It is a well know fact that once elected politicians almost immediately forget the very promises that got them elected in the first place.  This administration has been no different.  Of course they have kept some of the promises that they made, but those are only the ones that serve their purposes and drive their agendas. 

What promises have they kept?  Well that is easy, we were promised justice for those held in Guantanamo Bay, they have certainly delivered on that.  In fact those who are now held at Gitmo can rest assured that they will have far more legal rights then the very soldiers that captured them on a foreign battlefield.  You see the Obama administration promised them justice and they shall have it in the form of the American civil legal system, something actually denied our brave men and women who serve and die for this nation.  No, military tribunals or courts martial was not good enough for the illegal enemy combatants who fought our soldiers overseas.  They must have far superior legal rights, attorneys paid for by the American tax payer and access to all the case law, precedence and jurisprudence afforded each and every American citizen.  Who cares that our brave servicemen and women do not get this luxury, those terrorist suspects certainly deserve it.  You see when you become a soldier, airman, sailor or marine in service to this nation, you not only pledge your life to the defense of this nation and her Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, you also waive your right to the very guarantees provided by the document that your are duty bound to protect.  You swear to surrender your rights and be governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  However, now those who fight against American troops on the field of battle do not have to worry about such details.  Now they can have the same rights as any other American criminal, including the right for some sleaze ball attorney to find a legal loop hole to let them go free, because some bureaucratic bookworm did not fill out some piece of paperwork in triplicate or some soldier was insensitive to the cultural needs of a detainee.  Not to mention the fact that in their utmost lack of wisdom, the Federal government has decided to try some of these terrorist just miles from the scene of the ‘crime’.  I be New Yorkers will welcome any verdict that comes out of these trials that they will be forced to host, even if it is an innocent one, so long as the rights of these terrorist who killed 3,000 innocent New York citizen were not violated in even the slightest way.  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is one promise that the Obama administration has kept: Far superior legal rights and proceedings for terrorist suspects than is afforded our very own soldiers, all at the expense of the American taxpayer.

You want an American trial for these jihadist?  Well, I agree.  Here is my idea.  Dress them in bright pink jumpsuits, pick a day and time to release them in Hoboken or Queens, broadcast the location and time of release to everyone in the Tri-State area, then let them go.  If they can make it out of the city alive, they are free to go.  It is a hell of a better fate than the three thousand innocent civilians that burned to death or were buried alive in the rubble so many years ago.

What other promises have they kept?  Ah, yes, healthcare.  They told us they would ram a Federally controlled healthcare plan down our throats whether we liked it or not.  Almost a year later they are close to succeeding, but here is where some of the broken promises come in.  Now I am not talking about the one we would have plainly been fools to believe, like that he would not have any activist or lobbyist as his advisors or that he would not sign any bill with a single piece of pork attached to it.  No, I am talking about those that he repeated over and over again that gave all the naive liberal votes hope that we would see the shining light of democracy from the unprecedented transparency promised by the Obama administration.  You see he knew this healthcare thing was poisonous.  He knew that the American people would not willingly sacrifice their choices, their rights and their control over their medical decisions if they really knew what was being planned.  No secrecy would be key to the success of this agenda.  The American people could not really find out what what in this healthcare bill or they would resist, but if he promised us that we would get to see each and every deliberation about this  live on CSPAN it sounded awfully good for the campaign.  Complete transparency, it seems, is just a bit more opaque than we thought.  Where has this CSPAN coverage been?  Why now that people are demanding that he live up to his promises is he hemming and hawing about allowing his bumbling press secretary to blurt out one half-witted excuse after another?  It is funny how those promises that you never meant to keep, come around and bite you in the ass, Mr. President.

On to other promises, how about that unemployment rate?  Hey, I know this one personally.  Both my wife and I had good productive jobs to start off 2009.  Nine months later neither of us did.  So what was this about if we passed the TARP bill, or was it the Omnibus, that we would not go over 8% unemployment?  What about the transparency promised with all of these bailout an stimulus programs?  Oh, sure there was a website created and job loss numbers spewed about, but then we find out that those numbers were complete bullshit.  They included thousands of jobs that had not even started yet and did you know that almost one billion dollars, that is right $920 million of your dollars cannot be adequately accounted for from the funds that were spent in the first six months.  Oh and did you also know that much of this money did not even go to create jobs?  Well that is of the money that has actually been spent of the staggering amounts allocated for these travesties that were voted into law.  That is another thing that apparently was just a flat out lie or just something that this administration does not care much about.  You see, for weeks we were told that we had to act now to avert a crisis.  We had to infuse the economy with these staggering trillions of immediately of face collapse.  Funny, that, because as of today only about 20% of the funds for first $890 billion so called stimulus packages has been spent with another 20% or so in process to be spent within the next six months.  That does not sound like a shot in the arm, but more like a long term prescription plan.  So why the rush if we are going to sit on more than $600 billion dollars until well into 2010?  Why did we have to pass this massive bill in its entirety right then?  Could we not have slowed down and voted to spend the roughly $160 billion dollars that we have so far, then taken our time on the rest?  Hell, now there is even talk of another stimulus package, because the first one was ineffective and the economy has not recovered.  Well no shit, Sherlock.  If $890 billion dollars in funds immediately injected into the American economy was the real answer, then spending $160 billion over six months won’t have the same effect.  That is the difference between a shot and a slow drip IV, not anywhere close to the same thing.

