Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 5

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008

FOREIGN POLICY
"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."  Barack Obama, April 2009

This pretty much sums up Obama's foreign policy right here.  The notion of American exceptionalism suggests that we have a unique place in the world thanks to our constitutional ideals of individual liberty, our economic and military might, our role as defenders of freedom. We got the first hint of our President's perspective in early 2009 when Obama made the infamous 'apology tour' across three continents, telling the world how sorry he was for America's security and economic interests, and flatly embarrassing this country to the pleasure of dictators like Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad. We have watched while he bowed to the Saudis and the Chinese as though an American President should be deferential.  I suppose this was part of his plan to 'improve our standing' in the world. Well, it hasn't. He has made it worse.

In the past five years, he has appeased our enemies and disrespected our allies.

Obama's 'reset' policy with Russia amounted to a series of concessions on nuclear arms which turned out to be one-sided; he got nothing in return. Putin's standing on the world stage is unmistakeably stronger now, and continues to ally himself with the likes of our enemies in the Mideast. Russia has been expanding its control over energy sources in Europe, which will allow it to exert more influence on that continent and elsewhere. Russia's return to pre-Cold War status is increasingly evident. Of course, this is enabled, in part, by America's decreasing role in looking out for the best interests of this country and our allies.

During his first term, Obama cancelled the deal the U.S. had with Poland and the Czech Republic to provide protection from ballistic missiles, in deference to Russia's reaction. At the time, the Polish President accused Obama of betrayal.

Countries like Pakistan and North Korea have been building up their nuclear forces.

China has become increasingly important to us, in that they are the biggest foreign owner of U.S. treasuries. It's official news agency has called for the creation of a "de-Americanized world."

The Mideast
Iran, now with fewer sanctions to deter it, continues to snub its nose at the world regarding their nuclear program. By essentially allowing Iran to 'run free' Obama is creating a huge problem around the world. Iran is the greatest sponsor of terrorism and is training people in Mexico and South America, in addition to groups in the Mideast. They are putting the rest of the Middle East in danger and of course, Israel is at the top of their list. Even with the regime change there, the desire to rid the world of the Jewish state remains a priority.

During this administration, Obama has called on Israel to stop settlement building, including in East Jerusalem, which prior to this president, was never put on the table. This led to a freeze in negotiations between the two sides. Obama has also called on Israel to release terrorists and turn them over to the Palestinians. And let's not forget the very disrespectful ways in which he treated Netanyahu when he came to visit the White House. Obama's anti-Israel sentiment was confirmed by his appointments of Samantha Power, Susan Rice, John Brennan and Chuck Hagel to his administration.

Libyan leader Gadhafi  had come around to abandoning his WMD programs during the Bush years, probably in fear for his life after 9/11 and the fate of Saddam Hussein. Yet, Obama called for his ouster, only to assassinate him in the end. Was military involvement in Libya really necessary at the time?

Obama repeatedly called for the ouster of Hosni Mubarek, President of Egypt and American ally. While Mubarek was no nice guy, his successors were infinitely worse for Egypt as well as for America. And, Mubarek respected Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. With the tacit approval of the American administration,  the Muslim Brotherhood was ushered in as the new regime. The MB is the umbrella group for several terrorists groups whose primary objective is to create a Muslim caliphate and establish Sharia law throughout the world. Now in Egypt, the cabinet is working to correct this mistake and oust the MB from the leadership.

Fact: More than twice as many American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan during Obama's first 3 1/2 years than in Bush's 8 years. Fact: Obama more than tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan during his first two years.

Elsewhere in the region, the persecution of Christians has increased over the last few years, with nary a word from this president. Silence, too, when the Syrian rebels were calling for the dismissal of dictator Assad over his use of chemical weapons, and when the Iranian freedom fighters a few years back wanted Ahmadinejad to step down.

Obama's success in foreign policy - the capturing and killing of Osama bin Laden. Worthy to note that it was thanks to the continuance of Bush's policies that intelligence was able to find him.

Either Obama doesn't understand the nature of our enemies, or, is naive to think that apologies and concessions will curry favor with them. Either way, it serves to diminish our status in the world. Islamic jihadists are on the rise and there is no comprehensive strategy to defeat them. Our allies learned that they can't trust us. In a recent poll, the majority of Americans see the country's power across the globe as declining. The world is less safe; in fact, it is in chaos. While America used to speak out for liberty, our president continues to ignore freedom fighters where they crop up. America is not exceptional, according to Obama, so the question begs.  If America will not be the leader on the world stage, who will be?

THE MILITARY
Decorated retired Army Maj. General Patrick Brady claims Obama's agenda is to destroy the morale of the military, to the point where "members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win." Brady stated, "there is no doubt he is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him" over issues like "homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester."

According to recent reports, Obama has purged 197 officers in the past few years, primarily those who disagreed with him or were disloyal to the administration.

Retired Army Lt. General William G. Boykin, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence under President Bush recently stated, "over the past 3 years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause. I believe there is a purging of the military. The problem is worse than we have ever seen." http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, contends that Obama has been working unilaterally with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, which requires Senate ratification. Vallely charges that Obama's goal is to "destroy U.S. military superiority" to the "advantage of our global enemies." His plan to reduce the Pentagon budget by $1.3 trillion over the next ten years will impact on weapons, equipment and personnel.
http://www.examiner.com/article/retired-military-commanders-say-obama-puposefully-weakening-us-military

Early in his Presidency, Obama put into place new Rules of Engagement for combat, which in turn, resulted in higher casualties in Afghanistan that included the loss of 17 members of Seal Team 6 in one incident.

Additionally, under his reign, there have been numerous incidents of hostility towards religion. It is widely believed that Obama is pushing a secular, anti-religious agenda on the military.  Early in the administration, the Dept. of Defense met with the "Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an organization that is focused on silencing religious freedom in the military."  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/13/Congress-Investigating-Obama-Admin-Hostility-to-Religious-Liberty-in-the-Military

A few months ago, when the government shutdown went into effect, decisions were made to inflict the most disruption on the public.  The National Park Service chose to close down war memorials, which, in the end, cost more to keep closed than it would have to remain open. Seven security guards were sent to the WWII memorial to keep out the vets, as compared with five security guards who were guarding our consulate in Benghazi when four Americans were killed.

In Barack Obama's eyes, America is unexceptional. He sees our role in the world as important, or unimportant, as every other country. What he fails to see, is that the free world has looked to America for its leadership and stability, but he has been intently working on leveling the playing field. Our enemies are emboldened by him, our allies are weakened by him.  He has profoundly weakened our military on many levels. Russia has re-emerged on the world stage, once again, as a power to be reckoned with.  Barack Obama is fundamentally transforming the United States of America through his foreign policy and by undermining our military.

No White House Photos Allowed

One of the hallmarks of a free society is a free press. However, that is something this administration doesn't appear to respect. A couple of weeks ago, more than three dozen news organizations and trade associations, including the major TV networks and the NY Times, sent a letter of protest to the Obama administration for barring access to photographers who cover the White House.

