Responsibility: Obama's Lack Of Leadership Ability Becomes Apparent Amid Scandals

Responsibility is a tricky thing to handle when you don’t want it, but oh so simple when you need to have it. Presidents serve as the leader of our nation, and accept a great responsibility once they take their oath. Yes, their power is derived from the consent of the governed, but we loan them our power with great responsibility attached to it. As the President Himself has said, “To whom much is given, much is expected.” That goes for the President more than any other person in America.

So what is responsibility? The dictionary puts it like this:

Responsibility:

1: the quality or state of being responsible: as

a: moral, legal, or mental accountability

b: reliability, trustworthiness

The president has had a lot of difficulty accepting the responsibilities of his office, regardless of which definition you choose to employ.

Remember this Mr. President? You’ve said it twice. It’s supposed to MEAN something when you utter these words…

 The President’s Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Just for reference, let’s take a look at what the President’s job is, according to the Constitution…

Excerpts from Article II of the U.S. Constitution (The Presidency):

“The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

“…he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”

It’s not complicated to understand what is expected of the President. The President has a lot of responsibility placed upon him when he (or she) assumes that role. If you enter the race, you better know what you’re running for. You can’t campaign for two years hoping to become the president, and then get upset when the people hold you accountable to the responsibilities of your office.

When you run for President, just as when you apply for any job, you are asking to bear all of the responsibilities that come with that office. You, of course, want the benefits of that job, but if you don’t understand the responsibilities you will undertake, then you shouldn’t ask to hold the position. The fact is, more often than not the President is not directly responsible for failures within his administration. However, as the elected leader of the free world, we expect the President to be a true leader, and a true leader accepts responsibility for the failures of those to whom they have delegated power, even when they have no direct involvement in the situation (It would be different if we forced people to be President instead of electing them from a pool of volunteers, but obviously that’s not the case). A true leader says to him/herself, “While I was not the one to create the problem, it happened on my watch, and involved people that I am charged with overseeing. This failure may not have been my fault directly, but it is wholly my responsibility to right the wrong, and restore confidence and trust in my people/my company/my administration/my family/my country/myself.” 

Failures happen, every day. We do our best to prevent and prepare for turmoil and tragedy, but despite our best efforts things go wrong. We are human beings, and part of being human is making mistakes. Mistakes in general are unavoidable, but specific mistakes can be stopped before they ever happen if we pay attention, and consider the individual situations at hand. The key to minimizing failure is amassing as much information as possible, weighing options, and making what we perceive to be the best choice at that moment in time for ALL of those whom that decision will affect. A good leader does this by nature, and stands by all of his/her decisions because of it. If you know you made a valid, honest judgment call, and that you considered all of the information and all of the options, you should have no problem sticking to your guns and standing by your decision. On the flip side, if you know you made an uninformed, partisan decision based on what you WANT to see happen rather than what is actually true, then you’re gonna have a tough time defending your decision. When a good leader makes a decision the right way, they stick to it whether it ends well or not. When any poor leader makes what the public perceives to be a good decision, they will stand by it. But when a poor leader makes a choice that ends badly and makes the people look upon him unfavorably, they deflect blame and refuse to take responsibility. The same scenario takes place when subordinates make decisions. Good leaders who believe in the integrity of their people will defend them and still take responsibility for their decisions, regardless of outcomes. When failures happen due to negligence or ignorance, the people involved are held accountable, and when necessary they are relieved of their duties. At the same time, when the best possible solution is honestly pursued and something still goes awry, a good leader stands by the decisions of his people, takes responsibility for fixing the problem, and follows up to find out what went wrong, why, and how to prevent the same mistakes from being repeated in the future. A true leader wants the best opportunities for everyone, wants to see real solutions when problems arise, and employs people who reflect those same sentiments. That is why a true leader will take responsibility when someone under them does something stupid. They put that person there, so they most certainly bear at least some responsibility for their decisions. The key in all of these situations is the same: A true leader looks for the best solution, rather than the best looking or most popular one, and will always stand by their decisions, and the decisions of those who work/serve under them, regardless of the consequences. Poor leaders will do none of these. If you can't stand by your own choices and those of your own surrogates, why should the American people trust you?

It is my firm belief that the job of President of the United States is a privilege for all who are elected to the office, but it is also the most important job on Earth. As such, I believe that it bears the greatest amount of power AND responsibility of any job that a human being could hold in the world today. Furthermore, any person who decides that they are 1) capable of serving as President and 2) willing to do the job, MUST accept the immense responsibility that comes with serving in that office. In simple terms, if you run for President, you must be willing to accept responsibility for everything that goes wrong on your watch, just as you will certainly take credit for all of the good things that happen. If you’re not willing to take responsibility for things that you had no direct involvement in, and if you’re going to take offense when people question your leadership after failures happen, and if you refuse to stand by your own decisions or those of your administration’s officials, then you have no business asking the American people to vote for you. If you feel you have to hide a decision you’ve made or an action that you’ve taken (excluding matters of security that would put lives at risk if publicly discussed), then you’ve obviously made an indefensible mistake. If you can’t take responsibility for that mistake, you shouldn’t be President. If you can’t take the heat, then get the hell out of the seat. That goes for Congressional leaders, party leaders and every single politician who volunteers to run for office, and asks you and me to trust them with our vote. Asking for my vote is to ask to bear responsibility for every political event that affects me. Giving you my faith and confidence is fully dependent upon what happens to me on your watch. Local events land in the lap of local politicians. State events fall on State politicians. National events are the responsibility of Congress and, most of all, the President. That's just the way it is. Washington is not a Kindergarten classroom, and the “It wasn’t me” argument doesn’t cut it with the American people. It didn't cut it when Bush was president, the media made sure of that. It wouldn't have mattered anyway, because President Bush was never the "I have no clue" President. He and his administration made mistakes throughout the course of his presidency, and only a blind partisan would argue that point. But George W. Bush never once stood in front of the American people and said "Don't look at me, 9/11 wasn't MY fault" or "It wasn't MY decision to go into Iraq and look for WMD’s" or “I didn’t tell anyone to put that ‘Mission Accomplished’ sign up there” or "You'll have to ask Health and Human Services about Medicare Part D, that's got nothing to do with me." (FYI, these are just examples. I’m not saying all of these were or were not mistakes, but they were all events that Bush was challenged heavily on). Bush never would have tried to convince us that if he didn't utter the words, sign the document or push the button, then he bore no responsibility for the consequences. That's not the kind of leader he was. If he ever did deflect the blame for something, he would have been vilified instantly and vehemently, by every media outlet, and for good reason. 

The press exists for the purpose of holding people accountable to the truth. But with the exception of a few commentators, the mainstream media has all but given up on truth, opting instead to be an extension of the government’s power, rather than a restriction of it. The press has allowed Obama and his administration to take advantage of their positions. It has made the American people blind to the corruption taking place behind the media curtain. They’ve praised Obama for the “good” things he’s done, and blamed Republicans in Congress for all of the bad (the true failures, as well as things that are good for the country but the media and the President happen to disagree with). The White House waves its hand in front of the cameras saying “We’re not the ones you’re looking for” and the media jumps right to their defense. Somehow now, amid a week long bout with 3 different scandals, people are shocked that the President has the stones to tell us he knew nothing, and bears no responsibility for anything going on with Benghazi, the IRS, or the Justice Department? Well duh! That’s what he’s done for the better part of 5 years, because he had the media at his side to back him up on it. However, there may be a clearing in the fog ahead, and we’ve seen that some in the media may be starting to remember why they are actually here.

