Americans are turning in to Sheeple.

Washington DC - Capitol Hill: United States Ca...

What a month of news we’ve all experienced!

  • The U.S. Justice Department is spying on reporters from Associated Press and from FOX News
  • The IRS is/was targeting political groups that oppose the President for harsh scrutiny
  • The NSA is collecting massive amounts of data on Americans by collecting phone records and internet activity

And we won’t even get into the Benghazi affair or the newly developing State Department Prostitution scandal.

The three bullet points above point to a Federal government out of control and trying hard to grow even more powerful. It’s trying to control its people. People who increasingly choose what they call “security” over freedom. People who increasingly are willingly giving up their God given and Constitutional Rights in hopes that the big and powerful and all-knowing Federal government will take care of them. People who are becoming sheep. Or “evolving” might be the better word into “Sheeple“.

CNN reported this morning that a Pew Research poll showed a majority of those surveyed believed it was OK for the NSA to gather the phone records of millions of Americans. According to the new poll, 56 percent of Americans think it’s A-OK that the National Security Agency

Headquarters of the NSA at Fort Meade, Marylan...

Headquarters of the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland.

is secretly tracking millions of people’s phone records to investigate terrorism. These Sheeple are reflecting their view that terrorism is lurking behind every door and we need to look under everyone’s bed to track it down.

danah boyd at the Writers on Writing about Tec...

Danah Boyd at the Writers on Writing about Technology roundtable at Yale University marking the publication of The Best Technology Writing 2009 (Yale University Press), to which boyd contributed. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Microsoft Researcher Danah Boyd writes today, “It’s disturbing to me how often I watch as someone’s likeness is constructed in ways that contorts the image of who they are. This doesn’t require a high-stakes political issue. This is playground stuff.” In her article, Why Believing “Nothing to Hide” Leaves you Vulnerable”, Boyd correctly points out, “A surveillance state will produce more suspect individuals.”  And I would ask “Who’s watching the watchers?”, “Who’s judging?”.

You want a clear example of how innocent and benign activity can be twisted into something nefarious? Consider this: I belong to a large organization of people who regularly gather together to ritualistically eat human flesh, and drink human blood. And we pray to and worship a 3-headed God. It’s true. Me and my multi-million member organization do exactly as just described. Should I be jailed, or at least shunned? Well, only if you believe everyone in the Catholic Church is guilty of dangerous activity in their worshipping practice.

Last week I had to turn down an opportunity to be a host/escort on my 14-year-old daughter’s school field trip. I had done this before with her and her two older siblings. But the school district has since established a policy that no parent can accompany these kids on a field trip, though they be needed, unless finger-printed first. For me, that was a bridge-too-far. I don’t mind them doing a background check on me to find if I have any kind of criminal history of hurting children. But to willingly give up the privacy, that is my own fingerprints, and be treated like a criminal just to accompany a class of teenagers, ALONG WITH TEACHERS AND OTHER PARENTS, is taking security beyond what is reasonable. And I don’t give a damn if others are willing to surrender their rights in this manner. I wasn’t; nor will I ever. Seriously, people…lets think about the likelihood that anyone who is a parent or guardian of one of the teens on this field trip is going to try to hurt any of the other kids…while in a public place…with 30 other kids…and 4-5 other adults. What are the odds? Now what are the odds that this person would do this after having passed a background check? I acknowledge some pedophile could have changed their name. But…once again…what are the odds? The answer is…astronomical.

The mistake of taking each incident mentioned above, issue by issue, leads one to miss the big picture. One who would is missing the forest for the trees, to fall back on clique`. I accept President Obama’s words that the IRS scandal is bad and “they need to get to the bottom of it”. But I reject his claim that NSA fishing through millions of phone records amounts to a necessary evil for the protection of Americans. General Warrants by the British were one of the main causes of the Revolutionary War. They’re also the reason for the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure of any American’s property and requiring a judicial warrant be issued based on “probable cause”. No reasonable person could ever say probable cause exists for scrutinizing who a person talks to on the phone or in emails, let alone what was said or written, absent any previous suspicion of the person’s potential guilt. Though the possibility that information gathered in such fishing expeditions could some day be turned and twisted against any individual is extremely high, and not just Libertarian paranoia.

