Monday, December 31, 2012

My Year In Blogs

Happy New Year from Paul and Melissa.

For my faithful (and not so faithful) readers, I wish to send my year's end gratitude.

Though I have "blogged" for years, it was mostly articles defending the military, philosophical essays, history, poetry, short stories, or written accounts of role-playing games. The main reason for restricting the spectrum was my military service. While I was active duty, I made sure that I stayed as apolitical in my writings as I could muster.

I didn't start writing "professionally" until I was officially retired. Even then, I did not do so seriously until the last month or two of 2011. In effect, my blog really didn't take-off until just after CPAC 2012. I watched the convention online and was inspired by several of the speakers. It should come as no surprise that it was Andrew Breitbart's speech that lit the fire under my butt.

When I attended BLOGCON in Charlotte, I found a great support network that helped me to better focus my efforts and improve. That first and greatest node of support came from my then-fiancee and now-wife, Melissa. When I told her I was attending, she told me several times that she was proud of my efforts. She has continued to stand beside me, supporting my efforts. At times I aggravate her since it is rare I take a "day off". Even if I do not publish an article, I am always researching, debating, writing notes, reading, etc.

Meeting several fellow bloggers at BLOGCON was my best move so far. Mandy Nagy, Kurt Schlichter, Brandon Darby, Pamela Geller, Tabitha Hale, "Ex-John", Steve "Vodka Pundit" Green, Michelle Ray, and others too numerous to mention, all personally encouraged me. Each fellow blogger who spoke with me gave me the respect and courtesy of listening as though I had something of value to say. I cannot thank any of you enough.

Several influential people liked some of my articles and promoted (re-tweeted) a few of my most read blogs. Among those people is actor Adam Baldwin whose unexpected support still overwhelms me.

I also must send some thanks to Johnathan Sangster at for asking me to be a frequent but  somewhat irregular columnist at his site. 

Looking back at some of my past articles, I can easily admit to being long-winded at times. To avoid making this particular article from being even half as long as the PPACA, I cannot name each person who has helped me in the past year. If you have read my articles, tweeted a link to an article of mine, linked my blog to one of your own, or re-tweeted (or shared) a link to my blog, thank you.

I went back over the past year's articles. I selected what could be considered my "greatest hits of 2012". Not all of these are based solely on hits on my blog. Some have been cross-posted to other sites or quoted. These are the ones I feel had the best impact, be it favorable or unfavorable. Not counted among these are my reviews of items such as Kurt's two books, both of which were rather popular articles of mine.

Without further ado, the beating will continue. Here are my picks for what I consider my ten "best" blogs for 2012. Please, in the comments, feel free to link other blogs, mine or others', you consider to be among your favorites for the year.

10. An Era of Indoctrination . This article is probably one of my better articles in support of school-choice and against the plague of socialist indoctrination that has infected public schools. It is also my top blog in the "Education and School Choice" category.

 9. The Left's 'Wars' on Everything. In this article I discussed the various distraction "war on" memes that the left employed, and how ridiculous their hypocrisy is.

8. Hey! Give Me My Cream Filling!  This was the first of several articles documenting and commenting on Hostess's battle with bankruptcy and the unions. For those unaware, Hostess ended up "going Galt" and folding. This article starts back when they first filed for bankruptcy for what would become their last time. 

7. Among my numerous Second Amendment related articles, Firearms Frenzy of 2012 discussed the surge of firearm sales not long after the mass shooting in Aurora, CO during a screening of the third Dark Knight movie. I also predicted future surges as the UN Small Arms Treaty and anticipated attempted gun-grabs coming from Obama towards the end of the year. Looking at current trends in firearms and ammunition sales, it looks as though I called it. This article tops my "Second Amendment" category for 2012.

6. In Oh Yes He Did, And He Supports Obama, I did double diligence in both supporting veterans' issues and exposing leftist hypocritical hatred as I discussed known communist Ted Turner's statements about veteran suicide.

5. Arizona Sheriff Larry Dever Dies Unexpectedly is the runner-up in my memorial category, topping non-military related memorial articles. Rest In Peace to Sheriff Larry Dever, who was my County Sheriff when I lived in Arizona.

4. Across the blogosphere there was a "day of silence" in response to "lawfare" tactics taken by the convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin and his cabal that includes Neal Rauhauser. My response was To Be Not Silent. While others took the day to not blog, I wrote. I not only refused to be quiet, I dared others to try to silence me. 

3. Unions Bite Hand that Feeds Cream Filling. I despise socialism in all its forms. Labor unions, especially so-called "public sector" unions are among the most vile examples of proletarian tyranny.  When reading Orwell's Animal Farm, these jackasses supported the pigs. In this article, I exposed how the pigs ate Hostess out of business.

2. Do I Owe You An Apology? was my response to the results of November's election. I discussed second guessing my efforts. This was probably my most influential political essay of 2012. Several fellow conservative bloggers lauded this one as a "must read". Take a few moments and make your own decision on that opinion.

1. On March 25, 2012 I wrote an essay for Medal of Honor day. The result was an essay on the effect two recipients of that highest recognition had upon my life an military career. Even from beyond the grave, they lead. Their story and the way they lived serves as one of the highest examples to be emulated. To date, and rightfully so, Honor, Valor, Fidelity, Sacrifice, SOLDIERs: Shugart & Gordon remains my most-read article. Please read this one, not for me, but for the great men and women who have served this great republic.

Other articles of note from the past year:

My most popular review this past year was of Schlichter II: I AM A LIBERAL.

My most influential, however, was co-written by my beloved wife, Melissa, Melissa's Musings: How to Kill 11 Million People. I discussed my wife's reaction to this book. Linked to it are her actual words. 

In the humor department, my most popular essay was We DO Need Parental Guidance Here (Part 1), in which I delivered Obama a long overdue scolding. 

The first runner-up in humor was my essay Evolving Definition of a Term ("Nutjob"). The article was mostly fiction, and labeled as such. It just may give you a much needed giggle or guffaw.

Friday, December 28, 2012

Could Concealed Carry Have Saved Donna Kristofak

Captured Fugitive John Kristofak,
Accused of Murdering ex-wife Donna Nations Kristofak

On Saturday, December 22, 2012, John Kristofak allegedly stalked his ex-wife, Donna, and murdered her in her garage. The murder weapon was a knife. He stabbed her, delivering a fatal wound which claimed her life after arriving at a nearby hospital.

The murder weapon was not a gun.

Donna Kristofak had feared for her life. Several times, she filed for court orders requesting protection. The courts granted her wishes, issuing restraining orders against John. Still, like all criminals, the law meant nothing to John Kristofak, who was charged with Aggravated Stalking in March of 2012.

During the court proceedings, Donna had asked the court to make an official record that she feared for her life. She wanted it on official paperwork that her fear was well documented and well founded.

It is unknown if Donna Nations Kristofak had been issued a concealed carry permit. What is known is that the Lautenberg Amendment of 1997 forbid John Kristofak from possessing a firearm and disqualified him from a concealed carry permit. He didn't need either. He murdered Donna with a knife.

John Kristofak eluded police as a fugitive for several days. Police and US Marshals arrested Kristofak the morning of December 27, 2012 in a hotel room in Union City, Georgia. He did have a handgun in his possession at the time of his arrest. He did not lawfully possess that firearm. The gun ban on perpetrators of domestic violence meant nothing to the criminal. Criminals care little for laws. Had Kristofak respected life and the law, he would not have killed his ex-wife. He would not have given Donna Kristofak cause to seek restraining orders and police protection from him.

Had Donna Kristofak obtained a concealed carry permit, it would have provided her an option that could have, perhaps, saved her life. If she had one, she should have been armed at the time of the assault.

That is only part of the picture. Those of us who received adequate defensive handgun training know that unholstering and presenting a concealed handgun is a bad move if the assailant is within a certain short range. If the assailant is two paces or less away, and trained, he can avoid being shot and even, potentially disarm his intended victim.

However, Donna Kristofak had that documented court order. The judge had told her that if John approached her property or was seen following her that she could call the police and he would be arrested. Even if police reaction time was six minutes, it took John Kristofak seconds to deliver that fatal wound. It would have taken her longer to pull out a cell phone and dial 911 than it would have to pull a properly concealed Glock 36 and put two in his chest.

Feeling her life in constant jeopardy from this criminal, Donna should have also sought out hand-to-hand self-defense classes. Krav Maga classes, Keysi classes, or basic Jujitsu classes would have granted her even more options. Those options could have worked had John's presence been discovered once he was too close to safely utilize a concealed handgun.

Donna's first mistake was actually trusting the police to protect her. Police will do their best to protect human life. However, they cannot be everywhere. No rational adult human being wants police stationed in their yard 24/7. We like our privacy. We like normalcy. A constant police presence grants neither.

