I have written about the situation in Ferguson before, here, here and here.

I support our first responders, they run towards trouble, rather than away. That being said, I am at the front of the line to complain when I see abuses of power. I also understand the purpose of the police, which is to enforce the laws, not "protect the people."

As you can see from what I have posted before, I do my homework. I understand the underlying resentment of the citizens of Ferguson. I know more than what the Media wants me to know. However, I realize that I will never know all of the facts because I was not there when Brown died, nor was I in the Grand Jury room, or the DA's office.

From what I have read, Officer Wilson was doing what he was charged to do, which was enforce the laws of the municipality. Jaywalking is a misdemeanor in almost every urban or suburban area. Brown, who had just committed two felonies (strong-arm robbery and assault) acted "defensively" (in his mind) because he probably thought the officer was stopping him because of the felonies he just committed. A struggle ensues and Brown ends up dead. Rioting ensues.

So, now we come to this point. The DA punts, handing the responsibility over to the Grand Jury. When the Grand Jury returns a "No Bill," or they do not indict Officer Wilson, again the rioting starts. And the frustrated people of Ferguson, who have been beaten down and hyped up on incorrect information, react in the worst possible way: they foul their own nest by looting and burning the businesses in their own neighborhoods. So when Ferguson becomes an economic wasteland because honestly, who wants to put forth the time, effort and cash to operate a business only to have it looted and burned? Who in their right mind would want to invest in such a community?

Of course, in the near future when the citizens of Ferguson now have to hop on the bus or drive to get groceries and services they used to be able to walk to, whom will they blame? Probably not themselves. They will place the blame of why they burned those businesses on the reasons they did it, not on their own actions. If you don't like the system, change it. Don't like the laws passed? Petition to your elected officials. If they don't listen to you, run for office yourself and get elected. Then you are in a position to repeal those bad laws.

And another wonderful example of how some people are willing to twist things to their own advantage. Outrage as LA School District argues that child can 'consent' to sex w/ teacher. So, the lawyers are stating that because the molested minor female was able to lie to her mother about her whereabouts, she could reasonably consent to sex.

Arguing that a child can make adult decisions, Keith Wyatt, the school district's trial attorney in the case, argued against the child, stating plainly, "She lied to her mother so she could have sex with her teacher. She went to a motel in which she engaged in voluntary consensual sex with her teacher. Why shouldn't she be responsible for that?" Not quite done yet, Wyatt also went on to insisted that a 14-year-old can be mature enough to consent to sex with an adult. Telling reporters, Wyatt also said, "Making a decision as to whether or not to cross the street when traffic is coming, that takes a level of maturity and that's a much more dangerous decision than to decide, 'Hey, I want to have sex with my teacher.'"

A 14-year-old is not emotionally mature enough to make such life-determining choices on their own. When an authority figure such as a teacher abuses the trust society places on them and engages in such conduct, they violate that trust, as well as the child. I am happy to note that child molesters are the lowest rung of the pecking order in prison, so our "teacher" is getting "schooled" by Bubba every night for his three year stint. Personally, I think Mr. Wyatt, for those kind of idiotic statements should suffer the same fate as the molester. It boggles my mind how such a person can be so craven to make statements like that. Knowing that this is in California, it's actually likely the family of the molested teen will lose this case. It's that screwed up in that state.

I have said this for years: "Don't complain about history when it's current events." In Memphis, the War of the Great Rebellion (AKA the American Civil War) and slavery is brought up or alluded to almost every city council meeting. "Your ancestors enslaved my ancestors!" kind of thing. And, I have been talking about how slavery is still prevalent, and the "Maybe we'll get around to abolishing it, next year" in other parts of the world. Then I find this: Nearly 36 million people are slaves, Qatar in focus: global index.

The index defines slavery as the control or possession of people in such a way as to deprive them of their freedom with the intention of exploiting them for profit or sex, usually through violence, coercion or deception.

The definition includes indentured servitude, forced marriage and the abduction of children to serve in wars.

So, forced exploitation of your fellow man is still going strong today.

The index showed that 10 countries alone account for 71 percent of the world's slaves.

After India [14.3 million], China has the most with 3.2 million, then Pakistan (2.1 million), Uzbekistan (1.2 million), Russia (1.05 million), Nigeria (834,200), Democratic Republic of Congo (762,900), Indonesia (714,100), Bangladesh (680,900) and Thailand (475,300).

To all of those who claim they are enslaved, I suggest you look elsewhere and see how much better their lives are compared to those who are in active bondage.

This image came up during my news perusal. It's a bit bit small, so I will quote the relevant parts.

This is something from 2008, which shows that this has been going on for a while. It is plain to see that is indoctrination that has to be fought. Here are the relevant parts:

"When you are a citizen you have rights. Rights are special privileges the government gives you. In our country, you have free speech. You are also given the right to choose a religion. In America, the press is free to tell you what is happening in the world. The Bill of Rights lists the freedoms given to citizens. These rights are very important. Many people in the world do not have the freedoms we do. Because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.."

To anyone who has studied the Constitution and the works of our Founding Fathers to understand the context, the above is 100% false. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were recognized by our Founding Fathers to come from our Creator and the government is not to abridge, delay, interrupt or deny those rights. Read what those rights actually say: First, "Congress shall make no law..." Second, "...shall not be infringed." Fourth, "The right of the people...shall not be violated..." Ninth, "The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Tenth, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution is a document that very specifically states what the powers of the government are. If it's not in the Constitution, then the federal government is not allowed those powers. If you can train the people to believe the horseshit that rights come from the government in stead of your Higher Power, then you can convince them that "they don't need those rights." More:

"Being a good citizen also means obeying the laws in your community and school. Laws are made to help you and keep you safe."

Again, 100% wrong. Laws describe actions which are deemed "detrimental to the public good." Thomas Aquinas’ definition of a law: “Law; an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community.” Now, if the agenda of the person(s) who make the laws runs counter to the good of the people, you have laws like this:

The Lacy Act: 16 U.S.C. § 3370, in part, states: It is unlawful for any person - (1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; (2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce - (A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law; (B) any plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any State; or...

If you actually read that part of the law, it's pretty frightening. A friend travels abroad, brings something back and gives it to you. If you accept that gift and what you were given was against the law in the other country to export, you just violated one of the thousands upon thousands of federal laws. You didn't set out to violate the law, and thereby lack rens mea (Latin for "the evil mind"). However, the fact that you did it, knowingly or unknowingly makes you guilty. You might also want to watch this:

Frightening, isn't it?

