Water is wet but if you are a racist water is dry.  We are entering a phase where in debate if you would like to end the conversation all you simply need to do is call the other person a racist.  The minute most of us hear this word being thrown at us we spend all the time in the world explaining how we aren't rather than debating the issue.  No one wants to be called a racist and simply let it go.  We need to start though.  In a fair country in a fair society anyone can say anything to anyone.  What we are seeing however is a velvet rope put up in debates by people.  These ropes sound something like this "You don't know what it's like being black" and vice versa.  The reality is a person of one race cannot know what it is like to be another but this does not mean they cannot speak about social issues.  What you are saying is that the other person has no powers of observation and needs to be your race or gender in order to even hold conversation with you.

First off calling someone a racist and then claiming they have no right to speak simply because of their skin color is about as racist as it gets.  Secondly skin color has absolutely nothing to do with facts.  If water is wet it is wet.  This fact does not change because a black man says it or a white man denies it.

when a fact is spoken in debate (and it is usually an ugly fact) and the other person does not want to acknowledge it as truth they simply call the other a racist.  It is like being a green star bellied sneetch from Dr. Seuss.  If you don't know what I am talking about watch this:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr+seuss+star+belly+sneetches&mid=0DCE10FE13F85503D8750DCE10FE13F85503D875&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3

So you see these green star bellied sneetches feel that they are above ridicule, above critique, above it all.  We all know that is ridiculous.  The same remains true in our society.  Some folks will not hear from those without a star-they are simply just that delusional.  Further still if a star bellied person is critical of them it becomes a game of "you hate yourself" and that sort of thing.  Of course any rational person on this planet can tell you that there is very little difference in humans as far as race goes.  We look different...that's it.  Somehow these same rational people think that alone is difference enough to discredit the other.  Even if water is wet; just say the magic word and it no longer is.

You Don't NEED a Gun; You Need Your Second Amendment

Public safety.  That is the lie we are fed when politicians are against the second amendment.  If law makers and politicians were so concerned with saving lives they would be legislating other issues that claim more lives every year than gun use.  If I were the moral crusader these folks pretend to be I would start with making automobiles safer and go from there-who am I kidding?  I'd take on Big Pharma but then again if they made me rich through bribes I may be less inclined but I digress.

A well organized militia being necessary the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

Bear means carry-sorry folks it does.  Get a dictionary if need be.  The reason why it was written this way was because our founders were quite aware of this notion of "bad people".  Bad people can be anything from your petty thief to a tyrannical government that employs the guillotine on folks they don't like.  So this amendment is meant to keep the bad people in check and the good guys breathing.  You would think everyone could agree this is a good thing.  You would be wrong.

Often times states rule that citizens cannot carry guns.  Police still can and police are well, after all is said and done...citizens.  So the right is treated like a privilege.  The state gets to pick and choose who gets this privilege like any sort of government "for" the people.  As long as you serve the state you are rewarded with "rights" that never belonged to the government for them to be able to take away in the first place!  We are told this has to happen in the name of public safety.  I cannot carry a gun but if a man is attacking me I should call a man with a gun to help me?  How does this keep me safe exactly?  Or even make sense?

I'm not going to waste time with other examples as to how the reason of public safety being nonsense.  No, let me tell you why some politicians want people to leave their guns home.  It would mess up the status quo.  Imagine a society where everyone of responsible age were armed.  Imagine this society watching the police shooting dogs or beating a man in handcuffs.  How long do you think this behavior would last before the public began pulling their guns and possibly firing at corrupt cops?

How many attempted assaults would end in dead criminals?
Unless you have been living under a rock you already know that jail is big business.  This country and private companies make a lot of money off sending people to prison.  If these folks died instead of being jailed the state would lose money.  Yes we need victims; people like you and me to suffer physically for the state to make money-shitty huh?  We're a cash commodity.  If we were able to defend ourselves it would result in less criminals and criminals stimulate the economy through the hiring of lawyers and so forth.  So there's that.

Guns grant physical power and thus carry immense moral responsibility. I do not advocate violence but I often hear from the anti gunners "Those who live by the sword die by the sword"  This is more crap that people don't understand.  What it literally means is anyone who lives a violent life is likely to die a violent death.  It is a warning to avoid crime and violence.  It does not mean if you own a "sword" you will likely be killed by one.  Live BY the sword...not those who own a sword.  Nice try.

Speaking of those who live by the sword... if the police were surrounded by armed citizens they would not be physically powerful.  They would be what they are designed to be.  Investigators and law enforcers.  Instead we are seeing police being gifted military surplus weapons and vehicles.  HUMVEEs and military grade rifles (often times the public is disallowed from owning the very same weapons-remember police serve the state so they get more rights than you.)  We are seeing a society that is not only obeying these false powers being "granted" to police but those who wish to give them even MORE power.  Let me remind everyone reading this that in 2005 The supreme court of the United States ruled that police are not and let me repeat that...are not installed for public safety but rather to uphold the law.  So these weapons and vehicles are not meant for your safety...

I am not allowed to carry a gun and the police are not responsible for my day to day safety-so how does this idea serve the interest of my safety again?  Who the hell is supposed to keep me safe then if I am not allowed to?  Are you starting to get the feeling that the government doesn't care about our physical well being?

An armed citizenry would regulate itself-it would render some positions of control obsolete.  This cannot happen since the powers that be are ever hungry for more.  So instead of obeying the foundation of this country and protecting my rights like they swore to do they tell me and everyone else "You havent deserved it" (my personal favorite) "why do you need (specific gun accessory or rifle?)" or according to states like California who literally say "it's too dangerous" yes folks exercising rights is too dangerous so they will just be stripped by your government for your own good of course (Also remember the government says it is not their responsibility for your safety ha-ha nice one guys).  Maybe one day our first amendment will be deemed too dangerous and simply removed?