The American media has been fawning over Barack Obama since the day he stepped out onto the stage at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. As a candidate in 2008, they refused to vet him, or his associates, and attacked anyone who dared to do so. As President, they've never held him accountable for anything his administration has done, let alone things he is directly responsible for. The only reason Obama feels he can get away with playing ignorant is because he has come to rely on the media backing him up on whatever he does. They've shown us this past week that they will ask some tough questions when they are threatened, which is exactly what happened once the AP phone records story broke. A hundred people’s phone records were seized by the Justice Department, in what they are saying was part of an investigation of a national security leak. The press is pushing back now, because they see these actions as a direct blow to their first amendment rights, perpetrated by their idol Obama, and his administration. It comes as quite a shock to them, because they've protected these guys to the point that they've given up on the ideal of pursuing the truth, wherever it may lead them. They sold their souls-what was left of them- to this administration. Now that they know their absolute protection of the President and his people does not guaranty them the same absolute protection in return, they've started asking a few tough questions. They're calling the IRS debacle a scandal like the rest of us, even calling out administration officials who are dismissing the whole thing as a rogue occurrence of "inappropriate but legal" behavior. They’re even calling foul on the claim that the actions of the IRS were not based in politics. Let me be blunt folks: anyone that will look you in the eye and admit that conservative groups were targeted for more aggressive scrutiny, but argue that it was not politically motivated, is either in on it, or just plain stupid. I'd like to believe the latter, but unfortunately we know these people are actually quite intelligent and methodical. But I digress…

Some members of the media are even changing their tone on Benghazi, admitting that the State Department did in fact lie to the American people about what happened during the attack on our diplomatic mission there on the night of September 11, 2012. Let's not kid ourselves, not everyone is convinced. Many never will be. But testimonies and emails clearly show that the State Department edited the talking points that they relayed to the American people, in order to take heat away from the administration for the lack of security at that facility, which they knew had been requested and denied. They didn’t want the attack to hurt the State Department or the President’s reelection bid, so they changed the facts and pushed the narrative that the attack was a response to an internet video about Mohammad, having nothing to do with terrorists or terrorism. We know, of course, that this was far from the truth. It's not speculation or Republican conspiracy theory folks, it's irrefutable fact. The only viable justification for lying to us might have been national security, but the FBI stated in its emails that they had no problem with the original version, and that the original talking points, which asserted that terrorists linked to al Qaeda were involved in the attack, would not have hindered their investigation, nor threatened national security. The administration is still claiming no wrong was done, we on the right are still hammering hard, and now some of the mainstream press is waking up too. If it continues, then Obama and his surrogates are living on borrowed time, and their deceptions of the American people will eventually be their undoing. If the scrutiny we’ve seen this past week continues, with some of the press having removed their heads from the collective rear end of the Obama administration, then it's only a matter of time before the lies, the intimidation and the corruption come crashing down on the White House. As I said, we don't play "it wasn't me" in America. As more information is revealed about the scandal trifecta that's unfolding in Washington, we will come closer and closer to the inevitable day when- Jeremiah Wright should love this -when Barack Obama's chickens come home to roost. When that day finally comes, Obama will brazenly tell us that it wasn't his fault, and that he's not responsible, because that's the kind of "leader" he is. He's a man concerned with his own reputation, his own legacy and his own twisted view of what America is, and should be. He couldn’t care less about truth or the way things actually are. His mind sees only what he WANTS his job to be: a means to an end, the end being the downfall of America as we know her. It's not about BEING a good leader for him, it's about being PERCEIVED as one, because that perception is vital to achieving his goals. And THAT, my friends, is why President Obama refuses to take responsibility for any of the corruption that goes on around him. He believes that if he takes responsibility for his administration's failures and wrongdoings, he will not be seen as a good leader, and he will tarnish his presidency, and his legacy, ruining all the work he’s done to undermine America and her values. The irony of the situation is that if he would just come out and admit that these things have happened, declare that the buck stops with him and start sending people packing (who haven't already decided to leave), then there would be little to no ground for his opponents to stand on- unless of course it came to light that he was actively involved in these scandals, and sanctioned each of the decisions in question...there's some food for thought... But again, I digress...

The "illumination" that has taken place in the last 10 days is only illumination to some. To others of us, it’s more confirmation that President Obama is wrong for America. Many of us have questioned Obama's leadership from the beginning, and now, suddenly, more people actually want to see the truth. It's a shame that it takes a direct hit to the media's liberty for them to choose to bring light to the truth. They should be defending EVERYONE’S liberty, at all times. Their behavior thus far has been inexcusable. "Better late than never" and "I told you so" just don't quite seem to cover it. I can only say that I hope this slight revitalization of American journalism finds a way to last, and grows stronger.

We know now that the IRS scandal was deliberately hidden until after the election, which shows that the administration was more concerned with preserving Obama’s presidency than it was with actually doing its job, and being honest with the American people. The same is true of the State Department’s actions concerning the truth of what happened in Benghazi. And I believe the seizures executed by the Justice Department concerning AP were held over until now in an effort to keep the media from turning on the administration until a time when they felt they could afford the backlash. But why all of the delay and deception? Simple: they wanted a two term Obama, and they hoped that letting the truth about these events come out in the first year of his second term, rather than before the 2012 election, the people would have forgotten about it by the end of Obama’s 8th year. Their sole concern has been the president’s “legacy”. Hell, we know now that the question that sparked the IRS "apology" was actually a planted question. It doesn't get more obvious than that folks. We know that the IRS targeted enemies of the administration and then hid that fact during the election. We know they lied to us bout Benghazi to shield themselves from blame and scrutiny. And we know AP cooperated with the government concerning this "national security leak," only releasing their story to the public after the Obama administration cleared it for public viewing. So, why should we believe a word Obama says about not knowing what's going on around him? His administration has been built upon lies, and his word can't be trusted. They’ve all proven that they can’t be trusted. I'll tell you this, if you believe there's anything that goes on in Washington that President Obama isn't privy to, I've got some ocean front property in Illinois to sell you. Obama came from the Chicago political machine, and he's as narcissistic as they come- micromanagement is in his blood, folks.

The bottom line of the past week is this: Barack Obama is not a real leader, never has been, and never will be. A real leader doesn’t hide the truth from the American people to avoid harm to his agenda, his reputation, or his legacy, a coward with an agenda does. A real leader comes clean, lets us know what has happened, vows to make it right with the American people, and then keeps his word to that end. Unlike Ronald Reagan during the Iran Contra scandal, Obama will never admit to the American people that he’s responsible for his administration. It’s pathetic, and it shows his complete lack of any leadership ability. I’ve got news for the White House- we’re not going to let this go quietly into the night, and we won’t soon let Obama or his Cabinet, or anyone else working within this administration, forget what they have done to the American people, and what little “trust” in government we had left. With some luck, this just may lead to a happy November 2014...but I digress...