Citing several examples of newsworthy White House meetings which were closed off to press photographers, the letter stated that these restrictions "raise constitutional concerns".  Instead, the White House chose to release official photos, taken by the White House photographer. The letter also stated, "as surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist's camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government."  http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2013/11/media-protest-white-house-limits-on-photographers.html

According to J. David Ake, the assistant bureau chief for photos at The Associated Press, in speaking about the official WH photographer, "the core issue is the White House uses his images and disseminates them to the public, and they become the only historical document of events."  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/us/politics/limit-on-access-stirs-tensions-between-white-house-photographer-and-press-corps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This manipulation by the administration to control what the public sees, violates one of the most important measures of a free society; that of a free press. Without this, we allow the government to simply release propaganda.

Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 4

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." 
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
        
THE ECONOMY
President Obama recently spoke of the divide between rich and poor getting wider. He lamented the shrinking of the middle class and vowed to correct the increasing income inequality and improve upward mobility.  Yet, despite what he says, Obama has been looking to bring the top down to lessen  the income gap rather than elevate the bottom up. This President has been demonizing the wealthy, through rhetoric and legislative action since he took office. And, although he speaks of improving Americans' economic lot, this President has always opted for stagnation rather than economic growth during the past 5 years.

Obama spoke of raising the minimum wage and spending on infrastructure (remember in 2011, "shovel-ready was not as...uh...shovel-ready as we expected... hahaha"?) The middle class is worse off now than in recent history. Small businesses are not hiring workers if it takes them over the 49 employee limit which would force them to provide expensive health insurance, corporations are suffering massive restrictions thanks to the Dodd-Frank Bill which imposes thousands of  unnecessary regulations, and taxes on the 'rich' moves more capital from private economy to government.  Unemployment, although hovering around 7% now, is in reality much, much higher due to millions who have given up looking for work. During his reign, the top 1% made 95% of the gains, while more of the middle class are joining the dependency rolls. 

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH - This is an important strategy in fundamentally transforming this country. The biggest example of this would be Obamacare itself, representing 1/6 of the nation's economy, and clearly proving to be a mechanism for redistributing the wealth. It was designed to take from those who have and give to those who don't. It is forcing Americans into unwanted health plans with higher premiums and higher deductibles, with restrictions on choice of doctors and hospitals, to provide for those who previously didn't have insurance plans. Never mind that the tens of millions of people from whom Obamacare will be tapping into to provide for those others, will be without their own insurance plans. 

GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCY - Never before in history has there been a higher level of government dependency.

• Statistics show that 1 in 5 Americans depend on the government for help.

• Nearly half (49.5%) of the population don't pay federal income tax.

• In 2011 the federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before to subsidize Americans.

• 70% of the federal budget goes to individual assistance programs, which represents a dramatic increase in the past few years.

• Nearly 48 million people collect food stamps - this represents a sharp increase over the last few years - the Congressional Budget Office agrees that this has more to do with policy decisions than it has to do with the economy.

•  Under Obama's reign, unemployment benefits were extended to 99 weeks.

•  Obama gutted welfare reform and reversed the 1994 provisions of welfare-to-work and returned to the days of providing bonuses to states for increasing the welfare caseloads instead of decreasing them.

 If this trend continues, dependency will eventually become the norm, especially as the baby boom generation enters into retirement and the number of taxpaying Americans decrease.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/09/morning-bell-dependence-on-government-highest-in-history/

As more and more Americans look to the government to assist them with housing, food, healthcare, etc., upward mobility is hindered.  Incentives to look for work are hampered. Nor do people want to leave their subsidized housing. If then they start to make money, they lose their benefits; they lose their subsidies, they lose their food stamps. Essentially, big government, which encourages dependency, sucks all desire to improve one's life, to be self-reliant, to be personally responsible. This is the road that leads to more government control of everything. This is the road that leads to socialism...or worse.

UNEMPLOYMENT - Although the unemployment rate, at 7.0%  is lower than the 8-9% levels  they were in the first few years of the recession, the actual unmployment numbers are higher, more like 13%. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm 
The proportion of Americans with jobs has not increased. Only 58% of U.S. adults are working. Employment rates have been flat and it has been referred to as a jobless recovery. What accounts for this is that millions of prime age Americans have simply given up looking for work. Some have gone back to school. Some went on disability insurance, and some took early retirement packages. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/13/the-jobless-recovery-continues-with-high-unemployment/

SHRINKING MIDDLE CLASS -  Although Obama talked a blue streak about helping out the middle class, it is the segment of the population which has suffered the most since he took office. His policies have done much damage to the middle class; median household income is lower than it was 5 years ago, interest rates on consumer purchases are higher, savings interest is lower, cost of gasoline has doubled since 2008, small employers are paying higher taxes and now pay more than half their incomes towards federal, state and local taxes; as a result they are hiring fewer people and investing less money into capital, college tuition is at a strangling level, and Obamacare is showing itself to be a loser for the middle class who now have to struggle with new and higher premiums. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/13/the-jobless-recovery-continues-with-high-unemployment/  
Even Teamster boss James Hoffa, strong supporter of this President said, Obamacare will "destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week which is the backbone of the American middle class."

NATIONAL DEBT - $17 trillion in debt - the highest it's been in history. Heritage Foundation delineates the many reasons why it's such a big deal:

• Every American will be on the hook for this massive debt burden - at this point, that figure stands at $53, 769.
  

• Government debt crowds out private investment, slowing the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) and wages. This could cause families to lose up to $11,000 on their income every year.

• High government spending with no accountability eliminates opportunities for career advancement, paralyzes job creation, and lowers wages and salaries.

• Some families and businesses won't be able to borrow money because of high interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and more.

• High-debt economics similar to America's current state grew by one-third less than their low-debt counterparts.

• Millions of people depend on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but these programs are also the main drivers of the growing debt.

• Big government corruption and special interests only get bigger.

• Astronomical debt lowers incomes and well-being permanently, not just temporarily. A one-time major increase in government debt is typically a permanent addition, and the dragging effects on the economy are long-lasting.

• It is the biggest threat to U.S. security.

• Makes us more vulnerable to the next economic crisis. High debt makes America weaker.

 http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/17/morning-bell-17-reasons-the-17-trillion-debt-is-still-a-big-deal/?ac=

MINIMUM WAGE - Obama's strong desire for a level playing field flies in the face of free market capitalism.  What he consistently fails to see or acknowledge, is that equal opportunity is at the heart of our system, not income equality. 'Raise the minimum wage' is his latest mantra to close the income gap. Does he not know that when you raise the cost of labor, employers who may not afford the new wages, must resort to laying off workers, and that hurts the working poor?  That it cuts into business profits? That you take away a young person's chance at gaining experience in the working world when an employer who has to pay out $15/hour for unskilled labor will be much more selective in their hiring?  That raising minimum wage increases the price of a product, so that when a corporation like McDonald's must pay its workers double what they pay now, it can no longer offer its customers low cost meals, and this hurts the poor and middle class?

