Nothing to Add

Source:
http://www.the-minuteman.org/content/2012/January/15/Open-Response-Joan-Peterson-Barron-Barnett

Just read it.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette Bias

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1195751-109-0.stm?cmpid=newspanel

So, his entire premise is sexist.  Not to mention that he ignores simple, basic logic. 
My first question to the author of this article would have to be: "What about people who are legitimately weak?  If your premise is that men don't need guns to be men, what about those with infirmities, women, kids at school, and other people who are at a physical disadvantage?" 
The usage of simple logic dictates that if we do away with firearms, the people with the most ability to use force will be those with the most force available.  His goal is to return us to a day of inequality, where women were domineered by men, and other social injustices abounded. 
He also makes an enormous blunder when he references the Cullen report in Scotland.  Their logic is that if the number of gun owners is decreased, the level of gun violence will decrease.  This just makes no sense when you actually apply the logic of the real world to it.  When you look at Scotland, which is well known for it's anti-gun laws, you see an INCREASE in violence, including gun violence.  You see a higher per-capita rate of being a victim, and other things which indicate that disarming the populace serves the exact opposite purpose of it's stated intent.
He also says:

The emphasis is on resolving disputes through force -- physical force initially, lethal force ultimately.

He misunderstands the intent completely.  The emphasis is not on resolving disputes through force (if that was the case, there would be many more men in prison, businesses would contain boxing rings, and we'd see fist fights in stores over prices of goods.), rather it is on being prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones if someone else chooses to use force against us.  It has nothing to do with disputes whatsoever.  The reason I carry a gun is not to give me the upper hand in a dispute.  It is to provide the even footing required to be safe if the unthinkable happens.
Additionally he states:

Then there's the concomitant vigilante mentality and the belief that the righteous gun owner may have to fight the government itself if his Second Amendments rights (as he sees them) are not respected.

Firstly, he couldn't be further from the truth.  We won't fight the government ONLY for our Second Amendment rights.  Our founding fathers often made reference to the need to balance the government, and the only way to do that is with an armed citizenry.  Again, the goal is not to go out looking for this lack of respect, it's to respond when our rights are violated.  It's a reaction to an offense, not the initiation of offense.

Lastly, and what I find most amusing, is that he is a professor of poetry.  While I would try to avoid name-calling and such, I figure 'he started it' so I might as well make the comment demanding to be made.  That isn't the sort of profession which is very 'manly' anyway.  I think he has some pretty perverse ideas of what manhood is all about.  He chooses to ignore logical reasoning and the consequences of living in the real world to defend his own fear of inanimate objects.  Not the behavior of any real man I know.

I firmly believe that only people who have knowledge and understanding about a topic should be published addressing said topic in such a fashion, as his complete lack of understanding about the firearms community, and what it means to be a man, makes him look exceedingly foolish, and is a heavy mark against the Post Gazette's credibility.

Highway Shakedowns in TN - 4th Amendment is History

Sources:

News Channel 5

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14673883/policing-for-profit-summary-of-dice-activities-2010

I'm not the first to write about this, nor will I be the last.  In fact, this isn't even my first post on the topic.  Cemetery had his car searched for no reason, and is left with little recourse.  The governments are finding more and more ways to get around the protections we have of our rights, and it is costing us dearly.  

And clearly, if you watch the video, you can see that they do not care one iota about actually stopping the drugs.  They are focused on the cash.  If this really was about the drugs, there would be many more instances on the East bound side, and the officers would be facing that direction, looking for the contraband.  

The war on drugs has done more to damage this country than most people realize.  Daily it's costing us more and more, not just financially, but in far more important ways.  

But some people have hired lawyers after their cash was taken and, sometimes after months and months of litigation, judges have ruled that the money that was taken from them really had nothing to do with drug dealing at all.

Moral of that story is that if you want your money, you need to hire a lawyer to get it back.  They will keep it until you take legal action.  That is outright THEFT from civilians, especially when those civilians are charged with no crime, and have done nothing to justify that seizure of their property.

When do we draw a line in the sand which shall not be crossed?  To allow them to continue to trample our rights is to invite tyranny into our nation, not just turn a blind eye to it, and pour it a nightcap before we go to bed, ignorant of the schemes of tyrants.

Treating the 1st Amendment the Same as the 2nd Amendment

Source:
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4601

I don't really have anything to add to Bob's writeup here.  It's a great read, and a great comparison of our rights. 

Thanks, Bob, keep the good stuff flowing!

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?

