Katy Kissed A Marine And Liked It (Who's Afraid of Naomi Wolf?)

Maybe Katy did kiss a Marine. Maybe she kissed a female Marine. Maybe she hasn't. I don't know and I won't bother to guess one way or another. However, one thing is sure, she loves US Marines, especially female ones. Judging solely by her latest video for the song "Part of Me", she holds much respect for our valiant and honorable ladies in uniform.

So do I. In a 24 year long military career, I have served with many. Sure, some were "harder" than others. The same goes for the guys. The main consideration is that these women saw a need, answered a calling, and took that oath when there are many more people who are too timid to do so.

Apparently, one such timid individual is Miss Naomi Wolf. In fact, Naomi Wolfe is calling for a boycott of the video, song, and Miss Perry's music. Who is Naomi Wolf and why should we care?

This is the second mention of Naomi Wolf I encountered in as many days. The first mention came from David Burge's Iowahawk blog. A plumber named Paulie Intaglio wrote an account of his nightmare encounters with Ms. Wolf. His account of sexual harassment, "Hungry Like Naomi Wolf" is a "must read". Before yesterday, I had no idea who she was either. Apparently she is some big-wig feminist journalist and Huffington Post contributor. Looking through her articles, it appears she makes the occasional "good point" about holding mainstream journalists and government officials accountable. I do love parts of her pieces on the TSA, for example. No freedom-enjoying, Constitution-loving American can really argue those necessities for maintaining a free society. However, if you look deeper, you will see a deep-seeded hatred of men, the US Constitution, Religion, and Conservatism. Basically, she despises those things we hold dear unless they apply to her at that particular moment. that is my impression, anyway. I leave it for you to decide for yourself.

However, any and all respect those few articles may have garnered from me are erased by her call to boycott a video that supports our brave women in the military. My only guess for her hatred of female military service members comes from self-loathing fostered from her inability to be a true feminist and join herself.

Come on, Naomi, show you have real guts. "Walk Through That Door". I DARE you.

Remember this brave young lady?

Who's afraid of Naomi Wolf? Surely not Alyssa Braden. Definitely not the brave women Kirsten Holmstedt discusses in her books Girls Come Marching Home and Band Of Sisters. For sure not my friend Kayla Williams, author of the book Love My Rifle More Than You. Not the brave women serving in the US Army, US Marine Corps, US Navy, or US Air Force.

Naomi Wolf, in the words of fellow patriot Soldier Hard, "Shame On Y'all".

It's About The Kids!!! (Education)

Each generation looks at ones behind it and says something along the lines of  "kids today...".

In many of the previous generations, the commentary was usually prompted by the current pop culture coupled with current technology. Jazz came about with the "Swing Generation". Rock and Roll came about. Hippies joined with folk and "protest rock" to define a generation. Then we had Disco battling with Punk Rock. Next we had the nu-wave, hair metal, and Rap. Then Rap and Grunge.

Among these we had radio, then movies, then television, then color television, then cable, then satellite. Now we have the internet and iTunes.

These sorts of pop-art and technology shifts have brought about eye-rolls, that "kids today..." comment, and statements about values, work ethic, and morality. The simple fact is that we advance as a species. Our technology advances. Our art follows suit. Looking back, we still have held certain values and morals dear. Murder is wrong. Slavery is wrong. We are born with certain inalienable Natural Rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness also known as Private Property.

However, Ayn Rand wrote a great essay in her book Return To The Primitive about "Comprachicos". In the essay, she indicted progressive programs in some colleges and kindergartens for indoctrinating students with  socialist ideals. In 1971, she cautioned against the government school system heading down that road. It is frightening how prophetic some of her extrapolations have become.

I attended a public grade school and a private high school. I can tell you that my grade school days were largely devoid of much socialist indoctrination. But it was there, in some classes. These days, however, I look at the kids in the generations behind me. I do not say "kids today...". Instead I worry about them. I look at my generation and the older members of the one behind it. I ask them "what are you teaching to the kids today?".

An Economics Professor named Jack Chambless has appeared on Neal Boortz's radio program a few times. Hearing him speak prompted me to start reading his blog. I do not always agree with his perspectives on some subjects. However, I learn things about economics from him. I also look at his experience as a college professor for insight into today's students.

Prof. Chambless posted a recent essay question and one of the essays he received: Government Education in Action. The answer given left me in shock. If I had given such an answer in my high school economics class, I probably would have not only failed the assignment, I probably would have been prompted to drop the class for something more remedial. The spelling and grammar is on a sixth grade level, at best. The student obviously did not read the assignment. The student also, evidently, could not comprehend the question. It seems the student also failed grade-school geography as he could not tell the difference between the state of Indiana and the country of India.

Even more disturbing is the embedded proof of socialist indoctrination. The student wrote about raising tax rates in response to tornadoes. In addition, the student tried to answer part of the question by stating that increasing education will prevent further tornadoes or, at least, make people better prepared to respond to them.

I lived in "Tornado Alley" during several points in my life. While I was stationed in Kansas, I saw one funnel cloud form on the other side of a lake where I was swimming. The cloud came suddenly and moved fast. My education taught me how to avoid the twister and seek appropriate cover. However, no amount of preparedness can prevent the sort of property damage these natural disasters bring. Granted, education may produce better technology in the future. Given the products of today's education system, I question even that possibility.

The problem isn't that kids aren't smart. They are. They are just as capable of greatness and prosperity as my generation, my father's generation, and my grandfather's generation. So, if is isn't the kids, what is the problem? How do we fix it?

We can play the finger-pointing game for eons. Finger-pointing won't do a bit of good unless each facet responsible accepts its responsibility and accountability.

So I open this as a discussion, an exploration into the problem and the situation. I ask for comments on this essay. I want to hear from college students. I want to hear from high school students. I want to hear from grade-school parents.

Let's address the facets responsible from my point of view.

First, teachers. Teachers enter into an understood contract to teach. That means teach. It does not mean to preach some political agenda. It does not mean sitting in the back of a room while kids do what they want. It does not mean accepting lower standards. It means having a clear standard and sticking to it. It means those who do not make it either get extra help on their own or they repeat the class. It also means reviewing the course materials and making sure they are accurate and relevant.

What are the kids taught? Well, for one thing, they are taught to worship the worst President to hold the office in my lifetime.

Instead of being taught to be generous and share, they are taught to demand that others share. This is evident in those among the Occupy movement. The kids are taught that if somebody else has achieved and earned something, that they deserve their "fair share" of the labor and acumen that other person earned. Further adding to this problem is the fact competition has been eliminated. If two kids compete, they both win the same, despite who exceeds the other. The initiative and motivation to improve are thus removed. No scores are kept in athletic competitions. Everybody gets a trophy. I wonder if they still allow chess competitions where there is a clear winner and a clear loser.

An example in playing chess comes from my own experience. My seven year-old step daughter received a chess kit. She asked me to teach her how to play. I taught her how the pieces moved. I did not, however, let her just win. I would point out that some moves may be bad decisions. At one point she tried to tell me that I had to let her win because it was her turn, and it was only fair. I also do not let her win in card games. There is a lesson I am imparting about "fairness" and "justice". That lesson seems to be vacant from our schools.

Jada Williams wrote an essay for school. It was an essay contest she was encouraged to enter. The subject was to read Frederick Douglass's Narrative of the Life and write about it. Jada was ostracized for her essay. Her grades went from As and Bs to Ds and Fs. Did that book change her academic abilities? Yes it did. She had trouble with some of the language in the book. She read it, looking up many of the words. She re-read the book researching some of the ideals and the history surrounding them. She read the book again. Then she wrote her essay. She was appalled that she had to look up so many of the words in order to understand the book. She felt her teachers left her ill-equipped for the task. She also saw numerous inconsistencies in what she was taught in her "Social Studies" and history classes when contrasted with her research. Her resulting essay ended up winning the essay contest. Her school refused to submit the essay. However, word got out once Jada's parents got involved. The essay ended up in the judges' hands. It was a work I would have expected from a junior in high school back in my days. By current standards, it was considered a college level product. Jada's "crime", however, was to dare educate herself and demand her teachers do their jobs. Her punishment was to be removed from the indoctrination center that was posing as a learning institution.

Jada has appeared in several interviews to include a series of segments with Glen Beck. Opinions of  Glen Beck's views kept aside, Jada is right. Her "teachers" failed to do the jobs they were contracted to do. Instead of arming the children with facts and faculties necessary for critical thought, they armed the kids with opinions devoid of valid, accurate, and logical premises.