How does an economy grow like that? It doesn't. Maybe that's the point. And reducing income inequality should not be the defining challenge of our time, as the President claims...unless, of course, you're looking to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

Remembering JFK...The Conservative?

Today marks the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination. As we look at old footage of Kennedy's speeches, it becomes striking just how much he sounded like a conservative.  According to Ira Stoll, author of "JFK, Conservative" this seems very much the case, despite the fact that the image of him is that of a liberal Democrat.

In an interview with Glenn Beck, Stoll cites principles that Kennedy stood for which resembles that of a present day Tea Party conservative. Kennedy called for lowering taxes, for balancing the budget, fighting for freedom, and winning the cold war against the Soviet Union. He was for the death penalty, free trade, and a strong military. He believed in peace through strength by increasing military spending to put pressure on the Soviet Union - ideas that Ronald Reagan adopted during his tenure. Kennedy fought against corrupt labor unions, warned against atheism, quoted scripture in his speeches, and appointed the Supreme Court justice who wrote the dissent on Roe v Wade. He was often very outspoken against Communism, and he saw the necessity to continue nuclear testing. He sent in more troops to Vietnam.

This claim that he was a conservative, of course, would seem unbelievable to those on the left who always thought he was one of their own. After all, JFK is a liberal icon...how can that be? Stoll claims that two of Kennedy's close aids,  Ted Sorenson and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., were themselves very liberal. Since their books were influential on the subject of John Kennedy, they had a part in creating that perception, maybe, he says, as part of wishful thinking...maybe, they wanted others to remember him as more liberal than he actually was.

However, the facts didn't bear that out. One of the ways they helped create that perception, was that in their books, they edited out some of the more hawkish lines from his speeches. For example, in the American University speech, which some say was his most dovish speech, Kennedy talked about a limited nuclear test ban treaty. But he also said 'Communism was repugnant for its negation of  the rights of the individual against the State' and that 'the Soviets were to blame for the Cold War'.  In both books, these lines were edited out. When Kennedy spoke in Berlin, he also railed against Communism  and said 'anyone who thinks we can work with the Communists, let them come to Berlin'. However, in both books, the authors changed the chronology of these two speeches. They said the Berlin speech came first and then the American University speech.  Apparently, they both wanted to make him appear as though he became more dovish as time went on, as though he was becoming more of a peacenik.  Yet, supporting this claim that Kennedy was more conservative, Schlesinger admitted that liberals were disappointed when Kennedy made free trade a priority over medicare and increased aid to education. In fact, JFK supported cuts on tariffs for imports and associated himself with the tax rebellions of the old Boston Tea party.

Even by the standards of his times, JFK was considered conservative, as compared with a Rockefeller liberal. As Stoll asserts, with the assassination, came the end of the Conservative wing of the Democrat party. Conservatives then moved into the Republican party, and eventually, to the more conservative Tea Party wing.

Needless to say, Ira Stoll is getting a lot of heat by the political left for his assertion that John Kennedy was really a conservative. No surprise, John F. Kennedy was a hero to many, but an icon to the left.

Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt.3

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, 2008

THE POLITICS OF DIVISION
CLASS WARFARE - This has become a centerpiece of Obama's rhetoric since he started campaigning in 2007. Incorporated into many of his speeches have been attacks on the rich; relentless calls to raise taxes on the 'millionaires and billionaires' (which became his mantra as the target of his reform) and to insist that they 'pay their fair share', to spread the wealth around through punishing new laws (one prime example being Obamacare), demonizing corporations in all industries (while readily accepting their campaign donations), strangling businesses with thousands of new restrictive laws and more taxes and fees, working closely with unions and its interests (in exchange for bringing out the vote). And when the Occupy Wall Street Movement took hold, the theme was anti-wealth, as it brought out resentment against the 1% who make big money. Obama supported this movement even while it was turning violent and lawless. Class warfare has been an important theme for this president.

For nowhere in his lexicon is the acknowledgement that the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all federal taxes. That it's the rich who provide jobs by launching businesses and expanding businesses. That it's the rich who invest money. That it's the rich who buy goods and services. That it's the rich who underwrite charities.
Who could forget the now infamous quotes from the President: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Or, "I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money." Or, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."  Tenets of capitalism? I think not.

RACIAL DIVISION - Barack Obama's skin color was and still is an asset for him. He was elected   with a very thin resume, no experience in the private sector and very little experience in the public sector. But, Americans felt they were ready for the nation's first black president. And since that day, the 'race card' is drawn consistently. Barely a day goes by when some Republican/Conservative isn't accused of being racist because he/she dares to criticize this president or his policies. While the detractors are judging him by his character, not the color of his skin, the left insists that it's his skin color that's most important, and the cause of the detraction. Forget that the political ideology is far left and very different, and that members of a party are usually at odds politically with the other party. The left sees race everywhere. And that includes the President himself.  Obama plays into it by inserting himself into cases such as the Boston police 'acting stupidly' with the black Harvard professor; or the Trayvon Martin case where 'Trayvon could've been his son'.  This negative racial division has set the tone for the rest of the country, and charges of racism are rampant. Evidence of this can be seen in a recent survey conducted by NBC and Wall St. Journal, in which negative views on race relations has substantially increased; in fact, the numbers have doubled for whites and for blacks since 2009.
The question is, why does he want to divide this country racially, especially when he campaigned on the opposite ideal of a post-racial America?
http://www.naturalnews.com/041375_obama_racial_division_social_engineering.html

WAR ON WOMEN - When Sandra Fluke, and her fight to include insurance coverage for contraception at a Jesuit university, made her appearance during the last campaign, it was apparent this was no coincidence.  She was firmly planted in the Democrats' strategy to perpetuate a phony Republican war on women. When out of the blue, Mitt Romney was asked about contraception during a debate, he quizzically asked, "is there a problem with women obtaining contraception?" That was the foreshadowing moment in which this was introduced to the public as an important controversy where none existed. Naturally, Obama inserted himself into this division as well, when he famously called Fluke on the phone to express his support for her speaking out on this matter and used it as an opportunity to slam Rush Limbaugh for some insulting comments he made about her. Fluke, of course, became the face of women during the campaign (as intended) to inform women that the evil Republicans don't want them to have access to birth control.
Equally as foreboding was when the question about equal pay for equal work came up in the presidential debates. Once again, a phony issue as led by the Obama administration who pushed for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was based on faulty statistics about men's vs. women's salaries. And, once again, the hypocrisy was blatant - for all the hysteria about unequal salaries, the White House pays their female employees 18% less than their male counterparts.

