In the very off chance that you don't know the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, I'll give you a brief rundown.
A long time ago, before cars and iphones, there was a boy who lived in a small village who tended the sheep for his family. One day, bored and lonely, the boy yelled, "Wolf! Wolf!"
The townsfolk came running out to the field to save the boy from the carnivorous beast. But there was no wolf. The boy had lied. The townsfolk were annoyed.
The next week, the boy yelled, "Wolf!" again. Again the townspeople came running out to the field. But again the boy had lied. The people were angry.
The next week the boy did it again. Only half the townspeople came out this time, and they were angry again.
The next week the boy did it again. Only his family ran out to the field this time.
The next week he did it again. Only his mom came out to help him from the fictitious wolf.
The next week, an actual wolf showed up in the field. As it charged at, attacked, and drug the boy away, his screams of "Wolf! Wolf!" were ignored by all.
When Barack Obama became president, the word "racist" suddenly became the most used word in the English language. (Well maybe, like, second. To the word "like.")
Anytime someone criticized anything Obama said or did they were accused of being racist. If you didn't think a community organizer had the qualifications to be president; you were racist. If you didn't think Obamacare was a good idea; you were racist. If you didn't think the murder of four Americans was because of an Internet video; you were racist.
Racist...racist...racist.
It went from the obscure, to the main stream, to the surreal. Chris Matthews declared the words "Chicago" and "urban" to be racist. Multiply nouns of every size, shape, and definition suddenly became "racist." Words that had been used in a non-racist way for hundreds of years suddenly became "racist."
Now I went to a school in an inner city Pennsylvania town. I had friends of every race, creed, denomination, and disposition. Racism, to me, is one of the stupidest things on the planet. Judging someone based on a purely physical characteristic that they had nothing to do with (People don't choose what color they're born as. If so, I wouldn't be pasty white) is completely asanine. So to suddenly be called racist for my political beliefs, or hatred of Chicago style pizza (Seriously, toppings go on the OUTSIDE of the pizza. That's why they're toppings, and not innings) upset me. I was incredulous that believing the Constitution should be followed was racist. I was distraught that believing Marxism would only lead to tyranny was racist. I was angry that believing the death of Osama bin Laden should be credited more to the Navy Seals that actually did the killing than to a president who sat comfortably drinking bottled water on the other side of the world was racist.
When someone said my beliefs were racist, I reacted. I read the articles, listened to the newscasters. I didn't wanna be called racist, because I'm not racist.
Five years later....and the word "racist" has as much meaning to me as the word "wolf" did to everyone in that town. I saw a headline today declaring that criticism of President Obama has its roots in White Supremecy. I didn't even bother to read the article. The word "racist" has no effect for me anymore. And it has no effect anymore for millions of Americans who used to hate being called racist because they weren't. Now it's just a sad, pathetic exclamation for people who have no other ways to protect their sad, pathetic ideas. The boy who cried wolf was destroyed by his lie. And the credibility of the boys and girls who cry racist is being destroyed by their idiocy. So go ahead and call us racist. Because the more you do, the less people will pay attention to you.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Of Intolerance and Bravery
In the event that you live under a rock, a monumental and momentous event occurred a few days ago: an NBA player announced he was gay. Not being a die hard NBA fan, I had never heard of Jason Collins before two days ago, as I'm sure few did. He is a 34 year old free agent that has played for 6 different teams and is currently unsigned. Basically, he's a mediocre player who's playing days may have come to an end. Now I don't mean to treat his accomplishments lightly; anybody who plays professional sports is in a very low percentage of a very talented group. I just wish to paint the picture as adequately as I can. In over 700 games, he averaged 3 points and 3 rebounds a game. He was no superstar, to which everyone can agree.
Yet despite his obscurity as an athlete, once he announced that he was gay, he became instantly famous. His name is in every newspaper (or more likely nowadays, website), he's being talked about on all the news channels, and the social media world is exploding with his story. As the first professional athlete from the "Big 4" (football, baseball, hockey, and basketball) to announce he's gay, he is being hailed as a hero. Some are comparing him to Jackie Robinson. He even got a phone call from the president, who is proud of him. He is the new American hero; cited for his bravery, courage, and personal strength.
