Thoughts on Obama Gun Control Speech

Earlier today, President Obama announced 23 executive actions he is taking, and additional steps he is pressing Congress to take, in response to the Sandy Hook tragedy.  Not surprisingly, they are all largely focused on guns.

Below is a transcript of his speech (in italics), with my thoughts.

Good afternoon, everybody.  Let me begin by thanking our vice president, Joe Biden, for your dedication, Joe, to this issue, for bringing so many different voices to the table, because while reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm shouldn't be a divisive one.

Now, over the month since the tragedy in Newtown, we've heard from so many.  And obviously, none have affected us more than the families of those gorgeous children and their teachers and guardians who were lost.  And so we're grateful to all of you for taking the time to be here and recognizing that we honor their memories in part by doing everything we can to prevent this from happening again.

But we also heard from some unexpected people, in particular I started getting a lot of letters from kids. Four of them are here today, Grant Fritz, Julia Stokes, Hinna Zeha, and Taejah Goode.  They're pretty representative of some of the messages I got.  These are some pretty smart letters from some pretty smart young people.  Hinna, a third-grader -- you can go ahead and wave Hinna, that's you.  Hinna wrote, ``I feel terrible for the parents who lost their children.  I love my country, and I want everybody to be happy, and safe.''

Mr. President, do you really believe that these 3rd graders decided to write you letters all on their own, with opinions they crafted of their own free will, without any prodding or coaching by their teachers and/or parents?  Or are you shamelessly using these children as props to further your political agenda?

And then Grant, go ahead and wave Grant, Grant said, ``I think there should be some changes.  We should learn from what happened at Sandy Hook.  I feel really bad.''  And then Julia said -- Julia, where are you?  There you go.  ``I'm not scared for my safety, I'm scared for others.  I have four brothers and sisters, and I know I would not be able to bear the thought of losing any of them.''  And these are our kids.  This is what they're thinking about. 

And so what we should be thinking about, is our responsibility to care for them, and shield them from harm, and give them the tools they need to grow up, and do everything that they're capable of doing.  Not just to pursue their own dreams, but to help build this country.  This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe.  This is how we will be judged.  And their voices should compel us to change.

If you believe our first task as a society is to keep our children safe, how exactly does cheerleading abortion while ensuring tax dollars fund the killing of children every day square with that belief?  How does robbing our children of their future - by saddling them with tens of thousands of dollars in debt before they are even born - square with your statement about our first task as a society?

And that's why last month, I asked Joe to lead an effort, along with members of my cabinet, to come up with some concrete steps we can take right now to keep our children safe, to help prevent mass shootings, to reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country.

Gee whiz, Mr. President, it sure seems that these "concrete steps" your vice president came up with will only affect law-abiding citizens.  You know, those folks that pose no danger to children, and don't perpetrate mass shootings, and aren't part of this "epedemic of gun violence" you are speaking of.  I know you want to be clear, so please help us understand how they will prevent mass shootings and reduce gun violence.

And we can't put this off any longer. 

Of course we can't.  We can't let this "crisis" go to waste, can we, Mr. President?  That was the advice from your former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who ironically now presides over the city with the most gun violence in the country.

Just last Thursday, as TV networks were covering one of  Joe's meetings on this topic, news broke of another school shooting, this one in California. In the month since 20 precious children and six brave adults were violently taken from us at Sandy Hook Elementary, more than 900 of our fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun -- 900 in the past month.  And every day we wait the number will keep growing.

So, Mr. President, how many of those 900 shooters would have been stopped if this package of gun restrictions had already been in place? (Zero.)  How many of those 900 shooters are law-abiding citizens...the only ones affected by your proposals? (Whoops! None.)  How many of these 900 shootings occurred in Chicago, where you were a rockstar community organizer and where they have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, but the highest murder rate?  (Most of them.)

So I'm putting forward a specific set of proposals based on the work of Joe's task force.  And in the days ahead I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality. 

Because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.

Freedom and liberty for innocent, law-abiding citizens be damned, right Mr. President?  There are countless, more effective ways to go about "reducing the violence", but those things don't jibe with your political, anti-gun agenda, do they?

 And I'm gonna do my part.  As soon as I'm finished speaking here I will sit at that desk and I will sign a directive giving law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals and the public health community some of the tools they need to help reduce gun violence.

We will make it easier to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by strengthening the background check system.  We will help schools hire more resource officers if they want them, and develop emergency preparedness plans.  

What if some schools don't want more resource officers, Mr. President?  Wouldn't they be putting children in danger by rejecting your "wisdom"?  Will they be punished if they don't accept this "help"?  After all, you are punishing every single American today by urging Congress to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. 

We will make sure mental health professionals know their options for reporting threats of violence, even as we acknowledge that someone with a mental illness is far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the perpetrator.

Mr. President, everyone that has ever gone on a killing spree is mentally ill.  Sane people don't shoot up schools.  Most Americans are beginning to think you are suffering from mental illness as well, because that last statement of yours was effectively excusing the actions of the mentally defective young man that killed all those kids.

 And while year after year, those who oppose even modest gun safety measures have threatened to de-fund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it. And Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.

We don't benefit from ignorance.  We don't benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence. 

Frankly, Mr. President, it doesn't take a scientist or a million-dollar study to understand that law-abiding gun owners don't massacre children.  It doesn't take a doctor to know that criminals and psychos don't care about laws, don't think twice about murdering others, and will not be fazed by all of this silliness you are announcing today.  Furthermore, it seems that you DO benefit from ignorance, seeing as how you were recently re-elected by hordes of ignorant Americans.

These are a few of the 23 executive actions that I'm announcing today, but as important as these steps are, they are in no way a substitute for action from members of Congress.  To make a real and lasting difference, Congress, too, must act, and Congress must act soon.  And I'm calling on Congress to pass some very specific proposals right away. First, it's time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun.

The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that's kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.

But it's hard to enforce that law, when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.

I applaud this step, Mr. President.  But whoever told you that 40% of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check is lying to you.  Gun shows have no loopholes allowing the sale of firearms without a background check, and I'm quite certain that 40% of gun sales do not occur between private individuals.  I would recommend hiring staffers that won't make you look as foolish as you did today while regurgitating blatantly dishonest "facts" from your teleprompter.

If you want to buy a gun, whether it's from a licensed dealer, or a private seller, you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one.  This is common sense. And an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with us on the need for universal background checks, including more than 70 percent of the National Rifle Association's members according to one survey.  So there's no reason we can't do this.