... even if you don't want it. This is pretty much a cornerstone of Liberal "benevolence." Town's tobacco ban hearing too rowdy, ends early. The Westminster, Mass Board of Health has decided to consider a ban on the sale of all tobacco products in their town. The Board of Health, that is has made this decision. And when the proles decide to show up en mass to dissuade the council from passing this law, the meeting was shut down.

...Board of Health chairwoman Andrea Crete gaveled the hearing to a close just 25 minutes into it instead of taking comments. "The crowd's getting out of control and the room's filled to capacity," she said. "We don't want any riots." [..] "I'm disappointed that we didn't get to have the hearing," she said. "We're trying to save lives and prevent children from being future users."

What Ms. Crete means is that she believes that people have no control over their choices and she feels that she must take those choices away from them. For their own good, of course. And then she doesn't want to listen to the "insufferable proletariat" who have the temerity, the outright audacity to think they know what's best for themselves!

Shopkeeper Brian Vincent, whose country store on Main Street sells $100,000 worth of tobacco products a year, said he's collected at least 900 signatures on a petition against the ban. He said smokers will simply make their purchases in other towns and probably buy their gas and groceries there as well. "Having other adults decide what legal item we're not allowed to consume just makes you wonder: If this passes, what could be next? Sugar? Bacon?" he said.  

I can assure Mr. Vincent, if this goes through and is allowed to stand, sugar and bacon will be some of the next targets.

When my wife and I were newlyweds, we had planned one evening to go out and have a nice dinner. Then she found out that there was a State Legislature subcommittee meeting on a bill that she was interested in advocating for. My wife was very involved in Hawai'ian state politics. We attended the meeting (after grabbing some hot dogs from the 7-Eleven) and my wife and several other citizens spoke eloquently in favor of the bill. The legislators, after hearing the citizens, decided to kill the bill. My beautiful bride was so upset over that she started a Category 4 shitstorm. Letters to the Editor, the Governor, her State Legislators and those involved in the subcommittee meeting all received nastygrams from her about that event. She was a very influential person in Hawai'ian politics at the time, so she was listened to.

Something else to consider: will the town be able to "afford" this? As in, just for the sake of argument, smokers will go to other stores outside of Westminster to do other shopping while they buy their tobacco products. If there were 20 stores that each sold $100,000 of tobacco annually and there is a 10% tax on those tobacco products, that would mean a tax revenue shortfall of approximately $200,000 in tobacco taxes. Not to mention a shortfall in other "revenue streams."

I see people purchase tobacco when they fill their vehicles at convenience stores, or when they buy groceries. I will bet that those primary purchases will move out to the surrounding areas to coincide with the tobacco purchases if this ban were to go into effect. Which means a large loss of sales (and tax revenue) to the businesses and city government of Westminster.

I don't use tobacco, never have. My parents and sister were heavy smokers, so I do not like it in my presence. If someone smokes near me, I position myself so that I am not affected by it. Or I remove myself from the area entirely. I see it as their choice to smoke, and my choice not to be near it. At the same time, I do not have the right, power or authority to take away someone elses' choice on something. It's their choice, no matter how god or bad, right or wrong I think their decision is.

As long as Liberals believe they must take away choices "for our own good" they must be defeated. Every time and every way. Because if some has that kind of mindset, if given the opportunity, what makes you think they won't take away your choice on other things as well?

11/20/14 UPDATE: According to this article, two of the three members of the Westminster Board of Health saw the writing on the wall and voted to kill the proposal. The chairwoman, Andrea Crete, wanted to keep the proposal "under consideration." Which is, of course, Liberalspeak for "We will pass it later when no one is watching us."

This event clearly shows that Our Illustrious Leader has no power in the Executive Branch of the government, the very same one that he is (supposedly) in charge of. Obama’s call for an open Internet puts him at odds with regulators.

The President is the CEO of the Federal Government. What he says, goes. Period, end of story. I will admit, I liked it when President Obama stood up for Net Neutrality. The Internet should be open and equal to all. To have the head of the FCC publicly contradict the president is disrespect to the office of the president, as well as the person holding the office. When the president stated this intent, Tom Wheelers public words should have been, "Yes, sir." Now that the FCC head has publicly disagreed with the President, Obama should tell Mr. Wheeler two words: "You're fired." Anything less only shows that Obama is a puppet.

Berkley, California is no longer part of this planet, because they have left the building. Approval Of Soda Tax In Berkeley Is Scary Precedent For Food Industry.

Again, using taxation to influence peoples behavior is just plain not right. I guess the lawmakers of their city council just can't stand people making choices the council does not want them to make. Either that, or they want the "sin tax" income. Personally, I think the city council should just make it against the law. No soda is better than some soda, right? Just outlaw it entirely.

On the other side, I think Pepsi, Coke and the other companies should stop selling their products to companies who have locations in Berkley. If they do business with chains (Wal-Mart, 7-Eleven, McDonald's, etc.) that have franchises in Berkley, Coke and Pepsi should stipulate in their contracts with these companies that their SSB (sugar-sweetened beverages) products not be sold within the city limits. Pepsi and Coke, et. al., should make it very clear to everyone involved, that the businesses will suffer as long as that tax is in place.

Businesses and residents will move out, causing the tax rolls to fall and the city to lose money. Because this is a bad precedent to be set. If the government gets away with this, where will it stop? After the Sixteenth Amendment (income tax) was passed, the first tax returns were only had to be filed by the wealthy, who also had generous deductions. Today, most of us pay up to half of our income in federal, state and local taxes. So, what starts as a one cent per ounce on SSBs ends up as another onerous tax on all food before you know it.

Folks, here it is. From the mouth of the guy who co-wrote Common Core:

He wrote it because he felt guilty about his "White Privilege." He grew up somewhere different from me, because I sure never received anything based on the fact that I am a white male. N-E-V-E-R. I earned what I have gotten in my life, the good things and the bad things.

I was appraised by every company who hired me by what I had done and learned in the past. I was appraised on my knowledge and talents. My knowledge came from learning in school until I graduated from High School. My talents were developed by applying that knowledge. Just as an aside, I was one credit shy from graduating at the end of my junior year. I needed 18 credits to graduate, I had 17. At the end of my senior year, I had 23 credits. So I did not "coast" through my Senior year.

It was made very clear to me by my parents growing up that I had to acquire and understand knowledge. I had to acquire it so that it would always be at hand when I needed it. I also had to understand it so that I can make proper use of that knowledge. "He has more degrees than a thermometer but not a lick of sense" is someone who as acquired knowledge, but does not understand it enough to use it.