I'm certainly not going to denigrate Mr. Collins. I don't know the man and so won't speak about his personal character. By all accounts, he's a nice guy. And I would speak out against any vile or negative remarks made about him if that were poured upon him. But just as he doesn't deserve insults, he also doesn't deserve this effusive praise being heaped upon him. I don't know his personal reasons for saying he's gay, but I do know that he has become an instant superstar. He's probably received a few book deals by now, he's been invited for countless interviews, and he is being raised upon a pedestal. Was Jackie Robinson given that? Jackie Robinson was personally and publicly reviled; he received death threats in every town he played in. He was given hatred. Jason Collins is receiving very little, if any, of that. Does it take courage to become a public hero? Or to receive praise and compliments? How brave does one have to be to announce that they are gay in a society that openly approves and applauds the gay lifestyle? I doubt Mr. Collins was unaware of the fame his announcement would bring him, just as Jackie Robinson was aware of the infamy his decision would bring him. And predictably, any who refuse to applaud Mr. Collins' choice of bedmates are being verbally butchered as intolerant bigots. Chris Broussard may lose his job over it.
Yet there is another American, who this very day sits alone in an Iranian prison cell, possibly suffering from internal bleeding due to severe beatings he has gotten from the guards, simply because he refuses to denounce his Christian faith. Saeed Abedini is very far from his wife and children, treated worse than any animal, because of his religious beliefs and for no other reason. This man, an American citizen, rotting in solitary confinement because of his God given right. You see, when the U.S. Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers said the rights protected by it are God given. Which means that all people are given them...not just Americans. Other countries may not choose to recognize those rights, but all people are given them by God Himself. And so today, as Jason Collins is treated like a hero and his detractors villified as intolerant, Saeed Abedini is being tortured to death because he refuses to give up his God given right. And as President Obama is making speeches about and phone calls to Jason Collins, he is doing nothing for Saeed Abedini. So I ask you, what takes more bravery? Where does the true intolerance lie? Is it with the man praised for an announcement, or for the man dying for his faith with little fanfare far away from his home? Today, who is the real hero?
Yet despite his obscurity as an athlete, once he announced that he was gay, he became instantly famous. His name is in every newspaper (or more likely nowadays, website), he's being talked about on all the news channels, and the social media world is exploding with his story. As the first professional athlete from the "Big 4" (football, baseball, hockey, and basketball) to announce he's gay, he is being hailed as a hero. Some are comparing him to Jackie Robinson. He even got a phone call from the president, who is proud of him. He is the new American hero; cited for his bravery, courage, and personal strength.
I'm certainly not going to denigrate Mr. Collins. I don't know the man and so won't speak about his personal character. By all accounts, he's a nice guy. And I would speak out against any vile or negative remarks made about him if that were poured upon him. But just as he doesn't deserve insults, he also doesn't deserve this effusive praise being heaped upon him. I don't know his personal reasons for saying he's gay, but I do know that he has become an instant superstar. He's probably received a few book deals by now, he's been invited for countless interviews, and he is being raised upon a pedestal. Was Jackie Robinson given that? Jackie Robinson was personally and publicly reviled; he received death threats in every town he played in. He was given hatred. Jason Collins is receiving very little, if any, of that. Does it take courage to become a public hero? Or to receive praise and compliments? How brave does one have to be to announce that they are gay in a society that openly approves and applauds the gay lifestyle? I doubt Mr. Collins was unaware of the fame his announcement would bring him, just as Jackie Robinson was aware of the infamy his decision would bring him. And predictably, any who refuse to applaud Mr. Collins' choice of bedmates are being verbally butchered as intolerant bigots. Chris Broussard may lose his job over it.
