The most telling comment in the piece is how Obama has talked about “going Bulworth” and just saying what he actually thinks. This is a reference to the Warren Beatty/Halle Berry film about a California senator who decides to tell everyone what he believes, no matter the consequences. The New York Post has taken it to mean Obama wants to come out and admit he’s a socialist, which the Bulworth character is. This could be true, but it also reveals a problem with our political system.

Politicians have a problem with being 100-percent honest. Big surprise, but a David Axelrod quote following the Bulworth revelation is even more telling. Axelrod told The Times, “But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying.”

It’s not that politicians can’t tell the truth, it’s that they don’t think the public wants to know the truth.

The sad part is…they’re probably right.

More people would rather be told that things are “going to be okay,” instead of hearing the horrific reality of the situation.

The 2012 election is a perfect example of this. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were vilified for discussing the nation’s $16-trillion in debt. Columnists like Paul Krugman claimed the nation’s debt isn’t an issue, while Obama told David Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.” Letterman asked only one follow up but that shouldn’t be surprising. He’s not Jake Tapper.

When Romney spoke his mind in the “infamous” 47-percent quote, he was said to “not represent all Americans” and to have “written off half the nation.” Obama, again, told Letterman about how he wanted to represent the “entire country,” but didn’t talk the substance of Romney’s quote, why he may have said it or the context.

Guaranteed: more people saw Obama make those comments than any of Romney’s speeches on the debt.

However, it’s not just Romney who was vilified. Ron Paul was called a “dangerous man” for some of his positions. A look at the jokes the late night talk show hosts said about Paul, shows they saw him more as a “crazy uncle” and not a real candidate. Now, Paul is a horrible messenger from time to time (see his Chris Kyle tweet and his September 11^th comment) but he’s at least willing to speak his mind and tell the truth. Something refreshing in politics.

As much as people claim to want the truth, the reality is much different. The truth hurts and people prefer “flowers and sunshine” to reality. There’s a difference between pointing out problems and solutions, and just telling people it will be okay. This is why politicians use double-speak and seem distance. A majority of people don’t want reality.

There is a way for conservatives and libertarians to break through this. Outreach. Real outreach, not the failed attempt of Project ORCA by Romney’s team during 2012. Get out in the community and be with people. See what they experience. Explain to them how freedom and liberty is important and show them how it can make their lives better. Support what Deneen Borelli and Wayne Dupree are doing in the Black community and what “True the Vote” is trying to do with the Hispanic community. Talk to friends. Engage them.

And keep politicians accountable. It’s not always pragmatic to change one’s mind. Sometimes it’s simply political. Get them to explain why they do what they do. Get them to tell the truth.

It’s the only way to prove Axelrod and his ilk wrong.

And to make sure Bulworth isn’t “just” a movie but reality.

(Richmond, VA) – “The IRS Exempt Organizations unit has violated the sacred constitutional rights of some 75 Tea Party and Patriot groups that had applied for tax-exempt status between 2009 and 2012,” said Mark Daugherty, Chairman, Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation. “The Tea Party rejects the apology by Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Organizations, for her department’s confirmed discrimination and illegal treatment against groups that have the words ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriots’ in their name,” declared Mr. Daugherty.

The Constitutional violations include.

1. First Amendment: The rights of free speech. Viewpoint discrimination.

2. Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

3. Fourteenth Amendment: Equal protection of the law.

Mark Daugherty said, “This egregious behavior requires a full top-to-bottom investigation by the Inspector General of the operations and practices of the IRS Exempt Organizations unit. “Furthermore, The IRS agents, supervisors, and senior executives should be held accountable for their illegal actions.”

The Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation notes the abusive and overtly political behavior by the IRS during the Clinton administration when critics of President Clinton were subjected to tax audits.* “This cycle of IRS abuse and illegal behavior must be stopped,” said Mark Daugherty.

The Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation thanks the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) for advocating on behalf of 27 tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status, including tea party groups in Virginia.

“Several Tea Party groups in northern Virginia were discouraged from seeking tax-exempt status due to the chilling effects of the enhanced investigations by the IRS,” said Mark Daugherty. “In addition, the Shenandoah Valley Tea Party Patriots spent 26 months working through the tortuous tax-exempt process, and spent 235 hours to compile a 10-pound report measuring seven inches thick, to comply with a second-round of IRS information requests.”

Ron Wilcox, lead organizer of the Northern Va Tea Party, said, “We were discouraged from applying for tax exempt status because we knew the IRS was targeting the tea party groups for ‘special examination’ and ‘enforcement’.”

“The tea party groups targeted should also be reimbursed for the extra time and expense forced upon them in attempting to comply with these illegal, threatening mandates handed down against them by the IRS,” states Mr. Daugherty.

The Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation is a coalition of 46 independent Tea Party and patriot groups that stand for fiscal responsibility, constitutionally-limited government, and free market principles.

*http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/column.novak

Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft were Republicans. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were Democrats.

The American “progressive” movement leaned heavily upon and was greatly influenced by the Fabian Socialist Society in England. The Fabian Socialists contribution to the “progressive” movement was the idea that their goals could be achieved most successfully if their society worked to re-mold the world nearer to their heart’s desire gradually, using tactics of harassment and attrition, and striking full force only when their moment was at hand. This strategy was employed by their namesake, the Roman general Fabius Maximus, who used it in combat against the superior military forces of Hannibal and the Carthaginians.

This strategy, also known as gradual inevitability, has been one of the cornerstones of the “progressive” movement in America. Instead of attempting to over-reach for their long term goal to subjugate the American public in one fell swoop, thereby ensuring that the electorate of a country founded upon the pillars of freedom and liberty would roundly and soundly reject their ideas, they decided to take on a seemingly insurmountable task in small steps that were both more easily hidden and more easily digested by the Republic.

The federal income tax began in 1913, courtesy of “progressives” William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. Thanks to the unyielding activism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who browbeat the United States Supreme Court into accepting his legislation against their better judgment, Social Security was launched in 1935. Medicare and Medicaid came into being in the year 1965 courtesy of Lyndon Baines Johnson and his Great Society agenda. Thanks to the concerted efforts of numerous “progressives” in both houses of Congress, who reached secretive backroom deal in the dead of night, twisted arms and employed the parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation in the Senate, they, along with the Barack Hussein Obama White House were able to pass “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” commonly known as Obamacare, which was signed into law in 2010.

This is an accurate description of a gradual “progression” toward the inevitable goal of an expanded government taking increasing control over the lives of individuals.

The next powerful influence on the “progressive” movement in America was the Frankfurt School.

The Frankfurt School was an openly Communist group formed in 1923 during the pre-Nazi Germany Weimar Republic. After Adolph Hitler came to power in 1933 the Frankfurt School knew that if they stayed in Germany Hitler would kill them for being Communists. They then fled Germany to escape that fate and were welcomed into the United States by “progressive” President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

From the Frankfurt school, “progressives” in America assimilated the concepts of cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness. Cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness were the driving force behind the 1960s cultural-revolution in the United States.