Kids today come out of grade school with higher "critical thinking skills". They do. However, what the teachers fail to impart upon them are facts and the ability to research and find facts. If you ask a kid for the definition of a word, it is unacceptable for them to start their answer with "Lexicon, to me, means...". That is what they are improperly taught to do. Instead, they should be taught to either give the definition (a fact) from memory or grab a lexicon (dictionary) and look the word up (research to gain facts). They are taught, to an extreme, that opinions should be valued over reality (facts). The result is reasoning and debating skills such as I outlined in my essay about my little black wagon. Why should this be deterred when their liberal teachers and the mainstream media propaganda politburo rely on such?

The end-result the comprachicos desire is college students and young adults that believe their feelings and opinions matter more than facts. It is to push a false ideology of moral relativism. That is in order to further the false ideal that things such as the Constitution do not matter. The product will refuse the founding ideals of our political system as expressed in the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Paine, and the discourses of John Locke and Montesquieu. To them, these facts and basic premises won't matter. Their current opinion, to them, will matter more. You see, to them, the US Constitution and laws are "subject to opinion" without factual basis. "I don't agree with the facts because I don't like them. So I make up my own reality based upon my opinion". The court of public opinion replaces evidence, facts and reason. Mob rule replaces the rule of law. Tyranny steps in to "restore order". The mob falls into line because they are taught to never question their socialist masters who filtered  the truth in the first place.


Next we have school administrators and teachers' unions. Those subjects comprise several blogs I have written as well as numerous ones I could write. The bottom line answer is that they impede the education of our children. They are more interested in covering their own rectums, lining their own pockets, and then covering for their own inept teachers than they are in taking care of our children. If they cared about the kids, they would spend more time lobbying for better school supplies and higher education standards than they would joining the "occupy" protests and pushing socialist political agendas.


These same bureaucrats, lobbyists (unions), and administrators also attempt to teach children that their parents have no authority. They try to teach children that the government and the bureaucracy know better what is better for the kids than parents do. The recent inspections of lunches brought from home are a glaring example. A school in North Carolina told a child her turkey sandwich, banana, and apple juice were a bad lunch. Her mother must be stupid. The school then gave the child processed and fried chicken nuggets and french fries to replace the lunch she already had. This was one instance.

In San Antonio, a first grader asked her mother to start packing her lunch for her. The girl complained  the food at school tasted bad and gave her tummy aches. The young lady is used to rather healthy meals at home. She likes fruits and salads. She likes healthier home made foods to more processed foods. She is a finicky eater not so much due to her tastes but, like any kid, she'd rather play than sit at a table and eat. Yes, I know this child rather well. Her mother informed the school that she was no longer going to pay for the lunch program. She informed the school that the food disagrees with her child and seems less healthy. Even if the nutritional levels are comparable, what good will food do if the child won't eat it? Now, the meals the child will eat that are brought from home undergo scrutiny from the school administrators. the mother fears repercussions upon the child if she fights the system for her child's benefit. 

Another source of education for our kids we can find an element of fault comes from part of modern pop culture. Our kids are taught by that great babysitter: the idiot box. Kids are taught "what right looks like" by reality TV shows such as Jersey Shore. They are taught what issues are important from mainstream media. The entertainment and information platforms are filtered and skewed to push a determined political ideology. They are devoid of all the facts. They present only what supports their opinion instead of all of the facts relative to the issue. They present facts and conjecture that does not apply to the issue in order to obfuscate the issues. the example demonstrated is that being in front of a camera and being an idiot is more a metric of success than actual accomplishment. But who puts the kids in front of the boob-tube in the first place?

Despite what government officials, teachers, bureaucrats, and unions attempt to indoctrinate the public and the children into believing; Parents are the primary educators in a child's life. It is a parent's responsibility to provide for the education of the child. It is evident that schools and pop-culture displayed in the biased media won't suffice. It comes down to the parents, such as Jada William's mother and father.

Parents need to make the time to educate the kids. Weekend trips should be for family bonding, yes. They should also include something fun yet educational. A trip to the beach should include telling the children why we have waves and tides. It should include a game about finding out which shells belong to which shellfish. A ride in a car could contain a talk about how internal-combustion engines work. When you make a turn and you feel that pull to one side of the car or other, you can talk about how centripetal and centrifugal forces work. A game of Uno become a math problem, teaching addition or subtraction. Baking cupcakes can be a lesson in fractions, division, comparative mass, and thermodynamics. Walking through a tea garden in San Antonio can be a lesson in photosynthesis, plant reproduction, honey production, and the chemistry involved in infusing tea leaves into water to make tea. There are also so many historical sites to visit. The Alamo in San Antonio, the town of Tombstone, Ocmulgee park (near Macon, GA), Andersonville, Arlington, Donner Pass, etc, are all places along the road to stop and discuss history, architecture, culture, and even politics. These are fun and tangible. (Of note, I do not find Andersonville very fun. I have been there. It rips at my heart. I watched my father break into tears there. But it is a place I think every American needs to visit.)

If you put on some inane TV show, turn down the volume and talk to your child on how a television works. If you don't know, use the contraption you are reading  this essay on to research it. After that, if nothing educational or interesting comes on that brain-melting box, turn it off. Read with your kids. Take turns, each reading a page. Play scrabble, it is great for teaching spelling and diction/vocabulary. When your kids asks you to remember something, have them write it down. Pay attention while they so do and work on their writing skills to include spelling, grammar, and syntax.

Make the library a treat. I loved mine when I was a kid. We not only had all sorts of books to explore, the library had numerous classes. I learned how to do basic animation and photography there. The 8mm films made by the students are still available there. I heard rumors that they are also now on DVD.

The teachers, school administrators, and bureaucrats that produced the student Prof. Chambless depicted in his article should be ashamed. They most likely are not. They most likely point fingers at each other as well as state and federal elected officials. In private, they rejoice that they created slaves to the nanny-state. However the real shame is to that student's parents who failed to pay attention to what and how the the child was taught. They failed to double-check homework. They failed to take responsibility and handed the kids over to the politicians, bureaucrats, unions, administrators, and comprachicos. They may have trusted them. Trust does not mean you do not inspect or spot-check. They failed to hold those people accountable. In the end, they failed the kids. The result is a college student who doesn't know the difference between India and Indiana. the result is a college student who cannot spell "satellite". The results is a college student who thinks they can get by with presenting an opinion without first doing the research. The result is a young adult who thinks he is "entitled" without effort.

Some Considerations For Personal Security

The Second Amendment still, to this day, brings debate not only over the rights guaranteed but the intentions of the Amendment. The issues are further argued over supporting state laws such as the Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and Shall-Issue Concealed Carry Permits. Gun Control Advocates will pose the question "Why do you need a gun, since the police will protect you?". Let's examine the right to defend your life, family, and property.

The shooting of Treyvon Martin by Jorge Zimmerman has brought national attention to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. The law was written to bolster people to protect themselves without having first to run until exhausted or trapped in an area where collateral effects are an issue. It is designed, primarily, to enforce an individual right to protect yourself against severe bodily harm against criminals and bullies. The law protects a potential victim from repercussions in using any weapon to normalize the impacts of facing an overwhelming force. For example, if a 19 year old 105 pound college student faces a 210 pound man intent on raping her, she has the right to NOT have to run into a theater yelling "fire". She can pick up a lead pipe and beat her attacker unconscious to protect herself. She can use Mace to protect herself. She can use deadly force to protect herself from that overwhelming force intent on inflicting harm.

Opponents of the law and the Second Amendment use the Martin-Zimmerman case to oppose a good law. The facts indicate the law doesn't apply to Zimmerman's defense. However, that is for the courts to decide, if enough evidence from the investigation warrants this going to court. Zimmerman got out of his SUV and followed Martin. I was 17 once. If, when I was 17, some strange dude was staring at me from his car on a rainy night, I might be a little worried. I probably would have picked up my step a little. I was not very skilled at counter-surveillance techniques back then. So my instinct would have been to take a quick detour through a neighbor's yard (providing we got along with that neighbor) and into my parents' house. It's basic instinct, fight or flight. A bobcat will bolt and run for its den, until you corner it. If you corner it, expect to be scratched up. That bobcat is going to fight for its life. From the very limited evidence of the case, it seems that was what Martin did. If Martin was, indeed, in the process of committing a crime, Zimmerman was not protecting his own life in going after him. Once the physical altercation ensued, the facts could have changed. The fact is, we don't know.