POLITICAL DIVISIONS - Although partisan politics has been around since the very origins of political parties, never has it seemed so hostile as when Obama took office.  We know he spoke of uniting these political lines by saying "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America", we found out it was merely campaign rhetoric. For since he took office, the hostility towards Republicans has been palpable. And his endless slams on conservative groups such as the Tea Party, by calling them names like terrorists and tea baggers, only served to divide us even more.

So, why all the division? Despite the flowery rhetoric about how we need to be united, about how we should all be purple states, his rhetoric, when he gets down to business, often results in separating us further.  The culture of hostility that this man propagates is beyond the usual politics in Washington. Not in my lifetime has a president gone so far to divide a country in so many ways. What does Barack Obama stand to gain by dividing Americans by race, by gender, by political ideology, and by economic status? He gains a weaker America, one that is besieged by social unrest, class resentment, hatred, and anger towards those who speak and think differently.  Are we witnessing an America that's more hostile than ever from within? I suppose that's part of his fundamental transformation.

Still more ways in which this country is being transformed, coming up in future posts.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam418975.html#ffUbRP1VLjThFj0Q.99

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

Barack Obama

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam418975.html#ffUbRP1VLjThFj0Q.99

Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 2

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, 2008

THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Barack Obama's fundamental transformation of the United States of America includes an assault on our Constitution; several amendments have been the object of challenge and attack in the past few years. This post will focus on the First Amendment, which has been under threat in so many ways.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH -  Since the beginning of his presidency, it was apparent that Obama wanted to stifle the speech of those who disagreed with him. He singled out radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and he called out Fox News as a network which didn't support him. During the last few years, we have further seen the attempted suppression of speech, whether it was the IRS intimidating Tea Party members, witnesses in the Benghazi case who were told not to speak up, or whistleblowers at the NSA threatened with their livelihoods.

The latest example is the White House telling insurance company executives to shut up about why their companies are cancelling policies despite Obama promising Americans they could keep their plan; the simple fact is that due to Obamacare's new mandates and regulations imposed on the companies, it makes it impossible for them to continue to offer the same plans they had been providing.  According to a report by CNN, "insurance executives are being told to keep quiet...they feel defenseless against the White House PR team...the White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade organizations, to keep quiet.  The sources are telling us they fear White House retribution."

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS - This administration's effort to control the press came to public light when we found out the Justice Dept. had seized phone records from the Associated Press and that one of the Fox News reporters had emails and phone calls hacked into by the government.  In an investigation by an advocacy group called The Committee to Protect Journalists, it was revealed that the tactics of the Obama administration "include unprecedented use of the Espionage Act in prosecuting media leaks, classifying government documents as secret when no harm could come from their release, increased government surveillance that jeopardizes the safety of news sources, Freedom of Information Act violations, and White House-produced content that can't substitute for independent, accountability journalism."
"AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll said in a statement that the the Committee to Protect Journalists report "highlights the growing threats to independent journalism in the United States, a country that has for two centuries upheld press freedom as a measure of a democratic society."
Even the chief Washington correspondent for the very supportive New York Times said, "this is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/obama-press-freedom-cpj_n_4073037.html
This administration has tried stifling conservative talk radio via resurrecting the "fairness doctrine" which requires both viewpoints in every broadcast, they proposed "diversity" in radio station ownership, which would cut into conservative talk; and they introduced "net neutrality" in an attempt to control internet content.
This year, the FCC is conducting a study which will require all news agencies to inform the government which stories are being covered, if there is a diversity of views, if people are being 'properly' informed about the environment and other topics important to the government.  They will start defining and regulating what are 'critical information needs' and this, will no doubt lead to a loss of freedoms, as the government intrudes into the broadcast and print media to determine which stories should be covered and how. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/04/FCC-Laying-Grounds-for-New-Fairness-Doctrine

 
FREEDOM OF RELIGION - During the reign of this president, there has been quite an extensive movement to clamp down on religious expression in many facets of our society. In many hostile acts towards religion, Christians and Jews have been faced with having to defend their rights to religious conscience. One very egregious and obvious example has been that of Obamacare, which will not protect freedom of conscience when it forces religious institutions to provide health insurance that includes coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortions.  There are many, many examples of the diminution of religious expression in the military.  According to Rep. John Fleming of LA, "The bottom line is the military is bending over backwards to remove – even in the case of chaplains – expressions of faith and conscience."  "Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the Obama Administration's edict a 'chilling suppression of religious freedom.'"   http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/06/12/obama-strongly-objects-to-religious-liberty-amendment-n1618769

Even in his speeches, Obama reveals his agenda with religion: he omits Creator when quoting the Declaration of Independence, he omits God from his Thanksgiving speech, he was the first president to include non-believers in his inaugural address, at the (Jesuit) Georgetown University he asked that all symbols and signage behind the stage be covered when he spoke there. The list goes on and on and on.  The Wallbuilders website features a listing of all the actions taken by this administration regarding its Judeo-Christian views. The list is long and stunning. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=106938

While his Judeo-Christian politics are evident, apparently his pro-Islamic politics are evident as well. In 2010, Obama required that all government documents be rewritten to eliminate any references to jihad, terrorists, radical Islam and anything that may be deemed offensive to Muslims. While he will not host a National Day of Prayer at the White House, he will host White House dinners in honor of Ramadan. At one point during his reign, Obama's Muslim advisers blocked access of Middle Eastern Christians to the White House. And, his silence over the persecution of Christians around the Middle East has been deafening.  Also, it has been well documented that Muslim Brotherhood operatives (the umbrella group which includes several radical Islamic groups) are working in our government and looking to infiltrate all levels. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/october/muslim-brotherhood-gaining-foothold-in-us-government-/ 

Since Obama took office there have been several attempts to control our freedoms, basic freedoms which are foundational to this country. In future posts we will witness many other ways in which this President and his administration are fulfilling his promise of fundamental transformation.

Obama: International Treaties Should Trump Constitution

In an attempt to circumvent Congress when deemed necessary, the Obama administration is arguing for international treaties to trump our very own Constitution.

Senator Ted Cruz, former law clerk under former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, warns this is a dangerous argument - the Constitution gives enumerated powers to the government, and allowing the government to invoke international treaties as a basis for policies would conflict with our fundamental laws, Cruz told the Washington Examiner. We already know this administration is trying to undermine the Second Amendment by trying to push through the Small Arms Treaty in the Senate, which would essentially disarm our citizenry. (see post titled "Armed With the Facts").

Once again, our President, as one who studied Constitutional law, has learned what he needs to do to govern without it. So much for his sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution.
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/obama-undermines-constitution/

I Smell a Rat

I smell a rat. In fact, I smell a few rats.

Rat #1: The administration supposedly spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Obamacare website and they had 3 years to prepare for it. First of all, that's an inordinate amount of money for a website, plenty of time to work out kinks, and yet, this costly website is not working. Why? This doesn't make sense. Now they say they're bringing in tech savvy people to fix it? Well, who the heck was putting this website together if not tech savvy people? What's really going on?  Was this supposed to not work smoothly? I must raise this question, since this administration, by design, tends to do the opposite of what one would expect. So, my question is, what's the reason for the launch problems?

