less dead, because a firearm wasn't used?
Check this out - While firearms are far less available in the Philippines, a man there murdered 10 people, and wounded 14 others (in 2007), while using a 21" knife! Rest assured, the victims didn't have gun to protect themselves, or the murderer wouldn't have caused so many victims.
I won't go into the whole 2nd amendment argument here, but I'll ask this ONE QUESTION:
With over 70 MILLION legal firearms owners, should we deny the rights of all, because of the abuse of the extreme few?
I know my answer. What's yours?
From the FBI's uniform crime reporting site: (go to site to see all 5 years)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
|
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
The New Rifle
As the sun was coming up and the morning mist began to clear, Paul leaves his home and starts toward town. The air had a sweet smell from the honeydew bushes, and squirrels were busy with their daily gathering of nuts.
Paul had business to attend to, or he would have climbed from his horse to pop a couple squirrels for dinner. He gripped his long gun, wishing he had the time to take such pleasures.
But the business of the day, was a serious one, and Paul knew well the risks. Paul was to meet with friends at a barn outside town. Such a meeting, was forbidden by the British authorities. Arrests, or worse, could happen if caught.
As Paul arrived, he was let into the barn and his horse was stalled with the others. A number of local men were assembled, and some rousing debates were already being exchanged. While they shared similar views about the future of the New World, the "how" to get there was sometimes a continuous point.
When all were assembled, including those calling themselves, the Sons of Liberty, John called everyone over to a crate, that he was opening. "Gentlemen, these are the best rifles to ever come along", he said as he took a rifle out. The group was in awe, as well as inquisitive of the rifle's features.
Henry spoke up. "John, that's a fierce looking gun, and I bet it'll shoot a long way. I fear it will be misused by some."
"Henry, our very existence depends on our ability to match gun for gun, that of our enemies, our enemies of freedom. They will be well armed, and in greater numbers."
"But shouldn't such rifles be reserved for the Army Regulars?"
"I can understand your reservations Henry, but they already have the best. We need to have our own, to grab in a minutes notice, and be able to repel our enemies. I've loved my ol' musket, but this will give me the edge to match what my enemies will come at me with."
Paul spoke up, "Henry, I'm with John. Why should I have have less of a weapon than my foe? Why should I have to stick to my bird gun, when my enemies will come at us with better weapons? Any threat of abuse by the corrupt, pales in the face of the threat that may be coming from our enemies. Besides, just last week, the Brits raided the weapons stores in Worcester, and the local men who didn't keep their own rifles, were left without any. Then the Brits had no trouble rounding up the list of so-called "rabble rousers"! Those Brits took their only means to resist such force."
The new rifle was passed around for everyone to look at. Such a long slim rifle, that had fine rifling for longer and far more accurate shots. Such a rifle had never been used before, but these men knew if the alarm was sounded, there would be no time to get to the storehouse, and they better be ready in a minutes notice. Each of the men were to take one with them when they left.
.................................
While the above is a fictional account of otherwise historically significant events, I wish to make a point. The "military" styles of rifles today, or "assault weapons" by the Clinton and Obama standards, are nothing more than a far more modern weapon of today, than those of 236 years ago. Keeping in mind that the 2nd amendment is about keeping men free from enemies and tyrants, and not about hunting, how could anyone not think Paul Revere and other such men would NOT have chosen such a rifle if they had a choice?
Today, Obama is in favor of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, as well as an "Assault Weapons Ban". Tragic mass shootings cause a flinched reaction to ban the weapons used by such bad people. But in fact, such murders have happened throughout history, and such bans, ONLY ban "law abiding" citizens from owning what is otherwise legal to own.
I'd add this - The average "non-shooting" citizen doesn't know much about firearms, and easily buys into the "assault weapon ban", because those who promote such most often make it sound like such "militaristic" style weapons, have a "machine gun" capability. They do not. Machine guns, those firing many rounds at a time - with one pull of the trigger - are NOT legal by average citizens, and have been heavily regulated since 1934. Yet, the proponents of such new laws, report the weapons they target, as machine guns and "automatic" weapons.
No matter the "look" of a weapon, if it is used to kill people, it is an ASSAULT weapon . As for many people being shot, most any weapon can do such harm. I can promise anyone, that with a little practice, a 5-shot pump shotgun, fired rapidly and reloaded rapidly, can kill and wound a LOT of people before most law enforcement would ever get to the scene. Would those wounded, feel better about being shot by a bad guy who didn't use an "assault weapon"?
As a nation, we have failed to properly deal with those who commit crimes, and those who have expressed such intents. As for the others, there will ALWAYS be evil in the land, and no amount of laws will stop evil. All we can do then, is stop evil when it raises its ugly head. And for that, I'd prefer the best firearm or other tool of defense, as I can afford!