Again, background checks are fine and dandy, Mr. President.  I'll be interested in hearing how your administration or Congress proposes that individual private citizens conduct background checks on people that want to buy a gun from them - or how you plan to prove that background checks have or have not been completed prior to a private individual sale.  I suspect this will require some sort of gun registration scheme, which will never become law.  But I wish you and Congress good luck trying to get that going. (LOL!)

Second, Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10 round limit for magazines.

Why should Congress do that, Mr. President?  "Military-style assault weapons" owned by law-abiding citizens will never be used to assault anyone.  They will only be used for recreational and sporting purposes, and to defend against criminals - or a tyrannical government, which is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Did your woefully moronic staffers explain to you that "military-style assault weapons" are deemed such because of mostly cosmetic differences?  Please have them explain to you how one rifle with a pistol grip is more deadly than the very same rifle without a pistol grip, so that you can explain it to the American people. Where magazines are concerned, are you saying it's OK if 10 children are killed, but not OK if 30 are killed?  You do realize, of course, there are literally millions of 30 round (and up) magazines currently in circulation, do you not?  In fact, one company that manufactures these magazines, Magpul, has a backlog of over one million magazines ordered as of this writing.  That's just ONE company, Mr. President.

 The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high capacity magazines has one purpose:  to pump out as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible, to do as much damage using bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage. 

Actually, Mr. President, the guns to which you refer are fully automatic weapons which are already banned for everyone except law enforcement, the military, and special federal license holders.  But I digress...let's not let facts get in the way of your ideologically-driven spin.

And that's what allowed the gunman in Aurora to shoot 70 people, 70 people, killing 12.  In a matter of minutes.

Almost all handguns fire bullets at exactly the same rate as the guns that you want to ban.  One bullet with every trigger pull.  Why not ban them too, if your motives are pure?  I guess you and your buddies will get around to banning those eventually too...right, Mr. President?

Weapons designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater. 

Again, Mr. President, guns designed for and used in a theater of war are fully automatic, and already banned. 

A majority of Americans agree with us on this.  And, by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994, urging them -- this is Ronald Reagan speaking -- urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons.

Mr. Reagan, while the greatest president in modern times, was not infallible.  He also granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, which served as an incentive for even more illegal immigration as we've seen in the years since.

And, finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job.  We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the expressed purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals.

You mean, like the ATF did during the Fast and Furious operation, where nobody of consequence was held to account after ATF agents helped hundreds of guns get across the border and into the hands of cartel criminals?  Why do you believe that your attorney general and those that report to him should be given preferential legal treatment not afforded to other Americans?  Do you believe the people in your administration are exempt from following the laws the rest of us must follow?

And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this. 

I couldn't agree more.  When will Attorney General Eric Holder be fired? (He won't.)

Since Congress hasn't confirmed a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in six years, they should confirm Todd Jones, who will be -- who has been acting and I will be nominating for the post. And at a time when budget cuts are forcing many communities to reduce their police force, we should put more cops back on the job and back on our streets.

Now, let me be absolutely clear:  Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.  I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen.  There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection.

No, Mr. President, you don't believe in the Second Amendment.  Based on your actions today, you believe that Americans have too much freedom and liberty, and Americans' right to keep and bear arms must be infringed.  What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?  You believe in penalizing law-abiding Americans for the actions of mentally defective psychos.  Not only is that un-American, it's just flat stupid.

I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.  I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown.

That's what these reforms are designed to do.  They're commonsense measures.  They have the support of the majority of the American people.

Mr. President, with all due respect, please explain the brand of "common sense" you are using when your answer to wackos shooting up schools is to infringe on the rights of innocent, responsible law-abiding citizens.  Please explain how it is "commonsense" to blame inanimate objects. Please tell us how it's "commonsense" to ignore the problem of mentally deranged people receiving inadequate care and supervision.  Neither sane, law-abiding citizens nor guns are the root cause of wackos shooting up schools.  Real "commonsense measures" would focus on the root causes of these tragedies.

And yet that doesn't mean any of this is going to be easy to enact or implement.  If it were, we'd already have universal background checks.  The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines never would have been allowed to expire.  More of our fellow Americans might still be alive, celebrating birthdays and anniversaries and graduations. 

Of course it's not easy to implement your politically-driven, tyrannical gun-grabbing schemes, Mr. President.  You see, our Founding Fathers foresaw people like you trying to do things like this.  Thankfully, they ensured America is governed in a way that helps prevent tyranny by dividing power among three branches of government. Your actions and aims are tyrannical, and will not pass muster among We the People or among the other two branches.

This will be difficult.  There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all- out assault on liberty, not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves.  And behind the scenes, they'll do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever. 

Another reason all this is so difficult, Mr. President, is because it is obvious to reasonable people that many of the things you want to do will not help to address the problem.  Instead, your aims are misguided and go against the very foundations upon which this nation was formed.  History has shown what happens when governments disarm the people.  From Austria to Britain, from Poland to Russia, it has never turned out well. We do not want to block real commonsense reform when it is effective and necessary. However, we vehemently reject nonsensical, tyrannical political agendas cloaked as "reform" such as the steaming pile of idiocy you were peddling today.

The only way we will be able to change is if their audience, their constituents, their membership says this time must be different, that this time we must do something to protect our communities and our kids.

We agree something must be done. This misguided, ideological "solution" you are peddling will not work, Mr. President. Numerous studies done by people across the entire ideological spectrum showed the same conclusions - the previous assault weapon ban simply didn't work.  At all.  One need look no further than the FBI's Uniform Crime Report to see that crime of all types continued to decline despite gun ownership nearly doubling, after the assault weapon ban expired.

I will put everything I've got into this -- and so will Joe -- but I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it.  And by the way, that doesn't just mean from certain parts of the country.  We're going to need voices in those areas and those congressional districts where the tradition of gun ownership is strong to speak up and to say this is important.  It can't just be the usual suspects.  We have to examine ourselves in our hearts, and ask yourselves what is important?  This will not happen, unless the American people demand it.  If parents and teachers, police officers, and pastors, if hunters and sportsman, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background stand up and say, enough.  We've suffered too much pain, and care too much about our children to allow this to continue, then change will -- change will come.
That's what it's going to take.  You know, in the letter that Julia wrote me, she said ``I know that laws have to be passed by Congress, but I beg you to try very hard.''

I know that you believe the majority of Americans are ignorant and apathetic, Mr. President.  I don't disagree.  However, I am willing to bet that many apathetic Americans own guns, and won't be so apathetic when it comes to their gun rights.  The majority of American people will not be demanding that the federal government curtail their rights.  It simply won't happen. Incidentally, when did third-graders learn about the functions of the three branches of government, anyway?  (They don't...it was another coerced letter.)