Most descriptors regarding human beings are reflected on a bell curve. It really doesn't matter what is being described, it is some form of a bell curve. There are some people on the far left, some people on the far right, and most in the middle. Liberals want us to all be the same. Like ants or bees. All working in harmony, together for the common good. Of course, they want to be the queen so they can be waited on hand and foot, but that's another story.

People are not ants or bees. We are individuals, and as such we each perform differently. Some people want to learn, some people don't want to learn, some people can't learn. Those people who want to learn generally end up on the right side of the bell curve. Those people who can't or don't want to learn generally end up on the left side of the curve. Just to be clear, we as a society should help those who can't learn to be productive to their level and have dignity in their lives. If you don't want to learn, you suffer the consequences of your actions.

When Liberals try to externalize the ideas that exist in the space that's between their ears, those ideas generally fall flat, or cause more damage than good. No matter how noble their intentions or lofty their goals, there are ideas that fail every time they are tried. To make everybody the same is one of them.

Liberals in education just can't fit some ideas into the universe between their ears, like some people don't want to learn. This clashes with their "everybody must be equal" meme, so their efforts must then revolve around pushing the entire curve to the left, to the lowest common denominator. Which is what I have seen the efforts have been in Common Core. Instead of requiring students to memorize multiplication tables, they are taught the most infuriating and mind-numbing method possible. Example: to answer 2 X 6, you have to draw two horizontal rows of six circles each, then count them to come up with twelve. Heavens forbid if you were to draw those rows vertically. You might get the answer correct, but the methodology is wrong, so the answer is wrong, even when it's correct.

Some subsets of society (say that three times fast) do not place a high priority on learning and knowledge. Some subsets of society of society do. By and large, those cultures who do not value learning end up with a large portion of those people ending up dropping out of school and becoming a drain on society. Here in Memphis, our graduation rate, last I heard was in the 50-60%. In order to correct that, some years ago they came up with the "Every Child. College Bound" program. It failed miserably. Why? Because not every young adult wants to go to college.

When I was in High School, your freshman year was used to evaluate you. Halfway through your sophomore year, you were guided towards one of three options for after graduation. Either you graduated and ended your academic learning at that point, which led to menial dead-end low-pay jobs. If you showed some talent with your hands, you could be steered into the Vo-Tech program, where you learned a trade (mechanic, plumber/electrician, etc.). The last option way you showed a penchant for learning and knowledge and you were groomed for college. When I was at the MEPS in Cleveland enlisting, the Petty Officer processing my paperwork took a look at my school grades and my ASVAB score, his jaw dropped open, and he asked me, "How would you like to go to Annapolis?" As in to be an officer. I turned it down. I had done enough research to know what I would be going through if I went, and I didn't want to endure it, no matter the prize at the end of the road.

You cannot force a person to learn, nor force them to think. The best thing you can do is leave those who do not wish to learn behind and cause them discomfort until they realize it's more comfortable to be intelligent than unintelligent. Use methodologies that have been proven to work to help children to acquire and understand knowledge. Guide them towards where their level of knowledge and talents would help them become whom they want to be. Train for the jobs of today, because yesterday's jobs aren't there anymore and tomorrow's jobs we don't know what you will need for them.

VOTE. I don't care who you vote for, but VOTE. Make your voice heard. The job of the Citizen is to keep their mouth open. This is part of that obligation. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about how things are.

I have been wanting to write about this since I learned about the walkout by students in Colorado. It just never came out in a coherent fashion until tonight. "History is written by the victors" said Winston Churchill. The word "History" actually comes from "His story," which meant the winners got to tell the tale of what happened. So, there will always be a slant and an agenda in any history teachings. Ben Carson, a possible Republican Presidential candidate for 2016 is now on the record against the AP US History. Here is what Ben said:

“I am a little shocked quite frankly looking at the AP course in American history that’s being taught in high schools across our country right now. There’s only two paragraphs in there about George Washington. George Washington, believe it or not. Little or nothing about Martin Luther King. A whole section on slavery and how evil we are. A whole section about Japanese internment camps. A whole section about how we wiped out American Indians with no mercy. I mean I think most people when they finish that course, they’d be ready to sign up for ISIS. This is what we are doing to the young people in our nation. We have got to stop this silliness. We have to stop crucifying ourselves. Have we made mistakes as a nation? Of course we have. Why? Because we are people and all people make mistakes.”

Now, I personally do not like some of his positions, especially on gun control. Realistically, I will never agree 100% with any candidate, unless I run for office myself.

As in all elections, you have to look at a candidates positions and decide which one is closer to your own values. But I digress.

History is very messy. The people involved are very complex. Famous people in history have done things you might like, other things they have done you might abhor. With the exception of one person in the entire realm of human history, that's just the way it is. Any history course that over-focuses on either the good parts or the bad parts is an inadequate course.

The teachers that use the syllabus have a flexibility in what and how they present the information. I do agree with Ben here. If all you teach is how Americans wiped out the Native Americans, enslaved Africans and tried to exterminate the Japanese people, you are teaching our children that this country is evil. No one truly views themselves as evil, so I can see how teaching nothing but "Evil American Imperialism" can result in some of these students wanting to fight against what they have been told we are.

History is very complex. For instance, let me speak on slavery for a moment. A lot of people do not know this (because it isn't taught), about where the men and women who arrived in America as slaves started. In Africa, wars have been fought for thousands of years over shades of blackness between tribes. Tribe A didn't like tribe B, for the sole reason tribe B was lighter-skinned than tribe A. Not "White vs. Black," rather "coffee colored" vs. "chocolate colored." So, tribe A would attack tribe B and either wipe them all out, or make slaves of them. A lot of these captured men and women would be taken to the West Coast of Africa, where they were sold to Dutch traders and eventually ended up in the United States as slaves.

By the way, slavery is still going on today, this hour, this minute in Africa. Maybe they'll get around to abolishing it next year. Don't complain about ancient history when it's current events.

In case you didn't know it, there were free Black men who were slave owners themselves. There was also at least one Regiment of black slaves who fought for the Confederacy in the American Civil War. And just in case you thought slaves were used for dangerous work, quite the opposite. Many Irish offered themselves as indentured servants (which is basically a fancy way of saying "white slave") in order to be able to emigrate to America. The difference was, an indentured servant served for only a period of time, generally five to seven years.

At the end of their term, they became free themselves. One of the most dangerous jobs in the South was offloading the cotton bales from the ships that worked their way up and down the rivers of the South. It was the Irish indentured servants who "caught" the cotton bales being offloaded from the riverboats. If a line broke and a 500 pound bale fell on an Irishman, who really cared? If a slave was injured or killed, the owner was out a significant sum of money, spent in acquiring the slave and the potential income to be derived from the slaves labors.