Yet there is another American, who this very day sits alone in an Iranian prison cell, possibly suffering from internal bleeding due to severe beatings he has gotten from the guards, simply because he refuses to denounce his Christian faith. Saeed Abedini is very far from his wife and children, treated worse than any animal, because of his religious beliefs and for no other reason. This man, an American citizen, rotting in solitary confinement because of his God given right. You see, when the U.S. Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers said the rights protected by it are God given. Which means that all people are given them...not just Americans. Other countries may not choose to recognize those rights, but all people are given them by God Himself. And so today, as Jason Collins is treated like a hero and his detractors villified as intolerant, Saeed Abedini is being tortured to death because he refuses to give up his God given right. And as President Obama is making speeches about and phone calls to Jason Collins, he is doing nothing for Saeed Abedini. So I ask you, what takes more bravery? Where does the true intolerance lie? Is it with the man praised for an announcement, or for the man dying for his faith with little fanfare far away from his home? Today, who is the real hero?
Friday, March 22, 2013
AAP says Gay Marriage good for kids, but is it really?
The American Academy of Pediatrics made news this week by coming out in support of Gay Marriage, stating that it is fine for children to grow up in a home with a same sex couples. Their reasoning? "'On the basis of a review of extensive scientific literature.'" In other words, they found "scientific" literature that backed up their already formed belief and used that as proof that their belief is right. This is what passes for "science" nowadays.
But the "literature" they based their outcome on only took into account things like small children not caring who gives them food, as long as someone gives them food. And that seems to be pretty much common sense. But what about older children; teenagers; young adults? Those people still considered "children" yet developing adult tendencies based on their lifestyle. Did anyone actually bother to question adults who became fully grown as children of two same sex parents? Well I'm glad you asked, because someone did!
While most studies of children's well being inside same sex households focuses on young children, there are studies that have focused on the now adult children raised by same sex couples. And those studies conclude that:
"Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children...to be raised in an intact biological family presents clear advantages for children over other forms of parenting. In particular, the NFSS provides evidence that previous generations of social scientists were unable to gather: that children from intact, biological families also out-perform peers who were raised in homes of a parent who had same-sex relationships. Therefore, these two new studies reaffirm—and strengthen—the conviction that the gold standard for raising children is still the intact, biological family."
But of course, I could be doing exactly what I accused the AAP of doing: choosing a study purely because it validates my belief. Well, don't take my word that this study (actually two studies) is legit. Take Robert Oscar Lopez's. Mr. Lopez was raised by a lesbian couple, so he has firsthand knowledge of what it's like to be raised in a homosexual household.
Mr. Lopez described his childhood like this:
"To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A's.
Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.
My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.
Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays."
Mr. Lopez goes on to explain how he (along with the majority of children raised by homosexual couples) considered himself to be bisexual...yet in the gay community bisexuals are met with "a mixture of disgust and envy" and are even seen by some as a threat to the "gay narrative" since they can choose to be gay or straight. And so the children of gay couples grow up alienated and shunned from both the straight and gay communities...in essence making them total outcasts.
Mr. Lopez says that after his mother died he dropped out of college (where the LGBT community told him that he was lying by saying he was bisexual instead of gay) and became involved in the underground gay scene where he says "terrible things" happened to him.
Mr. Lopez's view of the aforementioned studies, which surely holds more weight than my own, is summed up like this: "Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they [children raised by homosexual couples] gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors."
Mr. Lopez believes these studies are important for the welfare of children being raised in homosexual households, as do I. Yet he also acknowledges that the "gay movement" is doing all it can to suppress such findings. And so today we hear about the AAP and any number of other groups coming out in support of gay marriage based on their own findings, but we never hear about the studies like these that form a different conclusion.
We say we all care about the safety of our children...but when it comes to gay marriage, our society seems to choose political correctness over sincere research into how it may actually affect them in the long term. I admit that true scientific research may indeed show that being raised by a gay couple doesn't affect kids any differently...but at this point we seem very far from true and honest research. Without an open discussion with scientific findings from both sides, we never will really know if we are condemning certain children to a life of misery. And isn't determining that far more important than personal beliefs or political correctness?