Julia, I will try very hard.  But she's right.  The most important changes we can make, depend on congressional action.  They need to bring these proposals up for a vote, and the American people need to make sure that they do.  Get them on record.  Ask your member of Congress if they support universal background checks to keep guns out of the wrong hands.  Ask them if they support renewing a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
And if they say no, ask them why not?  Ask them what's more important?  Doing whatever it takes to get a -- an A grade from the gun lobby that funds their campaigns?  Or, giving parents some piece of mind when they drop their child off to first grade?

Intelligent, rational people know the difference between feeling safe and being safe.  Those who believe in American principles aren't waiting for government to provide for their safety and that of their families.  It might be a feelgood, emotional reaction to ban those scary guns, but reasonable people know that criminals and psychopaths don't give a damn about laws, Mr. President. I'm confident that many, many politicians, citizens and others will proudly stand up and go on record against your proposed usurpation of our rights, freedoms, and responsibilities to protect ourselves and our families with whatever tools we see fit.

This is the land of the free, and it always will be.  As Americans we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights that no man or government can take away from us.  But...

No, Mr. President, there is no "but" at the end of that statement.  Ever.

...we've also long recognized, as our founders recognized, that with rights come responsibilities.
Along with our freedom to live our lives as we will comes an obligation to allow others to do the same.   We don't live in isolation.  We live in a society, a government for and by the people. We are responsible for each other.

So, in other words, you don't believe the American people are responsible enough to keep and bear certain types of guns...but we are responsible enough to keep and bear others?  No matter the model or the features, Mr. President, all guns are inanimate objects and do not wreak havoc by themselves.  Law-abiding Americans could possess missiles, tanks, and fighter jets, and society would be no less safe than it is today.

We have the right to worship freely and safely; that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.  The right to assemble peacefully; that right was denied shoppers in Placimus, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.
That most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech and high school students at Columbine and elementary school students in Newtown; and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent basis to tolerate; and all the families who never imagined they'd lose a loved one to -- to a bullet, those rights are at stake.  We're responsible.

Yes, we are responsible, Mr. President.  Not "we" as in the government, but "we" as in We the People.  We have allowed our society to degrade and decay to a point that personal responsibility is a novel concept while relying on somebody else, mainly government, to tell us what is right and wrong, what we need, and how to live has become normal.  We the People need to reverse this trend and take more responsibility for ourselves, our children, and our safety.  We cannot ignore mental illness and hope it goes away on its own.  Those of us with guns can't be lackadaisical with their security so that they fall into the wrong hands.  That is not your responsibility as president...it is ours, and ours alone.  With all due respect, you need to study the Constitution and rethink government's role in our great nation.  It has expanded far beyond the limits our forefathers set for it, and for America to be great again, your government needs to shrink back into the shadows and let We the People manage our own affairs.

You know, when I visited Newtown last month I spent some private time with many of the families who'd lost their children that day. And one was the family of Grace McDonnell. Grace's parents are here.  Grace was seven years old when she was struck down, just a gorgeous, caring, joyful little girl. I'm told she loved pink.  She loved the beach.  She dreamed of becoming a painter.
And so just before I left, Chris, her father, gave me one of her paintings.  And I hung it in my private study just off the Oval Office.  And every time I look at that painting, I think about Grace, and I think about the life that she lived and the life that lay ahead of her.  And most of all, I think about how when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now, for Grace, for the 25 other innocent children and devoted educators who had so much left to give; for the men and women in big cities and small towns who fall victims to senseless violence each and every day; for all the Americans who are counting on us to keep them safe from harm.
Let's do the right thing.  Let's do the right thing for them and for this country that we love so much.

I really want to believe that your motives are pure and you really do believe you're doing the right thing in responding to the Sandy Hook tragedy, and those tragedies that came before it.  Unfortunately, the chasm between your approach and one that makes sense to me and millions of others of the same mindset is so wide that it's impossible not to suspect darker, ulterior motives that require the squelching and oppression of American freedom and liberty.  There has been little you've done while in office to convince me that you honestly and truly want the best for America and We the People.  Show us, Mr. President, that you are not the aspiring tyrant that you appear to be.   

Meanwhile, any guns and/or accessories that I may or may not have, that may or may not be impacted by any potential ban being considered in Congress, will never be listed on any government registry, nor will they be collected by any government agents. 

Ever. 

Government Isn't the Answer

On Friday December 14, a mentally defective young man started his day by shooting his mother repeatedly and heading to an elementary school in Connecticut where he forced his way inside and massacred 20 young children and six adults before taking his own life.

Their little bodies weren't even cold before politicians, cable news hosts, Hollywierdos and others began calling for more gun control, gun bans, and even confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.  They couldn't wait to use the blood of innocents to promote their political agendas and loudly proclaim their ignorance in front of the nearest camera, microphone or Twitter account.

It absolutely baffles me when this is the typical response to some deranged or mentally ill wacko going on a shooting spree.  Guns are never the root cause for murder.  And they never will be, no matter how hard people wish they were, or how many ignorant people think they are.

I've been on this Earth for over 40 years, and many things have changed in that time.  However, one thing that has changed relatively little is government.  Aside from a sustained, consistent effort to expand its powers and consequently, spend more of our money, government hasn't really changed a whole lot.  We get idiots in office, then we get some good people, then more idiots, and on and on.  Each push their agenda and do their thing.  The pendulum is perpetually swinging back and forth.

The things that have changed over that time began at home.  Every parent I know proudly proclaims that they are determined to make sure their kids have it better than they had it.  While their intentions are good, many times their definition of "better" translates to "easier".  "Easier" results in kids not learning life lessons early enough, and leads them to believe that it's normal that someone else will make sure they get what they want and need while protecting them from all things bad.

Society, too, has changed.  When I was a kid, I ran the neighborhood unsupervised all evening, doing stuff kids do.  We built rickety ill-designed ramps with scrap wood and jumped our bikes off them without a helmet.  Sometimes we crashed, but we dusted ourselves off, learned from it, and made appropriate adjustments.  Now, kids aren't allowed out of their parents' sight because the perception is that the world is a darker place than it once was...never mind that crime data shows otherwise.  News has always been about sensationalism, and with the dawn of the 24-hour news cycle it seem all we hear about is murder and tragedy.  We hear about it a lot more, but it isn't happening a lot more.  In fact, according to FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data, the violent crime rate is lower nationally than it has been since 1973, and continues trending downward.

