dd blank

dd 1sdd 5s

dd 2sdd 6s

Economic Deep Divesdd 8s

Armed Citizendd 7s

Quick Updates

10/13/24: Still here, tomorrow gets a new post, one that I didn't want to write. Many things going on, not enough time in the day. I have a dozen articles that I need to finish. I am working on them. I promise.

A Refreshing Voice

The Village Voice, an Iconoclastic Alternative newspaper out of New York, has been until recently a very Liberal publication. You weren't "hip" until you were caught reading the Village Voice. I found this, My Dad Is a Right-Wing Asshole, and I thought the article was awesome. This particular item is a "Dear Abby" thing, and to see the response is very refreshing. The person writes in:

I'm writing because I just can't deal with my father anymore. He's a 65-year-old super right-wing conservative who has basically turned into a total asshole intent on ruining our relationship and our planet with his politics. I'm more or less a liberal democrat with very progressive values and I know that people like my dad are going to destroy us all. I don't have any good times with him anymore. All we do is argue. When I try to spend time with him without talking politics or discussing any current events, there's still an underlying tension that makes it really uncomfortable. Don't get me wrong, I love him no matter what, but how do I explain to him that his politics are turning him into a monster, destroying the environment, and pushing away the people who care about him?

Andrew then proceeds to take the writer apart:

...Try to find a single instance where you referred to your dad as a human being, a person, or a man. There isn't one. You've reduced your father -- the person who created you -- to a set of beliefs and political views and how it relates to you. And you don't consider your dad a person of his own standing -- he's just "your dad." You've also reduced yourself to a set of opposing views, and reduced your relationship with him to a fight between the two. The humanity has been reduced to nothingness and all that's left in its place is an argument that can never really be won.

Andrew gets better from there. He takes apart the fact that there really isn't a "who's right" and "who's wrong." There is only what is right and good.

My own take on the writer is that they display the classic Liberal symptom of "nothing exists outside of my ears. I'm right, and if you disagree with me you're wrong and evil." I am the first to admit that I lump Liberals into that "big L" pot and I know there is a broad spectrum of people under that banner.

In my encounters throughout life, I have found gun-carrying Liberals and anti-gun Republicans and every kind of facet. Human beings are complex creatures. We are formed by two things, our experiences and our choices. I know a lot of people who express Liberal ideologies. I like and respect many of them. I take great pleasure in debating them. I challenge their positions and they return the favor.

The one line none of us cross is to attack the person. I may think their position on gun control (or whatever) is stupid and uninformed, I do not think the person is stupid. They have their reasons as to why they arrived at that position, just like how I arrived at my position. Those people who start out a debate by calling me a Nazi, or EVIL, my first inclination is to understand them. If I find out it's all knee-jerk reactions and no significant thought was involved, I will proceed to take them apart. As a Navy Chief once said, "You can lead a horse to water, but I'll be damned if I'll pull suction on his ass to make him drink."

I respect your right to have a different belief than mine. I expect a similar respect in return. I give a certain level of respect on the benefit of the doubt. Beyond that, the level of respect I show you, up or down, is based on your words and actions. I think if more people did this, the world would be a lot better place.

My Take on Ferguson

I understand, but I guess I continue to be unable to comprehend.

Looking at what is going on in Ferguson, MO over the past couple of days, I see what is going on. I understand the rage, frustration and anger. What I don’t understand is the self-destruction.

I know for a fact that young Black males (YBM’s) are “disproportionately represented” in our criminal justice and prison system. About 8% of the general population is over 40% of those incarcerated. I also know that a lot of YBM’s are “over-sentenced,” who receive sentences harsher than a White man with a similar record.

There are many factors that force a majority of YBM’s into the bottom of the economic scale. Lack of education, transportation and jobs they can get to make it very hard for the average YBM to move up in the world. A few do, but not enough. He has a lot of obstacles in his way.

Some, however, he creates himself. I have seen where a YBM has to be macho when confronted with an authority figure, be it a supervisor or law enforcement. They can’t take the tactical loss in order to achieve the strategic win. If he is doing something wrong that is minor, he can either accept it (ticket/warning/admonishment) and go on about his business, or he can get all up in the face of the Supervisor/LE Officer. The latter generally results in a firing from a job, or a felony charge which seriously hinders his life afterwards.

In this instance, from what I see, these two YBM’s were walking in the street, which gained the attention of the police officer. I don’t know what happened after that, other than Michael Brown ended up dead on the street, shot multiple times. Now here’s where the part I do not comprehend comes in. You are enraged. A young man was shot and killed by a police officer, apparently without sufficient justification. Regular, mature adults gather together and hold vigils, then protest against the government.

Then there are those who do the immature, stupid thing. They riot and loot local businesses. Let’s think about this for a minute, because the rioters I’m sure didn’t. You are already living in an economically depressed area. There is only independent mom-and-pop shops in your neighborhood because the national chains don’t want to deal with the graffiti, shrinkage (retail store terminology for “theft”) and all of the other myriad problems that you take on in such a neighborhood. You then destroy the mom-and pop shops. You break into them, steal what you can carry and then run off.

In the wake of the riots, your part of town looks more like Kosovo than America, no businesses reopen and then the Black community wonders why their part of town is so bad. Imagine if you will, taking a shit in the middle of your living room. Not just one, but every family member, for a couple of weeks. No one disposes of the waste, it sits there and accumulates flies and other insets. You then wonder why your house smells so bad. Yeah, same kind of thing.

Now, some people on Twitter did “helpfully suggest” that the rioters not burn down their own neighborhoods, but rather go into the “White part of town” and riot and loot there. Of course, a lot of White people in the suburbs are probably armed, so an angry mob might start taking some incoming fire. The bottom line is this: Work within the system. Peaceably protest for a redress of wrongs. Short of overthrowing the whole government, you are not going to win. The police have more resources, weapons and ammunition. If you get into a shootout with law enforcement, they will win. What you want to do is provide political pressure on elected officials to fire the aggressive bullies on the police force and change the laws to be less onerous.

It Used To Be...

That we had something called common sense. This meant that you looked at a situation or problem and actually engaged in a conscious analysis of the possible benefits, risks and consequences of engaging yourself in that situation or problem before you actually engaged in it. I will use sex in this case, since I want to talk about California's SB-967. This bill attempts to define 'consensual sex.' Otherwise known as the "Yes Means Yes" bill, this is type of sign is instantly what I thought of: Overstated Sign

Notice that this sign uses eighteen adjectives when one would do. This bill, and the associated derivative policies will do just what this sign is doing, oversimplifying and defining to an excruciating degree something that should be common sense.

If you let the law define acceptable and unacceptable conduct to the nth degree, you are absolving yourself of the thinking on if this action is a good idea or not. Let's say two (or sometimes more) people want to have an intimate encounter that will result in pleasurable sensations and orgasms for all involved. All well and good. This kind of stuff happens every day. It is what makes the world go 'round.

However, there are many times that this happens and it's not all fun and games. When one does not agree to the encounter, or changes their mind in the middle and the other party continues, that's rape. The sex of the raper and rapee does not matter.

Now, when I was growing up, young males were taught by their male role models (notably fathers and uncles), that you shouldn't have sex until you were married. If you did and she became "with child," You were expected to take on the obligation of supporting your child and its mother. If you play, you pay. You also most assuredly did not take "undue advantage" of her, which means have sex while either one of you were impaired by alcohol or drugs.