Concerning the Native Americans, please tell me, when in the history of man where this never happened before? When the Romans moved into what is now Germany and England, they encountered the Germanic Tribes and other peoples like the Picts. Whenever a group of people move into a region where the natives were of a lower technological level already lived, the lower technology always lost. Very few borders in the world today are where they are because of "mutual agreement." They are there because one group took that land, or had it taken from them by force.

When Early Industrial Age Colonists came to America, they encountered a Stone Age society, namely the Native Americans. The Industrial society took the land from the Stone Age society. I am not saying this was good or bad, right or wrong, it happened and all the wishing in the world won't change the past. The United States is not perfect. It was created by flawed men. There are many instances in our history we should be ashamed about. There are also many instances where we should be proud of that we have done.

As a people, we have tried to do the right thing. Our forefathers fought for and created a new type of society, where the government did what the People told them to do, not the other way around. Americans invented the light bulb, plastics, the aircraft and a million other technological advances that changed the world, for the worse and the better.

Teachers and parents should teach our children how to think, not what to think. You do that by talking about history, with all of the known facts and the context of why those people did what they did. Only then will you truly learn the lessons of history.

I've tried to relate before using an analogy how health care in this country works. Here it is again, because this is very relevant to the article I found.

You have a village of say, 1,000 people. The village has 1,000 acres of land to feed the people. The population is pretty stable. Everyone is happy. Then, along come 100 more people. Refugees, migrants, it doesn't matter. All of a sudden there are more people than the land can support. There is no way to increase the usable farmland quickly enough to support the sudden population growth.

In a situation like this, so there are only two options of action. In the first option, the villagers drive off the newcomers until the population is again reduced to a level the land can support. Or, the villagers can welcome the newcomers and everyone cuts back on the amount of food they eat. Essentially, the entire population slowly starves until the weakest die off and the population stabilizes again.

For those of you who don't get analogies, the village people are the people who pay for medical insurance. The food is the doctors and the additional people are the uninsured. A doctor can see only so many patients a week. That is a finite number and there is no way around it. If you increase the demand (the number of patients) then the percentage of those actually seen will go down. Or, everybody will receive less "face time" with the doctor, thus reducing their quality of care. It's simple math and there is no way to get around it. It is currently taking about 10 years of time and at over $250,000 in cash to turn a person into a doctor.

The number of licensed physicians in the United States is growing, just not as fast as the demand for their services. We are already at a deficit of available care and it's only going to get worse. And it only gets worse from there. The article I found, Over 214,000 Doctors Opt Out of Obamacare Exchanges lays this out pretty clearly. The article talks about how the "Affordable Care Act" pays significantly less than even Medicare. For every $1.00 private insurance pays out (for a given test, procedure, office visit, whatever), Medicare pays 80 cents and ACA plans pay about 60 cents. Think about that for a minute. You provide a service, and you normally charge $100 for this service. Your overall costs for delivering this service is about $75. Tom doesn't have a problem with what you charged, and pays you the full $100. Dick is a tightwad, and only pays you $80. You still turned a profit, but you would have to start going the "quantity vs. quality" route to make a profit you could live on. Providing your service to Harry is mandated by the government, and they only pay you $60 for that service that costs you $75 and Tom is happy to pay you $100 for.

What would you do? Medical offices are a business. Most offices today staff multiple doctors because you need nurses, medical technicians, lab staff, staff to perform the transcription into the medical records and insurance specialists to make sure the information is submitted to the proper insurance agency, in the proper form and in a timely manner. So doctors combine their services to share the administrative burden. No wonder almost 25% of doctors are not participating in ACA plans. To jump back to our original analogy, let's say those 100 extra people were "more expensive" food-wise than the original 1,000 villagers. Where the original villagers were at a "one acre feeds one person" ratio, these new people need 1.25 acres to feed one person. This only exacerbates the food shortage if the new people are accepted into the village. The second part of the article is even more chilling than the "below cost" payments.

An MGMA study indicates that 75% of ACA patients that had seen doctors had chosen plans with high deductibles. Given that most of the patients are low-income, doctors are concerned that the patients cannot meet the deductibles and they will get stuck with the bill.   ...HHS requires that insurers cover customers for an additional 90 days after they have stopped paying their premiums: the insurer covers the first 30 - but, it's up to the doctor to recoup payment for the last 60 days. This is the number one reason providers are opting to not participate in the exchange plans. Currently, about a million people have failed to pay their premiums and had their plans canceled.

So, these doctors face probably higher costs in the services provided to those with ACA plans, they get paid less than what it costs them, and they will likely have to perform a lot of services "unreimbursed," because it won't be free. I looked into an ACA plan to cover my wife and I when I was laid off back in February. I was receiving $247 a week, or just over $1,000 a month in unemployment. That money paid for what the food stamps didn't cover, utilities, Internet (so I could do job searching), a car payment/gas/insurance so I could make it to interviews and so on. Let's just say I had a lot of month left at the end of the money. If I wanted health coverage, I would have had to pay almost $225 a month just for the premiums, and the plan didn't shell out a penny until I racked up at least $5,300 per person. Um, yeah. That didn't fly. There was no way I could afford the premiums, let alone the out-of-pocket expenses. No wonder 70% of the physicians in California have not signed up with Covered California. If you're one of those "don't bring a problem to me unless you have an idea on how to solve it" crowd, here are my suggestions on how to lessen this.

• Make health insurance portable. Health insurance being provided by the employer as a benefit started in WWII, when wage controls limited how much people could be paid. As an extra incentive, employers started offering retirement and health insurance benefits to "sweeten the pot." You need to be able to buy it on the open market so you can keep the same plan from job to job.
• Make health insurance nationwide. Currently, health plans are limited by state borders. If you can take your health plan with you no matter where you travel across the country, this would help with costs because it would increase competition.
• Limit liability. Limiting the level of liability (otherwise known as Tort Reform) to gross negligence or "reasonably foreseeable" circumstances. Leaving a sponge or forceps in you during an operation is gross negligence. Suing a doctor because your loved one was seriously handicapped or died because of a condition that only five people in the world have ever had it is not "reasonably foreseeable." Medicine is an art, not a science. Scientific methods are used to narrow down what is wrong with you, however it really comes down to the doctor's level of experience and treating your symptoms until the body heals itself. Diagnosis is trial and error at its best. Limiting liability will lower the doctors costs on that pesky insurance, and they can pass the savings on to you.
• Diversify the medical professionals. When you go to your Primary Care Physician's office today, you expect, nay demand, to see THE DOCTOR, no matter what is wrong with you. A medical office is like a Naval Battle Group. You have an Aircraft Carrier in the middle (the doctor), which is surrounded by smaller ships that support the Carrier. The Carrier does not need to be involved in the hunting down of submarines, that's what the Frigates and Destroyers are there for. If you have the sniffles, it would be way more cost effective for you to be examined by a Paramedic, who would diagnose you, then take it to a Physicians Assistant or the doctor themselves for any prescription needed. A doctor, two PA's and four or six Paramedics would provide almost the same level of care to three to four times the patients and a lower cost. You should not see the doctor unless there is something significantly wrong with you.