However, this case does not change the vital fact that Florida's Stand Your Ground Law is an important law that bolsters a key part of the intent behind the Second Amendment:  the inalienable right, by Natural Law, to protect life, liberty, and property.The law makes it possible for an 80 year old grandmother to protect herself from the three large thugs intent on stealing her medications and social security check doesn't have to attempt to flee on her arthritic legs. It enhances the individual right to protect one's life.

Here in Cochise County, Arizona, the Castle Doctrine came under fire last summer. An older gentleman was at home. He heard strange sounds in his backyard. He shot a young man, killing him. There was an outrage over the killing. The home owner was accused of unjustly killing a kid who was taking a shortcut. However, law enforcement determined he was defending himself and his property. Some normally conservative leaning acquaintances of the young man even rose against the Castle Doctrine, claiming it was abused. They knew this kid.

Obviously they didn't know the kid all that well. The kid had a record of assault and breaking and entering. The kid experimented with drugs, and not just the occasional joint, either. the story is that he was on his way back to a party and went to the wrong house. The police investigation found fresh marks on the back door indicating he was attempting an illegal entry into the older man's house. There were no sounds of a party. There weren't the crowd of parked cars you'd expect around a house hosting a party. The kid was attempting to break into this man's house. The man protected his property. The criminal faced the consequences of attempting his crime.

How does the Second Amendment apply to personal protection? Let's examine the amendment as it is written: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Amendment discusses a militia. If we recall, most of those who fought in the Revolution were citizens. In addition, the founders recalled the abuses under the British Army. The Army had weapons, and attempted to take away those of private citizens, disarming them, then imposing its whims onto the now defenseless colonists. The right to bear is intended to allow private citizens a means to protect themselves from tyranny, should the militia of the country intend to enforce tyranny, thus dissolving a "free state".

If you look further into the amendment, you will see the words "keep and bear arms". Let's pay attention to that phrase. "Keep" means that if you can lawfully own a weapon, then the government cannot take it away. "Bear" means if one legally owns a weapon, they are allowed to carry it without being hindered from doing so.

Yes, we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to carry our firearms. Neither the Federal nor the State governments have the authority to stop you from carrying your weapons. One thing of note is that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to carry them concealed. Concealed Carry falls to the individual states to legislate. However, according the the US Constitution, they cannot legislate against openly carrying.

Rocker and law enforcement official, Ted Nugent, disagrees. He has stated "The Second Amendment IS my concealed carry permit". While I agree that should be the case, it isn't. In today's society with a large anti-gun lobby in conjunction with the 10th Amendment makes it more and more imperative that states determine their own laws in regard to concealed carry.

40 of the 50 States currently have state-level "Shall Issue" laws, 18 of which will issue to non-residents of the states. Gun Control advocates argue against concealed carry permits and attempted to stifle a federal law that supported reciprocity of these permits. If the right to carry cannot be infringed, per the Second Amendment, why do states issue concealed carry permits? Why do people need to carry concealed?

First of all, open carrying can be a magnet to become the first victim of an armed attack. Let's say you are a criminal intent on robbing a bank, liquor store, or the local grocery store. You walk in, guns drawn, masks in place. Who will your first target be? If you see somebody with a 1911 on his hip, you probably are going to shoot that person or put your gun in his face and disarm him, stealing his weapon. It's common sense. So, if you reverse that scenario and you are making a deposit at your local bank and criminals enter intent on robbing, who do you think they are going to shoot first? You. However, if concealed, that weapon won't draw that immediate attention. It gives you the chance to defend yourself before you are shot, beaten and/or disarmed. If you choose not to draw your weapon, it is concealed and holds a lowered chance it will be stolen and used in other crimes later. It keeps that weapon in the hands of the law-abiding citizen.

Another scenario, you are sitting in a restaurant with your family. Let's say you are a tourist visiting Bisbee, Arizona and you are from a state that loves to violate the Second Amendment:  Illinois. You and your family are probably less accustomed to people wearing weapons as the local Arizona residents. A mean-looking man covered in dust walks into the restaurant. He is wearing a Glock Model 30 on his hip. It is lawfully holstered, but very visible. The mans seems slightly irritated at something as he and his friend, also openly carrying a pistol, sits at the table next to your family. Your pulse will probably jump a bit. You will feel rather uncomfortable. You may even consider leaving the restaurant. Yes, this exact incident happened to me. I was the one openly carrying. A smile and explanation quickly allayed the family. I even offered to lock the weapon up in the car, if it bothered them.

This was before I obtained a concealed permit. Yes, I was irritated. I was dusty from the range. I was thirsty. A slightly crazed individual had almost hit us in the parking lot and threatened my companion. (He backed up at a high rate of speed, didn't check his rear, hit another  car, and continued back towards our car, stopping only when my companion leaned on his horn. The horn disturbed the man who decided to approach our car waving his hands violently and uttering threats peppered with vulgarity. No, we did not un-holster our sidearms. We attempted to reason with the man who sped out of the lot, almost hitting a police car. He was pursued and arrested by those police, for hit and run, driving under the influence, and assault. The self-proclaimed "hippie" had just assaulted a local store owner.

Let's return to that family, though. If we had been carrying concealed, that internal alarm of "Oh no! They have guns!" would not have intruded on that family of tourists meal. They would not have seen the guns. I would not have had to volunteer to suspend my Second Amendment right to make these guests comfortable.

So there you have but two cases that justify carrying concealed. The third is that inherent right to self-defense, defense of family, defense of innocent potential imminent victims, and defense of property. Not only is that right to bear to not be infringed, it should not infringe of people's peace of mind. Gun Control advocates attempt to argue that the police are supposed to protect these things. It is, after all, their job, right? "To serve and protect"? Wrong.

First of all, in many areas of the country, police response time is far too slow to effectively save a life in imminent danger from attack. "When seconds count, the police are minutes away". This is true in small towns, cities, and rural ranch areas. The police do not have the ability to respond in seconds. There are not police on every corner. There are very few places with walking neighborhood beat cops anymore. In fact, most locales could not afford that large of a police force. Even if we could, do we really want an armed militia of two police, per shift, to every 10 families? That is just a recipe for tyranny. Yes, a police force is a form of an armed militia.

I love most police officers in my area. Those I have had the opportunity to meet and speak with are great people. They do a tough job. Here, we have sex-slavery, human trafficking, weapon and drug smuggling, plus your ordinary crimes. the police have their hands full investigating these crimes. I support them wholeheartedly. It is no slight against them when I state that I cannot count on them to protect me. I shouldn't have to, either. It is my life, and my individual responsibility to protect it. It is also my individual right to be allowed to do so.The vast majority of law enforcement professionals I know agree with that.

Common sense aside, there exist multiple precedents that the police are not required to protect individuals. Put another way, the police have no duty to protect you. It is not their job. The US Supreme Court has ruled this multiple times. The cries of Gun Control Advocates that the Second Amendment is outdated are false. They are outright lies. They will tell you that it is the job of the police to protect you. They will claim you are "taking the law into your own hands" and impinging upon law enforcement's job by exercising your Second Amendment rights.

In the case of self-defense and protection of property, the job of the police is to investigate crimes and pursue the criminals the commit them. It is not their job to play bodyguard to the populace. The most recent case, 2005, proving this is Castle Rock v Gonzales. Gonzales had a restraining order against her estranged husband. The SCOTUS ruling stated that, even with the restraining order, police had no obligation to stop the husband. They only had documentation to enhance prosecution of the husband once he violated the order and committed  his crime.

In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the SCOTUS made a similar ruling back in 1989.

In other cases, the SCOTUS has ruled that federal, state, and local police have no obligation to provide personal protective services to private citizens. Such cases have been ruled upon when candidates for various offices as well as more affluent business owners and Hollywood celebrities demanded police protection. This is why many such people employ private security firms to provide bodyguard services. Take anti-gun activist Rosie O'Donnell for an example. She wants stricter gun control laws and restrictions to the point of calling for amending the US Constitution. Yet she employs an armed private security service to protect her. She has that right. However, so do we, the private citizens, have the right to defend ourselves. We have the option to hire somebody to do so. We have the option to do so ourselves, taking personal responsibility for our lives.

Our nation was founded upon the principles of individual rights and responsibilities. The US Constitution is designed to limit the authority of the federal government. The Bill of Rights is not a list of limited rights of the people. It is a guarantee of the rights the founders thought most important to enumerate among the rights reserved by the states and the people. The inclusion of the 10th Amendment drives that intent home. The limits to governance, be it federal or individual, are contained within the main document. If one reads the US Constitution, they will quickly discover that most of those restrictions are placed upon the federal government. Those imposed upon the states involve states imposing levies upon good imported from other states. They limit the individual states from impeding the free travel and transportation of private citizens among the states, increasing individual liberty.