Our country was founded on the principle of individual freedom. It was with the concept of the people running the government, not the other way around. But the government and the compliant news media have gone so far in recent years to paint a fear in so many people of a need for overly intrusive government that a majority or near majority have evolved into a gullible and needy populous reliant on the Shepard (Government) to lead them, feed them and protect them. If the Sheeple continue to graze in the field in which they are led, we’ll continue to eat only that which we are fed. And we will never know the taste and nutrition of the greener pastures that grow in the vibrant sun at the edge of the cliff and the beauty which can be seen from such a place.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Total Broadcasting Service. When you want marketing help that you can understand and afford.

Total Broadcasting Service. When you want marketing help that you can understand and afford.

Related articles

June 11, 2013
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on Americans are turning in to Sheeple.

When Does a Life Begin Having Rights?

The artificial argument created by the Obama Re-Election Administration(and Yes I termed them that way intentionally) over women’s birth control has gained more steam than I dreamed possible. Democrats like Nancy Pelosi have termed this artificial, non-existent fight the Republican’s War on Women.

Republicans War on Women at the State Level we...

I am seldom surprised by the gullibility of the American electorate, but must admit this time, I’m dumbfounded. Obama and his minions have successfully managed to divide and enrage people with reasonable and differing views where mostly quiet co-existence had existed for the past 50 years.

Are Conservatives actively trying to impede women’s access to birth control? Puhhhhleeeezzz! If you believe so show some balls. Comment on this blog and tell us all where those impediments exist.

Prevention Park, is the largest Planned Parent...

Prevention Park, is the largest Planned Parenthood administrative and medical facility in the nation. It also serves as the headquarters for 12 clinics, located in Houston, Texas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Trying to de-fund Planned Parenthood, you say? That is more about cutting wasteful government spending and abortion than it is about contraception. And Planned Parenthood would not cease to exist were the Federal Government gifts to their operating budget cut off. PP can and would continue to receive generous private donations. In fact, it could be argued that their revenue would actually grow from empowered liberals coming to the rescue of this liberal iconic venue.

Liberals: your next ploy would be to throw up Catholics resistance and outrage to the Obama Health and Human Service Administration’s birth control mandate. This mandate was announced in January after a GOP Presidential debate in which

American television journalist and a former po...

George Stephanopulos

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos shocked the world and Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney

Mitt and Ann Romney on December 22, 2007, at a...

Mitt and Ann Romney

by asking the seemingly illogical, and uncalled for question “Can state’s disallow health care plans from offering contraception coverage?” Romney correctly pointed out that nobody wants to block contraception coverage. And he said it again, and again and again because Stephanopoulos kept asking; clearly indicating his mission from Democratic headquarters. Catholics righteous condemnation of the HHS mandate is totally and completely about religious freedom, not contraception. Were Catholic Church employees not able to have contraception paid for by their employer-provided health care plan they would not be denied contraception. They would merely be denied having contraception paid for, in part or in whole, by a Catholic Church that views it as a grave sin.

For the record I am telling YOU any of YOU who continue to argue that there is a Republican War on Women and a woman’s “right” to contraception that you are either stupid, impossibly ill-informed, or so hateful and bias in your political views that intelligent discussion with you is pointless. Move on. Don’t talk to me.

I find the whole subject remarkable in its divisiveness. Fifty years after creation of “the pill” and forty years after Roe vs. Wade this country won’t allow itself a sensible middle ground on reproductive rights because neither political side is willing to budge from their extreme positions; positions the vast majority of this country find unacceptable. Pro-Choice advocates want abortion on demand up to and including the partial birth of a living human baby. In other words they continue to advocate infanticide for convenience purposes. Outrageous!

Nearly, but not quite, as outrageous is the Pro-Life position that life begins at conception; that a fertilized egg represents life. Take that fertilized egg out of the womb and see how long it lives, and by what means its given nutrition. Answer those questions and you clearly don’t have life without the woman, the mother. Thus her rights remain paramount.

Neither Pro-life nor Pro-Choice can agree on what seems abundantly obvious to me. Life begins neither at conception, nor at birth, but somewhere in between. And since we’re talking about a LIFE, an individual, and all the God-given and Constitutional rights there-in bestowed upon that individual and the Federal Government’s required protection of that individual’s rights; shouldn’t we error on the side of protecting that life?

If a Pro-choice advocate says that a crying, wiggling baby not more than sixty seconds into the open air from their mother’s birth canal is Constitutionally protected and given rights under our Federal Constitution but that same PERSON had zero rights 61-seconds earlier…that’s just plain and simply unacceptable both logically, morally, and legally.

