Reform School

Posted: September 2, 2011 in Americana, Capitalism, Communications, Economy, Freedom, Media, Oppression, Politics, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Reform” is a common concept in government. My experience has been that whenever government reforms something, it will inevitably be worse. The nine-letter word “reforming” coincides with the nine-letter result: Imscrewed. Big government statists cannot resist increasing government size or power. That is one stark illustration of why the so-called “War on Drugs” has been a forty-year failure. Government and its political enablers have an addiction problem that is much more harmful for the nation than any individual’s reliance on an illicit substance. The only government program that has succeeded at any measurable level is the “War on Liberty” that was begun with little fanfare one century ago.

 

You may recall the “Tax Reform Act of 1986.” That overhaul was a result of an agreement between President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill. The President agreed to some tax increases in the “reform” bill in exchange for sizable spending cuts in subsequent budgets.  As usual the spending cuts never materialized and a radical transform of the tax code went forward. Prior to the 1986 tax bill interest expenses were deductible, but after passage, credit card and non-mortgage, non-business interest payments were no longer allowed as tax deductions. Personally, interest deductions are not important for me. I would rather eliminate the income tax altogether and eliminate the incessant tinkering and tweaking that costs taxpayers more money while Congress rewards its favored groups or companies.

 

So, as a brief summary of the prologue, reform generally represents more of the same though worse. As an example, please join me in a “quickie’ review of Ohio Sub. HB 194…of the 129th General Assembly.

This so-called election administrative reform bill is similar to many other bills under consideration by our legislative bodies. Its provisions resemble tentacles as they weave and wind around so many facets of Ohio election law, and yet….this purportedly comprehensive overhaul ignores a gorilla in the room…a gaping intentional oversight in violation of a court order. The aspect of ballot access for minor parties was never addressed, thus allowing the existing law to stand which had earlier been declared unfair by the court. Similar to Obamacare and so many legislative initiatives, Sub. HB 194 addresses several areas of concern that could result in some unanticipated problems because of the breadth of the bill.

 

The Ohio bill must have some merit because President Obama’s campaign is opposed to it because of its stricter provisions regarding voter identification…..could possibly limit cheating, and thus, is not Obama-friendly. The legislation covers a broad scale of issues affecting Ohio elections such as we “cannot assume that poll workers erred.” Proof must be submitted before allegations or assumptions are allowed. Clearly the Voter I.D. provision is the lightning rod of the bill as liberals, progressives, Marxists and cheaters are fearful that a photo I.D. would minimize their opportunities for stealing elections.

 

An omnibus bill that purports to reform a broad swath of law is inherently doomed. Unintended consequences will cling to the legislation like flies to road kill. Opponents will target one or more aspects of the legislation and may seek judicial intervention. Forecasting what some judges would do is similar to predicting when and where a first raindrop may land. Broad based initiatives allow the dedicated public servants to crow about their major accomplishments, and at the same time, condense the heavy lifting of formulating meaningful legislation. This in turn generates more free time for lobbyist-funded meals and adult beverages.

 

Admittedly I am a skeptic and a cynic, but I do suspect that some omnibus bills are staff-created legislative shortcuts for elected officials. If there is a sincere intent to dramatically change the status quo, the omnibus bill does provide some cover in the sense that changes that may inspire opposition could perhaps, maybe, theoretically, possibly get lost in the weeds of a broad undertaking. In addition, a huge bill that deals with various facets of state law (elections for example) has many sponsors, co-sponsors and amendment sponsors so that disgruntled citizens or groups may find it difficult to place blame for what they believe to be an egregious legislative result. While the omnibus bill may provide a cloak of anonymity for its advocates, it may also lead to glaring oversights….legislators and staff members become so enamored with the forest that individual trees lose their identities.

 

As the kind trusting person that I am, I will assume that the “too-broad, glaring-omission” explanation is the logical one for the failure of Sub. HB 194 to address the issue of minor party ballot access. Clearly, the elected members of the Ohio General Assembly believe in the Republic and the rights of citizens to freely elect their representatives. Obviously the members of the Ohio House and Ohio Senate would do nothing that intentionally enables a continuing duopoly of power, thought and avarice. After all, the two old parties have shared power, meals and drinks for more than 150 years so it cannot be possible that third-party competition would be seriously challenging to them. Right?