The idea is to make the citizenry accepting of power.  Why do you think King George wanted to confiscate the guns in America?  A populace without arms is much easier to control and accepting of brutality and ill treatment.  I don't envision death camps or anything like that but let us peek out our window and see the police checkpoints, stop and frisk, NSA roving wire taps the list goes on.  Fishing for crime before it is committed is explicitly forbidden by our country's laws.  When the government is ignoring laws meant to keep the public safe from it-only bad things will follow.  Physical enforcing of these unconstitutional ideas seems plausible since there may be pockets or individual confrontations where folks resist.

What blows my mind is that some people are not only anti gun but also pro government power.  Two things America was never designed to be.  The truth is those who spout this nonsense are weak timid people who fear confrontation and want the government to keep them safe.  As we have seen the government could give less than a rat's ass about our safety.  They only want control.  By surrendering rights to them that are not theirs to take we consent to this perversion and enslavement of our minds.  The gun, the ultimate symbol of individual responsibility is rejected by a populace and government who wants nothing more than assimilation.

The Constitution Was Not Written With Common Sense in Mind

As the ink dried on the Constitution some good honest men went to bed oblivious to the fact that the left a fatal flaw in its design.  As good honest men these leaders did not fear the people.  How could or should they?  A citizen with a rifle was no threat to the founders since they were serving the interest of the people.  Could it be they thought this would always be the case?  Could they have thought that the government would always be in the people's corner?  A closer look reveals they did not think this.  A clause (paraphrased) reads that when a government becomes tyrannical the people have the duty and right to abolish that government.  So they did conceive that a government could turn on its people.  How then is it that the second amendment is so poorly thought out?

Most anti and some pro gun folks hawk on the word "militia" that pops up in the phrasing.  Militias weren't considered bad or evil by the founders; Ben Franklin even helped set one up.  Again, good honest men needn't fear an armed populace.  Militias usually operated with little to no government oversight or intrusion-in fact they were to work in tandem with the official army if need be.  Government has since broken away from that ideal.  The volunteer army stands apart from any and all civilian militias.  The closest thing we have is the national guard and again they are more or less a government force.  Furthermore the government monitors, raids, arrests, and even conducts sting operations on militias.  So in essence if I were to follow this amendment to a tee I would surrender some rights to gain one.  This is backwards thinking.  So if the founders envisioned the possibility of a corrupt government why then are there not stipulations or restrictions for government intrusion on militias?

Another curious thing I have noticed is that due to government intrusion and meddling a lot of gun manufacturers are fleeing their home states and seeking more gun friendly ground.  How is this possible?  I thought "shall not be infringed" was pretty clear?  Well it is but unfortunately that's the only protection we get. It doesn't say "...and if a government body does infringe on this right the people need to ignore the regulations and the lawmaker should be jailed for seven years."  There is zero repercussion or punishments listed for the violation of our rights...any and all of them. The most we get is some people scream that it is unconstitutional but the government keeps on truckin'.  Asking or expecting the government to stay out of an issue that was designed to restrict it's powers and protect the people from physical abuse is asinine.  We have guns to protect ourselves from tyranny, any encroachment on gun rights is considered tyranny, please government let us arm ourselves to keep you in check.  The founders expected them to just sit out?  It's like giving your car keys to a drunk guy and saying "Don't get in this car...I mean it-don't do it."

If you look at gun rights it is the most regulated monitored and scrutinized rights we have.  Indeed it is treated like a privilege at this point.  The government doesnt say we have to limit our word count on books or that I am only allowed X amount of time of free speech per day.  I suppose the ultimate fail safe switch was/is the will of the people to endure encroachments and violations.  After all it isn't the weapon it is the man who does the fighting.  

My Neighbor is Going to Kill Me!

MY NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO KILL ME

We all share this country-or try to any way.  It's a beautiful, chaotic cluster frag of an experiment in both social doctrine and self governance.  One of the lynch pins in this idea (whether you like it or not) is the fact that the citizenry can privately own firearms.  The reasons being are for hunting, protection from hostile citizens, and protection from government tyranny.  This seems like a simple idea and on the surface it is.  Beneath it is a huge amount of responsibility.  As with any freedom or liberty there is an individual responsibility to exercise that right without infringing on another citizen's.

Those who reject personal responsibility do not make good gun owners.  Often they stray from the idea of ownership entirely.  It is a huge power and responsibility to own a weapon that can take lives with a mere squeeze of a trigger.  Often this breeds an irrational fear into others.  They feel that because they are incapable of such a responsibility and power that everyone is.  These folks are the ones who appreciate and promote social sameness and removal of individual rights.  Everyone is just like me and I cannot handle this responsibility therefore it is a bad idea.

Another reason given for gun bans by those in favor is that I hear "People will go berserk".  Simply direct their attention to cities and neighborhoods with a high percentage of gun owners.  Ask them to filter through the amount of deaths that occur during a home invasion or mugging.  Disregard those figures since self defense is not a crime...at least not in my opinion.  Another one I hear often is "My neighbor will kill me!"  I always resort to a couple simple questions just after hearing this.  I ask "How do you know your neighbor will hurt you?  Have they threatened you already?"  This is a no win.  Should the answer be "no" you can more or less pat them on the shoulder because they are afraid of something they made up.

Indeed the fear is always made up.  It is never real.  Whose to say your neighbor is not already a gun owner and yet here you are espousing fear over something that will never happen.  Should the answer be yes you tell them to notify the police as this behavior is dangerous and illegal.  It also opens another window.  Ask them "Why have you not armed yourself if your life is in danger?"  Again they cannot say anything that bears a resemblance to rational thought.  It is counter intuitive to say that I deem my life precious but I will never take up arms to defend it.  How else can this be explained?  I am under threat of violence and instead of preparing for a possible altercation I labor to remove all guns from America?  Is that a speedy way to safety?  I wouldnt think so.  Even if your wish comes true and guns become illegal; what if your neighbor refuses to disarm?  You have solved nothing.  Your life is still in danger.

This mindset comes from the fact that I think those who say such nonsense are themselves violent people.  They think about hurting their neighbor or what it might be like.  In turn they project those thoughts and feelings onto others...remember we are all the same.  Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.  It can make false things real and vice versa.  It really is the only way I can even attempt to explain this behavior.  A friend of mine is under the impression that should open carry become legal country wide there would be blood letting of epic proportions.  I suppose he doesnt know that some states allow it as well as concealed carry and yet no one with respect for that responsibility opens fire on another for a pair of sneakers.

