Merry Christmas!

This will be the last post for this blog this year.  It will be continued sometime next year, possibly under a different website, so keep posted.

Just remember that Christmas is the remembrance of our great Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  Please take time to remember and honor Him, for it is because of Him that we are blessed to be on this Earth and move onto Heaven when we pass.

And don't forget to recharge, for the trials that face us all will always be there.  It will be easier to take them head on fully rested.

Merry Christmas to all, Happy New Year, and God Bless!

Gun-Control Advocates

It's amazing how the credentials of a liberal politician are never in doubt.  Liberals tend to be experts at everything, appearing to always use logic and reason to work through the most complex issues of the day.  Yet, their ideas never work, and their solutions always fail, requiring further thought and laws.  This cycle is by design.  The "solutions" are just baby steps toward robbing the American public of more freedom.  This can been seen in the gun-control movement.

Chuck Schumer has spent the majority of his professional life in politics after a brief time in the legal profession.  Yet his opinion on all matters is sought out, and he is one of the most well known senators.  Therefore it is no surprise that his clout is used to promote gun-control (CNSNews.com).  Recently he remarked that it is OK for some people to own guns (CNSNews.com).  If he does believe this, then will he determine who can bare arms?  If so, what are his credentials?  Has he performed studies on gun ownership or worked with gun safety officials?  What psychological, sociological, or medical training does he have that would support his theories on which citizens can own firearms?  What first hand knowledge of proper firearm ownership does he have?  Is he a firearm owner and what does he use them for?  Does he hunt, target shoot, or skeet shoot?  If he does any of those activities, how long and how active is he in the sport?  Those are just a list of questions that come immediately to mind.

Diane Fienstein, another gun-control advocate, has spent her entire career in politics.  She was responsible for writing the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.  Shortly after the Newtown, CT shootings she began a renewed effort on a second assault weapons ban (CNSNews.com).  Again, like Schumer, what unique information does she have that qualifies her to label something as an "assault weapon?"  Has she asked the military, gun distributors and manufacturers, or firearm designers what they may consider an "assault weapon?"  Does she have experience using, producing, or inventing new types of "assault weapons?"  Has she studied how guns work, the physics behind them, or uses in combat and non-combat situations?

Those who have studied these issues paint a different picture of gun violence in the United States.  The statics show that mass killings are in decline (TheBlaze.com).  John Lott, a leading authority on gun violence, has written several books showing that firearm mass murders occurs more often in gun-free zones (NewsMax) and points to Israel's armed citizenry as being the most effective in stopping all types of crime (The Mark Levin Show, December 14, 2012).  Has he been consulted by either Schumer or Fienstein?

A politician is a human being, not some genius who possesses answers to all issues and questions.  Elevating them to expert status on all matters only emboldens them.  It provides the opportunity to make wild assumptions and pass laws that limit freedom, not bring about solutions.  So, when debating these officials, or those who support them, their knowledge and background should be the first thing challenged. 

Unfortunately the vast majority of people confronted have no knowledge or experience with anything they are talking about.  They reiterate talking points and fake "facts."  Do not be afraid to confront such idiocy and remember that it is easily defeated and countered.

Newtown, CT

My heart goes out to all those who have suffered from the horrific events that occurred on Friday, December 15, 2012 in Newtown, CT.  The only solace I can provide is that the Lord, Our God, is watching over the families of the slain.  Those taken in this tragedy are with God where no pain, death, or harm exists.  May the Lord bless Newtown, CT as it rebuilds from this devastation.  I ask that everyone send out prayers, as I and my family will do, for the next several nights.  May God bless them all.

What saddens me the most, besides the tragedy itself, is the political stance many are taking.  Before the bodies of the dead are returned to their families, and in many cases not yet identified, the Left has already begun a full fledged attack on firearms to further their political agenda (how shameful!) (HollywoodReporter.com & NYDailyNews).  They are advancing their disgusting policies before a proper period of mourning.  Their childishness forces others to react in order to defend the many decent law abiding Americans who understand that not everything is about politics.  It is with that in mind that I continue this post bearing a heavy heart.

No one is talking about the real issues facing this nation.  For example, why aren't we discussing the lack, the rejection, the removal of concepts like good and evil from the culture?  Moral relativism and secularism took the place of accepted morality and God.  We don't talk about the policies that eliminate humanity.  Where was the Left when it was reported that sixty percent of black children are aborted in New York State (NYTimes)?  Where is the outrage when the media invents stories like the "trench coat mafia" after the Columbine shootings (I'll never forget when someone who grew up in Columbine told me that was all lies) and gives press time to a few lunatics?  Why isn't there any discussion about all the movies, music, and video games that promote horrid violence and lust, or the breaking up of the family unit that wreaks havoc on kids?

Furthermore, where are the real men?  Why is it we only hear of the heroic acts of the great females that did all they could to protect the children, like the principal and school psychologist (YahooNews) and the brave, phenomenal women who acted, and in some cases gave their lives, to save their students (NYDailyNews & ABCNews (Sadly, in this last article, the political correctness that is killing our society is clearly seen as one teacher told students to pray if the believe in it and think happy thoughts if they do not.  Why make that distinction when life and death are on the line?)).  Was there not one man to step forward and try to stop this creep, even while he was reloading?  Has the feminization of men made them all cowards?  What happened to defending woman and children?  Is it because the media is constantly telling us to be afraid of death from accidents, killer viruses, and meteorological, planet-killing events?

Plus, how does focusing on guns help to stop these awful events?  In China, where there are no rights and tight controls on literately everything, there is an increase in violent crime (Boston.com), including people slashing children with knives (ABCNews).  In addition, Mark Levin often points out that in the 9/11 attacks not one gun was used, and recently murderers set victims on fire using gasoline (TheDenverChannel.com).  Also, the vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, where firearms are not permitted (FoxNews).  Imagine if just one other person in that school carried a concealed firearm who could have stopped or slowed down this freak.  And lets not forget Timothy McVeigh, the Lefts favorite "right-wing" mass murdered, who used manure to blow up a building, or the 1920's murder of forty young students using dynamite (Wikipedia).  The list of non-gun mass killings is innumerable.

