January 21, 2013

HISTORY LESSON regarding the 2nd Amendment

Gun Control? Do we seriously believe, as a country, that gun control will solve the problems we have been recently having with "mass shootings"?  Do we really acknowledge, as a whole, that - if these people did not have guns of a certain type- they would not have done harm?  Moreover, do we concede that, by alleviating all uncontrolled access to guns, the nation (as a whole) would be better off?  If the answer to that question or the previous one is "yes" then maybe we need to do something about it.  But first, let's discuss some of the facts so that we all are working from the same sheet of music.  As previously acknowledged, I am about as progressive as a water-driven milling stone; I concede that.  However, having said that, I am a big fan of change for the better.  And, if the solution to the gun violence problem is gun related - maybe we should limit access to them; though outright elimination is unthinkable.

Let's do some history first, so that we understand why the 2nd amendment is in the constitution, why it means that ALL citizens have the right to bear arms and why eliminating guns is not now, nor will ever be a possibility.  Here it is, in it's entirety:

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.

It is so simple a concept to grasp that the writers kept it short.  No glowering verbiage, no symbolism no allusion - it means exactly what it says.  And yet, for the past 50 years, opponents of the idea it represents have taken to picking it's simplicity apart - attempting to dismantle it.  Keep in mind that this was all written in 1787 and ratified in 1791, within the bounds of the Bill of Rights; attached to the Constitution.  There are two statements being made in the amendment: 1) a well regulated militia is necessary for states and, 2) the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Why?  Why would these two statements have been made?  The answers are breathtakingly simple:  The war was over, the country was broke, the national government was being created, individual states were creating their constitutions and everyone was worried that the federal government was going to set itself up as a monarchy.  So, everything was being written to assuage the fears of citizens and states that they were trading one monarchy for another.  Some states, like South Carolina, gave every indication that they were - in fact - doing just that and states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania moved in a knee-jerk reaction to offset the fear.  Go research "State Constitutions 1780s" and see for yourself.  The fear that the federal government might then or at a later date set up a national military force to rule the country was very real and moreover, the fear that the National Government - in concert with the states, might disarm the republic then or in the future was of major concern to the citizens.  Read the literature, read the meeting minutes, read the original constitutions - it's all there.

So, when it is RESEARCHED, not just read, the debate about the 2nd amendment's application as a "state's rights" or an "Individual's right" is a complete moot point, as is seen in the high court's decisions (District of Columbia et al. vs. Heller).  This is just the most recent, but it is not at all inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has found since the 1950's.  They acknowledge that the States have the right and the responsibility to maintain a militia for their defense AND that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.  Further legislation, in concert with the 10th and 14th amendments have dictated that the right of "control" falls to the states, such that it does not infringe upon the stated Individual right (i.e. removing weapons from homes, insisting that the weapons be rendered useless, limiting the weapons to archaic types).  So this is why Banning all handguns will never occur, nor should it, for we have seen only strife in the wake of national weapons bans (do some research).

Now, here's a little anecdotal evidence to support the belief that a well armed (regulated) militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  Ever wonder why the U.S. has never been a ground offensive by a foreign government on our own soil? Ok, for you history buffs out there - I concede Japan's incursion into the Aleutians, but does that really count - there was a population of less than 10?   Anyway, Germany and Japan both held the same fantasy of attacking Washington D.C., however each acknowledged the reality.  Interrogations of the Japanese leadership, included in the Prange Files (MacAurthur Historian) indicated that the Japanese belief was that the American citizens were as well armed as their army and 100 times larger.  The Japanese didn't mind attacking us from the sea or air if they could, but they did not want to engage the "MILITIA".  The same sentiment was shared by the remaining German leadership that was interrogated at the conclusion of the war.  It's funny actually, an unnamed German Intelligence Officer (believed to be Wilfried Karl Strik-Strikfeldt) who infiltrated and operated within a variety of Soviet groups  told his Western interrogators that, (and I paraphrase), the very thing that protected the American mainland is what made their (USSR) and my (Germany) homelands so vulnerable to attack - armed citizens."

For those "scholars" and "historians" that claim the United States was well-insulated against ground offensives via the Axis powers due to it's great distance from their bases of power, I suggest:  The Axis power's bases of operations were no further from us than we were from them and yet - we managed to attack them regularly.  No, methinks the answer is obvious and that is after only citing one example; imagine how compelling the "armed militia" argument could be if there were many examples...  Remind me, how many times have we landed troops in other countries?  And how many times have other countries landed troops here?  Compare and contrast - discuss amongst yourselves; thus ends part one:  History Lesson.

March 1, 2012

Media Matters cares not for the truth - only "The Message"-  You know, I about as liberal as a cat loves water; that cannot be disputed.  However, those of you who have taken the time to read and comprehend what I editorialize about know that I am not one of the dreaded "NEO-CONS" that the left-wing media uses synonymously with the term "Boogeyman".  No - I'm neither.  I could just as easily be called a Reagan conservative as I could a JFK liberal.  I lean a little to the left, sway a tad to the right and mostly roll my way right down the middle.  I hate political labels.  No matter how many caveats you try to throw in after saying, "I'm a ...." people invariably form an opinion the moment you say the word that comes after, "I'm a _____".   Sometimes I like to confuse people by saying, "Scientist", "Physicist", "Engineer", "Constitutionalist", "Anti-anarchist" or my favorite - "Logical Thinker."  That one more often than not, leads the liberals in the crowd to say, "Oh - you're a Republican."  That is something that I have always wondered about, why do the liberals believe that logic is only in the camp of the Republicans?  Is it they who then, in turn, hold sway over the application of emotion?  Can it be so black & white that neither camp can apply both?  Is this a case of quantum uncertainty where Republicans and Democrats alike can neither see logic and employ emotion at the same time without the fabric of the universe unzipping itself into a new Big Bang?  So, being the ever-faithful researcher I am, I made a foray into the heart of the liberal left and visited Media Matters for America (MMFA). 

I went to MMFA and began reading their home page.  Ok, at first glance, it appears to simply be an anti-FOX News outlet, I must be missing something.  So I create an account, like I have done at almost every media outlet I have ever been to so that I can read their Terms of Use Agreement (TOU).  I was heartened when I read the words:

"We are committed to providing a forum where anyone, from anywhere on the political spectrum, can address and respond to the work we do. We request that your posts be relevant to the topic at hand and respectful of others. Media Matters reserves the right to remove comments, topics and threads that are hateful, derogatory, trolling, irrelevant to the conversation, or in violation of copyrights."  

