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.