The Supreme Court has ruled that personal protection is not a duty of police forces. They uphold the Second Amendment as a primary advocate of safeguarding the inalienable individual Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is not only and individual right to protect your life, home, family, and property. It is a necessary individual obligation to do so to the limits the individual desires that protection. That is, as long as the individual is the defender and not a criminal aggressor infringing on those rights of others.

That means you have a right to protect yourself. You have the right to arm yourself and carry those armaments. If necessary to protect your life, the lives of your family, and your property and no other recourse is available or pragmatic, you have the right to use deadly force as a last resort. No, you do not  have the right to shoot a Jehovah's Witness for knocking on your door, no matter how annoying they may be. If you ask them to leave, they will. No force is necessary. No, you do not have the right to pull a gun and shoot the crazy, drunk dude who hits your car. No, you do not have a right to shoot the teenager that gives you the "stink-eye". Those are not reasonable and necessary reasons to employ deadly force. Law-abiding citizens recognize that you must be in a situation that a reasonable person would deem a case of imminent endangerment from a deliberate threat. SCOTUS decisions state in those cases, defense and protection are an individual responsibility, not the duty of the local police force.

Common Sense, reason, and logic therefore dictate that open carrying is a lawful right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Further examination reveals that logically, concealed carry is an even more responsible and reasonable application of the Right to Bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Honor, Valor, Fidelity, Sacrifice, SOLDIERs: Shugart & Gordon

I recently challenged fellow patriots and conservative bloggers to write an article, today, about a Medal of Honor recipient. I say "recipient" because this medal is not "won". It is earned through a life dedicated to valiant and honorable service of the highest esteem as culminated in great acts of valor on the field of battle. Those are my words, not the official description. I say "let the official description be damned" because I served for 24 years in the military before retiring on August 1, 2011. I hold the recipients of this award in the highest of esteem. Each is a hero to be emulated.

If asked why I choose to write about Shugart and Gordon rather than a recipient from one of my own wars, the answer is simple. These two men were the first to receive the Medal during my tenure of service. Their actions and valor greatly impacted the majority of my military career. They have my deepest gratitude in more ways than just the conventionally accepted ones.

For the uninitiated, SFC Randy Shugart and MSG Gary Gordon were members of Operation Gothic Serpent. Gothic Serpent is better know, today, by the book and subsequent film Blackhawk Down. The movie provides only a small but poignant scene depicting these two heroes. The movie shows Gordon requesting permission from Operational Command to insert inside enemy territory in order to protect fellow US Servicemembers until a larger rescue force could arrive. Gordon's request is denied twice, in the movie, before he is told "you are on your own".

If anybody doubts the valor of these two men, I will gladly direct them to say so to the face of CW4 Michael Durant. CW4 (Chief Warrant Officer) Durant is a hero himself. He was a member of SOAR 160, whose mission is to provide air support ant transport to various Special Operations Missions, to include those of 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta (SFODD AKA "Delta Force"). CW4 Durant flew a CSAR (Combat Search and Rescue) attempt to recover the crew of another downed Blackhawk helicopter. In the attempt, Durant's helicopter was shot down. Despite a broken spine and femur, CW4 Durant survived. he was later captured by Somali terrorists and paraded around in front of international journalists as a "war trophy". Durant not only survived the ordeal but has gone on to write two books about his experiences in the Special Operations community: In the Company of Heroes and Nightstalkers. CW4 Durant will tell you that "Night Stalkers Don't Quit (NSDQ)".

CW4 Durant is alive today because of the gallantry and self-sacrifice of Shugart and Gordon. I believe he would take slander or libel against Shugart and Gordon rather personally. In war, we warriors become family. They were brothers. That is more than evident in the fact that Shugart and Gordon laid down their lives for Durant.

Knowing they had slim to no chance of surviving, Shugart and Gordon also knew that for any of the crew of Durant's craft to have a chance at surviving, they had to act. Gordon knew that attempts to defend Durant and crew from the air were ineffective. So, after hounding command several times, they received permission. They weren't told to go in. They DEMANDED to go in.

In the aftermath, it was determined that these two heroes killed at least 25 enemy combatants and wounded countless others. Without their actions, the whole of Task Force Ranger may have been lost. Their fight to protect Durant drew enemy forces away from the pinned down Rangers. There is still much controversy over which fell first. It hardly matters. They fell together, doing what had to be done. Shugart fell about the same time he ran out of ammunition.

Two men protecting one wounded Soldier against an army.

That was in 1993. I was stationed in Berlin, Germany at the time. Like the events of September 11, 2001, I remember where I was and what I was doing on October 3, 1993. The events of that day and the honor and valor of Shugart and Gordon formed the foundation of the rest of my military career, serving as examples of what it meant to be a Soldier.

Hooah!

Melissa's Musings: How to Kill 11 Million People..

Recently, my beloved fiancee talked to me about entering the blogosphere. Her intent was to start a blog that documented her journey towards becoming a counselor and Psychologist (PhD). She is currently nearing completing of the academic portion of her Masters degree, having mainly practicums remaining before licensing and her degree.

I thought it a wonderful idea.

She knows that since I retired from active military service, I have become a somewhat outspoken conservative. She mostly rolled her eyes and said "politics again!" whenever she'd ask about my day. Occasional issues regarding my outrage would spark her momentary interest.

While I was visiting her, my brother called. We spoke for about 10 minutes, on the phone. This was while Melissa was at work. My brother heard about Andy Andrews on some Chicago-based radio show. He told me to look the book up and share my thoughts.

I checked out Andy Andrew's website, 11 Million People. After taking in the "Cliff Notes" on the website, I immediately ordered 2 Kindle versions of the book. One sits in my reading queue on my device, not yet read. The other I sent to Missy with just a simple note: "When you get around to it, take the 15 minutes or so and read this book."

Well, this morning she read it.


" Melissa's Musings: How to Kill 11 Million People..: I read this "15 minute read" this morning.  It actually took me longer than that to read.  I was astonished at what I read."

As she states in her opening paragraph, Melissa didn't just read it. She studied it. She highlighted it. Then she wrote about it. Her reactions are in the link above.

As Melissa said on her Facebook page this morning, Every American needs to read her blog, her reaction. Then they need to go to the 11 Million People website. Then they need to invest the few dollars the book costs and read it.

It's time to wake up. The politicians are lying to you, some much more than others. The mainstream media, under the direction (marching orders) of Media Matters for America, is lying to you, then vilifying "new media" journalists who seek to expose the truth. They do this to control you. They do this to destroy the principles our country is founded upon.

That alarm you hear won't be shut off by a snooze button. It's in your head. It is telling you to open your eyes. Ignorance is bliss only for slaves who do not recognize they are enslaved. Wake Up America, your heritage and future are calling.

The Ecologic Cost of Windmills -- 'Green' Hypocrisy

When the Soviet Union fell, many hardcore Marxists fled to a new-found ally in the so-called "Green" movement. The "green" movement is one of economic and ecological terrorism. Most of their attacks do not come in the form of violence but disturbing propaganda meant to instill fear.

People within the intelligence community understand that the true victims of a terrorist attack are those who change their patterns, habits, and lives in response to the terrorist action. These changes are usually in some form of self-defense. However, the main goal of a terrorist activity is to force a change in policy, governance, and ideology that will assist them in further promoting their cause.

For an example of a non-violent action meant to instill fear and change policy, you need to look no further than Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Much of this missive, by Gore, has been proven unsubstantiated or false by actual scientists. Gore is a lawyer and a politician, not a scientist. I may actually take with more than a grain of salt a case study of his about the relevance of Roe v Wade to the founding principles behind the US Constitution as established with the Federalist Papers and the works of John Locke. However, I consider him no authority of any merit on ecological science. Still, his video has led to our society to use terms such as "carbon footprint" in everyday speech. His scare tactics worked.

Within the "green" movement, these Marxist radicals found an ideological haven. They see a movement they can operate within to effectively subvert our foundation of a constitutional republic. They found a platform within which to mold public perspectives towards division. Economically, they attack capitalism by vilifying businesses, companies, corporations, and even family farms as "enemies of the earth". They have even infiltrated the government to set up a bureaucratic arm (the EPA) that imposes laws (policies and regulations) without legislation upon the people. They even attempted to regulate what type of light bulbs you use in your house or what car you drive. They do so under the false banner of "the public good" or "general welfare". It isn't for the "general welfare". It is for the sole purpose of taking away individual rights and imposing socialist tyranny one millimeter (policy, regulation, step) at a time. The idea is to do so slowly. As you get accustomed to one regulation, making it "just the way we live", they begin imposing their will on the next one. By the time you notice, all of your rights under Natural Law & the US Constitution are gone or in serious jeopardy.