While I cannot say that the measures discussed would have necessarily saved Donna Kristofak from her ex-husband's violence, they may have given her a fighting chance. They would have made her a harder target and a less-likely victim.

Saluting Stormin' Norman -- So Long, Sir

Sadayuki Mikami—Department of Defense (DOD)/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images courtesy of Britannica Kids

1990. I had been in the Illinois Army National Guard for over three years. I had been deployed to real world contingency operations already. I had volunteered for Operation Desert Shield only to be told that the active component needed combat support personnel, not light infantry. So, I applied to transfer, permanently, to the active Army. That application took until June of 1991 to be granted. I missed participating in Operation Desert Storm.

So I watched it on CNN, like so many other Americans.

That was how I was familiar with General "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf. Stormin' Norman was the George S. Patton Jr. of my generation. He was the lovable rough'n'tumble compliment to General Colin Powell, who was much more a diplomat similar to General Eisenhower was to Patton during World War II.

I have met several General Officers during my career, getting to know a few of them quite well. I used to brief General George Casey and General Metz on a weekly basis, plus on case-by-case special instances. I used to speak with General Richard Formica on a daily basis, including a phone conversation lasting several hours while I talked him through filling out some paperwork. The list goes on and on and on.

I graded each of those Generals on a scale that had Stormin' Norman at the top (and Shinseki at the bottom).

He was a Soldiers' General. He was beloved by the Soldiers he served and led.

Last night, I sat silent staring at my screen for a few moments as I read the news. Stormin' Norman had succumbed to pneumonia at the age of 78. My wife and daughter looked over at me, taking their eyes from the movie on our television. I couldn't even formulate the words. I knew neither of them would understand. My wife is 17 years my junior and was but five years old when General Schwarzkopf  was arguing with the press and fighting the war as wars need to be fought -- all out, no holding back.

Norman, you will be missed. You fought hard for the peace you so greatly deserved. Know you will be missed.


Thursday, December 27, 2012

Bounce Off A Ceiling To Fly Off A Cliff

Hey, don't worry about the fiscal cliff. We're going to give you a concussion
by bouncing us off a trampoline and into the debt ceiling, over and over.
You're Screwed. Happy New Year

Tim Geithner, the head of the Department of the Treasury, announced that the federal government will reach its credit limit on New Years Eve.

That's right, the credit cards will be maxed-out before the new year begins. The federal government will enter its fourth consecutive year without a budget. The federal government's spending far extends beyond its revenue. Now it cannot even borrow another cent to cover all it already owes.

The total credit limit on all of those credit cards is $16,400,000,000,000.00.

Then again, the federal government has, for years, been paying off its loans with credit cards, metaphorically.

Imagine if your household had been doing this over the past ten years. Imagine if you decided  to forgo a budget and just buy what you felt like purchasing, regardless of your means of supporting yourself. Now imagine that the bills have started coming in and you spent the past four years paying off the car loan, the mortgage, and your weekly food bills with credit cards. Now imagine that you have ten credit card accounts, they are all maxed out, and you cannot get anymore. Now notice that starting after the first of the year, the commission rate you earn is going up, but the chances of selling anything to make that commission is doomed to be cut in half. Your net income will drop at least 40%, let's say. What would you do? Probably panic and file for bankruptcy and food stamps (or get a second or third job).

A wise family wouldn't have gotten in that situation in the first place. Others would have taken the risk for a couple of months but started cutting luxuries and employing a more responsible budget not long after. What does the government do? They start to cry that they are maxed-out and claim that somebody needs to increase their credit card limits.

In addition, we have baby boomers retiring. They paid into Social Security, many since the age of about 14. It's their money. However, the government has been taking their retirement funds and putting them into the general treasury, using that money to pay for food stamps and fascist corporate subsidies such as the one to the UAW union and GM or the one to Solyndra. Those retirees are owed their money. However, it's been embezzled. So, the federal government is counting upon those not retired to pay the money to those who are for them.

To further complicate matters, more and more Americans are fleeing the workforce and claiming Socialist Insecurity Social Security Disability Insurance for malaise and depression brought about by the repressed and oppressed economy. Employment opportunities are not growing. Despite the spin the Bureau of Labor Statistics has attempted to propagandize, they changed their definitions in order to attempt to lie to citizens. The number of people unemployed has remained relatively constant. The workforce participation rate has dropped. So, there are fewer people seeking employment or employed. The remainder are collecting checks from the Social Security office.

In fact, a record number of 8,827,795 citizens are now on SSDI. Citizens paid $725.429 billion into Social Security. The government paid out $773.247 billion in SSDI, SSI (retiree), and overhead expenses in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, which ended on September 30, 2012. FY13 is shaping up to have an even higher deficit. For those who do not understand the word "deficit", that means that the government is paying out more than it is taking in. For November 2012 alone, Social Security operated at a $12.7 billion deficit, for a single month.

Meanwhile, they are also paying out to a record number of EBT card holders, as well. Most people receiving SSI and SSDI paid into the fund at one time or another. There is no federal "food insurance" program that people can (or are extorted into) pay into. Those funds come from the general fund, the same fund that Medicare and Social Security garnishments are dumped into. So, those food stamp recipients are basically stealing from grandma's retirement fund. The government is not only complicit in this, they are soliciting it. They are the masterminds of it. They are even more guilty than the thieves who are holding the stolen goods.

So, the federal government is jumping off of a trampoline at full speed so that it can bounce off of the debt ceiling. They are doing so knowing that they will land on the other side of the fiscal cliff, accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 (32 feet/second-squared) down a steep gorge for what appears will be months.

Tax reforms and other mechanics for increasing (or even maintaining) federal revenue must originate in the House of Representatives for legislation. The House is in recess with no tax reform bill passing. They have not even passed a bill to renew the tax cuts passed by Nancy Pelosi's house during Bush's administration. So tax rates are bound to go up on those now fewer people who are employed (or even in the workforce).

The Senate is too busy flipping off the conservative minority in that camera of congress to come up with a reasonable proposal to cut spending. The last plan to "cut spending" wasn't even a cut. It was a proposal to not increase it as much. When you can barely afford a pound of olive loaf, you do not quibble about borrowing more for prime rib or filet Mignon. Instead, you forgo the Little Debbie cakes so you know you have enough to buy some milk.

No tax reform. No spending cuts. Credit limit is maxed out. The country is bankrupt. The scary thing is that this is what Obama wants. Well, he wants that. He wants to steal, by force, what others worked hard to earn. He wants to use force to have the government buy out every successful business. He  wants the citizens enslaved to him and his oligarchy. He wants to punish those who succeeded but didn't kiss his ears in doing so. Don't worry, he'll be a benevolent dictator. Just ask those few idiots who voted for him in order to get a cell phone at the expense of those tax paying citizens who did work to earn.

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

The Empty Chair At The Table

Team Hooligan Christmas Eve, Iraq, 2009

December 25, 2012

I hardly slept last night.

Neighbors a few doors down were throwing a rather loud party that lasted until nearly 4 am. For various reasons, I am a rather light sleeper. Still, it is rare the sun rises before I do. I slept later than usual, rising at 5:45. I took care of my usual morning chores of tending to the pets and getting that first cup of Joe in my system.

I wasn't woken by an excited child. I would have welcomed that. But that was not the case this year. Santa is coming this afternoon. No, I was just awake by habit.

I did my normal routine, albeit starting about an hour later than normal, and checked news wires, tip-lines, and the like in case there was some breaking item or event that urged me to write. All seemed quiet. It's the quiet hours that get to me most, even now, three years since my last deployment.

A colleague sent out a Christmas message  thanking all veterans and current military service members. This urged me to view a few videos and look at a few old photographs. I read a few holiday blogs meant to show support for soldiers. I then searched for a version of "'Twas The Night Before Christmas" that has been a favorite for a couple of decades. The poem is written from Santa's point of view as he stumbled upon a US Soldier or Marine deployed to a conflict zone.

I spent the next hour or so in tears.

You can call me weak if you wish. These tears are my strength as they are gifts of pride, honor, and unbreakable bonds that no civilian can ever hope to comprehend. These tears are because, in the homes of many families I know, there is an empty chair at the Christmas dinner table.

I am not a Christian. I have not been one for over 20 years. Christmas does not have a religious meaning for me. However, most of  my family members are Christian. So were my adopted family members. Those are families who welcomed  me into their homes during the holidays while stationed far from my blood relatives. Those  are the families of deployed  Soldiers who bonded together while deployed, acting as if we had a long family tradition to uphold, though the celebrations were more thrown together attempts to make being at war more bearable for a few short hours.

Some of  those members of that adopted family went home early. Some of  them in pieces. Some of them burned beyond recognition. They went home to enjoy the peaceful rest they earned.

I miss them.

I know their families  do as well.