Stay Strong, and Keep Fighting for the Truth

Background Checks: The Untold Story

Here's my problem with expanding background checks. It has nothing to do with the gun lobby, and no Liberal can understand it because it's much deeper than "the Constitution says...". I'll try to keep simple enough that they can at least follow along...

First and foremost, you have to understand that laws do not thwart criminals from committing crimes. By definition, criminals BREAK the law, so no law will stop or hinder a criminal seeking to harm people. However, ill-conceived laws intended to stop criminals can actually hurt law abiding citizens. Expanded background checks are a perfect example. You might argue that if a lawful citizen can't pass a background check that must not actually obey the law. That's a moot point because I'm defending those who would pass, not those who would not. Passing is not my concern with this issue. The fault I find in background check lies in putting time between a free, law abiding person and the protection of their rights. No lawful citizen should have to wait to defend themselves or their property. Good examples would include a woman dealing with an abusive boyfriend, stalker, etc., or a family living in a neighborhood prone to violent crime, or anyone who has been directly threatened by another person. Time can make all the difference if you feel threatened and don't already have a gun or ammunition, but the bad guy does (if you were just offended by the term "bad guy" you can stop reading now and go color somewhere). If you have to wait a day, three days or a week to acquire the means to protect yourself, then that background check or waiting period can put enough time between you and protection to cause the situation to end in harm to you or even loss of life. Case in point- it took the state of Illinois a month to process my father's application for his F.O.I.D. card, which he has to have before buying and registering a gun in Illinois. Within that month's time frame, in his own neighborhood, he and my mother drove right into a shooting in progress, with no protection whatsoever. By the grace of God they were able to floor it out of the shooter's path and get out of harm's way. I can't say the same for others involved. There were several calls made to the police, but later that night the shooter was still strutting around the neighborhood like he owned the place. To my knowledge he was never caught. That guy most likely went to a friend, or friend of a friend, or a random house somewhere in town, or a parked car behind a vacant building, handed over a wad of cash (most likely acquired by criminal means) and left with the gun he proceeded to use against others. Meanwhile my father, the law abiding citizen looking to protect himself, my mother, their property and their freedom, had to wait a month to be allowed to buy a gun, BESIDES the waiting period for the gun itself. Look folks, the government knows instantly if you've cheated on your taxes, and banks can run credit checks to approve or decline you for a loan in seconds. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to find out if you have a criminal record or a history of mental illness. And if you can't tell if the person standing in front of you is buying on an impulse because they want to harm someone, you need to change professions. If you do think a customer is going to do someone harm, call the police and let them know. Waiting periods put too much time between a person and the ability to protect themselves. I could live with taking ten minutes to make the verification if the government would admit they can do it, but I also don't want the government to know that I have any guns, or which ones. Unlike a few out there, I have no reason to trust this government, or the last one, or the next one. If someday down the road, some lunatic of a president gets the idea to forcefully usher in a new era of x, y or z by taking guns and forcing people to comply with his will, I don't want his supporters to know I have the ability to defend myself until I can see the whites of their eyes (thank you for understanding the significance of that reference). The president can duck and dodge all he wants, but the fact is if the government has to be notified of our weapons purchases, they CAN use the information to create a registry. I'm not accusing him of planning to do so. I don't need to. The fact is, it's a POSSIBILITY. And not just for Obama, but for those who will come into the White House after him as well. Liberals always deal in the here and now and refuse to look out into the future. I refuse to consent to any powers the government wants, that can be used to oppress the people, because they CAN lead to some nut job taking over, not because I know who and when. I don't know who or when, and I can't know that. The fact that we can never know who or when is a big reason that I refuse to give the government the OK to expand background checks, giving them greater ability to keep tabs on us. It's not about knowing it WILL happen. It's about knowing it COULD happen. Where our lives and liberty are concerned, we should take no chances. We know that governments have been able to turn on the people in the past. We are the last refuge for freedom on this earth, and we have a responsibility to ourselves and our posterity to keep liberty alive. We can afford no games of chance.

Look, I get the "on paper" argument for expanding background checks, but the reality is it will never work in practice, and will in fact have the opposite of the intended effect, because criminals will continue to operate outside of the law, and law abiding citizens will have to wait longer to arm themselves against those criminals. The real solution to gun violence, any violence for that matter, lies in asking WHY people kill, and WHY people harm others at all, not WHAT WEAPON they choose to employ. If we put time and money into why people kill we can find better, individualized solutions to crime that center on the criminal. Whether it's due to mental instability, or out of sudden anger (still a mental issue) or because they see others as a mere means to an end and kill to get things they want (still miffed up in the head), criminals won't be swayed by laws.  If we attack the real problem rather than symptoms, we can get some real answers and come up with real solutions for keeping our streets safe and our children alive. No killer will ever be stopped or hindered by laws, but if we change our approach to the subject we can find something that will actually work. If you refuse to address the problem, you don't honestly want to fix it. Either you truly don't understand the nature of the situation, or you need the symptom to BE the problem, to serve some ulterior motive. I would hope that those who wish to restrain our rights are simply ignorant idealists, but the evidence to the contrary continues to mount. I fear they may actually WANT us to be defenseless and vulnerable to somehow justify bigger government takeover. That evidence is mounting as well...

As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to protect those rights as well. If I am free to live, I must be free to protect my own life, so long as I do not harm others in doing so. If I am free to enjoy liberty, I must be free to protect my liberty, for if a cannot keep and protect my own freedom, I am not truly free. And if I am free to pursue happiness, I must be free to decide what makes me happy, physically, emotionally, spiritually or otherwise, and to protect my own happiness from those who wish to take it from me. It is not the government's job to verify WHETHER we are allowed to defend ourselves, it is government's job to ENSURE we retain the right and ability to defend ourselves. To be secure in our lives, liberty and property, we must have the ability to defend ourselves from all who may seek to encroach upon those rights. That includes individuals as well as government. Anyone who trusts only the government to keep them secure in their life, liberty and property has already agreed to relinquish their rights. We have the right to defend ourselves, and to me that right bears a great deal of responsibility as well. So you support expanded background checks if you want, you're free to male good decisions as well as bad ones. In the meantime I'll be here, fighting for freedom, my right to defend myself.

Never Relinquish the Fight

We The People: To Know Where We're Going, We Must Acknowledge Where We've Been

Every day I see more reason to expect the worst for America. Our govt has been untrustworthy as a whole for decades. Politicians stopped pursuing honor, integrity, justice and freedom for the people long ago. Journalism has long abandoned the search for truth, choosing instead to sway public opinion in the direction their supposedly "enlightened" minds see fit. All this we know, and all this we ignore- most of us anyway. Too many of us don't care what goes on in Washington, or in our own cities for that matter, either because we think none of it matters, or because we believe we have no power to bring about change. I could spend hours spouting various quotes and evoking ideals patriotism and the pride of the individual, in an attempt to convince you, or re-instill in you, that to believe we the people have no power over the government or the media is inherently false. I'll spare you the passionate ramble on Capitalism, the Constitution and Individual Liberty- at least for the moment. Instead I want to explain WHY we've come to a juncture in the American story at which the great nation of the people by the people and for the people has been reduced to a nation of the ignorant, by the elitists and for the state. Many of us who pay attention know how we got here, but many don't. Even fewer are ready to admit WHY. We can blame Republicans and Democrats until we're blue in the face and never scrape the surface of the problem. It's not a matter of failed policies and rampant corruption- that's HOW we hot here, not WHY.