And say guns are totally banned from society, including military, police, and illegal.  Does anyone honestly believe that there would be no more horrific violence?  As pointed out in the last paragraph, the gun is not the only tool used to hurt others.  However, some would further the argument by saying if there were no guns, it would be harder to commit a large number of murders at once, making some think twice about acting like or slowing down the progress of sociopaths.  That is also a false premise.  A determined mind will find a way to carry out its missions.  Suicide bombers do not use guns, and they injure and create chaos often.

So, what is wrong with this nation?  As Rush Limbaugh has said, the soul of the country is gone.  Nearly one hundred years of progressive ideology has removed decency in American culture and replaced it with immorality.  When will we have the national debate that recognizes the real problem in this country, that life is no longer sacred.  Until that is addressed these sad and heartbreaking happenings will continue.

Libertarianism (pt. 2)

John Stossel, a noted libertarian that appears on and hosts a show on Fox News, explained in an interview how he could not believe in "God" (TheBlaze.com).  He described that he would need proof and "...reason and explanation."  This further proves the divide between conservative and libertarianism.

As shown before, libertarians have much more in common with liberalism than conservatism.  Many may say they are open to the idea or possibility of God, but do not support it, as Stossel claims.  But this leaves a couple a series disturbing questions.

If there is no faith in the existence of God, then where do our basic rights come from?  The Declaration of Independence speaks of a "Creator" that provides us with certain "unalienable rights."  If the libertarian does not agree with the concept of a Creator, do they agree with concept of unalienable rights?  I sure they do, but then how does one obtain them?  The answer may be through man.  Penn Jillete, in the interview with Glenn Beck, was asked how he, an atheist, reconciles the reference to God in the Declaration.  His response was that there is also the mention to certain "truths being self-evident."  This was very telling, as infers that man creates the belief in God, and therefore the belief in unalienable rights (which actually makes them inalienable).  So the conclusion is that man provides inalienable rights.  And if man can give something, then man can take them away.  Would that be called a conservative or progressive idea? 

Also Stossel points to the lack of evidence of a God, something that progressives and militant atheists shout.  This is a secular and science directed idea that ignores any personal experience.  It is void of emotion and individual faith.  So again, is this more progressive thought, or is it closer conservatism?

Libertarians are not evil people.  They are just amoral.  That is something that conservatives cannot become.  If conservative leaders decide to work with libertarians, they must retain their value and moral driven base rather than adopt the libertarian idea of amorality.  For without morals, a civil society cannot exist.

Joe Lieberman

One of the largest problems that exists in politics is dishonesty.  Our Founding Fathers were some of the most honest and virtuous men on that ever lived.  Just think of the initial creation of the Constitution.  Many states refused to ratify it, feeling the federal government was given too much power.  So it was agreed that amendments would be passed immediately after ratification that further limited the federal government.  Those amendments are now known as the Bill of Rights. 

An agreement like that would be impossible today.  The Democrats have reneged on so many promises, like securing our borders(OnTheIssues.org) and cutting spending (ATR.org), that it is impossible to trust a word they say.  There is no honor in this leftist government anymore.

Which leads to Joe Lieberman.  He calls himself an Independent, a title not earned.  On every vote and issue he sides with the Democrats after pretending to disagree.  Even the media counts him as a Democrat vote on every piece of legislation.  He claims to be an Independent to win elections, which is highly dishonorable and dishonest.

So when he discusses the security on the United States border, it should be no surprise that he does so out of both corners of his mouth.  He believes that the border is very secure, yet there is still so much more to do (CNSNews).  With this statement, he appeases everyone.  Those that argue the border is not open can agree with the first part, and the others that feel it is not can agree with the second part.  Well, Senator, which one is it?

His obvious pandering is bad, but his true intentions are revealed at the end of his statement.  Lieberman believes that securing the border is important, but that doing so should not hurt the liberty of Americans.  This is something the Senator will have to explain.  How can ensuring our safety on the border and preventing illegal immigrants, drugs, and terrorists from slipping through be a detriment to our freedom?  The entire premise of this statement is completely flawed and contradictory.  What this last statement really means is he doesn't want to do anything about the borders, because doing so hurts his Democrat allies.  The bit about liberty gives him a reason to oppose a tighter border.

Much of Washington is wildly corrupt, yet I do think there are a handful of good people.  It's politicians like Joe Lieberman that will ensure the right people never make the spot light in a positive way, and that's infuriating to conservatives.  It's our job to expose liars like Lieberman and show the blatant double-speak of the left.

Sex-texting

There is a story out of United Kingdom that warns of the epidemic of sex-texting by children fourteen years old and younger.  The Daily Mail (article here) describes how some organizations in Great Britain are trying to make it more difficult for children to obtain sexually explicit material.  The ease of finding pornography on the internet was said to be one of the major reasons for the dangerous trend.  My response, why is everyone so surprised?  Isn't this what they voted for?  I thought the sexual revolution was the most important thing that ever happened?

Just as was asked in a previous post, when will be people stop being fooled?  This is what socialism/communism/fascism/totalitarianism is all about.  The value of human life has to be lessened, and destroying morality, virtue, honor, and values is a perfect way of doing that.  The real issue here is how children are constantly used by the Left to scare the public into taking action on many liberal issues, like global warming, education, and pollution.  Yet, the left, and many people who are crying foul now, support abortion, i.e. a woman's "right" to choose.  So what did these leftist supporters expect?  Did they truly believe kids were off limits?  The Left needs to start indoctrination at a young age, and a great way to do it is through reproduction.  This is a perfect segue toward abortion, immediate gratification, and marriageless sex.  That in turn devalues humanity, responsibility, and self-control, which are goals for the Left.

It also shows how little the general population knows about politics.  Liberals have done very well in convincing a majority of voters, both in Europe and here, that all of the evil aspects of society come from the right, and the greatness comes from the left.  That's why people are so shocked at reports like the one from the Daily Mail.  Those voting for leftists think they made the correct decision.  They believe power was given to good, decent politicians who care about them.  Even in this last election, a huge majority of voters thought Obama cared for them more than Romney (NBCNews).