So now, instead of a rough and tumble Soldier smiling and joking, there is an empty space at their table.

And the tears remind me that each of them has given us a gift. That gift is that we each are alive and still free to celebrate our holiday among our families. That gift renews each year that remains true. They gave their lives so it would be so.

I ask you to not squander that gift. Send prayers of thanks to that empty chair at the table. Send prayers of hope and love to the family surrounding it, that they may feel their Soldier sitting there in spirit. Send them thoughts so they know the chair is not empty for nothing, but for everything.

Let our tears be not ones of sadness and grief, but of pride, love and joy -- and gratitude.

Monday, December 24, 2012

Gun-Grabber Hypocrisy

Every time there is some incident involving an evil person using a gun as a tool to do his evil, the gun-grabbers salivate. They politicize the tragedies in efforts to blame a tool for the actions of the criminal.

To them I have a couple of questions:

John Wayne Gacy didn't use a gun to kill those 30+ young boys. Who do you blame? The duct tape he bound them with? The house that contained the crawlspace where he buried the bodies?

I don't recall Ted Bundy having killed any of those women with a gun. He strangled some with their own pantyhose. Do we outlaw them? Others he bludgeoned with various objects ranging from a crowbar to an iron rod to a hammer to a log. Do we outlaw those items?

Their only answers concerning those are that those two (as well as numerous other examples) were exceptions to the rule. Unfortunately, for them, that same argument also applies the other way. Most guns are not used to murder. Most people who own guns do not commit murder. Those rare few who do are the exceptions, not the rule. However, they ignore the empirical data because it doesn't support their arguments.

What makes their arguments ironic is that they really don't want guns banned from everybody. They just want guns banned from anybody who opposes their desire for a tyrannic oligarchy to take over the governing of our nation.

Cases in point:

Socialist Senator Dianne Feinstein from California has, or at least used to have, a concealed carry permit. She actively carried a concealed handgun for her own protection. Yet she calls for firearms bans, or at least higher restrictions.

Socialist journalist David Gregory wants stricter bans and sanctions against firearms near school zones. In many states, public school zones already ban firearms. Even in Arizona where your average citizen does not require a permit in order to legally conceal and carry a firearm, firearms still couldn't be brought within 100 feet of a school's property line. Yet, David Gregory, who supports banning some firearms and having stricter laws that infringe upon the rights to own and carry firearms, sends his kids to a private school that has armed security guards protecting the students.

Rosie O'Donnell called for greater gun control laws, restrictions, and bans on firearms. Yet, at the time she was most vocal on the issue, her bodyguards regularly protected her with concealed handguns.

It seems as though each politician or entertainer opens their mouth in opposition to the US Constitution's Second Amendment, some amount of research finds that they own firearms, have owned firearms, or employ security personnel who carry firearms.

The reason is that their rhetoric is only half of what they are trying to say. Their spoken words are "Guns Kill People! Guns Kill Children! Ban All Guns!". The unspoken rest of their statements paraphrase along the lines of "From everybody but me or my hired security people because I'm a special little snowflake that needs the protection while all the common citizens don't deserve that special treatment".

You have to applaud Samuel L. Jackson's views on the subject. Jackson supported Obama. Jackson has many rather leftist views. However, he his views on the Second Amendment seem to deviate from his party's line. Several times, Jackson has admitted that he owns guns, likes to shoot them at the range, and supports people being allowed to own them for personal protection.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Obama Drives House Over Fiscal Cliff For Holidays

After Boehner realized that most of the fiscal conservatives in the House weren't going to back his "Plan B", he pulled the bill.

Then again, Boehner thinks he is Tip O'Neil playing to Obama as Reagan. In reality, Obama is so far opposite of Reagan that one may call him the "anti-Reagan". Tip O'Neil had a backbone and, despite being a blue-dog Democrat, was further right-leaning than Boehner. Boehner has the spine of a wet sea-sponge. He is also a blue-dog socialist in RINO clothing. It was not Boehner's leadership that averted making a bad deal with the socialists. It was the hardline leadership of the TEA Party backed representatives who told him "no".

Most of the House socialists Democrats weren't going to vote in favor of is either. They were going to fall in lock-step with Obama can call for higher taxes on anybody making more than $400k a year. The reality is that the higher tax rates on households making over $250k a year would cover the out of control government spending for only about eight days.

So, without a compromise or a new tax bill implemented, the House of Representatives closed shop and headed home for the Holidays. Some of the rhetoric spoken as they headed out the door attempted to place the task in the socialist Democrat-led Senate.

Some readers have asked for an explanation on this "Fiscal Cliff". Before discussing where we are now and what we may see happen, let's examine what this "looming financial disaster" is.

I studied economics, but am far from an expert. I read the experts and apply some common sense to that data and analysis. So, this is my understanding of  the "Fiscal Cliff".

First, we have  a huge national debt. It is over $16 Trillion. Since Obama took office, it has increased by nearly $6 Trillion. The government is spending way more than it is receiving in revenues.

That fact is compounded by the fact the government has been operating without a budget for nearly four years now. In 2008, under President Bush, the federal legislature passed its last budget. That budget was meant to last until October 1, 2009. However, the so-called "stimulus plan" trumped that budget, tossing it in the fire pit.

Under Nancy Pelosi, the House pushed through a spending bill to allow the government to spend our money without a budget. This policy is known as "pay as you go". What it really amounts to is that, since 2009, the federal government has been spending paycheck to paycheck, taking out new loans and maxing out new credit cards to cover an ostentatious standard of living. Basically, it's been spending money it doesn't have. It is about the same as a college student taking out $50k a year in student loans, paying $20k a year in tuition, and using the rest to get drunk, party, buy a new car, and pay the rent while working 15 hours a week at minimum wage only to take out another loan that size the next school year. Well, school is over. The student had a barely passing GPA and has only "Senior Fry Cook" for work experience. Now the government is faced with those maxed-out credit cards and a huge debt with no source of income in sight to pay down that debt.

Well, the government has reached its credit limit. All of the cards are maxed-out and  it isn't eligible for any more loans. This credit limit is called the "debt ceiling". In effect, the government set its own credit limits through legislation,  because there are a few loan sharks out there, such as China, who may be willing to lend more, at ridiculous interest rates. Some wish the government to take out more loans from the sharks, which will lead to our government becoming indentured to those sharks. Others want to avoid that and hold onto national sovereignty.

In addition, during  the Bush Administration, they applied some supply-side fiscal policies in cutting tax rates. The cuts may well have been what kept the first recession dip from heading straight into depression. Each year, congress has renewed those tax cuts. In January 2013, they are set to expire unless renewed. So, there will be income and capital gains tax increases on everybody.

Well, not everybody. More and more people, due to harsh economic conditions and poor employment opportunities, are unemployed or under-employed. Many of them are receiving government subsidies for food, housing, and utility bills. Even more have given up seeking employment and are taking Social Security Disability checks claiming depression as their disability. Most of those people are not paying any income taxes. They may see the money taken out of their paychecks. However, come April, they see the federal government paying back the majority of that interest free loan. In many cases the "earned income tax credit" will return those withheld funds plus an additional amount. In those cases, they have payed negative taxes.

So, we have a record number of  people on the government handout dole. That means more government spending and less revenue.

Add to this the 21-27 new taxes, depending upon employment situation and income level, the PPACA contributes. Many of  those new healthcare-related taxes are set to start in January 2013. This will lead to increased health and medical insurance costs for many middle-income wage earners and up. Ben Howe calculated how much his will increase in 2013. The approximate increase he published on Facebook and Twitter was $3600.00 for the year. For many in the middle-income bracket, that is a month's pay in increased cost of living.

So, everybody's taxes are about to go up. Companies and single-proprietor small businesses won't be able to afford to hire new people. In fact, they will probably have to cut back. That will mean less revenue for the federal government. Then you have out-of-control spending with bills about to come due. That is the fiscal cliff, as I see it.

This is exactly what Obama and the socialists want. They hope it will lead to uneducated and ignorant citizens rising up and calling for him to step in and save them from themselves and the evil conservatives who would love to see them work, prosper, and achieve. He wants this as license to continue to spend the country further into bankruptcy and fiscal ruin. He wants this so he can claim that capitalism doesn't work even though it is socialist infringements upon capitalism that have caused the problems in the first place.

So, what is the answer?

Well, first the government needs to live within its means and stop spending money it doesn't have. Next, it needs to find a source of revenue that will provide enough for it to make payments on what it owes and to meet the costs of living, the basic necessities.

According to Article 1 Section 7 of  the US Constitution, all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives. With "Plan B" being tossed, the House has left the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" to expire. So, tax rates will go up. This will not raise the revenue needed to cover even the basic costs of living, much  less the ridiculous spending on non-essentials.