A man does not have his way with those who do not (or should not) consent. Likewise, young women were taught (by mothers and aunts) not to put themselves into situations where they could be taken advantage of. That meant double dating with a blind date, and for the next 2-3 dates after that. No alcohol or drugs that would impair your ability to say "no" and mean it. The ladies also had an obligation as well. That was, if they did willingly engage in sex, if they regretted it later they did not make a false accusation of rape.

Let's make this perfectly clear: There is ZERO justification to rape another person. There is also ZERO justification to make false accusations. There are responsibilities on both sides here. Guys, if she's been drinking/drugging, jumps in your lap and starts squeezing your Johnson, tell her, "Yes, when you're sober" and don't let it get any farther. If you get "the urge," and she's passed out/asleep, put something for her to drink when she wakes up on the table next to her and pull a blanket over her. Ladies, if you want to have sex, that's fine. Just don't let the alcohol/drugs say "yes" when you want to say "no." Don't do the "revenge sex" thing either. That's where you get mad at your boyfriend, and to "get even" with him you go have sex with somebody else. Except a day or two later you feel guilty about it, so to save your own hide you start accusing the other poor guy of rape, not realizing that you are ruining the rest of his life.

Even if he beats the accusation, that event will haunt him for the rest of his life. Everyone needs to own up to their mistakes in life. You also need to do your best to avoid situations that will most likely have life-long repercussions for everyone involved. Screwing up is a part of life. We learn by our mistakes. Try to learn from the mistakes of others, and take responsibility for your actions.

 

Duct Tape Alert

WARNING: Wrap your head in duct tape NOW, before you read this article. That way, when your head explodes, you will be able to find all of the pieces.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay absolutely stuns me. You don't normally get into a position of authority and power like this without some kind of intelligence. That being said, the level of absolute, unmitigated stupidity she shows makes me wonder how she is capable of drawing breath.

...U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said to members of the media at an “emergency” meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council that Israel was falling short in its duty to protect citizens in the Gaza Strip from getting killed by its rockets. The U.N. group listed among its reasons for making that claim that Israel outright refused to share its Iron Dome with the “governing authority” of Gaza — which is Hamas, Breitbart reported. Ms. Pillay also condemned the United States for helping to fund the Iron Dome for Israel, but not granting any such accommodations to those in Gaza. “No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling,” she said, Breitbart reported.

So let me get this straight. This supposedly intelligent person, who should be seeing the attacks from Hamas, et.al. provoke the Israeli retaliation, and that Hamas hides their weapons in civilian areas, and launches missile attacks from schools, then has the cojones to demand that Israel gives their enemy a defensive system to protect the civilians who Hamas puts in harms way by hiding behind non-combatants like the cowards they are? The mental gymnastics she must go through to actually say this puts Cirque de Soleil to shame.

My Take on the ME Conflict

You may think I an "just" a Conservative Nutjob who is blowing sh!t out of my ass. You are entitled to your opinion. You are wrong, but you're still entitled to it.

I have played wargames for the past 37 years. I started with Avalon Hill's Tobruk, and moved on from there. I have played tactical and strategic level games, from squad-sized to multiple Divisions. Land, Naval and Space.

I have studied the masters. My library includes books from Sun Tzu, Sun Pin, Clausewitz, Jomini, B.H. Liddell Hart, Genghis Kahn and Miyamoto Musashi. I have refought Thermopylae, Hastings, Agincourt, Waterloo and Bunker Hill. I have won with both sides in Iron Bottom Sound, held off the Germans at Bastogne and many, many others.

I consistently kick my opponents around while I do it. I win a lot more than I lose and on those occasions I do lose, my opponent knows he was in a fight. I have dealt with not only actively fighting forces, I have dealt with the logistical train as well. Making sure the forces have the right equipment and supplies at the right time.

Now that I have displayed my qualifications, I want to say this: The one thing, the only thing that wins wars is the total defeat of the enemy, the object of the exercise is to beat your enemy down until they are unable to conduct offensive operations against you. You do this by destroying their equipment, their logistical tail and their will to fight.

No war has ever ended with both sides intact. One side has to be crushed before the other side can be considered the winner. A lot of you who think you know history will point to Korea and say, "See? There's a conflict that ended with a negotiated settlement!" BZZZT!! WRONG! A cease-fire agreement was signed on July 27th, 1953 at Panmunjom, which brought active fighting to an end. A state of war still exists over there and the conflict has transferred from the battlefield to the negotiation table. There are still "incidents" to this day.

So, looking to Israel and the rest of the Middle East. The Jewish people have been in that land for about 2,500-3,000 years. They pre-date the Arab peoples in that area. In 1948, the United Nations created the State of Israel. It is surrounded by enemies on all sides. The governments of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon have all at one time or another, sworn to destroy Israel and wipe out the Jewish people. The day after Israel was created, it was attacked and again in 1967. Now, every time, every time Israeli military forces have moved, it has been in response to an active sustained attack, or the imminent threat of an attack.

Days of missiles launched into Israel, or multiple suicide bombers always precede (that means happen before) an Israeli offensive campaign. Let's put it into a more personal perspective. This is an analogy, which means it won't exactly translate, but it is close enough for illustrative purchases. You purchase a plot of land when nobody lives nearby. You build a house and commence to live there. You then have to move away. When you return to your home, squatters have moved in, as well as neighbors in the adjacent properties. It turns out the squatters are friends and family of the neighbors. You have the squatters kicked out of your house, and you start rebuilding your home.

The neighbors don't like this very much, so they all band together, swear that they will get rid of you one way or the other and come at you and your family. You fight them off, killing a few in the process. The squatters have now taken up residence (and continue to live) in tents on your various neighbors property. The squatters have no problem with using your lawn as a toilet, and being aggressive every chance they get. They bully your kids, poison your dog, throw rocks at your house that break your windows and so on.

When you call the Police, they do nothing to the squatters. The friends and family of the squatters refuse to build permanent housing for the squatters on their property and have no problem with getting the supplies the squatters need to harass you. When you try to throw the rocks back at the squatters, they hide behind their kids and call the Police of one of them gets hit. When you get really tired of the harassment and go into the neighbors property to put the beatdown on the more aggressive squatters, then the Police show up and take the side of the squatters, telling you to get back to your property and ignoring your broken windows, torn up fence and spray-painted graffiti on the side of your home.

What can you do? In this situation you have very few options. Moving somewhere else is not an option. All of your neighbors have promised to kick you out of your home given the chance. You have tried being nice, or at least conciliatory. It doesn't work, what they want is your home and land and nothing short of that is acceptable to them. You can't change their heart against you.

My first instinct is to pick a neighbor, shoot him, his wife, his kids, his dog and every squatter on the property. Then burn his house and everything else on the property to the ground as an example for the others. Fear is a great motivator, but it is only a stop-gap measure at best. Anybody who moves in afterwards will probably still be friends and family of those who were there before, and the new ones will probably join the pack and hate you as well.

The only way this conflict will end is if they change their own hearts and stop hating you. All you can do is be gracious when they do so and kill everyone that crosses your property line.