Sadly, people will most likely not figure out that the left tricks them on every issue till the inevitable destruction of society.  Then everyone will run back to conservatism.

Cupcakes (pt. 2)

Last year, about this time, I mentioned how my nephew was forbidden by school authorities to bring cupcakes to school, due to the apparent cupcake "unhealthiness."  It saddens me to report that the situation has not improved, as new dietary requirements are in place, and school lunches have become smaller and more expensive at my nephew's school.  Unfortunately it is not limited to just my local educational system.  This is a national problem.

I ran across an article from the Journal Sentinel Online (article here) that explains how students are rebelling against school lunches.  The report interviews a football playing student who uses food brought from home to obtain the extra calories that the school is not allowed to provide because of federal guidelines.  The student is forced to bring in his own lunch, as the school lunch provides only about a third of his daily requirements.  What was most interesting about the story was the second to last paragraph that said, "Teens need a push to make healthy eating choices..."  And that is the real purpose.

A "nutritionist" spoke to my nephew's class about good eating habits.  Now, every time he has something "unhealthy" he complains to his mother about it.  This not just indoctrination, it's control. 

The Left enjoys this "one-size-fits-all" attitude toward everything (except taxes, where they want to punish the successful).  They want to control what people do, how they live, and what they eat.  This is what nationalized healthcare is all about.  The Left defines what is proper, and then forces it upon everyone.  The students can rebel all they want and bring food from home (which is what they should be doing in the first place), but until the majority of Americans wise up and realize what is occurring, the communists will continue to oppress us.

Libertarianism

The following is a letter I sent to Glenn Beck.  I feel that libertarianism is very attractive to many conservatives, but conservatives have to be careful.  Here is what I wrote:

December 8, 2012

Dear Glenn Beck,

On December 7, 2012 the Glenn Beck Program featured an interview with Penn Jillete.  The overall theme of the interview seemed to be how conservatives and libertarians can find common ground and team up to form a coalition against the left.  This collaboration may appear beneficial, however there are some red flags that pop up.  It is all too reminiscent of past forces that on the outside may have common interests, but more deeply are vastly different.

Libertarianism espouses a very small, limited government, almost to a point of non-existence.  Many of the most prominent libertarians find more agreement with the Articles of Confederation than with the Constitution.  This seems quite attractive to many conservatives, who feel the federal government needs reduction.  This agreement though is where the shared belief ends, and where libertarianism’s much stronger connection to progressivism begins.

Conservatism at its core is human nature.  People wish to be free and live as they choose.  Yet human begins are not apathetic or naturally oppressive.  Each person on some level cares for their fellow man and wants to see them strive, not just survive.  Conservatives have a strong set of values that guide humanity and promote its advancement.  Libertarianism, on the other hand, preaches complete apathy, which is contradictory to freedom and just as dangerous as oppression. 

The basic argument behind libertarianism is if someone is not directly hurting others, they should be left alone to do as they please.  This is a totally amoral statement.  Although conservatives may often say similar things, it is within a moral context.  Conservatives, as an additional requirement to the above argument, do not wish others to hurt themselves as well.  It shows a caring for their fellow man, not just an acceptance that we are all free individuals.  This can clearly be seen in the legalization of drugs. 

Libertarians, as well as and progressives, believe in the decriminalization of drugs.  After all, whatever action one chooses to take upon his or her person is their business if no one else is harmed.  This is a truly flawed premise.  Should humanity ignore a person’s desire for suicide or the removal of a limb because no one else is harmed in the process?  Is it ok to allow people to overdose on drugs or live constantly under the influence if there is the assurance of safety for the rest of the population?  Even more disturbing is how drugs are placed on par with unhealthy foods.  If someone wants to eat chips and burgers all day, why can’t they just smoke pot as well?  The libertarian does not see the immorality in drug use, whereas the conservative sees a clear distinction between food and the societal and personal harm of narcotics, both legal and illegal.

The libertarian amorality extends further than just the legalization of drugs.  It stretches to exclusion.  Penn Jillete made two contradicting statements.  On the one hand he claimed that no one has the right to not be offended.  On the other hand he said that even if one person disagrees, everyone must meet his or her demands.  Well, if there is no right to not be offended, then why is it so important to make sure no one is offended?  The response may be that the latter should only pertain to public places and things, while the former to private matters.  But that is missing the whole point.  The public place is the only area that matters.  The libertarian ideal of a society free from personal held beliefs would only promote an amoral society and eventually destroy the civil society on which America is based.  Civil societies need a strong moral core to be created and survive.  Penn Jillete admitted this when he agreed that American was founded on Christian beliefs.  Also, an amoral society helps creates moral relativism, which leads to immorality, a key component of progressivism.  The desire of exclusion on the part of libertarians once more displays their amorality.  If the celebration of what makes us different is ignored, rather than embraced, everyone becomes nothing more than a unit, and the true individual is lost. 

The conservative response is much more sensical and value driven: allow everyone to share their beliefs so all feel included and important.  Why would it be wrong to display a Christmas Tree, Menorah, and a picture of Charles Darwin in the town square?  This shows diversity, tolerance, and respect far more than an empty court lawn.

The preceding example again shows the closer ties that bind libertarianism to progressivism.  How is Mister Jillete’s stance in the preceding paragraph any different from that of the progressive, who also seeks to eliminate any sign of individuality or statement of beliefs from the public square?  Even Mister Jillete’s examples pointed to Christianity, something the left loves to attack.  The similarities do not end there.

Libertarians and progressives agree on a weaker national defense and both often do not support Lincoln or the Civil War.  In addition many Occupy Wall Street members were libertarians who were distrustful of the banks and big government.  Plus, many libertarians are young college students.  Why would the college system, controlled by the progressives, allow this foreign ideology into their ranks if it were not beneficial or in agreement?