Again it boils down to responsibility and morals.  I think people who favor a gun ban are themselves amoral.  They would see us disarmed i the face of crips and bloods.  If a maniac wants to break into my home and savagely rape my wife after murdering me then so be it-what could I do?  Call the police?  You mean call men with guns to come save me?  The pathetically veiled truth they present is "We don't want to see anyone else get hurt" but as you see in those two examples people will still get hurt.  It'll be the people who are responsible, moral, and virtuous enough to defend society from the nasty elements.    

Response to "Letter to All White People" This Is My Letter to SOME Black People

I am having a hard time watching my countrymen descend into madness over this Zimmerman trial.  Trayvon was shot and the outcry is that his shooter must be arrested.  NAACP and other organizations parachute into Florida and start demanding an arrest.  It's a funny thing when a group of people can point to a single person and say "violate HIS rights now" and the government listens.  They actually did it.  They listen and go arrest a man only because they are forced by organizations-not by justice or morality...they were bullied.  This must be that whole "blacks have no power and are ignored by the powers" thing I hear so much about.  But so be it.  (by the way this should be the first warning sign that this verdict will be an innocent one.  If the state thought they had a good case they would have arrested George before being bullied into it.)

So Florida grabs this Hispanic guy who has spent time with under privileged youths and offers him up to the mob.  In this country the individual is shielded by laws against vigilante justice and mob rule.  I know people think "Well if I get emotional and raise a stink-I should get what I want" wrong.  Being emotional does not make you right.  So what do we get-we get the million hoodie march and a bunch of brothers are hanging around buying up skittles and iced tea as if it will change anything.  It won't.  All it will do is make the companies who make hoodies skittles and iced tea richer.  That's it.  What are you trying to prove by buying food?  what does buying snacks have to do with...anything?  I haven't even gotten into the race bait that was thrown into this and how people are foaming at the mouth over it.  You'll want to hang around for that because it's a doozy ladies and gentlemen.

I see a lot of black folk throw racially charged debate around without a single peep from the PC crowd.  I think that's good I think PC is for no one.  With that said I am going to do the same thing these black folks are doing.  I am going to speak "out of bounds" beyond my race.  I am going to speak to black folks.  If they can tell me I am wrong I should be able to answer in a fair world.  None of you are going to like this.  But I dare you to tell me I am wrong.  Call me cracker honkey whatever but tell me what I am saying here is wrong-I dare you.

The utter hypocrisy my black brothers-the utter hypocrisy you display is blowing me and others away.  How on God's green Earth can you be this upset over the shooting of one man when your own brothers are shooting each other down in record numbers?  Oh yeah, it's a well known fact that a young black man's biggest enemy is another young black man.  You think I'm full of shit? who does the drive bys in your hood?  white people?  Who does the heated shootings because your girl is with another brother now?  White people?  Who does all those crips and bloods shootings? white people?  Shit, you know it deep down.

You stand there and scream when a hispanic man shoots a black but remain silent when Chicago violence has claimed hundreds of black lives this year alone.  How in the fuck can you be silent over that and when one dies in Florida all of a sudden "the whole country is racist?"  You are racist towards yourself brothers.  What you are saying is black life only matters and is only worth talking about when a non black takes that life.  YOU assign worth to yourselves by doing this.  You.  Black life is only worth something when a non black is involved in taking it-what a sad sack of shit.  I don't believe that for a second.  It isnt true but you-you're actions MAKE it true-and you do it to yourselves.  Or maybe you don't?

You see a lot of white folk with tons of honkey guilt come to the microphone and tell you to be upset.  They go so far as to tell you this man who shot our friend Trayvon is white.  He's as white as the "black" president most of you are so happy about.  So why isn't our president considered white, brothers?  Does it bother you or did you even know that George has black people in his very family?  Shit, does it even MATTER to you?  So the white people tell you to get mad-they even make up shit and send you out there and you go.  Like a slave you go.  Oh yeah I used that word-what do you call it when you do someone's work for no pay or benefit?

Yeah you still choose to be slaves to the white man because you do what he tells you to.  You go out there with your hoodie march and skittles making other people richer but shit why not just shine some fuckin shoes while you're out there doing the white man's work?  It's a lack of self respect brothers it's fucking embarrassing for you.  The buck dancing and shuck jiving the whites made you do back then for entertainment is replaced with this shit.  It's embarrassing brothers.  You believe black life is only worth protesting when a non black kills them.   You do what the white man tells you to-you even believe the white man's lie you convince yourself of it and act like a slave.

I see a lot of you saying stuff like "you're not black-you don't know" "white privilege" and all that kind of thing.  Let's start from the top.  I am not black I don't know what is like to be black-you're right.  But if you mean to tell me I can't observe and report you are saying I am stupid.  You are saying my opinion doesnt count BECAUSE I am white...but I'm racist.  You hear me brothers?  You hear how fucked up that is?  As far as white privilege goes when my taxes come in I pay the same as you-when I screw up at work I get fired like you.  When I go to the car dealership I do not get the "white discount" My credit card bill comes in every month and I have to pay it, I know this flies in the face of some of the shit you believe but now it's my turn-You're not white so you don't know.  When you say stuff like that what you are literally saying is "I am a victim and you dont know".  to that I say grow the fuck up we are all victims of something.

You think some shit happens to you just because you're black?  Probably, I wont deny EVERYONE in this country is free from racism.  But what the hell makes you think it's a one way street brothers?  I caught plenty of ass whoopins for being a little white boy in the hood where I grew up-oh yeah I only knew one other white kid.  You dont see me chanting about it or wrapping myself in it and saying feel bad for me.  You want to believe you're a victim? fine be weak but I aint having none of that and I won't feed that idea.  As I said we're all victims of something-pick your ass on up and get moving.  You can't blame the white folk for everything.

