Hangun Ban Support Graph - 50 Years of Positive Trending

Source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx

This should be obvious by now, but we are clearly making significant headway in the public realm.  Especially see the first graph. 

For the past 50 years, we have been making positive headway with people understanding that they should not infringe on the right to own firearms.  It is becoming common sense, and accepted logic that freedom is the way to go. 
Let's keep the pressure on the antis, let's keep making their jobs more difficult, and let's keep working toward more freedom, and the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones!

Learn from History

Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/24/white-house-to-announce-major-home-lending-revamp/

Clearly, either our president doesn't learn from history, or he does and he hates America and wants us to fail.  I'll let you decide that on your own.  Take a look at the article.  Here are some of the winning parts of it:

The revamped Home Affordable Refinance Program, which aims to avert foreclosures, is expected "to encourage new, lower-cost loans" to more homeowners who are paying more than the value of their properties, a senior administration official said ahead of Obama's Monday announcement. 

So we learned from history that you can't force banks to give loans to people who can't pay them, it will backfire.  Today, he wants to force banks to give out loans to people who are having trouble paying for them...

The three-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program was supposed to allow refinancing for up to 125 percent of a home's value on mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but has been stuck on tight eligibility rules, including excluding people with high credit scores or other attractive risk offers. 

Here we go again. Same plan, different names, different wording, different packaging, but same failed ideas that sunk us already.

The changes to the loan programs are specifically intended to bypass Congress, which is stalled on agreeing to new plans to increase jobs and jump-start the economy. But it won early support from Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. 

So, dodging congress.  That is the act of a dictator.  He might as well say, "What I want is what matters, forget checks and balances."  Also, Republicans, take note of the name of a traitor to the cause.  Sen. Johnny Isakson, from Georgia, way to go failing the people who voted you into office.

If people aren't outraged by the ego, the arrogance, the Marxist ways of this man, then we have fallen very far indeed from the America which once was so great.

TSA Expanding to Highways!

Source:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide

And here I always thought Tennessee was one of the free states.  This is absolutely disgusting.
Take a look at the article and video.  Then come back and tell me what you think about it.  Is there a reason for this?  Will it really benefit anyone?  Do we want to see lines of traffic on the highways that resemble the security lines in airports?  How many miles will we need to stop again and again and again?  How many other questions come to mind regarding this institution of oppression? 
I have no doubt that there are those who genuinely think this is 'for the best.'  But, anytime you restrict, remove, deter, subdue, or otherwise violate the individual person's liberty, you are losing the fight.  The very fact that the TSA exists, and keeps expanding it's roles, is proof that the terrorists are winning more every week, than they ever could have by waging outright war on us.

What ever happened to the America where I was raised?

Overkill

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11291/1183002-100.stm

Police calling in excessive force is nothing new these days.  It just happened again locally.  This time the civilian who experienced an overdose of justice is a 75 year old woman.  With a mental problem.  Who they know.

I understand that police officers need to take steps to protect themselves.  But, doesn't it seem strange to call out SWAT ("...a nearby special response unit...") for 1 lady?  It strikes me as a severe case of overkill, and it does nothing to give me confidence in those who are supposed to serve and protect us.


The really ironic thing is that I am well known as quoting Rule 37 from Schlock.

The TSA is Evil

Source:
http://www.popehat.com/2011/09/06/complain-about-being-sexually-assaulted-by-a-tsa-thug-theyll-sue/

DISCLOSURE:  This post and the link contain graphic descriptions of non-consensual  sexual encounters.  Not appropriate for all ages.