The Senate can propose appropriations bills. In essence, they can still pass a budget and cut spending. That bill could still go to the House. However, they cannot propose a tax bill to increase revenue.

With that in mind, the House not passing a "bad deal" that would raise taxes on just one segment of the population is not a bad political move as long as they do the job of publicizing why. No, there will not be an increase in federal revenues overall. There will be for a short time until the economic conditions deteriorate and more people drop out of the workforce. Companies will not expand. GDP will not grow. It may even shrink.

This forces legislation in the near future to concentrate on budgeting and cutting spending.

That leads to the next round of arguments.

Many would  say that handouts and subsidies are necessary spending. That will be the drumbeat of the left. It will pull on the emotions of those on the public dole. We need to feed  those unwilling to feed themselves, right?

The US Constitution outlines what necessary spending really is. It states that congress must appropriate and budget for national defense and  the military. It also states that congress may appropriate in order to defray the costs of running the government. All other spending is discretionary.

That brings the arguments of Social Security and Medicare. Well, people are taxed for those things outside of their income taxes. However, the federal government is stupid enough to drop those funds into the "general account". In reality, it owes that money back to those who paid it once the time comes. For Social Security, that is sometime after those who paid into it reach 65 years of age. That money is not federal revenue. It should not be appropriated as though it is. In reality, those are private funds that the federal government has been mismanaging for 50+ years. If a private financial manager treated retirement fund investments the way the federal government treats Social Security, they'd be tried for fraud and embezzlement. Then they'd be jailed for decades. The same goes with Medicare if treated as though it were a Health Savings Account (HSA). That is why conservatives do not want to cut either. Socialists don't want to cut them because they falsely propagandize these funds as though they are the government taking care of our senior citizens.

So, Veterans' Benefits, Military Pay and Benefits, Military Training and Readiness Funds, Social Security, and Medicare are off the table. That leaves trillions of dollars in wasteful spending up to debate. Now, the socialist Democrat-led Senate will have to sit down and look at its daily expenses and start deciding what it really needs, and what has been part of decades-long of irresponsible borrowing and spending.

So, this coming year, citizens can look forward to a lot less disposable income even if their base pay rises by 10%. The government will have less revenue to play with and nobody to borrow from, at least responsibly. It's time to cut that budget. It's time to see if Congress is willing to run the government the way most middle-income-bracket households run their homes. Food? Check. Electricity? Check. Gas? Check. Rent? Check. Car loan payments? Check.  Gun, car, and home maintenance funds? Check. Healthcare fund in case Joey gets sick or breaks an arm? Well, no, we cannot afford the co-pays with the rise in premiums and increased deductibles. Let's pray nothing happens. Jilly needs braces. Crap. Do we have enough to go to Six Flags? No. But we might be able to afford to renew our Netflix subscription if we cut it to 2 movies at a time rather than five, and that's if we cut out our weekly splurge at Starbucks. 

Chances are that they will go to Six Flags, Sea World, Disneyland, and Legoland. They will splurge on buying everybody funnel cakes and overprices greasy pizzas. Then they will spend the next 3 years borrowing to make the mortgage payments.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Boehner Pulls Plan B At Last Minute

With very little time left before the scheduled late-night vote on the so-called "Plan B" bill, Speaker Boehner pulled it.

Speaker Boehner cited that the bill had a lack of support necessary to pass the House.

The bill most likely would have died in the Senate. Too many Republican senators would have opposed it due to its call to raise taxes on job creators. The lap-dog Democratic-Socialists in the Senate would have heeled to Obama's threat to veto the bill. The RINOs and the Blue-Dogs would have amended it to death, leaving it a mess.

In the house itself, Nancy Pelosi rallied the Democratic-Socialists against the bill, though it was mostly her plan to begin with. Tea Party caucus representatives such as Paul Ryan would have voted against it because it fails to make any declared cuts in spending, particularly in entitlement spending and ridiculous so-called "stimulus" grants such as the one to test shrimp on an underwater treadmill.

Freedomworks and other conservative activist organizations pushed for letters, emails, and last minute phone calls to Representatives and to Speaker Boehner's office calling for Plan B to be pulled. The general consensus among conservative voters is that the GOP needs to show leadership in putting forth a plan demanding budget & spending cuts, broadening the tax base, and not increasing any tax rates.  

So, lacking support from conservatives and already receiving a preemptive call to veto from the Socialist-In-Chair, the bill was doomed from the start.

It was a bad plan, anyway.

Boehner needs to show up at his next meeting with Obama having Art Laffer and Steve Moore at his side. The meeting may need to be a few hours while Obama first gets a Economics lesson so he can understand the basics of any advice Laffer and Moore may offer.

The house needs to pass a plan that would work. A Veto by the socialist-in-chair or being shot down in the socialist dominated Senate would have been a Pyrrhic political Tea Party victory. The "Plan B" bill provided no such possibility. Plan B was the capitulation the socialists claimed they wanted. The truth came out that they just want to control everything and confiscate all personal property.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Congress To Vote On 'Plan B' Debacle

The other day, Speaker Boehner proposed a capitulation he termed as "Plan B". He has attempted to propagate the bill as a compromise. Still, it is basically a surrender. The bill is set for a vote on December 20, 2012.

Hopefully, conservative representatives either vote it down or amend it to include realistic and necessary spending cuts as well as a path towards a balanced budget. Perhaps it's a good time to push forward the Balanced Budget Amendment as well. 

This follows Boehner removing fiscal conservatives from key budgeting and finance committees claiming that they "weren't towing the party line". He has forgotten that these representatives were hired (elected) because of their fiscally conservative stances. Basically, he removed them from the committees for doing the jobs we hired them to do. It's obvious that Boehner has forgotten to whom he must answer and what he was hired to do. His job is not to have private meetings with Obama. His job is to represent the will of his constituents.

"Plan B" is basically the tax and budget plan Nancy Pelosi once proposed.

Yes, he has put forth a plan devised by the same socialist who rammed the PPACA down our throats. The same Nancy Pelosi who waved a 2000+ page mess of fascist takeover of private industries saying (paraphrase) that to know what fascist regulations and government infringements are in the bill, that representatives must first vote in favor of it and put it into action.

So, "Plan B" is her socialist tax and spend plan.

Plan B does, in effect, broaden the range of what is interpreted as middle-income households.

It may "freeze" their income tax rates. It does not prevent increased taxation, especially from those looming tax increases due to the PPACA. So, taxes on all wage earners are set to rise, regardless.

The plan also does not cut spending. It may cut the increase in spending. That is not decreased spending, however. It just means that the  bill proposes they spend only $200 beyond their income instead of $250 beyond the income (to put it in terms of household budgeting). It is still spending beyond their means and will never lead to a balanced budget.

The plan also does not increase the tax base. That is the only possible way to actually increase federal tax revenue. In any case, increases in tax revenue are not likely to cover current spending, much less any increase. Then again, Pelosi championed having no budget during her tenure as Speaker.

The irony is that Obama has already stated that he won't sign "Plan B" because it doesn't tax people enough. Obama's rhetoric while campaigning for re-election was the constant deluge of "millionaires and billionaires". If he truly wanted to put his money where his bull-crap blower is, he'd sign "Plan B" without a hitch. The fact is, he was lying, as usual, when he said "millionaires and billionaires". What he meant was "anybody making a comfortable paycheck who can possibly save or invest part of their disposable income".

While this plan is the closest thing to a viable compromise to Obama's temper-tantrum demands, it is not a fair compromise for the citizens. It also is irresponsible. Cuts in spending, especially corporate welfare, ridiculous grants, food stamps, "Obamaphones", and other incentives for laziness and decreased prosperity; need to be made.

It does not avoid the "fiscal cliff". It just puts an ineffective governor on Obama's acceleration pedal so we go over at 90 mph instead of 110 mph.

The defense department needs to revamp its spending and budgeting. However, service member pay and benefits do not need to be cut. As it is, civilian public sector bureaucrats (DA, DN, and DoD civilians) working similar jobs are paid much more and receive better benefits despite working fewer hours and in far less dangerous circumstances. There are wastes on things such as so-called "green energy" projects that have proven to be far less cost-effective than proposed. Cut those. Do not cut pay, benefits, training funds, or equipment and maintenance funds. Do not cut personnel. Do not cut defense spending. Just make sure it is properly prioritized and  utilized.

The VA needs to do much of the same. They don't need to spend money on costly and unneeded "training conferences" that lead to corrupt spending on anything but caring for veterans.

The Department of Justice wasted who knows how many millions of dollars on that illegal debacle known as Operation Fast and Furious. Where was the budgetary oversight on that mess?

There are countless more examples of wasted federal revenue and irresponsible spending. Many of these grants and stipends actually violate the 8th and 9th sections of Article I of the US Constitution. Any plan needs to start there. Look at what congress is actually allowed (and mandated) to spend  money on. Putting a shrimp on an underwater treadmill is not a responsible allocation of funds.