Rat #2: Anyone who does manage to access the website must first input much personal information before even finding out what their options are and what they cost. If then, the person chooses not to enroll, the personal information remains and cannot get deleted. So, my question is, why can't a person shop around for the health care options before registering their personal data?

Rat #3: At this point, millions of people are getting letters from their insurance companies that their coverage is getting cancelled or their premiums are getting raised, sometimes doubled or tripled. Sometimes, the premiums are decreasing, but the deductible amount is skyrocketing. This, of course, contradicts the you-can-keep-your-insurance-if-you-like-it and it-will-save-you-money mantra. They are finding out that their doctors will not necessarily be in their network...not you-can-keep-your-doctor-period.  These are just a few of the points Obama emphatically and unequivocally made many, many times over when he spent a year trying to sell this plan to the country. So, my question is, how does this man so blatantly and easily lie to the American people? And if he lies this boldly, what else is he lying about?

Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 1

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." 
 Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day 2008

The progressive agenda, incrementally moving forward for the past hundred years, and now led by Barack Obama, the most far left president in this nation's history, is now quickly coming to fruition.   Since Obama's reign we have watched the federal government takeover of our health care system, education, and student loans. We watch still as our country is deliberately being divided in so many ways - by class, by race, by gender, by political party. We watch as our freedoms are diminishing - religious expression, speech, privacy. We watch as our economy has been suffering and continues to suffer with insurmountable debt and high unemployment. We watch as our standing in the world is weaker and smaller. The one promise this president is keeping is his fundamental transformation of America.

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM - The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, as a government-centric law, is a major move towards a single payer system, or socialized medicine.  Obama and the left could call it what they want, but the control over the country's health care system is nothing less than that; once the government controls health care, it controls everything. It is a system which is controlling businesses and how they manage employees via mandates, insurance coverage, workers' hours, number of employees, etc. It is controlling individuals and their families via premiums, doctor choices, hospital choices, and rationing of care. It comprises 1/6 of the country's economy and is raising the debt even further than the unsustainable figure it is at now.  No small item is the collection of private health information which will also be shared with the IRS.  "Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state"....Vladimir Lenin.

EDUCATION - Common Core, originally offered to states in exchange for needed financial assistance, is the nationalizing of education standards for K-12 students. It is a government-led curriculum which is now viewed by critics as lowering expectations for academic excellence and not at all rigorous (despite claims of raising the bar). Maybe because the purpose is not to create excellence, but to manage education. And, while the curriculum is defined by the federal government, rather than the state and  the local school boards, the data mining on every student will be ongoing. For along with the new standards, comes frequent academic assessments. Personal information gathering about each student and their families will also be done, as well as physiological testing, taking into account behavior, attitudes, persistence, etc. via the use of technological devices such as scans and sensors.  Eventually, the government will have very personal information on every student in the country. It appears now that Common Core will be reaching private schools and home schoolers as well; again, taking away the choice from parents as to how best to educate their own children. 
Joy Pullman, Education Research Fellow at the Heartland Institute stated, “The real goal is social engineering,” Pullmann said, echoing widespread concerns among Common Core critics across the political spectrum. “I don't like to use explosive sorts of things like that, but this is very obvious — the goal is to create a workforce that responds to the needs of the 21st century, as determined by the central planners.”  http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16647-expert-explores-link-between-federal-data-mining-and-common-core
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-a-scheme-to-rewrite-education
"Government-controlled schooling is essential to achieving the goals of socialism"...Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto

IMMIGRATION - The President has been talking lately about tackling immigration reform. Already, the Obama administration has chosen not to enforce certain immigration laws already on the books, by directing that ICE not take custody of illegal immigrants arrested by local police, except for the most violent criminals.  The president has also unilaterally implemented portions of the amnesty Dream Act, which Congress had rejected 18 months prior to that. Despite the prohibition against the employment of illegal immigrants, Obama decided that as many as 2 million illegals can stay indefinitely and be given authorization to work here. As he begins to push for comprehensive immigration reform, the impact will be transformational if passed. First of all, legalizing millions of new residents will create pressure on the economy, as government entitlements and social services will be stretched even more. Illegal immigrants tend to be on the low end of the skill spectrum. Having to absorb millions more into the system threatens to weaken this economy further. This could lead to even higher taxes for individuals and businesses. And, we can expect more competition for available jobs for the citizens who are already struggling to find work.

Politically, the GOP stance on low taxes and small government will not attract too many of the millions of new dependents. It is expected there will be 4 million additional voters by 2024 and 17 million by 2036.  If this new voting bloc needs or desires more government services, then the Democrat Party will always have that advantage; the last election was determined by about 4 million votes. Enough said.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/immigration_race_and_social_conflict.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2013/01/03/believe-president-obama-on-immigration-he-will-not-enforce-most-laws-even-after-an-amnesty-n1477877/page/full

Yes, Barack Obama is fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In Part 2 we will explore more ways in which he is fulfilling this promise.

Heroes No, Illegals Yes

Coincidence?
For a week now, the WWII and other war memorials in Washington, D.C. have been closed due to the government shutdown. We've seen the veterans, who came from all parts of the country, barricaded from these memorials. To make matters worse, families of fallen soldiers have now been told they would have to foot the bill for transportation and funerals for these soldiers, and that benefits would be temporarily withheld, due to the shutdown.

But today, the national mall in D.C., the very same place which has been closed to the veterans, was wide open to thousands of illegal aliens who held a rally for immigration reform.

So, why shut the park for veterans, but open it for illegal aliens? This move would only outrage a lot of people. So why, then? Why would those in government responsible for who gets in and who stays out of the D.C. mall, poke Americans in the eye like this?

Who And What Is The Tea Party?

They've been called anarchists, arsonists, racists and terrorists by the Democrats. They've been maligned by establishment Republicans. The American media has portrayed them as dangerous.  Even Homeland Security put them on a terror watch list.

A Rasmussen poll of a couple of months ago, revealed that 26% of  those who approve of Obama's performance see the Tea Party as the biggest terror threat to the U.S. And, among those who approve, just 29% see radical Muslims as a bigger threat. For those who strongly approve of Obama's performance, the Tea Party is more feared than radical Muslims.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/26_of_obama_supporters_view_tea_party_as_nation_s_top_terror_threat

The birth of the Tea Party movement occurred shortly after President Obama took office. It was early 2009, when it became apparent that the president had no intention of curbing his spending of our money. (At the rate he was spending, he increased the national debt as much as all of the presidents from Washington to Bush, combined, in his first term.) Americans then started rallying and protesting for the government to be fiscally responsible, to adhere to the principles of free markets, and to respect and follow our Constitution.

So, who is the Tea Party? These Americans are you and me; we are not extremists or radicals. We came together from all socioeconomic levels, all ages, all races, united in our desire to scale down a government that had simply become too big. The reach into our wallets became too deep, the intrusion into our lives too great. "Don't Tread on Me" became the motto.