But the "literature" they based their outcome on only took into account things like small children not caring who gives them food, as long as someone gives them food. And that seems to be pretty much common sense. But what about older children; teenagers; young adults? Those people still considered "children" yet developing adult tendencies based on their lifestyle. Did anyone actually bother to question adults who became fully grown as children of two same sex parents? Well I'm glad you asked, because someone did!
While most studies of children's well being inside same sex households focuses on young children, there are studies that have focused on the now adult children raised by same sex couples. And those studies conclude that:
"Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children...to be raised in an intact biological family presents clear advantages for children over other forms of parenting. In particular, the NFSS provides evidence that previous generations of social scientists were unable to gather: that children from intact, biological families also out-perform peers who were raised in homes of a parent who had same-sex relationships. Therefore, these two new studies reaffirm—and strengthen—the conviction that the gold standard for raising children is still the intact, biological family."
But of course, I could be doing exactly what I accused the AAP of doing: choosing a study purely because it validates my belief. Well, don't take my word that this study (actually two studies) is legit. Take Robert Oscar Lopez's. Mr. Lopez was raised by a lesbian couple, so he has firsthand knowledge of what it's like to be raised in a homosexual household.
Mr. Lopez described his childhood like this:
"To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A's.
Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.
My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.
Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays."
Mr. Lopez goes on to explain how he (along with the majority of children raised by homosexual couples) considered himself to be bisexual...yet in the gay community bisexuals are met with "a mixture of disgust and envy" and are even seen by some as a threat to the "gay narrative" since they can choose to be gay or straight. And so the children of gay couples grow up alienated and shunned from both the straight and gay communities...in essence making them total outcasts.
Mr. Lopez says that after his mother died he dropped out of college (where the LGBT community told him that he was lying by saying he was bisexual instead of gay) and became involved in the underground gay scene where he says "terrible things" happened to him.
Mr. Lopez's view of the aforementioned studies, which surely holds more weight than my own, is summed up like this: "Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they [children raised by homosexual couples] gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors."
Mr. Lopez believes these studies are important for the welfare of children being raised in homosexual households, as do I. Yet he also acknowledges that the "gay movement" is doing all it can to suppress such findings. And so today we hear about the AAP and any number of other groups coming out in support of gay marriage based on their own findings, but we never hear about the studies like these that form a different conclusion.
We say we all care about the safety of our children...but when it comes to gay marriage, our society seems to choose political correctness over sincere research into how it may actually affect them in the long term. I admit that true scientific research may indeed show that being raised by a gay couple doesn't affect kids any differently...but at this point we seem very far from true and honest research. Without an open discussion with scientific findings from both sides, we never will really know if we are condemning certain children to a life of misery. And isn't determining that far more important than personal beliefs or political correctness?
Monday, March 11, 2013
Now We Know
As Senator Paul stood on the Senate floor for just under 13 hours, fighting to bring attention to the erosion of our rights as Americans, he was joined by fellow senators. But only a handful. 14 Republican senators stood behind, and with, Rand Paul as he tried to defend the Constitution. Only 1 Democrat senator did. 15. 15 (16 including Paul) out of 100 chose to go against their parties, president, and the status quo in order to try and make sure Americans retain their rights. That is a staggering number. Yet many of us have believed for a long while that most of our representatives in Congress are sell outs. Now we know who they are. Republican or Democrat, it does not matter. What matters is our Constitution which defends our Freedom. Either you are fighting for it, or you are fighting against it.
Those fighting for it include: Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).
The Blaze also reports that Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was in attendance and supported Paul’s filibuster by bringing the senator a thermos and an apple, a likely reference to “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” However, Kirk, who recently returned to the Senate after suffering a stroke, did not speak during the filibuster. The Blaze article also has a full list of the other 32 Republican senators who did not choose to join the filibuster.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was the only Democrat to support the filibuster, much to the chagrin of liberals who, whaddaya know, also don't want drones killing Americans without due process on U.S. soil. The ACLU and John Cusack were discouraged at the lack of Democrat support.