You know there is a question that I always hear thrown around at election time.  Are you better off today than you were four years ago?  It seems that is how we are to judge the effectiveness of our leaders, most pointedly the President.  Well, Mr. President, I am not better off that I was four years ago, nor even two for that matter.  Two years ago, my wife an I both had very profitable jobs in solid industries, hers in the middle of a growing boom.  We were making significant salaries, had good future prospects, good health insurance, large life insurance policies, a healthy stock portfolio and plenty of money in the savings.  Yeah, uhm, we don’t have any of that anymore.  My wife has spent the last nine months unemployed because her industry freaked out about Cap and Trade and I joined her for two months as the economy wore into my job as well.  Hell I even worked for a government contract regulatory lab.  People HAVE to have done what we did, but it still cut into our business enough that I am not even sure my former company will survive after being in business since it was founded in 1976.  No, Mr. President I am far, far worse off now than I was before you were elected and there are many Americans who are right there with me.  You have had a year and all your policies have done is make worse an already bad situation.  You have three years left.  The clock is ticking.

Since I am in an analogy mood, this evening I will give you another one.   Let’s say you take your car into a mechanic and he charges you $890 dollars to fix your engine.  A week later you have to take it back to him for the very same problem.  This is when you discover that he only spend $160 dollars to fix your car the last time, hides the invoice when you try to look at it, can’t explain to you what some of it was spent on and tells you that it should be running better because the flux capacitor is now in synch with the primary phase coil, but he promises that if you will give him another $1,000 he will make sure it runs right.  Now, ask yourself, how likely would you be to let this man work on your car again, provided you do not punch him out straight away and take your money back forcibly.  Now ask yourself how likely would you be to let him recommend a doctor for you and your family, or decide what medical procedure you need or do not need?  Scary thought isn’t it?

In a striking turn of events, that actually surprised no one, it has now been confirmed that Nancy Pelosi is one of the most ignorant people that has ever held a public office. I have not given out a Blithering Idiot award in some time, so maybe one is due. Congratulations Nancy Pelosi, you are the Blithering Idiot of the Week. She has plenty of company in Congress right now and they are willingly showing their ineptitude day after day.

Astroturf? Seriously? Did that take you all morning to come up with Nancy or did one of your staffers write that little line for you? The indignation and arrogance on display by our Congressional leaders against the American people right now is simply appalling. These corrupt, out of touch, elitist morons cannot fathom that the American people are completely fed up with their crap and are finally standing up for ourselves.

Just a few short months ago Hillary Clinton stated that it was our patriotic duty to voice our dissent against a government that we disagreed with. There were multitudes calling President Bush everything from a murderer to a terrorist to Hitler himself. We saw morons like Cindy Sheehan literally camped outside his home, shouting horribly insulting and borderline threatening comments at the President. How did the former administration act when these ‘angry mobs’ showed up? Did he encourage other Americans to report them to their government for exercising their free speech? No. Did he chastise them publicly claiming that they were an unruly angry mob? No. Did he demand that others show up to counter their protests? Nope. He simply acknowledged their right to have their own opinions and protest against the actions of their government.

Now we see astounding arrogance coming from Washington in their personal attacks on citizens who are speaking their mind openly and honestly. Nancy Pelosi even went so far as to claim that these citizens protesting the nationalized healthcare were carrying swastikas and similar symbols to the protests. Really? I have done some extensive searching and can find not a single photo or video from these protests containing any such symbols. However, I was able to find multiple photos containing swastika symbols from earlier protests against President Bush. Was that who she was talking about? I wonder… This just goes to further show the feeble intelligence of this woman. If she actually knew anything about the Nazi (or National Socialist) Party, she would realize that it would more likely be those in favor of this national socialized medical program that would bear symbols hailing the Nazi regime. After all, one of the questions often ask of German citizens in the 1930s and 1940s was, “Are you a good socialist?” Well, Nancy, are you?

What they do not realize is that by dismissing these normal, everyday citizens who have legitimate concerns as nothing but an angry mob, they are likely to turn them into just that. Now we hear that they are canceling these town hall meetings in an act of pure cowardice because they do not want to face the truth of a public turned against them. They might as well stand upon the steps of Congress and shout, “Let them eat cake!” This will not sit well with an America already tiring of the wasteful, corrupt and reality deprived administration that has shown nothing but contempt for the will of the populace. I will point you to another time in our history, when the calls from the people went unheeded. A time when taxation was used as a means to control and laws were forced upon a people from a distant, detached government who did not concern itself with what those governed desired. We should learn from this past where the voices of the people went unheard and the protests that they staged were dismissed as a bunch of unruly ingrates and angry mobs. In the end this did not fare well for the governing body responsible for such injustices against the American colonies, nor will it do so now.

