TERMINATE THE CONSTITUTION!

 The left keeps saying that Trump wants to terminate the Constitution.

This is ludicrous.

They point to a post he made on Truth Social on December 3, 2022

While I agree that this was poorly worded, I believe the case can be made that, when taken in context, he was not calling for the termination of the entire Constitution. At best he was calling for the termination of existing rules surrounding elections and creating new ones that limit or eliminate election fraud. There clearly was fraud, and there is in every election. Whether or not the fraud in 2020 was enough to cause him to lose the election is debatable and not the subject of this post.

So, I will agree that Trump said terminating current election rules, even those in the Constitution, could be considered.

And the left is going nuts over this. They are sensationalizing it, trying to convince us he wants to throw out the entire Constitution.

But wait a minute…

Aren’t they the ones screaming we need to do away with the Electoral College? That would be terminating election rules in the Constitution. Many of them have even stated that the Constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten or eliminated (Obama and others).

They have no grounds to try to point at Trump about such things. Even if Trump did advocate for terminating the Constitution, I would simply say to the Democrats, “Pot, meet Kettle.”

Our Democracy! ...?

 How can you vote for anyone that doesn't even know what form of government we have? Do YOU even know what form of government we have??

The left keeps screaming that Trump is "a threat to our democracy! He must be stopped!"

Well wait a minute... "Our democracy"?

We don't have a Democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic. The difference is significant and critical to understand.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,

and to the Republic

for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

"A pure democracy would be a form of government in which the leaders, while elected by the people, are not constrained by a constitution as to its actions. 

In a republic, however, elected officials cannot take away or violate certain rights of the people."

https://legaldictionary.net/constitutional-republic/

"A democracy is a political system in which the people periodically, by majority, vote at the poll to select rulers. The rulers then have absolute power by majority vote among themselves.

In a Constitutional Republic, the people, also by majority vote among themselves, select rulers who make laws. However, the rulers cannot make any laws they please because the Constitution severely restricts their law-making power."

https://www.mininggazette.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2024/03/constitutional-republic-vs-democracy/

Democracy: Not constrained by a Constitution. Majority (mob) rule. Rulers, not representatives. Absolute power.

Constitutional Republic: Cannot take away or violate certain rights (Bill of Rights). Power limited and restricted by a Constitution. Representative of the People.

The left wants a Democracy, and they are trying to shape our society into one. They are constantly saying that this election is about Democracy. They want to do away with the Constitution. They want to abolish the Electoral College. They have said so. Google it. If Google will let you.

If they succeed in converting our country to a Democracy, they will ALWAYS be in power and they will ALWAYS trample anyone that doesn't agree with them. They're already doing this to some degree. After all, if you don't agree with them you are "deplorable and weird as hell". And, we'll be one step closer to being a socialist country, which in turn is one step from being communist. Many of the current leaders on the left are communists (whether they'll admit to it or not) and want this country to move in that direction.

Yes, Trump is a "threat to democracy" because he understands the difference. He knows this country is a Constitutional Republic. He understands that a becoming a democracy would essentially silence nearly 50% of the population. Mob rule. The end of liberty and justice for all.

A Critical Time...

I dislike both candidates. I'm not voting for Trump and I'm not voting for Clinton. I'm voting for America. As I posted a week or so ago:

"Ok here's how it is.

Neither Trump nor Clinton are good moral choices. Neither have the character we'd like to see in someone sitting in the Oval Office. If it was up to me, neither would be elected.

But one of them WILL be elected.

So what we have to do is put aside all this bickering about their character, cause NEITHER have character. Look at the issues at stake and choose the one you think will help our country the most.

May God have mercy on us."

The below article came to my attention today and it is an interesting read, whether you're for Trump or Clinton. The author is for Trump's POLICIES.obviously, but he makes some very interesting points:

"Since I find both candidates morally objectionable, I am back to the old-fashioned basis on which I have usually decided how to vote for my entire life: Whose policies are better? Do I agree more with Trump’s policies or with Clinton’s?"