The purpose of this letter is not to say that all libertarians are evil and must be stopped.  The fear is that, much like the Establishment Republicans, conservatives may be seeking common ground with unlikely allies.  Instead, conservatives should be looking to the demoralized within their own ranks first, for it was that which caused our loss about one month ago.  What continues to come to mind is the Catholic Church and socialists.  On the surface they seemed to have much in common.  Both cared for the poor, wanted the best for everyone, and sought justice for all.  Unfortunately, upon deeper examination, it proved very damaging for the Church and Christianity in general due to Christian and socialist antithetical teachings.  Conservatives must not lose that which makes them conservative: the deep moral core that built this very nation.  If a hand is stretched out to libertarians, the worry is that same fate awaits them as the Catholic Church.

Thank you very much for your time and all that you do.

                                                                                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                                                                                Vincent Panetta

Electoral College

Over the years I have heard a great amount of criticism for the Electoral College.  More recently there has been an even bigger outcry against it, as there usually is after an election.  People claim it's outdated.  It may have been needed when information was difficult to attain and people knew far less about politics (although the recent election proves the uneducated are alive and well; so many Obama supporters disagree with his policies (RushLimbaugh.com)).  Unfortunately the brilliance of the Founders is lost in modern America.  Too many people feel they are smarter than the Founding Fathers, especially since they view them as nothing but slave-owning, rich, white men who hated everyone (that is a discussion for another day).  They want to change an awesome, albeit imperfect, system that was meant to protect our rights. 

So what makes this system great?

To start with, it prevents a simple majority from imposing its will on everyone.  As Mark Levin often points out, the Founding Fathers feared that a temporary majority could make horrid, permanent changes that would insure their power even when their majority is lost.  Today this premise is mostly gone as the Democrats have put a massive bureaucracy in place that does their will (which makes the Founders' point).  That's also why some Constitutional events, like amendments, require around sixty percent to enact.  The Founders wished to create a stable government in place that did not change rapidly.

Another fact to remember, that has also been destroyed by the Left, is that the states were to remain more powerful than the federal government.  That was the agreement made between the states, hence the "United States" part in the "United States of America."  All states agreed to work together and were considered to have equal say what occurs in the country.  If the presidency was decided by popular vote, then a candidate would only have to concentrate on a few large states, like New York and California, and ignore the rest.  Instead, the electoral college ensures that all states would be counted, for no president can win with support from only a few large urban areas.  In theory, the electoral votes of each state should also be divided between state regions, and some states have adopted this stance.  Again, it enables the entire population of a state to be heard.

A third aspect is the idea of locality.  The Founders understood that a large country would have many different peoples and regions.  They hoped that people would be familiar with their local governments.  There used to be elections for Electoral College candidates.  The thinking was that if you have no clue who is running for the presidency, you at least know who your local representative is and can trust he will follow your interests.  In fact, the delegates for the Electoral College don't have to follow the vote of their states.  There is no constitutional requirement to do so (see the above paragraph).

The history of this country is sadly dying.  I remember American history in school, where a week was spent on the Founding, and the remainder on slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the presidencies of FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and JFK.  There is no discussion of the limits placed on the federal government.  We must not forget the true background of this great country, when men who held the power of kings in the palm of their hands decided on freedom.

Fiscal Cliff

On 1010 WINS radio this morning I heard a report tying the Fiscal Cliff to job losses.  Apparently companies are so scared over the uncertainty caused by this Fiscal Cliff nonsense they are laying people off like crazy and downsizing.  The report was designed to protect Obama and set up the Republicans.

Funny how there are no stories of what companies really fear.  Companies big and small are terrified of ObamaCare, which will make the cost of running a business sky rocket through mandatory providing of employee health care and increases in taxes (Newsmax.com).  In addition virtually nothing is said about the EPA regulations, which now average hundreds to thousands a month, that will make it harder for profit to be made.  Plus, the very re-election of Obama has made many give up and close shop over worries of the expense of running a business and the refusal to have one's earnings transferred to others who don't want to work (TheBlaze).

But let's say you do want to blame this all on the Fiscal Cliff.  What in the Fiscal Cliff talks has everyone so scared?  Is it some social program being cut?  Some infrastructure program ending?  Well, the 1010 WINS story doesn't specify this for a reason: it doesn't help Obama, and it hurts Republicans.

What scares employers, producers, and business owners the most is the taxes Obama wants to raise and the never ending spending he proposes.  It's not just the mere mention of the Fiscal Cliff and uncertainty.  Producers know what is coming, and they are not in a good position to survive.  Yet Obama takes no heat.  If you do a Yahoo search, one of the first articles highlights how Republicans will be held responsible for the Fiscal Cliff (WashingtonPost). 

When the economy  worsens and quality of life decreases, the Democrats, and a corrupt media that enables them, want to ensure that progressive policies are not attached to it.  It serves them better to have Republicans, who are painted as wanting to stalemate the president, the country, and economic progress, charged with allowing the country to go over the Fiscal Cliff. for the worse Republicans look the better Obama does.  It is a sad example of just how corrupt our media has become and how uninformed the average citizen is.

Texas

Recently I have seen a large number of stories regarding Texas, especially related to Houston.  The first one that caught my eye was on Univision (I think), and it was regarding a professor that claimed his race prevented him from becoming hired at a local university.  He professed his over qualifications for the position and argued that the only logical conclusion was racial motive.  That was only the first of five stories I saw based in Houston that week.

Another story explained how tax payer money was going to fund studies that teach at risk teenage girls fourteen and up to convince their sexual partners to use condoms (WashingtonExaminer).
An additional report told of a store clerk fired for defending himself with a gun against an attacker (KHOU). More showed how pro-Obama NAACP advocates took over polling locations (TownHall.com) and described efforts by local citizens to stop the UN backed Agenda 21 implementation (KENS5.com).

So why so many news stories from Texas, especially Houston?  Because it is last stronghold of Republicans, and liberals want it.

Due to illegal immigration and an influx of liberals from progressive states (who are fleeing socialist areas that have high taxes, costs of living, etc., for conservative ones with better economies, but still vote progressive because they are incapable of learning) Texas is slowly turning blue, and that is a shame.  The constant news stories draw attention to it and embolden liberals in the area.  Houston has become a hotbed of progressive activity, and I have heard many from New York are flocking there.  So it is a great place to start.  That is how the liberals operate.  They choose an area, over populate it, and then spread out like a cancer.  It's what happened to places up and down the east coast, like Virginia and North and South Carolina, that were once solid red and are now deep purple.