If we stare into the Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back at us. Right now we stand at the edge of the Abyss, what we do will define the future of this nation for generations to come. I say we stand and fight.

Arise you sons and daughters of Liberty. Stand firm in your beliefs and make your voices heard from the tip of the Aleutians to the Florida Keys. Call them out and give them no quarter to the lies being told. Fight for your freedoms and liberty, lest they be stripped from you while you sleep.

I find it simply amazing how Nancy Pelosi knew about water boarding, knew nothing about water boarding, knew about it but thought they wouldn’t use it, knew about it once they had used it and was simply lied to by the CIA all along. Now it is apparently her belief that the CIA lied to her the entire time and continuously lies to Congress on a regular basis. Isn’t that nice? Slam the CIA just to cover your own incompetent ass.

In the absolute height of arrogance, this woman is demanding investigations and possible criminal charges for those who acted in good faith on information that they thought was lawful and appropriate. She wants to retroactively target CIA operatives, advisors and administration officials for actions taken that were lawful at the time they were carried out, regardless of their legal status now.

Now we see the treachery and deception present on the left. This woman knew full well about all of these procedures and interrogation techniques and signed off on them. She knew before anyone was ever water boarded that it was a technique that had been approved by the CIA and would be employed in the most severe cases. She knew after it happened and never raised any alarm until it was politically profitable for her to do so. This is not about torture. This is not about interrogations. This is about political capital and maneuvering. This is about revenge against the Bush administration and retribution against political opponents. This is petty, corrupt, unethical, deceitful and dishonest. Where is the outrage from the left? Where are the objections to her knowing this was occurring but staying silent until it politically benefited her not to?

She needs to go. Not because she supported the water boarding of vicious, murderous bastards bent on the destruction of as many innocent Americans as possible. Hell, she should be commended for that. No, she needs to go for lying through her teeth and attempting to have dedicated professionals who simply did their jobs brought up on charges for doing the very things she knew there were going to do to keep this country safe.

Seriously, let us remember who we are dealing with here.

There has been an awful lot of discussion surrounding the torture subject again since the Obama administration has floated the idea of criminal investigations into the harsh interrogation methods used by the CIA to extract information from al-Qaida operatives. The Obama administration has received both harsh criticism and demands for further investigation after the releasing the CIA memos detailing the interrogation methods used by the CIA and the decision making process surrounding them. I believe this is a reckless step aimed at political gain and poses a great risk to our nation on many fronts.

To begin this discussion, one must first decide what exactly torture is and what remains a harsh interrogation method that does not cross this line. This is a question over which much debate has raged throughout the last few years. While some clearly see water boarding as torture, others disagree and find the practice perfectly acceptable when used in high level, critical interrogations where other methods have failed. Many would also argue that these interrogation methods are ineffective and do not produce reliable results. However, it appears that the evidence in hand on that point tends to demonstrate otherwise.

This is a difficult question to answer, as Americans have always fought against regimes that torture and abuse people. Therefore to even consider such measures must place great strain on our core beliefs. Herein lies a question faced by many of our great leaders in the past, to what lengths can we go to protect this nation without destroying what this nation stands for? When President Lincoln was faced with the dissolution of the Union, he suspended the basic rights guaranteed under by Constitution under the Bill of Rights and marched a standing army against American citizens to preserve that Union. When President Truman faced the decision to invade Japan at the cost of millions upon millions of American and Japanese lives, or to drop tremendously devastating weapons of mass destruction on civilian population centers in an attempt to force a Japanese surrender, he chose the lesser of two evils and the lower cost of life. When President Bush was faced with another impending terrorist attack on this nation, he authorized what methods he thought legal and justified to extract the information from our enemies that allowed us to prevent these attacks. For none of these men were these decisions light, but they were easy ones to make. They did what they must to protect this nation in dire times of need. They chose the only path they could to save this nation or the lives of her citizens.

For me this question is simple. I for one do not consider water boarding to be torture, nor do I consider many of the other methods detailed in the memos that were foolishly released by the Obama administration to be above the uncrossable line. When dealing with a ruthless enemy who will slowly cut the head off of an innocent American contractor while filming it for propaganda purposes, I find it perfectly acceptable that we would pour water over his head until he decides to talk. When dealing with a people who believe it acceptable to murder their own children in ‘honor killings’ because they have not behaved in some particular way, I find no problem sticking them in a room with an insects that they fear. When dealing with a people that strap bombs on to women and children, teach that it is acceptable to beat your wives and kill indiscriminately innocent people who will not yield to their way of life, I do not see a problem with slamming them up against a wall and threatening to beat the information out of them.