"Plan B" is a debacle. It is not a compromise. It is a capitulation. It also will not work. All it does  is set the stage for Obama to demand more from his lordship's serfs and subjects.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Dept. Of State Internal Report on Benghazi

The unclassified version of the US Department of State's report on the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and elsewhere begins:

Four Board members were selected by the Secretary of State and one member from the intelligence community (IC) was selected by the Director for National Intelligence. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering served as Chairman, with Admiral Michael Mullen as Vice Chairman. Additional members were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the IC.

The criminal investigation of the September 11-12, 2012, Benghazi attacks, for which the statutory responsibility rests with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was still underway at the time of this report. The Board enjoyed excellent cooperation with the Department of Justice and FBI throughout preparation of this report. The key questions surrounding the identity, actions and motivations of the perpetrators remain to be determined by the ongoing criminal investigation.

This leads us to wonder if the report is a smokescreen meant to obfuscate and distract as Eric Holder and his political lackeys attempt to sweep the incident under the rug or if investigators are being thorough. Holder's negligence to prosecute anything that may embarrass Obama or the socialists is well known. Operation Fast and Furious and the voter intimidation conducted by Holder's buddies in the Black Panthers are among the more known examples.

The report later states:

The Benghazi attacks also took place in a context in which the global terrorism threat as most often represented by al Qaeda (AQ) is fragmenting and increasingly devolving to local affiliates and other actors who share many of AQ’s aims, including violent anti-Americanism, without necessarily being organized or operated under direct AQ command and control.

This is something that will fail to snow any military intelligence professional who worked the war efforts anytime since 2001. One of the traits of AQ's organization has always been its fragmentation and dispersal. It has always employed local affiliated groups, granting them limited direction and logistical support. This is nothing new. That it would come as a surprise or be seen as some new tactic by the current administration should raise serious questions about the administration's competence.

The review board's report prefaces its findings with excuse after excuse. It attempts to equate the duty of an ambassador with that of a soldier, indicating that taking such a position assumes an acceptance of dying for the country. There is a difference, however. Soldiers and military members are armed. They are taught to fight as long as they have the means to resist. Ambassadors are unarmed and are not combat soldiers.

The first finding is that the attack in Benghazi was an armed assault and not a protest. The attack was against two separate facilities. It states the same things that reporters in new media have stated all along.

The second finding is an admission of incompetence and negligence.

Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
The real question that should chime in our heads concerns the security. Why were there contract guards from anywhere but the US? Better yet, where were the US Marines? The US Marines traditionally have embassy details. The report implies that the Marine detachment was not authorized because the Benghazi mission was a temporary one. The diplomatic staff largely consisted of temporary personnel assigned for no more than 40 days at a time. So they hired locals for security.

In the weeks and months leading up to the attacks, the response from post, Embassy Tripoli, and Washington to a deteriorating security situation was inadequate. At the same time, the SMC’s dependence on the armed but poorly skilled Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17) militia members and unarmed, locally contracted Blue Mountain Libya (BML) guards for security support was misplaced.
Then there is this:

The Board determined that U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues, in a near impossible situation. The Board members believe every possible effort was made to rescue and recover Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith.

The inter-agency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.
The military emergency response assets were on their way and  told to "stand down". The two accounts conflict. In addition, had the US Marine detachment that was supposed to be on site actually been there instead of ill-equipped and untrained local militia, there would have been a military asset on station.

The report goes on to claim that confusion over the responsibility for the security of the embassy mission is largely to blame. Had the proper US Marine contingent been assigned, that "confusion" would have been clear. The highest ranking Marine on the ground would have been in command once the hostilities commenced. However, Obama and his leftist cronies want to cut military manning including the Marines.

Of course, another finger is pointed towards the lack of a federal budget. The mission didn't have the funds to properly equip and secure  the Benghazi mission. This portion of the report is undoubtedly meant to set the stage for rhetoric against cutting spending. However, diplomatic missions have high national security implications. In that aspect, spending should not be cut to either the military or to diplomatic missions. It should be cut from outrageous entitlement spending such as TAMF, TARP, the PPACA, "Obamaphones" and food stamps. 

The recommendations issued by the review board include having the State Department and the diplomatic mission personnel be better trained to recognize threats, read intelligence reports, and make better decisions.  They also call for better training in Anti-Terrorism, Force Protection, and counter-surveillance tactics, techniques, and procedures. Basically, they are telling those sent on diplomatic missions that they should undergo the mandatory pre-deployment training and briefings given to military personnel. Again, had the US Marine detachment been stationed as it should have been, they would have had all of the above plus a proper response and Non-combatant Evacuation Operation (NEO) rescue force.

The report also documents a timeline of indicators that led from March 18, 2012  up to the attack. These indicators would have led any intelligence analyst who graduated from Fort Huachuca to see the pattern leading to the attack. While listing  these indicators in a 20/20 hindsight fashion, they claimed that intelligence analysts cannot be counted upon to see these trends. More than likely, any trained intelligence analyst on the ground wold have identified these trends. If one was present, he was  probably ignored by the State Department.

With some common sense, it is clear that the report attempts to shift blame onto the Ambassador, for not informing or recognizing the threat. It attempts to place the blame on congress, for not financing the mission. It tries to place blame on Secretary of State Clinton for her policies and lack of providing better trained diplomats. What the report fails to do is place the blame where it belongs:  Barack Obama. The policies were his. The lack of Marines assigned to the diplomatic mission were his. The order to "stand down" was his. The intentional and negligent ignoring of the call for immediate military response and rescue were his.

Then again, holding a fundraiser and salad-tossing party in Las Vegas was more important to Obama that day.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Holiday Greetings!

My wife and I wish to extend our holiday wishes to all of our readers.

To our Jewish friends, a belated Happy Hanukkah! I hope your festival of lights was joyous. I hope you took time to remember the miracle and the fight for freedom and sovereignty that led to it. May the light of God continue to warm your hearts and homes for all the days to come.

To our Christian friends, Merry Christmas. We hope your advent season is remarkable and wondrous. May you receive the greatest of joys this year -- the surprised looks of enjoyment on the faces of all who received your generosity as you celebrate the birth of your messiah.

To our Pagan and Druid friends, may your Yule be blessed and bright. May your hearth and heart be warmed in these times as the sun begins its return to the days. May the gods, the ancestors, and the nature spirits join you by the fires and may the out-dwellers leave you in peace.

For those who are not among our closest friends and family, my wife and I are religious. Neither of us are Christian. We are both conservatives. We are both moral people. We have a high respect for life and for the law. We both strongly believe in personal responsibility and accountability. In essence, you can easily include both of us in the leftist-invented collective called "the religious right".

We both love and accept the first amendment. We do not believe in a "freedom from religion" but in the Freedom of Religion. From the deepest depths of our hearts, we both hope you celebrate and rejoice in the traditions of your religious beliefs.

In addition, in these times, we both know that any amount of giving is truly a sacrifice. These uncertain economic times bring stress to this year more than they did last year or the year before. We hope that you remember the meaning behind your respective religious holiday and the traditions you observe. Give from the heart. Something that you put thought and love into will mean more than how much you spend. We are hand making many of our gifts this year. The efforts have provided us family activities as well as generated some unique and thoughtful gifts for our friends and family.

The primary thing to consider this year is giving what your friends and family will treasure most -- time. Spend some time with them. Celebrate. Rejoice.

Love And Blessings Be Abundant Upon You and Yours.

Paul and Melissa Matuszak.

Monday, December 17, 2012

To Emotive Anti-Gun Knee-Jerkers

Friday's shooting in Newtown was a tragic crime. It was an act of inexcusable evil. No rational, reasonable, moral person would debate that fact. 

The same with the shooting at the Sikh temple earlier this year. The same with the shooting in Aurora, CO. The same goes with every mass murder.

The same is with the terrorist attacks in 2001 that killed thousands at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. No firearms were used.

The same with the mass murder committed by Timothy McVeigh. No firearms were used. He used a large improvised explosive device in the cargo bay of a box truck.

The same with the mass murder at Jonestown. Poisoned (potassium cyanide) purple Kool-Aid was the weapon in that case.

Same with the Speedway bombings. Bret Kimberline's weapon of choice was not a firearm, either. He used pipe-bombs.

Then you have the attempted murders committed by Bill Ayers. His weapon of choice was also home-made bombs.

Home-made bombs are illegal. However, their components are not. Anybody who paid attention in high school chemistry class can make them.

Mustard Gas is illegal. You can make it with household cleaning supplies. Yet it is considered a weapon of mass destruction. Again, if one paid attention in high school chemistry class, they know how to make it.

Maybe the gun-grabbers on the left will seek to make high school chemistry classes illegal as well. They already control what are children are taught in government schools. 