A Succinct Explanation

I found this today and it is the best explanation I have found to date to describe what is going on with and around Israel. I can see why the Liberal media perfunctorily ignores 372 Hamas rocket attacks into Israel, then screams at the top of their collective(ist) voices when a single Israeli tactical aircraft heads over to take out the site where the rockets are coming from. No one screams "cease fire" while Hamas, et. al., fires dozens of rockets into Israel, but they sure do as soon as a Militant Islamist gets a skinned knee running from an Israeli tank. If you want to get a good, clear explanation of how it started, and how it could end, watch this:

As he says, it is easy to define, not so easy to solve. As long as one side wants to kill the other, this will continue. When the Muslims stop wanting and trying to wipe out the Jewish people, then and only then will it end.

 

The Liberal Game

Liberals seek control. Total control. Of everybody. Not only of your actions, your thoughts as well.

We saw that in the Soviet Union and other Left-Wing Totalitarian states. They do that by changing the language and using your own social mores against you. If you let them set the structure of the conversation by defining the terms, you are already defeated, because inside their structure, there is no way to defend a position contrary to theirs.

Words have what is called, for a lack of a better term, an "Emotional Index." This means that a word or term will cause an emotional response in the person hearing or reading the term. The word "Friend" produces a positive index because we think of our friends and our connection with them when we hear or see the word. Likewise, "Enemy" produces a similar number but in the negative direction.

So, when Liberals try to convince you to like something you don't like, they will change the terms, from words that have a strong negative index, to words with either a less negative index, or even a positive index. If they can, they will use words outside of the vocabulary of a average person, then define the word how they want it defined, rather than what it really means.

Case in point: "Illegal Aliens," used to denote citizens of other countries who are entering the United States without following the laws and procedures established for the orderly processing of people who wish to become Citizens of the United States. Liberals don't like that term, because, "People are not illegal." So, they want you to use the term "Undocumented Immigrant."

When we use the term "Alien," we are talking about definitions like,"a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living," or "relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government." To prefix the term "Alien" with "Illegal" you are stating that a citizen of one country has moved to another country and is now living in the second country without going through the process as defined by law to renounce their citizenship of their former country.

Now let's take a look at the second term, "Undocumented Immigrant." Both of these words have way lower negative index scores than the first term. After all, the United States is a nation built on immigrants, wasn't it? So, we switch from "Alien," which also means unfamiliar, while also invoking at least some fear, because people instinctively fear that which is unknown, or alien to them. Thus we change from a big negative index, to a neutral or even a positive index. Then the prefix adjective, "Undocumented," which means "not supported by documentary evidence."

We can rationalize this by saying, "If I'm driving my car and don't have my drivers license when I get stopped, I'm undocumented." Or you can think about that "undocumented expense report" because you didn't provide the necessary paperwork to justify your claim. You can almost begin to think that the Undocumented Immigrant belongs here, they just haven't made it through the bureaucratic red tape to become full citizens yet. Again, when comparing the indexes between "Illegal" and "Undocumented," the index is way lower for the latter.

So, by getting you to accept their term of "Undocumented Immigrant," you have already lost the argument because you have stopped using a term with a great negative index, to one with a slight positive index. You are now taking a position against someone that you yourself would feel favorable towards, because of the change in the term.

If you have ever read Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, you read about Big Brother changing the language. If you can change the language to eliminate words like "Freedom, " "Individual" and the like, how can someone conceive of these ideas to challenge who is in control? Don't play their game. Use your terms and definitions, and communicate them clearly and often so people know what you are talking about.

When you are clear and consistent in your message, while your opponent is trying to obfuscate what they are saying and changing their message as facts against them become evident, most peoples BS meter will start to go off. Just remember, you can only win people over to your side who are open to new ideas and concepts. If someone has their reputation entrenched and they are heavily emotionally invested in a position, you won't win them over. Your object is to win those who are watching the conversation to your point of view.

 

Cannonballs in a Kiddie Pool

I have two related stories, one of which I have been sitting on for a while. The first is: The Results of a Seattle Suburb’s Minimum Wage Hike Deserve a Big Fat ‘We Told You So’ and the other one is: Seattle Businesses to Fight $15 an Hour Minimum Wage. The first article lists these points:

  • Managers have taken more responsibilities on themselves, instead of hiring more workers.
  • Businesses have laid off workers, or eliminated their plans to hire more.
  • Area parking now comes with an added “living-wage surcharge.”
  • Hotels have cut employee benefits, free food, and overtime

Hiring has dropped to negative numbers (nobody is hiring, some are letting people go), benefits are cut and prices are going up. I really don't see a problem here, this is what Liberals do, destroy the economy in the name of "helping the people," which ends up causing them more grief.

The second article talks about a consortium of business to "modify" the $15 minimum wage back to a relatively less-painful $12.50 an hour. They interviewed a bar owner, who gives some hard numbers on his situation: He operates on a net profit (that's what's left after all expenses have been paid) of about 5%. If you do the math, his business would have to make $1,000,000 in gross sales for him to make the national average of $50,000. His labor costs run around 30%, and if the $12.50/hour goes into effect, his labor costs will go up to 40%. Now, the businesses that supply him with goods and services are going to take that same hit, so his non-labor costs will probably jump about 10% as well. His expenses just jumped 20% and he's working on a 5% margin. What do you think his prices are going to do? Go up, of course. The business owner will have to pray that he keeps the same level of sales, or he will have to cut that labor cost by letting people go.

Here's something a lot of people don't know, outside of HR, Payroll and Small Business Owners. The true tax rate for Social Security/Medicare is not the 7.65% that you see come out of your paycheck, it's actually 15.3%. The employer "pays" half of that as part of his administrative costs. So a worker who is paid $8.00/hour, it actually costs the employer $8.61/hour. If the business has to pay that worker $15/hour, it now becomes $16.15. That is a difference of $1,123 per full-time employee per year. So, let's say you have a business that employs ten full-time employees (or twenty part-time) at $8.00/hr. If the minimum wage goes from $8 to $15.00/hour, total labor costs will jump from $179088 to $335920, a difference of $156,832 a year.

At $1 million annual gross sales, and a 5% profit, you just went from profiting $50,000 to losing $106,000 a year. To stay the same, your prices will have to go up 16% and you hope your sales don't go down, or you have to cut 25% of your workforce. Those are glorious choices, aren't they? That's the reason for the title of this post. Raising the minimum wage will be like a 300 lb person doing a cannonball into a kiddie pool. The person makes a big splash that will force most of the water out of the pool, and when they leave, there will be only a little bit of water left. If this $15 goes into effect, I'm moderately sure in 10 years Sea-Tac (Seattle-Tacoma) will look like Detroit does today, economically depressed because there are no jobs.

 

Creating Divisiveness While Abhorring It

On July 4th 2014, Robert Reich, the ever illustrious all-knowing Expert on Economics (he really is, just ask him) posted the following on Facebook:

True patriotism isn’t simply about securing our borders from outsiders. It's about coming together for the common good. True patriotism requires taking on a fair share of the burdens of keeping America going, not finding tax loopholes and squirreling money abroad. It’s about preserving and protecting our democracy, not inundating it with big money or paralyzing it with partisanship. True patriots don’t hate the government of the United States. They’re proud of it. Generations of Americans have risked their lives to preserve it. They may not like everything it does, and they justifiably worry when special interests gain too much power over it. But true patriots work to improve the government, not destroy it. And they don't pander to divisiveness; they don't fuel racist or religious or ethnic divides; they aren't homophobic or sexist. To the contrary: True patriots seek to confirm and strengthen the “we” in “we the people of the United States.”

Okay, I have several issues with this post.