So many things prevalent in society today were unthinkable 30 years ago.  Back then, we had Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, Duck Hunter, and pinball games.  Today we have Grand Theft Auto which glamorizes assault, rape and murder...we have Ghost Recon and Call of Duty, featuring all the blood, guts and gore imaginable.  When I was a kid, my parents were uncomfortable with me being exposed to the humor of Statler and Waldorf, the two grumpy old guys in the box seats from the Muppet Show.  Now, kids can flip on the TV and see a transvestite space alien hitting on an underage boy on American Dad, and the never-ending sexual perversion including babies and animals being depicted on Family Guy.

In schools, leftists and militant athiests have ensured kids won't be hearing a peep about Christianity, God, or moral values, but kids can head on down to the library and pick up a copy of Heather Has Two Mommies for their summer reading list. If they're in San Francisco during the right time of year, they will likely run into gay men fellating each other on the street as their friends walk around wearing nothing but leather bondage gear during the Folsom Street Fair.  Meanwhile, back at school, we're adjusting expectations by race and everyone is being told they are special.  They're taught that fairness is when government confiscates the wealth of the earners and gives it to the takers.  The wars in Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East are used in history class as examples of America being a big part of what's wrong with the world.

Kids don't have a positive male role model, such as a dad or another family member, around as much as they did 30 years ago.  The nuclear family, once thought to be idyllic, is no longer the majority in our society and indeed, is no longer even a goal for most people.  Kids are growing up with single mothers, and they might see their dad once a week for a day or two if even that.  Many have never even met their fathers.  And there is no longer a social stigma where single parenthood or absent fathers are concerned.

I'm not saying that playing Call of Duty caused this tragedy, and I'm not saying that prayer in schools would have prevented it.  I'm also not saying it was caused by a kid reading a book about lesbians or that single helicopter parents are to blame.

What I'm saying is that sometimes, the sum is greater than its parts.  Some parts of our society are better today than they once were.  Some are worse, such as the political correctness that we're all forced to deal with these days. Merry Christmas, anyone?  Other parts, that taught our kids about the realities of life...about personal responsibility, individual accountability, success and failure, the value of life...are not there at all like they once were.

Gun ownership has increased steadily over the last 30 years.  Today the ratio of guns to people is approaching one-to-one, according to estimates.  Yet, as I previously mentioned, the violent crime rate is decreasing.  But as Rush Limbaugh noted on his show today, we have a lot of "low-information" people in this country (formerly known as morons and idiots).  They applied about three nanoseconds of thought to the tragedy that happened last Friday in Connecticut and decided it was the fault of inanimate objects - guns.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco has already authored a gun control bill for debate when Congress convenes again after the holidays.

The same government that thinks it is smarter than we are is blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a mentally ill person. 

There is no better proof that government isn't the answer.

Government stepping in to restrict the rights, freedoms and liberties of people that didn't do anything wrong isn't the answer.  It's not the answer to what happened in Connecticut, Colorado, or anywhere else a psycho picked up a gun and went on a shooting spree.

We the People are the answer.

If you have children, raise them to be right.  If you don't know how to do that, find out.  Ask your relatives, your friends, the church if you go, or any number of available resources for parents.  Teach them the value of life.  Teach them right from wrong...teach them to be responsible and accountable for their actions.  Teach them to be independent...to dig deep when the going gets tough, rather than blaming others and looking to government for solutions.  Teach them boundaries, and teach them kindness and respect for others.  Don't allow video games or TV to be their babysitter for hours, days, months, years on end.  Be a parent.

If your child is mentally ill, don't just do what you can for them and hope for the best, as this man's mother apparently did.  It's your responsibility as a parent - and a member of society - to ensure they get the help and attention they need so they don't hurt others when they act out.  If you aren't fully prepared to dedicate your entire life to your child, then you need to give them up to someone that would do ANYTHING to dedicate their lives to a child they can't have themselves.

The American way isn't to look to government for the solutions to our problems.  More often than not, government isn't the answer.

Transformation Complete

Back in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was leaving Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention when he was asked, "Well doctor, what have we got?  A republic, or a monarchy?"

"A republic, if you can keep it", he replied.

A most prescient answer.

I've written and rewritten this several times talking about why the election being called for Obama was the death knell for America, but I feel like it's an exercise in futility.  The majority of Americans don't care.

The majority have turned their backs on the ideals, principles and virtues that made America exceptional and great.  The people have rejected the Declaration of Independence, and view our Constitution and Bill of Rights with contempt.

Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama's fundamental transformation program was wildly successful.

Four more years of rule by fiat, gross mismanagement of tax revenue, utter lack of transparency, hostility toward the free market, success and wealth.  Four more years of high unemployment, a rapidly expanding government, increasingly higher taxes and spending, and eroding freedom and liberty.  Four more years of an impotent border security apparatus, four more years of coddling illegal aliens, and four more years of pushing disincentives for people to provide for themselves.  Four more years of fraud, deceit, theft, murder and sedition perpetrated by our federal government.

And with a big fat stamp of approval by We the People.

In fact, with the change in demographics resulting from yet another amnesty coupled with Obama's appointment of a few more liberals to the Supreme Court and the legal precedent that Obamacare sets, it will be much longer than four more years. 

Call me pessimistic, but I don't see any chance of our nation being led by those who respect our country's founding principles and the Constitution, ever again.

I don't hate Obama or blame him for any of this.  He's just doing what he does.  What disgusts me is the willful ignorance and/or stupidity of the American people.  It wasn't even a year ago when I noted that we're still a majority conservative country, but clearly I was mistaken.  The majority want the government to be their nanny and moral compass, and they support its unconstitutional path and expansion to that end.

Since the election, people in all 50 states have filed petitions for peaceful secession.  It's another exercise in futility but I sure can't blame them.  I know I sure don't want to live in a country full of ignorant, apathetic dimwits like this one.

And frankly, I wouldn't mind one bit if the secessionist movement in Texas got off the ground and gained real traction.  My hope is that it would be a peaceful divorce, but I'd take it either way.

Crystal Clear Clarity

"Let me be clear..."

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of hearing Obama preface nearly everything he says with that phrase.  Instead of just talking about being clear, Obama would do well to actually BE clear.

The man is a gifted orator.  His speeches were once eloquent and inspirational...and in my opinion, they were a significant reason Obama was elected in 2008.  Obama's themes of "hope" and "change" resonated with the majority, many of whom had grown weary of George W. Bush.

After having assumed the very real responsibility and accountability of the presidency, the novel ideas of "hope" and "change" borne from Obama's community organizing days quickly evaporated as he struggled to be clear in reporting to Congress and the American people.  His spin doctors had to work overtime preparing his speeches for the TOTUS (TelePrompTer Of The United States), and Obama was unable to provide clear explanations or take responsibility for his rapidly mounting failures. 