Regulating the insurance companies on how little they will be paid, then demand how much they will pay out is the best way to ruin them. Which, considering who (as a group) is running this country right now, just might be the object of the exercise.

I've been meaning to comment on this for a while.

Back in the 80's, I was stationed at the Coronado Amphibious Base in San Diego. Two separate incidents while I was out there illustrated how screwed up California really is.

First incident: A bumbling burglar in the process of breaking into a school, broke through a skylight and fell about three floors, seriously injuring himself. He sued the school system (I forget the basis) and won. So, the school had not only had to repair the damage done by his stupidity, they also had to support him and his medical expenses for the rest of his life.

Second incident: Someone made a joking remark to the head of CDOT (California Department of Transportation) about, "How motorcycle riders keep falling off their motorcycles." She got --><-- that close to creating a regulation that mandated seat belts on motorcycles. If you have ever ridden on a motorcycle, I don't have to explain to you why this is an extremely bad idea.

So, now the Marin County DA has sued and won $1.6 Million against Lowe's because their 2x4's are actually 1.5" by 3.5." He sued them under some "truth in advertising" law they have. I'm sorry, but the DA is an idiot. No, I'm not sorry. He's still an idiot. I am 53 years old, and I've known that a 2x4 is actually 1.5" by 3.5" since my dad taught me how to read a ruler when I was seven years old. It's an industry standard, and it has been for longer than I've been around. I am very glad I don't live there anymore. In some ways, it's worse than Guam.

Here you go. If you think you need to go cash only, here is a great reason why: Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required. In this case, if you consistently deposit less than $10,000 in cash into your bank account, the IRS can take the money. Period. No charges, because you haven't done anything wrong.

The real kick in the guts is, you have to prove a negative, i.e. you are innocent to get it back. And it can take most, if not more of the money that was seized to get it back. Now I am a self-admitted old "fuddy-duddy" who actually reads the Constitution, which, the last time I looked, the 5th Amendment reads, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;" This most assuredly a deprivation of both life and property. You lose your livelihood by being unable to sustain your business, and that cash is your property. Your government at work, folks.

I really don't find this surprising. Survey Shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement.

Dan Ackroyd, as Ray in Ghostbusters, said, "Personally, I like the University, they gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything. You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."

Colleges and Universities today are money making machines. And young people are willingly turning over a large chuck of their future income to acquire a piece of pretty paper that says they have a degree. Too bad most of the degrees that a student can acquire today have little practical value in the commercial side of the world. Having a Masters Degree in English, with a major in "Comparative Literature" has literally zero use for any job of any worth.

I know of Case Workers who ran up $40,000 in student loan debt to obtain a Masters in Social Work so they could qualify for the Case Worker position... Which earns about $32,000 a year. So, they will struggle with a below average income while having almost a house note on their backs for most of their working lives. So, it is not surprising that those who remain in academia for the "softer" degrees are overwhelmingly Liberal.

They don't have to produce anything of a substantive nature. I have been called mentally ill because of my Conservatism before and I refuse to "return the favor." However, I will say that the views of Liberals have little basis in reality. So, it really is little wonder that the overwhelming majority of the academic staff at our schools of higher learning are Liberal.

And, of course, they have no problem in discriminating against a person for their political beliefs in the workplace. I personally believe if you do your job (in this case impart the necessary subject matter to the students) without political bias, I don't care what your personal political persuasion happens to be. I find, time after time, Liberals have no qualms about doing the same exact actions (discrimination against minorities and females, etc.) that they accuse their opponents of doing. The mental gymnastics they must go through to justify what they decry must make Nadia Comăneci weep.

In 1993, Nathan Dunlap, a recently fired employee of a Chuck-E-Cheeses in Aurora, Colorado shot and killed four workers and injured a fifth. He was caught and convicted and sentenced to death for the heinous executions he committed. He has sat on death row since his conviction.

Dunlap had a date set to be executed in 2013, however the Governor, John Hickenlooper (D) issued a "temporary reprieve." Today, Hickenlooper is facing a serious challenger for the governorship. His response? Basically, unless he is re-elected and "if his opponent makes a political football out of the death penalty or specifically the Dunlap case" his response will be to issue full clemency to an animal who executed four people.

Think about that for a minute. John Hickenlooper is saying, "Keep me in office or I will turn an animal who has no conscience or compunction about killing other people loose into the community." Sore loser, temper tantrum, whatever you call it, he should be removed from office just for implying he would put a community at risk just because he got fired. On some level, John Hickenlooper shares some qualities of Nathan Dunlap. Dunlap shot five people because he was upset over being fired. John Hickenlooper is willing to set a sociopath loose on innocent citizens because he would be upset if he (might be) fired from his job.

SWATing, for those of you who don't know what it means, is to call the police and misrepresent a situation using words like "active shooter" so they respond with maximum force. It seems that some (about 5%) of commenters on places like the Facebook page for Moms Demand Action, or gunfreezone.net (no, I will not link to them) are actively advocating that you call the police and "misrepresent" (e.g. lie) about the actions of a person who is open carrying their firearm. Here is a nice example:

This is somewhat similar to what happened to John Crawford III, where a caller to 911 grossly misrepresented Mr. Crawford's actions, which lead the police to approach with a "shoot first and ask questions later" mindset. Mr. Crawford died as a result of these "mischaracterizations."

If you are thinking of calling 911 to report a visibly armed citizen, just to "ruin his day" and/or "get him what he deserves," all I can say is DON'T. This is one of those "sound good" ideas that isn't a "good, sound" idea. In Tennessee where I live, if you were to see an armed citizen (you honestly don't know if they are properly licensed or not) who is minding their own business and you call 911 and infer an "active shooter" situation where you state the armed citizen is brandishing his firearm in a reckless manner, or shooting other people, that is basically filing a false police report. At minimum, that is a class D felony, punishable by 2-12 years in prison. Under the right circumstances, it can be bumped up to a class C felony, which is 3-15 years in prison. It could also open you up to a personal liability lawsuit by either the person you called the police on, or their surviving family members, which is what looks like is going to happen in the Crawford incident.