The great statesman Patrick Henry correctly noted “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” So restraining a woman’s right to control her own reproduction system should only be imposed when those rights infringe upon the rights of another whose rights also deserve protecting.

So, though I’m Catholic,

Constitution of the United States of America

Constitution of the United States of America

I acknowledge we are not a theocracy and Catholics can’t impose their beliefs on the populace any more than Muslims can or should. Therefore contraception is and should always remain available. So should abortion up until its determined when life begins.

When life begins is a question beyond my pay grade, to use a phrase made famous by Barrack Obama when he successfully dodged the same question during the 2008 Presidential race. But any idiot can agree it occurs well before a natural, healthy birth following a nine month pregnancy.

Unlike other posts of mine I broach this dangerous subject not for the purpose of starting debate but with the sincere hope of ending it. Let logic and reason, not religion or emotion prevail.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

April 14, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 6 Comments

Republicans are Stepping into Obama’s Bear Trap!

George Stephanopoulos

George Stephanopoulos

When George Stephanopoulos quizzically asked Mitt Romney whether state’s could ban contraception during an ABC News televised Republican Presidential Debate in January we were witnessing the first bear trap laid in the woods by the Obama administration in their hopes of having GOP Presidential candidates decisively put their foot in it. On that night Romney didn’t, in spite of Stephanopoulos’s dogged effort to get him to do so. He was clearly stunned by the question and saw no relevance in it.

Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaig...

GOP front-runner Mitt Romney

He adeptly avoided committing himself to a dangerous anti-contraception, anti-woman position from which Obama would string him from a tree like a hunting prize.

Unfortunately since that time Republicans have repeatedly put their foot squarely in the steel jaws of Obama’s Machiavellian plot. Once again Obama has proven himself to be one of the most thoroughly cut-throat politicians ever to occupy the White House. Chicago trained him well.

Shortly after Stephanopoulos’ covert opening volley, Obama announced the H-H-S plan to have church owned organizations, specifically the Catholic church,

St. Peter's Basilica at Early Morning

St. Peter's Basilica

supply contraception and the morning-after pill to their workers free of charge. AND THEN he quickly amended the policy to make it so the church’s insurance company’s paid for the contraception. In doing so Obama revealed his political motivation. He wanted to introduce the more extreme position as a track official would want to fire his starting gun to signal that runners should begin running. He wanted the debate, the fight. Again, he put politics ahead of country, dividing our country and creating controversy where none existed. He tailored his argument, and coached his Democratic minions to make the argument about a woman’s right to have contraception.

Should the Catholic church have contraception prohibited from the insurance coverage of all its employees in their churches, hospitals, colleges and universities no woman would be denied contraception. Those church employees could still get contraception on their own; they could still buy their own private insurance policies; they could choose to work for some company or organization that has beliefs and policies in line with their values and that does provide contraception coverage; and as shocking as this suggestion may be they could choose to refrain from sex until such time as they are ready to have a child. (I’m not advocating any of these options. I’m just correctly pointing out that choices do exist. The fact that the choices for the individual may be less desirable than being given something for free is immaterial.)

U.S. Senate Republicans introduced a bill that would exempt churches AND private businesses from providing contraception or other medical procedures in their employees insurance coverage if the leader or leaders of the business have a religious or moral objection. The measure was narrowly defeated 51-49; for which I am grateful. The legislation was a tremendous over-reach by Republicans too distracted by a big steel clamp around their ankles. A trap engraved with Barrack Obama‘s signature.

English: Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was also encumbered by the bear trap when he referred to a Georgetown University Law Student as a “slut” and a “prostitute”. The woman’s testimony before a Democratic Senate panel advocating free contraception WAS laughable. But in trying to laugh and make others laugh Limbaugh went too far and too crude, as he so often does. And he again turned the discussion back to a woman’s right to birth control rather than religious freedom.

It’s all so pathetic. I hope Romney continues to avoid the subject.

Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012

And all other Republicans should wise up and refuse to discuss the matter further. The media is Obama’s tool to manipulate and Republicans can’t win for losing. Any discussion of the matter will be turned by Democrats AND by the media into a false debate over birth control an argument Republicans will always lose. Let the Catholic church defend itself. It can. And it will. The Catholic church is the largest church in America and the richest church in the world. They are more than capable of winning a judicial fight over Obama’s CLEAR violation of the Bill of Right’s 1st Amendment.