I highly recommend reading this entire article.  I also highly recommend offering any support you are able to Amy.  She did what every one of us who has flown under the TSA should do.  This gradual taking of more power by them, and more denial of our rights needs to stop, and be reversed.  The TSA needs to be disbanded.  They are an evil organization, which takes pleasure in using what little authority it has to sexually assault US citizens, and pays it's employees to do that. 
Not only is that rape, but it's inverted prostitutional rape.  Yes, I made up a word and phrase.  But think about it.  When someone pays for sex, it is prostitution.  When someone is sexually assaulted, it's rape.  When someone is paid to rape someone else, it becomes a new issue all together. 
Don't believe me?  Just ask any of the women who have had fingers and hands pushed "...between their labia."  Ask any of the men or boys who have had their penises grabbed.  This is legalized rape.  This is the dehumanization of the citizens of the USA.
The TSA is a criminal, evil organization and must be stopped.

To Build? Or not to Build?

Sources:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a-southern-baptist-leader-chides-cain-for-mosque-comments-52448/

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2011/07/herman-cain-and-murfreesboro-mosque.html

In short, this article points to an instance where Herman Cain is being attacked by a pastor because on the surface it appears that he is taking an anti-First Amendment approach.  I would tend to agree, if I only looked at the surface, and no deeper.  

Let's look deeper, shall we?

It seems that there is quite a bit of information leaking which points to this mosque being the project of the Muslim Brotherhood.  That group is not a religious group, but rather a political one, which would like to see a 'conservative' (in this case, read strict adherence) application of Sharia law.  This is a major issue for any American.  

Sharia law is about as far removed from the concept of individual liberty, and equality that we have established in this nation, and about as anti-American as it is possible for an organization to be.  Additionally, the terror group Hamas is closely related to this group.  The last thing we need in our country is a breeding ground for terrorists.  

Beyond this, there is sufficient protesting and complaints from the residents of the area that they do not want this constructed in their neighborhood.  While I'm a firm believer in private property, there is a point where you need to understand that your neighbors don't want your business there.  And let's face it, if this is an entity related to the MB, this is no religious center, but rather a political one.  

Were this to be a purely religious facility, with absolutely no ties to politics, or any attempt to muddy the local political waters with Sharia law, I would have no ground on which to stand.  However, just look at the organization(s) backing it's construction, and pushing for it to be built.  There's an old saying that suggests that following the money will lead you to the source of any activity.  I think the same applies here.

Amendments in Danger

Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-10-muslim-women-mosques_n.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ever-hear-of-the-first-amendment-an-argument-to-watch-52222/

While I typically write most passionately about the importance of the Second Amendment, I would be a terrible citizen of this nation if that was the only amendment I supported.  The first 10 are all vital to our way of life as a Free people, and we must defend them all. 

The First Amendment (you know, the one that says Government can't force us to practice our religion or not practice our religion in any fashion?) is coming under attack, by a Muslim woman, who reported for the Wall Street Journal.  Apparently she hates freedom too, and would use the legal system, and the overwhelming weight of bureaucracy to crush it. 

The attitude behind this approach is disgusting in so many ways.  Speaking from an American perspective, I would say that 'There are enough other religions and sub-sects within those religions that you can find one with any set of beliefs in this land that match those which you hold.'  As someone who understands what it means to be faithful to a 'religious concept' (In my life, I would refer to this as a relationship with Christ, not a set of beliefs, or book of rules, or anything limited and man-centric such as that.) I would suggest that she either needs to understand what her faith teaches, and adhere to it, challenge it from within using any examples or scripture or teachings or any other source needed, or leave it. 

If a government attempts to force religions to practice within their set of rules, it defeats the entire purpose of any religion.  Following a set of beliefs based on faith is an understanding that a higher power than man is the source of those beliefs.  To give government authority over religion subverts the purposes of both.

This is something our founding fathers understood, and specifically wrote 1A to protect us from that very real, very evil reality.  

Our rights are under attack daily.  This is why it is vitally important that we the people make our voices heard.

God as a Political Concept

As most of my readers are aware, yesterday was Independence Day.  That is the day that the United States of America celebrates independence:  Not only from Great Britain and the tyrannical rule that was happening at the time, but independence from all forms of rule which would inhibit freedom.  Or so we think.