Texas has a great independent spirit and a large population.  The left knows if they can defeat Texas the Republicans will have a very difficult, if not impossible, time of winning the presidency.  Plus it will give them the opportunity to turn a once proud and strong state into another weak and feeble progressive region. 

It will be a very sad day when Texas turns permanently blue.  That will mark the end of American independence and spirit.

See, I Told You...

Today I completed a purchase on a firearm.  I had put a deposit on one about two weeks ago, and it arrived yesterday.  The cashier asked me for about one hundred dollars more than I owed.  I showed him the receipt from when I placed the deposit, and this caused a bit of confusion.  After a few minutes, some computer work, and another employee's assistance I was told that the price went up.  They honored the old price, and I payed the remainder on the previous amount.  One employee remarked that I was very fortunate. The price had gone up seventy-five dollars, and, with the tax, it would have cost me about one hundred dollars more.  It amazed me that in two weeks time the price sky rocketed.

It then got me thinking.  About two months ago I was looking to purchase two guns for my wife.  The price of one was around three hundred dollars, the other two hundred fifty dollars.  Last week I asked for a price quote for the same items from the same dealer, and the cost rose significantly to four hundred and three hundred seventy-five dollars, respectively.  Also, a coworker, as well as myself, noticed that our usual places to buy ammo are practically all out.  One website has a large explanation on how wholesale prices and a large volume of orders has caused delays and shortages in supply.

Now some of this can be blamed on a spike in sales.  Greater demand and limited supply cause prices to rise (WTHR.com).  There was a huge spike in gun sales after the election (it's why I was purchasing guns too) (Houston Chronicle).  But make no mistake, the reason for this increase in sales is because people know what is in store.  This includes the firearm and ammunition manufacturers who want to make up for potential lost revenue as gun regulations vamp up.  It's how they hope to stave off bankruptcy.  You see this with health insurance companies as well, who fear ObamaCare and have raised premiums in response to it (Heritage.org).

Look for a lot of things to increase in price.  A great deal will be from inflation, which is cause by the current Democrat policies, but anxiety caused by Progressive ideas is also a huge factor.  They want to go after foods they feel are not "healthy" (WashingtonExaminer), so expect that to contribute to higher food prices.  Just remember the Left will use monetary and fiscal policy against you.  What they can't overtly do, like confiscating guns, they will do through regulation, such as forcing higher gun costs.  Just remember to prepare.  More on that later...

The Internet, Again

The internet is under attack, something I have warned about before.  It is the last true bastion of freedom for the entire world.  And the United Nations, which has become a conglomerate of countries dedicated to totalitarianism, plans on stopping the spread of information over the World Wide Web by making it more expensive for companies to provide the service (sound familiar?).  According to The Weekly Standard, one proposal from the dictators in the United Nations will be to impose fines/taxes/fees on internet providers and those that host websites, like Google.  Each time an international user accesses an American based website, an American company will be charged, "...hoping [overseas] citizens will be cut off from U.S. websites that decide foreign visitors are too expensive to serve." (article here).

Just like the UN's attack on firearms, and similar to what the Progressives do in the US, they hope to force action through monetary punishment.  When something becomes too expensive, people will stop doing it.  (However, you will still have the option to do it, so your freedom to choose still exists.  Interesting how that works.  It's like a parent telling a child, "Go ahead... misbehave.  But you'll regret it!").  Plus it will help the UN perpetuate the evil American stereotype when those rich greedy American companies refuse to pay a little more to provide free internet access to the poor masses around the world.

Progressivism is the same, where ever it is found.  It has the same goals, beliefs, and methods.  Our Founding set up a system that avoided totalitarianism; it's what makes us great and unique.  Unfortunately we have a government, and after this last election a majority of the population, who agree with the tyrants and reject our founding, at least for now.

So Many Fooled

During the election I remember one person commenting how she could never vote for Romney.  She argued that Romney was going to take away her mortgage interest deduction, and she just couldn't survive without it.  Obama helped spread that myth with lying political ads that had Romney planning higher taxes for the middle class (Newsmax.com).  Of course, it always amazes me that people seem to forget that Democrats never cut taxes.  In fact they always raise them.  Clinton did it, after promising he would cut them (NYTimes), and Obama has already raised taxes on all Americans after he promised he wouldn't.  Forbes has two reports on this, one describing how ObamaCare is the largest tax increase in history (article here) and another talking about raises for people who make less than $250,000 per year ( article here).

So it was no surprise to me when the mortgage interest deduction, which was a major factor for the above mentioned Obama voter, may now be threatened (NYTimes).  It always makes me wonder why so many can be fooled by Democrats so easily.   Honestly, can anyone point to the last time there were meaningful across the board tax cuts from Democrats?  And I don't mean deductions for doing certain things, like hiring people, installing solar panels, or buying an electric car.  Those aren't cuts; they aren't even refunds.  They are tiny amounts of tax money given back to someone who already paid a ton in taxes for doing something the government wants you to do.  When I say tax cuts I mean your income tax rate going from fifteen percent to ten percent, a true reduction in how much the government steals from its citizens (and it is stealing.  Tax payers see little to no return for the money that is confiscated from them.).  The last Democrat to cuts taxes was JFK.  That was a long time ago.

The sad truth is Democrats play off of the citizenry's ignorance, which was created by the progressive school system and human nature in general.  Humans want things to be easier; it's why people have been successful inventing items that simplify tasks.  Ergo, it's a lot nicer to have someone tell you what to believe, rather than educating yourself.  Reversing this is going to take a huge effort.  Americans have to relearn that when something is hard it is worth having; things that are given are worthless (how to do this is something many, including myself, are currently formulating).  Till then, people will be content allowing the Democrats to sell them the false promise of progressivism.

Morality

Over the weekend I saw a very interesting interview on TheBlaze.com.  Glenn Beck was interviewing Ray Kurzweil, a true genius (KurzweilAI.net).  Kurzweil has been able to predict technological advancement with eighty to ninety percent accuracy since the '90s.  He is also an inventor and the creative mind behind many of Google's advancements.  One of the most interesting aspects of the interview though was based around morality.

