Follow by Email

Saturday, January 26, 2013

“What Difference Does it Make?”


What difference does it make demanded Hilly of Johnson
Uttering the tragic words that rang across the room into the hearts of all Americans

What difference does it make indeed
Four American heroes are dead and the hearts of their families still bleed

What difference does it make
Whether Americans vote or eat government cake

What difference does it make if people must use healthcare that kills
As long as the government can tell you how to pay the insurance bills

What difference does it make to crucify Christ again
There are plenty of trees to hug and earth to freeze all in vain

What difference does it make if innocent children are dead
A crisis must not be wasted but used to squash the rights of Americans under the guise of moving ahead

What difference does it make if they trample the Constitution all over
So long, as the liberals have hope to give it a new makeover

What difference does it make that women head to the front lines while men remain behind
As long as we go forward and change the course of humankind

What difference does it make that our children forget their history
Even as the politicians in Washington, remain obscure to our misery

What difference does it make that our enemies scoff and laugh at us
So long as we can help them and negotiate our future with the one who is most preposterous

What difference does it make when the economy collapses
Hope and change will still have moved the masses

What difference does it make you say?
It makes a big difference to me and to all those who still believe in the USA.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

“Enough” Say We the People


During an online search for re-financing my car loan, I visited several websites to determine which bank would offer me the best possible option.  Few of the banks offered the choice to complete an online application for re-financing and I selected the one that was best for my situation.  The online application required answers to a number of questions to complete the process.  Listed below are the top ten mandatory questions all applicants need to answer to get a loan from the bank:

1.  Loan type

2.  Current monthly payment

3.  Payoff amount 

4.  Current loan remaining term

5.  New loan requested term

6.  Gross income

7.  Other income

8.  Name of employer

9.  Time at current employer

10.  Employment status

As I answered the questions, it made me think more about the state of our nation’s current financial crisis than re-financing my car.  For example, if I must answer, at the minimum, the above ten questions to get a loan processed by the bank for a car re-finance, should not We the People ask our government the same questions about the money they keep demanding from us to pay off the national debt?  Some will argue that we have asked the questions.  Perhaps we have but we have yet to receive straight answers to our questions.  The banks get to judge our creditworthiness before giving out loans, should not We the People also judge the government’s creditworthiness to see if it is worthy of receiving our hard-earned money?  In the same spirit as the banks, perhaps Obama can answer a few questions that require straight answers.  I shall be somewhat more generous than the banks here and ask him to answer only five mandatory questions for all Americans instead of the required ten by the banks:

1.  How much money exactly does he want to spend?

2.  How long exactly does he want to spend the said amount?

3.  What will the money be spent on?

4.  How long exactly will it take to pay off our national debt?

5.  Where exactly will the government cut spending to eliminate or at least reduce the national debt drastically?

Again, these are legitimate questions and deserve honest answers.  If Americans must cinch in their purse strings and make cuts, so should the government.  If Americans have to hold off on getting boots for Junior, glasses for Grandma, and braces for Sunshine, then so too should the government hold off on pay raises, million dollar vacations, and thousand dollar plates of food at black-tie gala events.  If the banks demand answers before handing out loans, so too should the government created by We the People, for We the People answer to We the People about how it plans to spend our money. 

We the People are sick of the political ploys exercised by the pathetic lot running Washington.  We the People ask, nay, We the People demand answers to these questions and expect straight answers.  We the People say “enough” with vague assurances and political battles over makeshift problems.  We the People say "enough" with the drama over meaningless and mundane topics.  We the People say "enough" with lies and cover-ups.  We the People say "enough" with pussyfooting around real issues.  We the People say "enough" with destroying our Republic. 