As I said who does the shooting in your hood?  When the police show up nobody says anything.  The code is "we take care of our own here"  Obviously not or else you wouldnt be shooting each other.  And when it happens and the police come it doesnt matter if the the police are white or black everyone shuts up.  How the fuck do you expect justice and arrests when no one says anything?  These killers stay on the loose and the only option you leave your community is to have another killer take him out.  But he's still a killer-still a bad man so it fixes nothing.  Wouldnt you rather tell the police and have arrests instead of more deaths?  Even anonymous tip lines-no one calls.  "No snitching" another invention you created that helps keep your own kind down brothers.  Come on man.  You sit there and say "There's a gun store on every corner".  You are right-I looked it up-you are right.  Gun stores are concentrated in your hoods.

My next question is who is MAKING you shoot each other?  The white man?  The white man is putting his hand around yours and pulling the trigger?  come on brothers you know that shit aint the truth.  Same thing with the drugs.  The white man may be dropping it off in your hood but who is selling to HIS OWN PEOPLE?  You sell your own people out for petty cash and say there aint no other way.  Shit, I know believe me I know.  I have been in those jobs and compared to the drug money it isnt anything.  But you forget you sell yourselves out when you enter the drug trade.  Even this cubby hole was your own doing.

Back in the civil rights era there were riots in your hoods.  Riots where some really bad shit happened.  White people who had the means and money (because they didnt come from generations of slaves) picked up and got out of town.  They took their businesses, stores, money and everything else they could with them.  This left a vacuum, a lot of empty stores rental property etc.  So what happened?  Walk through your neighborhood and count the businesses and restaurants owned by Koreans, Laotians, and other Asians.  You didnt capitalize on the situation.  Whitey owed you something.  Rather than move in on the property and make the moves to a better community...you waited-for what?  I hear the bullshit about why there are few black owned businesses in the hood-they say "We don't/didn't want to play the white man's game"  Making money for yourself is not playing anybody's game but your own.  How is it playing the white man's game if you are black, own a store, sell goods and services at a fair price to other blacks and give black people in your community more jobs?  Nah, this aint the white man's fault-you are just claiming victim-someone owes me something and even if I fuck up I'll just stand on my "blackness" and say it's because I wasn't going to play the white man's game.

it sounds good to some folks I guess.  But if you were for all things black again how is owning a business and empowering your black community with jobs NOT for all things black?  The white folks and the money have left your communities because of riots so now after Trayvon we want more riots?  Brothers you only break and destroy your own buses, houses, and schools.  It isnt like you roll into the suburbs and start trashing white people's stuff-no you trash your own to prove a point....to who-to the white man?  He laughs at you when you do this.  You don't want to be feared or thought of as a savage but the minute you hear something you dont like your leaders and white slave masters order you to destroy and you do.  But don't think of us as irrational, angry, and violent.  You shouldnt be afraid of us when walking down a dark alley.  Shit I am with you I fear no man but other people? they see all this shit on tv and what are they supposed to think?  They see you choosing to do this to yourselves, shit it doesnt get more irrational brothers.

I will bear no responsibility for this shit anymore.  You have been blaming the white man while breaking your own communities and killing each other.  I will no longer feel guilty for the actions of others.  It is fucking heart breaking-and I mean that word.  It is heart breaking to see this happen.  You are being manipulated by charlatans and slave masters and you don't even see it or want to see it.  I have been brought to tears over this.  We will never have togetherness and unity as long as we resist the truth.

  

George Bush and How he Lingers

Bush Policies and a List of Accomplishments



NDAA a law that authorizes the president to issue arrest orders, detain and hold American citizens indefinitely with only suspicion of crimes.

Renewal of the Patriot Act-on May 26 2011 the president renewed this law which includes (among other things) roving wiretaps, access to private records, and the ability to conduct "necessary surveillance" on American citizens without their consent or knowledge.

Benghazi Embassy attack-on September 11 2012 militants took to the streets in Libya set on attacking the American Embassy.  The president claims that a youtube video was offensive to Muslims and that is the reason for the attack.  The maker of the short film was arrested without charges.  Days later the president admits that the attack was pending regardless of the youtube video.  While shrouded in a cloud of controversy the president and other members of the government have refused to provide an accurate chain of events which ultimately led to the deaths of four Americans in that attack.  A lawsuit is pending as of this moment in order to subpoena government officials.  Even though the government has admitted that the youtube video is not to blame the maker of the film is still in prison without charges.

Fast and Furious-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's secret mission to perform a sting on Mexican drug cartels.  Military grade weapons and full automatic rifles were sold and distributed to the Mexican drug cartels.  There were zero arrests made in this sting operation.  Mexican cartels then went on to murder citizens and others.

Executive order on Guns-Issued without Congressional approval.  Curtails the second amendment without a system of checks and balances.  While the constitution can be amended it requires a specific system and order of events for changes to take place.   An executive order while insufficient to overturn the constitution can still be written into law.

Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood with American tax dollars-the Muslim Brotherhood supports ideas that make women second class citizens and would either convert or kill those who do not adopt their religious beliefs.  While they are not officially recognized as a terrorist organization we should bear in mind neither is the KKK.  American tax dollars (roughly 250 million) have funded their war with organized governments in Egypt and Syria.

The infamous "Kill List"-the president has admitted that he keeps a running list of people that need to be terminated.  Yes, there are some U.S. citizens on the list.

U.S. Drone strikes used to kill American citizens without due process-according to the 5th amendment in the Bill of Rights no American is to be denied life liberty or property without due process (trial).  In Yemen three US citizens were killed via Drone strike by orders of the president.  Two weeks later a separate Drone strike killed another American citizen who was merely sixteen years old.  Not even old enough to be tried as an adult never mind executed.  All four were executed under suspicion of crime but with no trial.  While men went in to arrest or kill Osama Bin Laden the decision was made to execute these citizens without a trial by jury.  That's right we actually applied the proper procedure to a man who is supposedly responsible for three thousand deaths and denied that procedure to US citizens for mere suspicion of conspiracy to commit crimes.