All of their actions fall under the false banner of "conservation" and "protecting our world". This is pure hypocrisy. However, there are several in our country who have fallen into the myths of "green energy".

Now, for those who endear themselves to the meme that conservatives dislike the environment; don't fall for the hyperbole. There are many conservatives who love to fish, hunt, hike, bird watch, photograph nature, etc. I am among them. If the environment and eco-system are too greatly disturbed, these activities cease to exist. If we poison the lakes and streams, we kill the fish, deer, etc. If we cover the mountains with windmills, we take away the beauty of the land as well as deprive ourselves of hiking areas. That meme is so beyond reality is barely merits mention, except to illustrate how ridiculous it is.

It is true that harvesting renewable natural resources are worth exploring. Hydroelectric plants do produce sustainable energy in some areas of the country. As long as there is naturally running water, there is a source of energy. The drawbacks to this include the fact that, usually, a dam is constructed to do so. Building a dam means, necessarily, an area will be flooded, changing the ecosystem of the area (man-made lakes such as Lake Jackson in Georgia). Drastic changes, such as this, to the ecosystem are in direct opposition to "conserving natural beauty". However, doing so is falsely considered less intrusive than "fracking" for oil and natural gas. In reality, damming a river for hydroelectric power as, or more, intrusive on the environment. Still, we humans can take advantage of these man-made lakes for pleasure or farming fish.

A more recent fad in alternative, renewable energy sources are wind-farms. For those who are unaware, a "wind-farm" is a collection of current-generation windmills. To be effective, trees have to be cut down. to be effective, these ugly contraptions replace the natural flora and fauna along canals (natural or man-made) of wind currents. These contraptions destroy the aesthetic of the natural beauty of the skyline. To top it off, they take up leagues of usable farmland, in many cases. They are just as ugly as oil pumps and drilling rigs. However, drilling rigs and oil pumps can at least be obfuscated or beautified with surrounding plant life. We are stuck seeing these huge, white windmills littering our skyline.

These wind-farms also bring their own form of pollution. They are loud. The decibels they produce drown out your car stereo if set at a comfortable, safe level. That is while driving on a highway past one of these farms. While stationed in Germany, we had a unit run to a mountain top that hosted such a farm. The windmills there are half the size (and produce 75% the noise level) as the wind farms in California and Arizona. The person standing next to me had to shout at the top of his lungs in order for me to barely hear him above the womp and woosh of the windmills'  blades. Even then, I barely caught every third word.

The wind farms are also inconsistent. They produce power only when the wind is blowing at a certain rate and in a certain direction. On still and calm days, they fail to produce much power. Like with solar energy working only during the peak hours on clear days when the sun strikes the panels at the correct intersecting angle, windmills turn only when the conditions are optimal. If the wind is too strong, the generators go offline to prevent surges that will damage the grid or the generators themselves. If the wind is too light, they won't turn. If the wind is in the wrong direction, the vector fails to hit the blades to turn them efficiently, if at all.

At least with hydroelectric power, the rivers will flow as long as they don't dry up or freeze. Coal or natural gas powered electric generators will turn as long as they are maintained and the fuel is consistently applied, usually by a group of employees. Nuclear plants also provide consistent, long-term fuel for electric power plants.

The "green energy" propagandists and their enforcement arm of the EPA will inundate you with facts about the carbon footprint of coal and methane fueled electric plants. They will sound off with statistics and data about the "greenhouse gasses" and "hydrocarbons" released into the air. While much of these figures may be true, the direct impact upon the ecosystem is still largely theoretical. They extrapolate what things could be like if "cleaner" sources are applied "immediately" versus "not at all". They do not tell you how minimal the difference could be between implementing them today and perhaps 10 years from now when better engineering produces more consistent and cheaper technology for these sources that may actually work. They refuse to publish that speculation or study. They also refuse to take engineering advancements in making fossil fuel consumption "cleaner" that occur more regularly and with greater frequency than they do with these "clean" sources.

"Fracking" is not new technology. It existed in the 1950s when Ayn Rand described it in her book Atlas Shrugged. It was already a reality back then. However, proponents understood that numerous advancements in technology were necessary to make it safer and more viable (as well as cost effective) before widely introducing it. Today, it is a safe means of acquiring natural gas and petroleum. For more facts about the truth concerning "fracking" than just the limited diatribe of the "green energy movement", please visit FrackNation.com. To support documentary film makers who seek to divulge the truth about fracking, donate here.


Still, "green-energy" advocates fail to describe the current ecological impacts of the wind farms while vilifying "fracking" technology and nuclear energy. By and large, with support of talking points generated by Media Matters for America, the so-called "mainstream media" networks fail to fully represent all of the facts relevant to these "green energy" programs.

If you were to shoot at golden eagle, a California condor, or a bald eagle, you would face up to a $10,000 fine and a year in prison, even if this is done accidentally. That is per incident. So, will the USDA, US Dept. of the Interior, and EPA hold wind-farmers to these penalties? Of course not, because these wind-farms support a political agenda designed to deprive people of their individual liberties. It doesn't matter that these farms also violate federal environmental protection laws in the process.

In West Virginia, wind farms contributed or caused the deaths of hundreds of birds each year. This is far more than any hunting season or events of natural predatory nature generated. They are also in addition to the above, and not "instead of". These avian deaths not only deprive bird lovers from seeing their favorite winged friends fly and sing, they impact the ecosystem. The deaths allowed a drastic increase in the mosquito and locust populations. These lead to devastating impacts upon crops as well as an increase in disease vectors. Many avian species also feed on rodents such as mice and rats. So, additional consequences include a rise in rat infestations. Rats also vector diseases.

In California, scores of golden eagles, a protected raptor species, are killed each year by wind farms. Not only do these farms threaten the protected species, but allow for its natural prey to thrive. That means the population balance of such animals as rabbits, rats, and certain fish go unchecked and become a menace to human populations and farms. 100-400 burrowing owls, another protected species of raptor, are killed each year in California's Altamount Pass wind-farms alone. Is the cost worth it considering that these wind-farms, at full production, are capable of providing less than 2% of California's power requirements?

These are not isolated incidents or problem areas. Incidents and data from around the world demonstrate the negative environmental impact that wind-farms present. They kill more endangered avian species a year than poachers or natural predators combined. Across the US alone, scientists estimate approximately 440,000 birds are killed each year by windmills, mostly victims of industrial wind-farms.

More and more, the facts concerning the negative impacts of these "green, clean energy sources" are discovered, only to be buried, obfuscated, and omitted. They will refer to conservatives, who do, in fact, care about conservation and ecology, as "hating the environment". They will deny and obfuscate the facts and reality while falsely stating that conservative capitalists "don't care about clean air and clean water". They will continue to push this meme while attempting to convince you that these severe, negative ecological impacts of wind-farms are "not an issue", claiming "we're working on that" and "give it time to mitigate the problem". They will do so just like they have attempted  to tell the people that Barack Obama's dangerous associations and ascriptions to the extreme ideologies of Derrick Bell, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshal Davis, and Saul Ailinsky don't matter. These facts matter. Gather as much data as you can. Make up your own mind. Do NOT let MMfA, the mainstream media, and the socialists embedded in the eco-terrorist movements tell you what to think.

My Little Black Wagon (Logic vs the Media)

This is the third part in my series on vetting the media. The first part is here. Click here for the second part.

In any logical proof, you have a set of premises (the argument) and a conclusion. The validity of an argument is based upon its adherence to the laws of logic and their corollaries.  Any argument can be broken down into symbols and analyzed in a proof format utilizing these laws.

The truth and accuracy of these arguments go directly into the definitions of the terms and scrutiny of the premises to determine if the facts are indeed facts, and verifiable.

Example:

I have a horse.
Andalusian horses are pretty.
My horse is an Andalusian.
Therefore, my horse is pretty.

For validity:

H
A = P
H is a subset of A
Therefore H also = P

The argument is valid.

I do not own a horse (at this time).
"Pretty" is subjective, not an objective truth.

The rhetoric (reason) is flawed because of the lack of truth, despite the validity of the argument.

The rhetoric and validity of an argument (debate, etc) is also subject to relevance.

Metal Painted  Black absorbs more infrared radiation than white painted metal.
I own a wagon.
My wagon is made of metal.
The metal is painted black.
Sunlight contains infrared radiation.
Infrared radiation is heat.
Therefore, if I leave my wagon in the sun, it will get hotter than a similar, metal, white-painted wagon.