Cultural Marxism is an offshoot of Marxism that maintains that human behavior results from culture, instead of heredity or race. Cultural Marxists promoted the idea of racially organizing non-whites in concert while asserting that for white people, race does not exist. Cultural Marxists promoted the impairment of white people, race-based affirmative action, globalization, coded speech, censorship, diversity, anti-Western education, dysfunctional sexual norms, the mass immigration of Third World populations into Western countries, multiculturalism over a nation rooted in common ancestry, and elevating non-Western religions above Western religions. Cultural Marxism advocates the idea that whites, instead of giving birth to white babies, should marry interracially or adopt non-white children.

Critical Theory is destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture: Christianity, morality, capitalism, conservatism, authority, family, patriarchy, hierarchy, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism and convention.

Political correctness was and remains another key element. The basis of political correctness is: when addressing the general public, present your beliefs attractively. It’s a matter of being “sensitive” to other people. Use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking: “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Political correctness in the USA was championed by Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual revolution. He was the one who coined the expression “make love, not war.”

By using the Fabian Socialist strategy of gradual inevitability in combination with the tactics of cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness, “progressives” in America discovered a prescription with which to lethally poison America’s political system, academic atmosphere, mass media information delivery infra-structure and popular culture while attacking America’s exceptional values and long standing traditions.

I would encourage each of them to spend some time with a dog.  The harder one pulls on the leash of a dog the more it strains to be free.  Ultimately the dog pulls itself loose from the collar and runs wild, or it shies away in fear at every encounter.

Dogs are not much different from people, really.  Every living creature desires life and liberty.  It is the nature of living beings.

Yet, for thousands of years men of authority have failed to learn that one simple lesson that the powers of their office are inseparably connected to persuasion, not to compulsion.  “One more regulation” seems to be the eternal mantra of those that would be masters.  “If at first control does not work, tighten the leash” appears to be the follow-up.

God declared, “Thou shalt not kill”!  In the intervening years since that monumental and spectacular pronouncement mankind’s appointed masters have written ten thousand laws to enforce the Ten Commandments.

In recent years the consummately conspicuous contraptions of control have been “hate crimes”.  These are a set of laws adding subtly distinctive punishment to thoughts.  This breed of punish focuses on controlling the thoughts as well as the behavior.

Terrorism is one of those popular “hate crimes”.   It gets particular mileage for those that would be gods over the otherwise godless.  The right brand of labeling makes, in the eyes of the beholder, a crime more vicious.  It’s vileness rest on the motivations of the perpetrator.

We tend to used extraordinary descriptive words to explain the conduct of those whom are motivated by their beliefs. In the case of Tsarnaev’s, they are guilt of murder.  A trial will be legitimately held to determine the certainty of that.  Likewise it will determine the fate of the younger of the two.  Society, via mostly through our elected officials seeking to be extraordinarily offended, label their actions as terror.  Yet, Gosnell is guilt of murder. He is guilty of far more murders.  Some stories suggest him crimes against humanity have been as extensive as the “terrorists” of September 11, 2001.  The terms “terrorist” or “legal abortionist” do not alter the facts about their conduct. They are murders.

They committed violence against a natural right and ought to be punished, not rehabilitated. Their motivations (create terror, or, enhance the lifestyle of a woman) may be relevant for discussion and planning for the future, but those motivation do not alter the fact that they are murderers and ought to be punished, in the course of proper and lawful jurisprudence.

The nature of the victim, the vastness of their wicked thoughts ought not determine the depth or breadth of their punishment.  Politicians are a breed of self-conceited dictators.  Just as they seek special favor for their paying supporters, they warp their thinking into special brands of crime for enemies that likewise offend those same supporters.  It matters not what principle may be at heart.  It matters only if their pride can be satisfied among those that would buoy them up.

Giving a special name to an age-old crime does not categorize it into a form of vileness.  It only segregates the crime into a platform for self-indulgence by those who would exercise control over others.

President Obama made a very interesting decision on Wednesday by not only appealing to people’s emotions, but also openly demonizing and mocking the NRA and the U.S. Senate for not passing the Manchin-Toomey plan. It is several tactics defined by Saul Alinsky in “Rules For Radicals.”

The first is openly ridiculing the NRA, gun owners and the Republicans (and Democrats) who voted against the measure. By saying, “… instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill…but that didn’t matter. And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators (emphasis mine).”

Obama is trying to put the NRA, the GOP and gun owners into a box. It’s an attempt to make them ‘the bad guy,’ and out of the mainstream. He does this again with the, “90 percent of Americans want background checks.”

This doesn’t tell the entire truth. There are several Quinnipiac polls showing 90 percent surveyed want background checks, but the question is too simple. The survey doesn’t say who should be doing the checks, whether it was national, state or local. It simply asks whether background checks should be done. This is an important distinction supporters of gun control bills aren’t discussing.

However, gun rights advocates haven’t explained this. They are instead going on the defensive, which is what Obama hoped. The NRA is only using the “background checks will do nothing to stop crime,”strategy and raising fears about a national gun registry. These are valid concerns, but won’t work long-term because people will get tired of hearing it. As Alinsky says, “A tactic that drags on too long, becomes a drag.”

It’s also helping Obama marginalize them even further. The President can now use another Alinsky rule of, “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Obama can now bring out legitimately hurting families, like those in Newtown and Aurora, to have them push gun control. This tactic puts a face on those who have suffered in horrific tragedies. It makes it easier for the President to point at the NRA and say, “these people are keeping children from being safe.”

However, there are ways to use the personalization for gun rights. The best way to do this is bring out the Lone Star College student, who said on live TV, he wished he could have been armed when someone stabbed 14 people. Or have 15-year-old Sarah Merkle talk about gun rights. Or Mark Mattioli who lost his young son at Sandy Hook discuss why new gun laws won’t work. These can be effective push backs against Obama.

Obama isn’t going to back off on the push for gun control. While his original attack may have gotten an alternative he was looking for in the Toomey-Manchin plan, that thankfully failed. He, along with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are going to come up with new plans.

The NRA and gun rights supporters need to come up with their own plan, using new tactics, to beat it off. Encouraging people to the ballot box is one thing. TV and radio spots work as well. However, it’s important for gun rights supporters to remember to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites to get the word out.

It’s not over, and while Obama is president, the fight for gun rights may never end.

My wife and I recently sent separate e-mails to Sen. Tom Coburn asking him to join Rand Paul’s filibuster of Harry Reid’s latest gun control scheme.  We sent messages on the same day, she from her office and me from our home.  Neither of us knew about the other until that evening when we sat down for dinner and discussed the day’s events.  The responses we received were a day apart, hers on April 9th and mine on April 10^th.

I don’t know why we were surprised when we compared the responses but we were.  We both received the form letter some aide undoubtedly wrote to make it sound like Sen. Coburn actually believes in the 2^nd Amendment and the rights of We the People.  I have included the response I received and have my wife’s available if anyone desires to contest that they are the same.  I also know of two other people who received the same letter.