This is the record of George Bush-the war criminal.  Well he WAS a war criminal I think we can all agree.  The thing about it is that this list?  These are some of the accomplishments of Barack Obama.  I think based on all this that the people who still stand with the president have to go through their rite of passage.  How it is that anyone can look at all of this and still think that this is proper conduct for a leader of the people is beyond me.  The president swears an oath to protect and defend the people's liberty when he is inaugurated as do all other public servants.  The government is supposed to serve the people an protect their liberties.  Economic policies aside can we really say that is true about the last 14 years?

Obama supporters need to make peace with the fact that his presidency is one of danger and seeks to limit the power and liberties of the American people while at the same time increasing the government's.  Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated: "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."  Now think about that for a moment.  Is it legal for any of us to kill another citizen without a legal process?  No we call it murder.  Is it legal for us to distribute guns freely amongst drug cartels in another country thus adding more disorder, mayhem and murder to their society?  No that violates many laws.  Is it legal for the citizens to deny an inquest into the deaths of others?  No it is obstruction of justice.  Is it legal for any citizen to give other people's money to another group without their consent or approval?  No we call that theft.  Is it legal for us to draw up laws that restrain our government and allow us to spy on and lock them up when they violate us?  Actually yes at one time we did have that power as citizens.  It has slowly since been weakened and possibly removed.

Now the fringe elements are going to say Obama is great no matter what he does even if he were to personally set fire to their home.  Such is this man's charisma.  Those with at least a shred of morality and common sense can admit that this is all pretty horrible.  As Mark Twain once said "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."  I think the problem is that Obama attracts a certain mindset.  He campaigned under HOPE.  How vague can we be really?  The vagueness is completely on purpose.  Whatever your political fantasy and American utopia was "HOPE" encompassed it.  CHANGE-again it works under the same guise as HOPE.

What is sad about it is that people once really did believe in those mottos and virtues.  The problem is that they are still waiting.  Still waiting for their utopia.  Some have given up, others still cling to hope and further still others believe we are almost there.  If you think dropping missiles on Americans without due process is ok-you are HOPEless.  You go to bed saying well they deserved it and it won't happen to me.  Your selfishness belies the fact that it shouldn't happen to ANYONE.

Liberals still cling to the (D) after Obama's name but really that's all there is left.  These are not the actions of a liberal.  I thought wars, missiles, covering up deaths, gun running, overt murder of citizens, kill lists, snatching the power to lock up whoever they want...I thought these were all characteristics of the right?  Are you adopting them or just fooling yourself still?

Save the Children!

Who's Going to Lookout for Billy?


The children!  What about the children! Save the children!  Who's thinking about the children?  Well, I don't often say this but to hell with the children.  By that of course I mean to hell with using children to bolster your position and gain and not the actual children.  The battle cry is the same as it ever was "I'm doing this for the kids and if you don't follow you're a bad person and a racist and bla bla bla".

Free condoms, birth control, and abortions for teens on tax payer dime?  The reason is that it is for their own safety.  Well ok, does that mean I am entitled to tax payer money to get my wife a pistol to keep in her purse? No? But it's for her protection!  I thought liberals were all about women's rights and equality.  Believe me a pistol in the face of an attacker more than makes her equal it empowers her.  So much for being consistent there eh?  Somehow when women are hoisted up by liberals they had better leave their guns behind.  What with it being their body but not being allowed to protect it.

You know while we are on the topic of abortion let's get into how destroying babies is cool but the right to protect my family isn't because you are afraid I'll loose my cool and hurt some kids one day.  If you really gave a damn about the kids you would first and foremost want to see them live to become kids.  I suppose if the abortionist's tools were black had scary laser sights and  a pistol grip we would want them banned?  Making laws against things you never even read about or handled in real life-smart.  But then again you did it with healthcare so what do I know?

If you gave a damn about my kids you'd have no problem with me keeping a sidearm in public for their safety as well as those around me.  You fear the wild west scenario but the other scenario is the one where only the good guy gets hurt and or dies.  Your plan for me is to sacrifice myself for my family rather than kill an intruder.  This is not how battles are won-no wonder you people suck at war so much.

If you cared so much about the children you wouldn't protect them with a sign that reads "gun free zone" as opposed to actual guards.  We guard the president and all other people of importance with guns.  We defend the gold and banks with guns.  We defend airports and other facilities with guns.  Know why?  They are effective at diffusing a situation before it starts.  No coward shooter wants targets to shoot back and just knowing that some places/people have that ability sometimes ends a would be conflict.  But no our kids do not get this right to be safe...good thing the money is though we'll need it for condoms for the 12 year old down the street.

If you had love for children you would also not want to restrict or ban the use of weapons in the home.  This roots back to the intruder thing up there.  My family is under protection when I am home thanks to my firearms.  If you take them away you put them and myself in harm's way.  I am willing to die for them but why make me do that?  So you can run a nice tear jerker the next day and say I was this and that?  Also you have no right to intrude in my family's affairs and how we run our home.  If we want to have "scary" black rifles for defense we should have every right to it just as much as the transgender folk down the road want to adopt.

This isn't about kids-call this what it is.  You have a gunphobia.  You have never been taught how they work and how to be safe with firearms or you just don't like what they do.  In either case you have no right to push that onto me and everyone else.  I think gays should be able to get married-I am not gay it is not my concern but I don't think I should get in the way of their constitutional rights.  You condemn homophobia while at the same time have no problem stuffing your gun fears down other people's throats and getting in the way of my constitutional rights.  Your opinions and fears do not justify the removal of my rights-you need much more than that.

I'm sorry the constitution is such a bummer for you.  It does not include healthcare, abortion, or wealth re-distribution.  The three things you seem to harp about all hours of the day.  It does however grant me the right to life liberty the pursuit of happiness the freedom from having my money stolen by social programs and the ability to keep weapons for use in the defense of my life and the ones I love.  The fact that idea enrages and upsets you so much is of course a concern for me.  Why do I fear background checks?  I don't.  Why do you want to keep me from weapons for self defense?  Is self defense a horrible idea to you?

When one adult tells another that they know what is best for them it is an insult.  You are saying "I am smarter than you-this is what you need to do instead."  Well if I am going to follow that lead excuse me while I adopt the teachings and words of guys like, Franklin, Madison, and Washington.  You would know them as "hacks".  Just let me know when your party draws up a better solution as to how to found a country.  On second thought-don't.