So far so good - it looks like they actually are inviting people to have a little repartee on the issues and that's just what I want to do.  I want to engage some of these folks so I can see if they employ logic or emotion from the start.  Moreover, I want to see if they ever make the transition to logic (or emotion) depending upon the direction they aim to in the beginning.  But then there is the next paragraph...  The wording seems vaguely sinister:

"Users who disrupt the forums or violate the terms of use will be banned from participating in our forums. Users agree that they will not create alternative identities or other means to rejoin the forums if they are banned."

"Administrative decisions to remove posts or ban users are final."

So there appears to be a very subjective level of scrutiny that is going to be applied; I guess.  I snipped out the section regarding other user's rights to "flag" comments that need to be brought to the moderator's attention - it was irrelevant to the discussion.  After than ominous line about the finality of the administrative decisions comes a whole "Dos and Don'ts" section:

"DO express your opinion as it relates to the item under discussion.

DO respect others' opinions. We expect posters from all parts of the political spectrum here. Please express your opinion without insulting other posters.

DO ask questions of one another.

DO flag posts that you think violate the terms of use outlined here. Media Matters reviews all flagged posts.

DON'T post the complete text of an article. Rather, post one or two paragraphs and a link to the complete story. It is helpful to other posters if you explain why this article is relevant to the topic at hand. Posts containing complete articles will be removed.

DON'T write an otherwise thoughtful post and then close it with insults or profanity. Your post will be removed. Repeat violators will be banned.

DON'T post here if your sole purpose is to start a flame war. Arguments and debates are fine; obscenity, name-calling, and trolling are not. Violators will be banned.

DON'T take another person's comments personally. Have a thick skin and ignore posters who insist on trolling, obscenities, and name-calling."

These will become important in a bit, so I expect you to memorize them now...  Just kidding.  I believed that, given all of the terms & conditions, I would be able to post there (successfully) without fear of banning.  So I found a non-anti-Fox News article (or so I thought) and read it.  The Roots of Economic Denialism was the article.  After reading it I was struck by a few facts in error, but overall I was concerned with the tone of the article.  The first line sort of set that tone when it said, "As evidence mounts that the U.S. economy is improving, President Obama's detractors in the conservative media have been reduced to fits of denial."  "Fits?" - really?  The next sentence clearly communicated the fact that this article was going to be an editorial and not actual journalistic new reporting: "That the economy is improving is not in question."  And, as evidence, it linked itself to another MMFA article.  The reference (evidence) article was actually a video of Economist Dean Baker telling (FOX News') Sean Hannity that his concern about a non-recovering economy was "silly nonsense."  Somehow, MMFA seems to always find a way to beat on FOX News.  It's a little paranoid from my perspective.

Just the fact that a MMFA writer linked something to other MMFA supplied "evidence" is "bad form" enough, but I happen to know a thing or two about their Expert Economist and his connection to the Social Democratic Society, the Open Society, MMFA and the "Progressive cause".  Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.  Prior to that he was a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.   Liberal "this" and progressive "that" are stamped all over his policy, background and character.  He espouses socialist ideals, supports their cause and associates with socialists on a daily basis.  He also works for (consults for) the NY Times (NYT), the Washington Post (WP) and the American Prospect (a purely liberal publication).  For those of you who have paid attention the NYT and WP are both embroiled in the MMFA conspiracy disclosure.  So why in the world would the author of the article use the economist's video as proof of the veracity of his claims?  We'll see a little later.  But - you see, this is exactly why the conservatives discount everything that comes out of MMFA, the Open Society and the Progressive Movement in general - they absolutely stink at research and making their point utilizing unbiased sources.  I decided to post the following:

Mr. Holden - As a "JFK Democrat" I would like to point out that your article is pure editorial and lacks the required journalistic effort required to make it "news". The only case that you made was that you disagree with Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris.  To say that those two guys speak for Republicans is to say that Rachel Maddow and Whoopi Goldberg speak for the Democrats!  The roots of economic denialism are the very things that your "expert" economist was involved in throughout 1996-1998.  He tried to disprove the Boskin Commission report, a nearly universally accepted by economists report that showed how our economy was being measured improperly.  His clearly socialist ideals were as evident then as they are now.  There is your problem: Democrats do not want to be socialists - so stop using socialists to (not) make your point.

The Moderators did not post that one - so I tried again:

I suspect that Media Matters won't post this reply either, so I'm just going to say what's in my heart and my mind. The "economy" is not improving by any measurement of the common man - such as me. It is absolute nonsense to say that the economic conditions are improving when Medicare/Medicaid rolls are at their all time highest, meaning more people have fallen off the end of unemployment than are actually on it and unemployment itself is at 9%. Milk, bread, rice and grains are all twice as expensive as they were in 2008, yet they are not included in the "inflation calculation" and neither is fuel or energy. The price of everything has continued to climb, except for housing and wages. That is not, in any form, a definition of "recovery". JFK & FDR are rolling over in their graves watching us lemmings running off the cliff trying to justify what our leaders have done to us. We are pathetic.

Do you seriously believe what you are saying? GM was forced to sell off Suzuki and is now partially owned by the US and Canadian Governments and a small interest is also held by the AFL/CIO.  Chrysler is now owned by Fiat and Cerberus Capital Management and the governments of the US and Canada. Both companies have paid back only 25% of the money they borrowed and they did it with other money they borrowed at a low interest rate, FROM US TAXPAYERS!  Does that not meet the criteria for "irreparably changed" to you? The unions got a sweetheart deal and the issue of entitlement spending was just kicked down the road to a later date. Their creditors got 10 cents on the dollar and the American public is only going to get back ( at most) 30% of what they gave them. Dealerships (Small Businesses) were forcibly shut down and many Tier II & III suppliers went bankrupt; all to save GM & Chrysler.  I would say that Mitt was more right than he was wrong and given the facts of the case, you can only disagree by burying your head in the sand.

The Moderators did not post that one - so she tried again:

I consider myself a conservative democrat and I find the rhetoric here appalling. I am embarrassed to admit that the saying, "want to know how to confuse a liberal? Give them the facts" makes sense to me now. None of you support your position at all. Nothing of a factual basis is ever said in any of these rebuttals and I'm stunned by your steadfast adherence to one another's position... Completely unsupported. It's like faith - the very thing you are railing against.