I fully expect that had our Forefathers had a choice, their statued depiction would have included an AR-15!
Paul had business to attend to, or he would have climbed from his horse to pop a couple squirrels for dinner. He gripped his long gun, wishing he had the time to take such pleasures.
But the business of the day, was a serious one, and Paul knew well the risks. Paul was to meet with friends at a barn outside town. Such a meeting, was forbidden by the British authorities. Arrests, or worse, could happen if caught.
As Paul arrived, he was let into the barn and his horse was stalled with the others. A number of local men were assembled, and some rousing debates were already being exchanged. While they shared similar views about the future of the New World, the "how" to get there was sometimes a continuous point.
When all were assembled, including those calling themselves, the Sons of Liberty, John called everyone over to a crate, that he was opening. "Gentlemen, these are the best rifles to ever come along", he said as he took a rifle out. The group was in awe, as well as inquisitive of the rifle's features.
Henry spoke up. "John, that's a fierce looking gun, and I bet it'll shoot a long way. I fear it will be misused by some."
"Henry, our very existence depends on our ability to match gun for gun, that of our enemies, our enemies of freedom. They will be well armed, and in greater numbers."
"But shouldn't such rifles be reserved for the Army Regulars?"
"I can understand your reservations Henry, but they already have the best. We need to have our own, to grab in a minutes notice, and be able to repel our enemies. I've loved my ol' musket, but this will give me the edge to match what my enemies will come at me with."
Paul spoke up, "Henry, I'm with John. Why should I have have less of a weapon than my foe? Why should I have to stick to my bird gun, when my enemies will come at us with better weapons? Any threat of abuse by the corrupt, pales in the face of the threat that may be coming from our enemies. Besides, just last week, the Brits raided the weapons stores in Worcester, and the local men who didn't keep their own rifles, were left without any. Then the Brits had no trouble rounding up the list of so-called "rabble rousers"! Those Brits took their only means to resist such force."
The new rifle was passed around for everyone to look at. Such a long slim rifle, that had fine rifling for longer and far more accurate shots. Such a rifle had never been used before, but these men knew if the alarm was sounded, there would be no time to get to the storehouse, and they better be ready in a minutes notice. Each of the men were to take one with them when they left.
.................................
While the above is a fictional account of otherwise historically significant events, I wish to make a point. The "military" styles of rifles today, or "assault weapons" by the Clinton and Obama standards, are nothing more than a far more modern weapon of today, than those of 236 years ago. Keeping in mind that the 2nd amendment is about keeping men free from enemies and tyrants, and not about hunting, how could anyone not think Paul Revere and other such men would NOT have chosen such a rifle if they had a choice?
Today, Obama is in favor of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, as well as an "Assault Weapons Ban". Tragic mass shootings cause a flinched reaction to ban the weapons used by such bad people. But in fact, such murders have happened throughout history, and such bans, ONLY ban "law abiding" citizens from owning what is otherwise legal to own.
I'd add this - The average "non-shooting" citizen doesn't know much about firearms, and easily buys into the "assault weapon ban", because those who promote such most often make it sound like such "militaristic" style weapons, have a "machine gun" capability. They do not. Machine guns, those firing many rounds at a time - with one pull of the trigger - are NOT legal by average citizens, and have been heavily regulated since 1934. Yet, the proponents of such new laws, report the weapons they target, as machine guns and "automatic" weapons.
No matter the "look" of a weapon, if it is used to kill people, it is an ASSAULT weapon . As for many people being shot, most any weapon can do such harm. I can promise anyone, that with a little practice, a 5-shot pump shotgun, fired rapidly and reloaded rapidly, can kill and wound a LOT of people before most law enforcement would ever get to the scene. Would those wounded, feel better about being shot by a bad guy who didn't use an "assault weapon"?
As a nation, we have failed to properly deal with those who commit crimes, and those who have expressed such intents. As for the others, there will ALWAYS be evil in the land, and no amount of laws will stop evil. All we can do then, is stop evil when it raises its ugly head. And for that, I'd prefer the best firearm or other tool of defense, as I can afford!
I fully expect that had our Forefathers had a choice, their statued depiction would have included an AR-15!
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Secession?
The election for President is over. And for many, including myself, it's all so surreal that we could be in such a position as to feel our constitution slipping away. With that said, as many as 22 states have citizen petitions to The White House, requesting separation from the Union, by way of "secession".
I would bet most of them do NOT want to secede. What I suspect they want, is for Washington to take notice, and REPRESENT ALL THE PEOPLE. Because, Obama does NOT, in the minds of many, including me. Plus, I feel strongly, that he fully intends to (as he stated) "fundamentally change America".
I personally DO NOT want to see any state secede from the Union. I LOVE my country and fought under our Flag. I love Old Glory. I would not want to ever fight against her.