Obama didn’t want a 1st Amendment fight. He wants to win an election. He can’t win talking about the economy or his record. So he divided the country and changed the subject. He laid a trap. Republicans stepped in it. And what’s really scary is that it won’t be Obama’s last trap. Let’s hope Republicans avoid the clumsiness they’ve displayed around this one.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

March 4, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 1 Comment

Where will it Stop? Obama has crossed the line.

“The growth of government occurs in direct opposite proportion to the decrease of individual liberty.” ~ Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States of America

Barack ObamaIt’s a simple concept Democrats never seem to grasp, and this week the line drawn in the sand representing “TOO DAMNED FAR” has been moved once again. It is becoming standard practice for this line to be moved every few years.

In a letter to churches around the country the Obama Administration informed them that not only does the new Obama care health care law require them to provide medical insurance coverage for all their employees in every church, and archdiocese around the country but that coverage MUST include contraception coverage. Not going far enough the dictum from our new overseer says that such contraception coverage must be free, with no co-pay charge to the recipient, and it must include the so-called “morning-after” pill, RU486, which abort any fetus up to five days after unprotected sex leads to conception.

English: a catholic cross Français : une croix...

It’s bad enough that our government led by Nanny-in-chief Barrack Obama feels we MUST buy healthcare coverage from private industry vendors and the only qualification for such a requirement is that you are breathing. Now his continued attack on Christians, and Catholics in particular, is abusive and nasty and seemingly hateful. Catholicism is the religion practiced by more Americans than any other religion. And it’s teachings are that contraception is wrong and that abortion is murder. And before all you Pro-Choice advocates get your panties in a bundle settle down. I’m not advocating for Pro-Life, contraception, Pro-Choice, or any other life decision. I’m telling Obama to get out of my face and more specifically my religion.

English: cross catholic Pontevedra Français : ...

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
             The anti-religious zealots have had a remarkable time reveling in the very first phrase in the most important of all amendments. But they continuously overlook the second phrase which I have put in bold. In establishing Obamacare and in interpreting the law to require Catholics to provide contraception to their employees President Obama and his team of “I know better than you” is telling the Catholic Church, “we don’t care about your free exercise of your religion. We’re telling you what we believe and YOU will follow.” It’s clearly unConstitutional.
              Those many of you who blindly defend all things Obama realize this, if Obama can require Pro-Life, or Catholic employers to require that health insurance provide contraception, including RU486, what’s to stop a future Conservative Pro-Life President from prohibiting contraception from being offered? 
President Bush signing the Federal Funding Acc...

Bush signed Patriot Act, Obama renewed it.

Just like the Patriot Act violates our right to privacy and our right against illegal search this step by the Obama Administration goes way to far into violating our liberties and our right to self-determination. The Patriot Act was enacted by President George W. Bush as an over-reach following the horrible terrorist attacks of 9-11. But as I feared at the time it’s now become standard and practiced law in this country. Obama renewed the Patriot Act, leaving it increasingly likely it may become permanent.

               To all Democrats I beg you. Stand up to your chosen leader and lets help roll back these government intrusions into our liberties, our rights, our beliefs, and our ability to pursue happiness. For if you turn a blind eye towards another man or woman’s injustice, the next injustice, the next infringement might be against you. Move the damned line back!
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
If you like the blog please honor me by sharing it. Thank you.

February 2, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 3 Comments

No to Gay Marriage. Where’s the Discrimination?

The Seal of Washington, Washington's state seal.

The seal of the State of Washington

So Washington State Governor

English: Photo of , Governor of Washington sin...

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire

Christine Gregoire wants to make our state the seventh in the national to make same-sex marriage legal. Well zippity-do-dah. As if Washington state had slipped far enough off the proverbial liberal cliff already. Now we want to put ourselves in the same category as New York, Massachusetts and the politicians and judges in California. I say the politicians and judges of California because the good people of the Golden State have had the good sense to vote FOUR TIMES to disallow Gay Marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage Rally

Lesbian wedding cake

I’m going to throw a bone to proponents of Gay Marriage. I don’t think there is any doubt that some who oppose Gay Marriage do so for purely hateful and discriminatory reasons. Some people hate gay people for reasons that fall pretty close to why they hate other types of people; because they’re “different”. However, I strongly believe that the most liberal wings of the Democratic party HATE all Conservatives and put just as much logic and reason into such feelings as the discriminatory gay bashers put into their thoughts.