"In a world affected by sin, voting for morally flawed people is unavoidable. Voting for the candidate you think will be best for the country (or do the least harm to the country) is not a morally evil action"

"Policy differences do ultimately determine the future of the nation."

http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/10/19/if-you-dont-like-either-candidate-then-vote-for-trumps-policies-n2234187

Open letter to the GOP

Y'all are being a bunch of dumb assess.

Especially the Republican "leadership".

Don't you realize that if Republicans don't UNITE, there will be another Clinton in the White House?

If that happens, the United States we know and love will be gone.

She will destroy our economy with huge taxes and massive regulation and expanding Obamacare.

She will endanger our homeland by kowtowing to Islam and enabling their terrorists to have unimpeded entrance to the US with her open border policies. She will be weak with Russia and China.

She will appoint young Supreme Court justices that will be on the bench for decades pushing through socialist decisions and shredding our Constitution and abridging our rights.

You may not like Trump. I know I don't. But if we don't get the Republican party back into the White House, then kids this country goodbye.

Here's how it is.

Neither Trump nor Clinton are good moral choices. Neither have the character we'd like to see in someone sitting in the Oval Office. If it was up to me, neither would be elected.

But one of them WILL be elected.

So what we have to do is put aside all this bickering about their character, cause NEITHER have character.  Look at the issues at stake and choose the one you think will help our country the most.

May God have mercy on us.

My take on this Trump thing

Everyone deriding Trump over this tape from over a decade ago should have the past 15 years of their life analyzed. Every video, all audio, writings and actions to see if they've ever said or done anything inappropriate, publicly OR privately.

If they have, they should be removed from office or fired from their job. Further, it should be presented to any prospective future employer.

If we did that we'd have no politicians or media anymore. Sounds good to me.

Need I bring up the antics of the Kennedy's or Bill Clinton?

Using Hillary's logic, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

Don't look at this as a defense of Trump. He has done and said some very crude things. I don't like him. I really wish the Republican party had been able to present someone less arrogant. I for one am tired of the same old lawyer politicians, so it's refreshing to have a non-lawyer or career politician running. I would have preferred Alan West or Ben Carson.

But Hilary wants to shred our Constitution, take our guns, bow to foriegn powers, destroy our economy, tax us to death and give our hard-earned money to people who won't work and illegal immigrants. (Government help, whatever form it takes should be for CITIZENS who are either physically or mentally unable to work or TEMPORARILY between jobs) and kill more babies. If you can't see that you have no concept of history or economics and are blind to what Hillary's agenda is.

Neither candidate is their party's best. But one candidate wants to turn this into the next socialist country (which makes no freaking sense at all since it had NEVER worked ANYWHERE). And one wants to make this country great again.

I don't like either candidate. But I'm voting Trump because I like my Constitutional liberties and my guns, I like getting at least 70% of my paycheck, and I like letting babies live.

Christians, you MUST vote this election!! Here's why...

I just finished reading an article titled "Why Voting for Donald Trump is A Morally Good Choice". It is a great article. It does not state that Donald Trump is a morally good person, but rather analyzes how the nation will take shape under a Clinton presidency versus a Trump presidency, and these differences make Trump a morally good choice.

For those of you considering doing a write-in or third-party vote, please don't. Those votes may only hurt the primary candidates and can sway an election in the opposite direction that these voters actually hoped for. No third-party candidate has ever won a presidential election, in fact all they usually do is split parties.

I encourage you to read every word of this article. It is somewhat long, but worth reading, especially for first, second, even third time young voters.

"Should Christians even try to influence elections at all? Yes, definitely. The apostle Peter says Christians are “exiles” on this earth (1 Peter 1:1). Therefore I take seriously the prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation to the Jewish people living in exile in Babylon:
“Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7).
By way of modern application, I think Christians today have a similar obligation to vote in such a way that will “seek the welfare” of the United States. Therefore the one overriding question to ask is this: Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?"

Another interesting read from 2010: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/10/how-third-party-candidates-affect-elections/

Stop the anti-gun stupidity!

This is a semi-automatic rifle:

(image source http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Rifles/AR15A4)

This too is a semi-automatic rifle:

The first one is a Colt AR15A4 .223 caliber rifle. Average magazine capacity: 15 rounds.