It may sound strange, but we can't blame politicians for all of it. You can't place all the blame on poor policies, poorly implemented, because at some point, directly or otherwise, those ideas were signed off on by someone else, higher up the chain. Those policies were allowed to come to fruition by the very people who are meant to keep government in check. The people with the most power over government have allowed that power to be hijacked by corrupt men and women who believe that America and freedom are the problem, not the solution. Slowly but surely, the corrupt have slithered their way into every facet of our daily lives, from schools to churches to the media and even the White House. Yes, they've corrupted the American dream, demonized and discouraged individual talent and success, and put us on a path toward inevitable meltdown through blatant corruption and utter stupidity- and that's putting it nicely. However, they were ALLOWED to do so. WE have allowed it. We can complain all we want about the state of our union, but most Americans are tacitly complicit at minimum, and in the worse cases we've been actively complicit. We removed ourselves from the equation of the American political system, and so allowed those who would destroy our way of life to begin to do just that. We quit teaching our children to be virtuous, responsible and productive. We quit teaching our children to be involved, informed citizens. We didn't tell them that ignorance is the vessel through which tyranny arises. We lost our focus. We lost our resolve. We lost our will to stand up for Liberty, and the inalienable rights endowed to us by nature, and nature's God.

I would love to blame Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for all of our problems. I'd love to prove that RINO Republicans are responsible for allowing things to get this bad. I would love to be able to tell you with conviction that America has been duped into submitting to the leftists, but I can't. The fact is, we gave up on our own values, as a nation, a long time ago. There are individuals all over who still believe in the Constitution, the rule of law and the power of the individual. Not everyone has lost their principles. Unfortunately, we lost a key element to of the endurance of America. We forgot that we are ONE nation of many individuals. We've become instead a shredded mix of classes, separated by random collections of characteristics. The poor combat the wealthy, the minorities combat the old white guys, the heterosexuals combat the homosexuals, the faithful combat the atheists- and all the while no one cares what goes on in Washington as long as their specific cause isn't hurt by it. Much of the time it's the government that ignites these spats among us. And instead of performing our civic duty and turning our focus to stopping the government in its tracks, we play right into their hands by fighting amongst ourselves. The government gets to do whatever it want while we bicker in the streets. Through the generations, fewer and fewer Americans have passed down the ideals of our founding, and have chosen instead to embrace government as their provider, teacher and even healer. We stopped pursuing our own individual successes, and we no longer search for the truth in the world around us. We've become a country of gimme, rather than a nation of givers. We're lazy. We want the world at no cost. We want the best money can buy without working to earn a dime. We're helpless to support ourselves, and ignorant of the world beyond our front doors. We believe we are entitled to anything we want, and we have to drive to EARN any of it. It has to stop. If we continue to ignore our responsibility to stand up for our principles, this trend will continue, and our nation will continue to deteriorate until it's too late. IT HAS TO STOP.

My friends, I will never give up hope for a revival of the American spirit, and I will never stop believing that America's brightest days are yet to come. But if we're serious about making real, lasting changes for the betterment of our union and our posterity, we have to look first in the mirror, with open minds, and honest hearts. For most of us, it was never a conscious effort on our part, but we are here nonetheless. The only crime most of us are guilty of is inaction. But here we are. Until we accept some responsibility as a nation, and begin to BE the change America needs, everything will continue as it has for so long, and all out failure will eventually come to us. This is not a problem that can be solved by a few individuals, or even 300 million of them. It's a problem that HAS to be challenged head on by one nation, unified in its passion for life, liberty and pursuing individual happiness. As much as I wish I could say they were, politicians are not wholly to blame for our problems, and in all honesty that's always been the case. If we the people had never lost sight of our principles, and never relinquished our power to the government we are charged with constraining, then no man, woman, committee, house, Congress, court or President would have been able to use our power against us. The facts are as lamentable as they are undeniable- the true culprits here, the people who are most responsible for WHY America has found itself at this crossroad, are the very people who are most directly harmed by the current state of our union- WE THE PEOPLE. Too many Americans have no idea what their role is in our republic, and therefore have no clue about how we can make this nation work for all of us again. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, but you can't break those eggs if you don't know the recipe. That is our charge now- to make every American aware of their role in our government. We must not rest until the Constitution is as familiar to each of us as our own name. Fighting for freedom and the strength of the individual should come as natural to us as eating and breathing. If these now marginalized American values are not restored as our universal foundation, America will fall. Maybe in ten years, maybe in a hundred. It's merely a matter of time. I will do whatever I can bring America back with a passion. I will not rest, and I will never stop reaching out to my fellow Americans in hopes of igniting in them the same passion for liberty that burns within my soul. I am one individual pursuing liberty, amonsgt many individuals divided by government. America needs to be one nation of many diverse individuals, unified in liberty. You knw as well as I do that we can't trust the government with our future. WE THE PEOPLE must make it happen.

Liberty, Truth and Justice for all

Dear Mr President: YOU ARE THE PROBLEM

     If you still need proof that Barack Obama is just as clinically narcissistic as fellow Illinois politician/headcase Rod Blagojevich, look no further than his statements from Sunday. In an interview with the Liberal magazine The New Republic, Obama said the following (via The New Republic):

"And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don't think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground."

"One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it."

     First of all, since when is it Congress's job to "feel productive"? It's their job to do what the American people tell them to do, and the same is true of your job Mr.President. The point of our government is neither to compromise nor to get rival lawmakers to "abandon their principles." The point of our government is to keep America's people safe and free. The fact that you would even insinuate that Congress "works" only when it aims to compromise or undercut the other party's principles speaks volumes to your lack of leadership, and your arrogance.

     Speaking of arrogance, let me now expound on my earlier assertion. That Barack Obama is in fact a narcissist. Just look at the arrogance of his statements to The New Republic. The man has the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, & even CNN constantly campaigning for him from their newsrooms, not to mention the countless other newspapers, magazines, local news programs, liberal blogs, far left websites like moveon.org and thinkprogress.org, think tanks like the George Soros funded Center for American Progress, pseudo-watchdog sites like Media Matters- again George Soros- and on down the list, that continually push his agenda rather than search for the truth. (Side Bar: If you don't know the name George Soros, learn it now and learn everything you can about him if you want to stay well armed with knowledge. He is an enemy to everything America stands for). President Obama has all of these Libtards all but on his payroll, and he has the AUDACITY (Punny right?) to claim that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are 1)biased and 2) to blame for his own failures in perpetuating his super Liberal agenda. And to top it off folks, the cherry on top of the sundae of hypocrisy- he says this garbage in a softball interview with one of his drooling Libby media groupies- which is the only kind of interview the man ever does. George W. Bush went on programs that disagreed with him. They chewed him up every time and he kept going back. Love him or hate him, Bush was a lot of things, but afraid of the Liberal media he was not. Obama is afraid of anyone who will ask real questions. He is afraid of dissent on any form. He has an ego bigger than the sum he's added to our debt, and he truly believes he is some kind of chosen one sent to liberate us all from the evils of America. He is, my friends, the very definition of a narcissist. He truly believes he is above is all, that only he knows the answers, and that he can do no wrong. Anyone and everyone who disagrees is not FOR something else in his mind, but AGAINST him. They're just jealous little people by his estimation, and for anyone to disagree with him at all, especially publicly, is reprehensible and ought to be met with bold punishment as far as he's concerned. Try this- click here and read the list of symptoms associated with narcissism. It describes Barack Obama to the letter. And if you somehow can't see it now, remember those symptoms the next time you watch him speak or read about his policies. You'll be amazed at what you pick up on now that you know the symptoms.