So, if you get the urge to teach someone a lesson and you lie to the police, the end result is YOU end up in prison and with a hefty multi-million dollar lawsuit judgement against you that will be awarded to you after you finish your time in "the big house." Good luck with that.

I found this article, Grimes Staffers Suggest Kentucky Dem Lies About Coal Support, and I think it illustrates the problem with politics today.

Alison Grimes, along with her staff and volunteers, showcase what is inherently wrong with the system of politics in this country today. Project Veritas has a video that starts off with a TV commercial, where Alison Grimes is shown firing a shotgun, then she talks about "not being Barack Obama." She implies she is pro-gun and states she is pro-coal, both of which are make-or-break issues in Kentucky. The rest of the video shows her staff making statements in front of a hidden camera where they admit she has to lie about being pro-coal so she can get elected.

This is wrong on so many levels, primarily in the "Do the right things for the right reasons" category. Let's take this apart piece-by-piece.

First of all, the mindset. If you get elected to any office, you are supposed to be a servant and representative of the people from your district. A voice of their wants, needs and desires. You do not misrepresent yourself to get elected so you can enact your own agenda. You are there to do the work of the People, not yourself. During the process of running for office, a candidate is supposed to state what they truly believe in, their values and principles. You also state what you want to do, if you are elected. If your words convince a majority of the people you would represent to vote for you, then you get to represent them. Again, if you have to lie to get elected, you are not a representative of the people who elected you.

When this great country first enacted the present Constitution, the men who ran for public office saw this as a sacred trust. They were humbled and honored to be elected. They were all businessmen of one sort or another, who would do a few terms and then gracefully bow out and go back to their businesses. Today, this is a cash cow for those who get elected. Top of the line pay, easy work hours, big benefits, and lots of companies and organizations willing to donate to an officials "re-election campaign." Of course, if the official decides to retire, he gets his full pay for life, along with that top-tier medical care, and he (or she) gets to keep what is left over in their campaign funds. Not to mention they can then get a cushy “consulting” job at one of the lobbying organizations as well. I do not know what the mix is for the 535 members of Congress, but I am quite sure a lot of them have never had a significant career outside of the political world.

We are, unfortunately, in the era of “Professional Politicians.” Men and women who have created a government so bloated and complex that only they can understand and control it. And the People are all too happy to let it happen.

And who do we elect? People who think Guam will capsize if we put too many people on it, or think the Constitution is 400 years old. I think Patrick Henry said this very well: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Here’s some of my suggestions:

• No member of Congress is eligible for re-election if a net deficit has occurred during the term of that Congress.
• A Congressperson receives ZERO pay for their work in Congress. They are issued a Food Stamp card like a regular family according to their family income and size along with a free apartment in the Congressional Apartment Building. It’s an 800 square foot studio type apartment. If they need to throw a party or something, there is a communal party area on the roof.
• Congress cannot exempt themselves from any law. Did you know they don’t pay Social Security taxes, as well as a host of other things we have to do that they don’t?
• They must obtain their healthcare through Healthcare.gov.
• They are free to raise as much as they want in re-election campaigns. At the end of every election cycle, any excess funds win-or-lose, are given to the Federal General Fund.
• Any Bills are to be read aloud by the sponsor and co-sponsor(s) when it is introduced. If any amendments or changes are made, the entire bill must be re-read.
• No business can be conducted outside of regular business hours (9 AM to 5 PM local time). This will end those “Midnight bill passing events.”

Those are my “reasonable” ideas. I personally think we should move Election Day to the day after tax day. I won’t specifically say April 16^th because they would just change tax day to November.

This came to my attention this morning:

Now, just to make the best "apples to apples" comparison, I went to Gallup and found out what each man's approval numbers were for their 22nd quarter of their time in office, which falls in this time frame.

Bush had a 38.5% approval rating, while Obama had a 43.2% approval rating. Counting the days between January 1st and August 31st, there are 243 days. Dividing that 243 by the number of reports, we find that Bush averaged a report every 2 days (actually just a hair under at 1.95), while Obama rated one report every 27 days. Again, my math shows that for every report on President Obama's approval rating, almost 14 reports were made on President Bush's rating. I do not have the time to go back and check out all 133 articles to see what the tone and emotional indexes were for each one, but I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts most (if not all) of Bush's articles were of a negative tone, while Obama's were at least neutral, if not positive toned. Despite all of the hammering on Bush (at that 14:1 ratio) his job approval rating was still only 5% lower than Obama's. And the Mainstream Media wonders why they have a big credibility and integrity problem.

Since I started this blog, I have posted on each 9/11 and gave my thoughts on what is going on about this day. I am still angry. Not only against those who caused 9/11, but my own government as well, who have aided those who would hurt us. I purposefully did not watch the President's speech last night. I don't watch TV anymore, and I had more important things to do, like watching paint dry. After reading his speech this morning, I am neither amazed nor disappointed. I am disheartened. He wants to appear to be a strong leader, but his words and actions reveal his weakness. "Targeted airstrikes" will not work. They have never worked.

Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic." No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim... ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

First of all, 99.9999+% of those who belong to or ally themselves with ISIS/ISIL profess themselves to be of the Muslim faith. Radical Muslims to be sure, but still Muslims. The Quran does not have an "Old and New Testament" like the Christian Bible does. There is a lot of death and killing for the glory of God in the Old Testament. The coming of Jesus changed that. It still took until the modern day for Christians to stop killing Christians over the differences in their beliefs (Anyone remember the Troubles in Ireland over Catholic vs. Protestant? I do.)

To be perfectly honest, I don't care what the Quran has to say about anything. It is not part of my personal religion. But if you at least glance through it, you can see the Quran talks about three broad groups, Believers (Muslims), the Kafir or Infidel, (those who reject faith) and ′Ahl al-Kitāb, People of the Book (Christians and Jews). The term "infidel" is often misused and is assumed to encompass Christians and Jews, when it does not.

So, as most of us have known for a very long time, any book that is sectioned like the Bible or Quran, can be used selectively to take things out of context and push whatever agenda the person wants. No constructive religion actively promotes violence. I am not saying Islam is or is not a constructive religion. There are two billion Muslims in the world, and less than 1% of them are the ones causing all of the trouble.

To be honest, I am sick of this war. Too many of our best and brightest have come home in coffins, missing limbs or forever changed because of what they experienced. If anything, the number of radical Islamists has grown. This new generation of radical Islamists have become more vicious and violent then ever before. They have no moral restraint about killing everyone who does not believe exactly as they do.