Letter from Sen. Tom Coburn in response to a request that he join the filibuster started by Sen. Rand Paul:

Dear Mr. Russell,

Thank you for taking the time to write me to express your opinion and concerns about the various gun control proposals. I am encouraged so many Oklahomans are making their voices heard. I have received an overwhelming number of letters, and in order to respond in a timely manner, I am writing a response that encompasses my entire position. If you have additional questions or concerns, please write me again.

  I want to be clear: I remain committed to defending and protecting our Constitution; namely the Second Amendment.  I have long protected the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. I am opposed to a ban on assault rifles and I oppose limiting magazines. I will not vote for any bill that limits the gun rights of law abiding citizens.  While I support a debate in the Senate on gun related issues—including reaffirming these rights and forcing gun-control advocates to have their votes on record and be held accountable for their votes—I will not only support, but lead a filibuster to prevent the passage of any bill that limits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.  

The news reports are correct that I have been involved in discussions to write legislation improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm.  I believe it is good public policy to make sure that those who are mentally-ill or a felon (both are already prohibited from owning a gun), do not have access to a weapon.  However, I oppose record keeping and will not agree to legislation that expands record keeping to private sales.

The concern I am hearing over and over is not just about people maintaining their right to own firearms—it is a concern about how to preserve liberty.  When our Constitution was adopted, we had just won a war fought largely by Minute Men and localized, or unofficial, militias (Sons of Liberty, etc).  The first shots fired at Concord were, in part, to preserve a local supply of firearms that the British sought to confiscate.  Our founders believed very strongly that the individual right to bear arms would preserve the independence and freedom won in 1781, just as they had enabled our founders to win the revolutionary war.  They feared tyranny and centralized power—which is why our Constitution was established.  In addition to the checks created by balancing power between a legislature and executive—and checked by a judiciary—the Bill of Rights sought to limit the federal government and clearly stated that those powers not enumerated in the Constitution and delegated to the federal government would remain with the states and the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments). 

Yet, our federal government regularly legislates on matters that belong to the states and the people.  Our freedoms are being gradually encroached and choked by ever-increasing regulations, laws, agencies, and overspending.  This concerns me greatly and I fight daily to rein in the size, scope and spending of our federal government.  I believe the greatest threat to our Republic is apathy as our overindulgent federal government, through indebtedness, spends the money of future generations.  James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, said something similar in 1788 in a speech in Virginia when he said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

I am aware of this and I work to push back on all attacks to our Constitution, including those to our Second Amendment. Congress must be careful not to legislate in a way that makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens.

Thank you for being involved and allowing me these last eight years to fight to protect our Constitution.  I daily think about the sacrifices of past generations and I am grateful.  In these last four years, as I finish out my second term, I remain committed to protecting your Second Amendment rights and working to limit our federal government and reduce federal spending. 

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

TC: lcp

That isn’t a response, it’s a press release.  And just what is there to debate about the 2^nd Amendment?  I thought it was quite obvious what the founders intended.  They intended for citizens to have the means to defend themselves, first and foremost, against a tyrannical government.  This mental health scam is just a way of abolishing the right to own firearms, thereby rendering We the People defenseless against a dictatorship.  Keep guns out of the hands of criminals???  How did prohibition work out, Senator??  How is Chicago working out???  Try enforcing the laws on the books now before passing more.  See how that works out.  But your answer is to surrender here and fight  ”next time”.  What “next time”???? Which “next time”?  When????????

I have always supported Sen. Coburn because I thought he was a true American patriot who cared deeply about his country and the God-given rights listed in the Constitution.  Coburn just voted to allow a simple majority of Democrats to gut the 2^nd Amendment, and nullify the 4^th and 5^th Amendments; and is telling constituents he supports our right to possess firearms.

This is double-talk if I ever saw double-talk!! And who decides who is mentally ill or not, Diane Feinstein???  Was I wrong all these years or has Coburn just decided that my liberty isn’t worth his effort since he is retiring from Congress at the end of this term?  Frankly, I don’t know what to think about him!!  Gun control, Amnesty, where does Coburn really stand up for America??

It is very apparent that Sen. Coburn, along with the bulk of the Republican Party and every member of the Democrat Party, has betrayed We the People.  They have also betrayed the oath of office they swore, to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America”.  That oath apparently is no longer valid in their minds.  They twist its meaning to justify their treachery as they have assumed the mantle of dictators with the power of life and death over the citizens they consider to be no more than subjects.  You know, kind of like King George!!!

Members of both political parties have gone beyond violating their oaths of office and have reached the point of treason.  It is painfully obvious they have no intention of governing, taking the position that their esteemed positions give them the “right”  to rule over We the People as if we are cattle to be herded at their whim.  When I see the outright arrogance and corruption that pervades government, both political parties and at all levels, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that liberty as established by our founding fathers is the driving force of politicians.  Power, prestige in the media, and personal wealth is all they seek.  The Constitution and the rights of citizens get in the way of their goal of total control of the nation.

Members of both political parties run to the microphones and cameras of their media lapdogs to proclaim their dedication to freedom while doing everything they can to destroy that freedom.  And the lapdog media, desiring favor from those same ruling politicians, report what they are told to report, and spin as they are told to spin.

This isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican power play; it is a political ruling class vs. We the People power play and We the People are losing.  DHS is arming itself to the teeth with billions of rounds of hollow point ammunition, the kind that cannot be used in war; thousands of full automatic rifles, the true “assault rifle”; thousands of armored vehicles called MRAP’s, the mine-proof type used in war by our military; and DHS agents run practice operations with local law enforcement, using machine gun firing helicopters over our cities.  What is all this armament of a “domestic security force” to be used for???  Care to take a guess????  Maybe they are going to start rounding up all the illegal aliens!!!!!!

Sen. Diane Feinstein tells us that ALL veterans are mentally ill, dangerously unstable, and should be banned from owning firearms.  In New York and California local law enforcement is already confiscating guns from those they see as a threat to their dictatorship.  How about that one Sen. Coburn???  Some states are racing to see who can pass the stiffest gun control legislation.  Never mind the 2^nd , 4^th, and 5th Amendments!!!!  They have DHS to back them up.

The Veteran’s Administration is now used as a conduit for imprisoning men and women who served their country honorably and now only desire to have the medical treatment promised to them for their service.  They have put their lives in danger for the freedom of others, protecting the very scumbag politicians that now seek to have them committed to asylums without due process; and to confiscate their guns without any reason other than politicians see them as a threat to their tyranny.

Is this the vision of America seen by our founding fathers; that veterans are now a threat to the very liberty the founders fought and died for?   Are veterans a threat to society because they shared that vision and were willing to risk their lives to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America”?  Is this how the experiment in freedom is to end?