The Moderators did not post that one - so she tried again:

I do not know how you define the word "recovery" but I do not define it as: the price of everything going up, the price of housing going down, wages going down, milk/bread & eggs prices skyrocketing. Add to it the fact that inflation is only being held down because commodity, staple goods, fuel and energy cost are removed from the formula. Furthermore, reported unemployment numbers are only NEW CLAIMS - not actual unemployed numbers. Medicare/Medicaid rolls are at an all time high because people keep falling off the end of unemployment and onto welfare. The unemployment numbers were remaining relatively fixed because employers were running out of people to get rid of and those new claims were coming due to those businesses finally closing shop! Does this sound like a recovery to any of you? Seriously?

There is only deafening silence ringing in my ears in reply.   So - we are back to the earlier question, "Why in the world would the author of the article use the economist's video as proof of the veracity of his claims?"  It's simple when you look at all of the other reporting on the website.  From the titles to the dialog, the soundbites to the little bits of phrase splattered through out.  The Truth is unimportant when it comes from a conservative agenda.  The message from the liberal agenda is all they care about.  Don't believe me?  Check it out for yourself!  Below, find the words of their mission statement:

 

I suppose that we'll have to figure out how they define "Misinformation"...  From where I sit, it must mean, "counter to our message."  This editorial, my friends, should explain why I seem so conservative in their eyes; I gave only the facts and left the emotion at the door.  I guess I may have answered the very question I started with...  I fear the saying Mrs. Merl quoted might be true after all. 

Feb 29, 2012

Here is a quote that is unattributed to any author, but it is one that is widely used by the Dali Lama and anti-war protestors:  "War never solves anything."  -  Well, without going on at length, it did solve: Communism, Fascism and Nazism...  It also appears to have solved Genocide in the Balkans; at least for the past 15 years.  Do not misunderstand me, like Herodotus I believe that, "No one is so foolish as to prefer war to peace: in peace children bury their fathers, while in war fathers bury their children." But, the fact remains - war is a necessary evil when all else fails.  But therein lies the problem, for in the wisdom of Edmund Burke, "All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing."  We are, in fact, watching the forces of "Evil" running rampant in the world right now and there are a lot of good people doing absolutely nothing. 

I recently was sent the following quote by a reader:  "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." - Thomas Jefferson    It is actually a quote that should be attributed to President Ford, in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.  However, having said that - does it really matter who said it?  Though it is not a cautionary tale from one of our founding fathers, it is still very much true. 

CBS News is not very good at concealing their allegiances or their BIAS- Feb 28, 2012

I spent a good deal of time there today, reading through their website, and it is more than apparent that they are big fans of the Progressive agenda, Barack Obama, George Soros and anyone else that furthers the liberal philosophy.  I know - this is not shocking news to any of you, but in a continuing effort to expose the truth to the masses, I think it is imperative that everyone be exposed to the tactics of the progressive movement - laid naked for all to see.  How can we expect the public to recognize the subterfuge and shenanigans if they don't know what they are looking for!  Right?

So here is the link to where I started:  Bill Maher  It is a short article which, on it's face, appears to be rather uninteresting...  Until the end.  And I quote: "Still, Maher's donation is big news for Priorities USA Action -- the group raised only about $59,000 in January. Meanwhile, the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future and the pro-Newt Gingrich group Winning Our Future raised a combined $17 million last month."  Holy smoke!  That really sounds like the Republican Super Pacs are absolutely giving the pro-Obama Super Pacs a pasting!  It almost sounds like someone is trying to "buy" the race. 

Problem #1 - The President wasn't going to take any Super Pac money.  That didn't change until February, so it's no surprise that there was little (if any) money raised in this year.

Problem #2 - The President is not running in a race yet and Romney & Gingrich are; they are competitors.  They need money to run the race.

Problem #3 - {This is the sneaky one} The article combined the two OPPOSING Super Pac's money, making it sound like that $17M was going to compete with the $59K.  In reality, we all know that the balance of the $17M is going to dissolve in the race between Mitt & Newt, having no role whatsoever in the battle against their boy, Barack.

Ok - so there is tactic number one:  Adjust the details so that everything appears to be factual and leave out any details that actually create facts!

So, we follow the link at the bottom of the page - the one that reads: "Meet the biggest donors of the 2012 campaign"  When you click the link on the page you wind up on page 6 for some reason instead of page 1.  I corrected on my link.  I do not know why they would want you to miss the whole group of super donors! 

Ok, we see that the first four donors (that CBS was shuttling you past) are all conservative.  When reading the first four bios, you are sort of struck by just how arrogant these guys are and how they seem to be on a "mission" to do this or that.  One is staunchly Christian, one is staunchly small government, one is anti-Obama and the other is just pro-himself - rich and {purportedly} affecting change because he can and, oh yeah - pro-israel.  CBS really paints these guys on an ugly textured canvas.  Then we get to Jeffrey Katzenberg, left-wing supporter and all-around great guy.  Here is a direct quote that explains why his bio was the first one CBS wanted you to see:

 "Film producer Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation, last year gave $2 million to Priorities USA Action - the super PAC that President Obama recently (and reluctantly) embraced. Mr. Obama's decision to give his blessing to the super PAC, after previously opposing such outside spending groups, is attributable in part to the fact that it was having trouble continuing to attract deep-pocketed donors like Katzenberg; in January, the organization raised just $59,000."

Do you see it?  Not only did they throw in the "reluctantly" exclusion - they went on to explain why he was forced to start accepting the money!  The rest of the bio hardly even mentions poor Jeff.  It mentions him, but then goes on to name drop (Spielberg) and hint at a {{possible}} donation by Haim Saban - another pro-Israel, Israeli.  The Katenberg bio was simply a vehicle for the Obama support piece highlighted above.  Next, head spooky guy George Soros.

The whole story here is just...  Off.  First, the idea that Soros was allowed to describe himself for the article is weird.  He claims that he is, "a prominent international supporter of democratic ideals and causes for more than 30 years."  Yet in every venue he's meddled in the world, he demonstrates that he pursues purely socialist progressive ideals.  "Democracy" is a truth stretched to unrecoverable proportions. 

Moving along, he spent $23M in 2004 to keep Bush out of a second term - FAILED  Apparently he had trouble making the case that Bush was a threat to world peace.  In 2008 he contributed $5M to Obama to get him elected - SUCCESS  Apparently he did that to Obama PACs, since giving it directly to his campaign would have been illegal.  But now, Mr. Spooky is sitting on the sidelines - seeing the 2012 elections as "less dire" according to inside sources.  The New Yorker piece that this article was written from can be found here:  Where's George?  The CBS piece claims that George is staying out of it because, "... he is concerned about the influence of shadowy money in politics that super PACs represent" and in part, "because he doesn't see much difference between Obama and {snip} Mitt Romney, the likely opponent."  They also say that he (Soros) has been "slightly disappointed" with Barack, but they failed to say why.  The New Yorker wasn't shy about saying why - and I quote, "...he has been stung by the way the White House has kept him at arm’s length. Despite the financial support he gave Obama in 2008, Soros has not had the opportunity to meet personally with the President in the White House since Obama was elected. Obama met with Soros privately once in New York, when they were both in town for an international summit, but the rendezvous had a back-door aura."  Why do you think CBS would have left that out?