1) Bob says, ”True patriotism requires taking on a fair share of the burdens of keeping America going, not finding tax loopholes and squirreling money abroad.” Half of the households in this country pay NO income tax. Z-E-R-O. In fact, a lot of them get more money back than what they paid in. Is that a “fair share?” The richest 1% pay more in taxes than the entire GDP of Albania. Nobody likes paying taxes. If someone says they do, they are an idiot. I do so because it is the law and would go to prison if I didn't.

Now, if the law says that you pay less taxes if you have money in foreign banks, that is not a “loophole.” IT’S THE LAW. A loophole is defines as, "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." If you don't like it, contact your Congressman and tell him to change the law. Ulysses S. Grant said, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."

2) Bob again, “It’s about preserving and protecting our democracy, not inundating it with big money or paralyzing it with partisanship.” The United States is NOT a Democracy. No way, no how, never has been. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic. A Democracy is where everybody votes on every decision the government must make. With over 200 million possible voters, that would make sure nothing gets done. And if 51% want to take your possessions, they get it and you can't do anything about it but move out. The majority has spoken. A Constitutional Representative Republic is a government that has a clearly defined structure, as in our Constitution, the People elect representatives from their district to carry on the business of government according to the will of the people in that district. A Republic means the rule of law is in charge of the land. The law binds all people equally, no matter if they are a homeless person or the President. I love that word, “Partisanship.” I define it as, “Standing fast, not compromising your character and holding on to your moral values.” When Liberals say “Bipartisanship ,” they are saying, “Let’s compromise and do it our way.”

3) “True patriots don’t hate the government of the United States. They’re proud of it. Generations of Americans have risked their lives to preserve it.” I LOVE my country so much I put my life on the line for 13 years to protect it because I love the concepts of personal freedom and self-reliance that the United States embodies. Today, I FEAR my government because it seeks on a daily basis to abridge my basic human rights, some of them are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Big Difference.

4) “But true patriots work to improve the government, not destroy it. And they don't pander to divisiveness; they don't fuel racist or religious or ethnic divides; they aren't homophobic or sexist. To the contrary: True patriots seek to confirm and strengthen the “we” in “we the people of the United States.” This is so ironic it is sad. Looking between the Conservatives and Liberals, I see one side looking to categorize and demonize everybody who is different from them; to exacerbate rifts between social and religious groups; to decry discrimination in public, then commit that same discrimination in private. The group that is the most guilty for each of those statements are Liberals. The only part of this diatribe I agree with is, “True patriots seek to confirm and strengthen the “we” in “we the people of the United States.” I don’t care about my neighbors skin color, his political leanings or his religion. I will show him the level of respect that I would expect from him. There were a lot of responses, but this one kind of leaped out at me:

I don't support government. I'm not a patriot. I don't believe in America nor do I support it. But I also don't fuel racist or religious or ethnic divides. I try to let people see that we are all just human, and should not only respect our neighbors, but have a responsibility to respect each other. I try to keep the mind of my opponent open to new ideas in hopes they will see that narrow minded and goal oriented views are fundamentally flawed. I try to enforce my belief that a system built on a flawed system will never work., no matter how much you want it to. A nuclear bomb is just that, and can be nothing else, no matter how much we want it to end hunger, or cure cancer. And those who can make a difference, don't. For every doctor who finds a breakthrough in clinical science, 9 more release a new anti depressant or erectile dysfunction pill. And we, as a people, allow this behavior by not standing together and telling these corporations, these people who would have us sell out for materialism and false hopes, to shove off and act right, or we will make sure they are shut down permanently. To me, patriotism is just a lower, less obvious form of prejudice. Why show love for country when you can show love for world? Why show your patriotism when you can show your unbiased love of the world. Everyone sees only where they live, what they do. We are all part of something bigger, and until we see it for what it is, and start focusing on what's important AS A SPECIES, we are doomed to repeat all the mistakes made in the name of a lesser goal. I don't seek to destroy a country, but to reconnect a world. I don't seek to condemn those who served, I seek to elevate those who have and those who haven't, to serve on a global level. If you want to know what's wrong with the world, it's simple. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Earth is the house. We are the tenants. And if we can't start seeing humans instead of democrats, jews, mexicans, poor, or any other label meant to define us in a specific way, we will never make any progress. I agree that capitalism can be a successful venture, but until the world begins to work together, through responsibility and personal accountability, it will fail every time.

You know, it simply amazes me that people like this person want to live here. He says, "I don't believe in America nor do I support it." Yet he has no problem living under the protection of this country, enjoying basic rights here that don't exist in other parts of the world. I think the ideas he espouses would be better received in Iraq, where Sunnis are gunning for the Kurds, the Kurds are shooting the Shi'ites and the Shi'ites are bombing the Sunnis. The only time they stop killing each other is when they band together to kill Infidels that try and interrupt them. Or he could go to Iran, where the label of "gay" gets that person killed in a messy and painful way. I personally have nothing against global peace, in fact my service helped preserve that global peace during the Cold War. My readiness to wage war upon any aggressors ensured that peace. This guy operates under the mistaken assumption that "peace" is the opposite of "war." In truth, the opposite of "war" is "slavery." Because if you are not willing to fight and protect your home and family, you are a slave to the person who is ready to kill you if you don't bow to them.

 

Republic vs. Democracy

I found a video on YouTube that clearly breaks down the different types of governments on this planet and explains each of them. Anyone who tells you the United States is a Democracy is either uninformed or lying to you.

 

Three Positive Court Rulings

The session for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ended for the year, and there are three cases that I wish to talk about:

1)The first one is actually not a SCOTUS case, but this amazing ruling from the US 9th District gives me a little hope about them. In Latif v. Holder, Thirteen Muslim Americans, four of them US Veterans, are on the very secretive "No-Fly" list. This list is compiled by the FBI and supposedly consists of people who have, or are suspected of having, ties to terrorism.

The problem comes in when you go to the airport and find out you can't fly even though you were able to buy a ticket beforehand. You also have no way to get off the list either. So, you have no way of knowing if you are on the list until you actually try to fly, and there is no process to get your name removed. This ruling will hopefully change that. You can read the decision here.

2) In the SCOTUS cases Riley v. California, 13-132 and U.S. v Wurie, 13-212, the Court in a 9-0 decision basically extended the Fourth Amendment to cellphones. With so much of a persons life in such a hand-held device, unrestricted access to that information could ruin a person. Texts, contacts, photos, phone records and all of the other information contained are a significant part of our life. This ruling requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before they can analyze your phone. I do not know if you have to physically surrender it to a Law Enforcement Officer on demand. You will have to consult with your own attorney to learn that information.

3) This one has all kinds of misinformation and an army of strawmen surrounding it. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 13-354 is a bit confusing, so I am going to devote a lot of attention to it. Here we go:

What is Hobby Lobby? Hobby Lobby is a privately-held company. That means that the Board of Directors (it is a corporation, with all of those laws and regulations that apply to corporations) owns the company. This is not the same as Wal-Mart, or any other publicly-held company (companies that issue stock). The BoD for Wal-Mart has to answer to the stockholders. Hobby Lobby does not. The BoD for Hobby Lobby is a single family.

What are they arguing for? This family has certain deeply-held religious beliefs. Some types of birth control violates those beliefs. This family does not want to be forced to provide those forms of birth control that are in violation of their religious beliefs.