 

Intentional self-serving denial of opportunity in a republic is just as loathsome as a poll tax or a literacy test. When two parties hold absolute control of the election apparatus, logical reasoning would lead one to believe that power will be misapplied. Because the two old parties have controlled the election apparatus across the nation for so long, they have not been seriously challenged to account for their malfeasance, misfeasance and misdeeds. We have all been losers because of the lack of electoral accountability. Reform? Yeah, right.

 

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com   

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue & Wed, 6-7pm on 1370 WSPD, Toledo   www.wspd.com


There is a term that all career legislative politicians know and cherish. It is “voting from cover.” This is a device whereby your typical unprincipled politician can vote either way on a piece of legislation, but the leadership allows him or her to vote according to which way would most assist the politician’s re-election because the leaders had enough votes to pass the measure. In other words the politician was willing to vote for passage but voted against it because his vote was not needed. Given this frequent scenario, it is no wonder that citizens have become as cynical as their elected officials.

 

When one examines the voting record of a political professional, one often discovers some contradictory results. A politician may vote for a measure the first time around, but vote against a nearly identical version on the second pass. The suggestively schizophrenic behavior is generally an indicator that the so-called public servant was voting from cover. You may recall the legendary John Kerry statement from the 2004 campaign that he “voted for funding the Iraq war before he voted against it.” There were some commentators and of course, Republicans, who ridiculed Kerry’s apparent two-faced approach to such a vital issue. Many in the mass media, however, did not condemn Kerry because they understood that his votes reflected a total self-serving attempt to appear on both sides of the issue. They correctly understood that Kerry’s waffling…his unprincipled position…was not rare, but it was all too common among our United States’ political class.

 

At first blush an observer might seek to find some mechanism or penalty for those who choose to vote from cover to enhance their political fortunes. The problem with a remedy that directly addresses the issue is that there is no allowance for the politician who actually changes her or his position because of conscience, principle or payoff. We cannot fully trust the politician’s explanation for the position switch because so many of them are either slick liars or self-delusional. The observer can assume from the beginning that the leadership allowed the member to vote from cover if the vote was close, and the member voted against the majority. An overwhelming vote on either side of an issue is not a good barometer for testing the legislator’s principles because aside from the chicken or weasel, congress critters most often resemble lemmings. One of the first skills developed by a legislator is learning how to jump in front of a parade and pretending to lead it.

 

Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect which unprincipled politicians were voting from cover on any particular bill unless one is closely observing the roll call on C-SPAN. If the watcher knows who the Whips are for the party, they can see who they’re “babysitting” as the vote rolls in. As the numbers of “Ayes and Nays” approach finality, the Whips will release their wards to vote. If the Speaker “needs” their votes, they’ll vote for his position, but if there are a sufficient number supporting the Speaker’s stance, the captive Congresspersons will be allowed to vote consistent with their constituents’ preferences. So, what if the leaders are wrong (we have 100 years of recent history to suggest that our political leaders are often wrong)? Are our elected representatives so politically motivated that they would sacrifice principle in order to prevent embarrassing the leadership? Apparently so and historical evidence supports the premise. Certainly it is helpful if there is unity within the caucus when they are pursuing an ideal or policy that is based on principle and integrity. Unity for unity’s sake, however, when promoted and enforced to achieve damaging compromise merely reinforces the cynicism of the voters. Deal-making, deal-cutting and bet-hedging are reprehensible positions when the integrity of the nation is at stake. Yes, this type of legislating has been in place since the beginning of our Republic, but heightened scrutiny and moments of sustained crisis have illustrated the folly and damage that such an approach creates. “Business as usual” should become unusual and undesirable.