     It is truly unconscionable that this is the kind of man is now in charge of the shining city on the hill. The world's last hope for freedom now rests in the hands of a man that believes AMERICA and LIBERTY are the problem, rather than GOVERNMENT and TYRANNY.
The fact that our president is so arrogant, petty, and childish is remarkably frightening. Richard Nixon was a bit of a mess upstairs but Obama is about 3 fries short of a Happy Meal folks. This, man who TWICE volunteered, campaigned and spent billions to be the leader of the free world, cannot take criticism whatsoever, constructive or otherwise. It is ludicrous at best, and at worst it costs lives folks (FYI it already has in Benghazi, Egypt, Syria, and even in our own streets VIA negligence at times and deliberate actions at others. Obama's arrogance is just as prevalent in foreign policy as it is in domestic affairs). He retaliates against dissent like a 5 year old on a playground somewhere screaming, "I know you are but what am I?!" And yes, the proverbial tongue gets metaphorically stuck out too.  But the mainstream media thugs and the Liberal pundits and bureaucrats continue to give him a free pass at every turn, as if their very survival on this planet depends on it. That's not to mention celebrities and business professionals who use their access to the public to push Obama's Liberal policies. All of this feeds into Obama's Narcissism, making him believe that he is actually being effective. President Obama expects everyone to simply sit down, shut up and give in to his will, because "elections have consequences" and he sure knows what's best for us. That is the antithesis of what Liberty is, what free speech is, and what free press is.

     The press exists to question everything and everyone with the same rigorous tenacity, and the same single goal in mind: to find the TRUTH, whatever it may be. We lost that vital piece of American Liberty long ago, and today's media is so head-over-heels in love with Liberal Progressives, and more specifically Barack Obama, that we have been driven like cattle to a pivotal tipping point in American history that may well lead to outright war within the next century or less if we don't do something now to turn ourselves around. You may think that notion a bit surreal, but when you consider that in just three decades we've gone from government and tyranny being the problem, and less government and more Liberty being the solution, to "all government all the time because government knows what's best for you," a full scale civil war in the relatively near future doesn't sound so far fetched anymore.

     The president's policies are unpopular among people who pay attention, but the media hides it. The economy is stagnant, but the media hides it. Our Liberty is under attack, but the media hides it. America is in a fragile place. It is now, more than ever, that we NEED the media to probe the president, and all politicians in pursuance of the truth, whatever it is. And it is now more than ever that the Narcissist-in-chief is lashing out, spitting on the American way, and maligning anyone who dares to ask honest questions and exercise patriotic dissent.

     Mr. President, you have a vast, overwhelming majority of the media pushing your policies and advocating for your agenda, and you blame 2 of the small minority of outlets that DON'T agree with you- a minority with whom more of the country identifies than with you and your cohorts- for your shortcomings in your tenure as President- for your failures as a leader, for your polarizing ideological agenda, for your arrogant dismissal of the Constitution, and for your inability to entertain the idea that you are indeed fallible. How sad is the state of your Presidency when you can't and won't fathom that you are failing because of your own actions and beliefs. You can't even acknowledge that anyone but you could be right, about anything. How pathetic is your agenda when you have to blame a Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for the fact that your armada of media drones hasn't done an effective enough job of brainwashing the public and turning them into little obedient Libtards. You look one direction and pretend to champion transparency, bipartisanship and liberty, then look the other direction and demand, as a child does, to have your way, refuse, as a crook does, to answer the people's questions and shove, as a dictator does, regulation after regulation of our freedom down our throats. At the end of the day it doesn't take a pollster or a pundit to figure it out. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are not the problem Mr. President,

YOU ARE

Stay Conservative, and Keep Looking to the Future

A Word On Virtue In Capitalism

Instead of putting your faith in a collective that gets to decide what is best for you, does it not make sense to put your faith and your efforts behind the only person you can ever know for sure to be looking out for you- yourself?


Individual talent and ability are your best tools for advancing yourself in a Capitalist society. A virtuous person knows this, understands this, accepts this and takes advantage of this. Liberals want to take the individual, and consequently the effort, out of the equation. They want to take away the need for virtuous people. But wouldn't a virtuous people know this and stand against such policies? Yes. But then, we don't teach virtue in our schools do we?

The Progressive Bill Of Rights: "Living Breathing" Actually Means "Let The Government Decide"

    It is a fact my friends that the rights which we enjoy as citizens of the United States are guaranteed, unalienable and endowed to us not by government, by Nature and Nature's God. The founders were resolute on this matter. However, modern politicians seems to be unprecedentedly unified in opposition to this fact. The most dangerous belief circulating within our society is that government has the authority to create, distribute and rescind our rights. It is this thought that will be our undoing. It has already done so much to unravel the fabric that America was made with. It has crippled our ability to fully and properly function as a nation. People don't want to take responsibility, ANY responsibility, for themselves. The government is increasingly becoming the sole means of support for millions of Americans. We spend nearly $100 billion a week just to maintain the monster that is our Federal Government, and rather than coming to the conclusion that we should dramatically reduce our spending and better equip ourselves morally and physically to make our own successes, we continue instead to see a problem in the "unfairness" of America, and so decide to spend MORE to attempt to correct this "unfairness." The more authority over our lives we give to the government, the more freedom we give up, and the more improbable it becomes that we will see any true and lasting solutions to the problems we face every day. The founders agreed, as I do too, that the rights we are promised by the Constitution come from outside of government. Whether you want to call it God, or Nature, or Primordial Goo, the fact remains that GOVERNMENT is not where our rights come from. Though this is a fact, and though it is also a fact that government has no authority to alter or take away these rights, it is happening every day. This is not a Conservative issue, or a Liberal issue, or a Democratic issue, or a Republican issue. It is an American issue. It is a violation of our fundamental beliefs, and if we have any hopes for a future brighter than what currently lies beyond the horizon, we have to stand now, and make a change.