Gay Rights and the God Argument

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; ...." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

So our right to pursue happiness comes from God.  Being with someone you love and sharing in their life is truly a happy act.  I can attest to that as a married man myself.  So let me ask directly-where does the garbage of 'gays shouldn't get married' come from and what makes it a legit stand point in this country?  Well it isn't a legit argument.  Let's dissect this shall we?

The government cannot take away certain inalienable rights.  Only God can.  This was set up by the founders for just such an instance.  Certain private issues should not and cannot be regulated by government.  So already we're off to a bad start.  The government is wrong and is depriving a certain group of rights for no reason.  Honestly the government has never said "gays cannot be married and here's why..."  So without even so much as a bogus reason a group is being denied their God given rights. Strike one for government control.

What's that?  Ok keep your voice down-shouting God hates fags as loud as you can does get your point across but it also makes you look all the more silly because you are wrong.  Bible verse this bible verse that says "God hates gays".  Well ok let me ask you this-If only God can remove the ability to be happy (or married in this case) and he hates gays than there is NO way they can get married-right?  So how come they can in some states?  If God was against gay marriage there would be no gay married couples.  An omnipotent being with unlimited power somehow cannot prevent a group he despises from gaining something he does not want them to have?  I'm not trying to be blasphemous here-I am being logical.  I believe in and love God but I think we can agree that if he is infallible there would be no way for gays to get married-ever.  The fact that it exists in some states and those couples haven't keeled over from a plague of some sort is either a miracle or God has somehow forgotten to smite them.  In either case it's ridiculous for a being with unlimited power to allow something as trivial as this.  Could it be that he loves these people like you believe he loves you?

If you don't think that is true either than your god sucks.  Sorry but he does.  My God loves everyone-believers, non believers, blacks whites, gays straights, come one come all he loves all of you.  Somehow if you have sex with the wrong person he will hate you.  Does this make sense?  Does God REALLY care about our sexuality and what pleases us physically?  Bible verse this and bible verse that is probably the response.  Well, I do think that God wants us to be good and nice to each other and not swindle and murder our neighbors.  In short I believe God does wish that we didn't harm one another.  How does consensual sex among legal adults hurt anyone?  If it does not pick someone's pocket or break their leg there is no real harm only disapproval from those who do not understand.  Disapproval or discomfort is all relative and not grounds to claim it effects your life.

The God argument fails.  The government argument fails.  It all fails in the end and do you know why?  Because gays are born as human beings and unless you think they are inhuman they get the same protections we offer straight folks.  The right to be free and pursue happiness.  They get that God given right and he has yet to take it away.  When you make the claim that they somehow don't have this you are literally saying one group is superior to another.  Are you really as so bold and arrogant to claim this?  If you are against gay marriage you want to deny a fellow American of God given rights-even you can realize your power does not supersede God's and his wishes.

The reason for force

FORCE-it is REASONABLE

You are walking with your friends down a road.  The concert got out late and you seem to be the only ones who parked so far away in this direction.  As your group approaches the car a few men stand up-previously hidden by other parked cars.  They produce knives and handguns and tell you that you are now being robbed.  Wallets, and car keys are to be handed over if you want to make it home tonight.

This one example encompasses all that is control in our existence as humans.

Our society is based on two methods of coercion.  Reason and force.  That is it, there is no other way you can gain results from another in our society without using one of the two.  It is fairly simple.  If I want to gain anything from you I must convince you and you must agree to do it.  The other option is that I must threaten you with violence and indeed make good on that promise if you refuse and take what I want from you.

Typically when a person or entity wants something of you they ask first.  Seldom do citizens catch beatings out of nowhere for no reason. The reason being is that your capitulation makes the violator's job that much easier.  He gained what he wanted and didn't even need to expend any energy.  The myth out there is that criminals are these master minds who play games with police and are often too clever to be contained.  That they will use clever mind games in order to trick you.  The reality is 99% of crime in this country is perpetrated by the inherently stupid.   Poorly educated, apathetic of almost everything, and thoughtless.  These folks don't exactly think ahead when they choose to do something bad.  Even these folks will use words to gain what they want from you first.  That is how basic the notion is.

Force often results from resistance to reason.  We deem the demands to be in fact unreasonable and the confrontation escalates to its next logical level: Force.  There is a small chance the violator will concede the confrontation when his use of "reason" is resisted but not often.  Force is the measure of punishment applied by the violator to the victim.  The use of force against the innocent is a true act of a superiority complex and arrogance.  I deserve what you have-you have denied it so now I have the right to harm you.  That is the mindset of those who perpetrate these crimes.

However we are seeing a clever adaptation of this societal truth.  When a larger entity like a government wants something of its citizenry it first asks.  Remember it is the easiest way to attain results also it is guaranteed SOME people will do it.  When the results prove to be less than hoped the ask turns to a demand.  You must comply-it is for your benefit.  Again some will bend out of fear.  If the result is STILL not good enough they move to threats.  You must comply or we will punish you.  Even more will bend from fear and if the result is still not what they had hoped they must now apply said punishment or risk appearing as a false authority.  The punishment will be carried out in most cases.  The force of this equation will now be applied.

The reason why this method has evolved is that it causes less alarm.  We now accept this as a societal norm and not what it is-a bully tactic.  If the government were simply to go from asking and then to force we would not tolerate it as citizens.  So what we have seen is a tactic of control and coercion.  By adding steps to the process it helps perpetrate the myth that these steps are lawful and just.  The misinformation campaign is so successful that some are beginning to believe in and make excuses for this method.  Let us personalize this shall we?

If I want all of you money and I ask for it you will more than likely deny me.  A few days go by.  I return and  ask for your money-you deny me.  I then in the same conversation demand that you do it-you deny me yet again.  I return in a week's time and this time I tell you that if you do not surrender all of your money I will take it and kill you instead.  You resist me and I leave.  I return yet again and bring a gang.  We shoot everyone in your home and take all of your possessions.

How is this a legal process?