I won't bore you with the symbolic proof of the validity of the argument. I will trust that it is rather clear, linear thought. I'm sure a fair amount of research out there will prove the facts behind it, though I am no physicist or engineer. However, let us make the assumption that I have, on hand, a long list of research and study to verify the statements as facts (as well as a picture of an egg frying on my black wagon).

Now, here is the flawed rhetoric, reason, and logic I seem to hear too often these days:

Metal Painted  Black absorbs more infrared radiation than white painted metal.
You own a wagon.
Your wagon is made of metal.
I don't like wagons.
I own a sled.
My sled is red.
The red dye in M&Ms causes cancer.
I don't like M&Ms.
I prefer Skittles.
Skittles are better than M&Ms.
With Skittles you can "taste the rainbow"
I like all the colors in a rainbow.
Your metal wagon is painted a blackish color, depending upon your point of view.
Obama is the first black president.
My definition of "black" is different than the dictionary's.
I have a green rubber ball.
I like to bounce my ball in puddles during rain storms.
Sunlight contains ultraviolet radiation.
Ultraviolet radiation is invisible to the naked eye.
I wear glasses.
I still can't see ultraviolet radiation.
Snow is white.
Snow is cold.
I think you are snow-blind.
Therefore I'm right and you don't know what you are talking about.

If I were to put your through the painful process of a symbolic validation/proof of the argument's structure, the end result would be an invalid argument. However, it doesn't take that knowledge of symbolic and sentient logic to see the gaping holes in the reason and rhetoric. Count the non-sequitur statements. It is more than obvious the conclusion is baseless, illogical, devoid of critical thought, and idiotic.

If you don't believe me, engage some socialist activist in a discourse and debate on this subject:  Is the Obamacare mandate that Religious Employers violate their Religious Beliefs to provide a service the law classifies as "health care" a violation of the First Amendment?

He/She will refuse to even talk about the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. His/Her argument will be about any other non-sequitur facts, supposition, opinion, and assumptions he/she can spew within a 2 minute segment. Then she will employ "fairness" in thinking you should give up your 2 minutes of rebuttal for her to re-iterate her flawed reason, rhetoric, and logic.

The mainstream news commentators attempt to obfuscate the applicable and relevant facts of most issues with superfluous and non-sequitur hyperbole to force a pejorative that they must know more  than you or I. To them, your thoughts, assessments, analysis, logic, and reason don't matter. This is, of course, despite the facts of the case and the truth they attempt to hide. Those relevant facts and truths are there to see, once you tear away the veils of obfuscation. After doing so, their fallacies and invalid reason become more than obvious. Of course, you do have to perform a little work on your own in order to clear away those veils of non-sequitur talking points.

Remember:  On the subject of A therefore A; A is A. Who cares if Z=X when they aren't part of the equation?

Why We Should Not Trust the Mainstream Media

 One thing I did not discuss in my last essay (To the Editors-in-Chief of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, & CBS: Where Is The News?) is the simple fact that the main news networks, including some "journalists" that work for Fox, most major newspapers, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. get their talking points from Media Matters For America (MMfA), a socialist "watchdog" group whose 501c3 charter states that they are an independent Non-Profit Organization chartered to fact-check news stories. They are not. Ranking individuals from MMfA meet regularly with Obama and White House staffers to discuss what talking points they are going to spin and pursue; and what factual stories they will attempt to cover up. They are after destroying the First Amendment guarantee of a Free Press, suppressing "new media" journalism, and trying to rewrite the truth into their propagandized version.

According to the Mainstream Media, Hassan was a disgruntled soldier guilty of "workplace violence". The truth is he was an Al Q'aida infiltrator. The unclassified facts that were released were subsequently quashed by the mainstream media under the guidance of Eric Boehlert and MMfA and other socialist activists.

That is but one example. How about Mainstream Media (MSM) and MMfA's attempts to smear James O'Keefe after he did his undercover investigative probe into voter fraud and complicit, lax voter registration laws (or complete disregard for them) in various states? O'Keefe showed proof of the fraud time an time again, in multiple locations, in multiple states. He exposed the corruption and crimes. The answer from the socialist politburo propaganda machine (MMfA):  O'Keefe is a convicted felon. (This is false and a blatant lie).

When Breitbart's staff released the first of many tid-bits Andrew uncovered from Obama's past, the MSM & MMfA attempted to tell the people that it isn't news. They try to dictate what we think. My last essay challenges them to start displaying all the facts and let the audience, consumers decide what is important, like Ben Franklin did. There is supposed to be a free press in our country. MMfA attempts to eliminate that by dictating to people what to think, what to pay attention to, and what facts are relevant, and covering up many of those relevant facts.

Of course, MSM wants to cover up the fact the Al Q'aida operative in France went on a shooting spree primarily directed at the Jewish population of the town. They don't want the people to remember that this is a Global War on Terror. They don't want memories of 9/11/01 rekindled. They want the people to believe that Obama ended the war against Al Q'aida by authorizing NSWTU-6 to take down Usama bin Laden.



AQ is not defeated. They are reorganizing and rebuilding.

Obummer did not take down UBL. He was told that if he didn't give the go-ahead, he could kiss re-election goodbye.

Hassan was an AQ operative who infiltrated the US Army and conducted a terrorist attack on Fort Hood.

Obummer practices a radical divisive form of Marxist racism known as Critical Race Theory as programmed into him by Derrick Bell.

Voter ID laws, if passed and enforced, would lead to mitigating corruption in the electorate process. Without it, corruption and fraud are rampant.

These are not spins of political opinion. These are facts. The political opinion is that there can be only a small handful of reasons why these facts are covered up by the MSM:

1. They are negligent and incompetent

2. Somebody put a gun to their head and told them to shut up

3. They don't want you to know the truth.

4. They are purposefully propagating a pejorative for political power by practicing censorship because they hate the US Constitution.

5. Any combination of the above.

My "endorsement" of "new media" is by no means a statement to take what is published there as unbiased truth. Of course there is still bias in the new media. The difference is simple. In the new media you get multiple sides to the same story. You can compare them and extract the facts from the spin. You have the freedom and opportunity to think, analyze, and make up your own mind based upon a greater spectrum of data and opinion. Of course, that puts the responsibility to work upon the individual. MMfA wants to quash that freedom. They do not want you to think for yourself. They believe it is their job to think for you, thereby enslaving you the same way Fredrick Douglass discussed how one master chastised his wife for educating a young Mr. Douglass.  If you think for yourself, you cannot be controlled. MMfA wants to enslave you if you are not part of the proletariat elite that bows to the politburo.

Sorry kids, I am college educated. I have traveled the world. I have seen and done things that progressives deny exist. I have read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I read the US Constitution regularly. I average 5 books a week, 3 of which are usually non-fiction. I think. I analyze. I assess. I make up my own mind. I am not a statistic. I am not some compartmentalized and labeled group. I am not a number. I am A Free Man.

To the Editors-in-Chief of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, & CBS: Where Is The News?

This essay may seem a little late joining the fray. The thoughts are not new to me nor are they from some sudden epiphany. The facts and my opinion based upon them formed years ago, only to become more and more collaborated in recent days. The time has come for me to say them to more of an audience than just one person at a time.

With the advent of radio, we saw a surge in news media migrating to the airwaves. Then came television. In my earliest days, my father seemed to marvel as color video streamed into our small. boxy RCA television. It was a news media breakthrough, the day before my first birthday, to watch Neil Armstrong step out onto the lunar surface and utter those famous words. Of course, my personal memories are quite fuzzy concerning the incident. I do, however, recall sitting with bated breath, huddled around that same TV in April of 1970 as the fate of Apollo 13 unfolded in near real-time. In my early childhood, TV News was the "New Media".

In its early days, those days of Watergate, the Vietnam War, and the Apollo Program, TV news was the fire-hose of data. In WWII, radio was the headline blast that counted upon the morning printed news media (newspapers) to full in the details. Those lucky enough to afford a trip to the theaters received Movie-Tone news comprised of stories a week to a month or more old in a video setting. In the late 1960s, that weekly treat had become the nightly norm as more and more families acquired their television sets. The headlines now came "streaming" from cameras to the homes.

In those days, the advocates of "mainstream media", the newspapers and radio news, argued that TV headlines and stories failed to contain the whole of a story. Opponents claimed the TV journalists were "hacks" and not professional. Yet the more tech-savvy championed the seemingly more objective reporting from the camera's eye over the scripted and edited (and often slanted) journalism in the newspapers and radio.