The second one is a Springfield 87A .22LR caliber rifle, probably made around 1948. It holds 15 rounds.

Both are semi-automatic rifles.

Both are similar caliber. (For a good explanation of the differences, check this article out. The bullets are essentially the same diameter.)

[Neither is an assault rifle. According to this Wikipedia article, an assault rifle is,

An assault rifle is a fully automatic selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine]

Wikipedia has allowed an edit to this definition that removed the "fully automatic" wording, however their references for this definition still correctly include those words. Liberal gun control agenda at it's finest.


Neither rifle is fully automatic, therefore neither is an "assault rifle". There really is very little difference in how these two rifles work.

Yet the politicians and liberal news media want the AR banned, because they do not understand what they are talking about.

It is not the gun that is the problem. It is the evil in people that is the problem.

Separation of Church and State....Not what you think.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not state that church and state should be separate. They stated that CONGRESS could not make a LAW ESTABLISHING a religion OR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof. The "separation of church and state" comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists ensuring them that government would not establish a religion. This has been twisted and perverted into what people think it means today, but that is not what the First Amendment was intended to mean by any stretch of the imagination. It is nothing but a perversion.

To say that separating church and state was the intent of the Founding Fathers shows nothing but ignorance of them and their writings. Here is but a small sample that PROVES "separation of church and state" as it is practiced today, is NOT the original intent of the First Amendment.

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams, 1798, Address to the militia of Massachusetts

"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Benjamin Franklin, July 28, 1787, Address at the Constitutional Convention

"The great pillars of all government...[are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible." Patrick Henry, Jan. 8, 1799, Letter to Archibald Blair

"In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States." Alexander Hamilton, Apr. 16-21, 1802, Letter to James Bayard

"The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."
 "You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are." George Washington

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 1, 1802, Letter to the Connecticut Danbury Baptist Association

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." The Declaration of Independence, Written by Thomas Jefferson, signed by 56 Founding Fathers (listed here http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/Signers/index.htm and elsewhere). Clearly states that the purpose of Government is to secure the rights endowed by our Creator. Thus the document that CREATES our government, the Constitution, including all Amendments, was written in order to secure the rights endowed by our Creator. How then can church and state be separate when the purpose of the state is to ensure the rights of.... the church?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Here's a great read: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts

About Democrats...

Pretty fascinating video here: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/must-see-video-the-real-truth-about-democrats Every political party has it's issues. But lets get the facts straight.

Waitaminute....

Remember DOMA? The Defense of Marriage Act? The Act passed by congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996? It defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)

This law was challenged  and overturned in 2013. In the majority opinion on the case, SCOTUS said the following (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf):

• "DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage."
• "DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages."
• "The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."
• "The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute."

Ok waitaminute. Are the States sovereign or not? In the DOMA ruling, SCOTUS said they are. Yet in the decision last week, SCOTUS completely contradicted what they said in the DOMA decision. So last week, SCOTUS took the 10th Amendment and flushed it down the toilet.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

For those of you who haven't bothered to read it: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

Cotton candy Islam

But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”  
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Been tellin' ya.

No Guns? No Problem. No patronage at your store.

Dear Panera Bread, Target, Starbucks, (and any other establishment that I find has this type of policy) you have lost my business. Your anti-gun stance is idiotic.

You have made your stores killing zones for criminals who want to harm people. You have made it safe for them to come to your stores to kill.

Do you really think that your policy or signs will keep criminals with intent to harm and kill out of your stores? Do you think the mass murderer who walks up and see the sign on your door that says "No Guns" is going to get frustrated and take their guns somewhere else to kill? No. They're going to laugh and walk right in and start shooting.

And now you've made it to where law-abiding citizens can't shop/eat at your establishments with the ability to protect themselves and stop the person killing all your customers.

I hope and pray that this never happens at any of your stores (or anywhere else for that matter), but we all know that in reality it is just a matter of time.

I will avoid places like yours that prevent me from protecting myself and my family.