As the world progresses, we lose our freedom.  With every administration, more laws are passed which limit personal liberty ever more. As I heard on a recent Vicious Circle episode (and I have to paraphrase here, I don't recall the exact phrase, or who said it), "It doesn't matter who is driving, we're still going the same direction.  Some drivers just happen to not be accelerating toward destruction as quickly as others."  This was said in reference to republican, or conservative, vs democrat, or liberal.  Such a simple yet profoundly true statement.

One of the key reasons for this, I think, is a fundamental shift in understanding of what liberty is, and where it's origins can be found.  For the sake of this discussion, we'll focus on American Liberty, as opposed to general liberty.  

Let's look at history.  235 years and 1 day ago, a document was signed which declared our independence from another tyrannical rule.  This document is vital to our history.  This document is the official announcement of the people of the United States of America that they would not live in subjection to a power which was going to rule them in an unfair, or unjust manner.  It marked the separation of America from Britain.  The war, the constitution, and the rest were related, but this key document did more to establish freedom for the people than any other.  So let's take a look at the phrases used to establish that liberty, and where we stand today in relation.

The first paragraph:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 From the beginning of the document we see reference to the world (Nature) and the Creator of the world (Nature's God).  As far as introductions go, this one is excellent.  It introduces the source of the freedom to be discussed in depth, as well as the purpose of the document, and what the result of it will be.  no beating around the bush, no wavering, or making excuses, just straight to the point, and effective.

The first portion of the next paragraph is what so many of us remember from school, and hear quoted so often in life:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

This reiterates the source of human rights:  The Creator.  The words 'of humanity' can easily appended to His title, as the implication is that the One who created humanity is the One who decides what rights we shall have, and how we should govern ourselves.  

This is a key point, and the focus of my thoughts today.  We live in an era which has done everything to remove God from any public forums.  If we fail to keep God in some form of public recognition, the foundation of our rights becomes diluted, and baseless.  This erosion will lead to a loss of liberty, and return us to the days of unjust, unfair, slave-like subjugation by government.

This is NOT, by any means, a demand, or even a request, for a formal, official government-pushed religion.  Quite the contrary, the concept here is that all men have the freedom to worship whomever they want, in whatever manner they want.  The bases of that freedom is also from God.  From a political perspective, God must exist to be the source of rights, as a power higher than the government.  If the people chose to worship or not, that's not the government's concern.  Maintaining their freedom to worship is.  

If we allow God to be removed from public office as we have been doing, we will certainly lose these freedoms.  Our independence from government and tyranny will be replaced.  We will again be dependent on the state for all of our needs.  We will not have the luxury of choosing how to shape the world around us.  We will no longer share the experiences of living in this great nation, which has been built on the ideas found in the Bible of Christianity.  That foundation must remain intact if we are to continue in our liberty.  

At the end of the day, it is important to remember that whether or not you believe that God does exist, you must believe that the people of this world derive their rights from Him, as a power higher than government.  This is what keeps the door opened to allow a just self-governance.  This is what gives people the freedom to live life as they see fit.  

I strongly urge you to read the rest of the Declaration of Independence at the link above.  Study it.  See what the king of England was doing at the time.  Compare each of the statements of his actions to the government today.  Replace 'he' with 'they' or 'the feds' or 'congress' or 'the president.'  It is alarming how similar our country is today to what we faced as a people in those days.  Look at where we are today as a result of the work done by those who signed the document.  And thank God for the 235 years of freedom we have enjoyed. 

Too Many Issues!

This week I have been struggling with what to write.  Not because there is a lack of material on which to comment, or because there is nothing going on in the world around us.  Quite the contrary, it is because I only have so much time to write, and can't decide which topics to cover.  Instead, I am going to do a quick mash of several topics, and lump them together.

First one:  Delta hates Jews.