At one point Kruweil begins to explain how one day computers will be able to answer questions you may have before you ask them.  How so?  By reading every bit of information you enter into them, including text messages, emails, internet searches, websites, phone calls, etc.  One person I know already experienced this when he received unsolicited directions from his phone to an address in an email sent by a friend.  This worried Beck.  He pondered who may be able to get that information and how they could use it.  He pointed to an enormous government database facility in Utah with the sole purpose of storing information (Wired.com).  Kurzweil's response: "Technology is a double-edged sword."

The cliche was repeated several times as Beck pressed Kurzweil on other topics.  Kurzweil says nanobots will be injected into our blood stream to fight disease, yet he acknowledged that bio-terrorists could use it to cause harm.  He is working on decoding to the human brain to create artificial intelligence, and Beck was worried that could lead to a type of eugenics where the "perfect human" is created.  Again, the previous catch phrase was used as Kurzweil answered. 

Which leads me to morality.  The next day on his radio program, Beck said the Kurweil's response about the "double-edged" sword was insufficient.  He argued that these are real concerns that Kurweil seemed to shrug off.  That's when it hit me: morality is no longer a factor in American life.

I admit that what Kurzweil describes is exciting, but I can definitely see the dangers.  If we create an artificial intelligence that acts just like a human mind, could that lead to more effective means of control?  If technology can predict your future actions and thoughts, will it lead to a Minority Report situation as Glenn Beck fears?  Can one hacker hold an entire world hostage as he threatens to turn nanobots against us?  And why doesn't Kurweil take some responsibility for what he is predicting and proposing?  Why not come up with ideas to counter bio-terrorism, prevent brainwashing, and guard against eugenics and improper use of technology-based information?  Instead he simply passes it off and focuses on promoting his predictions.

When the Progressives began to destroy the country, the first thing they had to do was eliminate morality.  That's why they went after Christianity.  Much of our nation, including the Founding, is based on Judeo-Christian values and morals.  The Progressives eliminated that to garner support for their ideas, such as euthanasia, abortion, eugenics, stealing from earners to give to those who refuse to earn, etc., all of which require immorality.  Not to mention that morality is needed for the proper application of capitalism and government.

Unfortunately moral decay has become moral death.  When a society simply forges forward without any regard for what it may mean to the individual, the only thing anyone can be sure of is loss of freedom.

It Continues...

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Benghazi incident may be tied to creating support for control of the internet, and a couple of interesting things have happened since...

Ron Paul retired from Congress and delivered his farewell address on November 14, 2012 (CampaignForLiberty).  In it he mentioned the only thing standing between big government and totalitarianism is the internet.  Therefore, he stresses, that it must not be regulated.  This is exactly how I feel and the point I made in a previous blog.

Then there is Ted Koppel, who appeared in a Kalb Report Forum and spoke at length about how he missed the good ol' days when the news media was controlled by only a few organizations (RushLimbaugh.com).  He goes further, claiming that more news outlets actually hurts democracy.  How ridiculous is that!?  So less speech makes us more free and more democratic?  The truth is he laments his own power to control what people believe and what they know.

And then there is this report on how proposed legislation will give the government the right to search all kinds of activity on the internet, including emails, without a warrant (CNet.com).  The important part of this story is how the bill began: it was supposed to limit police power over the internet.  And that is the trick.  Democrats like to start out with something that sounds good and many will support.  Then, when no one is paying attention, they molest and pervert it to their true purpose.  Just like "Campaign Finance Reform" which actually put more money into politics and only limited the speech of private organizations, not liberal ones, like unions.

And don't forget that Obama signed an executive order giving the government great power over the internet after Congress failed to pass a similar bill (CNet.com).

Keep an eye on this, and again, look at Benghazi, which is still blamed on an internet video.  The Democrats will stop at nothing to control the internet.  They want to suppress opposition and make sure people hear, see, and understand only what they allow.

Silent Majority?

The recent election and a personal discussion altered a view that I, and many conservatives, possess about the country.  For many years conservatives have talked about something called the "silent majority."  This population of quiet conservatives vastly outnumber those in the country who want the big government, totalitarian Democrat agenda.  Every so often, when needed the most, they come out to vote Republican and save the country.  Nixon was the first to speak of it in America, and Regan may have been elected by it (Wikipedia).  In the 80's, when Reagan won by two landslides, this may have existed.  But the country has had a vast shift in the past twenty to thirty years, and that "silent majority" may no longer be there.

One conversation I had with an Obama voter blossomed this idea growing in my head.  The person seemed to agree with me about the moral decay of the country, especially when referring to young people.  It centered around the lack of respect children tend to have for themselves and others throughout the world, leading to increased violent crimes (Canada.com, UKGuardian) and teen pregnancies (Guttmacher.org).  So why pay lip service to the awful changes in the world, and then vote for someone who is part of the problem?  How can anyone support a party that exacerbates the issues he or she advocates against?  Because, although people will recognize the death of a great country, the "comfort" of a "benevolent" government that takes responsibility for you is easier.  The values that make us a civilized nation are eroding, but the false promise of a government that will "promote" them takes the blame off of you.  For example, the schools take most of the pressure of parenting off of parents, including when it comes to basic needs (NPR.org).  How great!  Right?

Whether conservatives like it or not, people take government help when they can get it, and almost everyone receives aid and/or subsidies without being aware of it (NYTimes).  A portion of the "silent majority" has become part of the welfare state, willingly or unwillingly.  So what does that mean for conservatives?

One of the biggest mistakes made in the last election was thinking the conservative "silent majority" still existed and was going to come out in droves to vote Republican.  Obviously this didn't happen.  Conservatives have to understand the reality that we are a nation of takers.  This can be frustrating, and Ron Paul expresses that well (WashingtonPost.com).  Frustration aside, the next step requires a change in tactics.  The time has come to convince, not just inform.

Rush Limbaugh often says that experience is the best teacher and converter for conservatism, and he is correct.  I have convinced people to switch over to the truth by pointing out what will happen.  Inevitably a, "See, I told you so," comes.