To quote Shakespeare, his speeches became "...tale[s], told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.".  The only thing clear was the lack of clarity.

He tried to excuse his incompetence by blaming others and whining about having "inherited" this economy. 

To be sure, he did inherit the economy - but he wanted to inherit it.  He fought hard day in and day out for months trying as hard as he could to inherit this economy!

For two years - half of his term - his Democrat party controlled both houses of Congress.  This is a Democrat president's dream, and essentially allowed Obama to deploy his agenda for America with relatively little resistance.  This was the best opportunity for him to kick off his "fundamental transformation" of America...and kick it off he did.

Obama's first term lowlights include increasing the debt more than every single president in history combined.  He promised to cut the deficit in half, but instead he tripled it.  He took over healthcare, nationalizing an industry that represents 17% of the economy. 

He lined the pockets of the UAW while leaving GM investors with nothing and taxpayers with billions in losses.  He prevented the purge of illegal aliens while refusing to secure the border.

He has trampled upon religious liberty by forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception and he has ensured that taxpayer money will fund abortions. 

After taking credit for the killing of bin Laden, his idiot VP endangered our special operations warriors. Obama blamed an American for attacks on our Libyan embassy and the killing of our diplomats rather than blaming extremism and terrorism.

Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general, is directly responsible for countless deaths associated with the "Fast and Furious" operation, and actively fights against efforts to combat voter fraud by filing suit against every state that passes voter ID laws.  He also helped Obama ensure illegals enjoy a comfortable stay in America by suing Arizona in response to its efforts against illegal immigration.

Obama talked a lot about jobs, but the unemployment rate kept climbing and has never fallen below the level it was when he took office. 

In January of 2009 when Obama was inaugurated, the average price of gas was $1.84.  Today it is $3.69.

Now at the end of his first term, there is real clarity.  Barack Hussein Obama has clearly failed as President of the United States.  If you or I were to perform at our jobs the way Obama did at his, we would have been fired a long time ago.

We are not better off than we were four years ago.  It would be impossible for a reasonable person to conclude otherwise.  I simply can't wrap my head around the fact that once again, even after all these miserable failures, there is so much support for Obama.

Let me be clear: Obama has got to go!

Obamacare: Symptom of a Disease

"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." - Alexis de Tocqueville

De Tocqueville was clairvoyant, but I would argue that - especially after this week's United States Supreme Court rulings - our nation's government IS forcing men to act, it DOES destroy, and DOES tyrannize.

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare and its individual mandate passes constitutional muster, as a "tax" (never mind that Obama himself vigorously denied - and, inexplicably continues to deny - that the individual mandate was a tax).  Because of this, there will be $500 billion in new or increased taxes on everyone (mostly the poor and middle class) over the next 10 years, while also adding $1.76 trillion to the national debt.

So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

 According to the Court, it's perfectly constitutional for the federal government to force people to buy health insurance, and levy a punitive tax if they don't do so.  That's right, folks...for the first time in history, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government of the United States of America have come together to impose and uphold a tax - on simply being alive.

To put this in perspective, if you're in the service industry as many of my friends are, making $30K per year and don't have health insurance, you MUST A) pay your contribution for the insurance that your employer offers, B) find and pay for your own insurance, or C) pay a $695 penalty for not having insurance, and go on the government dole for your healthcare.

No matter what, you're going to pay.  That's the law.  Obama's "fundamental transformation" in action.

Another portion of this ruling dictates that small business owners must provide health insurance if they have 50 or more employees, or face fines.  Whether they start offering health insurance or pay the fine for not doing so, they will have to incorporate these new expenses into the cost of doing business.  To offset these new costs, they will have to raise prices and/or lay off employees.  Neither of those are good for the economy, and one of those is especially bad for you, the employee.

Government, through tyranny, is forcing people to act against their free will. The spending needed to enforce this tyranny and enact this legislation will dramatically speed our progress towards financial destruction.

This legislation flies in the face of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  You know, those things this nation was founded upon.  When a government can dictate to people what we must spend our money on, and there is no alternative, there is less freedom.  There is less liberty.  Our pursuit of happiness has been restrained, limited, curtailed.

Liberals will applaud and cheer this ruling, because they'll say it's for the common good and it saves the country money.  How is the destruction of the country "good"?  How is taking healthcare decisions out of the hands of We the People "good"?  How does adding 30 million people to the government dole, and building the additional bureaucracy necessary to enforce Obamacare provisions going to save anybody any money?  (It won't.)  How is putting the government in direct control of 18% of the economy "good"?  (It's not.)

It's scary how diabolical liberals are.  They take advantage of the ignorant and reap the fruits of their lifelong brainwashing (see my last blog entry) in order to advance their ultimate agenda of fundamentally transforming America into a socialist utopia even worse than Greece, Spain, and other countries currently swirling down the toilet of financial ruin wrought by socialism.  They are winning, and America is losing.  The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

America is sick, and it took a turn for the worse today.  Help cure our great nation by kicking the disease known as Barack Hussein Obama out of office in November.

The Strength of Conservatism

It's not often you see or hear anyone openly praise or advocate socialism, Marxism or communism in America, but I respect those that do.

No, I don't have a crack pipe in my hand, and I haven't been hitting the bong.  The thing is, I respect those who stand up for what they believe in, and who don't try to hide it.  In my opinion, integrity is one of the most honorable traits one can possess.  I may disagree with the idealism, but that's another issue.

Today, I read a couple of stories that got me thinking about fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives, beyond the relatively obvious.  One was about a teachers union member videotaped praising Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels while expressing his desire to see a socialist revolution here in America.  The other was about a New York Times writer that expressed surprise and offense at another newspaper openly promoting conservatism.

Since the founding of America, there have been liberals and there have been conservatives.  The liberals, while suffering from that mental illness known as "liberalism" are, by and large, actually somewhat smart.  They came up with the strategy of infiltrating our schools and the media, two of the most influential institutions in American society.  They mold and shape impressionable young minds at school, and continue that subtle influence through the way they "report" the "news" in the mainstream media.  A shrewd strategy, to be sure.  One that would be nearly insurmountable on paper.

But the liberals, who still believe we are all too dumb to make it through life without their infinite wisdom and firm guidance, didn't count on We the People being intelligent and exercising independent, critical thinking skills.

Despite being subjected to sixteen-plus years of leftist indoctrination during our primary and secondary "education" and constant bombardment of liberal slant in the media, more than half of Americans repudiate liberalism.  And the vast majority want no part of socialism, Marxism, or communism.