Ron Shaich, this "warm environment" you want to establish at Panera would be maintained if I brought my gun in. Why? Cause it's legally concealed, and the only way any of your precious customers would even know I had it would be if I had to pull it out to stop the criminal that just came in your store and started shooting everyone.

By the way, I love your shortbread pastries. I will miss them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/09/08/panera-bread-ceo-dont-bring-your-guns-into-our-restaurants/

Philippines Mission 2014

As my son prepares to return to the Philippines for another mission trip, I'm recalling the devastation caused by Typhoon Haiyan last November.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Haiyan


Typhoon Haiyan, known as Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines, was an exceptionally powerful tropical cyclone that devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines, in November 8, 2013. It is the deadliest Philippine typhoon on record,^[1] killing at least 6,201 people in that country alone.^[2] Haiyan is also the strongest storm recorded at landfall, and unofficially the strongest typhoon ever recorded in terms of wind speed.^[3] As of January, 2014, bodies are still being found.^[4]


So many lives lost and so much destruction and suffering was caused. Fortunately, the area Austin visited was not as devastated as other areas. However, the country is still reeling from this disaster and they can still use all the aid they can get.


If you are unable to go there yourself to help, consider assisting someone else that can. Every donation, no matter how small, is greatly appreciated. If a lot of people do just a little bit, miracles can happen. If you are able, please donate whatever God leads you to, to this worthy effort. Your donation will help change lives and will glorify God.

The "Affordable" Healthcare Act.....

Well, the healthcare marketplace thingy is open. And now the lies are beginning to be exposed. Or confirmed. Or re-lied. Or covered up and sugarcoated.

Taxes, fees, and more lies.

Remember back in September 2009 when Mr. Obama said that requiring health insurance (individual mandate) is NOT a tax increase? (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/20/obama.health.care/)

"For us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said in response to persistent questioning, later adding: "Nobody considers that a tax increase."

Cool. Wait.....

Remember back in June 2012 when the Supreme court said that as a fee or fine (penalty) the individual mandate would be unconstitutional, however it is Constitutional as a tax? (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-ruling/index.html)

"It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax." He later added: "The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

Now that the healthcare marketplace is available.... guess what? It's not a tax anymore! It's a FEE! A PENATLY! (https://www.healthcare.gov/get-covered-a-1-page-guide-to-the-health-insurance-marketplace/, https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/)

"If you don’t have coverage in 2014, you’ll have to pay a penalty of $95 per adult, $47.50 per child, or 1% of your income (whichever is higher). The fee increases every year."

So, lets take a look at these "affordable" healthcare plans. By the way, for all you folks who voted for Obama and cheering on the "free health insurance" you thought you were going to get... There's no such thing as free.

What's it gonna cost?

According to the Obamacare site, "The plans are presented in 5 categories: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Catastrophic" (https://www.healthcare.gov/health-plan-information/)

One caveat here. I am not going to be able to give final prices without filling out an application, and I sure as heck am not going to be filling out an application, so these prices may vary. I'm going to show the prices as listed for my state and county (Shelby County in Alabama), and my situation (Family with both parents) As the site says, family size and income affect the final price:

"IMPORTANT NOTE: The prices here don’t reflect the lower costs an applicant may qualify for based on household size and income. Many people who apply will qualify for reduced costs through tax credits that are automatically applied to monthly premiums. These credits will significantly lower the prices shown for a majority of those applying. Final price quotes are available only after someone has completed a Marketplace application."

In my area there are 2 companies listed for healthcare insurance providers. Humana Insurance Company and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. Both are offering PPO type plans. These figures are per month and are straight from the https://www.healthcare.gov/how-do-i-choose-marketplace-insurance/ website as of the writing of this post. By the way, this is just the monthly premium, not the copays, coinsurance and deductibles.