I think we all are a little discouraged that the men and women we elect to defend our rights are willing to so easily sell us down the proverbial river, but at least now we know who we can trust to stand up for us and who we can't. My advice: Don't ever vote for anyone not on that list again. Rand Paul's filibuster may not have achieved much, but it has exposed the dirty politicians from the (relatively) clean ones. Now we know who to trust. And as G.I. Joe taught me: knowing is half the battle.
(It should be noted that a number of representatives from the U.S. House also attended to support the filibuster, but I have yet to find a definitive list of who as of yet. If I do, I will update with it.)
UPDATE: In an op-ed Paul wrote for the Washington Post, he included the members of Congress who stood with him during his filibuster. Sixteen House Republicans showed up in the Senate to show solidarity. They are: Louis Gohmert (TX), Thomas Massie (KY), Justin Amash (MI), Ron DeSantis (FL), Doug LaMalfa (CA), Garland Barr (KY), Trey Radel (FL), Michael Burgess (TX), Jim Bridenstine (OK), Raul Labrador (ID), Keither Rothfus (PA), Paul Gosar (AZ), Steve Daines (MONTANA), Bill Huizenga (MI), Richard Hudson (NC), and David Schweikert (AZ). It should also be noted that Senator Angus King, an Independent from Maine, also stood on the floor in support of Paul.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Rand Paul - The Last American?
"Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans?"
That is the crux of what was an almost 13 hour filibuster by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul that began just before noon yesterday and ended well after midnight tonight. A rare "talking filibuster" by Paul held up the confirmation hearing of CIA head nominee John Brennan, but the filibuster had little to do with Brennan himself and everything to do with the frightening drone policy that is being implemented by the Obama Administration. Rand Paul asked a simple question that deserves a simple answer. Does the Executive Branch of our government have the right to kill Americans on American soil with drones, and if so, by what guidelines? Senator Paul was driven to hold up Senate proceedings until he was given an adequate answer to that simple question...and he may have done so well into tomorrow if not for the need of a bathroom break. (For the life of me I don't know how he made it nearly 13 hours without one!) His numerous requests for an answer to that simple question were all ignored or skirted by the President, Attorney General Eric Holder, and John Brennan. And so Paul held up the Senate to make it known that this is an important issue, maybe the most important of our time. Because if the Executive Branch can ignore the 5th Amendment, then it can ignore them all and we are two steps away from outright dictatorship.
Because of the length of the filibuster, the issue was brought to light. Infamously liberal groups like the ACLU and the Huffington Post agreed with Rand Paul. Yet, I fear that the answer to the question above is a deafening 'yes.' The majority of Americans are too complacent with our rights. As Greg Gutfeld said, President Obama has been gifted with the most distracted society since Ancient Rome (and we all know how that turned out). Instead of Bread and Circuses we have Beyonce and Siri. I believe history does repeat itself. And I'm also starting to believe Mark Twain was right in saying that nothing can be done to stop that; that man's nature only leads to the repeating of history's mistakes. Looking at today's America, how can one come to any other conclusion? Rand Paul may very well be the last American standing.
That is the crux of what was an almost 13 hour filibuster by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul that began just before noon yesterday and ended well after midnight tonight. A rare "talking filibuster" by Paul held up the confirmation hearing of CIA head nominee John Brennan, but the filibuster had little to do with Brennan himself and everything to do with the frightening drone policy that is being implemented by the Obama Administration. Rand Paul asked a simple question that deserves a simple answer. Does the Executive Branch of our government have the right to kill Americans on American soil with drones, and if so, by what guidelines? Senator Paul was driven to hold up Senate proceedings until he was given an adequate answer to that simple question...and he may have done so well into tomorrow if not for the need of a bathroom break. (For the life of me I don't know how he made it nearly 13 hours without one!) His numerous requests for an answer to that simple question were all ignored or skirted by the President, Attorney General Eric Holder, and John Brennan. And so Paul held up the Senate to make it known that this is an important issue, maybe the most important of our time. Because if the Executive Branch can ignore the 5th Amendment, then it can ignore them all and we are two steps away from outright dictatorship.