Your Papers Please...or Voter Fraud Counter-Measures

Sources:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/voter-id/groups-urge-feds-stop-voter-id-bill/

http://www.imao.us/index.php/2011/09/nuke-the-news-taxes-create-jobs-day-of-yawn-and-yay-fraud/

 American's enjoy several unique options in life, which leads America to be a very unique place to live.  One of the options which has defined America throughout her history has been the right of the citizenry to vote.  This right has given the people a clear voice int he organization and execution of the government.  Well, it used to be clear.

It's no secret that over the last several decades accusations of fraud at the polling places, and in the counting afterward, have been rampant.  Chicago is notorious for having the dead turn out in droves to vote.  And this before we even really started considering the coming zombie apocalypse.  Maybe this is the origin?

What do we do with rampant accusations of voter fraud?  How do we protect the voice of the people?  How do we prevent a phony lip-service-only voting system like exists in much of the world from taking over here?

UPDATE:
The below paragraph is how I initially worded it.  Bob S. from 3 boxes of BS has helped me to understand how I was wrong in my original statements.  After this paragraph is the updated version of it, corrected for accuracy and clarification.

Governor Perry in Texas instituted a voter ID check.  The concept is simple, and it seems to be effective.  "Prove you are a citizen, and you get to vote."
Now reads:
Governor Perry in Texas signed into law a voter ID check.  The concept is simple, and it seems to be effective.  "Prove you are who you say you are, and you get to vote."
I now return you to your regularly scheduled blogpost

However, there is some controversy.  There are two sides to every argument; this one, I think, has three.

1. It's only fair to everyone else participating in the system that all people prove their eligibility to participate in the system.  It has to happen if the system is going to work the way it was intended to work.
2. There's no need for it.  
3. This bears too much of a concept of 'Your Papers Please' and is fundamentally opposed to what we as Americans hold to be dear.

Personally, I'm torn between options 1 and 3.  Option 2 I completely disregard, as I firmly believe SOMETHING needs to be done.  However, what that something is, I'm not entirely certain.  I lean toward option 1, as the concept of 'your papers please' is more along the lines of when people are traveling around and are being accosted by law enforcement without provocation or just cause.  Really, since when is 'subversive material' illegal in the US?  Last time I checked, reading material wasn't illegal.

This is different from those evils, and I think a necessary step to take to protect this nation.  There may be a better way to do it, and if there is, I'll be happy to entertain it.  While this is a right of the citizens of this nation to vote, the difference in this case is the citizens voting.  There must be a vested interest in the future success of this great land.  Illegals, the dead, and others have no vested interest in that success.

As Frank said regarding those who oppose this concept:  

"...make them carry the pro-voter fraud label as there is no — NO — logical reason to be against having to prove you can vote before voting other than that you are for voter fraud and think it will help your side."

Please, share your thoughts on this issue!

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.

Carry Restricted in a Mall of Fear

I've been meaning to post this for quite some time.  Today, I have finally finished writing the incident in a way which I think is fitting for here.  This is purely a personal experience, so there is no source material today.  I hope this anecdote is useful to you, and you are able to benefit from my experience.