And what of those who berate me and call me a “paranoid fear monger” because I see what is happening and call attention to tyranny?  “It can’t happen here”???? It is happening here, right now, and politicians in both political parties no longer hide behind fancy words and deception.  They come right out and state their intentions to disarm the entire populace, except for the criminals, of course.  New York governor Andrew Cuomo recently pronounced that “you don’t need 10 rounds to kill a deah”!!  Hey there Andy, the 2^nd Amendment isn’t about killing a “deah”, it is about keeping people like you in your place.  It is about protecting We the People from tyranny, from Nazi or Soviet style dictatorships that enslave and murder their people.  Politicians are supposed to be “public servants”, not rulers, but look where we are today.

I hope I live long enough to see these politicians and their bureaucrat minions, charged, arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for treason.  If We the People lose the war we are in right now it will be generations, if ever, before liberty will be restored.  Not one step backwards, Senator!!!

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty god to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

April 15, 2013

Whenever the phrase “equality” is used to make anything legal, look out, it’s not about fairness or liberty; it’s about having whatever one personally wants no matter the consequences to society and life in general.

The phrase “equality” is a very compelling argument. After all, here in the United States where liberty reigns and the Constitution upholds our natural rights to God-given liberty, we don’t want to take away anyone’s liberty.

Everything beyond our natural rights is a privilege individuals must work for—unless it is marriage. In that case, we are talking about something that has never been equal, because religions and societies are not equal.

Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, and for good reason: Marriage is a religious liberty instituted by God before governments ever existed. Government did not create marriage, government should never be allowed to dictate marriage or people will indeed lose private life. That’s why marriage is state-by-state.

But don’t think for one moment government would not like to get its expansive paws on marriage and dictate the rules of marriage and divorce.

Think about it: Do citizens apply for marriage licenses in Washington, D.C. or local town and city halls? If Americans sought D.C.’s permission to obtain marriage licenses, leaders would have the power to control how and when individuals marry, and heaven forbid, control marital life.

So, whenever Americans hear talk of “marriage equality,” look out, it’s an open door for government to finally become completely involved in private life, and when that happens, don’t think marriage affirmative action won’t be next on the list.

And therein lay the problem and questions no one’s asking both sides of the marriage argument.

What would the government do if marriage is taken from individual state’s and those rights are handed over to federal power?

There goes another Fourth Amendment liberty right down the tubes!

We must ask serious questions rather than assuming “that will never happen in America,” because too much of what we thought would “never happen here” already has and we are on the verge of all-out socialism.

Do readers really want marriage socialized and determined by the Federal Government? Could the Federal Government actually take control of marriage if given power to define marriage? If so, what are the possible repercussions?

If the Federal Government is given power over marriage, it would no longer be a state-by-state issue; a state’s right.

If the Federal Government has the power to define marriage, Washington could hold all Christian churches in contempt of the law if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Suppose the Federal Government were to twist Biblical scriptures “Judge  not lest you be judged,” and “whoever casts the first stone,”  falsely claiming scriptures demand no church can say no to same sex marriage or churches are violating scripture. Just imagine the Federal Government holding churches in contempt of the scriptures.

Never put anything past those who want to control the lives of citizens and use the Bible as a weapon against Christianity.

There goes more religious freedom.

Americans aren’t taking into account religious freedom; not having government impose its will upon our lives, which includes marriage. If we completely lose religious freedom, and we’ve lost much to the Left, Americans will in fact lose all liberty, because religious freedom is the foundation of this country.

Open the doors and let government into marriage and we wind up saying “I do” to the government.

As if we aren’t already.

Again, marriage has never been government instituted, but many determined to have rights to marry in all 50 states by-way-of  federal government mandate are not considering facts: They too will lose all rights to private life if the Federal Government is allowed to define and mandate marriage.

If given power to define marriage and give it “equality,” government could have power to define and determine who gets married and when.

How does Marriage Affirmative Action sound to readers?

Suppose the Federal Government said Christians can’t be married this year because the Federal Government does not have an equal quota on all marriages Christian, Jewish, gay, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, black, white, Asian, etc.?

What if  race-card panderers, who claim America is too white, place a quota on white marriages to lesson American’s birthing more whiteness?

Never assume power-hungry, vote-grabbing politicians, those with race-card platforms, and those who hate Christians and traditionalists, would never do any of the above to Americans.

Here’s another question: If the Federal Government has control over marriage, couldn’t it have the say over who can and cannot divorce?

Just imagine the Federal Government telling abused women they cannot divorce dangerous husbands who beat them.  Or denying Muslim women rights to divorce Muslim husbands threatening to behead wives, because Islam says women are second class citizens. Islam would no doubt demand Sharia Law marriage equality in America since it does in Europe. Abused women, Muslim and non-Muslim, already face difficulty when trying to free themselves from abusive situations; if government gets involved, government could say America has too much divorce, and then watch the real war on women begin.

Imagine the Federal Government not letting women divorce pedophile husbands on the grounds some claim pedophilia is a life-style choice, or, because some psychiatrists consider pedophilia a mental disorder that needs understanding and not condemnation.

Why would that be far-fetched when courts free pedophiles all the time on grounds of mental health disabilities rather than declaring them violent criminals and imprisoning them for life.

And let’s not forget divorce attorneys! They must rubbing their hands with glee over the fact they might become twice as wealthy if gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

Never assume this could not happen in a country where the Federal Government long-ago overreached it’s 17 Enumerated Powers into the states.

And let’s not forget polygamists; they consider their marriages religious liberty.

If Americans seriously think polygamists are not hoping the Supreme Court sides with gay marriage and the Federal Government makes marriage legal for everyone, America is wearing rose colored-glasses. Polygamists want equal rights to marriage,  they’ve already jumped on the bandwagon for “marriage equality” and are demanding federal rights to marry multiple wives, including young girls forced into polygamist marriages in Colorado City, Utah.

Hey, give one group rights to marry, you must then provide full liberty and equality to all, right?

No one realizes how much power “marriage equality” holds for government to overreach state’s further and completely intrude on and order everyone’s fourth Amendment rights if marriage is government controlled.

Don’t ever think the Federal Government would never do that.

 I just read a story that made my skin crawl.  Barack Obama has declared that the federal government will send federal agents into states to take over their insurance industry if they don’t surrender to Obamacare and set up the exchanges demanded by the regime.  Obamacare was passed in 2009 using bribery and arm twisting, topped off by a complete perversion of the legislative process.  It was opposed by a huge majority of We the People and reconciliation was used in a total disregard for the normal legislative process. This action led to the TEA Party uprising in 2010 that saw Republicans sweeping elections across the nation.

Now Obama brazenly stands up there and says that We the People have absolutely no voice in how we attend to our own health care.  This is bold, in your face, tyranny.  This is treason!!! Obama and his cadre of Marxists have once again thrown the Constitution out the window and said “I demand this…..!!!!!” or “I will by-pass Congress and do as I wish”.  Now he has decided to by-pass the state governments and the very voice of the people.  Is this not the definition of a dictatorship?

We either live by the Constitution or we live by the dictates of Der Fuhrer and his band of cutthroats.  The sad fact is that the ”leadership” of both political parties, the “ruling elite”, have joined forces with Obama to subjugate the population.  We now find “universal firearm registration” becoming much more acceptable to the Republican Party establishment, no surprise there.  All the noise about the assault weapons ban was a smoke screen for universal registration.  As soon as they know where all the weapons are they don’t need to ban them, they can just come out and confiscate them.  This is tyranny!!