But, IF my country ceases to be the America she was designed to be; if she becomes something closer to a socialist state; if she no longer represents American FREEDOM; and no longer attempts to maintain our Founding principles, then maybe America is no more. Maybe, the flag no longer stands for us. If I ever feel that way, just as our Founders did about the Union Jack, then I will have to live under another flag. That is one of the saddest things I can imagine. But I will NOT live in a country, where socialism is the acceptable governing method. THAT is not freedom.
I am inviting comments. Please keep it clean when making your points. No threats to any persons or groups of people. I will ONLY take a comment off, if I deem it as threatening, vile, or name calling of a racist manner. Otherwise, I'll monitor. I will not "edit". Under my few rules, if you comment, it goes up.
Tell us,
Do you want to secede from the Union?
If so, why?
I would bet most of them do NOT want to secede. What I suspect they want, is for Washington to take notice, and REPRESENT ALL THE PEOPLE. Because, Obama does NOT, in the minds of many, including me. Plus, I feel strongly, that he fully intends to (as he stated) "fundamentally change America".
I personally DO NOT want to see any state secede from the Union. I LOVE my country and fought under our Flag. I love Old Glory. I would not want to ever fight against her.
But, IF my country ceases to be the America she was designed to be; if she becomes something closer to a socialist state; if she no longer represents American FREEDOM; and no longer attempts to maintain our Founding principles, then maybe America is no more. Maybe, the flag no longer stands for us. If I ever feel that way, just as our Founders did about the Union Jack, then I will have to live under another flag. That is one of the saddest things I can imagine. But I will NOT live in a country, where socialism is the acceptable governing method. THAT is not freedom.
I am inviting comments. Please keep it clean when making your points. No threats to any persons or groups of people. I will ONLY take a comment off, if I deem it as threatening, vile, or name calling of a racist manner. Otherwise, I'll monitor. I will not "edit". Under my few rules, if you comment, it goes up.
Tell us,
Do you want to secede from the Union?
If so, why?
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Mr. Obama, Lead By Example!
Now that we are past the national election, and Mr. Obama won for a second term, I offer the following challenge to him.
Obama pounded the "tax the rich" drum ... a LOT ... during the whole campaign. He said that people like him, could pay a little more, and should be taxed more. I have no doubt, they can handle a "little more" in taxes. If it were as simple as that, I'd agree.
But a couple things still strike me as, BULL SHIT!
To start with, I don't recall (please correct me if I'm wrong!) EVER Obama presenting a proposed new and simplified tax code. Let's face it, the tax code LEGALLY provides for a LOT of tax deductions and deferments, most of which only the wealthier people can legally exploit.
And if the deductions are there, why wouldn't anyone use them? Why wouldn't they want to keep more of their own money? I know we do in our house. Even Obama does!
In fact, in the Obama's released tax return for 2011, they earned a combined income of $789,674. But they took advantage of the lawful deductions, and paid $162,074 in federal taxes. Had they just filed a short form, the tax rate for such an income would have been 35%, or $276,385 in taxes. But the Obama's paid just 20.5%, which by the way, was LESS than the President's own secretary's tax rate! (And he pounded Romney for paying a smaller tax rate than his staff!)
I do NOT fault the President for taking all the deductions he was legally entitled to. I DO fault him, for talking as though the rich are somehow evil for not paying more. He's rich ($10 million and counting) and he DIDN'T pay more! And if he thinks he should have, then I'd say, HE COULD HAVE! He could have paid the full 35%, to put HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH WAS!!
Why didn't he? Because, he TOO wanted to keep as much of HIS money as he could! Simple. Reasonable. Lawful. And paying only 20%, compared to a rate of 28% his own secretary was tagged with, is his own example of a tax system that DOES favor the more wealthy among us.
So, simplify the tax code! Simplify the tax system, so it is more fair. So why haven't they? Two reasons that I see.
1. They, those WE vote into offices, want to keep all the money they can. Both parties do it. And they can even vote themselves raises, and provide additional benefits to themselves. We can't do that!
2. A truly FAIR tax system, in MY view, would have EVERYBODY paying something. Everybody would have some investment into the services and protections the federal government provides to ALL of us. But they, Democrats more than Republicans, do NOT want to piss of the lower income American voters, those who make less than $200,000 per year. And those who pay NO federal taxes, will forever be in the debt of the Dems for never requiring them to chip in!
But, back to my "challenge" -
President Obama, until a new tax code is written and passed, PAY the full 35% for 2012 and on! In fact, be a martyr and make it publicized, and in turn, CHALLENGE all politicians to do the same! LEAD in a new wave of "Patriotic" tax responsibility, and pay the 35%. Or, for those in the other brackets (28 & 33%), pay the full amounts and not take deductions.