Someone asked me a very simple question one day in an attempt to define what I saw as torture. If your children had been kidnapped and the man sitting before you had the information that would save their lives, to what lengths would you go to obtain that information? Where ever you chose to stop or whatever you decided you could not do, was your definition of torture. After contemplating the question for some time, I realized that it is not that difficult of a question for me to answer. This may make me a horrible person in some people’s eyes, but I could think of very little that I would not do to save the life of just one of my children, not mention all of them. If the person still possessed the ability to draw breath once they gave me what I needed, they should consider themselves very fortunate indeed. I would gladly water board him and his entire family to save my children and I would sleep well at night knowing I had done so. I would stop at nothing to protect my children. How could I think less of a nation that did likewise to protect her citizens?

Someone once argued with me that I would be sacrificing my morality by taking such actions, even in the defense of my children. I disagree. I feel that it would be a moral imperative to do anything and everything possible to save my children. Failing to do so would be the ultimate moral failure. These people have sworn to kill as many innocent Americans as the possibly can by any means that they can. We are at war with an enemy that knows no rules and respects no boundaries. Our citizens and soldiers are offered no quarter and are brutally murdered and hung in public as examples of their barbarism. How there are people in this country who have a problem with pouring water on these people to scare them into releasing information that will thwart their horrific plans is far beyond me. Failing to do so, to me, seems the ultimate failure of a nation and its moral obligation to protect its people.

There is one simple underlying question that should be asked of every government action performed. Every single line in each bill, every department created and every executive or judicial order issued should be absolutely forced to pass this test.

“Exactly where does the Constitution of the United States grant you the power to do this?”

If this question cannot be answered, specifically citing Constitutional authority for an action, then the action should not be taken. On March 24th, 2009 a hero arose in Congress. One woman stood and repeatedly demanded the answer to the single most important question that should always on the lips of EVERY member of Congress, Representative Michelle Bachman (R-MN).

“Mr. Secretary, what provision in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of ’08.”

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but we now appear to be one based more on shifting political wills and opinions, ignoring the law whenever it suits the needs of those in power. If you champion following the Constitution, you are somehow labeled as backwards and regressive. This government sloughs off the consequences of it actions and blatantly ignores the rules set forth in the document itself. This Congress has gone so far as to openly and purposefully ignore restrictions on seating representatives from the District of Columbia, an action specifically prohibited by the Constitution and now the expansion of government power is expanding faster than ever.

Now the government wants the ability to seize control of businesses other than banks, set the salary caps of private individuals, control the amount of electricity you use on your home by embedding smart digital meters capable of restricting electrical flow and severely restrict your rights to own firearms. This is insanity. Can no one else see where this is leading? Apparently some can.

I have always proceeded from an assumption that most people are simply uninformed about what their government is doing and that if they ever realized the freedoms they were sacrificing they would never allow this. I may have been wrong in that assumption. Rasmussen just recently released a poll that showed just over 30% of the people questioned would be in favor of the government setting rules that no actor, entertainer or sports figure could make more an $1 million a year. What? Are there really that many stupid people out there that believe that it is any frakking business of the Federal government how much the Dallas Cowboys pay Tony Romo or how many millions of dollars Tom Hanks makes for his next movie? Under what constitutional authority could the Federal government possibly have the right to tell Carrie Underwood that no matter how many records she sells, she is only allowed $1 million dollars per year of that money? Where would the rest of the money go? Who would get the multi-millions of dollars generated by movie sales, the music industry or the sports franchises? Where does it end?

Do people not realize that the draw for people to become actors and actresses, singers and dancers or excel to national levels of sports performance is because it can make them rich? Do they not realize that millions of people are willing to pay these entertainers millions of dollars to watch them perform just as corporation are willing to pay certain key employees millions of dollars to secure their business practices and performances? It is absolutely none of the government’s business whatsoever. These very ideas are so foreign to the dream that this nation was founded on that I could only imagine the reactions of our founding fathers should the magically awake in a nation they would be hard pressed to recognize from the one they created. I fear most of them would do as they did before: cast off this enormous, oppressive form of government in favor of a limited one controlled by the people, not in control of them. They would revolt against the abuses of power, the arrogance of Congress and the usurpation of rights they granted to the States and the People. They would destroy this nation as we know it and rebuild it into the image that they intended and they would be right in doing so.

What we are currently allowing to happen to this nation, her States, her People and her founding principal is embarrassing if not treasonous. The saddest thing about it all is that there are so many millions of lemmings following this government like sheep to the slaughter. When the President of the European Union, a body comprised of heavily socialized nations, rips our President and his dangerous fiscal policies for leading America down the ‘road to hell’ are they deaf to the pleas for common sense? When we can see the British government embroiled in controversy over their dying nation as a result of the same fiscally irresponsible practices that we are now embarking on, can we not learn from the suffering of other? Or must we let this nation, this dream, this most miraculous of all social experiments, die so that it may be reborn again as it was originally intended?

All good things…

I am proud to announce that my community will be hosting its own TEA party on April 15th in opposition to the increased taxes, wasteful government spending and complete fiscal irresponsibility that we face under this new administration. Chains you can believe in, indeed!