Barack Obama has declared that he will dictate how we obtain and pay for our own health care, and he will send his armed agents to enforce it.  Any guess as to where a lot of the DHS purchases will be going???  The 10^th Amendment doesn’t mean any more to these people than does the 2^nd Amendment.  He will send his Gestapo agents into each state and just take over the industry, he will “nationalize” the insurance industry.

Anyone who opposes this dictator will be dealt with by “federales”.  In 2010, Oklahoma voters rejected Obamacare in a 70%-30% vote.  Obama says what we want doesn’t matter and that he will impose his will on us by using armed federal agents to insure compliance.

This is not a battle between Democrat and Republican; it is a battle between Good and Evil, between We the People and a tyrannical government.  They are already giving massive amounts of military hardware to city and state law enforcement agencies.  Some sheriffs and police chiefs have said they will stand with Obama but many have said they will stand with We People.

The few people in Congress who speak up for the Constitution are pilloried by people on both sides of the political “aisle”.  Personally, I don’t see an aisle between the parties.  The federal government, in the name of Der Fuhrer Barack Obama, has announced its decision to subjugate its citizens.  They no longer make any pretense of “looking out for our best interests” and have gone right to threatening to sending armed agents to impose their will on what is supposed to be a free people.

Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Benito Mussolini did this very thing when they seized control of their nations.  Anyone who refused to comply with the dictator was either bribed or intimidated into submission, or replaced (read that: shot).  As of now we have come to the point of “we refuse and they replace”.  How long before they step in somewhere else?  The federal government has been far too involved in our everyday lives for years.  Now that a majority has bucked up and said “whoa Hoss!!”, Obama and his cutthroats are going to just send in their Gestapo agents to enforce the dictate.

The question is, what are the states going to do????  Are the governors and other elected officers of these states going to accede to the demands of the dictatorship or are they going to stand up for the Constitution?  Are they going to honor their oath of office and their pledge to We the People???

Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak has said he does not have the authority to enforce federal laws and will not do so.  What will Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and the Republican controlled legislature do??? Will they step up and use state law enforcement to prevent this act of treason or will they roll over and give in???  If they will surrender our 9^th and 10^th Amendment rights today what happens when the “federales” get finished with the 2^nd Amendment?

If Congress, both political parties, and the governors of the threatened states, allow Obama to get away with such a blatant act of tyranny where will it stop??  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know what happens when a small group of people can use force to impose their will on the majority of the population.

And what about those states not directly affected by this?  Do you think this doesn’t affect you?  I remember a quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller  in which he mentioned all the times people were trampled on by the Nazi government and he said nothing because it wasn’t him. Then they got to him and he was alone.  We all must stand together now or there won’t be any standing together later because many of us will be gone.

Now is the time for the governors to get together and create a plan of action against this blatant tyranny.  Many sheriffs have said they will stick with We the People, and We the People will stick by their sides.  The time for party politics is gone.  This is about the liberty of the citizens of the United States of America.  The noose is tightening around our necks and the ruling political class is tightening it as fast as they can because they see the citizens waking up. They see citizens beginning to make serious preparations for an all-out assault on our freedom by a dictatorial oligarchy in Washington, D. C. (De Cesspool) and they are moving as fast as they can to head off any ability of said citizens to oppose them.

The people are mobilizing to fight off the activities of a government overstepping its Constitutional bounds while most of our elected officials, in both political parties, band together to remove our only means of protection, the 2^nd Amendment.

This action by the regime will abolish the 9^th and 10^th Amendments; universal firearm registration will abolish the 2nd Amendment.  The 4th Amendment against illegal search and seizure had been trampled to death numerous times in the last few years.  Our Republic is on the verge of oblivion and dictatorship is on the horizon.  Obama, Boehner, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, McCain, Graham, Cantor, Schumer, and the rest are not going to just give up when they are a whisker away from the absolute control they have been seeking.  Their behind-the-scenes handlers won’t allow it either.  The window for a peaceful resolution is rapidly closing.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russsell

Claremore, Oklahoma

March 26, 2013

There are more stories about this than I have toothpicks and we owned a restaurant. (Trust me, you end up with a lot of toothpicks after closing a restaurant.) I have a much different take on things but first “the facts:”

“No worries America”

When you think about it – I mean really think about it – can you even imagine having the desires (plural), let alone the time and energy of what’s left in a 24-hour day, to think of all the places you could go or of all of the friends you could take or could you find enough hours in what’s left of that day to spend $585,000 for a one night stay – even in Paris with an entire security entourage? And just who’s running our country without this brain child of gluttony at the helm?

Rush Limbaugh hit this nail on the head: People like this self-serving hooligan could not and would not (because they could not) do such things with their own money. They couldn’t afford to, even on their Congressional pay and perks. OUR money is paying for this amoral gluttony and whether you are a Liberal or Conservative, if you aren’t mad as hell about this waste and excess then there’s something seriously wrong with you – get out of here. Now.

“The Facts”

Joe Biden’s $585,000 hotel bill makes no sense, MSN Money

Biden did spend an evening in Paris in early February, but there are no details in the document about whether this contract is accurate or what the final hotel bill came to. A standard room in the hotel costs about $475 a night, and the royal two-bedroom suite runs about $3,900 a night.The Weekly Standard also points to another government contract for Biden’s London hotel stay in early February. The contract, to the Hyatt Regency London, totaled $459,339. An associated document with that contract said it was for 136 rooms for 893 room nights.

Few expenses are spared when Vice President Biden hits the road, racking up five-star hotel bills of $500G, Daily News

It can cost in the neighborhood of $500,000 a night — and that’s just for the hotel.Biden’s one-day visit to Paris on Feb. 4 required more than 100 rooms at the five-star Hotel InterContinental Paris Le Grand.

The lodging cost taxpayers $585,000.50, according to federal contracting records that emerged Friday.

Joe Biden runs up bill of $585,000 for just ONE NIGHT in five-star Paris hotel (and taxpayers will pick up the tab), Mail Online

When Mr Biden and his hefty entourage stayed in Paris for an evening in early February and it cost $585,000.50 for that single night. The Vice President likely rented out more than 100 rooms in the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand, though they must not have gotten a group discount rate.

Biden One-Night Hotel Tab: $585,000, The Weekly Standard

The documentation for this contract is not as detailed as the London one, so the cost per room is not available.  However, just like his London hotel, the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand is a five star hotel. Again, security concerns prevent these type of contracts from being open to bidding, but if the government was able to do some comparison shopping, the Hotel Intercontinental has a special offer, “Find a lower price elsewhere and your first night is free.” The Vice President stayed in Paris for one night.