And should  any of our leaders do anything at all to placate either of these extremes? Absolutely not. Sadly, they do all the time. The expression, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”, comes to mind.

Most people oppose legalization of gay marriage. Constant opinion polls and ballot measures have said so repeatedly in the past 10-15 years…which is the only period of time in human history in which the matter was given any consideration whatsoever.

And while I am certain to receive comments and criticisms calling me a hater and homophobe and other colorful descriptions I’m not too worried about it. Speaking of expressions, there is one I heard when I was a child referencing sticks and stones that comes to mind. Because the proponents of gay marriage are so loud and visceral I realize I’m sticking my head in the lions mouth; but hoping, perhaps foolishly, that calm reason and debate can dominate this discussion.

My opposition to gay marriage has more to do with my political philosophy in general. The more government, the more laws the less liberty and freedom. And gay marriage creates more laws and restrictions than it eliminates in addressing a discrimination that does not exist.

I credit radio talk show host

Michael Medved

Michael Medved

Michael Medved for sharpening my point of view on this gay marriage issue. Medved has correctly and repeatedly pointed out that when it comes to gays and lesbians wanting to marry someone of the same-sex as things stand right now THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION. ZERO!

Right now in most of this country a man cannot marry another man and a woman cannot marry another woman. No where does it say that “a GAY man cannot marry another man” or “a LESBIAN cannot marry another woman”. Meaning, a gay man can legally marry anyone that I can legally marry. I am heterosexual. I am married to a woman. Were I single I would be legally barred from marrying:

1. A minor

2. Anyone legally married to another

3. My mother, sister, or first cousin

4. Someone of the same-sex (in my case a man)

I CAN (if I weren’t already married) legally marry anyone else who doesn’t fall into those four categories. Any gay man can do the same. So I ask, where is the discrimination?

A society has a right to establish laws protecting our cumulative values. You can’t just dismiss the laws that prevent you from marrying some other people. It used to be legal for you to marry your first cousin. After divorcing my Mom’s father in 1942 my Grandmother married her first cousin. On at least one other occasion in my own family’s genealogy I found an instance of 1st cousins marrying (let the jokes begin. “That explains a lot”, etc, etc). And while I don’t recall finding instances of legalized minors marrying in my family history I do know of instances where someone as young as 16 was married. Most famously singer Jerry Lee Lewis married his thirteen year old cousin; something that wasn’t terribly uncommon in the deep South as recently as the 1950s (age or 1st cousin). And of course bigamist marriages legally occurred with Mormons in this country in the 19th century, and still exist today, illegally. The point is gay people aren’t being discriminated against on this issue and there are plenty of examples of laws that DO prevent us from marrying  some other people. And those laws apply to all of us, regardless of sexual orientation.

Also, as Presidential candidate

English: Former Congressman Newt Gingrich of G...

Newt Gingrich so adequately pointed out in last Saturday’s New Hampshire debate legalizing gay marriage creates, or expands, discrimination by our governments against many Christian churches. He correctly points out that the Catholic church in Massachusetts had to close down their adoption services because they wouldn’t allow adoption by same-sex couples. The Obama administration has repeatedly threatened to cut off Christian colleges and universities from any federal funding and research grants for opposing the gay agenda. The repercussions of legalizing gay marriage are enormous and go far beyond creating special rights for a small minority class of people.

Homosexuality and gay marriage are opposed by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In only four other countries in the entire world is gay marriage legal. Canada is the only country in the Americas where it is legal.

And as Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA

said in that same debate marriage between a man and a woman has been the ONLY standard by which humans have existed and grown for 3000 years. And we shouldn’t throw 3-thousand years of history out the window so cavalierly; especially when no discrimination exists.

Lastly in the interest of political fairness this isn’t just a GOP or Conservative issue. Democratic President Barrack Obama is on record as being opposed to gay marriage. Washington legislators or voters should say no to Gregoire’s proposal because ultimately this is not a state issue. It’s must be a Federal issue for the simple reason that we cannot have a couple, any couple, being legally married in one state and not so in another. Ultimately, baring a Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court will decide the matter.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

January 12, 2012
Categories: National Politics, Washington State . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 6 Comments