 

Our political system has become so corrupt and decayed that fixing it seems nearly impossible. I am convinced that most of those who are first elected to Congress or their respective legislatures enter with high hopes and sincere desires to make a difference. They become part of the system without realizing how compromised they are. Voting from cover is just another example of how unrepresentative our political system is. If you recall, 22 House members voted against Boehner’s sell-out deal on the debt ceiling, but the real number of steadfast fiscally-responsible patriots is 19. Three Members were being herded by Whip Kevin McCarthy until the vote was “locked.” They were willing to vote with Boehner, but because there were sufficient votes, they were “allowed” to vote for principle. I’m still trying to confirm who those three were, and they do not merit inclusion in the roll call of courage and conviction. There were 19 Spartans standing at the gates as the Persians advanced. There were three opportunists standing behind them….under cover….away from the arrows. Luke’s Gospel is good. Lukewarm is tepid.

 

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Crisis Creation

Posted: August 3, 2011 in Capitalism, Communications, Economy, Media, Oppression, Politics, Rants, Taxes, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you have been on this earth for any significant time, you have probably and painfully learned that there is a difference between thoughtful consideration and procrastination. Dithering does not qualify as deliberation. Certainly prudence demands that we examine our options to determine which one will yield the most favorable outcome. Undoubtedly you are familiar with the term, “paralysis by analysis,” wherein over-examination of a difficult decision leads to a failure to act or respond. These scenarios are common for most of us, and we recognize the pitfalls that arise because of our inability to respond. These are some of the rules of life, but in certain quarters the rules are suspended. Take career politicians for example.

 

Most professional politicians suffer from an aversion to critical decision making. As you know, on an issue that is prominent and divided, the politician risks annoying or infuriating a large portion of his constituents no matter how she or he may vote. As a result, many crises in our affairs of state arise because of the career politicians’ refusal to deal with an issue promptly and forthrightly.  Issues become problems that beget crises that cause nervous handwringing and intense arm twisting. Generally, the politician succumbs to expediency and meekly follows the leadership to a minimalist response to the moment to escape the volcanic wrath of the electorate. Thus, the “can” of concern is kicked further down the road only to rise again at a later time with consequences far greater.

 

Abscessed characters and absences of integrity are too common among the careerist political class. The most self-centered among them weigh every decision on the scales of electoral expediency. In some respects the self-serving types are preferable to the indecisive cowards because their positions are so predictable. Whatever vote or pledge has the greatest potential for maintaining or advancing the politician’s career is the one that is taken or cast. The concept of a principled vote or position is alien to the class of politician who is consumed by opportunism. It is the expedient politician who has helped to elevate his class on a par with used car salesmen and snake oil peddlers in the popular views of the people.

 

Another factor besides the personalities and preferences of the politicians for the sense of crisis that seems pervasive is the sheer size of government…at all levels. Their consistent expansion and overreaching for the past century has resulted in bloated monstrosities that are ineffective and impossible to manage. Factor in the overlap and redundancy elements of many governments, and we often find ourselves in crisis mode because of competing bureaucracies or sectors of interest that are unaddressed because the various bureaucracies remain stuck in “turf-protection” gear. Large sluggish enterprises are inefficient and ineffective. Large public sector institutions are much worse than their private sector cohorts because it is nearly impossible to dismiss incompetent or lazy workers. So the massive organizational structure of government is a primary contributor to the frequency of crises in our public discourse.  Government agencies often overreach and frequently under perform. Either of those response modes could germinate a crisis.

 

Closely associated with the unrestrained growth of government is its insatiable need for operating funds. With Big Brother and Nanny State gobbling more control of our lives and our commerce, the financial requirements escalate. So, it seems there is a constant crisis for funding…at all levels of government. Their incestuous relationships and complex network of grants and mandates place an increasing financial burden on the taxpayers. When the bureaucrats and political class decide that additional funding is required, they claim that a crisis is imminent, and the funds are vital for averting a catastrophe.

 

There are two aspects of crisis that may not have so large of a domestic human component in the chain of causation..…attack by foreign entities and a natural or commercial disaster. Time and again our government’s response to a provocation or natural disruption has been too little, too late. Often when lives were saved, it was the heroic actions of individuals—some from the public sector and others just ordinary citizens—whose actions were the most helpful and effective. We may never know what involvement government had in the generating of the crises, if any, because of foreign policy, the inadequate construction and repair of levees, unrealistic environmental restrictions that limit the building of water-breaks and dams. The point is that people, local people, respond more quickly and effectively in many cases than does the government-controlled response agency. Does the memory of thousands of unused FEMA trailers for the Gulf Coast ring a bell? Many of those trailers were sources of breathing problems because the gaseous releases from the interiors….typical.