Weatherford TEA Party – April 15th, 2009
 
Have you been Taxed Enough Already (TEA)?
 
If you are like many Americans across this great nation, the answer to the above question is a resounding, “YES!” In recent months have shown us what irresponsible fiscal policies can do to this nation’s economy. From the government interference in the free market that is responsible for this financial situation to the irresponsible bailouts costing the taxpayers staggering amount of money, the Federal government has shown us how irresponsible they are with our tax dollars. In recent days we have heard promises of more government interference in the markets, massive expansions of government and increased control of private sector enterprises. All this takes money: your money.
 
(Read more on Parker County Young Republicans…)

I encourage you to go read the entire article and for those of you in the Parker County area to come out an join us in protest. It is time the will of the people in this nation shook the halls of Congress.

There has been an awful lot of focus the past few days on the apparently scandalous bonuses paid out to AIG executives in the sum of $165 million dollars. There are thousands of news and opinion articles out there vilifying these executives and now our Congress is demanding the money be returned else they will tax the living hell out of it after the fact.

Now, I am not going to get into the blatant unconstitutionality and base immorality of Congress targeting individual private citizens and enacting revenge upon them with ex post facto (after the fact) laws. These acts are specifically prohibited under Article I of the Constitution and are just more proof that Congress is willing to ignore the basic founding laws of this nation whenever it suits their needs. I will also not dwell much on the fact that Congress knew of these bonuses and included specific legislation in the stimulus package allowing them. Even the fact that these bonuses were contractual legal obligations, made years earlier to these employees and that AIG had to pay them or face the legal consequences of not doing so, has not deterred the feigned outrage and innocence from Congressional leaders who are at the very least as responsible for this mess as any company or executive, if not more so.

I could not possibly care less that some executives received less than one tenth of one percent of the $170 billion dollars that Congress irresponsibly gave to AIG; turning their collective heads while AIG funneled huge sums of tax payer money to foreign banks.

This is all a distraction to the horrible injustices that are occurring in this nation on a daily basis and I would not doubt are designed to foster hostile sentiment towards the free market from the American people. Congress knew about these bonuses and allowed them to happen, even giving their consent in law by amending the stimulus package to guarantee that these bonuses would be paid. Now they pretend to be shocked and appalled when AIG follows the law and honors their obligations… Bullshit.

This is all an exercise to distract the American people so they will not notice things such as what has been occurring with the Veterans Administration in this country and the horrible, disgraceful actions threatened by our President and his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. Just a few days ago, word broke of a meeting between President Barack Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and eleven veterans’ service organizations where the President revealed his plan to expand funding of the VA healthcare system and its coverage to wounded veterans. Sounds good, right? You might think that until you hear what he planned to do to these brave men and women that have selflessly served this nation.

The Obama plan to expand VA coverage and increase its funding would have forced wounded veterans returning from war to use their own private insurance companies to pay for injuries received as a result of their service. This plan drew outrage from veterans across the nation, one of the most vocal of which was Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion as quoted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 after his meeting with the President:

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan. He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

By the end of that day it appeared that the groundswell of opposition to this abuse of our servicemen was beginning to wear on the White House and veterans were given until Thursday afternoon to come up with another way to generate the additional $540 million required or this is the plan they would get.

Really? How about our government stops wasting untraceable billions in all these frakking bailouts and takes care of our soldiers? How about Nancy Pelosi sits her arrogant ass on a commercial airliner and stops wasting millions by having the military dedicate resources to fly her all over the frakking place? How about we stop funding radical, corrupt activist groups line ACORN and actually care for those who fight to keep us safe? How about you go to frakking hell, Mr. President, if you think that the American public will allow you to propose a $3.5 trillion dollar Federal budget and then believe for one frakking second that you cannot find $500 million dollars, or a hell of a lot more if needed, to care for our wounded vets?

This is the utter height of bullshit and simply proves that his man cares nothing for this nation and the veterans that have served to protect it. This is a soulless act of a man with no moral conscience. As Cmdr. Rehbein noted, this would cause massive harm to the veterans, their employers and their families who would all be affect by having to meet the private insurance deductibles, facing higher premiums and maxing out coverage leaving the families unprotected.

This nation called upon these men to serve in battle and we owe them the best possible care available. We have a moral obligation to these service men, especially those sustaining wounds directly related to our government placing them in harm’s way.

Even if you look at this dispassionately, which I find hard to do myself, you can see that this is a clear admission from President Obama that the Veterans Administration, the only fully government run and funded national healthcare system, is incapable of providing adequate treatment of those it is charged with serving. Now he is suggesting that the only example of a government run healthcare system in this nation must turn to the private sector as the only viable means of proving the amount and quality of service required to treat our veterans. This is President Obama admitting that a nationalized healthcare system would be a horrible disaster if implemented on a large scale. The VA is only a small controlled segment of patients and they are incapable of providing the necessary care without forcing the free market to carry the weight.