This is what the Tea Party movement is all about. It is not a political party. There is no leader. But it has grown into a vast network of 'small government'-minded patriots who want to restore the best that is America. It is not a violent or a racist group, yet the marginalizing of the Tea Party continues to occur. And working to elect Tea Party candidates, means supporting those who truly believe in upholding the Constitution. For some reason, this is threatening to people. How sad. How ironic. And, how far we have come, when the people who believe in restoring America to the founding principles which made this country great, are viewed so contemptuously.

Punished

WWII vets prohibited from visiting open-air war memorials in D.C.
National parks closed.
Scenic routes barricaded.
Private businesses on park lands told to shut down.
Mount Vernon parking lot blocked.
Florida Bay closed (?) to fishermen.
Etc, etc...

These are just some of the signs of the government shutdown for all to see.  
Warren Meyer, president and owner of Recreation Resource Management, employs about 400-500 camp workers and managers across a dozen states.  Meyer has been ordered to close all of his parks due to the government shutdown.  In a letter he wrote to Sen. McCain and Sen. Fluke of AZ, he said, "The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation." In this case, not only are these parks not costing the Federal government any money to stay open, the government makes money when they're open. And to add insult to injury, the government is making him and other park management companies buy the barricades to shut their parks. As Meyer put it: "We are like prisoners of war who have to pay for our prison."  http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/10/02/shutdown-white-house-ordering-privately-run-privately-funded-parks-to-close/

What's really happening here?  What's happening is this administration's attempt to inflict pain and inconvenience in a visible way on the American people.  (What good would it be if the government shutdown was invisible?) Our president is punishing us. Why?  So that we will blame Republicans, even though Republicans have consistently stated they want to fund everything except Obamacare. Now, why present it that way? Because Obamacare is an untenable law that will hurt this country in many ways. And, because the Republicans are finally listening to their constituents who have elected them to do what they can to repeal or defund the monstrosity. However, having said that, the Republicans are willing to compromise to stop the shutdown by delaying Obamacare for a year and repealing the medical device tax.

However, this President, who will negotiate with major sponsors of terrorism, Iran and Syria, refuses to negotiate with  Republicans. Never mind that he, himself, has imposed amendments and delays on this law such as exemptions for Congress, big business, etc., delayed the employer mandate, and signed off on many other reforms.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/study-obamacare-has-been-amended-delayed-19-times/

Although there have been many government shutdowns in the past, never has a president so openly revealed such a vengeful streak as this president does. He has no interest in negotiating or compromising with people whom he perceives as the real enemy, aka Republicans.

While an open handshake is extended to terrorist nations, the Republicans are offered a closed fist.

Fight For Us!

In My Opinion
We want them to fight. We need them to fight. They must fight.

We elect our politicians to fight for us. We elect them to represent us. 'We the people' want our voices heard, and we want the politicians to act on our will. So, when Ted Cruz stands up on the Senate floor to fight to defund Obamacare, we like it. We've had enough of elected officials promise one thing and then do another. Every single Republican who was up for election/re-election, promised to fight to defeat Obamacare one way or another.  Yet, when push comes to shove, the vast majority of them throw up their hands and call it a fait accompli. At the moment, Cruz is winning the day...as he should. He's doing what he was elected to do. These days that's rare.

Armed With the Facts

The topic of gun control elicits intense emotions on both sides. The fact is, gun rights advocates and gun control advocates alike, abhor needless shootings such as the recent Washington Navy Yard massacre or the Newtown nightmare.  The following offers some of the facts, in order to reach reasoned, not emotional, conclusions. 
 
Bill of Rights - 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 amendment is not about keeping guns for hunting or sport shooting. This amendment goes to the heart of constitutional principles to preserve the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was written to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It is what stands between 'we the people' and an ever-growing and intrusive government.  It is this right that protects our other rights.
An armed civilian population can defend itself against a tyrannical government, as well as individual violations.  A look back in history shows that tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and Mao relied on an unarmed population to control them and to seize power. The day after Kristallnacht, Hitler prohibited Jews from acquiring guns or any weapons, and those who possessed guns were ordered to turn them over to the police.  http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

"Gun ownership transcends petty partisan politics.  The intentional disarmament of the population has irrefutably been shown as a necessary though not sufficient condition to genocide." (Gun Control, Disarmament and the Threat of Genocide, by Dr. Jason J. Campbell) http://www.academia.edu/486853/Gun_Control_Disarmament_and_the_Threat_of_Genocide_Second_Amendment

"The threat to the Second Amendment is also coming internationally as the United Nations has a goal of disarmament. They have actively campaigned for worldwide gun control, and have declared that civilian ownership of guns is a major cause of violence around the world. The reality is that the UN has failed miserably in preventing crimes against humanity, and has further facilitated in the disarming of populations, leaving them defenseless."  http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dana_gab_071217_disarming_of_the_pop.htm

In November 2012, the Obama administration voted for a renewed effort to pass the "Small Arms Treaty." Sen. Rand Paul is working to defeat this treaty in the Senate.  According to Paul,
"You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies:
***  Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
***  CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
***  BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
***  Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/rand-paul-obama-is-working-with-anti-american-globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/

Gun Crime 

 Despite public perception, crimes committed with firearms continue a two decade decline, including the number of school type shootings.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/07/gun-control-would-address-declining-crim
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "firearm-related homicides declined 39% and non-fatal firearm crime declined 69% from 1993 to 2011."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/09/stats-gun-crime-plummets-over-last-two-decades-poll-public-totally-clueless-n1591940
There are almost double the number of guns since the early '90's, yet violent gun crime is cut in half.

Strict Gun Control

Strict gun control doesn't mean fewer gun crimes. California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011. That same year California was named the state with the strictest gun laws.
In 1976 Washington D.C. took strong measures.  It banned new handguns, it required all guns to be registered and required guns at home to be stored unloaded, disassembled or locked up. And it also topped the list of highest gun murder rates in 2011.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statistics-that-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see/
Another case in point, Chicago, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country and some of the strictest gun control laws.  http://www.policymic.com/articles/22622/gun-control-is-why-chicago-murder-rates-are-skyrocketing

"In reality, an extensive 2004 report by the National Academy of Science was not able to identify a single gun control regulation that actually reduces violent crime, suicides or accidents. The NAS panel reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some of its own empirical work on firearms. The shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Newtown were mentally ill persons.  They posed a danger to society before they committed their acts of violence." (Control, by Glenn Beck).  Navy veteran Aaron Alexis reportedly had mental illness as well.