There is a reason that you never hear liberals refer to themselves as "liberals" or their ideas as "liberalism".  There is a reason that 70 members of Congress don't openly share that they are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that subscribes to the same philosophies espoused by the likes of Lenin and Marx.  There's a reason Nancy Pelosi condescendingly stated that "we need to pass the bill so you can see what's in it", when referring to the deeply unpopular Obamacare legislation.  There is a reason that liberals use terms such as "social justice" instead of "government-sponsored discrimination", and "going green" instead of "capitalism sucks balls so we need to micromanage and punish the free market under the guise of imminent planetary doom".

It's the same reason that the Occupy Wall Street morons wear masks and bandannas to cover their faces much like Hezbollah and al Qaeda members do.

They're cowards, and they're wrong. 

Liberals know their idealism runs afoul of the founding principles of the United States of America, so they are too cowardly to openly own it.

It's commonplace for conservatives to use the words "conservative" and "conservatism", and identify themselves as "conservatives".  Those with scruples and integrity don't have to hide their beliefs or their agenda.  They don't have to hide their faces, and they don't need stealthy indoctrination strategies to achieve their goals.  Good people doing the right things never have to hide anything.  They put it all out there and let the people decide, instead of believing that the people are too stupid to make the "right" decisions for themselves.

Terrorists, with their roadside bombs and human shields, are cowards.  Occupiers that push cops off their motorcycles and smash store windows while wearing masks are cowards.  Liberals that don't own up to their idealism and agenda (are you listening, New York Times and NBC?  Are you listening, college professors?) are also cowards.  They hide and deceive and lie because they know they are WRONG.

After all, if the left was right, they wouldn't call it "the left".

We can only hope that Americans will continue to use their independent, critical thinking skills when it comes to the direction of our country.  People need to turn off Dancing with the Stars and turn on to what's going on around them, before it's too late.

Fortunately, conservatism is strong and stands on its own merits.  Its application requires neither stealth nor indoctrination, because it is right.

Just ask our Founding Fathers by way of reading our Constitution.

The Right Things

It's been awhile since I last posted on my little blog here.  There's just too much stuff going on to blog about, and I went into overload.  A break was in order, and I took it.  And now I'm baaaaaack!

If you know me or read my stuff, you can probably guess what I would have had to say about the newsworthy events of the past couple of months.  My positions generally align with The Right Things.

Now, the question is, just what IS "right"?  Most people would say that what is right is entirely subjective.  It is, except when it's not.

You see, The Right Thing is what most reasonable people will conclude first, and most easily, about a given issue, given the facts.  It's the conclusion that makes the most sense, and the position that requires very little in the way of explanation to be understood or "sold" to someone else in a discussion or debate.

However, one must have a happy and healthy relationship with Common Sense and Reason (hence the "reasonable" qualification, above) in order to know what the Right Thing is.  Unfortunately, common sense is a lot less common these days as it's gradually being replaced by government nannying.  But I digress.

Let's see...since my last blog, I think the first thing that made me want to run for president myself was Obama's ridiculous mandate to private insurance companies that they must provide birth control at no cost to the recipient.  This, of course, is part of his grand healthcare takeover scheme where he claims he's not taking over anything, but when the president can order an entire industry to provide a product for free, he's taking over the industry.

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is NOT The Right Thing.  We know it's not the right thing because we have a capitalist system here in America.  Capitalism isn't where government controls industry.  That's socialism, Marxism, and communism.  You know...those systems that are in place in 3rd world shitholes whose innocent citizens depend on the United States for food aid.

What else...oh yes, the Koran burning incident over in Afghanistan.  Some Korans had been confiscated from a detention center library since they contained extremist writings.  Evidently they got mixed in with some trash on its way to be incinerated, and some of them were burned.  This enraged the Afghanis.  Our top commanders apologized for this, as did president Obama a few days later.  Nevertheless, four American soldiers and more than 20 Afghanis were killed in the ensuing violent riots.

Somehow I missed hearing about Karzai's phone call to Obama, apologizing for our dead soldiers (because it never happened).  We burn a few books and fall all over ourselves apologizing to them.  They kill four Americans. They KILL PEOPLE over BOOKS, and nary an eyebrow is raised on either side, let alone an apology.

That, my friends, is another example of Not the Right Thing.

Let's talk about the economy for a minute, and we can talk about what IS the Right Thing.

We are nearing sixteen trillion dollars in debt.  Our debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio has surpassed 100% for the first time in history. President Obama has added more debt during his presidency than every president before him, combined.  Meanwhile, More than half of U.S. households pay NO federal income tax. 51%, to be exact, while the top 5% of earners pay 59% of all federal taxes.

President Obama's answer?  Make the rich pay even more.  How fucking stupid is that?  I mean, seriously??

The Right Thing would be to cut government spending.  Cut it to the BONE for a few years until we get things back under control (you know, like you and I would have to do if our debt was out of control).  Then, pass legislation requiring that the United States balance its budget every single year, like each of the 50 states is required to do, and like most households do (and a lot more frequently).

Those are pretty common sense, reasonable, and effective solutions to our economic problems.  They're The Right Things to do.  Leftist idiocy like soaking the rich is only going to take a couple hundred billion away from the debt over 10 years.  That's 1.2% (or essentially nothing).

Moving on...I'm thinking you've probably heard of that black kid Trayvon Martin being shot by the white/Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman down there in Florida.  Quick - from what you heard, did Trayvon get killed by a wild-eyed racist?

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Mike Tyson, and other assorted & sundry race hustlers and victimhood pimps came out in force after the shooting, desperately looking for cameras to get in front of.  The media swarmed obligingly, helping the sheeple stay "informed".  Mission accomplished: in the court of public opinion, George Zimmerman became an evil racist who shot Travyon Martin out of pure hatred for "coons".

A few days after the story broke, however, more information became available. Zimmerman stated that Martin initiated the altercation by punching Zimmerman in the face, then beating his head into the concrete.  A witness corroborated this story. Turns out, too, that Zimmerman has black family members and tutors black kids.

Uh-oh...

A police officer's report noted that Zimmerman had grass and dirt and moisture on his back.  Medical records and video footage shows injuries to Zimmerman's face and the back of his head.  Meanwhile, a website gets a hold of Trayvon Martin's Twitter feed where he calls himself the "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" and there were tweets indicating he may have punched a bus driver.  It's a little hard to read because it's written in thug. (Seriously.  Read it.)

Whoops...bunch of folks feelin' stupid 'bout now.

And the moral of this story?  So many people could have avoided sounding like stupid, ignorant race-hustled buffoons by doing The Right Thing and waiting for all the facts to come out before passing judgment.

Finally, some food for thought on The Right Things...