 

In every crisis for the nation, governments play an instrumental role. Sometimes government’s failure to act initiates the problem or makes it worse. On other occasions government’s response is inadequate or inappropriate and may exacerbate the problem. Finally some issues may be precipitated by government so as to assume more power and control over the population. In summary, big government and crisis appear to be synonymous. Friends, we have a crisis, and as Rahm Emanuel advises “we should not let a crisis go to waste.” Continue putting the heat on them, jump on your pony, Patriot, and let’s get control of this monstrosity.

 

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or      www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Channeling Nero

Posted: July 29, 2011 in Communications, Freedom, Media, Oppression, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the great myths of Roman times is the one that claims Nero fiddled while Rome was burning. The Great Fire of Rome occurred in 64 A.D., the tenth year of Nero’s reign, and many historians believe that Nero started the conflagration because he wanted more land for a new palace. Nero ascended to the throne when he was seventeen, and in many respects was a hedonistic tyrant who took great pleasure in torturing Christians for sport. It seems to me that, in many respects, our career politicians in the United States are channeling Nero. They have adopted many of his imperial attitudes while claiming to represent the people.

 

Nero’s insatiable appetite for constructing grand buildings as monuments to his greatness can be seen as a parallel to our present day imperial politicians. Every state capitol and our nation’s capitol seem to be swarming with cranes, concrete trucks and other evidences of the building trades. These new edifices are often named for recent stars on the political stage that become immortalized even when their careers may not warrant acclaim. The building frenzy represents more than merely recognizing colleagues. It is an unmistakable symbol of the growing power and influence of the government. Just like Nero our political elites erect buildings to house the too-powerful bureaucracy and to memorialize their over-rated lives.

 

The hostility that our governments at all levels often exhibit against the Christian faith can be considered a mild version of Nero’s barbarism. The legislative bodies and the courts are particularly aggressive in their attempts to limit overt Christian expression from the public square. While they couch their pronouncements in language that speaks of neutrality and openness, the actual implementation of the ordinances, laws and rulings overwhelmingly deny Christian speech the same levels of tolerance as those enjoyed by other faiths. There appears to be an “overcompensation” attitude at work among the political class. Certainly, Christianity was a favored practice of faith in the early years of the republic and enjoyed a prominent role in public discourse. Even if religious preferences have changed in the United States, those who claim Christianity as their beacon of hope and faith continue to represent the majority of citizens. Dismissing them and their professions of faith from the public square is morally, constitutionally and politically wrong and unwise.

 

Nero was the last Emperor of his era. His suicide at age 31 in 68 A.D. foretold the coming collapse of the Roman Empire by illustrating the decay that had consumed the leaders of the Republic. Nero’s obsession with debauchery in some way reflects the expectations of our present class of political leadership. They enjoy better than average incomes, numerous beneficial perquisites, preferred treatment from the public and few demands for responsible behavior. Many of our political or bureaucratic leaders fail to fully pay their taxes or comply with other laws … laws that if a normal citizen were to violate them would result in hefty fines or perhaps prison. The notion of an imperial government has drifted down the centuries from fallen Rome to a staggering America.    

 

All governments if left unchecked drift into tyranny. They cannot resist the temptation to control the citizens’ lives and limit their options. Nero advanced his tyrannical schemes through terror whereas the United States’ government has implemented its tyrannical agenda through kindness or compassion. By convincing the electorate that massive regulation and control is “for our own good,” the government has massively increased its power and severely limited our liberty. Even now, when the oppressive nature of Big Government has become readily apparent, many citizens embrace the development because they seek “security” from either terrorists or the marketplace. For some inexplicable reason they are willing to place their trust and their lives in the hands of a government that has demonstrated time and again that it is incompetent and unreliable.