Which brings me to my final point: be patient.  It took over one hundred years for the liberals to kill America, and it will take just as long, if not longer, for its rebirth.  Don't get caught up in the pop culture instant gratification trap.  What conservatives must do is be forceful, use liberal institutions against them, and don't be afraid to speak out (more on this as I formulate my thoughts).  The liberals use our strengths, kindness, beliefs, and morality, against us.  It's time for us to use their flaws, selfishness, immorality, and hatred, against them.

Benghazi

Distractions have been put out by the press to hide the administration's response to Benghazi.  One possible reason for the Benghazi cover up is the ultimate goal behind why Benghazi was allowed to burn.  I believe the administration's reaction to the Benghazi attacks was planned to support federal control of the internet.

The White House blamed an anti-Islamic video that appeared on YouTube for spontaneous protests against the U.S. consulate.  The administration claims the protests got out of hand and led to the sacking of our consulate in Libya (YahooNews).  This seems highly unlikely.  The biggest problem is the timeline. 

The video at the center of this excuse was produced months before the Benghazi incident and was barely seen (CNN).  It wasn't as if this was a popular well known video that the entire world was enraged over.  What was even more suspicious was the apology issued for the video from the American embassy in Egypt before any barrage began (Twitchy.com).  Why would the State department apologize for an old movie that no one saw before any outrage over it even started?  It's likely the White House knew an attack was imminent and let it happen, so they could tie it to the video.

In fact, it has been proven that the administration did have knowledge of a possible assault on the consulate.  Warnings were expressed months before that more security was needed (TheHill.com), and these requests were denied (ABCNews).  In addition, the force led to protect the consulate wasn't American, and the area itself was not fully secured (MotherJones.com).  It also soon became clear that the militants  planned this offensive (NYTimes), making this notion of an "all-of-a-sudden" uprising look foolish.  Plus, during the attacks, pleas for help from the consulate were ignored, and the military was told not to assist (InvestigativeProject.org).  So why was this situation allowed to occur?  Why not fully protect our American representatives overseas and prevent something that was easy to predict?  Why not help when the assault was underway and let the situation play out to its obvious conclusion?

To me, the answer is easy.  The Democrats have something to gain from the murder of four Americans: internet oversight.

The administration allowed a U.S. border agent and several hundred Mexicans to die in Fast and Furious in support of their anti-Second Amendment stance.  Is it not possible then to imagine they would use the death of four Americans to push for government oversight of the web, the last truly unhindered bastion of free speech?  The Democrats lament that their monopoly on the media has ended and that the new media is viable competition (NewsBusters.org).  Hence, they have to find a way to garner public support for federal internet controls.  They would argue that it would help to prevent horrible occurrences like Benghazi from ever happening again.  Remember that it was Rahm Emanuel, an Obama cabinet official, who said never let a good crisis go to waste, for it allows you to do things you would not otherwise be able to do. (NationalReview).  If they weren't trying to go after the internet, the White House could have blamed Benghazi on something that was more feasible, like Pastor Terry Jones, who has burned Korans and is offensive in his outspokenness against the White House (TheBlaze.com).  But that wouldn't further any of the left's goals.  By using a YouTube video, the government can make the case for regulations that "ensure" things like Benghazi never happen again.

Never underestimate the lengths to which the left will go.  The only thing they care about are their ends, and any means to reach those ends are acceptable.

Petraeus

By now many know of the Petraeus sex scandal (which is preposterous after what Bill Clinton did).  And several people have a sense that it is not the real story behind what is going on.  Simply put, distraction is.

When I heard that Petraeus was part of the Obama administration, it confused me quite a bit.  After all, Petraeus was hated by the left, calling him "General Betray-Us" for lies the left concocted (Sweetness&Light.com).  So now that Petraeus is being hammered in the traditional media, his reputation destroyed, it is no surprise that he was initially embraced by the administration.  But that is still not the point. 

Almost a month later the country is still not told what occurred while the administration allowed four Americans to die.  Who made the call that permitted the murders of Americans?  Why did they do nothing while literately watching them die?  Why the cover up and blaming on an internet video that had nothing to do with the attack? The answers must be bad.  Several cabinet officials have positioned themselves to escape before anyone finds out.  Hillary Clinton, who has set herself up to leave at the signs of any trouble for a while (Wonkette.com), refuses to testify on the Benghazi debacle in front of Congress (WashingtonExaminer).  Eric Holder and Timothy Geithner are also making noise about quitting an Obama second term (Examiner.com, WashingtonPost.com).  So, after such a supposed great election for Obama, why are many hinting at leaving?  How many will be hurt greatly from the truth?  Yet, this is still not the point.  There is more.

The country is about the change, big time.  There is the Fiscal Cliff looming (CNNMoney), Obamacare about to hit (Heritage.org), thousands of regulations passed within a few months (Breitbart.com), and God knows what else.  The nation's economy and status in the world is in shambles.  A second recession may hit (BusinessInsider, as if the first one ever ended!), and our embassies are attacked with no fear of repercussions(CNN, NYTimes).  The military is about to be gutted (HuffingtonPost), and our schools are fully fledged brainwashing centers with songs dedicated to Obama, our new lord and master (CBSNews.com).  Therefore the president and his protective media is happy to change the subject and promote a story that will trick the American people into ignoring not only Benghazi, but everything else that is about to ruin this country.  Furthermore, I believe all this was planned, whether the president was reelected or not.  If the Republicans won, it would have been just as much of distraction as it is now.

The left will stop at nothing to hide what they are and what they do.  It is up to us to give their true nature light.

Tuesday's Election

This past election has many on the conservative side questioning how the election was lost to a president who seemed easy to defeat.  With the economy in shambles and the Libyan consulate scandal so close to the election, many wonder if we have become a nation of takers who are content with the federal government caring for its citizens.  Do the number of Americans receiving government aid outnumber those who are producing wealth, and are those on the government dole concerned about anything other than continuing the enrichment of themselves through federal and state programs? (WND).  Bottom line, have we become a socialist nation?  (And by the way, both CNN and the Huffington Post break down possibilities for the Romney loss, but conveniently leave out the above mentioned reasoning, in typical left-wing media fashion (CNN, HuffingtonPost.com).)