Otherwise, I am sick and tired hearing about "taxing the rich"! If Obama wants to do that, then FIX the BS Tax Code, wich is at over 71,000 pages (at 2010 count), and which grew (from both parties) from nearly 17,000 pages in 2006!
Seriously, there is NO way to know how to take advantage of every possible deduction, without paying expensive and knowledgeable accountants! And who can do that, except wealthier people?
Obama, accept my challenge! Stand before the public, and announce that for your 2012 taxes, you will file the short form, and pay your 35%. Then, YOU challenge ALL politicians to follow your LEAD! (Meanwhile, pass a simplified tax code!)
So Lead, or SHUT UP already! (If I were President, and to make a point, I'd wave that 35% paid in front of ALL Congressmen and women, as well as Senators, and by public support and pressure, cause them all to PAY UP!)
BTW - I searched, and of the top 10 Congress persons, 7 were Democrats! http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html (To be fair, of the top 50, 31 are Republicans.) Yet, none of them that I know of, have supported a Fair Tax or Flat Tax plan!
Obama pounded the "tax the rich" drum ... a LOT ... during the whole campaign. He said that people like him, could pay a little more, and should be taxed more. I have no doubt, they can handle a "little more" in taxes. If it were as simple as that, I'd agree.
But a couple things still strike me as, BULL SHIT!
To start with, I don't recall (please correct me if I'm wrong!) EVER Obama presenting a proposed new and simplified tax code. Let's face it, the tax code LEGALLY provides for a LOT of tax deductions and deferments, most of which only the wealthier people can legally exploit.
And if the deductions are there, why wouldn't anyone use them? Why wouldn't they want to keep more of their own money? I know we do in our house. Even Obama does!
In fact, in the Obama's released tax return for 2011, they earned a combined income of $789,674. But they took advantage of the lawful deductions, and paid $162,074 in federal taxes. Had they just filed a short form, the tax rate for such an income would have been 35%, or $276,385 in taxes. But the Obama's paid just 20.5%, which by the way, was LESS than the President's own secretary's tax rate! (And he pounded Romney for paying a smaller tax rate than his staff!)
I do NOT fault the President for taking all the deductions he was legally entitled to. I DO fault him, for talking as though the rich are somehow evil for not paying more. He's rich ($10 million and counting) and he DIDN'T pay more! And if he thinks he should have, then I'd say, HE COULD HAVE! He could have paid the full 35%, to put HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH WAS!!
Why didn't he? Because, he TOO wanted to keep as much of HIS money as he could! Simple. Reasonable. Lawful. And paying only 20%, compared to a rate of 28% his own secretary was tagged with, is his own example of a tax system that DOES favor the more wealthy among us.
So, simplify the tax code! Simplify the tax system, so it is more fair. So why haven't they? Two reasons that I see.
1. They, those WE vote into offices, want to keep all the money they can. Both parties do it. And they can even vote themselves raises, and provide additional benefits to themselves. We can't do that!
2. A truly FAIR tax system, in MY view, would have EVERYBODY paying something. Everybody would have some investment into the services and protections the federal government provides to ALL of us. But they, Democrats more than Republicans, do NOT want to piss of the lower income American voters, those who make less than $200,000 per year. And those who pay NO federal taxes, will forever be in the debt of the Dems for never requiring them to chip in!
But, back to my "challenge" -
President Obama, until a new tax code is written and passed, PAY the full 35% for 2012 and on! In fact, be a martyr and make it publicized, and in turn, CHALLENGE all politicians to do the same! LEAD in a new wave of "Patriotic" tax responsibility, and pay the 35%. Or, for those in the other brackets (28 & 33%), pay the full amounts and not take deductions.
Otherwise, I am sick and tired hearing about "taxing the rich"! If Obama wants to do that, then FIX the BS Tax Code, wich is at over 71,000 pages (at 2010 count), and which grew (from both parties) from nearly 17,000 pages in 2006!
Seriously, there is NO way to know how to take advantage of every possible deduction, without paying expensive and knowledgeable accountants! And who can do that, except wealthier people?
Obama, accept my challenge! Stand before the public, and announce that for your 2012 taxes, you will file the short form, and pay your 35%. Then, YOU challenge ALL politicians to follow your LEAD! (Meanwhile, pass a simplified tax code!)
So Lead, or SHUT UP already! (If I were President, and to make a point, I'd wave that 35% paid in front of ALL Congressmen and women, as well as Senators, and by public support and pressure, cause them all to PAY UP!)
BTW - I searched, and of the top 10 Congress persons, 7 were Democrats! http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html (To be fair, of the top 50, 31 are Republicans.) Yet, none of them that I know of, have supported a Fair Tax or Flat Tax plan!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)