 

As we wrote above, many historians believe Nero started the Great Fire of Rome in 64 A.D., and the mythology accuses him of fiddling as the city turned to cinders. Today, our politicians are fiddling around by proposing solutions that don’t solve anything such as cutting $3-4 trillion in spending over the next ten years while adding from $10 trillion to $15 trillion to the debt during that same time period. If $14.5 trillion in debt represents a critical mass, why wouldn’t $25 trillion be more devastating to our national fiscal health? They are fiddling as the nation burns, and to extend the metaphor further, their irresponsibility is what has caused the problem in the beginning. Our illustrious career politicians have ignited the flames and are diddling and fiddling as we burn. When the Spaniards attacked Rome, Nero killed himself at the tender age of 31, but our self-serving political leaders have chosen to kill our nation instead. Despite his many flaws and warped character, Nero’s solution was the more honorable one.

 

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Dear Congress

Posted: July 27, 2011 in Capitalism, Communications, Constitution, Economy, Finance, Freedom, Media, Oppression, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Taxes, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Majority Leader and Members of the House Republican Caucus,

You have been returned to the majority because most of the people of this nation have recognized that our country is facing a severe economic, social, fiscal and political crisis. The majority of voters in November of last year discerned that the Democrat majority under former-Speaker Pelosi had relinquished any semblance of fiscal responsibility that they may have ever held. In addition to their profligacy, their legislative agenda undermined the liberty of our citizens and generated more tension between the taxed and the beneficiaries. You were either elected or re-elected to stop the madness and to turn around from the disastrous direction that our United States of America clearly is headed.

We understand that many of you are career politicians who lust for office and the accolades that shower you. We understand that many of you may be honest and moral, but you appear to lack the finely honed principles that should guide you. You have taken an oath of office………

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

We have some questions for your consideration. Did you take the oath seriously? Do you understand the oath? How would you define “support and defend the Constitution?” Have you done so during your political career? Is a “good idea” necessarily Constitutional? Where do you personally draw the line about when to support the Constitution and when to ignore or dismiss it? Have you willingly violated your oath because the nation has needs that are not addressed by Article 1 Section 8? Or have you violated your oath because the Constitution has been abused by Congress for so long that it cannot be fixed….you know, that toothpaste back into the tube dilemma?

We know that Democrats lie, cheat and steal (votes) to move their agenda. We are grateful that, for the most part, you seek to fulfill your duties and obligations with honor and integrity. We want you, however, to be bold, courageous and principled….fight constantly and consistently for Constitutional principles and the restoration of personal liberty for all citizens of the United States. You appear to have resisted advancing ideas, strategies and legislation that would challenge this incremental march toward personal and economic tyranny because they might fail. I might add here that the incremental march has become a gallop. Why are you afraid to fail on a matter of principle? You should know that your vote to repeal the healthcare fiasco was appreciated, but we know that you have made no serious effort to defund it. In fact, during this debt ceiling/budget cuts kabuki dance, the President declared that his opening gambit for socialized medicine was “off the table,” and we hear nothing…….crickets from the House of Representatives. Many of the people who have supported you are sorely disappointed that your actions have been so feeble and so hesitant. We frankly do not care if Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi does not like you in fact we prefer it that way. Only a few of your members seem to understand that “business as usual” is no longer a viable option. The conditions in our country are no longer usual, they have become critical.

If you are reluctant to battle on principle because you may not have the votes, or the Senate will shoot it down, please note that when an underdog football team has a powerhouse on the schedule, they show up, get dressed and play the freakin’ game. They do not hide on the bus or refuse to leave the locker room. Their opponents may be faster, stronger and better coached, but once in a while the underdog wins. You cannot win if you refuse to get off the bus. I understand that expecting career politicians to be courageous could be classified as wishful thinking. I also understand that desiring you to stand for principles and Constitutional integrity may be asking for more than you are capable of delivering. I am aware that a principled Constitutional position may jeopardize your chances for re-election. Are you aware that some 235 years ago some men pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor? And you are worried about your image, your polling or your next election? If so, that is shameful. It is also a symptom of why we are in this current mess.