Self Defense

Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens won't prevent shootings like Newtown, because stricter gun control laws don't keep criminals from acquiring guns. In fact, there are many cases when a gun in the hands of a responsible person kept a situation from escalating. With more gun-free zones, and fewer armed law-abiding citizens, more helpless victims are created. In the case of the Washington Navy Yard, had the military personnel not been prohibited from carrying a firearm on the base (ban was imposed in 1993), it's likely that the casualties would've been limited. Bans simply disarm potential victims. With regard to the mass murders which have occurred in the last few years, what ultimately stopped the 'bad guy' with a gun, was a 'good guy' with a gun.  The police cannot protect us from immediate danger, they can only respond to it. And, waiting for the police to come offers more time for the criminal to commit more violence.   Individuals must be able to protect themselves from these criminals.

Although the estimates vary widely depending on a number of factors, statistics regarding defensive gun use range from a high estimate of 1-2 million per year, low estimates average between 250,000-370,000 incidents per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
Most defensive gun use incidents rarely get media attention, which is why the public by a majority of 56% believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago.

Assault Weapons

The assault weapon is rarely used by criminals since it is neither concealed nor portable.
The most commonly used weapon is a handgun, not a semi-automatic.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/07/gun-control-would-address-declining-crim

According to the assaultweapon.info website, "In the late 1980s, more than two decades after the AR-15 was first sold to the American public, the anti-gun lobby began a systematic campaign to conflate it and other "military-style" firearms with machine guns. The media followed suit, and soon the American public began to think that an assault weapon was, like the assault rifles it resembled, a machine gun.

This strategy came to fruition in 1993, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was introduced in Congress. The AWB would ban the sale of new assault weapons to American civilians.

However, since "assault weapon" was an invented term, it had no technical meaning. Before assault weapons could be banned, legislators had to define them.

Because assault rifles were already banned, and because an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms wasn't considered politically feasible, the AWB defined assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms that shared too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts."

"According to Senator Feinstein so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time."

"Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.
The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. So-called assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms—the guns most commonly used by millions of law-abiding Americans." (Semi-automatic means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.)
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Conceal Carry Laws

Some data suggests that states with conceal carry laws have the lowest crime.
"The recent report from ABC News that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down
http://www.firearmsclasses.com/information/concealed-carry-facts/

"What did Sandy Hook Elementary School, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theaters in Colorado have in common? They were all the sites of massacres that ended innocent lives. And they all were gun-free zones."
John Lott, an economist and gun rights advocate who authored the book "More Guns, Less Crime," recently examined mass shootings. He discovered that "not only are gun-free zones ineffective at preventing mass shootings, shootings are actually more likely to occur in gun-free zones because the shooter knows there will be less resistance."
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/mar/23/gun-free-zones-dont-work/

Background Checks

There are already a number of background checks on the books.  However, many states do not require a waiting period between the time of purchase and the transfer of the firearm. It may be more effective to impose waiting periods to allow law enforcement to perform the background checks, and it gives the purchaser a 'cooling off' time to prevent impulsive acts.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background
http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-periods-policy-summary/

The problem is, the criminals don't buy guns legally, and therefore are able to circumvent the system. In the case of the Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza took guns from his mother, and thereby didn't have to go through a background check.  This 'private sale' loophole in the law allows anyone who isn't a federally licensed gun dealer to sell a gun without a background check.  According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "researchers in 2000 reviewed more than a decade of crime data in states with and without background checks. They found no significant difference in murder rates in states that had implemented the checks and states that had not." http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/guns-background-checks-do-they-work-86755_Page3.html
More regulations simply do not apply to those not following the laws in the first place. And law-abiding citizens simply don't need more laws and regulations since they are law-abiding.  However, improved checks on mentally unstable people seems to be in need. There was no criminal record for Aaron Alexis, but his mental instability, as evidenced by prior incidents, needed to raise a red flag for gun ownership, as well as for security clearances.

Other Factors

While many look at the guns used in mass shootings, a look at the people committing the mass shootings reveals some common background. As mentioned, several of the shooters had a history of mental illness.  If we are to improve mental health reporting, it will likely be more complex than meets the eye; how will it be determined who gets reported?  Does it have to entail prior commitment to a mental facility? Would that apply to those involuntarily committed or also to those who voluntarily went in for treatment? Would visiting a psychiatrist get reported? Would certain prescriptions raise a red flag? Besides the potentially inaccurate reporting, collecting that kind of information for a database could violate civil liberties.  There are many concerns and questions that arise here.
Another factor that some of the mass shooters had in common was that they were avid gamers. Does playing violent video games increase aggression? According to research presented by APA, when referring to children and adolescents, "there is a consensus amongst the vast majority of violent video game researchers that too much exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviors, leads to desensitization to violence and also leads to decreases in pro-social behaviors and empathy (Anderson et al, 2010; Huesmann 2010)." There are some detractors from this view that believe the methodology is flawed.   http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10ASISBSRS.pdf

Summary

The Second Amendment offers citizens the right to self protect.
A tyrannical government will seek to disarm the population.
The UN is actively campaigning to impose strict gun control internationally.
Gun crime has decreased despite the increase of gun sales.
Strict gun control does not translate into less gun crime.
Defensive gun use far outnumbers offensive gun use.
Assault weapons are used 0.06% of the time.
Data suggests that conceal carry laws deter gun crime.
Gun-free zones are ineffective at preventing crime.
Background checks won't find criminals. Criminals get guns illegally.
Many states don't impose waiting periods before taking possession of a firearm.
Private sales of guns represent a loophole in the laws.
Improvements in mental health reporting are needed.
Other factors in violent shootings play a role, e.g. mental illness, violent video games.


The point of controversy for gun control advocates vs. pro gun advocates, is that the former believes that guns are to blame, the latter believes the person is to blame. The lens with which you see this issue will determine how you feel it should be dealt with. However, when deciding where you stand on the Second Amendment, get armed with the facts.

Global Warming - We Must Be Skeptical

So much for Al Gore's prediction that Arctic summer ice may all disappear by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.  Recently we learned that Arctic ice has grown by 60% since last year at the same time. This is contrary to the 'expert' opinions that it would completely disappear in a few years.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/12/remember-all-those-breathy-predictions-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/  And, in yet another study on climate research, the latest being published in science journal, Nature Climate Change, it was revealed that global warming has been wildly overestimated. Comparing 117 predictions on climate change made in the 1990's, only 3 have been roughly accurate, leaving 114 predictions flat, that there would be more warming than what has actually occurred.