Is this the healthcare system that you want governing your well being? Does the President really expect the American people to accept nationalized healthcare, when he is blatantly admitting by these disgraceful acts against out military veterans, that it is incapable of providing treatment for those whom we have the utmost morally commitment to care for?

Due to the massive swell of public outrage over this proposal, it has now been taken off the table and a meeting was held yesterday with the same veterans groups to discuss other options. No word on any resolution has surfaced yet, but I bet if you ask most American they could find that money somewhere in the trillions of dollars our Federal government has been wasting over the last six months to care for our soldiers.

I would not blame any serviceman for refusing to enter a combat zone until this issue is resolved. Even the suggestion that they should be fiscally responsible for wounds received in the service of this nation is a horrible betrayal to them and an affront to the honor, dedication and loyalty they have shown. Such a betrayal is far beneath an American President and he has brought shame upon the office by this unforgivable injustice. While I have been critical of his actions and fiscally destructive policies, this is the straw that broke it for me. I have absolutely no respect or use for this morally bankrupt excuse for a President after this absolute insult to those that have served or this complete farce of a government that would even consider such a thing.

When we examine the rights guaranteed us under the Constitution of the United States and specifically those granted to us first under the Bill of Rights, it is important to notice the order in which they occur. Our framers could have placed these Amendments in any order they chose, so why did they place them the way they did. It is actually very simple. The placed the most basic ones, the most important ones and the ones paramount to our very freedoms first. No one can argue that the basic rights guaranteed under the first Amendment are the fundamental rights of any American citizen and that any erosion of these rights is a direct assault upon our freedoms. So it would logically fall that the Amendment they chose to place second was of almost equal value and just as vital to each individual as the first. So why do we not cry out in rage when it is under assault like we do those under the First Amendment?

In examining the Second Amendment it is important to understand the situation the Framers found themselves in that made them to decide that this was the second most important right of any American citizen. It also is prudent to examine what the Second Amendment was meant to guarantee and what it was designed to protect.

Let’s start by examining what had just occurred. The Colonies had just fought a bloody revolution to free themselves from a heavy handed centralized government that was exerting its will over them with no recourse. This freedom was gained at a severe price and was only achieved because they could call upon everyday citizens to arm themselves and fight for their rights. During the framing of the Constitution, the Colonies realized that they could be creating such a government by their own hands that could eventually grow strong enough to enforce its will upon the states by force. The attempted to set several checks and balances within the Constitution itself to address this possibility, but many Colonies were not satisfied that their concerns had been adequately addressed. They never intended the Constitution itself to enumerate the rights of the citizens. It was specifically designed to limit the scope, size and power of the Federal government. However, they were concerned that any rights not explicitly spelled out would risk being ignored if their fears ever came to pass. Therefore, they created the Bill of Rights, a set of ten Amendments to be immediately added to the Constitution which enumerated specific and unquestionable rights to the States and the citizens and specifically stated that all rights not addressed under the Constitution remain the rights of the State or the people. This was to ensure that a strong centralize government could never arise to the level where it could control or deny these basic rights to its people.

Among those rights is the right of every individual to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the second Amendment is clear. There is no ambiguity.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This right was not designed to protect hunters, nor was it meant to protect those who wish to protect themselves. It was meant to protect the rights of the People and their States. This Amendment was created to ensure that the States would remain free and not lose their rights to a powerful central Federal government. This right was designed to protect the liberty of every State and every person in this nation and the document says that is SHALL NOT be infringed.

Some may argue that the militia clause referring to the security of the State has become unnecessary due to the Federal government having a standing army and the states have their National Guards. However, it was these very things that the Second Amendment was design to protect AGAINST. The fear of a Federal government fielding a standing army that could turn its guns on the citizens of this nation is clearly discussed in The Federalist Papers. Even then they realized that the only way to prevent such a thing was to have an armed citizenry ready and willing to stand their ground and defend their rights by force if they must. They knew that the only thing that would ensure that the American people were never subjugated by the Federal government was if they could arm themselves and resist. This is the sole intent and purpose of the Second Amendment, to guarantee your freedoms by ensuring that you are armed and able to fight for them.

In the video I posted a few days earlier the Marine mention a grave and dire assault on your rights taking place right now. One of the bills he mentions was the Blair Holt’s bill, a direct and invasive assault on your Second Amendment rights. This bill, H.R. 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 along with the proposed Assault Weapons Ban and Ammunition Coding laws are designed to control, register, track and tax. They will restrict your ability to buy, own, posses, transport and sell a multitude of firearms, ammunition and accessories all currently legal underneath American law. There will be criminal penalties associated with failures to comply with these laws and means of removing your ability to own or posses a firearm at all. As an example, here is the summary for H.R. 45:

Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
 
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
 
Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
 
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
 
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

Does this not appear to be infringing on your right to bear arms by the very entity that the Second Amendment was meant to provide protection from?