So, we have two real-life choices, neither of which our Illustrious President has presented as an option. What he promises to do only reinforces the fact that he is a weak, ineffectual man in a position of power.

First, we leave this to the Muslims. You guys work it out. If the peaceful Muslims want to do something about ISIS/ISIL, let them do it. The United States will neither help nor hinder. ISIS/ISIL can rattle their sabers and talk all the talk they want. The next time a Radical Muslim state or organization captures or kills a United States Citizen, we will immediately proceed to the second option.

Second, we kill everybody in the region. We start off by nuking Mecca, Medina and every population center in the Levant area, outside of Israel. That would be Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. After it cools off, we land troops and we kill every man, woman and child, their goats, camels and sheep. "No stone shall set upon another" kind of desolation.

If we have a leader, a true leader at the helm of this country, we would be at least respected, if not feared. Instead, we have a "community organizer" who was totally unqualified for the position. The President of the United States needs to have a set of brass balls the size of shotputs that go "KLANG KLANG KLANG" when he walks. I would much rather be respected than feared. However, if any group or country wants to do us harm, They need to know in their heart of hearts we will kill 10,000 of them for every death they cause us.

I found this, and had to say something: Student tackled by officers over cell phone tells her side of the story.

What got me about the article was the incredulousness of the reporter, this little princess should have been allowed to do what she wanted to do.

First of all, in the United States, we are a nation of laws. The laws are meant to apply equally to all. If you think there should be a law about something, feel free to petition your lawmakers to have a law made. If you feel that a law (or policy, in this case) is unjust, you are equally free to petition the appropriate agency to change or abolish the law.

I get that the young lady is concerned about her mother. I know what that is like. That being said, she broke a school policy, the consequences are which you lose your phone. She knew this was against school policy, and she knew the consequences of disobeying that policy. I guess she felt either the circumstances would excuse her from obeying the policy, or they just didn't apply to her in the first place. This young lady refused to give up her phone, at least twice. She refused an Assistant Principal and the security guards order once, before she was taken down and it was forcibly taken from her.

I want to be perfectly clear here: You will NEVER win a fight with a police officer. N-E-V-E-R. Their job is to enforce the laws of the land. If they believe you have violated a law, their job is to arrest you. If they say you are under arrest and you fight or refuse, they are authorized to get as many other officers they need to subdue you, using any and all of the tools at their disposal. So, if you want to be shot, tazed or maced, please feel free to resist. If you are unjustly arrested, you cooperate with the officer then and make your case to the District Attorney to drop the charges or Judge to beat the charges later. There is a time, place and method to resist unjust laws and work to change them. Fighting with the police is not that time or place.

I will say, this is NSFW due to language. Listen to what he has to say. Open your eyes, mind heart and ears. There is some deep stuff in this. "There will never be external peace until there is first internal peace."

This came up in my news search: Senate Joint Resolution 19. This Resolution has zero chance of even being introduced into the House, but it is telling that the Liberals have no compunction about distorting the Constitution to further their political ends. They must feel very confident of their victory to move in such an open manner. These Senators (I have given all of the sponsors below) are apparently trying to make a Constitutional Amendment to limit the money in politics. Before we get to the "final version, follow the link above and read what the prior version of the amendment was. It's mind-blowing.

It reads:

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections. ``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.''

So, the "power of the press" is not to be abridged. How special. So, the media (newspapers, TV and other media), which are overwhelmingly Liberal, are not restricted in their syncopate prostrating before their next "Chosen." They are free to use their publications and shows to do "fluff pieces" and "positive promotion articles" to speak on the positive aspects of whom they decide they want to lead us. The Liberal Press will also ignore their The Chosen One's "mistakes," like a Felony a few years ago, or their shady dealing that no one knows if it broke the law or not, because the DOJ was told to "lay off" The Chosen One. They are also equally free to do the "tough investigative journalism" to disclose that the opposition candidate once kicked a puppy when he was eight and lead the evening news every night for a week with a hit-piece after hit-piece on "puppy-kicker Jones." The rest of us, we get to have it decided for us how much we can spend or what we can say. Let's take this apart, shall we?

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

First of all, we are a Republic, not a Democracy. Also the words "...protect the integrity of government and the electoral process..." tells right there that those in power are willing to do anything to stay in power, including perverting the Constitution to do so. To allow those in power to decide who can spend how much insures their grip on power in perpetuity. Those they want to join them in power will be given "waivers" or whatever to make sure they get to spend more than their opponents.

Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

This directly nullifies the "corporations are people too" ruling by the SCOTUS (which was more than just that). To insure the capriciousness of their actions, they use the word "may" in the phrase "...may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law..." So exceptions can (and will) be made, and I assure you those exceptions will be at least 90%/10% in favor of those "people, corporations or artificial entities" who espouse Liberal ideals.

Just so you know who is responsible for this corruption of the Constitution, here are those Senators: Sponsor: Tom Udall (D-NM) Original Co-Sponsors: Michael Bennett (D-CO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jon Tester (D-MT), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Angus King, Jr. (I-ME), Christopher Murphy (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Al Frankin (D-MN), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mark Udall (D-CO). Other Cosponsors: Tim Johnson (D-SD), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Mark Begich (D-AK), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY), Kay Hagen (D-NC), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Edward Markey (D-MA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), John Marsh (D-MT), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Harry Reid (D-NV), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Thomas Carper (D-DE), Patty Murray (D-WA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), John Rockefeller IV (D-VW), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Manchin III (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Robert Casey Jr. (D-PA) and Carl Levin (D-MI). That's 47 of 53 Democrat Senators, and both Independents. It would have been a shorter list to say who didn't help sponsor the bill.

Remember this come election time.

The word Indoctrination is defined as, "often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant." It is a neutral word, meaning it can be used for or against your ideas and beliefs.

In today's lexicon, it is usually referred to as "a training away from where we want the person to believe or think." Children are intellectual sponges. They are raised and trained to parrot back what they have learned until they are able to reason for themselves. This initial training is the foundation on how they will think and perceive the world for the rest of their lives. If a child is taught to think for themselves, or to let others think for them, the first few years of school is where either of these are indoctrinated and instilled into them. Too many parents surrender this foundational indoctrination to the schools. Which is why the following picture is so disturbing:

This is a picture of a child's school worksheet, supposedly produced in compliance with Common Core. It asks the child to use contractions to reword the statement and make it less wordy.

It starts out simple enough, but do you see the shift toward blindly accepting authority?

1. The job of a president is not easy. Yes, I can agree with that. The most powerful person in the world has to make tough choices every day.

2. The people of a nation do not always agree. Again, true. If we all agreed, we'd be part of a hive mind instead of individuals.