 
    The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution because many Americans at the time were afraid that without it, the government would someday follow the path of King James- but become a tyrant of many rather than only one man. In their deliberations, it was decided that it was absolutely crucial to include in the Supreme Law of the Land, an enumeration of the rights which are guaranteed to all citizens, and which cannot be taken away from those who follow the law. It was meant as a wall of protection to keep us from becoming victims to the tyrannical ambitions of those who would serve as our representatives. Some might call it a "Separation of Rights and State," meaning that the power to distribute and rescind rights (from those citizens who respect and honor their rights and the rights of others) is not and should not be attainable by the government. The Constitution was written for a purpose, and with purpose. The words are specific when necessary and vague when necessary as well. It was done this way to make certain aspects immovable, and others variable. The founders understood that with time many things would change, so an elaborate and detailed map for how to live every moment of every day was not just impractical, but impossible. However, they also knew that if we were to maintain our freedom through the ages, it must be made clear that we have rights that come from outside of government and that those rights are guaranteed, not to be altered or taken away by government. Our rights were never meant to be "interpreted" as the years passed by, they were meant as they are. Nowadays we hear the term "Living Breathing Document" from people who want an easy way to navigate around those portions of the Constitution which are a hindrance to those with less than pure intentions. That school of thought is not about adapting to "unforeseeable changes," but rather changing or eliminating foreseeable obstacles to political ambition. Many people hear "adapting the Constitution to the issues of the day" and think "What's wrong with that?" I can tell you exactly what's wrong with it. The Constitution was set up so that if we decide that some part of it must be changed to adapt to modern circumstances, we have a detailed set of instructions for how to do so. That is how we got prohibition, and also the amendment repealing prohibition. It's a thing of beauty when you think about it. If there is enough support around the country, an amendment to the constitution can be made to correct current conditions or to provide guidelines for brand new ones. What's more is that ALL of them remain in the document. We can see not only what we've changed, but what we've changed in error. To advocate for the "living breathing document" interpretation of the Constitution is to support ignoring the Constitution when it becomes inconvenient to abide by it. If real change is warranted, and supported by the people, then the Constitution can be amended to include such changes. When such widespread support does not exist, Progressive minds look to the "living breathing document" way of thinking to circumvent parts of the Constitution that stand in the way of their own agendas.

 
I spoke of the Progressives in this country. This is a depiction of what the Bill of Rights MEANS to them:

 
New American Progressive Interpretation of the Bill of Rights (The Living Breathing Document)

 
Amendment I

 
    Congress Shall make no law respecting any Religion, nor the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (unless it is necessary to restrict free speech in order to perpetuate the Federal Government's agenda), or of the press (The press shall be used when necessary to perpetuate the agenda of the Federal Government, both in restriction of the free press and in limiting access to information); or the right of the people to peaceably assemble (except in cases in which allowing the people to assemble would injure the ability of the Federal Government to perpetuate its agenda), and to petition the Federal Government for redress of grievances (except in instances in which accepting such petitions would be counterproductive to the Federal Government's goals).

 
Amendment II

 
    Those who would serve in a State Sponsored Militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms, so long as the number of those arms is not excessive. The type, size, capabilities and ammunitions of weapons available for purchase by these individuals shall be determined and revised by the Federal Government as necessary. At such time as a State Sponsored Militia no longer exists, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be restricted as the Federal Government sees fit.

 
Amendment III

 
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, Nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. This Amendment shall be subject to change at the Federal Government's discretion    

 
Amendment IV

 
    The right of the people and their persons, houses, papers, and effects, to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. Exceptions may be made at the Federal Government's discretion in cases in which it would be beneficial to violate this Amendment for personal or political purpose. No warrants shall be issued without probable cause and particularly describing the places to be searched and the persons/property to be seized. There may be exceptions in such circumstances that such searches and seizures are vital to "National Security" as defined by the Federal Government. In these instances this Amendment does not apply, nor does it apply when to abide by it would hinder the Federal Government's ability to perpetuate its agenda.

 
Amendment V

 
    No person shall be held to answer for infamous crimes unless indicted by a grand jury, except in Military matters, or when it is deemed necessary by the Federal Government; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, unless it is decided by the government that an exception be made in specific instances; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against oneself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, except in those cases in which it is necessary to do so in order for the Federal Government to perpetuate its agenda (such as in cases of "National Security"; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. This provision may be ignored at the Federal Government's discretion for purposes to be described by the Federal Government.

 
Amendment VI

 
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. The definition of "speedy" may be defined by the Federal Government, and this definition may be altered at the Federal Government's discretion. The trial shall be overseen by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. This right may be altered or rescinded at the discretion of the Federal Government when it is deemed necessary.

 
Amendment VII

 
    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tries by a jury, shall otherwise be re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. When and if the Federal Government sees fit, this Amendment may be ignored in certain specific instances, the characteristics of which shall be defined by the Federal Government.

 
Amendment VIII

 
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The terms "excessive" "cruel" and "unusual" shall be defined and regulated by the Federal Government, and may be altered at its discretion.

 
Amendment IX

 
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The Federal Government shall have the power to deny or disparage such rights at such times and in such manner as they see fit.

 
Amendment X

 
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people The powers here mentioned shall be defined and classified by the Federal Government as it sees fit. These definitions and classifications may be altered at the discretion of the Federal Government.

 

 
    I will never argue that the Constitution is without flaw, just as I would never try to convince you that Capitalism is without flaw. However, it is my belief that the Constitution of the United States of America is in fact the CLOSEST thing to a perfect design for government that has ever existed in human history. I believe that if we understand its meaning and understand its purpose, and follow its own guidelines for "adapting" to change, we can't go wrong. To simply abandon ship when to going gets less than convenient and cast into the wind all of our most deeply held principles is cowardly, immoral and anti-American. If we continue to allow Congress and the President to lead us down our current path, the satirical Bill of Rights you just read will no longer be satire, but reality. We can't let that happen folks. We have to stand up, stand together and stand for forever, for freedom. That is the only hope we have of bringing the D.C. Monster to its knees and restoring prosperity in America.

 
Stay Conservative, and Keep Looking to the Future

Gun Rights and Gun Crime: We The People ARE the "Well Regulated Militia"

          I've stayed out of the gun control debate this week out of respect for the families of the victims of the shooting in Newtown, CT. Today marks one week since the incident, and I believe it is time to start looking at how we can keep this type of horrific tragedy from happening again. To come up with a strategy that will accomplish this goal AND keep our unalienable rights intact, we have too look at the facts about our rights, the effects of gun control legislation, and most importantly we need to ask the question, "Why do people kill?" I believe this is an issue, like many in our country, that begins with upbringing, and hinges on what people learn about America and the world growing up.Virtue and morality play a huge role in this debate, and to ignore the impact of what people are taught at home and in school about our rights and guns and violent crime, is to deny ourselves information paramount to finding real solutions. That said, let's dive on in...

          The right to keep and bear arms was put into our Constitution to protect our liberty. It was meant as protection from others who may use their free will to harm. The founders believed deeply that we have the right to life, liberty and personal property. They also believed that we have the right to protect our lives, liberty and property from ALL who may wish to infringe upon our rights, or take them from us. There has always been evil in the world, and there will always be evil. Bad people exist, and without severely encroaching upon the liberty of our citizens, we can never completely eliminate violence or murder. The best we can do is to severely reduce to amount of violence and murder that takes place, by any means necessary, within the powers of the Constitution. To believe otherwise is nothing short of delusional. The founders understood this. They reasoned that because there is always a chance that others will try to inflict harm upon you, we must be able to protect ourselves, and so we have the right to keep and bear arms. This is where Liberals will scram, “They said the militia needs guns! The 2nd amendment is about Militias!” Calm down Don Lemon fans, and listen to the TRUTH for a change. What the Constitution says is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Some people focus on “Militia” or the “reason” for this right, while others say that regardless of the “reason” it is clear that we “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms. I happen to believe that the reason IS important, and that it is BECAUSE of the reason that the founders believed this is a God given right.