Printed media dates back centuries, with mentions of posted bills and notices dating back to the Roman Empire. When the moveable-type press was invented, printed papers became the "new media". Newspapers and printed periodicals still circulate today. Radio news still thrives, increased with the invention of satellite and internet radio.

During the first Gulf War, CNN stepped up as a "more viable" news source as they broadcast real-time and near real-time video of the war. No longer did we have that hours to days lag between footage shot and it being published and broadcast as we did during the Vietnam War. "Cable News" supplanted local-based syndicated and network newscasts for national and global stories.

In the mid-1990s, more and more homes began subscribing to internet providers. Along with the internet become a household norm in the US, so came our current "New Media". Proponents of new media champion the diversity of perceptions and opinions. Political "spins" balance each other out as long as a reader is willing to look at multiple sources. Today, anybody with a camera, a computer, and an internet connection can pursue amateur level journalism. The information flow has drastically increased to the point that the interpretation of the data is limited only by the amount of time somebody wishes to spend researching the issues.

With the new media, through such forward thinkers as Matt Drudge, Andrew Breitbart, Roger L. Simon, Charles Johnson, Glenn Reynolds, and Ariana Huffington, any event or occurrence is broadcast within seconds or minutes. That brings a simple truth that more data is openly available to the common consumer than in times past. No longer are information consumers restricted to the filters of a couple of choice networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC. These days, even the "new media" of the early 1990s, Cable News sources such as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, stand naked before the people proclaiming their wonderful garb. However, we can clearly see they stand naked before the world. With the media of today, their filters and veils are obsolete. They are revealed. We see past them. The data is out there, as is the truth.

The problem with "new media" is that so many still cling to those filtered networks for information. Going online, many people go straight to their sites, not taking the time to search for other views of the same stories, or further data that has been published. I discussed the days when people used radio for headlines and newspapers for the full stories in the morning. These days, many people use the new media as though it is 1942 radio, waiting for the "mainstream media" to fill them in later. They fail to see the emperors are standing naked, because they believe the emperors' lie that they are clothed. "How dare you tell the emperor he is naked. If you do so, you are a fool!". Those of us who have embraced the new media chuckle at the emperor, knowing who the fool truly to be.

I rarely watch cable or even local network news. I still get some of my news from radio. Mostly, I get it from the "new media". Any story that catches my attention, I search and fact-check. I look for multiple angles, spins, and perceptions. I make up my own mind. I take the time to do so. I am personally responsible for my own thoughts, decisions, perceptions, and opinions. Some may call that "enlightened", others "wise". I call it "responsible", "mature", and "reasonable".

What I have found, over the past several years, is the overwhelming bias in the "mainstream media". The emperor stands naked before me. I find them rarely viable on any story. More often than not, they report on things they have decided to be "news" and avoided the issues I find important. The "new media", conversely, always has at least two journalists covering those stories. It is why I have migrated towards the new media, for the most part.

The televised networks are obsolete. it is not because their medium has become so. It is so because their business model has chosen to be obsolete. I know many people who wonder why Kim Kardarshian's divorce is "big news" while the mainstream media still fails to adequately cover Eric Holder's involvement in Fast and Furious, the failed operation that lead to the murder of USBP SRT Agent Brian Terry. It's because the mainstream media has chosen to attempt to tell the public that Kim's butt is now open suitors to be more of an issue than USDoJ corruption. With new media, we have a choice what we decide to comprise the priority issues. The mainstream media despises the fact that free and critically thinking consumers are no longer limited by their filters. We now have an easier and liberated means to choose for ourselves. They have lost their power.

I issue a challenge to the mainstream media. I challenge the networks to actually seek out the issues that are important instead of attempting to dictate what we should think. I challenge them to become the journalists they claim to be. Yes, news needs to be entertaining enough to draw and keep an audience. Those near real-time videos of the plight of Apollo 13 kept American families tied to their sets. A story about Lindsey Lohan's latest arraignment would not have taken precedence in those days. If one station carried the Apollo 13 story, and the others covered LiLo's crocodile tears in court, we know which would get the ratings share. Cover the stories that matter. Quit trying to decide for us. Let us make those decisions.

This is why the mainstream media has become obsolete. Their filters, bias, spin, and attempts to distract us from the real world are their downfall. It is not, necessarily, the speed of the internet. Most of them have online sites to compliment their broadcast stations. It is the fact that Joe Gymshoes can pull out a smart-phone and post a story, within minutes,with video, about Mayor Corruptbucks in Nowhereville walking into Sultry Sandy's Pleasure Palace for a "Happy Ending" Massage. It is because real investigative journalists like James O'Keefe has the courage to find stories, and publish them, that the mainstream cannot keep up.

The mainstream journalists have forsaken their calling to seek the truth. Instead they have taken up a campaign to control our brains, our thoughts, and our choices. If they got back to the core principles of seeking and publishing the truth, they could redeem themselves. However, these days, they have chosen to champion socialist agendas. They are no longer journalists. They are entertainers. They are marionettes dancing on the ends of the strings of the socialist oligarchy pulling their strings and issuing paychecks.

A recent case in point is Soledad O'Brien's more than obvious stumbling when challenged by Joel Pollak of Breitbart.com on the revealed associations between racist professor Derrick Bell and Barack Obama. It was  obvious she failed to research the topic. She tried to tell the people "that isn't news". Sorry, Soledad, but we, the consumers, decide what is news to us. That is not your call. Soledad failed to have facts on hand to counter the story or its potential importance. She chose empty rhetoric to attempt to tell people what to think. When Joel pushed the issue, she tried to rebut the facts. After her false statements, there was a scurry on Wikipedia to alter the encyclopedia entry on Critical Race Theory to match her statements, to alter the truth. Too bad., for her, several people archived the original post. Too bad for Soledad that Wiki tracks and publishes the number of updates and the times on their site.

Soledad attempted to dance to the tune her masters played, and followed the tugs on her strings. In doing so, she pushed an agenda. As a journalist, her agenda should have been to reveal the unbiased truth. She failed, as a journalist. I did find the marionette dance to still be entertaining.

You may not care about Obama's collegiate associations. That may not be an issue you find important. However, that should be your choice, not MSNBC's, not CNN's, and not Fox's. With the new media, the story is still out there, and you now have a choice to look at the data or not. I do not wish to vilify Soledad or single her out. She is but one, recent example. It isn't her fault. She is just doing what she is told, for her paycheck. I choose to call her what she is:  an entertainer, not a journalist.

These days, I do find more "truth in reporting" from self-admitted entertainers as Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity. There is no illusion that they express a political opinion. They do not hide it. However, they display supporting facts then state their opinions. The so-called mainstream journalists do the opposite. They display their opinions claiming them to be the facts, then attempt to tell us that the factual data is but an opinion, or is insignificant.

I challenge the mainstream media to throw off the bias. I challenge them to report the facts as facts, opinions as opinions, and let the intelligent and free-thinking individual citizens of our great nation make up their own minds.

I do not care about LiLo's crocodile tears.



I do care about voter fraud.

I do not care about the trial of some single mother in Florida who allegedly killed her child.

I do care about DoJ corruption and negligence leading to the death of USBP agents and bolstering a continuing threat to those of use who live near the border.


I do not care about the trial of Michael Jackson's physician. He isn't my doctor, and it won't bring MJ back onto MTV with a new video that Weird Al can parody within the next 2 weeks.

I do care about what our highest elected official believes, who he emulates, who he associates with, and what his real plans for our country's future are.

I don't care about Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke, who claimed a $3k a year condom bill (that's an average of nearly 11 sexual encounters a day, by the way), a "slut". I still won't pay for her contraception. I don't care how often she needs to use it. It's her body, her responsibility, her business.

I do care about my having the inalienable right to my body (Life), what I do with it, how I treat it, and my individual choices and responsibilities to its care. I care about the government keeping its filthy paws out of it. I care about the same right for every individual American citizen. I don't want the government paying my medical bills thus having a say over what treatment I choose or choose not to pay for.


I don't care about Kim Kardashian's bouncing butt no longer tied by matrimony. I have a woman I plan on spending the rest of my life with. She is, by far, not KK. My betrothed is much more intelligent, for one thing.

I care about the economy. I care about the US Constitution. I care about the freedom and propensity for prosperity of my children.

I don't care about Alec Baldwin losing WWFA (Words With a Flight Attendant).