As you know, I possess a CCW in my state, and carry constantly.  One evening, I was doing so in a local mall.  Being in one of the more upper-class neighborhoods in the area, I rarely visited it.  As such, (and as is my habit) I checked the doors as I entered.  No signage.  In PA, if there's a sign indicating firearms are not allowed, you leave. If you don't, they are required to ask you to leave. If you don't leave at that point, they can charge you with civil trespassing.  So, no huge risk even if there is a sign posted. 
My fiance (then girlfriend) and I were in one of the kitchen stores when I reached to a high shelf to retrieve an item for her.  My shirt lifted, and one of the employees saw my weapon in my belt.  She just happened to be looking at just the right place she'd need to look to see it. 
As we continued perusing their goods, we were in a corner, to the side and fairly far back in the store.  I was in the midst of a conversation with my girlfriend regarding some item in her hands, when I noticed out of the corner of my eye mall security (unarmed, older gentleman, who I'm pretty sure couldn't fight his way out of a burlap sack, no offense intended toward him, but not the kind of guy who could be effective in stopping any sort of determined criminal), but didn't realize they knew I was armed.  I had in no way been acting suspiciously, so I just assumed he was making his rounds, or coming to socialize.  Next thing I know, he's standing immediately behind me, tense as one could be.  He was polite enough to wait until my girlfriend and I ended the current conversation thread in which we were engaged prior to interrupting. 
Now, I'm not a small person, by any stretch of the imagination.  When he said 'Excuse me, sir,' and I turned to face him, he lost most of the color in his cheeks.  It was all I could do to keep from laughing.  He then said 'I would like to talk with you, would you care to come with me?' 
Not knowing what was going on, and not about to comply with someone who had as yet not identified himself, I opted to go the public route, and said 'We can chat here as well as anywhere.' 
Long story short, he proceeded to tell me that the employee saw my weapon, and he asked why I felt I needed to carry in a peaceful mall.  I responded that it was to keep my girlfriend safe and in one piece, not that it was any of his business thankyouverymuch.  He then said weapons are prohibited, and I asked where the signage is, he said it is in the office, on the top floor, behind the counter.  So, in short, there wasn't a visible public sign, but he attempted to enforce it.  He suggested a compromise that I return my weapon to my car, and continue my shopping.  My answer was that I was not about to do business with any organization which has a complete disregard for the rights and safety of their clients.  I also was not foolish to leave a weapon unattended anywhere, as that is an enormous liability to me.  I looked at my girlfriend, and told her to come out to the car whenever she was ready to leave, and that I'd be waiting for her there. 
The looks she got from all the women in that store were priceless.  The snobish folks who frequent that particular establishment were expecting to see her pull some heat out of her purse, especially as she tends to carry a large purse. 
I eventually wrote them a letter, indicating that I'd be informing all my friends about how poorly I was treated, and how unsafe I would feel shopping in a place like that, and how their policies restrict the freedoms and rights of theirs customers, and that I'd not be doing business with them until they changed their policies.  I also sent a copy of that same letter to the stores in the mall, and the corporate offices of those stores. 
It may not be much, but it's a little chip in their customer base.  Out of curiosity I stopped by while I was in the neighborhood several months later.  The proper signage was added to both sets of doors past which I drove.  Rather than understanding a customer's perspective, they stuck to their ideology of fear.  Now, rather than having an armed, concerned, engaged, aware and alert citizen in their building, willing to step up if the need arises, they are more likely to have the people who ignore such things enter, and act without any others willing to protect the innocent lives and property there. 
Complete and utter disregard for common sense, simple logic, and most importantly, the rights of the American Citizen.

California Open Carry

Source:
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/morning-video-2/

This gem from Weerd.  The video is very to-the-point, and it is amusing to listen to Portantino.  He's so far out of touch with reality that it's hard not to feel sorry for him.  As Weerd says:

Great arguments if you’re an emotional hand-wringer. Not much if you ever….you know…think.

Do you want to reduce crime?  Do you want to see people take personal responsibility?  Do you understand that the police have neither the ability nor the obligation to protect each and every individual citizen in each and ever circumstance throughout the course of a day?  Do you have the ability to think critically and apply logic?  If your answer to any of these is 'Yes' the odds are that you are in favor of enabling the private citizen to take an active stand the protection of his person, his family, and his property.  This means repealing the legislation which prevents individuals from performing those duties.  This means drafting and enacting legislation which supports the law-abiding, and protects them from criminal and civil liability when engaged in the act of defense (see Castle Doctrine laws).  

At the end of the day, the nanny-stateism that is rampant in this country is doing nothing to better the lives of our citizens, but rather is doing more to hinder freedom, and take responsibility away from people who are more than capable of behaving like adults.  The problems which need to be addressed are with those who intend others harm, not the idea that any sort of inanimate object is to blame.

Thanks for the video, Weerd.  Fantastic.

Atheists are Vampires?

Source:
http://m.christianpost.com/news/atheist-groups-lawsuit-against-9-11-cross-sad-misguided-52940/

I don't have time to write my usual commentary on the idiocy of people, however here is the winning quote of the article:

According to the lawsuit, several claimants have suffered both physical and emotional damages from the “existence of the challenged cross.”
Among the damages listed are “dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish.”

Reading that makes me think these atheists have more in common with vampires than humans.  Seriously, it's a symbol, seeing it isn't going to hurt you.  

However, it DOES make me think about a new career path:

"Boydy - The Vampire Atheist Slayer"
All I need to do is wear a cross, put some on my car, and mount them on every door and window of my house.

What are your thoughts?

Update:  A coworker just suggested that '...anyone who is physically hurt by seeing something needs to grow a pair."  I think she's right.  

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.

Misuse of Force, Violation of 4th Amendment, Death of Civilian

Confederate Yankee has an excellent article written detailing the video that is available on youtube of the incident in question.  Exceedingly unprofessional behavior by the LEO as a whole, and a seemingly complete lack of understanding of "Tactics' by the SWAT team.
This is well worth the read!
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/316833.php

The video of the incident can be seen here:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/05/27/the-jose-guerena-raid-a-demonstration-of-tactical-incompetence/