In the 2012 election, Obama’s campaign placed a great deal of blame on Mitt Romney for not providing a clear plan to help America.  Even when Romney specifically stated his plan, Obama complained that Romney’s plan was vague at best.  So, I ask Obama now, what Sir, is your plan to help the country?  So far, Obama’s plan remains more unclear than Romney’s plan to eradicate the national debt.  Perhaps, Obama could begin with answering the five simple questions listed above and maybe, just maybe, we might be able to move “forward” – unless of course solving the national debt problem was never the plan to begin with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Propaganda and the Face of New America


“Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda.  All that Matters is Propaganda”-Adolf Hitler

Surrounded by four children, presumably representing all youth in America, Obama recently gave a riveting speech on gun control.  His announcement came in response to the Newtown shooting or at least so he claims.  According to Obama, the youngsters on stage wanted speedy resolutions and had written heartfelt letters to him suggesting their fears and concerns about gun violence.  Interestingly, Obama ignored to mention what opinion any of them held about the United States Constitution or the Second Amendment to be more precise.  Lest we miss the bigger picture, the article is not about the four youngsters or their misguided parents who should have never subjected their children to such outright propaganda.  Instead, the focus of this article is upon the shameless use of children, again, by Obama to promote his gun control agenda.    

Indeed, there exists a gun control agenda and unless Congress steps in, it will continue to rear its ugly head at every opportunity.  It is clear that Obama’s latest gimmick intends to set a precedent that will undoubtedly bring down the Second Amendment and ultimately our Constitution if left unchecked.  His shameless anti-American ideology knows no bounds.  Consider for example that following the tragic deaths of the innocent children in the Newtown shooting, Obama unashamedly lashed out against law-abiding Americans.  He has now followed it up by using these four children, to move “forward” yet again in “hope” of bringing “change” to the way our society functions.  How else can he explain the basis of his 23 executive orders on gun controls? 

Most of the suggested reforms from his 23 executive orders were illogical enough to confuse Albert Einstein and offer no real resolutions to avoid another tragedy like the one experienced by the Newtown community.  For example, what did Obama mean by offering more “resource officers” to schools?  Did he mean more teachers or more guidance counselors?  Precisely how would these “resource officers” help schoolchildren in the event another unfortunate episode occurs?  Nay, he was unspecific about these resource officers just as he is unspecific about any of his other plans.  He then emphasized the number of people who died “at the end of a gun” but his statistics missed including those lives protected by guns. 

Next, Obama claimed someone with mental illness is “more likely to be the victim” in such tragedies but conveniently forgot to mention that the man guilty of the Newtown shooting was mentally disturbed.  Obama then demanded that Congress fund research to study how violent video games affect young minds.  Interestingly, he skipped adding violent Hollywood flicks or TV shows to his “research” list.  Why should he?  After all, doing so would mean lining up most of his supporters. 

Of course, the most preposterous of all his reforms was the one that calls for universal background checks.  Yes, one can see all the criminals arriving in droves to fill up paperwork for background checks post haste.  It is obvious to those of us paying attention that Obama’s ridiculous call for action on gun control targets law-abiding Americans more and criminals less.  In his speech, Obama claimed outrageously that, “we don’t benefit from ignorance.”  Yet, if we continue to allow him to encroach upon our liberties, are we not ignorant?  Is he not then benefitting from our ignorance? 

Consider another tyrant who did the same thing in the early twentieth century.  Yes, this man too devised a grand scheme which included brainwashing the youth.  He controlled the nation by controlling the youth.  He effectively presented only one side of the argument-his side-and promised to reform the nation’s problems.  Most of us know the history of Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the outcome it produced.  Suffice it to say, that Hitler’s tyranny left many men, women, and children dead, dying, or destitute.  Our children are not wearing brown shirts with swastika and black shorts like the German children.  No one is forcing them to become storm troopers at the age of eighteen.  Nay, no one is brainwashing them with anti-American ideology either, or are they?    

Saturday, January 12, 2013

The Significance of the United States Constitution: Then and Now


Degrading the United States Constitution seems to be the latest fad in our country.  Most recently, in a debate with author Ben Shapiro, British journalist Piers Morgan attacked the Constitution and called it a “little book.”  Morgan lives and works in the United States but is clearly unaware that the United States Constitution is not a “little book” but the supreme law of the land.  Morgan is not alone in his berating of the Constitution; the current administration continuously tries to bend the law to its will at every opportunity.  The latest attack against the Second Amendment is hardly a response to a new situation but an outcome of years of planning to eradicate the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.  Ironically, those attacking the Second Amendment unhesitatingly hide behind the First Amendment to cover their disparaging remarks about the same Constitution they despise.  For people such as Morgan, clearly unfamiliar with United States history, a short lesson on the Constitution is in order.    
 