The New Yorker piece goes on, at length, to portray Soros as a philanthropist - working diligently to stabilize the Euro and usher in democracy in Burma.  Neither article mention the man's history since 1979 of messing around in world politics, assisting socialism to proliferate, reducing the economies of countries (Thailand, Malaysia & the U.K.), rampant profiteering and his conviction of insider-trading.  No - they missed those parts.  Let's ignore all that for a second and look at just how the guy has made his money: short-selling currencies throughout the world.  In essence, he bets that the value of a country's currency is going to decrease - then he makes money when it does.  In no less than 11 cases, countries have accused him of being the reason the currency began to devalue!  I realize that an accusation is not a conviction - but some of the world's smartest economists (Paul Krugman for one) have wondered aloud if Soros has not triggered events in world currency by moving money around so obviously that it could only be considered intentional.  His "Reflexivity" theory in and of itself is an experiment into the goings on of perturbation in financial and speculation markets.  Basically, bet that the static water in the pool is going to ripple - then throw a rock into it!  Collect your money and run before anyone realizes who threw the rock.  But I digress - this is not meant to be a George Soros piece.

So, George is sitting it out on the sidelines and poor old Barack is hurting without his money - That's the message we're getting.  If only there was a way to influence the election without actually having to pay money to the campaign...  Well- how about if we influence the press?!!  Doesn't he run/own/operate the Open Society?  Yea - there's how he's funneling money to the election without the "stink" of influence on it...  CBS was also named in the Media Matters scandal, along with many of the other broadcast news agencies and the largest print media outlets.  Kind of like this article - they all do the bidding of the Progressive movement, of which he is a major player.

The rest of the "Notables" in CBS's apologetics article were all republican and they said very little about them.  Clearly that last page was "phoned in" as the function of their article was complete at the end of the Soros plug - I mean page.

So there was tactic two:  Create an illusion of disinterest to get people watching what you are doing in public, that way they miss what you do secretively.

And tactic three:  Create a myth (lack of funding to the candidate Obama) that rouses the emotions of your base - watch them come running. 

 

02/24/2012 - OIL PRICES SKYROCKETING and the powers that be are using it as a tool - It concerns me that Nancy Pelosi & Barack Obama are consistently blaming Wall Street for the rise in oil prices and I'd like to take a few moments to clarify what is actually going on. We have discussed this before; allow me to direct you to the article where it was explained prior. GO HERE I would add to it now, if I were the president. I would say to the Insurers, the bonding agents, the traders and the speculators that, "I - the President of the United States, personally guarantee the safety of all oil coming through the Straights of Hormuz, out through the Gulf and back to the United States. I rely on the U.S. 5th fleet to protect it." Now, having said that - I would insist that the aforementioned groups currently driving the price of oil up - bring it down.  I realize that this is a capitalist society which allows those groups to make as much as the market will bear - using any tactic they can get away with...  But I also understand that, as the President, it is in my power to address an issue that is crushing my country's economy.  That economic suffocation that is occurring would inspire me to do something to take the excuses away from the perceived profiteers so that the American public can see if there is a real concern or if this is a purely profit-taking maneuver on the part of those who stand to make the most.  Mahmoud Ineedajihad is clearly making money with this current strategy and it appears that, as long as there is no outbreak of Iran into the Straights, so is everyone else - aside from the American citizens.  To be completely honest with you, I would probably have this conversation with the "powers that be" behind the scenes and do this all very quietly.  That way the price would begin to fall and Mahmoud's threats would appear as impotent as they actually are.  Of course, the Grand-stander-in-Chief is incapable of doing it that way; out of the public spotlight. 

Of course, all of this is predicated upon the notion that El presidentè actually thinks high gas prices are a bad thing...  I would suggest that Obama's lack of effort to lower them now or his previous refusals to move to decrease them may, in fact, be evidence in and of itself.  Evidence that he really doesn't care if they are high or not.  Not only will high gas prices play into his overall energy strategy (make fossil fuel prohibitively expensive), it also keeps societal pressure ever-increasing, which ensures a place for social engineering at the table.  Past practice in Germany, Italy, France (much of Europe in fact), China, Venezuela, Argentina, fmr. USSR and even Cuba shows us that socialism is never borne out of "The Good Times."  The Progressive movement needs the American public to remain under pressure...  You guys do the rest of the thinking on this and get back to me.

2/19/2012

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

German Pastor Martin Niemöller - November, 1945 after being released from the Dachau concentration camp after being a "guest" for 4 years.

I use this quote a lot in my daily life and those who know me often roll their eyes when I quote the good pastor.  The actual groups the Nazi came for and the order with which they came is really unimportant - it is the overall message that I hope people take to heart. 

In my mind, Martin was discussing the apathy and "mind your own business" mentality that the masses manifest during hard times.  I'm not talking about generic apathy here - the stuff that most of us can either take or leave.  Items like, Same-sex Marriage.  Most folks do not care if gay people get married - the polls support that, but put it on a ballot and it's like rolling the dice in Vegas; its any body's guess as to the result.  Just look at the spread across the U.S. in regard to same-sex marriage laws!  Why?  Because it comes down to getting out to vote.  Apathy sets in and only the truly motivated show up to vote, leaving them to fight it out alone.  Abortion - same thing.  Polls support a woman's right to choose, the supreme court has upheld it, but the laws on the books control that right so closely that it hardly seems legal to get an abortion.  Gun ownership:  The vast majority (according to polls) believes they should have the right to own them, but very few want others to own them.  If only we could pass a law so that the "bad guys" can't own them...  Oh yeah - we have volumes of laws that say that.  Another intermittently inflamed example is, Imminent Domain.  Watch the news sometime and see just how much people hate the idea of the government (federal, state or local) being able to take personal property for the benefit of the "greater good".  But, for the record, the voters gave the government(s) the power to do so.  People getting a new 4-lane highway through downtown, airport, power plant or (fill in the blank) love it.  Of course, as long as it was not they who had to move out of their house, move to a new hair salon or lose a convenient gas station on the way to work.   These are all things that simply "buzz" around us on a daily basis.  Items that we are essentially numb to and hardly involve enough of us or, better said, threaten us enough, to make it worthwhile to engage.  Below, I have laid out a framework for how the poem by Niemöller applies in my mind:

We gave up a fantastic amount of "liberty" with the Patriot Act, which was instituted due to the 9/11 massacre.  Most people did this willingly.  In it's application we gave up a fair amount of "personal space" through the institution of very private searches at airports as a result.  Passport procedures strengthened and, oh yeah, there was that thing about "warrantless wire-tapping" too.  Did anyone really care?***  In hindsight, maybe we should have.  Let's re-write the Pastor's first line:  "First they came for the terrorists, but I did not speak out - because I had nothing to hide." More to that later.