The original article which I saw last night on USA Today's website has been changed.  Wyatt mentions this is his blog.  But the basic idea of what happened is simple. Delta entered into an agreement with another airline.  This airline happens to be based in Saudi Arabia.  Well, they happen to hate the Jews, and have a law about them not being in their kingdom.  Delta complies with the regulation of Air Discrimi-Saudi.  I understand when you are operating between various sovereign nations you need to be aware of their laws.  But this is a case of making a bad decision by Delta.  They could have picked better.  There is already a fairly intense backlash, we'll see what comes of it.

Item number two: Wisconsin Passes Carry Bill

I love what Tam has to say about it.  For the last score of years and change the states have been passing legislation making clear the legality of carrying weapons, especially carrying them concealed.  The last decade has seen quite the increase.  When I started carrying 10 years ago, the map of the US of which states had laws, and more importantly to me specifically, which states reciprocate with mine, was sparse.  Over the years I have watched these maps become more filled with freedom and liberty.  It has been an absolute joy to watch.  Illinois is the last hold-out.  Granted some states have tighter restrictions, make it more difficult for their citizenry to employ their rights, but only one remains where they have laws counter to the Constitution, and deny freedom.  Illinois, you're next.  :)

Thirdly:  Rick Perry for President?

This is a conversation by Trifecta on PJTV.  I strongly encourage you to check them out. 

To my knowledge, Governor Perry has not yet announced an intention to run for president of the United States.  Here is a quote from his speech:

And our loudest opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let's stop trying to curry favor with them.  Let's stop this American downward spiral!  We're doing this, and it's happening because of twoo much spending, too much interfering, and too much apologizing."

 When any politician makes comments like that, I have to admit that it gives me some hope.  However, when I see their actions, I'm let down more often than not.  And sadly it's not infrequent that I am not only let down, but that I am crushed, beaten into the ground, and demoralized.  Governor Perry seems to be true to his word, however, based on what I've seen in Texas.  Is he perfect? No, no human is.  It would be wrong for us to pin all of our hopes on one man, if that man is not Christ. 

Also, Bill Whittle's comment about Perry is spot on, when he says that he can fill a room, and has a presence which befits a president.  He makes a comparison of personality and charisma to Regan, and I tend to agree with that assessment.

That's all I have time for now.  Stay tuned for more posts in the future!

Also, if there is a topic you'd like to see me address, please let me know in the comments.  Also, share your thoughts on any topics you'd like here, not just these. Consider this an open thread.

1770's Revisited

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R5cSUj14II

Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle of PJTV discuss a rather profound question:
"Is this what it was like in the 1770s when the men we call The Founders were debating the principles of liberty and organizing the separation of themselves and their colonies from oppressive English rule?  To survive, will liberty have to make a similar break from the increasingly oppressive American rule?"

Bill makes a statement (approx 2:00) indicating that he finally understands the pain involved in deciding to break away from one's government.  He makes a very valid point that we are approaching the point where we need to either refresh the principles on which our nation was founded, or abandon them.

What are your thoughts?  What will it take for us to have freedom once again in this nation?

When the United States of America was founded, the idea of keeping the government was small, giving liberty and responsibility to the people was common sense, and people understood that they had to work for what they wanted.  However, as it has been said in various generations, by various individuals, and with various subtle differences, "When the populace realizes that they are able to vote themselves money and entitlements, the nation will cease to be free, and will cease to be wealthy.  It will collapse fiscally, and a dictatorship will follow."

Today, we can see that mindset in the voting.  The politicians winning the votes are the politicians making the most grand promises of what will be given to his constituents.  The problem encountered when people challenge the size of the government is oft waived aside by the very people who want it to grow larger, and have greater control.  The weak continue to seek provision from the government, rather than finding the means to provide for themselves.  The government grows ever larger to feed the lazy and weak, perpetuating the cycle.  Only two options remain open when this becomes the norm:  Return to the days of yore, forcing the government to reduce it's spending, eliminating programs, cutting taxes, and restoring liberty to the citizenry; or embracing this new idea, that the government is to provide, and spend until there is nothing left, and the nation is left destitute, and a dictator steps in to take control of the crippled land.

Which future would you want to see for America?