What are those forms of birth control? There are various forms of birth control. For sexually active couples, they fall into two categories: Preventative and Abortive. Preventative means the egg and sperm never meet. This can be through barrier methods such as condoms, diaphragms, spermicide and such. There is the hormonal method of estrogen based birth control, where no egg is released. Hobby Lobby has no problem with these methods. The Abortive method kills the fertilized egg. This is done by two basic methods. Through some kind of IUD (Intrauterine Device) which constantly rubs against the internal lining of the uterus, scraping off any fertilized egg which attaches to the uterine wall. The second method prevents the fertilized egg from attaching, or stopping its growth, effectively killing it. This method goes against the religious beliefs of those who own Hobby Lobby. So, out of about twenty different methods of birth control on the American market, Hobby Lobby is against FOUR of them.

What is the BASE issue? The Constitutional issue here is the restriction of freedom by coercion of the government. Believe it or not, this comes from the Affordable Care Act, but was not part of the original law. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) passed a regulation based on their authority under the ACA to mandate all forms of birth control as part of a health care plan. Here you have a small group of people who share similar religious beliefs who run a business. The fact that Hobby Lobby has over 500 stores is a red herring. Size is not an issue. Remember the First Amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." To make the owners of this company offer something that is abhorrent to them violates the First Amendment on its face. This is not about the company, it is about the owners of the company.

So, if you really want/need an IUD or one of the other birth control services that Hobby Lobby refuses to allow? You can QUIT. Are you being forced to work there? Is it the only employer hiring in 100 miles and you can't move? QUIT or DON'T APPLY. Your choice. That is what this all boils down to: Everybody has a choice. Your choice should never limit mine.

 

The Noose is Tightening Around All Our Necks

Back in April, I made a post that in part talked about "Operation Choke Point," where the Feds were pressuring banks to close the accounts of people and businesses the government "found objectionable" like porn stars and gun shops. I found this article today, Tyranny expands as consumer agency gives itself power to shut down businesses. Read the comment at the bottom of the article.

A lot of people don't know what the Federal Register is. This is where various government agencies publish their "rule changes" pertaining to whatever they are charged with regulating. This also where things like grants are published. It is a document that if you read it for too long, your brains will liquefy and run out of your ears. It is more mind-numbing than a Jerry Springer show. However, if you want to know what the government is up to, this is the place to go.

Anyway, back last year, This notice was published September 26th, 2013, Volume 78, Number 187. This rule is extended from the Frank-Dodd Act. It takes two-and-a-half pages to say this, but this is what it basically means: If the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has any suspicion of a business has "incomplete or inaccurate financial records" it may issue a Temporary Cease-And-Desist Order and force the business to close until the financial records are no longer "incomplete or inaccurate."

They don't have to prove anything, they just have to believe that your books are not up to their standards in order to issue the TCDO. Then you can go to court and fight it, but that takes money, and suddenly you don't have any. Your income is now zero (since they closed your business) and it could be months and many thousands of dollars in attorney's fees before you appear before a judge and have a shot at getting the order lifted. And they probably seized your business and personal bank accounts at the same time (evidence, dontchaknow).

Of course, you could surrender your books to the government. And when (not if) they find a mistake in your books, they can put you in Club Fed for as long as they want to. By the way, there is no parole in the Federal system. If you get 10 years, you'll do 10 years. This all falls under the little catchphrase in just about any law passed by Congress, "The Agency(s) charged with the enforcement of this law may issue regulations pertaining to the regulation and enforcement of this law." Gerald Ford said at a joint session of Congress, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

 

Liberal Hypocritical Example #4,249,312

Okay, I may have exaggerated that number. A little.

This article comes to us today from the UK Telegraph: Greenpeace executive flies 250 miles to work. It documents the story of one Pascal Husting, who was hired by Greenpeace International in 2012 to be the International Program Director. There is a slight problem. You see, Mr. Husting lives in Luxembourg and the GPI's office is in Amsterdam. So, Greenpeace pays about 250 Euros ($340) to fly him round-trip twice a month ($8,160 a year) between his home and the office. According to the article, his traveling has produced 7.4 tons of CO2 emissions, equivalent to 17 barrels of oil, or 714 gallons of gasoline. Over those two years, it works out to be 357 gallons a year. I generally consumed about 277 gallons a year, commuting 10 miles each way 5 days a week and 50 weeks a year. So, he's more, but not a lot more. Here is where the hypocrisy comes in. According to the article,

...despite [Greenpeaces] campaign to curb "the growth in aviation", which it says "is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change”.

So, Greenpeace is against commercial aviation flights, except when it's their executive doing the flying. Kind of like Al Gore (he invented the Internet, you know) who preaches across the globe for us to conserve resources and cut back on fossil fuel consumption. All the time while flying in private jets across the world to preach this notion. His house in Nashville uses more energy in a month than my house uses in a year. How much house does he need?

Now, while he is at home in Luxembourg, he spends most of his time on video conference calls, so I can respect that. I don't find this flying him around out of line with a good business practice. In my last position, we hired a Medical Doctor who lived in another state and he was unwilling/unable to move to this state. So, the company flew him in for a week once or twice a month, until the company had to cut back on all travel.

It's their stance on airline flights, then sneaking him in under the radar that exposes their own hypocrisy. The article said that in about 2-3 months he will start taking the train once a month, rather than flying twice a month. I wonder how much (if at all) his carbon footprint will be reduced when he switches to 12 hours on a train from 3 hours on an aircraft.

 

More Wage BS

I found this graphic in my FB feed a couple days ago, and I had to call bullshit.

mcd profits

First of all, some facts not in evidence.

  1. There are presently about 989.88 Million shares of McDonald's stock outstanding.
  2. According to my high school math and my calculator, if you take that $20 Billion and divide it by the number of outstanding shares, that comes out to $20.20 that each share receives for the year. I am not a stock analyst, so I do not know if that is a good rate of return or not.
  3. The stock price for MCD when I checked a few minutes ago was $101.44, which means that you have to hold on to that stock for 5 years before you receive a return on your investment.
  4. Only 35% of the McDonald's out there are owned by the corporation directly. The other 65% are franchise stores. If you don't know a franchise works, I suggest you look it up.
  5. Franchisees stand on their own financially. Other than through stock purchase, they will never see that $20 Billion.
  6. A regular fast-food restaurant usually has over a 200% turnover per year. That means three people will go through a position in a year. Bob starts, and he lasts 3-4 months, whereupon he quits (or is fired) and Mary replaces him. She then moves on for whatever reason and we end the year with Larry.
  7. I personally don't think that a job where you can be given a couple of laminated sheets full of pictographs and 5 minutes of training from the shift supervisor before you are turned loose is worth $15 an hour.

When a Sergeant with a family and two years in service gets about $20/hour. If he's single, he only makes $13 an hour. It takes over a year to train an infantryman in the tools of his trade and to work as a team with his buddies. Then there is the grueling mental and physical training, as well as the responsibility and leadership training to rise to E-5.

And he gets shot at as part of his job description.

I don't see these two job types anywhere close to each other. Bottom line, if you want to be paid $15 (or more) an hour, go learn a skill. You don't need a college degree, a Vocational school will give you a trade that likely pays more and sooner than a 4 year degree. Plumber, electrician, mason, welder or any of a hundred other skilled trades pay a lot more than minimum wage. If you make yourself worth $15 an hour, people will pay you that.

Don't depend on the government to mandate what you should be paid. Take charge of your life and make yourself worth more, no one else will.

 

Why is this not all over the news???