On May 14, 1787, the Federal Convention met at the Independence Hall in Philadelphia.  The plan was to correct errors in the loosely tied Articles of the Confederation.  By June, it was evident that the Articles of Confederation was incapable of supporting the form of government required by the new Republic.  Hence, the delegates worked methodically to create an entirely new type of document that represented the co-operation of all.         

Lest someone feel the process involved in writing the Constitution and ratification was an easy one, a few points are worth noting.  To begin with, the delegates to the Convention arrived in Philadelphia under the steady onslaught of daily rain.  Unfortunately, far from cooling the city, the rain simply added in making it more humid and unbearable.  It may seem a minor problem to us today because of the advent of air-conditioning but for delegates of the Constitutional Convention, the heat, humidity, and flies alone created a nettlesome atmosphere often leading to escalated tensions in the meetings.     

Despite the heat, 55 of the appointed 74 delegates arrived in Philadelphia.  Many of them remained in the city, the others traveled back and forth from their respective states to attend the sessions.  Yes, it required more than one session because they did not automatically agree on all terms of the Constitution.  Indeed, it took four long months to convince enough of the delegates to sign the Constitution.  The opposition was heavy from the beginning.  Alexander Hamilton, for example, arrived from the dissenting state of New York straddled with two other delegates, both anti-federalists.  Many of them favored one possibility over another and it would take several gruesome hours daily to convince all to agree upon one resolution.  For instance, James Madison and George Washington favored the Virginia Plan that called for a bicameral legislative branch, an executive branch led by a single person, and a judicial branch headed by a supreme court.  Others such as Benjamin Franklin, John Lansing and William Paterson backed the New Jersey Plan that suggested a unicameral legislative branch, and an executive council.  After giving an uninterrupted six-hour long speech on an alternative plan, Hamilton retired to New York, leaving the delegates behind with a milder opinion of the Virginia Plan.    

Even after Hamilton’s grandiose speech, far from reaching common ground immediately, the delegates fought over the specifics and only came to an agreement on September 17, 1787 to sign the new Constitution.  The signatures secured a new Constitution at the convention but it still needed ratification to become law.  Anti-federalists such as Patrick Henry and George Clinton worked diligently to undermine the ratification process.  In response, Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay fired away in support of ratification of the Constitution in a series of essays and articles noted for the magnitude of their literary and political beauty.  The Federalist Papers have long become a masterpiece in political discourse and should be on the bookshelf of every American citizen.  The final ratified Constitution included a Bill of Rights that carefully laid out the rights of individuals without which we may never have had the final product we see today.

The Constitution stands as the lifeblood of our great nation.  To undermine its authority is to undermine the intelligence, wisdom, hard work, dedication, and sacrifices of the Founders who worked against all odds to create a law to safeguard the natural rights of people.  Therefore, We the People must respect the Constitution for through its provisions our rights remain protected against those who tread upon us.  It is our duty as Americans and patriots to honor the supreme law of our land and to correct those who ridicule it or try to minimize its relevance.  It is true that we no longer live in the eighteenth century but our Founding Fathers had the foresight to devise the Constitution to last beyond their time and for over 200 years, it has done so remarkably well. 

 

 

 

    

 

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Our Bill of Rights & the New Witch Hunt


On a cold night of March 1692, all was quiet except the chilling moans escaping from a house belonging to the village minister, Samuel Parris, of Salem Village in Massachusetts.  In a back room of the house, a nine-year-old girl clutched her throat and began spinning around as if in a trance.  Elizabeth Parris then flung her frail body on the hard wood floor in a fit of passion.  Another young girl, Elizabeth's eleven-year-old cousin Abigail Williams, followed suit and soon both girls were screaming hysterically.  They fought and clawed the air as if fighting against a supernatural beast.  The floorboards beneath their small bodies creaked and the noise echoed throughout the small house.  Elizabeth’s father called for the village physician immediately.  After much deliberation, the doctor pronounced that the girls were suffering from “bewitchment.”  Soon, the two girls accused other villagers of witchcraft and for the next several months, the small New England community was in an uproar. 