Because of the length of the filibuster, the issue was brought to light. Infamously liberal groups like the ACLU and the Huffington Post agreed with Rand Paul. Yet, I fear that the answer to the question above is a deafening 'yes.' The majority of Americans are too complacent with our rights. As Greg Gutfeld said, President Obama has been gifted with the most distracted society since Ancient Rome (and we all know how that turned out). Instead of Bread and Circuses we have Beyonce and Siri. I believe history does repeat itself. And I'm also starting to believe Mark Twain was right in saying that nothing can be done to stop that; that man's nature only leads to the repeating of history's mistakes. Looking at today's America, how can one come to any other conclusion? Rand Paul may very well be the last American standing.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Martial Law in the U.S.? All signs point to yes.
I haven't really written much here lately, because I haven't found much worth writing about. The news stays relatively the same: the United States is slipping into a Communistic third world dystopia. The Democrats are working hard to strip Americans of freedoms. The Republicans are feigning dismay while quietly pushing for the same. Only a handful of Congressmen and Women are actively trying to slow the decay.
But it's a pointless fight.
This country was predicated on the will of the people. It still is to a degree. But the majority of U.S. citizens are either too concerned with what celebrity wore what to what award show or too uninformed about what's going on within our government to understand just where we seem to be headed. For the small amount of citizens who are aware and concerned, there's not really anything new to them and not really anything that can be done to change it. So, I for one, have been concentrating on more personal matters. I believe a lot of us are these days. We're keeping our family and friends close and our supplies closer. It's funny how those who are actively preparing for any number of disasters are looked upon as fools...yet if/when it hits the fan, who's going to be the fool then?
As to where exactly we are headed, well I can only point to the signs. The signs like the Indefinite Detention clause in the NDAA (which Obama has given his word that he will never use...forgive me if I'm unswayed), that gives the government the legal right to arrest and hold any American citizen for an indefinite amount of time with no trial. That means they don't ever need proof to lock up citizens for life.
Then there's the Drone Strike controversy in which the White House has said that they have the legal right to kill American citizens with drones...again, without any proof needed. And more disturbing is that John Brennan, the man Obama wants to be the next head of the CIA, has refused to answer whether they could use drones on Americans on American soil.
And I'm sure by now most have heard about the Department of Homeland Security's purchase of 2 billion rounds of ammunition...a majority of that hollow point bullets that are NOT used for simple target practice because of their price. However, a new story is the $2 million worth of "No Hesitation" targets that the DHS has purchased for its target practice. Those include an old man, a pregnant woman, and a child. Now why on the good green earth would the government need targets of pregnant women and children!?? They've said it's because they need to prepare their new recruits for their new job. So apparently their new job will be shooting at American citizens, including women, children, and the elderly.
A year ago if you would have told me that the United States government was preparing for Martial Law, I would have laughed in your face. Now, all a thinking man can surmise is that that is exactly what they are preparing for. Why, when, or how is anybody's guess. But as of right now, all signs point directly to Martial Law. Only a fool would be unprepared.
But it's a pointless fight.
This country was predicated on the will of the people. It still is to a degree. But the majority of U.S. citizens are either too concerned with what celebrity wore what to what award show or too uninformed about what's going on within our government to understand just where we seem to be headed. For the small amount of citizens who are aware and concerned, there's not really anything new to them and not really anything that can be done to change it. So, I for one, have been concentrating on more personal matters. I believe a lot of us are these days. We're keeping our family and friends close and our supplies closer. It's funny how those who are actively preparing for any number of disasters are looked upon as fools...yet if/when it hits the fan, who's going to be the fool then?
As to where exactly we are headed, well I can only point to the signs. The signs like the Indefinite Detention clause in the NDAA (which Obama has given his word that he will never use...forgive me if I'm unswayed), that gives the government the legal right to arrest and hold any American citizen for an indefinite amount of time with no trial. That means they don't ever need proof to lock up citizens for life.
Then there's the Drone Strike controversy in which the White House has said that they have the legal right to kill American citizens with drones...again, without any proof needed. And more disturbing is that John Brennan, the man Obama wants to be the next head of the CIA, has refused to answer whether they could use drones on Americans on American soil.