Some conservatives, including myself (initially) felt this was true.  When Barack Obama won, it felt as if the electorate was lost.  After all, Romney received nearly two to three million fewer votes than John McCain did four years ago (BCNN1), and McCain was not nearly as popular.  But upon closer inspection, my views have changed a little.

According the above article in BCCN1, Barack Obama also received fewer votes, nine to ten million less than in 2008.  Due to the Republican loss and media malpractice, this has gone nearly unnoticed.  In fact, I cannot seem to find any major news outlet that even mentions this, because it is extremely devastating for the administration.  Granted this does not change the fact that Republicans lost, and there is no suggestion that Obama's victory should be down played.  The election does clearly show that a majority of Americans, however small, cared more about themselves than the country in this election cycle.  However it also shows that Obama's supposed huge mandate and popularity does not exist.  In fact, he just hit above fifty percent approval (BusinessInsider.com) after approval ratings in the forties for months.

So when combined, around twelve million people did not vote in this election.  How would they have voted?  No one may be able to say for sure, but clearly they would have voted against Barack Obama.  The unfortunate part is that they also refused to vote for Romney.  My take on this is more aligned with Liz Marlantes of the CSMonitor who says Romney just wasn't a good candidate (article here).  I differ with her reasoning, but her premise is correct.  I feel Romney wasn't conservative enough.

But how can one say that after a majority voted for socialism?  Well a few points.

First, many in the Republican party feel cheated by the Republicans, and if your base does not turn out, you lose.  There is a history of bad blood between Conservatives and Republicans.  Conservatives say Republicans are too moderate and therefore refuse to vote Republican (BeforeItsNews.com).  Republicans often attack conservatives as being too "purist" on several issues, sometimes resorting to name calling (Politico, TheHill.com).  Then there is the Republican leadership, who gives into the administration's demands and consorts with Obama too often (Reuters).  Also, Romney viciously went after fellow Republicans during the primary, angering many supporters of other candidates.  I believe a significant number of Conservatives, Libertarians, and right-leaning Independents stayed home on election day.

Second, the actual election results kept the power structure about the same.  The Republicans still control the House of Representatives, the Democrats the Senate and the Presidency.  If there had truly been a huge push for socialism and the Democrats, they would have won super majorities in both Houses, and along with the Presidency. This happened in 2008 because Barack Obama was an unknown and historic figure, not due to the promotion of socialism.

Third, Romney, being moderate, did not distinguish himself enough from Obama.  For example, he would talk in terms of rich and poor and passed Romneycare in Massachusetts, the precursor to Obamacare.  He also let Obama and the traditional media hammer him on several issues with little response or counter punch from Romney.  During the third debate, which centered around foreign policy, Romney did not go after Obama at all on Benghazi, an obvious soft spot in the Obama presidency.  It has always been my belief that if you give someone a choice between a "full-on" vision and "light" version of that vision, people will choose the former.  Plus, if you don't fight back, but instead claim your attacker is nice guy, as Romney often did, you look weak and give your opponent the opportunity to define you.  That is a definite problem Romney had.

So what does this all mean?  We must keep fighting and keep the conversation going.  There were twelve million people who did not vote in the last election and need to be convinced that conservatism is what they should support next time.  If the Republican party cannot realize that, if they continue to push for moderates and moderate ideas that cannot win, then maybe it's time to put our enthusiasm and strength behind something else.

Here We Go...

The political signs haven't all been taken down, the pundits talk of the election is still fresh, and the hit to many conservatives still hurts, yet the Obama administration forges ahead with their anti-gun agenda.

Many know of Obama's hatred of the Second Amendment.  He attacked some as "bitter Americans clinging to guns and religion" (Radio Active Liberty) and said he favored a new assault weapons ban (ABCNews).  So it's no shock that the day after his administration voted to begin final talks on a United Nations bill that would regulate, through international law, gun sales (Reuters).

A liberal might question, "So does the treaty ban guns in the U.S.?"  Well not exactly.  "Does it infringe on our Second Amendments rights?"  Not yet.  "So then whats the problem?" a liberal would shout.

The issue with liberalism is not what they prevent you from doing, but how hard it becomes to do it.  In many Northeastern states, buying a gun is an arduous and frustrating process.  Often permits are required, and you end up spending more time and money filling out paper work and acquiring licenses than you do actually picking out a firearm.  This prevents many from practicing their Second Amendment rights and allows liberals to claim they are allowing the possession of firearms through what they call "common sense" and "appropriate regulation."  Throw in further increased costs due to the United Nations Treaty, and even less will purchase firearms. 

When it came to coal, Obama said he would allow coal plants to be built, but it would bankrupt those building them (Examiner).  He has the same idea when it comes to guns.  The United Nations treaty would increase the price of guns by limiting international sales, which is dominated by U.S. gun makers.  The loss in revenue due to decreased overseas sales would force gun makers to increase prices.  That in turn would make it more difficult for citizens to buy guns, and that would lead to even fewer gun sales.  In the end, guns would be extremely expensive, and many gun makers would have to close up shop.  So sure, anyone would be able to own or make a firearm, it would just bankrupt them to do it.

Don't Lose Heart!

It has been a while since I've posted, but I feel now that I have no choice.  We are in extraordinary times, and we need to remain resolute.  The nation had a major set back.  It is apparent now that a majority of Americans are OK with an all powerful government that appears to provide all that everyone needs.  People have traded the uncertain greatness of capitalism for the certain mediocrity of socialism.  I believe we now face an inevitable economic collapse, which is why we need to remain strong, so on that terrible day we are able to turn and say, "See, I told you so.  Now, here is how we fix it."  In the coming months I will be putting together a new website, different of this one, that will work to not only talk about the events of the day but provide the background, including the history of our nation, that shows how conservatism is right, not just an idea.  So please keep posted, and let others know as well.  God has put this fire in me to do this, and God knows I would not have if Romney was elected.  Therefore, I believe this is God's plan, and we should all take heart knowing He is on our side.  God bless you, and God bless America.