We went to war in Afghanistan and everyone agreed that it was justified.  But didn't we forget to do something?  What did we do to get the American public engaged in the war?  Did we forget to sell war bonds, raise taxes or increase production across the land in support of our efforts?  It appears as though we forgot to make money in the process!  We kicked the Taliban out of power and then we lost interest...  No one had to sacrifice - no one was reminded of the cost (or value) of liberty.  We took prisoners, called them illegal combatants and threw them into a hole in Cuba where they were to never return from...  Whoa...  What happened there?  "Military Rendition" and "enhanced interrogation techniques" came to light...  Who authorized the release of that knowledge?  It seems like there was a pattern starting to develop here.

We went to war in Iraq.  Not sure of the reasoning, it sounded logical at the time.  We ultimately set out to do there, exactly what Barack sought out to do in Libya.  Again, we were successful.  Of course we were - we ARE the most powerful nation in the world; militarily.  No apologies needed and the Aussies and Brits have no need to feel guilty - it was a good idea.  But, just like in Afghanistan, we failed to make the war pay for itself.  Again, we got caught doing all of the things that need to be done in war and we began to apologize to the Arab world for doing 10% of the things that they did to everyone else; us included.  My memory on this is a little fuzzy -  How many of the suspected terrorists did we cut the throat of on You-Tube? While they were raping women, we were making murders feel like they were drowning..  In the end, we kicked Saddam out of power and then we lost interest...  No one had to sacrifice - no one was reminded of the cost (or value) of liberty. 

In the beginning we had a president (Bush) spending money like a steel worker at a strip club and the country was doing it right along with him!  He was nearing the end of his rule and it appeared as though a ham sammich could have gotten into power; hence why the republicans sacrificed McCain (he never stood a chance).

Next we have a case where we are suffering through an absolutely massive collapse of a system that our government was tasked with overseeing - financial risk and investment markets.  How many people out there truly understand the size and scope of the mortgage-backed securities debacle that was created and then collapsed?  CONSERVATIVE numbers placed the trading value of the securities, world-wide, at nearly 40 TRILLION dollars.  That is roughly the equivalent of the U.S., U.K. and E.U. economies combined!  Note that I said "trading value" and not "actual value" because, if I said "actual" the number would have been around 7 trillion; at most.  That is according to actual numbers agreed upon and reported by the E.U., U.K. and U.S. in 2009.  So - in 2008 & 2009, 33 TRILLION dollars was magically evacuated from the world's economy..  POOF!  That was hit #1; next would be "credit bubble".  As it would turn out, the very same institutions that were leveraging themselves ad infinitum were insisting that their bankers and borrowers do the same thing!  Through a very well orchestrated scheme of "loosening up cash" so that it could be shaken from the clients, financial institutions across the globe aided the general public, the businesses, local/state & federal governments in growing their debt.  The federal government helped out by tightening bankruptcy laws so that banks could cheat on their balance sheets by writing down "bad debt" while at the same time, allowing "bad debt" to be written off!  Who was complaining when all of this was going down?  After it happened, it seemed like everyone was equally embarrassed and disgusted and for a short time everyone was willing to do anything to stop the bleeding.  Conservatives and liberals alike were rushing to throw cash on the fire, hoping to suffocate it..  We all know how well that worked.  The 2008 election sweeps the liberal-left into power and no sooner does it happen that the next wave of the debt-tsunami washes ashore:  Hit #2, the credit bubble and the ensuing stimulus spending, TRILLIONS more disappeared.  EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERBODY lost money.  Decreasing wages - the government's fault, increasing fuel costs - the government's fault, increasing grocery costs, massive unemployment - the government's fault, fantastic insurance cost increases - the government's fault..  Why?  Because the value of the dollar fell and it fell because of the nightmare that follows below.

The Left-wing ushered in a time of "Hope & Change" which translated to the following:

Cash for Clunkers!!  Student Loan take-over!!  Obama Care!!  Government take-over of Banks!!  Government Motors!!  Wall Street Bail-outs!!  Fannie-Mae & Freddie-Mack Bail-outs!! GREEN everything!!

Then we have a veritable cornucopia of Czars being initiated, the size of government begins to grow uncontrollably, the price of gas increases by dramatic proportions because the value of the dollar drops like a rock in the wake of the orgy of spending!  This time there was outrage!  But who was listening?  The most vocal opponents were being shouted down, branded as "the rich" and sidelined by the massive left-wing controlled media.  Dissent was limited by the administration through bullying tactics in the Whitehouse pressroom and overall avoidance (for a time) of any interviews; instead talking directly to the people through the co-opting of the airwaves. A massive push to brand all dissent as "Neo-con" propaganda ensued and the media ate it up...  This infighting sold advertising space like a real tragedy - only without actually having one.  It was a purely manufactured  hullabaloo! "Next they came for the Neo-Conservative, but I did not speak out - because I considered myself an independent."

The new team takes the reigns in Afghanistan and Iraq and begins the world-wide apology tour.  "Can't we all just get along?" was the message being delivered by the administration as they tried to hold the hands of every nation around the world, singing, Kumbayah.  American "Stock" around the world falls to an all-time low as nations alternatively made fun of us or were embarrassed by our leader's actions.  Long time friends became enraged by our illustrious leader's ignorance of past-practice, history and tradition.  Previous allies took a long hard look at our "new direction" and began working on plans for a time post-Obama.  Israel, the U.K., Australia and Japan have "shelved" our relationship, instead, hedging for a time down-the-road when our relationship is "normal" again.  