If the federal government was doing The Right Things, it would have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens with guns.  Democrats, Progressives, Liberals and Leftists (those that do The Wrong Things) are scared to death of We the People keeping and bearing arms and work hard every day towards banning guns.

If the IRS and the tax code were The Right Things, Title 26 of the United States Code wouldn't be over 16,000 pages long and take taxpayers billions of hours every year to sort through.  (And we wouldn't have 51% of households not paying taxes).

If Obamacare was The Right Thing, its full text would not be 906 pages long, and the Speaker of the House would not have said "we need to pass it so you can see what's in it".

Your parents told you when you were a kid to do The Right Things.  Your teachers, coaches and mentors all told you to do The Right Things.  Because, doing The Right Thing is the Right Thing to do.

If the left were right, they wouldn't call it the left.


"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."  -Unknown 

Do the Right Thing in November and get rid of Obama and the Democrats!

Tolerance, Killing, Judicial Stupidity & Brotherly Love

G.K. Chesterton once said, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."  I think my blog has a new motto.

Once again I've come to the point that I've had enough and I need to blow off some steam here on my little corner of the internet.  It seems that's how it goes...I see and hear and read things over time until the point that I've just had it, and I'm either going to go batshit crazy, resign myself to the idea that America is doomed, or furiously attack my keyboard.

Aren't you glad I usually choose option "C"?

Before I start ranting, I'm going to take a minute to shamelessly plug the latest in a series of books by one of my favorite authors, Vince Flynn.  Kill Shot was released today and is a prequel to all but one of the other books in the series of thrillers featuring Mitch Rapp, the country's most lethal terrorist hunter.  In fact, he is SO bad-ass that while the bogeyman checks under his bed for Chuck Norris, Chuck Norris checks under his bed for Mitch Rapp. For readers that were fans of the Fox series "24", Vince Flynn's books are right up your alley.  I can't wait to start reading it on my NOOK tonight.  (Yeah, another shameless plug.)

OK, back to business. The tipping point for me this afternoon was learning that the Obama administration has appointed an official advocate for illegal aliens.  Evidently, this person will be the point of contact for "concerns, questions, recommendations or other issues" that illegals or their buddies (community organizers) here in the United States wish to express.  This position reports up through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

That's right, folks.  The Department of Homeland Security has a sympathetic ear for criminals that breach the security of our homeland by crossing our borders illegally.

Seriously?  Why don't we just give them a big fat wad of cash and a pamphlet showing how to obtain every taxpayer-funded benefit available to them as we welcome them across the border?

It's not enough that the Obama administration has ordered DHS and ICE to stop deporting illegals unless they have some ridiculously heinous track record of violent crime.  Now, our tax dollars are being used to pay the salary of some schmuck that is an official advocate for foreign criminals on American soil. That just pisses me off.  What's next...a free ticket to America and an advocate for terrorists at Guantanamo?

We have GOT to get rid of this pinhead in the Oval Office come November.  Then, we need to get rid of every other idiot politician sympathetic to illegal alien lawbreaking scum.

Next, from the Hate America wing of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government...we have Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal activist justice on the United States Supreme Court, telling a crowd of Egyptians that they shouldn't use the U.S. Constitution as a model as they work towards forming a new government.  Rather, she says, they should have a look at the constitution of South Africa...or basically any other nation formed after WWII.

Only mildly offensive to most Americans, on its surface.  But the kicker is her reasoning.  Essentially, she bemoans our founding document because it is so old, behind the times, and inflexible.  While she didn't say it, she undoubtedly believes - as does the New York Times - that the Constitution should guarantee the right to food, health care, and education.

Now folks, the Supreme Court is the highest authority in the land, responsible for determining whether laws passed by legislative machinery at all levels of government throughout the country are, in fact, Constitutional.  The justices are supposed to be experts on the subject of the Constitution, which you cannot be without also having read the Federalist Papers.  These papers are a collection of letters and notes written by the founding fathers as they were going through the process of drafting our Constitution.

Many people believe the founding fathers - Jefferson in particular - were adamant that the Constitution was not intended to be subject to evolving interpretation.  There was debate and disagreement among them, but in the end that is why parts of the Constitution were left vague and a mechanism for its amendment exists.  It is only considered "inflexible" and "behind the times" by those who oppose it's principles - or advocate ideas that would never pass muster with We the People.

Hell, even Obama acknowledges it.  This weekend, he said, "Our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes."  For once, Obama said something smart that I agree with.  The Constitution was written that way and made hard to change by design.

Justice Ginsburg would do well to appear less foolish while representing the United States abroad.

Moving right along...this from the Department of It's Only Racist if You're White...the City of Brotherly Love has been anything but over the past few months.  One of the latest stories about the violence in Philadelphia involves a group of ten black teenagers who swarmed a taxi stopped at a red light and brutally beat the white driver and white passenger.

Seems that the thugs won't be facing "hate crime" charges.  Unfortunately, I have NO doubt in my mind that if the races were reversed in this story, it would be the hate crime of the century, complete with marches by community organizers, Black Panthers, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other race hustlers we hear about in the news these days.

We'd hear Obama talk about how the taxi driver "stupidly" drove into the wrong neighborhood, and then we'd never hear from those ten racist white thugs until they were up for parole in twenty years.

I guess you have to be a "brotha" for it to be the City of Brotherly Love.

Voter ID: Why do Democrats Resist?

Today I got an email from the State Representative, Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) that represented the district where I used to live.  It was a pretty simple email, notifying "Constituents and "Friends of District 103" that the Democrat party needed something from them.

I haven't lived in his district for a couple of years, and this is the first email I can recall getting from him since I moved.  Kind of like those "friends" you never hear from unless they want something.

Anyway, below is the text of his email, the subject of which was simply "Texas Voter ID Lawsuit":

Dear Constituents and Friends of District 103:

The Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee is seeking voters willing to be named as intervenors in the voter ID lawsuit who fit the following criteria:

1. The voter is Hispanic, African American or Asian (i.e. groups protected under the Voting Rights Act);

2. The voter does not have any of the forms of ID that would be available under the voter ID bill. 

The types of ID that will be necessary if the voter ID bill is approved are:

• Driver’s license, election identification certificate, personal identification card, or concealed handgun license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety;
• United States Military identification card containing the person’s photograph;
• United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph; or
• United States passport.
• With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.

3. The voter would have trouble obtaining the free Election Identification Certificate for some reason (doesn't have necessary documents, too far to travel, etc.);

4. The voter is willing to testify to that effect (their testimony would likely be taken in the town where they live, not DC)

If you know of any individuals who meet the above-referenced criteria, please contact Cliff Walker, Executive Director, of the Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee at (512) 473-2004 or at cliff@texashdcc.com.  Thank you for your time on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Rafael Anchia

State Representative

District 103

It's not hard to figure out which part of this letter I was reading that first pissed me off.