          The term “regulated” has a very different meaning in general use today than it did in this specific instance more than 2 centuries ago. We say “regulated” to describe something that has rules, guidelines and procedures governing its existence, such as food standards or business practices. Driving a car is a regulated practice. Interactions with the environment are highly regulated. The meaning of “regulation” today is defined as “an official rule, law, or order stating what may or may not be done or how something must be done.” Even if we are never explicitly taught this term, it is easy to understand when we hear people say, “environmental regulations,” “banking regulations,” or “firearm regulations.” Naturally, when we read “well regulated militia” in the 2nd amendment, we automatically think “a militia governed by various rules and procedures.” That thinking is simply incorrect, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, we’re talking about more than 200 years of language evolution. Before you start arguing about “what it says” and “what they meant,” you have to look first at the language itself and what we KNOW about the words they used. For example, the term “regulated,” in the 1700s, meant the same thing it means today- sometimes. Like many other words, “regulated” had multiple used depending on what people were talking about. The other, quite commonly used meaning of the term was “Properly Disciplined.” Properly disciplined, or “practiced,” means something very different from, “guided by rules or laws stating what can and cannot be done.” So, you have to look at the context of the usage to determine what definition was being referenced (Anyone remember learning context clues in school?). Here is the full text of the second amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          This is still somewhat foggy. So let’s look at what “Militia” meant. In general, could refer to EITHER the actual active militia enlisted for service, or, more broadly, the available men that could be called up to serve in the militia-which was basically every able bodied male of a certain age. So now we have “well regulated Militia” equating to “properly disciplined citizens that can be called to serve in the militia” So the Liberal argument becomes, “We have the National Guard and we don’t have militias anymore, so the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply. There is no individual right to have and use guns.” My reply is simple- don’t jump the gun (I’ve been looking for the right place to be punny). As I said, in Colonial America, the “militia” consisted of every able bodied male of a certain age, they could be called up to serve at any time (today we would consider this to be every able bodied PERSON). Alexander Hamilton explained that expert military skill is not learned in a day or a month, but over the course of many years of practice and development. So, those eligible to serve in the militia should have the right to keep arms so they may become disciplined, or “well regulated,” in using them. An effective militia was important to the founders because they believed it to be “the best and most natural defense of a free country,” as James Madison put it. They understood that free men must be able to defend themselves, and should never resign their defense solely to the standing Army of the government. In other words, the people should be disciplined in arms so that they may defend themselves- from the government just as much as from any foreign invader. Their idea of “Militia” was the whole of the people, everyone willing to fight for freedom and against tyranny. These men understood tyranny and liberty. They lived through the tyranny of the crown, and fought fiercely for the liberty of their nation, our nation. They knew that tyranny can come at any moment, from any direction, and that only constant vigilance would keep it at bay. Part of that vigilance included preparations for defending ourselves. Free men must be able to protect their freedom, from individuals as well as foreign threats, and most importantly, from their own government. Alexander Hamilton said:

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens” (Federalist 29)

In other words, should the government raise an Army (which we have) it could not be used against the people, at the direction of a tyrannical government (or any other entity for that matter), so long as a large body of citizens of close to equal, or better skill are ready to fight for their God-given rights. The right to bear arms was never about hunting, or sport, or even a military need. It was always about defending freedom. If the government decides to strip us of our rights, which they have no authority to do since our rights come from our creator, then we must be able to defend ourselves, and with ample discipline. Therefore, every person, able and willing to defend their freedom should the moment come, has the right to keep and bear arms, for it is necessary to become skilled with those arms if we are to be able to defend our rights. We the people are the “well regulated Militia.”

          Now, it is clear that the government has no authority to take away the right to bear arms. It does not come from them, and therefore it is not for them to decide to take it away. If the government wants to take gun rights, they first have to make a constitutional amendment stating that government creates and allocates rights. Second, they have to make a constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment, and possibly replace it with something like, “The right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed upon at the government’s discretion.” That can’t happen. The government CANNOT amend the constitution to say that our rights come from government rather than our Creator. That is not an amendment, it is a fundamental change (hmm…) that completely upends the principles that our country was founded on, built on and survives on. To amend the Constitution to convey that our rights come from government rather than God is nothing short of treason. So either all citizens who wish to defend their liberty have the right to keep and bear arms, or the government must commit a collective act of treason.

          It’s sad and frightening that some people, who are out in the world driving cars, interacting with other humans and possibly procreating, need to have COMMON SENSE explained to them. I will never understand how people with no concept of common sense can get themselves dressed in the morning, let alone be elected to public office. But it happens, and for the time being it seems all we can do it beat them over the head with common sense, hoping that some might seep in. For those people out there, let me make this as simple as I can:

First of all, I'd like to point to two places where gun control logic- no guns = no crimes- fails to hold true.

Chicago, IL: Strictest gun control laws in the nation, AND the highest murder rate in the nation

Switzerland: All men are required to serve in the Swiss military for a certain amount of time. They are given hand guns and rifles to keep in their homes and become proficient with. Their society teaches a deep belief that citizens share a civic responsibility to possess the knowledge, abilities and equipment to defend themselves and others. Lowest crime rates IN THE WORLD.

Obviously it is not the presence or absence of guns that determines the rate of murders, or even crime in general. Here are some more common sense arguments against gun control…

**Guns Don’t Kill People, and neither do planes, or knives or cars. People kill people.

          It happens every day, worldwide. If we didn’t have guns, then knives or bats, lead pipes, or something else would take their place. It’s not about the weapon. It’s always about what is going on in the mind of the person holding the gun. Whether the person doesn’t value life, or they believe the ends justify the means or they have serious mental health issues, it takes a mental commitment to pull the trigger of a gun with the intent to hurt or kill another person. Whether you’re talking about a police officer shooting a criminal in the line of duty, or a sociopath cutting someone down for pleasure, they have to make a mental decision to pull the trigger. Virtuous people who value life only make a decision like that if it is the only option. It’s not a decision made lightly for a person that respects life, and the weapon in their hand- like a police officer, or citizens defending themselves. Some people do not think in those terms. Some people make the decision to pull the trigger with no thought whatsoever about the person in front of the barrel or what it means to kill. In either case, the WEAPON makes no decisions, it exercises no free will and it kills NO ONE. So the way to reign in gun crime is not to pass gun control legislation, because people will find another means of carrying out their crime. You have to start by asking “Why do people kill?” It’s a question with many answers, but it has to be asked. It will take time and a lot of effort to come up with specific answers, but it has to be done if we are going to be serious about lowering murder rates. Once we are able to come up with those answers, we can then move to “How do we keep THOSE things from occurring and/or keep people from deciding to KILL in those situations?” THEN we can implement the policies and legislation that come with the answers to that second question. It all starts with asking the right questions and looking for real answers, rather than reacting out of fear and ignorance.