And I'm sure by now most have heard about the Department of Homeland Security's purchase of 2 billion rounds of ammunition...a majority of that hollow point bullets that are NOT used for simple target practice because of their price. However, a new story is the $2 million worth of "No Hesitation" targets that the DHS has purchased for its target practice. Those include an old man, a pregnant woman, and a child. Now why on the good green earth would the government need targets of pregnant women and children!?? They've said it's because they need to prepare their new recruits for their new job. So apparently their new job will be shooting at American citizens, including women, children, and the elderly.
A year ago if you would have told me that the United States government was preparing for Martial Law, I would have laughed in your face. Now, all a thinking man can surmise is that that is exactly what they are preparing for. Why, when, or how is anybody's guess. But as of right now, all signs point directly to Martial Law. Only a fool would be unprepared.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
What the heck does THAT mean!? Obama's 23 Executive Orders on Gun Control raise some questions
Yesterday President Obama declared his 23 Executive Actions on Gun Control. Executive Orders are originally intended to be used to clarify and direct laws passed by Congress, not to bypass Congress by making laws (which is highly unconstitutional....and yet is sometimes done by the president) so these are not laws, just orders from the President to help make laws more effective.
However, I'm not gonna talk about each order and what it does or does not actually say...because frankly I don't speak in political-ese. Most seem transparent enough. Yet there are a few that cause giant question marks. The 23 Orders are as follow.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health
Again, most seem transparent and appropriate. Then there's numbers 14 and 16. Now what I'm about to say borders on the paranoid and I'm not entirely sure I'm not just being paranoid. (Isn't it interesting how Obama is doing things so crazy that talking about them makes you feel crazy?? I have a friend who posted a lot of Obama information on his Facebook page before the election, and he told me that he was called a conspiracy nut by at least 3 people...even though what he said was well documented as true if you did a little research. So at least I know I'm not the only one.)
Number 14 directs the Centers for Disease Control...yes, the CDC...to research causes and prevention of gun violence. Now why on the good planet Earth would that job be given to the CDC??? The CDC, in case you happen to be Patrick Star, is the federal agency designed to protect and promote public health and saftey in the United States. Mostly they focus on infectious diseases. Now I suppose you could say that being shot is unhealthy and therefore the CDC could be in charge of trying to keep people from getting shot...however that seems like a stretch. Now this may just be paranoia because I'm in the middle of a Fringe marathon, but somehow it just doesn't make sense that this research should be the CDC's jurisdiction. So why have them do it? I think we may have gotten our answer to that today. Today Obama asked Congress for $10 million dollars to be allocated to the CDC for this "research." That's a lot of research. Now I don't know how much it takes to figure out if people seeing violent images repeatedly has anything to do with violence...but I'm pretty sure $10 mil is overkill. (This is why our country is broke, btw.) So why the hell does Obama want the CDC to have this money then?? Now I have no idea what secret projects the government works on. I'm not naive enough to believe that governments don't work on secret initiatives that may be, well, nefarious may be the right word. I'm also not educated enough to know just what those projects are, so I won't posit something just for the heck of it. It just reminds me of the part in 'Independence Day' where the old guy responds to the question of how does the government pay for something like an Area 51 by saying "you don't really think it costs $1,000 for a hammer, $10,000 for a toilet seat, do you?". Makes you wonder what the CDC is really up to, doesn't it? Wonder if it has anything to do with those FEMA camps I keep hearing about.
The other order that stood out as unusual is the 16th. Now just what the hell does that mean!? I understand that it, along with the 17th have to do with questioning and reporting people who may have violent tendencies and who owns guns, clarifying that doctor-patient confidentiality doesn't prohibit doctors from asking (or telling) about gun ownership. But....why the hell is it there in the first place?? I mean, why does a doctor need to know if their patient owns a gun? I understand that they could then report someone that they feel is unstable...but what I don't get is how a doctor is going to find out if a person owns a gun or not. Because here in America we like a little phrase "none of your damn business" and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Unless.....what if in the future, when Obamacare is the rule of the land and doctors are basically employees of the government, that doctors must ask that question. And what if, just what if, a patient who refuses to answer is withheld treatment until they disclose whether they own a gun or not?? Now maybe this is just my wild imagination running course, but I really see no other reason for that order. Doctors have no business asking personal questions that do not pertain to medical issues...and unless I'm eating the lead bullets daily which is giving me lead poisoning...doctors have no business asking me about what I own. That seems so basic and simple that it causes Order 16 to stand out like a 30 year old at a Justin Beiber concert. Like I said, most of these are transparent enough to not raise any eyebrows, but then those two seem to make such little sense that it makes me, at least, wonder.