And, somehow I was not up to speed on the issue of voter ID in Texas, so I had to do some homework to get caught up.

Last year, the Texas Legislature passed a bill requiring that voters show an acceptable form of government-issued identification in order to cast a vote at a polling place in the Lone Star State.

However, the bill cannot be enacted without approval known as "pre-clearance" from the federal government's Department of Injustice.  You see, about 100 years ago, Texas and various other states had some problems with voter discrimination.  So the feds - by way of the Voting Rights Act - insist on reviewing and providing final approval of anything we and these other states do that would have any impact to elections.

Six months later the Department of Injustice still has Texas' bill on its desk, in no hurry to provide the required approvals despite the bill specifically indicating that it was to be enacted in time for the Texas primaries.  It's no secret that the feds don't like Texas and Texas doesn't like the feds, so the delay isn't much of a surprise.

After having run out of patience, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit against the federal government a few days ago to light a fire under the feds' asses so the bill would be approved.  And, based on this email from Rep. Anchia, opponents of the voter ID bill are gearing up for a fight.


Democrats whine that the voter ID requirement would be de facto discrimination against a large part of their voter base - minorities - because they are disproportionately poor and less likely to have the required identification than other groups, while Republicans (and other rational, intelligent people) know that a voter ID requirement is necessary to minimize voter fraud.


State Rep. Dawanna Dukes (D-Austin), one of Anchia's Democrat buddies, was eager to display her stupidity for all to see when she smugly declared that the burden is on the state of Texas to prove that requiring ID to vote isn't discriminatory.  Apparently she is indeed a minority, because the majority of people know you can't prove a negative.


Further, the United States Supreme Court has recently dismissed the Democrats' weak argument against voter ID laws in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 07-21 (2008), saying, "The inconvenience of making a trip to the [Bureau of Motor Vehicles], gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.".  (It's even easier than that here in Texas).  


But let's pretend for a second that there is something to the Dems' argument that requiring ID creates an undue burden on the poor.  Why does Anchia's Democrat party only want to hear from minorities as stated in criteria #1 in his letter above?  Can someone please explain to me how OTC's (Other Than Caucasians) are somehow MORE burdened than an equally poor Caucasian person would be?  Is it somehow MORE difficult for OTC's to obtain identification than it is for Caucasians?


Of course not.


So then, why IS it that Democrats fight so hard against voter ID laws every time a state proposes one?


The only plausible explanation is that they depend heavily on dead people, illegal aliens, and people that don't exist (voter fraud) to have any chance at winning elections.

Singing, Dancing, Waste, Racism, & Censorship

Happy Hump Day!

Today begins season 11 of American Idol, the flagship of those reality shows that crush the dreams of millions across the country.  I hoped that American Idol would fade mercifully into the sunset after the its creator left to start a copycat reality show; alas, it refuses to die and we are stuck with yet another singing and/or dancing show polluting the airwaves during prime time television.  Now I'm starting to wonder where the saturation point is.  We have American Idol, X Factor, Dancing With The Stars, So You Think You Can Dance, America's Got Talent, etc. etc. etc.

I suppose, however, that reality shows such as these are good for demonstrating to young people that, in real life, everybody doesn't get a trophy just for participating.  On the other hand, I fail to understand the twisted allure of watching adult role models open fire on the esteem of naive, idealistic young people...or the fanatical worshiping of these shows by their fans.  If only they demonstrated the same passion and interest toward what's going on around them in America, our country might be in better shape.

Meanwhile, from the Department of Federal Waste and Imprudence, it seems that the federal government deemed it worthy to spend $1.6 million in taxpayer dollars from a transportation fund in order to restore hundreds of Chicano "murals" from the 1970's that were painted onto freeway underpasses in California.  These murals began as simple graffiti borne of "rage" from Hispanics that believe half of the United States should be taken by force and made a part of Aztlan, a fictitious nation that is to be inhabited exclusively by Mexicans.  Some of this graffiti that our tax dollars are being used to restore include glorifying murderous and oppressive asshats like Che' Guevara and Fidel Castro.

Evidently, the funds earmarked for this restoration project were approved in 2002; however, the focus on Aztlan - one pillar of the Mexican supremacy doctrine - was a concern for our government.  But the Obama administration, cozy with the overtly racist group La Raza (The Race) and willfully ignorant of the fact racism  actually IS perpetuated by people that aren't white, released the funds and work has begun to restore these murals.

I marvel at how racism is allowed - and encouraged - to flourish among minority groups, while Caucasians are taught to be ashamed and guilty in perpetuity because of our ancestors' actions.  In order to be politically correct, it seems one must acknowledge that racism is just a white thang...and it warms my heart knowing my tax dollars are paying to spread the word.

Moving on...there have been two bills introduced in Congress recently, informally known as SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act).  The idea behind the legislation is fighting piracy of songs, videos, and other artistic works that one would normally need to pay for before downloading.  These bills were poorly written to say the least, and if they became law they would effectively become legal justification for subjective censorship.  Websites with even a crumb of questionable content would get shut down immediately, and questions would be asked later.  Guilty until proven innocent.  

As a result of these bills, many internet content providers have chosen to black out their websites today as a form of protest against the proposed legislation.  If you were to try using Wikipedia today, for instance, you'd be out of luck.  Other sites, such as Craigslist, have added front pages drawing attention to the issue and asking surfers to take action by writing or calling their congressional representatives urging them to vote "no" on these bills.  I'm glad that they're using their prominent position in society to protest this idiocy, because we must be extremely careful proposing anything that could come anywhere close to censorship.  We have already lost freedoms and liberties in the name of security with the Patriot Act and similar legislation, and the same encroachment and oppression simply cannot reoccur when it comes to our free speech rights.

As a side note, these artists and owners of the material in question have been pushing for something like this because they don't get paid when their works are copied and shared freely (and illegally).  I find it ironic and slightly hilarious that many of these artists are leftists, and they would just as soon wipe their asses with exact same capitalist system they are trying to exploit.

As another side note, I'm pretty disgusted by the embarrassingly poor job that our legislators are doing in writing bills over the past few years.  There's little doubt in my mind that some of it is by design, but when reading the SOPA and PIPA bills, they reek of their authors' incompetence.  Could it be that the special interests (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) wrote the bills on behalf of the legislators?  The concept is not so far fetched; I'm certain that it's happened before...but the politicians that put their names on this stuff really need to do a better job editing the bills before they're published for everyone to see.

Enjoy your Wednesday!