Here's the big concern:  The American public did not have a chance to vote on any of the above examples...  Not one.  The administration, being led by a self-professed "Constitutional Expert" claimed that the public had voted when they put him in office and went on to lecture about how our government worked.  When Ted Kennedy died and the super-majority required to ram Obama-Care through dissolved, he actually became incensed with the American public's overwhelming concern with his plans.  He chastised the "Neo-Con" media for portraying the plan in a negative light and claimed that, ".. if only they knew the FACTS of the case, they would approve..."  Here's the irony:  Neither he, nor any of his tribe, would release the details of the plan.  We all remember Nancy Pelosi claiming that the only way to get the details of the plan was to pass it!!  3 years later, we are still being spoon-fed little bits and pieces of the plan.  The "Affordable Healthcare plan" is being taken to the Supreme Court by no less than 19 states at last count, with at least two of them being able to argue prior to the 2012 general election.  The GAO has scored it as a budget buster and the House Appropriations Committee warns that it is the definition of the term: Un-Funded Mandate.  Pure gamesmanship and political maneuvering got it into the books as law, employing a budgetary sleight-of-hand to actually get it through without a vote.  One would certainly think that THAT should have been a sign of things to come. 

The 2010 elections arrive and the vast majority of the left-wing that could be gotten rid of - were.  All those that sold  their constituency into servitude and debt were sent packing and a new breed of conservative was ushered in:  Enter the Tea Party.  This is a group that branded themselves as "Constitutionalists".  I believe they did so, in large part, because it's a poke in the eye of the guy who tells everyone he's the real constitutional expert.  Conservative news outlets laud their arrival in Washington, claiming a great revolution in politics and predicting that the end of imminent socialism is at hand.  The left-wing media closes ranks and begins to nullify the victory in their base's mind by portraying the Tea Party as a bunch of backward, racist hate-mongers hell-bent on returning the country to the days of slavery and women's indentured servitude in the household.  It did not matter that the new breed of conservatives were voted in with record majorities - the Hollywood-to-NY City liberal wing had money to burn and burn they did.  Even before there was no budget passed for the third straight year, the media hyped an inevitable impasse in congress that would see to it that nothing of value would get passed.  The Centers for Change announced 3 days after the elections that a "leak" in the House Leadership told them that, "..the Republican-controlled House had vowed to pass nothing of the president's until after the 2012 election."  3 days had passed...  None of the new Representatives had even made it to Washington yet...  The Huffington Post, USA Today, The San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune and - of course - the New York Times all regurgitated the nonsensical assertion.  When the source of the purported "leak" turned out to be a disgruntled aide in a departing "un-named senator's" staff, none of the papers printed a retraction or correction; they simply stopped reporting the lie. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all picked up the story as well, reporting it as an "un-confirmed source."  Still, even though they knew it wasn't true - they couldn't resist getting the story a little more traction.  The administration put the whole thing to rest by saying, "I have heard the reports and I for one would be saddened if it were true..."  President Barack Obama, Whitehouse Press Briefing post 2010 landslide victory for the Republicans 

The battles over spending, deficits and debt for the remaining months of 2010 and the entire year of 2011 were a self-fulfilling prophecy created by the likes of George Soros, Warren Buffet, the big money unions (AFL & CIO, SEIU) and the endless piles of cash being exported from the elitists in Hollywood.  The Dems (Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Waters & Obama) would offer plans that they knew ran counter to anything the voters wanted and just waited for the new House personnel to shoot it down.  As soon as they did - BAM - there was all the proof they needed that the "lie" was actually TRUE!  All of a sudden EVERYONE who wasn't a part of the solution (in Barack's method of solving problems) was a part of the opposition.  A new enemy had been created and the socialist-leaning left-wing had something to rally around.  "Then they came for the Opposition, but I said, 'Opposition...  Who's that?'  So they left me alone as I appeared harmless." 

As time passed, rumors of voter fraud in the 2008 elections began to surface and states started to move to close the loop-holes that allowed for it.  When data from 2008 was compared to the more recent 2010 elections, a serious pattern of fraud was revealed and the attorneys general of 6 states moved to put laws on the books to stop it; some preventatively - some in direct response to deficiencies.  Suddenly states like Indiana and Ohio were no better at holding free and fair elections than, say, Egypt or Somalia.  Some states got away with it because their changes were minor and they did not have to run their changes past the federal government - other states did the unthinkable.  As we have discussed prior, South Carolina dared to require state-issued ID cards, free of charge to the citizens who wanted to vote but did not have ID.  They even agreed to pick the people up at their home (or place of business, gathering or worship) and take them to a registered center - and return them to a location of their choosing (within the state of course).  The Administration moved quickly on that as we all know.  How dare they disenfranchise the minorities, students and elderly that way!??!  Where is the Department of Homeland Security on this issue?  How can we have a less stringent set of rules to pick the leadership of this country than we do for taking a plane from Boston to the World Trade Centers?  Since when can't states protect themselves?

Immigration is my next example.  What a panacea this issue is.  There was a time when, arriving at Ellis Island was a triumph for the human spirit, a time to be celebrated.  Those who qualified and actually arrived were revered by those that could not make the journey and to those, their efforts were doubled for the next round of selections.  The mere process of arriving was the beginning of the American Dream made manifest.  Now, the whole issue is tainted by the smear of illegal immigration.  Essentially "line jumpers", chock-full of the unqualified, unwanted and ineligible arriving in droves to usurp the dream from those who follow the rules.  Legislation is so screwed up now that the roles are practically reversed on the issue and qualified candidates can't even get visitors visas.  The polls show that the overwhelming majority of American citizens hate illegal immigration and feel that the federal government is doing next to nothing to protect the citizens from threats crossing the border.  Every time there is a local or state referendum on the subject - the citizens vote to enforce the federal regulations the government is ignoring, stiffen the local laws and protect themselves!  That has occurred EVERY TIME it has wound up on a ballot.  Yet - the federal government overturns the decision (in every case), stays the results or punishes the state to the point that they finally acquiesce.  Again - states cannot protect themselves?

Next up, drilling, mining and pipelines.  Nope can't do that either.  You can spend all the money you want looking for it, planning for it and asking for approval - but you can't actually do it.  The moment it requires federal approval - it's done.  I see a pattern again...  But so does the government so they quickly moved to assign the "State's Rights Concern" to the Tea Party.  Because, of course, State's Rights are a Rebel Philosophy held over from the Confederacy movement during the Civil War.  And who better to solve this little problem than the reincarnated Abraham Lincoln - Barack Obama.  Remember when he voted himself as the 4th best president in history, just behind Lincoln?  Yep - he did it in December 2011 in a 60 minutes interview.  Any wonder that they edited that out in the aired episode?  Luckily the transcript of what he ACTUALLY said is available.   He ranked himself behind FDR and LBJ; at least he shows some signs of being humble...   That's kind of funny considering most other polls rank him as #4 too - of the worst presidents in history with Taft, Coolidge and Carter edging him out of the top 3.  So, what we have here is a case of redefining the problem.  The problem is not the violation of state's rights, it's a problem of state's trying to usurp federal powers.  That's the case the Eric Holder (Attorney General) keeps making in the courts.  "Then they came for the States trying to take over the U.S. Government and I said, 'Huh - who did what?'  They snickered and walked away. " 