3. The choices of the president affect everyone. Three out of three. What he decides to do (or not do) affects everyone in the country to some degree.

4. He makes sure the laws of the country are fair. Umm, no. The job of the President is to enforce all of the countries laws. It does not matter if he likes them or not, he swore to uphold all of the laws. He can veto bills he doesn't like, however under the Constitution, Congress makes the laws and the President enforces them.

5. The commands of government officials must be obeyed by all. BZZZZZZT!!! Wrong answer! If the laws are unjust, if the "commands of government officials" violate the law of your basic freedoms, then hell no are you supposed to obey them!

The power of the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. The Citizen has an obligation to disobey laws that violate the Constitution. The capriciousness of laws imposed on the Colonies by King George III was the very reason why we rebelled in the first place.

6. The wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation. Way wrong! No way! If the individual were to be subsumed into the whole, then the very foundation, the very reason for the existence of this country will be destroyed. We are a nation of individuals, all acting in our own best interest. As long as our interests betters ourselves and those around us, without detracting from others, we individually enhance the well-being of our nation.

When you surrender your wants and needs to a government official (which #5 says you must obey) then you are allowing them to think for you. That is an anathema to everything the United States was founded upon.

A teacher is supposed to teach their students how to think, not what to think. This course change is the culmination of years of work in the gradual reshaping of our educational system. The Liberal belief that everybody (other then themselves, of course) is not smart enough to think for themselves. The people below the Liberals, in their twisted way of thinking, must be "reshaped" until they do think and act "correctly." Read Nineteen Eighty-Four and This Perfect Day. If we do not stop this Liberal onslaught, one of these will be our inevitable outcome. Either we will be in perpetual terror, or we will be ants. I do not like either outcome.

I have waited this long before commenting on the shooting of Michael Brown because I like to have facts in hand, not hearsay and suppositions.

So, in what I have read and have pieced together, these are the sequence of events:

1. Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson committed a "strong-arm robbery," where physical violence is used, but no weapon is present. Brown left with a box of Swisher Sweet cigars.

2) Brown and Johnson are then walking down the middle of the street when they are stopped by Officer Wilson.

A point to realize and must consider are the mindsets of these two people. Brown has just committed a felony, and he knows he did so. Wilson has no idea that Brown just committed a felony. Brown thinks the officer is stopping him because of the robbery, so he is going to be very aggressive in defending himself. Wilson is just trying to get two guys off the street and out of traffic.

3) When Officer Wilson attempts to exit his vehicle, Brown shoves the door shut, keeping Officer Wilson inside. Officer Wilson is now at a severe tactical disadvantage for what is to happen.

4) Brown then gets partially into the police cruiser and starts pummeling Officer Wilson, who suffers a fractured eye socket.

5) A shot is fired inside the vehicle.

6) Brown then disengages and runs about 30 feet away.

7) Officer Wilson then exits his vehicle.

He is still at a severe disadvantage. He is probably in a good amount of pain from the fractured eye socket and his vision is compromised, his ears are ringing from the gunshot inside the car (big sound, little space. Think about it) and his adrenaline is pumping. Despite all this, he has the presence of mind to exit the car and command Brown to stop.

Let me stop this again and explain something. First of all, if you are armed, you engage (shoot) any aggressor that is within about 25 feet of you. Why? Because he can get to you and hurt or kill you before you can react and fire. Also, when your adrenaline is pumping, because your body perceives it is in a life-or-death struggle, your marksmanship will drop drastically. That is a physiological fact. Back to the action:

8) Officer Wilson, his ears ringing, his eyesight compromised, sees Brown advancing towards him. Brown is physically bigger than Officer Wilson, so Officer Wilson defends himself. He fires and keeps firing until he sees Brown is no longer a threat. Three autopsies show that Brown was struck by six bullets, four in the right arm, one in the right eye and one in the top of the head. End of encounter.

A handgun carried by police officers usually carry between 14-16 rounds total, between what's in the magazine and in the chamber. To hit with six out of sixteen rounds shows phenomenal marksmanship on the part of the officer. You are trained to shoot into the center-of-mass, basically into your chest a couple inches above your sternum. Considering all of the shots were on the edge of Brown's body shows how much Officer Wilson's marksmanship was degraded. If his weapon was pointed so much as a tenth of a millimeter farther to the left, he would have missed Brown with all of his shots.

What probably happened (I am not an expert on this. However, I have studied gunfights for years, especially when I had a carry license) is the hits walked from Browns hand up his arm and the shot that stopped brown was the one that went through his right eye. He was dead at that point, and as he fell forward the last shot caught him in the top of the head. Again, I am no authority or expert. That being said, with the evidence that I have read, I believe this is a justified shooting. Officer Wilson was at a constant disadvantage throughout the encounter. That he survived is amazing.

I have continued to do research into the troubles in Ferguson, MO and found this to be rather disturbing. First of all, this article: Ferguson's Shameful Legal Shakedown. Second, their budget (look at page 72). Their "Fines and Public Safety" compose 21.8% of their projected budget for the year. When you derive that much of your budget from penalizing your citizens, you look to do anything to keep that "revenue stream" going. The fact of the matter is, I now understand why the citizens revolted. When you have a court system that adjudicates your guilt up to 30 minutes before you are told to be there and they lock the doors before the court finishes so you can't get in if you are the tiniest bit behind schedule, I see why the people are frustrated. The racism stated in the article looks to be pretty rampant.

The immediate explanation is that the bulk of the cases arise from car stops. The ArchCity Defenders report notes: “Whites comprise 29% of the population of Ferguson but just 12.7% of vehicle stops. After being stopped in Ferguson, blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to be searched (12.1% vs. 6.9%) and twice as likely to be arrested (10.4% vs. 5.2%).” [...] “Searches of black individuals result in discovery of contraband only 21.7% of the time, while similar searches of whites produce contraband 34.0% of the time.”

So, the disproportion is way against Blacks. They are more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested than Whites. The telling part is the Whites are 50% more likely to be carrying contraband than Blacks, which makes it more disproportionate by a factor of four. The sad part about it is, most of the people the city is stealing from are ones without the means to pay the fines. Here you go, if you want to see what a Police State looks like, places like Ferguson are where these mind sets of those in power get started. You legislate laws like you are on a commission basis, making hundreds of piddling little misdemeanors that you strictly enforce on your population. You then create a bureaucracy that is impossible to navigate without stepping on at least one land mine. The end result is a populace that is in a constant state of terror from the Police. Look at how well the Soviet bloc was run back during the Cold War. The only difference between them and us, we don't have a "Secret Police." Yet.