We heard you say many times during the last campaign that you had learned a lesson from the last time you had a majority, and the voters reacted with fury. I do not believe you. Learning a lesson should propel you to take bold action for the nation. Nibbling on the margins suggests that you are merely doing so for appearance’s sake. We suspect that many of you resent those of us who want smaller government, lower taxes and more personal freedom. Some of you believe that we are “kooks” or “wackos.” We love our country, and we do not want to watch anyone destroy it….or simply stand by while it disintegrates. Please be bold. Be courageous. Be principled, and follow the Constitution…or have the guts to amend it. We, and I, will be watching you. Remember your oath or affirmation. Our nation is at risk, and we cannot afford to have you piddling around any longer.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com or http://www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Dianne Feinstein: Against The Second Amendment

Posted: July 25, 2011 in Communications, Constitution, Dianne Feinstein, Freedom, Media, National Defense, Oppression, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Second Amendment Rights, Security, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dianne Feinstein: Against The Second Amendment ~ by Michael Alan Stollaire

Here we go again… yet another example of “Never fail to take advantage of a good crisis” in full color. We all know about the undeclared war on the Mexican border between the drug cartels and America, and of course, the most recent facts point out that it was the Obama Administration that was responsible for putting these weapons in their hands, right? So now, in a masterful spin-a-thon, Senator Dianne Feinstein has decided to leverage this into another scenario where she can put her disarming the American citizens… ummm… I mean “gun control” agenda into action.

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

Here is an excerpt from World Net Daily, which brings the facts and truth behind the matter to light:

“Mexican cartel violence along the border is the crisis. Gun control is the agenda.

Beginning in 2009 and continuing to this day, Obama, Janet Napolitano and even Hillary Clinton have claimed that guns purchased in gun shops and gun shows in the U.S. are fueling the civil war between the Mexican government and the drug cartels. Now we know that Obama’s Justice Department goosed the flow of guns south with an $80 million ($10 million from the ‘stimulus’) ATF operation. It was not a sting, but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even with the growing ‘Gunwalker’ revelations, the push for more gun control lives on.

Over the weekend, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story with the headline, ‘ATF data defy theory, tie U.S. gun flow to cartels.’

Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are cited in the article demanding restoration of the expired federal ban on ‘assault weapons.’ The senators base their demand on ATF reports that 70 percent of the 29,284 weapons recovered in cartel related crimes in Mexico and submitted to the U.S. government for tracing in 2009 and 2010 were ‘United States-sourced firearms.’

Given the ‘crisis’ of guns in the hands of the cartels (in a country with strict gun-control laws) partially caused by gunrunning by the U.S. government itself, it is beyond silly for Feinstein and Schumer to advocate more gun restrictions on U.S. citizens as the answer.”

“Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass.” ~ Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during World War II

The reality here is that far-left radicals like Feinstein are going out of their way to find any shred of “evidence” and “proof” that owning a weapon to protect your family and home is bad for America, when the diametric opposite is true ~ Germany and Japan did not invade America because they feared an armed citizenry.

“But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao… You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.” ~ The Beatles, “Revolution”

Remember, that most of the progressive socialists that have invaded the Democratic Party had long hair in the 1960s, sliding around in the mud at Woodstock, smoking marijuana and taking hits of acid. Obviously, that past activity taken its toll on their current thinking, as they seem to be acting like schizophrenics. Why were they marching in those protests? We seem to have forgotten that it was not just about getting out of the war in Vietnam. They also wanted to destroy the establishment via revolutionary tactics, like Che Guevara, and collapse the capitalist system of America, replacing it with a communist/socialist centralized state government ~ they thought China, Cuba and The Soviet Union were Utopian.

“If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair.” ~ Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Gun control is one of the many small facets of this plan to “fundamentally transform America” into a centralized statist government. I would suggest that everyone in this country wake up, and take a look at what’s happening around you with your eyes wide open. After you’ve been educated as to what’s going on, don’t complain. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

The far-left’s agenda is not one singular issue, but an intertwined project plan that has multiple elements, being rolled out just as a chess master has the entire match sketched out before the first move. Please realize that if you allow liberals to leverage incremental gradualism, in order to slowly but surely take your Constitutional rights away from you, that you will not understand you are snared until the day you wake up in a communist/socialist state. The majority of the foundation of these centralized statist regimes are put into place, after the citizenry is unarmed, and those that do not bend to the will of the oligarchy will be marched into “education centers” just like Stalin implemented.