And finally we have the recent revelations that the Affordable Healthcare Plan (Obama Care) will violate religious freedom and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius)  thinks Woman's rights are more important.  In fact, if you listen to the news reports coming out of the oval office, everyone there believes that the religious institutions and their coverage programs should have to provide coverage that flies in the face of their beliefs.  Women's rights are important, but, there is no one group in the country more important than a right granted to all!  You want compromise Mr. President? Ask the insurance companies to compromise - not the constitution!  I do not care one iota about religion - not an ounce, but I have willingly offered my life in the protection of that right and every other one afforded in our constitution.  I am a veteran and so is my father and his father and so on & so forth.  I did so because I love the fact that that right in particular is there and that the government may take no part in it.  The government may not infringe on that right, nor shall they involve themselves in it.

Add to that, the interview with the President that has him commenting upon just how difficult it is to do his job when the very document he claims to be an expert on (The Constitution) keeps slowing him down.  It makes things difficult for him and he sees that as a problem.  In his own words, the president says, “What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.” Interview with Matt Lauer, NBC 2/6/2012.  What's really ironic is that he HAS forced them to implement so much of his vision already that the American public voted out his majority.  Hell, he's already violated Article I, Section Five of the Constitution by making recess appointments when the senate wasn't in recess - why not just pass laws without actually voting on them or make laws by executive order or create cabinet-level posts without congressional approval while he's at it?  Oh wait - he's done all of that too.

"And finally they've come for the rest and I shouted, "Wake up America!  They're here for you.  They are here for what makes us great' and I refused to go with them and now they are scared." 

So scared are they, that they set up Truth Commissions to sanitize the word that gets out.  They now choose to employ all of their tactics in one giant push to take all that is left.  I am sickened - but I choose now to rise up from my seat and take steps to make sure that the "Truth Teams" are seen for what they truly are - Purveyors of Propaganda - the likes of which should send a chill down the spine of every American; they have now gone too far.  This decision makes me think of the Cultural Revolution, Venezuela, Castro....  I hear jack-boots marching in the background while I read the words of DFL Chairman Ken Martin and Mayor R.T. Rybak

 

*** As a matter of full-disclosure here, I want it on the record that I supported the Patriot Act, warrantless wire-tapping, removal of shoes / valid ID presentation and "no-fly lists" at airports.  I support Gitmo and the application of the term illegal combatants - though I would have rather them be executed for their crimes upon being found guilty by military tribunal.  I also support Military and covert "Rendition" as well as any interrogation technique that does not violate the Geneva Convention and works.  "Enhanced" interrogation works - the REAL experts all agreed, though the application of it should have been closely guarded, controlled and kept secret.  In other words, "Don't get caught doing it."

I can see a pattern developing recently that worries me and I would like to start laying it out for all to see, comment and ultimately develop.  I have tentatively dubbed it "Obama's path to re-election".  A picture is going to be painted here - so hang in there and don't glaze over the details.

I made mention of it a while back, but at the time, I didn't have the time to really do much other than acknowledge it.  Let's face it, the first 20 months of his administration was chaotic, to say the least.  It was chock-full of "change" - much of which was painful and ill-conceived, but even more, ill-applied.  I do not offer that as an opinion, according to the polls (Gallup & Pew Research), most American agree with that statement and therefore it must be accurate; right?  Let's keep in mind that a consensus of opinion is all that is needed anymore to make something factual; leaving the burden of proof on the nay-sayers.   The 2010 mid-term elections occurred and the balance of power (in congress) swung to the right and the senate lost it's democratic super majority.  The voters sent a message to Hollywood...  I mean Washington, that they had overreached, moved too fast and slid way too far to the left.  So here we are, 20 months in - and then everything changed.  The administration and his minions (Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, etc.) got the message and changed their ways. 

For the next 300+ days, the administration accomplished next to nothing without using an executive order, congressional gymnastics or senatorial dirty tricks to do it.  Upon reflection, one would be forced to ponder, "what was the message that the far left got during the 2010 cycle?"  Well, as I said in previous editorials, "The message was change your tactics."  Never, in any fraction of the reality most of us live in, was the message, "Change your plans."   The losses they took in 2010 were not a crying shame for them, they were collateral damage where, the fallen were sacrificed - not slain.  The American public, which was once outraged with the administration, is now starting to become numb to the constant stream of negativity coming from the media and dumb to the details hidden within. 

Unemployment is now down to 8.6% (adjusted), which - according to the Whitehouse, is synonymous with job creation...  MSNBC, the NY Times and USA Today are all reporting that the president has actually CREATED jobs and the Huffington Post goes so far as to say that the President has single-handedly drug the American economy "around the corner."  Has anyone noticed that absolutely no one (of consequence) is reporting that the existing claims numbers are only increasing?  How about the numbers of those "dropping off the end" and moving to welfare?  They are increasing as well.  Come on now - this is a parlor trick!  A sustained rate of unemployment above the rate of new employees hitting the market is A LOSS - the math is simple and if anyone tries to complicate it by "adjusting the numbers for (fill in the blank) they are trying to pull your shirt over your head.  In hockey, you know what comes next; right?  The whole thing makes me wonder if the unemployment situation has actually changed at all?  As for the economy itself, well, who can tell?  The messages are so mixed that even the experts {tongue-in-cheek} disagree.  Is/was it a depression, a recession - are we still in it - when will it end - where are we if it ain't over; the end?  It's in such a frail state that the daily economic news out of Greece causes our markets to swing...  Seriously - Greece is affecting our market.  The economy of the EU is in such bad shape that we had to help bail them out (they are bigger by 7%)!!!  Who is bailing us out?  I digress.  Some of the things that all of the experts agree on are that the legacy and entitlement programs are what's crippling our economy.  Government pensions, Welfare, un-ending federal unemployment, Medicare/Medicaid and  Social Security.  Obama has vowed to decrease none of the benefits - moreover, he has demonstrated it.  His one shot at "entitlement reform" was to decrease payments to physicians who treat Medicare/Medicaid patients.  The "business-friendly" approach.  He supports (and is supported by) the unions and has railed against every state that has attempted to fix their economic short-falls through entitlement reform.  Just look at how he responded to the actions of the Indiana & Ohio governors who moved against the union's massive sweetheart deals.  Actions speak louder than words - as always.  Moving along, he continues to direct the fed to keep money "cheap" and he has instituted every program possible to make it easy for the undeserving to get credit and not be punished for over-extending themselves on it.  He wants banks to forgive home loans, decrease principal balances, re-finance existing debt and stop foreclosing on derelict balances.  Does any of that HELP the economy?  I'm not saying that it doesn't help the people - but does it help the economy?  Of course not - so stop telling the public that it does.