Biden One-Night Hotel Tab: $585,000, The Washington Free Beacon

Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, spent three days traveling Germany, London and Paris in February.They stayed at the five-star Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand then spent $459,388.65 at the Hyatt Regency London the next day, also according to the Weekly Standard:

Joe Biden Spends 1 Night In Paris, Racks Up $585K Bill [PHOTOS], Hip Hop Wired

(See photo essay.)

If you want to know how Biden did this against all reasonable human odds, you’re in the right place … Go here.

This is no joke. That’s the only reason I don’t parody this lamebrain administration’s unconscionable thuggary-theft of taxpayer money more. You need to read this linked article and make time for its video. Until then this will only get worse. GOP Old Guard Republicans are no better. They’re lovin’ it just as much. All on the backs of our labors (or entitlement program cut, whatever your case may be – it DOES effect you). Stop it or stop whining.

Contact your legislator today. Tell them to stop this gross spending as they deprive taxpayers who’re paying their overly extravagant bills. If not you, who? We could function better without a government than with this one. Pick your poison. I’ll take my chances with YOU any day.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

This week, on Openculture.com, I stumbled onto a reference of a Bertrand Russell column from 1951. In the New York Times Magazine article, Russell shared his “10 Commandments for a Healthy Democracy”. Now, dismissing for a moment whether he was a classical liberal, a neo-liberal, an English liberal, or American liberal, I would like to allow the commandments to stand on their own.

I propose to take Russell’s rules, and use them to give a simple zero to two grading scale for each of the majorities in the houses of Congress, and for the President and his administration. Along with the grades, I will also list the most significant reasons for assigning the grades that I have. At the end, I will tally the scores, and reveal who has been the most misguided, and most ignorant when it came to Russell’s advice. So, here is Russell’s commandments vs. the United States government’s behavior:

1. “Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.”

Senate Dems: Senate Democrats were positive that Obamacare was a brilliant idea, and Democrats’ self assuredness led them to believe that the benefits Americans received would help them overlook the massive costs. (0 points)
Obama: “The shovel-ready jobs weren’t so shovel-ready…” (0 points)
House GOP: Republicans were sure that the 2012 election would end in a Romney win, and then, with their increased majority in the House, they could begin repealing Obamacare… (0 points)

2. “Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.”

Senate Dems: 1450+ days without any budget, while they (Harry Reid especially) claim to hold solutions to the miserable economic conditions. (1 point)
Obama: Benghazi (-2 points)
House GOP: John Boehner claims constantly to hold the line, and be ready to tell the president and Reid that he will not budge. However, after closed-door meetings, he seems to sing a different tune. Just what magic happens behind those doors? (0 points)

3. “Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to do so.”

Senate Dems: As Rand Paul held a 13-hour filibuster, in order to get definitive answers on the domestic drone program, Harry Reid sought to quash the filibuster. (0 points)
Obama: Obama was famously quoted, when referring to a great number of his fellow Americans in the Midwest as “get[ting]bitter and they cling to their guns or religion.” (o points)
House GOP: Speaker Boehner infamously warned fellow Republican Congressmen that he was paying close attention to their voting records, and that he will be “…watching all [their] votes.” (0 points)

4. “When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.”

Senate Dems: Harry Reid claims that the Senate needs legislation that has passed through the House so that they may vote on it in the Senate…While he uses his power as majority leader to table legislation that has passed the House. (0 points)
Obama: President Obama has expressed his want to work without Congress, and he has already signed 147 executive orders. (0 points)
House GOP: Paul Ryan has repeatedly offered a budget that has both cuts and overhauls Medicare, and balances in ten years – but it doesn’t seem able to receive consideration from Democrats. (1 point)

5. “Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.”

Senate Dems: In the Senate, rumblings have been heard to force changes for filibusters, and  again, I mention Harry Reid’s attempt to override the recent Rand Paul filibuster. (2 points)
Obama: Obama’s czars and heavily regulating EPA, not to mention his non-recess appointments of NLRB officials, reveal his penchant for thumbing his nose at authority and rule. (2 points)
House GOP: John Boehner famously responded to a Harry Reid jab, wherein Reid intimated Boehner was acting like a dictator – “Go f**k yourself.” (2 points)

6. “Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.”

Senate Dems: Harry Reid’s unwillingness to even allow any up-or-down votes on legislation from the House is within his powers as majority leader (setting the calendar for discussing legislation). (0 points)
Obama: Criticized for purposely avoiding certain media networks, and giving more interviews with networks seen as friendly to his agenda, Obama has used power and access to control many narratives. (1 point)
House GOP: John Boehner’s December removal of Tea Party caucus members from committees, after their election to Congress specifically to usher in a different, more responsible way of spending, really seemed to dismiss the voters’ wishes. (1 point)

7. “Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”

Senate Dems: Senator Diane Feinstein takes the cake here, with her hugely over reaching plan to seize and ban this, that, and the other gun, even as such plans fly directly against the 2nd Amendment. (2 points)
Obama: Joe Biden, famously explaining that the way to get out of debt, was simply to increase spending. (2 points)
House GOP: With his last, and arguably most successful presidential bid, Representative Ron Paul has pushed many ideas to the forefront of American political thought. From illustrating the dangers of fiat currency, to the arbitrary nature of Federal Reserve policy, even though he has retired from the House, he will continue to tour college campuses, and share his ideals. (1 point)

8. “Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.”

Senate Dems: Perhaps finally realizing how yet another tax may hinder the economy, in December, 2012, 18 Senators and Senators-elect petitioned Harry Reid for a moratorium on the Obamacare tax on medical devices, the repeal of which, had previously been decried as a Republican concern. (2 points)
Obama: As the president has yet to offer any really intelligent dissent to, or passive agreement with much of anything, he receives no points. (incomplete)
House GOP: While there has been much rhetoric bandied about regarding Obamacare, much of which has been intelligent dissent, it has also been coupled with criticisms describing exactly why the healthcare overhaul will cause more pain than benefit. (1 point)

9. “Be scrupulously truthful, even when the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.”

Senate Dems: Harry Reid had a very credible (but never named) source that said Mitt Romney has not paid taxes in ten years. (0 points)
Obama: The president has shared varying reasons for the Benghazi attack, and the explanation has been hazy on why military backup was never sent to the compound to rescue the Americans who were under siege. Over 30 witnesses are now being kept quiet and cannot share their experiences during the Benghazi attacks. (0 points)
House GOP: House Republicans said they had enough debt ceiling compromises. The time for dealing was over. Boehner et al. had drawn their line in the sand. Then…the debt ceiling was raised. Again. (0 points)

10. “Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.”

Senate Dems: The Senate seems to have little ethical or moral dilemma when it comes to raising taxes on the 1%, or any other income brackets. Without consideration, taking more from those who have more just makes sense. (0 points)
Obama: Obama has frequently compared himself to Abraham Lincoln – despite Lincoln’s presidency spanning with one of the darkest times in American history. Obama seems to relate more to the Lincoln legend than the actual Lincoln presidency. (1 point)
House GOP: The House leadership at times seems befuddled with the left’s ability to command so much of the media, and they definitely seem envious of media’s power to create and direct narratives, neglecting to consider the ability that the media still holds to also destroy at their whim. (0 points)

So, using the arbitrary scoring system, and examples that I have chosen, the final tally is as follows. Out of a possible total of 20 points:
Senate Dems: 7
Obama & his administration: 4
House GOP: 6
Despite their best efforts to score at a “healthy democracy’s” level, all three show themselves to be quite anemic. It is interesting to note that without the president being penalized for the ongoing Benghazi scandal and cover-up, he would be tied with the House GOP. They all appear unable to follow Russell’s guidelines, and, in what should come as a shock to no one, they look ineffectual and like failures.