However, I'm not gonna talk about each order and what it does or does not actually say...because frankly I don't speak in political-ese. Most seem transparent enough. Yet there are a few that cause giant question marks. The 23 Orders are as follow.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health
Again, most seem transparent and appropriate. Then there's numbers 14 and 16. Now what I'm about to say borders on the paranoid and I'm not entirely sure I'm not just being paranoid. (Isn't it interesting how Obama is doing things so crazy that talking about them makes you feel crazy?? I have a friend who posted a lot of Obama information on his Facebook page before the election, and he told me that he was called a conspiracy nut by at least 3 people...even though what he said was well documented as true if you did a little research. So at least I know I'm not the only one.)
Number 14 directs the Centers for Disease Control...yes, the CDC...to research causes and prevention of gun violence. Now why on the good planet Earth would that job be given to the CDC??? The CDC, in case you happen to be Patrick Star, is the federal agency designed to protect and promote public health and saftey in the United States. Mostly they focus on infectious diseases. Now I suppose you could say that being shot is unhealthy and therefore the CDC could be in charge of trying to keep people from getting shot...however that seems like a stretch. Now this may just be paranoia because I'm in the middle of a Fringe marathon, but somehow it just doesn't make sense that this research should be the CDC's jurisdiction. So why have them do it? I think we may have gotten our answer to that today. Today Obama asked Congress for $10 million dollars to be allocated to the CDC for this "research." That's a lot of research. Now I don't know how much it takes to figure out if people seeing violent images repeatedly has anything to do with violence...but I'm pretty sure $10 mil is overkill. (This is why our country is broke, btw.) So why the hell does Obama want the CDC to have this money then?? Now I have no idea what secret projects the government works on. I'm not naive enough to believe that governments don't work on secret initiatives that may be, well, nefarious may be the right word. I'm also not educated enough to know just what those projects are, so I won't posit something just for the heck of it. It just reminds me of the part in 'Independence Day' where the old guy responds to the question of how does the government pay for something like an Area 51 by saying "you don't really think it costs $1,000 for a hammer, $10,000 for a toilet seat, do you?". Makes you wonder what the CDC is really up to, doesn't it? Wonder if it has anything to do with those FEMA camps I keep hearing about.
The other order that stood out as unusual is the 16th. Now just what the hell does that mean!? I understand that it, along with the 17th have to do with questioning and reporting people who may have violent tendencies and who owns guns, clarifying that doctor-patient confidentiality doesn't prohibit doctors from asking (or telling) about gun ownership. But....why the hell is it there in the first place?? I mean, why does a doctor need to know if their patient owns a gun? I understand that they could then report someone that they feel is unstable...but what I don't get is how a doctor is going to find out if a person owns a gun or not. Because here in America we like a little phrase "none of your damn business" and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Unless.....what if in the future, when Obamacare is the rule of the land and doctors are basically employees of the government, that doctors must ask that question. And what if, just what if, a patient who refuses to answer is withheld treatment until they disclose whether they own a gun or not?? Now maybe this is just my wild imagination running course, but I really see no other reason for that order. Doctors have no business asking personal questions that do not pertain to medical issues...and unless I'm eating the lead bullets daily which is giving me lead poisoning...doctors have no business asking me about what I own. That seems so basic and simple that it causes Order 16 to stand out like a 30 year old at a Justin Beiber concert. Like I said, most of these are transparent enough to not raise any eyebrows, but then those two seem to make such little sense that it makes me, at least, wonder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)