According to John Christy, professor at University of Alabama, he "looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world.
Many of these 'overestimations also made their way into the popular press.' For instance, the Associated Press in 1989 reported, 'Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide 2 degrees by 2010.'  Such articles then became the launching point for many other stories in local papers and national newscasts. According to NASA, though, 'global temperature has increased by less than half that—about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit—from 1989 to 2010.'"  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/13/Study-Climate-Predictions-Wildly-Overestimated-Global-Warming

According to climate scientist and professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Hans Von Storch, "despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase 'very close to zero'."  When asked why the Earth's temperatures have not increased in any significant way in the past 15 years, despite the fact that CO2 emissions have increased more than expected, Storch attributes to unreliable climate models which forecast temperatures. http://www.theclimategatebook.com/global-warming-virtually-zero/

This seems to reinforce the 'climategate' scandal of 2009, which indicated that major climate scientists were manipulating data to support a global warming thesis, according to thousands of emails and documents (which were hacked into) from the Climate Research Unit in England. While there is some controversy over whether this scandal was a direct repudiation on global warming or not, one must be somewhat skeptical of a science that is presented on sketchy evidence. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/11/30/global-warming-e-mails-scandal-show-scientists-may-have-cooked-the-facts

And yet, Obama recently stated, “we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.” However, at a Senate hearing of Environment and Public Works, expert witnesses were asked if Obama's assertions were true.  Apparently, after several seconds of quiet, Heidi Cullen, former meteorologist for the Weather Channel, chimed in that warming has slowed, not accelerated.  A while later, another Senator looked for answers to the same question about the acceleration of global warming. This time, no one answered. Many of these witnesses were called by Senator Barbara Boxer, who must've been disappointed not to get the confirmation she was looking for about global warming.  She and others did not get the justification they needed for this administration to impose costly carbon emission restrictions. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/19/senator-barbara-boxers-own-experts-contradict-obama-on-global-warming/

The President added, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”  The new head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, stated that the Obama administration is planning to bypass Congress on legislation regarding climate change.  Is it possible that it's his impatience to pass a redistributive political agenda that's growing? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/14/climate-change-obama-epa-plan-action-sans-congress/  While Obama plans to make this a priority in his second term, this doesn't fit with how most Americans prioritize their concerns.  In a recent Pew Poll, dealing with global warming came in 21st on a list of issues important to the country. http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/

The ramifications on our country will be significant.  Major reform on energy policies will undoubtedly affect productivity and industry, as well as individual costs to support these reforms. While our President may not have much patience for deniers, many Americans don't have much patience for those who want to turn our economy even more upside down with suffocating restrictions, higher taxes, and fewer energy sources. Skepticism is important. Let's be clear about the science before this country is negatively impacted.

Always Remember

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1151859712001/flashback-911-as-it-happened/

Whose Side Do We Take Anyway?

In My Opinion
When President Obama drew a red line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria, he committed us to honoring that red line. Now it seems one of the factions in the civil war there has crossed that line. One of the main problems with this scenario is that the two sides fighting both include radical Islamists.  President Assad and his supporters include Hamas and Hezbollah. The other side includes Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Who are we supposed to side with? Neither side deserves our 'help'. Had the U.S. intervened two years ago, the outcome may have been different since the oppositional fighters were largely secular and pro-democracy. Not that I'm suggesting we should have intervened then either. But now, after 2 years of fighting, that faction has been diminished. In that time, at least 100,000 Syrians have been killed, and now our President decides he must take a stand because a few hundred people died from chemical weapons? The video footage is wrenching, and maybe that was intentional.  After all, having us intervene stresses our resources.  It forces us to take sides, but again, neither side is friendly to us. Intervening now offers our country no benefit economically nor does it offer any national security benefit. In fact, it puts Israel at risk for attack because that's the word coming from Assad.  Hit us, he said, and we hit Israel. So why, then?

This whole issue raises more questions than we have answers for.
Why does Obama want to intervene?
What's the benefit to the United States to do so?
Why was the President not concerned after so many people were killed prior to the use of chemicals?
Where is the national security concern for America?
What is the economic benefit?
Who does benefit if we intervene?
Who stands to take control of Syria if we help the oppositional side 'win' this civil war?
Why would he want us to engage in another war front when our military is already spread thin and our economy is in such bad shape?
Who actually is using the chemical weapons?
Why is the president so sure that Assad is behind the chemical warfare when Intelligence says it's not definite?
Why are John Kerry and Joe Biden pushing the idea that Assad must be punished?
Why is the administration so eager to do something when they were so adamantly against Bush taking action in Iraq for similar reasons?
Why were they warning and (in Biden's case) calling for impeachment if Bush acted without Congress, but it's okay for them now to act without Congress?
Is this all about the red line that Obama drew?
Why would Obama reveal to the world what kind of attack he would launch, the duration, and the location?
Why is Obama in such a rush to make a move?
What is the objective he's trying to achieve?
Does he have an objective?
Does it even matter if Britain and France drop out of the picture?
Is he willing to strike unilaterally?
What will be the impact on Israel?
Why is Obama willing to put Israel in peril over this?
If the reason is humanitarian, then why not get involved in other genocides?
Was the use of chemicals intentional to bait us into intervening in this war?
If so, who is baiting us?

Too many unanswered questions, too many costs. Obama needs to take this to the Congress and the people.

The Silence Over the Coptic Christians

While this administration beats the war drum for Syria, attention is being diverted from the horrific situation in Egypt.  Although the administration doesn't like to talk about it, the fact is, that Christians there are being killed, churches are being burned, houses are being marked, and schools and businesses are being destroyed. Since the ouster of  President Mohammed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, violence against the Coptic Christians has spiked, although murder of Christians there has been going on for years.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/15/egypt-coptic-church-islamists/2640419/

Although human rights groups recently condemned the hateful rhetoric of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, nothing is being done to stop the violence. To date, hundreds of Christians have been killed. Since the takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood last year, tens of thousands of Coptic Christians have fled the country in fear. Currently, the Copts in Egypt represent 10% of the population of 80 million people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/9798777/Egypts-Coptic-Christians-fleeing-country-after-Islamist-takeover.html

Several days ago, Egyptians, both Christian and Muslim, rallied in front of the White House, protesting our president's alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood.  "Don't support terrorists!" they yelled.

"The protestors are also angered by Western media coverage of the situation in Egypt. They rallied against the Washington Post, accusing both the newspaper and Obama of being biased in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood."

"So the Obama administration helps the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; that's not right," anti-Brotherhood protestor Sawers Kamel said. "That has a lot of question marks. Why? Why?"  http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/August/Egyptian-Christians-Muslims-March-against-Obama/

In Nashville, TN recently, hundreds of Coptics took to the streets also pleading with Obama, "don't you care?"  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/21/coptic-christians-chant-tennessee-streets-obama-do/

In June, the UN Ambassador to Egypt put pressure on the Copts not to demonstrate against Morsi and the Brotherhood.
"Egyptian Christians and U.S. citizens of Egyptian ancestry feel abandoned by the United States, which currently refuses to acknowledge persecution of Christians by Muslims, lest it offend the Muslim world."  http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/Coptic-Christians-persecution-Egypt/2012/05/24/id/440236

Remember that Obama helped oust Mubarek and supported the Muslim Brotherhood, who have been visiting the White House over the past few years, still do, and also currently hold government jobs.  Remember when John Brennan, now CIA Director, claimed they were secular and benevolent? Nothing could be further from the truth.

The silence about the persecution of Christians speaks volumes.  Interesting to see who this president chooses to stand with.