So, readers – what do you think? What examples, scandals, and failings would you use to illustrate how the government has neglected to follow Russell’s commandments? More importantly – how would you score them? I am looking forward to some interesting and impassioned responses.

[Click on chart to view.] I’ve asked myself if this is happenstance of living in a man’s world: Men’s government, men’s politics, men’s mentality. Most politicians, women and men, seem perfectly content with the one-sided silence. Perhaps that’s an unspoken politics that falls better in line with inflaming overbearingly outspoken women who want what they want when they want it more direly than they want fathers’ helping, making themselves more easily manipulated in the process? Men who, in this century and advanced world, are aided and abetted in escaping all social accountability for fatherhood if not celebrated for it. “Baby’s Mama/Daddy,” are you kidding me? Are America’s women so easily led?

At behest of men I fear women have totally forgotten that the onus of rearing good kids does not and should not fall totally on them. It IS okay to talk about that. We should be talking about it and we need to be talking about that.

Anyone reading this who’s followed politics over the last four-years is probably aware of the 45 Communist Goals published by an FBI specialist in 1958, once deemed critical enough to be recorded in our country’s Congressional Record (1963). And, yes, that is directly related. If you’re not familiar with them remember those years (roughly 50-years ago) as you check off each one since accomplished. And, yes, that is alarming. In particular are the following two, though there are more that just as aptly apply covering the destruction of American morals and traditions, the taking over of school teacher unions and socializing churches:

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influences of parents.

For startling statistics surrounding fatherless children visit Fathers Unite and not the least of which is gun violence, by the way. Or visit any number of other sites that pop-up when searching on the topic, though you’d never guess there were that many given what little we hear of this subject from today’s politicians – including women. Doesn’t that peak your curiosity in the least?

Having finally asked my nagging questions I leave this short article’s good reading (only excerpted here). It’s time this subject became a part of every political discussion laid on “women” and their “reproductive rights.” Or on gun violence and “gun control.” What women and their children – especially America’s children – have a ‘right’ to is the support and dedication of these shameless men – certainly not limited to absent fathers – who have no problem using “women’s rights” and our children for their own self-gratifying personal, financial and political power plays.

America’s Root Problem: A Culture of Fatherlessness

By John Renken

(… excerpted) In case you haven’t noticed there is an epidemic … I mean this both literally and figuratively.  I don’t think for a second  that it is an exaggeration to point to the single most important reason [Americans] are losing ground.  The reason we are losing ground is because we have lost the men!

… This particular epidemic … is a problem in our nation.  When we look at our educational  system we must admit that the vast majority of teachers are females. Peg Tyre in her article “The  Trouble with Boys” shows us that boys are having more difficulties in school as the teaching methodologies utilized primarily suit girls. She concludes that,

One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in  high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look  up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood  have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood,  rich or poor, an increasing number of boys – now a startling 40 percent – are  being raised without their biological dads.

Read full article here.

With the current media circus aimed at gun control, can you imagine if the founding document, our U.S. Constitution, was on trial? Instead of demanding our Constitutional Right, we’d have to justify why an individual has the right to possess a gun. Many mainstream state politicians and lobbying groups across the nation are applying for a second Constitutional Convention and…it looks like they may get it.

Americans exercise liberties no individual had experienced prior. In return, the innovations America’s contributed to mankind are unimaginable prior to introduction. This is because our founder’s ingeniously wrote the Constitution establishing a strong but limited government designed to protect our individual rights. Over the years, our government and the protection of our individual rights have eroded. Today, these rights and responsibilities are just as important and just as vulnerable. As these groups pursue an “Article V Convention”, are they looking to abolish our current government and replace it with another?

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Declaration of Independence, 1776

Some organizations and academia want the name of a Constitutional Convention change to something else. ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is an organization that advises and recruits state legislators across the nation. According to their manual for “Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States”,

“Other acceptable names for a convention for proposing amendments are amendments convention, convention of the states, and Article V convention. (…it is inaccurate and misleading to call a convention for proposing amendments a ‘constitutional convention”.)

To call an Article V Convention anything but a “Constitutional Convention” is misleading. Other than being defeated at war, there are ONLY two ways to amend or alter the Constitution. The first method is the Amendment process which has successfully amended the Constitution 17 times and the other is by Convention. Once Congress calls a Convention according to Article V, there is nothing that can alter its course.

“…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger

America’s problem is not an antiquated Constitution but a government that has deviated from it; this includes local, regional and state governments. We cannot fix our government through changing or adding new rules; we need to hold it accountable to the rules already set forth.

Once an Article V Convention begins, what will the Federalist Papers resemble? Our founders wrote Federalist Papers to convince the states in ratifying the Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights. With today’s media, it could easily be made a mockery on CSPAN, MSNBC, CNN or Fox with commentaries of Pierce Morgan, Chris Matthews or Bill O’Reilly moderating the coverage.

In today’s chaos, our Constitution is our only foundation, it preserves our liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, due process, private property or arms…just to name a few! Hopefully, you’ll be prepared to defend these freedoms when it comes for deliberation!

Our Constitution protects our rights as individuals. We, the citizens, are not positioned to defend our Constitutional individual freedoms in such a forum. We have been segregated into false labels so we could easily pick our opponents for trivial stuff.

Imagine our First Amendment’s Five Freedoms, freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly and petition did not exist. What if authorities arrested without charging, search and seized property the State deemed necessary? These fundamental Individual Rights are protected by a federal government established within our Constitution.

When it comes to our Second Amendment, the massacres of Aurora, Newtown and Ft Hood don’t hold a candle to the massacres done by dictators’ like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Our founders understood an out-of-control government and attempted to limit it as much as possible. They also understood how special interest could infiltrate it and use it as their weapon.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

Once the Constitutional Convention starts, our individual rights will be open for debate. It’s difficult to understand why someone would submit for a Constitutional Convention in these times unless they wish to get rid of our Individual Rights…rights protected by a limited government that may no longer exist. …Or they may wish for a fundamental transformation of America.

 ”Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subject needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger

Hopefully, Americans have not taken our individual liberties for granted to allow bureaucrats, politicians and special interest to take them away. The only way to accomplish this is hard work, petitioning your Representatives and replacing those who do not protect our individual rights.

We are now pointing at inanimate objects and as amorphous a thing as “the culture” to explain the actions of a single, sick shooter. America is to blame for the miscreants and fluke tragedies of everyday life in a nation of more than 300 million people in one of the largest countries in the world.