So that moves us to regulation, the second largest issue on the minds of America.  This one comes almost exclusively from the business sector, but considering that they are the largest taxpayer in the country - that means their opinion counts.  He began his administration by lambasting the business sector with enough regulation to choke a horse.  The crashing markets gave him all of the cover he needed to do it openly and without subterfuge.  20 months later, the businesses cried foul and he stopped; right?  You be the judge: 

• Zero reduced burden on employers - existing programs only renewed for 2-18 months with all indications being that the administration wants to eliminate all of them
• Zero employer incentive to remain in the U.S.
• Non "Green" business grants decreased to unprecedented levels
• New, more aggressive EPA regulations flying out at an unprecedented rate
• No budget passed, no debt reduction plan - 2 deficit increases
• Administration "interpretation" of Obama Care being s-l-o-w-l-y disseminated to the public, revealing just how anti-business it really is
• NLRB staffed with radical left-wingers through senate gymnastics move

Those items alone don't even touch on the actual verbiage used by the administration in speeches.  Things like, "If I could, I would limit the salaries of the top earners in this country.  Beyond a certain limit, I would increase the income tax to 100%.  I mean - let's get serious - does anyone really deserve to make a billion dollars a year?" - Barack Obama - August 2011 interview with NBC  And that's not the only time he has intimated that there should be a limit to how much money "the American Dream" can bring an individual.  When searching for it, I ran across over 100 such intimations and insinuations so it won't be hard to find on your own.  So, needless to say, he hasn't helped businesses out much - unless they are a fledgling "green" company.  As in previous articles I have posted, the administration's actions have also painted a picture of where they position business in their "model".  Closing down mines across the country, eliminating government contracts with companies who have business models and ideals that run counter to their plan, strong-arming states to ignore the will of their citizens and appointing czars every time the wind blows and never choosing "business-friendly" individuals.  

The environmental "disaster" that the Deepwater Horizons never became enabled him to move quickly, much more quickly than he ever could have hoped, to ram "green" in our collective lives.  He immediately shut down (new) oil drilling permitting off shore in addition to drilling.  Only by court order was drilling & pumping turned back on.  Strangely though, he authorized plenty of money to be sent to Venezuela and Argentina for exploration into the very thing he shut off at home...  Two very close allies of ours who embrace democracy.  When the administration was called on that, they rectified the situation quickly by issuing a statement saying, "This administration has approved the issuance of exploration for oil permits at a rate that exceeds that of the former administration and we stand by our record."  What they don't tell you is that they haven't issued a single DRILLING permit; not one.  Also, the word "rate" is very important.  Approving 7 in one day is a better rate - but if they only approve 7 in total...  And, for the record, did I miss the explanation for the government funds sent to socialist nations for doing what we are disallowing at home? 

How does any of this help, from a business standpoint, get America back to work or decrease our dependence on foreign energy products?  It doesn't - so stop saying it.

So far, by my count, he's done nothing to help create or maintain employment, create or maintain new business, steer the ship to economic "friendly" waters or help in any way other than to increase our financial debt.  Is it possible that the administration is actually lost without a map?  I doubt it... 

Stay tuned for Part II where we see how, "Re-framing the question" is often easier than answering it.

-Merl

THE US DOJ and South Carolina aren't making love

but someone's getting the shaft

12/23/2011

I realize that this is going to sound a little dumb to most of you, but I have to say it out loud so that I don't go crazy by keeping it bottled-up.  The notion that requiring photo ID in order to vote is somehow "disadvantaging minorities" is such utter nonsense that I can hardly contain my laughter as I type this. 

The Rainbow/Push coalition and the ACLU are behind this and the U.S. Department of Justice (LOL), who shot S.C.'s law down, is purely a rubber stamp brigade for the Obama Administration; that is connected to Rainbow/Push.  The good reverend JJ claims that the unemployed and welfare recipients, elderly and college students would have a more difficult time voting because of this requirement , BUT, that it was really aimed at keeping minorities from voting.

So let me get this straight - the elderly don't have photo ID?  Really?  And college students too?  It seems strange that the two extremes of our population are mysteriously deficient in the identification department when both of them have so many demands for it.  Ever cash a check without photo ID?  How are college kids enrolling in school without ID?  I know my daughter had to provide ID, and a SSC and a birth certificate!  For the elderly, if they cash a SS check - they need ID and if they have Direct Deposit, they need ID to withdraw the money from their account.  Me thinks JJ is fibbing!

Minorities don't have ID either?  What the heck's going on here?  Why not?  Since when are black people allowed to drive cars without a driver's license?  When did they get [blanket] permission to open checking accounts, fly in planes, take trains, borrow library books, rent houses, check into hotels/motels, buy cars, rent-to-own TVs/couches/computers without a picture ID?  Did I miss the memo?  Try as I might to live a completely anonymous life, I have yet to figure out how I can survive outside of the forest without picture ID.  Is there some sort of jungle in S.C. that enables all these minorities to trade amongst each other in nuts and berries, swing from trees in-lieu-of public transportation/trains/planes and only barter for necessities & room and board, making the need for ID meaningless?  If so - I'm moving there!

IT'S FREE - and - they'll give you a ride to go get your free ID! 

What this really is, is a case of the socialist moving to make sure that voter fraud is still possible in every state (get ready Texas).  The DOJ said that S.C.'s move to limit fraud was unwarranted given that they had, "no documented cases of voter fraud to base the change on."  Given the current cases in Missouri, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan of petitioner's and voter's names showing up on lists that the namesake says they never endorsed, I'd say South Carolina was well within their rights to move preemptively.  The DOJ is on some weak ground here, given that the constitution assigns voter's rights as State's rights...  The administration has some worrying to do if many more states follow suit.  How on earth will Acorn and Push turn out the vote if they can't do it illegally?  If they let that loophole close, they'll be no crackheads, illegal aliens, convicts, pimps, prostitutes or DEAD PEOPLE voting seven to ten times.  Perish the thought that only real (living), legal, registered voters pick the next president and lawmakers.  Who knows what we might get this time?

For crying out loud - write your congressman, senator, attorney general and president and tell them to stop trying to leave the back door open - who knows what kind of critter might scamper in and eat your cat or chicken!!!