I have always been vehemently against any form of registration of any firearm, ammunition or the requirement of a license to own or posses said things. I am accepting of licensing that allows a person to carry in public, either concealed or in plain sight, at the State level, but there should never, under any circumstances whatsoever, be any such requirement for ownership. This only serves as a nationalized means for identifying and controlling the armed populace. Remember, one of the first things the Nazis did when they seized control of Germany was to disarm their populace. How did they know where to find the guns? All Germans were required to register any firearms they owned. Go ask 1940’s Germany how well that worked out for them. This is a direct threat to the liberty and security of every State and every citizen of this nation.

Not to mention that the ONLY people that these laws will affect are the people who already obey the law. This will not reduce violent crimes, but may actually have the opposite effect. A public unable to defend itself will fall prey to the criminals who will ignore this law just as they ignore the laws that make them criminals in the first place. Why do you think it is that almost every single state that has opted for a law allowing their citizens to carry weapons in public has seen a significant decline in violent crimes? Criminals avoid those whom they know will fight back.

This is unacceptable and intolerable. The Federal government has ignored the Constitution for many years but in the last few months we have seen a direct assault on it that is unsurpassed in the history of this nation. From Congress illegally trying to seat delegates from the District of Columbia in the House and Senate, to the push for the ‘Line Item Veto’ that has already been ruled directly unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to the massive assault on Second Amendment rights that is currently underway, this government has shown itself to not only disregard the laws laid out in the Constitution but to actually hold contempt for them in choosing to ignore them at will.

The Federal government has now shown itself to be a domestic enemy to the Constitution of the United States of America by directly attacking its most basic rights, ignoring the limitations set forth therein upon the Federal government, abrogating the rights of its citizens and States and attempting to subvert openly in Congress the laws set forth within the document without the direct consent of the States through the amendment process.

There are those on the left that will assault me; try to tear me down with screams of hatemongering and scare tactics, but I challenge anyone of them to prove to me how we should see these assaults on our rights as anything other than what they are: oppression of a once free people by an overly powerful central government, something we once would fight and die to avoid.

Now that the President has just signed into law the most massive increase in the size, scope and spending of the Federal government and dealt a serious blow to capitalism, our government now prepares to move on to the next greatest threat to our national security: talk radio.

From all corners of the government you are now hearing calls for action heralding back to those days when the government controlled the content of the airwaves. Within just the past few weeks we have seen statement after statement urging the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine from liberal Congressmen and political pundits alike. So what is causing this sudden demand for the oppression of free speech? To understand this, we must first examine what the Fairness Doctrine is and why it was originally created.

When broadcast communication was in its infancy, the government saw the medium as serving a vital role as a public service to communities by being a medium over which matters of public interest could be discussed. These matters could range from local all the way up to federal and international issues and would be an essential way for the public to gain knowledge of issues that had traditionally had very limited exposure. However, there was the concern that large corporations that possessed vast amounts of capital could potentially monopolize the airwaves by buying up the fairly limited amount of stations, thereby controlling the content and effectively public opinion along with it. Fearing that this would result in a disservice to the communities these stations served, the FCC enacted  rules to prevent the editorialized presentation of the issues. The early attempts to control the content of the airwaves were commonly referred to as the ‘Mayflower Doctrine’. This rather strict doctrine began by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in the late 1930s prevented any and all editorializing by broadcast stations. Yet, by the late 1940s this doctrine had begun to soften as it was dampening public interest in debating the issues. During the decade when the doctrine was in place, the FCC had begun allowing editorializing only so long as an opposing view was also expressed. This led the FCC to enact the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. This doctrine stated that the licensees of the stations were ‘ public trustees’ and had an obligation to cover controversial public issues in a fair and balanced manner by providing reasonable opportunities for opposing views. The commission later went on to include that not only did stations hold this obligation to the public, but that they must actively seek out issues of critical importance to the communities they served and provide ample coverage of those issues.

These protections made perfect sense in the early days of broadcasting, when there were fewer than three thousand radio stations (2,881) with eighty-five million listeners and under a hundred (98) television stations with only four million viewers nationwide. However, today where there are well over ten thousand terrestrial stations (13,837) and more than sixteen hundred (1,606) television stations, most of which are already broadcasting digitally, we have more choices for the 500 million radios and almost 200 million televisions than could have ever been imagined when this archaic legislation was enacted. This does not even take into account the multitude of choices provided by cable, satellite television, satellite radio or digital terrestrial signals. These technologies offer hundreds of choices for consumers far beyond the normal scope of broadcasting making the monopolization of the airwaves and absolute impossibility.

The arguments that supported the Fairness Doctrine sixty years ago utterly fail when faced with modern technology. One such argument was that due to the scarcity of the radio spectrum available to the public, the government must regulate the content to provide balance. While the radio spectrum has not changed much since the inception of the Fairness Doctrine, the way in which it is used most definitely has. This problem was alleviated to some degree with the introduction of FM broadcasting and is seeing its ultimate demise in the form of high definition radio and digital television signals. These new technologies allow for multiple channels and sub-channels to be broadcast in the same space that a single traditional analog signal occupied, providing even more space on the spectrum than ever before.