Granted a crime is not truly committed until threats are made however as mentioned we tolerate it from our authority.  We are threatened with arrest for not complying with officers even if we ourselves have committed no crime.  We are threatened with being stripped of our constitutional rights if we join up with groups the government has deemed dangerous.  Never mind that the government is bound by a process that prevents it from denying us of ANYTHING before proving guilt of a crime.    It is only when you believe a power over you is absolute that it is.  Without your consent an authority can only harm you-it can never control you.

The DNC Hates You-All Of You

The DNC and Your Constitutional Rights

      When was the last time you heard anyone at the DNC make a plea to any government body or individual about the violation of our citizens' constitutional rights?  Apart from a few brave souls who hung on with Rand Paul at his recent filibuster nothing else comes to mind.  We have to go back to Bush days for that.  Back then the DNC were right, the Bush administration violated a lot of constitutional rights.  Somehow when their man does it-we should all just "accept it" or believe whatever bogus reason that is given about it being ok.  The reason being is that at this point in time the DNC has slowly integrated unconstitutional ideas into their creed and many of them probably don't even know it.  Over time they have adopted a fierce stance against personal property, aid for non tax payers (with tax payer funds), and often are hostile to the 2nd amendment (2A).  The DNC is a good example about how an entity can be infiltrated and a misinformation campaign can bring about significant change over time.

     In its inception the DNC championed the working man on the docks and entrepreneur.  It lasted up until I'd say the 50's.  Often they drew up labor bills protecting American workers from brutal hours and slave wages.  They fought hard for consumer protections and fairness in the marketplace.  It is amazing that we have come from this end to one of an open war against wealth and possessions.  Often the DNC champions the welfare system and unemployment as necessary devices for a prosperous nation.  I'm not here to debate whatever results good, bad, or ugly.  I am however to make it clear that these are unconstitutional ideas.  The 5th states that a citizen cannot be denied their property without due process.  When we are lucky enough to earn a paycheck these days; money (apart from taxes and oh how we call our special interests taxes in order to make an idea constitutionally correct on paper) is torn out of it without our consent or approval and sent to someone else who someone somewhere by some means deems "needs it more".  There is no counter argument.  My property has been denied without my consent.  The DNC has very low faith in turning the welfare system into a private industry but many charities and organizations exist and run very effectively in this country.  A nice side note is that most have no shortage of funds either.  Any member of the DNC who are afraid of a privatized welfare system crumbling needs to punch the data on the relief efforts of natural disasters and exactly how much is donated by private citizenry.  Roughly 30% of the money that goes into the welfare system goes to pay the workers in that system.  This is pilfering off of pilfered funds.  Amazing.  Also we need to remember that we often hear of wealthy families donating half or more of their money to a foundation in America.  It is fairly often we see it floating around on facebook or even the news.  This is something I have yet to hear our friends in Europe do.  You know Europe that place that we are often told is the model of the world?

     For whatever reason the DNC champions non tax payers.  Those who do not pay into the system that protects our rights.  I shouldn't say "whatever reason" the reason is like any other political party-they want the votes.  This is a form of exploitation and preying on the weak.  You throw a few food stamps at them which won't pull them out of poverty while saying "courtesy of the DNC" with a wink and nod.  Mind you these folks do not pay into the system that we have.  Roads, military, education etc.  they get to use those for free. The fact is the DNC believes many mega corporations escape taxes and they hate them for it.  I mean H-A-T-E.  If a poor strawberry picker escapes taxes "he needs to" and you're beating up on him if you question it.  This doesn't change the fact that the strawberry picker is getting free use of public facilities.  A tax dodge of 10 billion or 10 dollars is still a tax dodge.  It's cool that we can make exceptions where appropriate for votes though.

        When was the last time anyone got to a DNC dinner for free?  You know one of those political fund raisers that cost a few grand a plate?  (the same ones the RNC has and they scream "rich people!")  That's not ok no one should get that for free but if someone is getting something for "free" on tax payer dime that is just dandy.  The hypocrisy and double standards are mind blowing when you really analyze it.  Our constitution does not apply to citizens of France, Japan, Australia or anywhere else outside of U.S. soil.  Somehow these folks who are not citizens should get the same rights as you and I without having paid a cent into the system that protects these ideals.  If you haven't figured out this idea is unconstitutional yet please stop reading this.

    The DNC is no fan of guns for the most part this is obvious.  Any sixth grader who has read the constitution wouldn't join up with the likes of Feinstein.  Does it scare you how much support she has?  It should.  Since the DNC has long thrown out most of the constitution in place of other values they more or less invented they think nothing of encroaching on or removing rights that we need as citizens.  The haughtiness that they feel they know how to run a citizenry better than men who truly suffered at the hands of a king is nothing short of an insult to the average American.  It doesn't end there though.  If they feel a part of the constitution is invalid-so should you.  Sadly for them it does not work that way.  Most in the DNC believe we operate as a democracy-we don't.  We are a republic...Google it-I'll wait. Yeah, how about that?  But it's hard to admit that when their rival has the word "republic" in it.  So we start a misinformation campaign saying we are a democracy...Democratic party-get it?  The same thing is happening here.  While we coddle gays, minorities, and women gun owners can all go jump off a cliff.  What's that?  What if you are a gay or female gun owner?  You can still jump off a cliff.  The coddling is sold out in favor of demonizing gun owners and instilling fear into non owners.  For a party that supports "the right to choose" they sure seem to want to remove an awful lot of choices for me where the second amendment is concerned.  One of the choices some in the DNC want to remove is my choice to even have the ability to defend myself and family.  Choice is only for a woman if you are a man who wants a gun go get bent oh and if you're a woman who wants a gun follow the man and get bent if you want an abortion along the way that's cool.  We will not however support killing a mugger in self defense-the baby is a the bigger threat to society.