I found out about this from a friends Facebook post about a Daily UK Mail article referencing a KHOU story: Border residents fear message on mysterious billboards.

Okay, a vandalized billboard which has "Silver or Lead" in Spanish and a mannequin hanging by it's neck, This does not rate as national news? Fox, CNN, Reuters and AP I all personally checked, and none of them have any mention of it.

If this was not done by the Mexican drug cartels, this was done by people friendly to them. This is being read as a message directed to police officers to either accept payoffs and look the other way, or the people responsible for these billboards will help officers who refuse the silver (and probably their families) get a dirt nap. And just where is Border Patrol? Where is the Army? Obama has lots of things to say about "#BringBackOurGirls" in Africa, but nothing to say about taking care of our Southern border and protecting LEOs.

 

An Open Letter to Obama

This comes from Joe The Plumber: Triple Amputee Veteran's "F YOU!" Letter To Obama.

This warrior lays it on the line, plain and does not mince words. He is proud of his service. He is not mad at anyone for losing his legs and right arm. He is mad (and IMO, rightfully so) that Obama abandoned Iraq for his own political profit. I have written for years that if we could have inspired a positive change in Iraq, started a stable economy with job growth to turn those young men into businessmen and skilled workers rather than "Jihadist suicide bombers" the "fundamental change" would have spread throughout the Islamic world. A peaceful change. Nah, by abandoning Iraq, we have guaranteed Al Qaeda a world wide base of operations, with its own funding source. Here is Senior Airman Kolfage's own words.

He released this letter on Feb 17th, 2014:

My Open Letter to Obama. I nearly died in a war that you and most of your colleagues supported overwhelmingly, including the two presidents who came before you. Many citizens may not agree with waging war in Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi citizens, but it’s something that warriors like myself have zero control over. I joined to serve my country and to better my life. I’ve seen things that you could never imagine, and they have made me the person I am today.

Mr. Obama, even though we share extreme opposite views, we have one thing in common, we both attended school in Hawaii. However, that’s where the similarities end. You see, as you attended your exclusive, private school, I would ride my bike to Kaimuki High school in one of the roughest areas in Hawaii every morning and would ride past Punahou, the exclusive private school you attended. I would notice the Bentleys, Maserati’s, and fancy foreign cars that all the kids were dropped off in; wow it must have been extremely rough in Hawaii living that life, right? I could only imagine what it was like to have that kind of money. Fortunately for you, not many people are aware of the school and the upper class citizens who attended it. The tuition to attend your exclusive, private school was more than it cost me to obtain a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture from the University of Arizona. You talk a big game when it comes to financial inequality, yet I’m quite sure you have no idea what it’s truly like to have sacrifice. You were one of the elitist children in Hawaii.

After High School, we each chose very different paths. You were able to attend Ivy League schools, and I sought out a military career to in hopes of earning a degree. What we have in life as children usually sets the tone for what we will face later in life that will make us successful. I worked to get where I am today, and YOU WERE HANDED IT….Mr. Inequality.

I volunteered to go to Iraq on both of my deployments, and the second time I begged to go even after I wasn’t selected, which ultimately got me placed on the team where I would lose both legs and my dominant arm. I’ve never asked myself was losing 3 limbs in a war worth it, even though many Americans were against it.

I am frequently reminded of the many young Iraqi children who would beg me for water, food, and toys while I was stationed in Iraq. Children, who in all aspects made the poorest of poor American children look rich. You have no idea what it really means to be poor. It’s laughable that you, who would have no idea what it means to be poor would so frequently play the inequality card. While I was in Iraq, our mission was to liberate the Iraqi citizens from a tyrant and that’s what we did. Never forget, it was your people who sent us there, like the Clintons, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi & Carl Levin. However, since the day you busted onto the scene you’ve been talking about ending the war and pulling the troops out, not understanding the blood sweat and tears that so many Americans and Iraqi’s invested. And with complete disregard for every life sacrificed, every limb lost, and every broken family, you bailed on our mission to pursue an agenda that was completely centered on your re-election in 2012. If you didn’t bail on Iraq you were worried that you may not get re-elected and that’s a fact. Just before elections on Oct 11, 2012 you said “Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Look at Iraq now, they are in shambles and the Al Qaeda flag is flying freely. Clearly, you’re unfit for duty as a Commander in Chief. You put your own agenda ahead of America’s agenda, and now you have single handedly ruined and destroyed nearly everything we gained in Iraq. It clearly means nothing to you, because the only thing that you’ve personally invested in that country was a promise to bail on them. However, people like me gave limbs, friends have died, and we’ve watched families destroyed by war’s aftermath.

I’m not placing blame on you for the war, I’m placing blame on you for destroying what we’ve worked so hard to build. You’re not a leader, you’re a community organizer. A leader would have stood up regardless of the situation and put America’s agenda first and that is ensuring a secure Iraq even after 10 years of war. But, you placed Barack first, just as Robert Gates confirmed in his new book. I can’t help but think of those poor kids who I gave water and toys to 11 years ago. They’re probably 15 or 16 years old now, and I can only imagine what it’s like for them to have their nation being torn apart yet again; all because of your poor leadership qualities. Regardless of why we went to Iraq, its water under the bridge. We went there, we waged war, and we not only owed it to our KIA’s but we owed it to the citizens of Iraq. We invaded their country and turned it upside down, and you bailed on them. You bailed on our soldiers and you’ve wasted every death and every limb, it’s all for nothing. And to make matters worse you blame others for your failures.

You’re just another elitist rich thug who’s pretended to live the rough life growing up in the inner-city. You’re only worried about your own agenda and furthering your party instead of taking care of Americans. Your inability to be a leader at some of the most critical points has caused both of our wars to fail. You’ve been a joke to most of our veteran community and we have no faith in your ability to lead.

Senior Airman Ret Brian Kolfage USAF

This letter seems to have been spurred from the VA Department "determining" that Mr. Kolfage "was overpaid" a sum just short of $5,000, so they are going to correct that by reducing his payments for the next FOUR YEARS. Even after he submitted the paperwork that showed he was not overpaid and they told him that everything was taken care of, someone didn't do all of the paperwork, because his next check came up short and he received a letter confirming the first payment from another department.

 

The Fourth Amendment is DEAD

I am not engaging in hyperbole either: Federal Court: The Police Can Stop and Search You for Behaving Innocently. Yes, I found this on the Huffington Post. The scary thing is, when those wingnuts start getting concerned about this kind of stuff, it's usually too late. Normally Liberals root for the encroachment of civil liberties by government. It's all "for our own good" you know.

A federal appeals court just ruled that the police have a legal right to stop, search and arrest you for innocent behavior including driving with your hands at the ten-and-two position on the steering wheel at 7:45 p.m., taking a scenic route and having acne.   To the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, these factors added up to fit the profile of a person smuggling undocumented immigrants and drugs. The court said, "Although the factors, in isolation, may be consistent with innocent travel ... taken together they may amount to reasonable suspicion."

The reason why this lady is in court, is that the Border Patrol officer searched her vehicle and found an amount of marijuana, which is why she was arrested. Be clear, I make no argument or statement for or against her having marijuana in her car.