Adam Lanza murdered his own mother before he shot up the school where she worked. More than likely, using firearms or not, he would have still killed his mother. After that, we can only speculate whether he would have stolen those firearms and shot up the school afterward. Perhaps he would have mixed the cleaning supplies and used home-made mustard gas instead. That could have killed and harmed even more people. We do not know if this was premeditated. If it was, firearms were just his weapons of choice  due to availability in his home. However, he would have still done the deed using some other weapon.

Adam Lanza was not a law-abiding citizen. Law-abiding citizens do not commit mass murder. Law-abiding citizens do not commit murder. Law-abiding citizens are not slaves to their emotions, they act with reason and responsibility. Adam Lanza was clearly a criminal. The blame lies squarely on his cold, dead shoulders.

Was Friday's crime perpetrated by an evil madman a heart-retching event? Yes, it was. I ran to my child's school to pick her up. I hugged her tight when she came through those doors as she does every school day. I told her I love her and assured her that I would do anything to protect her from evil. I held her hand the whole way home, afraid to let her beyond the distance of my touch. Did that act of evil in Newton have an emotional impact upon me? Yes. However, I am "enlightened" enough to allow emotions to flow through me, but to allow reason to reign over my decisions.

Knee-jerk reactions lead  to more tragedy. They lead to poor decisions and poor actions. They aggravate the pain, the evil, and the infringements upon individual liberty. They have never and will never make things better. They do far more harm than any good they intend.

Knee-jerk reactions are usually mistakes. They are the desired outcome terrorists seek from their attacks. After 9-11, the US drastically increased security at airports and began policies that many see as violations of 4th Amendment rights including unwarranted searches and seizures.

Knee-jerk reactions are famous for their wakes of violence and destruction. Case in point, the LA Riots after the Rodney King trial. That was a knee-jerk reaction that caused 53 deaths, countless casualties, and millions of dollars in damage to private property.

Over the weekend, many supporters of the second amendment have come under attack from supporters of tyranny who want to disarm law-abiding citizens. They use emotional (and emotive) pleas that lack any substantive empirical data. They argue not with their minds, but with their ids and impulses. They attempt to appeal to the emotional waves that reasonable people are feeling in the wake of this terrible crime.

Until Friday's massacre, the perceived general mindset among legislators in the US Congress have largely been against increased infringements of the Second Amendment. Chances are that the weather isn't going to change much over the next two years, either. Even with gun-grabbing socialists seeking to demagogue this crime to support their illegal desire to violate the Second Amendment in order to capitalize on emotional knee-jerk reactions, reason will most likely rule the day when the votes come down.

In some counties in Georgia, armed police officers are actively patrolling schools in order to deter any copycats.

In Texas, one district is allowing school faculty members that have lawful concealed carry permits to do so in the schools in order to protect the children. There will be restrictions on caliber and type of ammunition, requirements for additional marksmanship training, and approval for each prospect by the school board, though.

In another part of Texas, a school principal, who wishes to remain anonymous, spoke about the events. She stated that her district employs district police officers who are supposed to patrol in and around the schools. However, they never seem to be around. She commented that, with the number of military in the community, she wished military parents would come to and from the school in uniform more often. She also commented that she wished select faculty could carry, concealed, if properly trained. She also wished parents who walk with their kids who had legal concealed carry permits could do so. However, local laws prohibit firearms and knives from school grounds. 

The only thing that will stop a mad criminal set on harming people is a proportionate means of stopping him. He has no respect for the law. The law will not stop him from acquiring the tools he will employ in his evil acts.

All it takes for evil to do its vile acts is for a good, law-abiding, moral person to stand by and do nothing.

The faculty and Sandy Hook Elementary obeyed the law. They were unarmed. They had no means with which to protect those kids. The law disarmed them and left them victims. Had that principal been allowed to keep a lawfully owned and registered firearm locked in a gun safe next to her desk, she could have stopped that man from killing as many kids as he did. She also could have stopped him from killing her.

Had the custodian, a hero who ran down the halls warning people and trying to get them to safety, had a lawfully owned and legally carried firearm concealed, he could have engaged Adam Lanza and stopped him.

In a mall in Oregon, a criminal began shooting people at a mall. A man who was legally carrying his concealed handgun presented that gun. He took aim at the gunman while he attempted to clear a stoppage. That law-abiding citizen did not shoot simply because he saw possible collateral casualties behind the criminal. However, just the presentation of the means to resist caused  the criminal to cease shooting until he fired  one final, fatal shot into himself. The armed. law-abiding citizen saved lives.

One commentator accused me of racism and hatred because I support individual natural rights and the second amendment as necessary to protecting them. That same commentator claimed that Obama cares about people. If he did, he'd be supportive of people being allowed to retain the means to protect themselves. Instead, part of his agenda has been to undo the Second Amendment. He did so as a state senator. He did so as a US Senator. He did so in his use of Operation Fast and  Furious as an excuse to attempt to push anti-gun legislation. Obama doesn't care about anything but increasing his power and that of his oligarchy. That much is obvious.

Anti-Second-Amendment activists from Canada referred to all law-abiding gun owners as "monsters" and attempted to attribute Adam Lanza's crimes to all gun owners. One attempted to tell me I am a poor parent because I own firearms. I have never shot an innocent person, ever. I have not shot anybody with my personal firearms, ever (so far). I hope I never have to. Have I shot criminal terrorists while at war? Yes. I found it a regrettable necessity that saved lives. However, I am not a monster. I do what I legally can to protect my family. That is not evil. That is the active preparedness of a loving, caring, responsible adult.

The murders in Colombine and Newtown do make me worry for the lives of children, especially mine. I want to see them safe. I want to see them protected. Removing tools necessary to protect them does not make them safer. It puts them in greater jeopardy.

You disarm people in order to restrict their means to resist. You disarm people in order to make them weaker and more less defended. You do not disarm law-abiding citizens in order to protect them.

A monster seeks to leave innocents unprotected soft targets ripe for evil to prey upon.

That monster is the gun-grabbers on the left.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Left Politicizing Shooting At Connecticut School

On December 14, 2012 an armed assailant entered a school in Newtown, Connecticut. He killed 18 children and 6 adults, wounding many more. Two more kids died of their wounds as the hospital.

The suspected murderer, Adam Lanza, apparently stole his brother Ryan's ID. He then stole his mother's firearms and murdered her. His mother, Nancy, was a teacher at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. He stole his mother's car, and drove to the school where she worked as a teacher. He went on his rampage. Among the slain was the K-4 school's principal, Dawn Hochspung.

Surviving children said the gunshots sounded like the janitor was in the hall banging things around. The custodian, however, ran from classroom to classroom, dodging bullets, to warn faculty and students of the carnage.

Having the name on the stolen ID Card, reporters were quick, without fact-checking, to publish the assailant's brother as the shooter. Several people with names similar to Ryan's were confronted on Facebook as though he was the murderer. This was how Ryan Lanza found out his brother had killed his mother and gone on a rampage -- the irresponsible, leftist-lap-dog,  mainstream media  rushing to start its anti-gun narrative.

In China, a man armed with a knife sliced up 22 kids and an 83 year old woman. None were killed but all were maimed extensively.

It is a day of pain and tragedy as innocents were murdered and wounded.

When still producing targeting intelligence products for the US Military, my heart and body would ache when I discovered that terrorists in Iraq were using a school for their evil purposes. They used schools as their bases of operations because they knew Americans saw schools as "protected locations". They would do their planning there. They would store their bombs and weapons there. They would hide there, using the children as shields. Yes, they would also bomb schools. In short, they were cowards.

I would read intelligence  reports coming from Afghanistan and other countries, as many of the terrorists I tracked were transnational. It would sicken me each time the terrorists would bomb a school just because it taught girls how to read and do simple math. Cowards had to attack children.

Within what seemed like minutes of the news about the shooting in Connecticut, gun-grabbing anti-Constitution socialists began pontificating on the evils of guns. They quickly latched onto their tactic of never letting a disaster or tragedy go to waste. Just as the shooters, the stabber, and the terrorists are evil cowards, those gun-grabbing socialist oligarchs are heartless, disrespectful, and loathsome. They leftists even complained that they waited too long after the shootings at Colombine and Virginia Tech, stating that now, while everybody is emotional and eager to overreact, is the time to for a heightened and more aggressive anti-gun narrative.

They blame the guns. They do not blame the entitlement-junkie coward who was living in his mom's house, killed his mom, then attacked kids. This 20 year old was sick, most likely with "entitlement" plague and years of "participation trophies". The loser killed his own mother. He then took an additional evil step. the coward went to a place where he knew nobody was protected -- the school where his first victim, his mother, worked.

Do we blame the mother? No. Her evil son was not a victim. He, allegedly, was the evil perpetrator.