Every last individual is to be suspected as a potential criminal, because we have depraved criminals. Every American must be asked to give up his rights, because some don’t know how to responsibly exercise their rights.

Those responsible citizens who believe in such well-accepted things as free speech, the right to adequate self-defense, and a government that spends within our means have all of a sudden become “extreme.” Because of the widespread acceptance of the truism that opinions are subjective, the perspective of what is extreme depends on the mind’s eye of the viewer. There are no objective standards for willful ignoramuses (and that is one reason why conservatives should take seriously the philosophy of Objectivism).

The right wants us to fear others. The left wants us to fear ourselves. What we should fear is the government. The behavior of the media and the government make it apparent that both parties have ulterior motives, and are exploiting tragedies for political gain in a way that would make terrorists proud.

The former hippie burnouts that make up today’s left-wing intelligentsia have gone from fighting the power to fighting for power; instead of opposing the man, they want to be the man.

In a masterstroke of irony, the same tree-hugging, weed-smoking, communal-living lefties who once wanted to “drop out” of the system now clammer for a micro-managing, hyper-regulatory, tax-and-spend government with powers tantamount to a police state. People can no longer trust themselves is the underlying message; they should trust the government with complete power in the blind faith that it will never be abused.

This is a great puzzle — something akin to playing Jenga drunk and blindfolded. But it is simply beyond the scope of a blog piece to explore why the liberal mind is a relativistic maze of internal contradictions strung together by fuzzy yarns of emotion and repressive tolerance. Simply pulling that thread would result in a mess requiring a psychotherapist on the order of Freud years to put back together. Instead of probing those irrational depths with the dim flashlight of rational thought, we will simply look at how the media manipulate non-objective minded souls on both the left and the right.

Fear. America witnessed it after 9/11. The feeling of awestruck terror, the initial shock bleeding into helplessness, as the second plane made it abundantly clear that it wasn’t an accident. Somebody had hijacked those planes and intended for Americans to die. The insecurity smoldering in the wreckage settled into a palpable way of life for years afterwards; and the event’s aftershocks are still felt today.

Unsureness as an American way of life was rare throughout the Clinton years prior; although the horrifying Oklahoma City bombing and the Columbine shooting provoked an intense sense of tragedy in the public at large. Other events were more memorable for political junkies: Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Unabomber — these events strangely came to symbolize a subculture where those who feared the government became branded by the media as nutjobs. Argument by anecdote is a left-wing media forte.

In that bygone era, mobilization to enact sweeping changes, such as something radical like gun confiscation, was clumsy and ineffectual. The populace was not sufficiently terrorized to give up its right to self-defense, whether from a criminal or the state (then again, I repeat myself)..

The hard left was once again forced to take the incrementalist road. People were alarmed and therefore wanted to “cling to their guns.” What the left needed were alarming tragedies that would persuade people their guns needed to be pried away. Left-wing agitators didn’t need to conjure up a catastrophe; they merely needed to observe the maxim “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

What gives the mainstream media game away to some extent are those things they choose to highlight and those they choose to ignore. Some things promote the left-wing media agenda, others do not. It’s in some ways a matter of timing, but also one of editorial discretion.

There had been the first WTC bombing attack in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing of 1996, the U.S. embassy bombings of 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole bombing as Clinton was departing — but these events were intentionally muted by media that were more concerned with the president’s legacy than with effective and factual reporting.

None of these pre-9/11 terrorist attacks had provoked quite the level of hysterical crying out for action, removed from any context or rational discussion, as the recent Newtown massacre. And in some ways, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was outrageously brutal and inexplicable on a level uncountenanced since the Oklahoma City bombing. (And certainly since the Bath School bombing of 1927, which had killed 37 schoolchildren).

But the calls for gun control within hours of the terrible news comes off as both contrived and classless. The normal reaction for a human being upon learning of such rare and chilling news is to mourn and to pray for the families and victims. It’s not to beat the war drums of left-wing issue group causes and to instantly vilify known political adversaries like the NRA.

So, it’s hard for me to figure out who is sicker: Adam Lanza or those in the mainstream media who know the facts about gun control and immediately try to use the deaths of 20 children to promote a cause that has lost after long-standing rational and fact-based deliberation. It was the same mainstream media terrorist tactic that was seen with 9/11 and the ill-conceived Patriot Act (renewed twice by former opponent Barack Obama) — take a statistically rare but psychologically traumatic occurrence and exploit it to the utmost for more government power.

The left didn’t mind renewing the Patriot Act, because the Department of Homeland Security is like a mini-KGB for spying on Americans and running depraved operations like Fast & Furious, which deliberately put assault weapons in the hands of drug cartel members. These fine folks then predictably used those untraced weapons to kill dozens of Mexican citizens and at least one American, border patrol agent Brian Terry. Horrific, right? Well, the scandal doesn’t promote the gun control agenda, so you won’t hear about it.

And what about Benghazi? The administration refused to clearly call the security debacle the result of a “terrorist attack” for weeks, meanwhile blaming a pathetic anti-Islamic video. It was our fault for allowing wiseguys like that movie’s director to speak his stupid mind about Islam, and the president basically did the terrorists a service by promoting the al-Qaeda-preferred message: we are to blame.

The lapdog media lapped up and repeated the idiotic, implausible meme that a ridiculous YouTube video was the cause of the 9/11 anniversary attacks (after all, it helped promote the notion that al Qaeda was all but defeated in the president’s all-important re-election year). It’s our insensitive First Amendment that should be scrutinized, and not the Muslim extremists rioting at embassies and burning our flags — this was the media’s implicit chide. The future doesn’t belong to those who slander the prophet Muhammad, as the president so eloquently put it in his UN address.

And due to those reasons, the media are barely interested in the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans: Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stephens, diplomat Sean Smith, and security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The heroic story of how Woods and Doherty disobeyed multiple stand-down orders, which were almost certainly known by and possibly given by the executive branch, is the stuff of Hollywood gold. But the mainstream media don’t care about their deaths, because they don’t help take away free speech or gun rights.

What does promote the gun control narrative? Slain children. It’s a harrowing image the mainstream media can project, and it is on that basis they can make their irrational arguments. (There are other images — like the conjuring up of a “fiscal cliff.”) Uber-tolerant leftists now want to fundamentally transform our culture into one that permits the petty manipulators in government to have their way with us. And yet there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that violent video games, movies, or music caused the rampage killing at Sandy Hook.

How can that be? Because as usual, mentally obtuse people only see what they see, and not what they don’t see. It’s the same with the economy as it is with violent crime: there is the fallacy of the seen and the unseen. People see the similarities among spree killers and conclude those similarities must cause them to kill; they don’t consider just how rare these spree killings are and just how many millions of people share those same characteristics and yet find a way not to kill classrooms of innocent children.

Activists in the mainstream media want to convince us that we are sick, that America is sick, and that we cannot be trusted with freedom. On the contrary, they are the ones who are sick. The control freaks of the left are intrinsically without shame and will exploit any tragedy to further their unquenchable powerlust.