The PDF of the decision is here, I suggest you read it. This is the part that disturbs me (bold is mine) The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” U.S. Const., amend. IV, including investigatory stops and detentions, see United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985); United States v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d 1216, 1220 (10th Cir. 2006). Ms. Westhoven “bears the burden of establishing that the challenged stop violated the Fourth Amendment.” Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220. Like other law enforcement officers, a border patrol agent must possess reasonable suspicion a law was violated to stop a vehicle: “Except at the border and its functional equivalents, officers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the occupants have violated a law. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975); Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220.

In one of my earlier posts, I talk about how DHS has set up a "Constitutional exception zone” for the first 100 miles from the nearest border. By the way, 2/3rds of Americans live within that zone, all day every day. Of the two parts that I bolded, the first one stating that the defendant "bears the burden of establishing that the stop violated her Fourth Amendment rights" sounds a lot like the opposite of "presumed innocent until proven guilty." The government is making the accusation. It should have to prove beyond a reasonable point that the officer was justified in making the stop.

The second, "Except at the border and its functional equivalents..." There is that nasty 100 mile "Constitutional exception zone” thing again. So, let's get this straight. While traveling within 100 miles of a border, you can obey all standing laws (yes, she was speeding, but the BP officer did not have the authority to enforce traffic laws) and still be pulled over. Once the officer makes you nervous and you stutter, or misspeak, that gives him the reasonable suspicion, coupled with your adherence to local laws to detain you and call in the dogs. Just checking.

Just in case you haven't seen my other posts on this, DON'T SAY A WORD TO THE POLICE. Not a word, facial expression, shrug of the shoulders. Ask, and continue to ask until you receive an answer, "Am I being detained officer? Am I free to go?" If you are not being detained, leave the area IMMEDIATELY. If you end up in the back of a patrol car after that, your only words should be, "I want to speak to my lawyer."

A Two-Fer

Two glaring examples on how the federal government is becoming an enemy of the People: Case #1: Big Chill: Feds Want To Scour Net, Media For 'Hate Speech.' Two Democrat lawmakers, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. have come up with a bill, "The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014."

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” stated a news release from Markey’s office.

So, in effect we would have more "watchers" monitoring all communications, for that ever ambiguous "Hate Speech." And just who determines what is "Hate Speech?" Why, the GOVERNMENT, of course! After all, they have done the job of solving racism, illegal immigration, job creation and healthcare so well, right?

exposing illegal things is illegal

Yeah, right.

Case #2: DOJ's 'Operation Choke Point' May Be Root of Porn Star Bank Account Closings A quote from the article:

Under "Operation Choke Point," the DOJ and its allies are going after legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures by pressuring banks to terminate their bank accounts or refuse their business. The very premise is clearly chilling—the DOJ is coercing private businesses in an attempt to centrally engineer the American marketplace based on it's own politically biased moral judgements. Targeted business categories so far have included payday lenders, ammunition sales, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia, and online gambling sites.

So, what the government "finds objectionable" but isn't against the law (yet), President Obama, Eric Holder and the people who work for them are basically strong-arming the banks into having them refuse to do business with businesses and persons the DOJ doesn't like. There is precedent for this. After all, the Clinton Administration pressured banks into lending money for people to buy homes, even when the banks knew the person could not meet the obligations of the loan. But it's not all Clinton's Fault. It can be traced all the way back to Jimmy Carter and every White House afterwards. If you don't know what happened, I suggest you read this. So, there you go. Two examples that the government "knows what is good for us, more than we know what is good for us."

government scares me

I weep for us all.

 

This should be of no surprise

I found a video on YouTube of a Congressional hearing. I have the video below. What it boils down to is, it says in the programming code for the healthcare.gov website (I'm not sure if a user actually sees this or not) that the user "has no expectation of privacy."

This means the Federal government cannot obey its own laws on HIPPA security. Working with medical records in my last employment, HIPPA awareness was drilled into me morning, noon and night. The company faced substantial financial penalties from the state, not to mention probable litigation from the members whose data was violated, if there was an inadvertent exposure of medical records. Coupled with the fact that some of the programmers for that website were Belorussian State-controlled programmers, I refuse to let any of my personal data near that website. Here is the video:

 

An explanation for Government

Here is a video talking about the Bureau of Land Management and the Bundy Ranch Dispute.

I think it does a reasonably good job explaining the madness that is our current government. By the way, What is said about the BLM is pretty much true for the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) the Department of the Interior (which BLM is a part of) and most, if not all of the major departments of the Executive Branch.

Congress writes the "Sunshine and Puppies for Everybody Law of 2014" in general terms, then at the end, has a part that reads something like, "The departments that have responsibility for enforcement of this law can issue defining regulations pertaining thereto." Which means, they publish their "regulation changes" in the Federal Register (which most people have never even heard of) and after the appropriate "public comment period," the regulations now have the authority of law.

Now, if a significant number of citizens express outrage and other comments against the proposed regulation, the Department concerned can "take into consideration" the comments before issuing the final regulations. They usually don't and make it law as originally written. Anyway, here is the video:

 

A Second American Revolution

Yesterday, the Second American Revolution almost started. If you watch the MSM (read, "anybody other than Fox"), you have probably missed this event. CNN had one link at the bottom of their page when I checked a bit ago. Here's the rough outline of the story: Cliven Bundy, a rancher in Nevada, has owned and ranched an expanse of land his family claimed in 1875. Back in the 90's, the federal government declared a species of tortoise in that area "endangered" and took steps to "protect" it. Too bad the tortoises have grown to the point they have to kill a thousand of them. Since the Feds (specifically the Bureau of Land Management) has to "protect" the tortoises, they asserted control over the land that Cliven's family has worked for 139 years. The BLM then demanded that Cliven pay them so they could control his land and give him permission to let his cattle graze on his property. So far, the BLM asserts the Bundy family owes them $1.1 Million. Cliven's refusal to pay the "fees" has "forced" the BLM to round up his cattle on "federal" land. Scuffles escalated to the point several thousand citizens, at least some of them armed, gathered in support of the Bundys. It was at this point yesterday, when BLM agents were facing a force that was armed at least as well as they were. And the BLM backed down. Now, there is a lot more to this story than that. Solar energy farms, Senator Reid and even the Chinese have been mentioned in the possible motivations for trying to force this issue. And there is probably more to it than that. We will probably never know. The MSM is suspiciously silent, and when they do speak, it is on the side of the government, which is where we all know they are anyway. This is NOT the end. New plans are being drawn up, a timeline developed and press releases are being written. The BLM will be back, and they will win, unless the entirety of the government is stopped. The power grab of Washington has to end. Don't look to Washington, both parties are interested in controlling the citizens, the only difference is the exact methods. Look to your fellow citizens. 3:55pm UPDATE: THIS IS UNCONFIRMED, and I am working on it:

James Wesley Jr Via Uncle Sam's Misguided Children This was shared on their Facebook "Page," but NSA is BLOCKING IT from being shared any further. Please Copy & Paste this entire message and post it EVERYWHERE YOU CAN! CAN YOU VERIFY THIS ? At 1750 hours ET, I was contacted by my source within the Department of Homeland Security regarding the current situation at the Bundy Ranch. To put it bluntly, the people are being hoodwinked into believing that the situation is being resolved. It is not. It is a strategic de-escalation to fool the public. This source stated that the retreat of the BLM agents and the release of the cattle was actually crafted as a potential plan yesterday (Friday, 11 April 2014) based on the following: 1. A military assessment of satellite and drone surveillance imagery of the “patriot resistance. Drones under the control of the U.S. military were in use, taking real-time photographic images of not just the activity at the ranch, but "identifying the protesters, any arms and any supplies they might have or be carrying. “Mission accomplished.” 2. Real-time communication intercepts between patriots on-site and their off-site support; 3. Active monitoring of internet traffic regarding the coverage of events at ranch; 4. The monitoring of real-time video from the scene. This source stated that a response by the patriot movement was anticipated, although exceeded their expectations. Although this was a real operation, they also ran this as a test case for future government operations once they saw the response. They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event. Despite this, the coverage by the alternative media began to create a public relations problem that was not easily managed. Note the lack of acknowledgment by the White House regarding this event. They are intentionally framing it as a state issue, despite the fact that all federal response has been and continues to be from the White House. There is a reason for this – a reason that has not been identified in any of the public reports to date. I will explain in further detail in a follow-up report on Sunday, after this source attends [redacted] to obtain more specific information about future federal operations. Regardless, according to this source, the government will take back ‘their land’ as they must to fulfill international obligations. It was never about grazing rights or anything other than (1) “securing clear title” to the land, and (2) further demonizing any patriotic resistance. It is my understanding, based on the information from this source, that it is a critical task to create a situation that will also advance their agenda of gun control and confiscation. A more detailed report will follow on Sunday, 13 April 2014, with additional and much more specific information about their inside plans and future operations.PLEASE MAKE THIS VIRAL

My email address is to the right, if you can confirm or deny this, PLEASE CONTACT ME.

7:38PM UPDATE: I found this: Investigator: BLM’s Surrender at Bundy Ranch is a Strategic De-escalation to Hoodwink the People.

I like this answer!

From Acculturated: Lauren Conrad, one of the hotter Conservative women (not Conservative babe) was asked by a Liberal (who seems to view women only as sex objects, based on the question) during a radio interview the question, "What's your favorite position?"

Without batting an eye, she responds, "CEO."

A new reality

On this first day of 2014, I wanted to bring light to this issue, which is the suspension of our Fourth Amendment Rights. This also shows you need to look at an issue from several different angles, because one point of view won't give you the whole story. This particular case revolves around Pascal Abidor, who's citizenship is not revealed. One of the articles states that his parents live in New York. Their citizenship status is not clear either. Anyway, Pascal was traveling via Amtrak from Canada to his parents home. I'll let the RT.com article explain it(by the way, here are two more articles on this):

Abidor was sitting in the train's cafe car when an officer forced him to take out his laptop then “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” the suit claimed. The computer contained images of Hamas and Hezbollah rallies and the agents, unmoved by Abidor's assertion the images were related to his studies, handcuffed the young man and kept him detained for three hours, questioning him numerous times.

Doing a "police inspection" in public like this is simply wrong. And it is not meant to intimidate just the person being stopped, but every other person in sight as well. Because if they can stop him, they can stop you. A probable cause for the stop was given, was that he had "traveled to Lebanon," but no time frame for that travel was given. If he just transferred straight from the airport in Canada to Amtrak and headed into the US, that is one thing. However, I have to ask, did he stay in Canada more than the minimum time necessary to leave the country? Did he stay overnight, a week, a month before heading to New York? That fact would change the equation. I also need to ask, why wasn't he stopped right there at the border? Why wait until he already got some distance into the country? I really think it's telling that the ruling judge, Judge Korman, talked about the First Amendment, not the Fourth. The First wasn't an issue in the lawsuit he was ruling on. Judge Korman also upheld a DHS policy which claims any American land within 100 miles of a border to be a "Constitutional exception zone," which means DHS can stop you without warrant or probable cause, seize your personal electronics and demand proof of your citizenship. Let's tale a look at the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Taking a look at this Amendment, I don't see how a police officer can stop a person who does not appear to be breaking any law, and demand access to their "papers and effects" which your laptop, tablet or smartphone clearly is. If the officer has reasonable suspicion, he can swear out an Oath and obtain a warrant for the items the police wishes to inspect and/or seize. The unintended consequences of this ruling means that currently 2/3rds of the population lives within "100 miles of a border," and are thus subject to the whims of the DHS.

If I were to travel to New York City, or Miami, Florida, the DHS can stop and seize any electronics in my possession without warrant or probable cause. Papers, please? I understand that judges are people too, and they have prejudices, beliefs and agendas just like the rest of us. That being said, when we have Judges like this, who blatantly and flagrantly disregard the standards set forth by the Constitution, we are all truly screwed.

Because now all three branches of the Federal government, instead of fighting against each other in a balance of power, have united against the Constitution they have supposedly sworn to "protect, uphold and defend," and the People as well. Sleep well, citizen. Our government is looking out for us.

 

It's not what you say, it's what you do

I need to say something, but I have to start out in a different direction.

The object of the Masons is to make good men better. We are looking for men who know they can improve themselves. We are not looking for perfect. When a man submits a petition to our Lodge, we do a background check on him. We ask him to his face if he has a criminal record.

If his background check says he has a record and he denies it, we stop the process right there. If a man has multiple felony convictions and he just got out of prison in the past year, we ask him to come back in a couple of years when he has shown he can stay out of prison for a while. If a man made some mistakes in the past, and it's in the past and he admits to them, we look at him. I have personally sponsored a man (now a brother) who has a drug conviction on his record from years past. He explained it, stated that he did everything the court asked him to do and it was expunged from his record. He has not had another problem with the law since.

I bring this up, because it speaks to a mans integrity.

I saw a news article about Robin Speronis, a "poor widow" who was being evicted from her paid-for home because of "code violations" that she doesn't have running water or electricity in her home. I mentioned this in passing to my wife, who did a little more research on her. It turns out this woman was arrested and convicted in 2009 and 2012 for Grand Larceny. She was also arrested in 2012 for a probation violation for failing to pay restitution to her victims from those crimes. Further search-fu by my wife revealed that this woman had swindled multiple people out of thousands of dollars in real estate scams.

She has refused to pay restitution to these people, which led to the probation violation arrest. She also lost her real estate broker license because of this. She is now a "talk show host" preaching "off the grid" living.

I provide these links as a warning, not an endorsement.

She is generating income by book sales and speaking engagements and because she is "fighting Big Brother" she is starting to get people to endorse her. Of course, she is not making up for her crimes by repaying the people she stole from. My point? Pay attention to the person. If this woman had done these larcenies years in the past and had paid restitution, I could have considered taking up her cause. Knowing that these larcenies are recent, and she is not making the effort to make good on her crimes, this new cause appears to me that she is not stopping her criminal behavior and is just changing her methodology of bilking people. Be very careful in all your dealings.

Successful DGU

Defensive Gun Uses occur over 2,000,000 times a year. Here is an example: Man opens fire on attempted armed robbers after work.

Kelly Royster, 21, a five-month employee of Nationwide Warehouse, said he and a female co-worker were leaving work around 8:15 p.m. when the two robbers approached them.

The pair went straight for the woman, who was carrying the night's deposit, and demanded the bank bag, Royster said...

"I just pulled it out and got to shooting at them," Royster said. "I was trying to keep track of how many I was firing, because I only had one clip." This was one of the less than 5% of the DGU's where shots are fired. Make no mistake about it, the only reason why it made the news was the fact that shots were fired.

All I can say is I hope I would have done as well as this man did. I would like to say I would have dropped both of them before they know what happened, but reality is different from imagination. It is also a lot messier.

I can never bear arms legally again, so I hope I never have to face such a situation.

 
Free Joomla! templates by Engine Templates