Here is a concise list of evil dictators that executed this plan:

  1. Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany
  2. Joseph Stalin, The Soviet Union
  3. Chairman Mao, Communist China
  4. Fidel Castro, Communist Cuba
  5. Benito Mussolini, Fascist Italy
  6. Pol Pot, The Khmer Rouge

How much more convincing do you need? Fight now… a peaceful war of ideas and ideology, for your family, for your country and for future generations of Americans.

God bless you, your family and friends, and God Bless America!

Let’s get to work!

God Bless America and As Always…

Stay Strong,

~ Michael Stollaire

Original Post:

http://www.michaelstollaire.com

http://www.michael-stollaire.com

http://michaelstollaire.wordpress.com

SOURCE: World Net Daily ~ “Guns for Mexican Cartels”

Left Versus Right: Statistical Distributions Applied to Geopolitics

Posted: July 22, 2011 in Americana, Banks, Campaign Promises, Capitalism, China, Christianity, Communications, Constitution, Dianne Feinstein, Economy, Faith, Finance, Freedom, Freedom Talk Netcast, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Indocrination, Jimmy Z, Media, Military, National Defense, Oppression, Orwell, Politics, Pro Life, Quotations, Rand, Rants, Religion, Second Amendment Rights, Security, Taxes, Technology, Tyranny, Uncategorized, War
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Left Versus Right: Statistical Distributions Applied to Geopolitics

by Michael Stollaire

You hear time and time again that we are a center-right country, correct? So, I automagically remember my college statistics classes and the infamous “normal bell curve,” because we come to the conclusion that the average person in America has center-right geopolitical thinking.

However, I think we are approaching a different sample distribution, with a peak on the left and on the right, which is a mini version of what went on during The Civil War, and the civil rights riots in the 1960s, which paints a totally different picture of the average citizen’s political thinking, does it not? Doing the same Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), we have the same geopolitical/ideological average, indicating that America is center-right on the political spectrum; however, we see that America itself is transforming into a nation divided.

Normal Distribution and Probability Distributions ~ Defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

We’ve got some cognitive dissonance going on in everyone’s head, because the Liberal Socialists and the Constitutional Conservatives have radically different definitions of “right” and “wrong” and “abnormal” and “normal.” Therefore, all of us are disturbed, wondering why we’re upset at what’s going on in the country. All of “us” are saying to ourselves, that something is obviously wrong with “them.” This is a perverse form of brainwashing that has transpired since circa 1900, via the mass media, alternative media, new media, etc. Indeed, we might view the vast majority of the content on television, the radio, corporate controlled internet websites and so forth as an extrapolation of Joseph Goebbels and his “Big Lie” propaganda technique. The reality is that most Americans believe what is in the news, simply because it is in the news. This is my cue to quote The Gipper.

“Trust but VERIFY!” ~ Ronald Reagan

Cognitive Dissonance ~ Defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

If we allow this trend to continue, we will see the economic and geopolitical issues present in Greece and parts of The Middle East to invade our own shores. If you think this cannot happen in America, you have taken your liberty and freedom for granted, as it certainly can and will. There is no reason to panic, but there are plenty of reasons to stand together and fight for what you feel is correct. The Great American Experiment is about allowing men and women to govern themselves, whereas the statist progressives would have you believe that you are all little children that need to be taken care of, via regulation of every aspect of your lives. San Francisco’s removal of McDonalds Happy Meal toys is an example: Should America allow people like Nancy Pelosi to decide what food you eat? I think the answer is a definitive NO, as if we allow them to regulate our food intake, they will take even more steps towards a Nanny State paradigm. What’s next? Letting them tell you what clothes you will wear, and so forth?

Draw the line in the sand, and take your country back, before it is taken from you. If your freedom and liberty is lost, it will be lost forever. We The People… UNITED WE STAND!

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” ~ Ronald Reagan

God bless you, your family and friends, and God Bless America!

Let’s get to work!

God Bless America and As Always…

Stay Strong,

~ Michael Stollaire

Original Post:

http://www.michaelstollaire.com

http://www.michael-stollaire.com

http://michaelstollaire.wordpress.com