In fact, the soft-drink banning super-tyrant Mayor Bloomberg of New York City stated, “We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns.”

The facts are the facts.

The gun-grabbers of the leftist lap-dog media don't report on when guns save lives. Bloomberg states that 34 people a day are killed with guns. How many of them are armed assailants who would have killed more? How many of them are attempted rapists? How many of them are evil people intent on stealing what somebody else gave up a portion of their life to earn/create/buy/build?

More people die in car crashes each day than from guns. On average, 101 people a day die in a fatal motor vehicle collision. 52% of those fatalities are the drivers.

More than 34 Americans die of heart attacks each day, too. (Approximately 1,230 people, on average, die of a fatal heart attack each day in the US).

The murderer would have done his evil with some tool. He had a gun. He could have used a bat, a bomb, a sword, a hatchet, a tire iron, or any other item. His intentions and his actions killed.

Firearms are banned in school zones in Connecticut. The legal age for owning a firearm in Connecticut is 21. The suspected murderer is only 20. There are already strict unconstitutional gun-control laws active in Connecticut. In fact, it is rated as the 5th most anti-second amendment state with some of the strictest laws in the country. The laws did not stop these criminals.

The laws enabled the criminals. Criminals do not obey laws. They will obtain the devices they require through illicit means. What the laws do is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves or the innocents around them. The shooter most likely knew that the school was a weapon-free zone. That meant there was less of a chance anybody would have had the means available to deter, mitigate, or prevent his evil acts. 

The parents and classmates of the slain are the real victims.

As investigators sift through the evidence and the dust settles, more and more questions will be answered. Among them, hopefully, will be "Why?".

Other questions to ponder as the dust settles:

Would stricter laws really have prevented this event?

Would allowing teachers or administrators with concealed carry permits to have their weapons deterred the shooter(s)? Could that hero custodian have shot the assailant instead if he had been lawfully carrying a firearm? How many more lives could he have saved had that been the case?

Could a member of the faulty so armed have stopped the violence from getting this far and saved some of these kids' lives? Note that reports indicate that the shooter turned his gun on himself, eventually.

Why do gun-grabbers insist on leaving innocents undefended and unprotected?

However, none of these answers will bring these kids back. All we can do is pray that the survivors know peace the rest of their lives. They've already seen enough.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Let's Translate Some Talking Points

With all the rhetoric, hyperbole, and biased reporting flying around the mainstream media, it may be necessary to translate some of the talking points into realistic, reasonable diction.

I do not pretend to be able to read minds. However, basic analysis, knowledge of human nature, and an understanding of socialist ideology, if applied, may grant possible insight into the truth.

Susan Rice removed herself from consideration for the post of Secretary of Defense. Her letter to Obama was published in order to enforce the left's meme that conservatives are seeking to block any action by Obama and his socialist oligarchy. In it, Ms. Rice stated:

"If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly -- to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities.That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country ... Therefore, I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time."

If stated in plain English rather than politicized double-talk, it may have been stated like this:  When I had to meet the Senators and answer questions on Benghazi, I had my butt handed to me. I was rude and callous in return. I burnt bridges. These influential conservative and Republican senators can sincerely slow the confirmation process enough to have time to better investigate Benghazi. In doing so, they will likely find and bring to public light other things I have done that are contrary to the ideals behind our Constitution, including some level of support for attempts to undermine the US Constitution as so many of the "Agenda 21" treaties seek to do. The people would find out that we on the left don't care about our country and want to destroy everything the US stands for. So, in order to try to keep our agenda from coming to full public light before it is fully enacted, I'll take one for the team and turn down this job.

While appearing as a guest on the race-baiting socialist pontiff of bigotry, Al Sharpton's program on MSNBC, a known socialist propaganda outlet, washed-up singer Harry Belafonte stated in response to a question about entitlement reform:

"There is this lingering infestation of a corrupt people who are trying to dismantle the wishes of the people and the mandate they were given by Barack Obama. I don't know what more they want. I want Obama to do is work like a third-world dictator and and put all of these guys [conservatives] in jail for violating American desire."

Translation:  Americans have "matured" in their political awareness and have learned to ignore the US Constitution. Through the combination of voter fraud, buying votes with entitlements, and keeping students ignorant of basic civics, Obama won re-election. This shows that they want the tyrannical oligarchy that is the left's master plan. We have people who still cling to that pesky US Constitution. Obama is supreme. He is more powerful than that supreme law of the land. Anybody who exercises those pesky First Amendment rights to free speech, free press, petition of redress, and gather peacefully need to be tossed in jail for opposing Dear Leader's commands. Throw them in Gitmo. Start with the Supreme Court justices, then move on to those US Senators and Representatives that support that pesky TEA Party. Next, jail all of those conservative governors. We need to enact a hostile take-over, now. I have waited too long. I wanted this back in the days of FDR. I've waited long enough. C'mon, Barry, you promised that transformation. It's so close. Just do it before they figure us out!

NFL star Robert Griffin III made statements that he doesn't want to be defined by the color of his skin or his ethnicity. Among his statements, RG3 has alluded that he is a more conservative thinker who respects more individual merits, efforts, and achievements than he does some collectivist category that socialists love to pigeonhole people into.

In response having "left the plantation", known leftist and ESPN sports commentator Rob Parker criticized Mr. Griffin:

"My question, which is just a straight honest question: is he a brother, or is he a cornball brother? ...Well, he's black, he kind of does his thing, but he's not really down with the cause, he's not one of us. He's kind of black, but he's not really the guy you'd really want to hang out with, because he's off to do something else. I want to find about him. I don't know because I keep hearing these things. We all know he has a white fiancee. Then there was all this talk about he's a Republican, which there's no information at all. I'm just trying to dig deeper into why he has an issue. Because we did find out with Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods was like, 'I've got black skin, but don't call me black.' So people wondered about Tiger Woods."

Parker is attempting to make Robert Griffin III a pariah among sports fans because Griffin doesn't support the socialist cause. Parker even referred to "the cause" in his statement. Though he didn't elaborate which "cause" he referred to, it's more than obvious. He opposes Griffin's statement that he isn't going to be pigeonholed into that collective and fall in lock-step with anybody's sycophants. ESPN has a habit of hiring socialist sycophants and demagogues who tend to comment on things outside of the sports entertainment they are paid to discuss. A recent example of other sports commentators making socialist political statements was when Bob Costas started blaming the gun for an NFL star's murdering his wife then taking his own life.

Then Obama made some statement that RINO Speaker Boehner is trying to save face and make it look as though he isn't going to capitulate:

"I think Speaker Boehner has a contentious caucus, as his caucus is tough on him sometimes so he doesn’t want to look like he’s giving in to me somehow because that might hurt him in his own caucus."
The Narcissist-in-chair believes that whether or not the House passes any fiscal cliff budget bill is solely up to Speaker Boehner. Obama believes that he has already won and that Boehner is just trying to save face. You see, according to Obama, it's just a matter of time before those pesky congressmen shut up and do what he commends. What Obama fails to recognize is that all seats in congress were elected this past November. Conservatives maintain a majority. Those representatives speak for their constituents. Through them, the people have spoken. Nowhere more than the House of Representatives is the popular vote better represented.

Obama also thinks people are stupid. He does. He honestly expects us to believe that increasing tax rates on a segment of the population to an extent that will raise just enough revenue to operate the over-sized federal bureaucracy for only 8 days is the answer to the "fiscal cliff". His statement is more along the lines of "I won by stealing money from those who earn and giving it away to the lazy through entitlement programs. Most people are lazy. You'll not be re-elected if you take away their purloined items. I already bought those votes with your money. You cannot stop me from continuing to do so. So, quit trying. Instead, go tell everybody to be prepared to give me everything they own so I can dole it out as I see fit. Nobody owns anything. I own everything. I won. get over it."

The left has been emboldened and are making mistakes in attempting to veil their agenda. Their agenda is clear. They want to be rid of the US Constitution. They want an oligarchy in charge of the planet. They want people categorized and sorted into per-determined collectives. They want collectives of dissent silenced. They want the rest meek, ignorant, and obedient. They want to do so in a way that makes it seem as though this is what each American wants. Look, Harry Belafonte even told you that it is what you want. 

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Socialist Narrative -- Blame The Victim & Ban Freedom

The hypocrisy in the rhetoric is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is that there are people who actually believe the tripe.

Collectivist, socialist, Marxist, union demagogues of a proletariat oligarchy first preach non-violent civil disobedience in protest of the Michigan state government's support of the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. However, like so many historic examples of their "non-violence", the leftists' mobs devolved to mob violence.

But, according to the socialist demagogues, the thugs and goons were the victims. Those upon whom they preyed with their violence are at fault.