Humana Catastrophic: $473.50
Humana Bronze: $622.96
Humana Silver: $706.50
Humana Gold: $805.82
Humana Platinum: $908.50

BCBSAL Blue Protect Catastrophic: $497.94
BCBSAL Blue Saver Bronze: $575.72
BCBSAL Blue Value Silver: $713.56
BCBSAL Blue Saver Silver: $756.90
BCBSAL Blue Value Gold: $923.62
BCBSAL Blue Choice Platinum: $1111.46

Welcome to the world of "Free" healthcare. You can estimate your costs with the Kaiser Family Foundation health insurance costs and savings calculator. (https://www.healthcare.gov/how-can-i-get-an-estimate-of-costs-and-savings-on-marketplace-health-insurance/)

I plugged in my numbers and it says I would pay, for me and my family (taking in account the $1,691 annual tax subsidy they say I would get):

Catastrophic: "With a catastrophic plan, you would pay out-of-pocket for most health services until you reach the annual limit on cost sharing ($12,700 in 2014)."
Bronze: $791.66
Silver: "The plan will pay for 70% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest"
Gold: Not listed
Platinum: Not listed

Based on the website , all plans cover "10 essential health benefits"  which include the following:

• ambulatory patient services
• emergency services
• hospitalization
• maternity and newborn care
• mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
• prescription drugs
• rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
• laboratory services
• preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
• pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

This page shows an example of the difference between plans. Basically the more of a premium you pay, the lower percentage you pay when you actually use healthcare. So, if you have to see a doctor and get medicine, you'll pay a percentage of that cost on top of what you are already paying for the monthly premium. Here's how it shakes out for that:

Bronze plan: 40%

Silver plan: 30%

Gold plan:  20%

Platinum plan: 10%

So if I'm on a Bronze plan and take my child to the dermatologist for severe acne, and they prescribe Accutane, I can expect to pay my monthly premium of $791.66 PLUS 40% of  doctors charges and medicine costs. Lets just say the doctor is pretty cheap and only charges $100 for the office visit. My part of that is $40. Accutane is a pretty expensive drug and my 40% of about $420 (actual cost when we had to get it for one of my kids) comes to $168. So I've just paid $208 for a doctor visit and 1 month supply of medicine under Obamacare.

Under my current plan, I pay $439 monthly premium ($352.66 less than Obamacare Bronze), I pay a $30 office visit copay ($10 less than Obamacare Bronze) and $30 for a premium level medication ($130 less than Obamacare). Therefore, under the Affordable Healthcare Act, for one month's premium, 1 doctor office visit, and 1 month supply of medication, I will pay $500.66 MORE than I do now.

I currently pay $439/month in healthcare insurance. This is expected to rise by as much as 30% next year (if our employer still offers it!) thanks to Obamacare. Affordable? For those of you that voted for Obama and our current set of Democratic congress, when will you pull your heads out of your collective socialist asses?

Here comes Obamacare!

   

Choice

The cold war was a good thing, in a way...

This was supposed to be a Farcebook post, but I got long-winded so I decided to blog it instead. I haven't blogged in a while, so here ya go.
___________________________________

So.... this thing with North Korea.... Normally I would scoff at their threats as the blustering of propaganda-loving maniacs. But that was when we had strong leaders in Washington, not leaders who go around apologizing to our enemies bowing to others as if we’re their subjects, and saying that our Constitution, the very foundation of our country, is outdated and short-sighted. With Obama as President, John Kerry as Secretary of State, Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense..... I fear how this is going to turn out. I don't know much about this Thomas Donilon guy that’s the National Security Advisor, but if Obama picked him, it can't be good.

Hey, all you teens and twenty-somethings, and even those in their thirties... There is a lot more going on out there than The Walking Dead and Duck Dynasty. Take a look at the world you're living in. It's a scary place. Scarier even than zombies. Your apathetic outlook is very possibly about to be shaken to the very core of your being, and you don’t even realize it. You voted in this current administration with a very short-sighted mindset and didn't consider the repercussions of placing an inexperienced socialist at the head of our government. He’s destroying our economy (stop blaming Bush, he hasn’t been there for over 4 years) he’s contributing to the moral erosion of our society, and he’s weak in the eyes of our enemies. And if the President appears weak, America appears weak.