**Driving drunk and possessing/using Heroine are illegal and PEOPLE STILL FIND WAYS TO DO IT.

          The scarier thought is how many people manage to get away with these crimes completely unnoticed. Criminals who are intent on committing crimes will commit crimes regardless, unless the punishments for those crimes are swift, certain and severe. Even then, some people will still break the law. Taking guns away is not the answer because it is merely one avenue of committing crimes. Even taking away ALL avenues for committing the crime will not fix anything. Only addressing WHY crimes happens will lead to real solutions. Banning things used to commit crimes does nothing.

**If no one who respects and is trained to use guns is allowed to have them, then the criminals who wish to do harm, most of whom have ILLEGALLY obtained their weapons in the first place, will be the only ones in possession of guns.

          As I said, criminals will commit crimes, even if they have to use illegally obtained weapons (crazy right? Criminals committing crimes, with criminally obtained weapons…who’d have thought?). Criminals are not law abiding citizens, so laws will not stop them from being criminals and doing criminal things. Gun control laws only hurt law abiding citizens. If you take guns away from those who intend to use them properly, those who respect the weapon and its uses, and who wish to protect their own rights as well as those of others around them, you punish the very people you pretend to be protecting. If lawful citizens can’t have guns, then criminals will be much less deterred from committing crimes.

**The answer is not in restricting or deterring gun ownership. It’s in deterring crime with severe & certain consequences, and finding ways to combat the mental decision to commit murder.

          If punishments for crimes are not swift, certain and just severe enough, they will not deter crime. That is one of the biggest problems we have in America when it comes to crime. Punishment certainly doesn't always happen swiftly. People get out on bail, trials take months or years to take place and even after they are over, there are appeals that can tie the process up for a very long time. Yes, criminals can sit in jail awaiting trial and sentencing but that is a generic consequence. What I mean by that is that it's not the punishment for drug trafficking, or embezzlement or murder. It’s the limbo between arrest and punishment. The time between arrest and sentence needs to be very small so that criminals know their punishment is coming quickly. The tougher issue is the time between the commission of a crime and the arrest. If criminals know that they will be caught quickly, i.e. the police are very good at solving crimes and tracking perps, it will deter them from making the attempt. If we can just get to the point that people know they will get caught, that will do a lot. Of course, that’s assuming they give a damn about jail or other punishments in the first place, which is yet another piece to this puzzle- one that gets its roots in upbringing- but I digress.

          The second piece to the crime deterrent equation is certainty. Not only do criminals need to know that consequences will come quickly, they need to know with certainty that X punishment goes with Y crime. They need to know that they WILL be caught and the WILL go to jail, lose rights, privileges, etc. There is a lot of wiggle room in what punishments go with which crimes. Plea bargains often turn big crimes into minor sentences. The judicial process often leads to a dead end when evidence does not prove guilt, or at least a lesser sentence. Loopholes and shifty lawyers/judges often find ways to change or ignore the rules. There are numerous factors that create a haze between crime and punishment. Without clearly defined punishments and at least some degree of certainty of being caught, criminals will not be deterred from breaking the law.

          The final key is severity. The punishment for any crime has to be severe enough that it’s not worth the spoils of the crime to have to endure the punishment. If you know that 1 DWI conviction (or guilty plea) WILL land you in jail and take a sizable chunk of money out of your pocket, you'll be much less likely to drive drunk. Likewise, if you KNOW committing any crime with a gun carries a mandatory sentence of ten years in prison, and a minimum of life in jail for any non-self defense homicide, it's going to deter people from taking that step. I'm not saying these examples of sentences are the answer, I'm saying that punishments need to be amply severe for all crimes. I think a lot of punishments are probably severe enough as they stand, IF you add in swiftness and certainty to the equation. Bottom line- our justice system needs a full and thorough review of policies, procedures, laws, punishments, etc. And we need to find ways to make punishments swift and certain (most important at this point) and then we can begin to determine which punishments are severe enough, when they are coupled with swiftness and certainty, to ACTUALLY deter crime. Gun control laws will not to the trick.

          The mental aspect of murder, or any crime for that matter, is tougher to approach, but not impossible. As I said before, the first step is asking, "Why do people kill?" That is the key. Some people kill out of anger. Some kill because they are sociopaths. Some people kill because they believe they need to so survive in their lives (people that are surrounded by violence, as in the drug world, organized crime and people that grew up in violent neighborhoods). Whatever the case, it takes some degree of a mental commitment to take a life. Spontaneous murders require a person to decide, at least for a short time, that they want/need to take a life, whatever the reason may be. Planned murders take a deeper, more sinister commitment. The point here is that different circumstances, different mental conditions and different life experiences equate to numerous different possible reasons for why a person would take a life. I would venture to guess that there are a few basic, general reasons (chemical imbalances in the brain, psychological disorders and conditions that make people think it’s OK, etc.) that break down into many different specific reasons, but for now that is merely my opinion. If we focus out efforts on the reasons that people kill, we can begin to take real steps to prevent the mental commitment to kill. Whether it involves medical treatment or psychological therapy or even something as simple as making people aware of the dangers of violent people and situations (and teaching people to avoid them), there are answers out there if we look for them. It's not about the weapon, it's about the people.

          A less obvious but equally important part of this discussion is what people learn growing up- and here we go back to education again. Without a comprehensive reform of what and how we teach our children, none of our problems can be fixed for any length of time. It has to start in the home, but before parents will teach virtue to their children, they have to learn it themselves. So we have to start with teaching it in schools. Then, once those kids begin to enter adulthood and have children of their own, they will begin teaching it in their homes. Then we will have it starting with the parents and being reinforced in schools. Only once we make virtue a central principle of our society will we be able to return to the prosperous days we once knew. We are never going to completely eradicate crime, especially not under the current way of doing things. But if we teach everyone to be virtuous people instead of simply hoping they will catch on, it just makes sense, common sense, that more and more people will latch on to the concept as time goes on. With enough time, we will see real results.

          Before I finish, I want to touch on one more important deterrent for criminals- Concealed Carry laws. Concealed Carry laws do a lot to deter crime. If anyone can be permitted to carry a firearm, and they have to be properly trained in order to be able to carry, then anyone around you at any time could have a gun, AND have the skill to put and end not only to your crime, but to you yourself. Anyone around you can stop you from committing a crime, and the threat of a swift and certain end goes way up. The stakes go up, there's a higher probability of being shot and/or killed, so the "benefit" of committing the crime goes way down in relation to the possible consequences. I believe Alexander Hamilton's view applies here too. If every citizen willing, and properly trained, is equipped to protect their rights and the rights of others, the criminals don't stand a chance. We should be teaching people that our rights our sacred and should be protected. We should be encouraging people to become experienced and skilled with arms so that they are able to protect their liberty should the occasion arise in which they need to do so. That, my friends, will significantly decrease the crime we see in our country. Gun restrictions are not an answer. Short term and long term, they don't do what they are intended to do, quite the opposite in fact. Respect for the weapon, training with the weapon and a deep respect for life, liberty and personal property ARE answers. The founders knew this, and so do those of us who are capable of thinking past weak-minded fear of firearms.

I leave you with the words of a few of the founders:


"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson


"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." James Madison

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee


"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson


"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison


"When the Government comes for the people's arms, the people must be prepared to keep them. This is true of every right endowed to us by our Creator. If we are to remain free, we must remain armed." S.R. Daniel (Not a Founder)


Stay Conservative, and Keep Looking to the Future