They attacked private property owned by Americans For Prosperity. In doing so, they intentionally, and without any respect for life, put the lives, safety, and welfare of women and children in jeopardy.

When somebody removed one of the assailants from his violent act of vandalism, he turned and assaulted a reporter. Then again, he hit that reporter at least 4 times yet barely phased the reporter, Steve Crowder.

The next step was to assign blame towards anyone but the criminals who committed these violent acts.

According to a Law Professor at Santa Clara University, unions have the right to extort dues for people and force them to be members of the unions. It's all the workers' faults that they are extorted, even if they do not want to be a union member. The Professor also stated, on Twitter, that Mr. Crowder was the assailant and it was all his fault that the union goon punched him, unprovoked, four times. He argues that because Mr. Crowder and others attempted to stop them from vandalizing the tent and from harming the children inside that Mr. Crowder deserved to be attacked by the criminal. You see, according to this "Law Professor", the victims are at fault and the criminals have the right to commit their crimes with impunity.

That comprachico was not the only one of the left to condone the attack on Mr. Crowder. According to the left, the victim of a crime or an unjust action is always whoever isn't supporting their cause.

A private hot-dog vendor was attacked by that same mob of union thugs. It was  that vendor's fault for being in the way of their riot. He was the criminal for selling hot-dogs with a business license and permit. If he hadn't been there trying to sell his wares and make a living, he wouldn't have been harmed by the union extortionists. 

As much as I'd like to see Lisa Fithian punched in the nose, nobody has a right to do so just because she is being annoying with her loudspeaker. She does, however, deserve to be investigated for allegations and suspicions of criminal solicitation in regards to several violent attacks and other crimes committed by the so-called "Black Bloc".

But the "Black Bloc" and the "Occupy Movement" are the victims. Those stores got in the way of their peaceful brick-throwing protests, etc. 

This is always a problem with the left. They like to point fingers at anyone but the one responsible. They detest personal accountability.

Blaming the victim is the preferred rhetoric of a child or spouse abuser. "You didn't get my beer as soon as I sat down. It's your fault I punched  you in the face". "The baby wet his diaper and was crying. It's his fault I shook him until he was brain damaged".

It sounds like the same we hear from playground bullies. "It's his fault he got beat up. If he had just given me his lunch and his milk money, I wouldn't have had to beat him up for it".

According to them, it's Ambassador Stephens' fault he was assassinated by terrorists.

According to them, it's Burger King's fault that Michael Moore is critically obese and creates so-called documentaries that cannot stand up to fact-checking. Yes, Double Whoppers make Moore a fat liar. They need to be banned.

According to the mayor of New York City, it's the fault of soft drinks that kids are fat. It has nothing to do with how parents raised and educated the kids. Let's ban Pepsi and Kool-aid.

According to the left, the attack on one of their own, Gabby Giffords, by one of their own was the fault of the gun he carried. You see, as a leftist, he's a victim and cannot be accountable.

A teenaged thug attacks a neighborhood watch volunteer, forcing the volunteer to defend himself. It's the volunteer's fault for trying to deter crime. It's the Castle Doctrine's fault.

Some under-educated woman sits with her five kids from four different fathers and it is the fault of the small business owner who employs 30 people and enjoys a salary of $250k a year. He spent 15 years building his business, reinvesting most of the profits and living off of $30k a year or less most of those years to make that happen. But it is his fault that she ditched school to smoke pot and have unprotected sex instead. So, she is the victim and that hard working business owner should pay for her bad choices. It's also that business owner's fault when she tries to rob him at gunpoint and gets shot in the process. She's the victim, not the person that was the target of her crime. So, let's ban acumen over $250k.

It is also the fault of the so-called "2%" that the socialists and entrenched RINOs in congress want to spend more than their tax policies can generate in revenue. So, they cannot cut any of that unaffordable spending. Of course, they must increase extortion upon those individuals who know how to balance a budget, spend within their means, and increase their personal revenue. So, let's raise rates on those who pay the most already.

Of course, to those same socialists, it's also the mirror's fault that they have pimples. So, let's ban mirrors.

Stupidity causes many accidents and misery. Perhaps we should consider banning stupidity. Then people would no longer be allowed to be stupid, make mistakes, and have an opportunity to learn and improve. However, if we banned stupidity, we'd lose a lot of humorous distractions we need to give us a break from serious work.

My favorite thing to ban is banning. Banning leaves people without choice. Banning leaves people without personal accountability. Banning takes away individual responsibility. Banning takes away maturity. Banning takes away reason and logic. Banning needs to be banned.

So does playing the victim.

As does blaming the victim.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Violent Objections To Liberty & Natural Rights

Anybody with a cursory familiarization in American History and the development of our governmental system known as a Constitutional Republic will, undoubtedly, know of the ideals used in establishing our great nation.

Thomas Jefferson along with Adams' advisement drafted the Declaration of Independence. Within that document, Jefferson addressed several ideals that most Americans today still hold sacred. The Declaration states that each individual person is endowed by his or her creator with certain rights that nobody has a right to take away. Among those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

However, without doing the due diligence, most people don't even know to what those items refer. To understand them would require a bit more reading. Those who wish understanding should read the source materials Jefferson and Adams drew from, the philosophies of John Locke and Montesquieu. Of note, the term "Pursuit of Happiness" was a euphemism of the times for intellectual and physical property.

When drafting the US Constitution, still leery of government having too much power and turning tyrannical, Madison and his cohorts added the Bill of Rights to enumerate certain things necessary for individuals in order to insure that the government doesn't over-step the limitations placed upon them by the base document itself. Within the first are the rights to not have the government dictate what religion you follow or have anybody prevent you from worshiping as you see fit. (It does not give anybody the right to tell somebody that they cannot pray in public). It grants the freedom of speech, meaning that the government has no right to hinder you from expressing political, religious, or cultural views. It goes a step further and prevents the government from controlling what the press does and does not report. It also allows people to gather peacefully and to petition the government without fear of recourse for doing so.

The Second Amendment grants the right to defend those rights, to be able to remain armed should the government become tyrannical and attempt to use the militia to enforce laws that are contrary to life, liberty, or property.

The list goes on. However, one can easily see how each of the first ten amendments is set up to secure the blessings of liberty and insure the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and Property are not infringed upon.

The left hates that.

The left really hates that.

Unions are the thugs and extortionists of the left.

The Michigan legislature passed their Right To Work (RTW) law on December 11, 2012. They became the 24th state that sees mandatory union membership as an infringement upon Life (how you wish to spend your time on this Earth), Liberty (what labors or recreations you choose to engage in), or Property (intellectual or physical, what you have created, earned or otherwise lawfully and legally acquired as the fruits of your labors or gifts from that of others). RTW laws and the states that employ them do such as methods to insure those natural rights. Opposing RTW laws necessarily equates to opposing natural rights.

The tyrants on the left put their union thugs and other champions of repressive oligarchy into action.

They protested while the bill was voted on and while it awaited signing by Michigan's governor. they had hoped that their loud threats of violence and baseless propaganda would sway the state's government from championing natural rights. They had hoped that the government would join them in enforcing tyranny and depriving those rights. When the RTW law passed, the demonstrations turned violent.

The union goons assaulted a reporter who was attempting to interview them to get their side of the story:

The union goons vandalized Americans For Prosperity's (AFP) tent while children were inside:

The union thugs, acting worse than the mobsters that own them, then cut up the tent to sell as souvenirs to commemorate their turning to violence when their days of oppressing citizens seeking employment ended:

Then they attempt to blame the violence on the victims of their assaults. It is like some coward who beats his wife and children then blames them for "making me do this to you".

Just like the black bloc of the socialists infamous "Occupy Movement" did in Oakland, CA, among other locales. Remember when members of the Black Bloc attempted (and failed) to blow up a bridge in Ohio?

Perhaps some may recall when two members of the Black Bloc were arrested for conspiring to firebomb the 2008 RNC convention. Had it not been for the bravery of Brandon Darby in informing the FBI they may have gotten away with it.

See, rational and reasonable people see violence as something necessary when all other recourse have failed and no other viable options remain. The left, on the other hand, sees it as a necessary, daily intimidation and scare tactic required to get their point across. Since their arguments are devoid of logic, reason, or empirical data, they resort to attempting to force people to see things their way. When people don't, they employ violence to set examples of what happens when they aren't given power over you.

Some on the left claim to promote anti-bullying campaigns. However, the hypocrites employ intimidation, extortion, and terrorist tactics on a daily basis.

Meanwhile, conservatives tend to be less violent. They tend to just inform others that they are willing and capable of defending themselves, but would rather reach a reasonable agreement or employ a reasonable and logical discourse to settle grievances. When meditations fail, conservatives are more than happy to  employ an objective judge or mediator.  The left employs violence, vandalism, assault, theft, and bullying. They  cowards seeking to steal what others have and are willing to earn.