Another argument was that certain viewpoints are censored in the current market. This stems from the enormous success of conservative talk radio, specifically hosts such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, but the argument itself is unbalanced at best. With the ample medium available on the market there are plenty of opportunities for liberal radio hosts to have shows and build their audiences into the millions such as these hosts and others have done, there just does not seem to be the market for such a thing to happen. National Public Radio is a prime example of a liberal leaning entity that has survived in this aggressive market where Air America is not. Air America, a very liberal oriented network, has attempted to gain a foot hold in the marketplace for years. However, year after year the most notable sound coming from the stations that hosted their personalities, other than the bile and hatred that so often was their format, was the giant sucking sound of money going down the drain. Air America was an unqualified failure because it could not generate a public following and make its sponsors money. They were not forced out of the market by conservative radio; they failed of their own means. That is the way the free market works, although I know most of those supporting this doctrine oppose that as well.

The last argument has always been about the public interest and the encouraging of debate. In this the Fairness Doctrine actually did more harm than good. When the FCC mandated that stations had to actively seek out public issues and provide opposing views for them, many stations went another direction entirely. To avoid the hassle of having to secure opposing positions for controversial issues, many stations decided it far easier to avoid them entirely. This caused a chilling effect on the public airwaves and found many venues turning solely to music programming or other programming that simply avoided critical issues so that no debate took place. There were no great talk show hosts of the 1950s, 60’s or 70’s. There were scarcely any public forums where listeners could call in an express their views over critical issues of the day. There was mostly only nice, safe music or informational programming. The Fairness Doctrine stifled free speech and open debate, the exact opposite of what the FCC originally intended.

Since the repeal of the doctrine, talk radio has exploded. There are AM, FM and satellite stations dedicated to this forum where anyone can call in and get involved in the debate by expressing their views. Now we see the calls for the re-enactment of a doctrine that has no merit in today’s market, actually suppresses the type of behavior it was supposed to protect and would be used to censor an entire market segment for political convenience.  However, we already have seen the signs that it will not stop there. These people have even begun talk to take this style of totalitarian control to the internet, thereby forcing blogs and editorial sites to provide opposing views and enacting government control upon more free speech. I find it odd how they do not assail unabashedly biased networks like MSNBC or CNN, whose hosts claim messianic man-crushes on political candidates and call a sitting President a terrorist and killer while lying through their teeth about the issues, but they attack only those mediums which oppose their political ideologies and challenge their will.

Only a totalitarian government fear the voices of its own people. Only these governments endeavor to suppress and control them.

Welcome to the USSA.

It never ceases to amaze me those in power so often show utter contempt and scorn for the very people who have placed them in those positions of power. For the last few months we have been continuously pelted with tales of how horrible our economy is, even when the actual facts of the situation do not bear out to be the massive tragedy that has been portrayed.

We have heard an arrogant Congress demand accountability from companies, throw ultimatums down about executive privileges and bonus and threaten to take over entire industries for lack of responsibility. Recently we have heard President Obama tell private companies that he will stop these practices of large bonuses and corporate perks because there will be a time for profit and privilege, but now is not it. Individual Congressmen have even demanded specific actions from free market companies and pretended to have enough insight to tell them which executives should stay or should go.

Dare we to hold these same standards to our government? Of course not, though we desperately need to start the process of doing so. For starters, what business does the Federal government have telling ANY company how it should do business, even those companies receiving Federal bailout money? There is no legal basis for this assumed power. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government even given the power or the right to bail these companies out, much less to tell them how to conduct their businesses. The very thought of such a travesty would have sent the framers of this country running for the guns to prevent such a thing as they had just fought off from occurring again. Nor can you point to a single fiscal program that the Federal government manages that by free market standards would not be considered in default or completely bankrupt. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are the primary example of horrible inefficiency, complete fiscal irresponsibility and would be considered utter failures among free market enterprises that deserved to go out of business for the way they have been run.

Yet, in the height of arrogance and hypocrisy, our Federal government thinks it has the right and the capability to demand that private companies operate how Congress deems appropriate.

To make matters worse, Congress just voted themselves a $93,000 annual increase in their petty cash lines as highlighted in the Fox News clip below.

Excuse me? Uhm, I thought this was the worst economy since the Great Depression? I thought this was not the time for bonuses and profits? I thought that we were demanding fiscal responsibility? What the frak is this?

This is arrogance and elitism at its finest. This is your elected officials telling you that YOU need to cut back, but that THEY need more. This is redistribution of wealth in the most horrible fashion. They are redistributing your wealth into their accounts. Taking $93,000 per Congressional member for their petty cash funds make it more like a petty theft fund.

I do not know exactly what we can do about this problem, since it is all too clear that government of the people, by the people, for the people has truly perished from this earth and we have absolutely no say in what these unethical morons do once they have been elected to their seats, but something must be done. I urge you to call your Representatives and Senators and let them know your displeasure.  Contact information listed below:

United States Senate

United States House of Representative (a misnomer at best if not a flat out lie)