     Money and possessions are also a target for the DNC.  As mentioned they feel entitled to your money to give to others for votes.  This is thievery and bribery all in one act.  When a corporation bribes the government with its profit it is wrong we can agree-but when the DNC bribes the poor with YOUR money it isn't a bribe but "help" or "aid".  This is supposed to be ok by the way.  Somehow they can't hold themselves to the same standards they do others.  I suppose the thing that makes me most sad about the DNC is that they quickly rush to demonize or belittle anyone who does not walk lock step with their new age values.  The problem is that while everyone knows the age old battle between republicans and democrats (and most of us are thoroughly sick of it by now) they fight Libertarians and Constitutionalists as well.  Their misinformation campaign is very strong and normally I wouldn't care but because they wish to replace portions of the constitution (or as a whole in some cases) it makes them dangerous.  We can make amends to the constitution so long as it makes the citizenry more free and/or restricts the size and role of the government in daily life.  These however are not the changes they wish to make.

The Morally Superior Argument Debunked

As I have expressed my opinion about an armed citizenry on Facebook I have been experiencing a lot of fear from people. I explain that all rational thought leads us to giving the people the choice to arm themselves for self defense purposes.  I always thought this was a common sense idea.  I also thought that America liked its constitution and Bill of Rights.  I am learning a lot these days.  People think I am crazy or stupid or both. (I may be stupid-I dunno) Whatever, Let me lay out a few personal truths.

-I do not think the government is going to kill me or kidnap me

-I do not hope for the day when I get to shoot an intruder.  The anti gun crowd seems to think any man who prepares for self defense rubs his hands together in ghoulish delight at the thought of justified homicide.  Nothing could be further from the truth for me.   I fear and loathe that day and literally pray to my God to not have to put me through it.  I will never be the same and under the wrong conditions I may end up doing jail time or worse-who hopes for that?

-I want to be left alone by anyone who seeks to do me or mine any harm i.e. I am just like anyone reading this. With that said...

I do not claim the moral high ground. I have yet to "bust out" the preposterous notion that my position on anything is more morally just than anyone else's. I refuse to get into those theoreticals. I do however take great offense to anyone telling me that my desire to protect myself and loved ones from harm (using force if necessary) is somehow barbaric or less civilized.  Civilization has gone through many types of law.  We have seen and experienced 'Eye for an eye', stockading, and a myriad of other forms of punishment.  Self defense can be seen as a form of criminal punishment.  You have intruded on my or my loved one's right to exist peaceably.  The punishment is physical force, death as a possibility.  The only way to prevent this death sentence is of course to not intrude on another's right to exist peaceably.  This is a simple idea with zero room for gray area.  Either your life is in danger or it is not.  If it is not no death penalty can be enforced. 

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to die or see someone you love die at the hands of someone else. In fact it is a very human trait. Those who accuse me of lack of morality; I wonder if they themselves have this trait. If they do not have this trait who is the lesser human being? The man who wants to be left alone and protect his loved ones or the one who would simply let them be had at the hands of evil men? Those who would not even challenge those men who seek their harm?  Sometimes we enter into a quarrel or small fist fight and you must be the bigger man in order to contain the situation.  The bigger man argument does not work in this situation.  If a man breaks into my home and begins to stab my wife being the bigger man means allowing harm to someone I love.  At this point this man has left me little choice but to meet or raise his level of violence in the hopes to stop him.  Being the bigger man is a beautiful measure of strength and patience-we should all practice it.  However, when the other man cares not for your gentleman like gesture the idea can be dangerous, even fatal. In this scenario by taking the moral high ground it means sacrificing a woman I love to prove a point to a man I do not even know.

When I am told my morals are broken because I believe in an armed populace for strictly self defense purposes it troubles me.  Are you against self defense? What is the recourse of a disarmed public in the face of evil? If your answer is to call the police what you are saying is call someone who is indeed armed to handle the situation.  The end result is the same an armed man must come to the rescue but it cannot be me or anyone else for moral reasons.  The argument is a fallacy.  Provided the police get there and I am still alive they may do the same thing an armed civilian would do: use their weapons to subdue or end the situation.  At this point an innocent life has been changed or lost forever for "morality's sake."  You claim morality but stripping weapons from those who are good in turn creates more victims. You claim morality yet expect me to do nothing when an evil man enters my home? (these are the same folks who cry someone should do something when they hear about a third time offender raping or killing someone else)  Everyone wants crime gone from our streets.  The only people who don't are of course criminals.  Owning a weapon does not make me a criminal...my actions do.  I am judged by those who are "morally superior" before I even commit a crime.  Not all crimes are committed with weapons do these people assume non weapons owners will commit crimes?  Of course not-that would make they themselves criminals and how can they be-they own no weapons since they are morally superior.

Your moral stance is a falsehood. It is a justification for your fears. Fear of weapons, fear of the world, fear of something-you fear me because I own a weapon. Do these people so full of fear cross the street and dine out with their friends? They do? well they have engaged in things that can get them killed without fear mind you and without having met me brand me as dangerous.  This is what is fair to them.  Our world is a mess.  Maybe these folks have never had a gang banger or neo nazi come into their life and destroy their happy little world?  If not thank God-I envy them.  To live in a happy little world no one can touch is the goal of most citizens.    They assume the world would be perfect if not for these pesky guns.  If history has taught us anything it's that we are well adept at killing one another with or without arms.  You would think these morally superior people would be in favor of arms.  If a six foot five thug is going to use his muscles to force a rape or robbery and a pistol is pulled out of the supposed victim's pocket the tables have turned dramatically.  There is crime being prevented and no one has to die.  A one hundred pound woman can now take out a gang of five with the right handgun and training.  Arms favor the weaker person in an engagement.  Taking those arms away puts the larger predator in an advantage.  We all know these guys prey on what they feel are easy targets to begin with why remove their ability to put the odds in their favor?

                                                           

You fear me because I own a weapon-why?  If I am your neighbor and I see a gang of men entering your home do you think I will simply let them? It seems like you fear the wrong people. Fear will only lead you to justification and blind acceptance as your fear being a truth. The reality is you need only fear evil intent and that is not brought upon by ownership of weapons or playing video games or bunking school.  It comes from those who do not cherish life. Like those people who would prevent me from protecting my loved ones. How can you claim to cherish life and disarm those who seek to protect it?

Progressives and Obama Zombies are Dangerous