I care that my kids are educated and not indoctrinated. I care about stories like 13 year old Jada Williams reading Fredrick Douglass's Narrative of Life and her subsequent essay. Her research and self-educating while preparing that essay led her to indict the "white teachers" for purposefully failing to educate, choosing instead to indoctrinate today's youth. Of note, by "white teachers", Jada explains, she does not implicate a race. She used Douglass's words as an indictment of all indoctrinators posing as educators (comprachicos). I despise comprachicos.

I don't care about Nicollette Sheridan's wrongful termination suit against ABC. 

I care about our elected officials standing by their oaths of office and their promises. I care about threats to our great nation. I care about finding a job. I care about the lives of my family and friends. I care about my tax dollars being spent responsibly and constitutionally. I care about the government getting out of the way of the free market, enabling private citizens to start or expand businesses and employment opportunities.


Of the issues that most concern my family and me, only the weather seems to be the one the mainstream media is willing to tell the truth about. It is the only issue they report on, regularly, that concerns me. These days, even that contains some element of socialist spin from the "climate change" Chicken Littles screaming "the sky is falling".

The mainstream media can attempt to debunk the validity of new media until they are blue in the face. They are emotively self-asphyxiating with extreme futility. The simple truth is that the new media is doing the job the mainstream media fraudulently claims to do. New media is on the rise. It cannot be stopped. These days, it is quickly becoming the primary source of the truth. Mainstream media has only itself to blame for their own downfall.

The mainstream media has been weighed. It has been measured. It has been found wanting. 

Vet the Media. Ask about not only what they report, but what they are not saying.


Verum Petitor -- seek the truth. The emperor stands naked before you. Only a fool denies the truth and parrots what they are told "everybody knows".

Breitbart Is Here.

War.

 

Remember, Lincoln Was Raised In A Log Cabin

No, I am not a professional journalist. No, I am not an expert in titles or headlines. However, if you clicked that link up there, I must have managed to get your attention. Now, let's see if I can keep it.

To borrow a phrase from our wonderful socialist propagandists, "Everybody knows", I am going to relate a well-known fact. It is a known fact that Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican President, was raised in a log cabin. Many of us, as kids, played with "Lincoln Logs". They are a testament to how well known that fact is.

When Lincoln and the early Republicans began their campaigns for a voice in politics, one of the main platforms they stood upon was abolitionism. Abolitionism was founded upon the very core tenets of the Declaration of Independence. It was founded upon the ideals set forth by John Locke and held dear by the authors and framers of the US Constitution. Those ideals remained present in the Federalist Papers upon which the Constitution was constructed. Those self-evident truths that all people were created equal. All people were born with certain rights that tyrants attempt to convince people to willingly give away, or take away by force.

The inalienable rights each person is born with are Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. The philosophy of John Locke explains these in more depth. By life it means your life is yours and belongs to no other. You time is yours. If you use it in the employ of another, you are owed just compensation for that labor, time, effort. Liberty means your thoughts, time, decisions, are your own as are the rewards and consequences. You have the rights and responsibilities for what you do. You have Free Will. "Pursuit of Happiness" is interchangeable with "property". The phrasing in the Declaration was chosen so that it included intellectual property and those things created, earned, accrued, owned and would not be mistaken for solely real estate. The Pursuit means you have a right to work, a right to earn, a right to succeed or fail on your own merits and decisions. It means you have the right to own the rewards or consequences. It means you cannot expect others to suffer from your consequences. It means the cost of your life is your own and you cannot expect another to pick up your bills.

None of this should be new information.

How this applied to the Abolitionist movement is simple. Go back and reread that paragraph above. It's O.K., I'll wait. Caught up? Let's revisit that ideal:  ALL people are endowed with those rights. Abolitionists could not reconcile slavery to these basic, founding principles. These days, most Americans cannot. Conservatives are among those who hold those truths most valuable. Those inalienable rights are sacred.

Today, that abolitionist ideal is alive and well. Extreme racism and racial hatred makes most of our blood boil. Well, now it is time to take those ideals a step further.

The First Amendment insures that, with some exceptions such as threats, intentional misrepresentation, and hate speech, we have the freedom to speak up and speak out. It guarantees the press can do so as well without repercussion from the government if they are telling the truth or posing provoking questions. It also states that the government cannot establish a state religion, to include the religion of atheism. By definition, atheism IS a religion. It also enables the rights to protest, peacefully, and to circulate petitions.

Granted, the founders, by and large, were Christian. Many were Deists or Unitarians. However, the morals that Jews and Christians held dear, those teachings, those philosophies and ethics were of high importance to the founders. I have studied many religions. The vast majority of them hold to the core values. The names and personalities of various deities may differ. Even many atheists believe certain things are inherently wrong, such as murder, theft, kidnapping, slavery, and denying a person the rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

So, if there is not established state religion, what is so "wrong" with homosexuality? What is so "wrong" with gay marriage? Nothing. If your religious views oppose it, that is your right. However, what if a homosexual person is a member of a religion that allows it? Do they not have a right to their religion? So, if  he religion allows for gay marriage, should they not be allowed their rights to practice their religion and participate in those rituals? Yes, they should be. it is their right.

There is a group of conservatives labeled "Log Cabin Conservatives" that support that ideal. Should gay people be allowed special protections, rights, and freedoms under the law? No. Should they be restricted from the same rights and freedoms as the straight people? No. They are individuals with individual rights.

I recently was told I could not be a conservative if I supported gay conservatives. The basic tenet this untruth stood upon is that there is "no such thing as a gay conservative". That is a ludicrous as saying there is no such thing as a "Black Republican". Well, the first four black representatives in US Congress were Republicans and conservatives. Martin Luther King Jr. was  a black Republican and conservative. So that theory is quickly debunked. It is like saying there is no such thing as a Jewish Conservative. I can introduce you to several. It is like saying there is no such thing as a Druid Conservative.

Yes, there are gay conservatives. The Republican Party does a good job of turning them away through religious zealotry. I have a gay uncle. He is mostly a libertarian. If you spoke to him about most issues, you would find him very conservative. Where he is accused of not being so is on the concept of gay individuals being allowed their individual rights just like every straight citizen enjoys, to include the right to get married. There are several others out there. I associate with them. I enjoy their views. I enjoy their company. They are conservatives.

It is untrue when somebody accuses me of  homophobia. It's is obvious that you do not know me, at all, when you make such an accusation. It is hilarious when I'm accused of being a homosexual. It isn't an insult. It is false. However, I have great friends and family, some of whom are gay. I adore them as much as I adore my straight friends. I also have many friends who are bisexual. So what? It is their life, their liberty, and they have their right to their pursuit of happiness. It is just like the prejudiced belief that one man had the right to the life of another, through slavery. How does a gay couple hurt you? They don't. Leave them alone.


In reality, lumping gay people into a group and using stereotypes is a very left-wing mentality. Now, I will hear some of you argue about some members of the left supporting "gay rights". There are no "gay rights". There are individual rights that gay people deserve the same access to as everybody else. Those include the right to marry within their religious beliefs if those beliefs so allow.

The left supports "gay rights" just as they support all other "collective rights" of sub-groups because they seek to undermine the very basic tenets and founding principles our founders held so dear. By segregating individuals into little groups, unions, and tribes, they seek to pit us against each other. THAT is why they support the special "rights" of some lumped-together demographic. So tell me, are they each an individual or collectively a herd? I am me. What is mine is mine. What I do I do. What I earn I earn. My love is my love to give to those I choose. Gay "people" are not a group. A gay person IS a PERSON, and INDIVIDUAL.

If you doubt the true hatred of the left you do not have to look any farther than "Reverend" Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. They hate homosexuals, as a group. They do no see individuals. They see a group of sub-humans. It is just how many slave owners viewed their slaves, as objects, not people. They protest military funerals because of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy the military adopted. They became even more heated because the military phased into homosexuals being allowed to openly join the military. So they hate our military members. Now for your daily shocker (maybe). "Reverend" Phelps is a self-admitted left-wing activist. He is a registered Democrat. He has even run for several offices as a member of the Democratic Party. He is a tyrant who believes that individuals should not have their rights, as endowed by our creator. He is also a racist, by the way.

Not infringing upon their individual and inalienable rights is a conservative trait. Not infringing upon their religious practice, per the First Amendment, is also a conservative trait. So, my gay friends, think about that on your way to the polls. Democrats do NOT care about your individual rights, as human beings.

To the one who so wrongfully posited that there are no gay conservatives, I challenge you to look in the mirror and justify your own conservatism for violating those very core beliefs with that statement. Perhaps this is the area in which your conservatism fails you?

To the Log Cabin Conservatives out there:  Thank you for living the spirit of Lincoln. Keep up your good work. Keep the faith. E Pluribus Unum.