You haven't been affected much by terrorism. Even 9/11 is a fading, vague memory for most under the age of 25. Most of you haven't been affected by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, because you haven't been THERE (thank you to those who have, you are truly heroes!). You've lived in relative peace, and unfortunately that has made America soft and weak. Terrorism has rarely affected us in our homeland and that has made us apathetic. We see the numbers and hear stories about the bad things that have happened in the wars, and we say, "That's terrible!" Then we turn on The Big Bang Theory or the XBox and go about our lives. I'm beginning to think that winning the cold war was a really bad thing. It took away the fear of the Red Menace. A little fear is good in that it keeps you aware and prepared. But, it also has diminished patriotism in the USA. It’s eroded our national pride. But the collapse of the USSR has done far worse things to the world than if they were still one of the top two world powers and we still lived in fear of their nuclear warheads.

It fostered terrorism. People look at Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran as the terror related countries. And clearly they are. But the many of the states created by the collapse of the USSR are dominantly Muslim. Azerbaijan. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan. Tajikistan. Turkmenistan. Uzbekistan. The Soviet Union was able to, for the most part, keep control over the people of these regions, and over places like North Korea, and even Pakistan to some degree. Now some of these countries have weapons grade uranium and plutonium, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Check out this web site for more concerning information regarding post-soviet nuclear issues. http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-terrorism/loose-nukes/p9549

Yes, terrorism happened during the time of the USSR. But, mark my words here, terrorism is going to come home sooner than you think. Israel has lived with suicide bombers and gunmen shooting up marketplaces for a long time. I’m shocked it hasn’t happened here much yet. We had Nidal Malik Hasan kill 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas. There’s been numerous other Islamic attacks in the US in the past 40 years. Most of them you’ve never heard of or you’ve forgotten. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm gives a good list. Check out the rest of that site too, it’s interesting.

I truly hope that the actions and threats coming out of North Korea are propaganda and bluster. But this time it may not be. America appears weak these days, and the North Koreans are desperate and crazy. They may be expecting Obama to cave under the threat of nuclear action, hoping, rather than standing up to them, he’ll just send them money to be quiet for another year or two. That’s probably what he’ll do.

So, go back to your XBox. Go back to your Game of Thrones. Go scream 'Go Green' and '1%' and all that while you can. But I have a feeling your world is about to change.

Support my gun control efforts....

I need you to support my gun control effors. Please click this link to my online store and purchase my products. Together, we can support gun control! Gun Control Store

How to stop mass shootings...

The RIGHT to bear arms.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

The Declaration Of Independence
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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.

Supreme Court Rulings
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

The Constitution of the United States
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.

The Arkansas Constitution
The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense.

The Alaska Constitution
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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

The Arizona Constitution
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

The Alabama Constitution
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

The Colorado Constitution
Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

The California Constitution
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.

The Constitution of Connecticut
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

The Constitution of Delaware
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

The Constitution of Florida
The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

The Constitution of Georgia
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

The Constitution of Hawaii
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.

The Constitution of Idaho
The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm.  No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition.  Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

The Constitution of Illinois
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution of Indiana
The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

The Constitution of Iowa
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.

The Constitution of Kansas
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

The Constitution of Kentucky
The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

The Constitution of Louisiana
The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

The Constitution of Maine
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

The Constitution of Maryland
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.

The Constitution of Massachusetts
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

The Constitution of Michigan
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

The Constitution of Minnesota
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.
The Constitution of Mississippi
The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

The Constitution of Missouri
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

The Constitution of Montana
The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

The Constitution of Nebraska
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.

The Constitution of Nevada
Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

The Constitution of New Hampshire
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

The Constitution of New Mexico
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.  No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution of New York
No provision. State laws allow possession and carry of firearms with restrictions.

The Constitution of North Carolina
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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.  Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

The Constitution of North Dakota
All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

The Constitution of Ohio
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

The Constitution of Oklahoma
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

The Constitution of Oregon
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power

The Constitution of Pennsylvania
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

The Constitution of Rhode Island
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution of South Carolina
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.  As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly.  The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

The Constitution of South Dakota
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

The Constitution of Tennessee
That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

The Constitution of Texas
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

The Constitution of Utah
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

The Constitution of Vermont
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

The Constitution of Virginia
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The Constitution of Washington
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

The Constitution of West Virginia
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

The Constitution of Wisconsin
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

The Constitution of Wyoming
The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.