From June through September of 1692, the Salem Witch Trials condemned hundreds of people as witches.  The accused were men, women, and children and included people from surrounding neighborhoods.  Once the fervor against the “witches” began, there was no end to the accusations.  People from all levels of society were accused and tried as witches including the Governor’s wife.  At least nineteen condemned men and women died from hanging.  Other witches either died in jail or lived the duration of their lives as social outcasts-always afraid of the authorities.

No one explanation provides the answer to why the Salem Witch Trials reached such a great height.  Indeed, the Salem Witch Trials remain curious even today because of the magnitude of people who were accused, convicted, and executed for it.  Historians have stated economic, social, frontier troubles with Native Americans, and petty jealousies as few of the reasons why so many accusations arose.  Whatever the cause(s), one thing is certain that many innocent people lost their lives because of the hysterics prompted at the behest of a few.   

As with those hunting for witches in 1692, today, the liberals are also looking for “witches.”  The unfortunate and inhumane killing of innocent children in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012 has renewed the liberals’ taste for vengeance.  Unfortunately, criminals are not the focus of their wrath but it is the Bill of Rights.  Liberals feel that the law needs to be “reformed.”  Indeed, they would like to do away with the Bill of Rights completely if at all possible.  They are not interested in finding true solutions that work to keep such tragedies from recurring; instead, their ultimate goal is the destruction of our liberties as American citizens.  To achieve this goal, they have shamelessly used the tragedy of the Newtown shooting to promote their own political agenda:  banishing the second amendment altogether.  Their argument is that by banning guns, there will never be another tragedy in America.

Indeed their argument would serve well if only it made any sense.  In most states, law-abiding citizens who own guns must first pass a thorough background investigation, fingerprinting, and identification process before they can acquire any weapons.  Some states require firearms safety training before they issue permits.  Suffice it to say, those people who own guns legally must meet state standards (which differ widely by individual states) to own guns.  For someone to go through the stringent process of becoming a gun owner only for the sake of going on a shooting spree seems illogical to say the least.  Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule but most law-abiding citizens are aware of the risk they take if they use their guns to hurt innocent people.   

Typically, people who own guns legally do so for protection, recreation, or mere nostalgia.  If anything, many of these law-abiding citizens have used their weapons to defend themselves and even protect others.  A 2012 study performed by Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett for Cato Institute in Washington D.C. shows several true examples of law-abiding citizens who used their guns for self-defense purposes.   

The “right to bear arms” is a fundamental right given to every American citizen.  George Washington once said:  "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."  Yet, liberals have long forsaken Washington and are now working diligently to eradicate the Bill of Rights too.  Criminals will continue to find ways to get guns as they do even now with the current laws in place.  If anything, by banning guns, the government will only further assist criminals in attacking innocent people who will have no way to protect themselves from the criminals' dastardly deeds.  Consider what a difference it would have made on September 11, 2001 if any American citizen on Flights American 11, United 175, American 77, and United 93 had carried legally obtained guns.  What liberals seem to be missing is that those who want to commit a crime by definition are not law-abiding individuals to begin with.  As such, to expect such people to honor “reformed” laws that ban guns altogether is foolhardy.  The only thing these “reforms” will bring about is further destruction of American society. 

As with the Salem Witch Trials, and September 11, 2001, the Newtown shooting has become an infamous part of American history.  All of us will remember it forever.  It is a disgrace for the liberals to suggest that only they feel the pain for the loss of those innocent lives.  It is equally shameless for them to use the tragedy of the Newtown shooting as a way to punish law-abiding American citizens by eradicating our constitutional rights.  Laws need to be “reformed” but not to hurt those who abide by them.  September 11, 2001 united all Americans regardless of their personal beliefs, should not the Newtown tragedy do the same?