Why Can’t We Realize SH*T Happens?

English: This is the semi-automatic civilian v...

20 people, 16 kids, are shot and killed in Connecticut. A horrible crime perpetrated by a mentally challenged young man who got hold of his mother’s legally bought and owned guns. Prior to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School the killer (we won’t mention his name here, ever) killed his mother at their home. And around the country voices are heard screaming, “We must do something! We can’t let this happen again”.  My question is, why? Why do we have to do something?

Sandy Hook Elementary Memorial

Sandy Hook Elementary Memorial

This country is a reactionary country and no politician has ever met a tragedy they wouldn’t or couldn’t exploit. But just like the bumper sticker I’m going say, “Shit Happens“.  I’m sorry if that sounds insensitive. I’m just as hurt and was emotionally troubled by the killing last December 14, 2012 as most people. It sickened me. I prayed and asked others to pray. The idea of all those young children being senselessly shot caused me tears and frustration. But ultimately as a country why scream, “Something must be done!” Why?

Why can’t we accept the fact that this killer had a mother who devoted her life to her son, tried the best she could but ultimately this 20-year-old kid was too much for her and was crazy and finally went off; and he did this horrible crime? Why can’t we accept the fact that we can’t stop every crazed killer from killing? If they want to kill and die they’re going to do so and we are not going to be able to stop them. Shit Happens.

The Connecticut killer stole legally purchased weapons from his mother. The Colorado movie theater killer bought his weapons after passing the legally required background check allowing him to do so. The Portland Mall shooter (from the same week as Sandy Hook) used a stolen weapon. No Assault Weapons Ban or criminal background check stopped these killers, nor would any new legislation along similar lines.

One of the photographs of Seung-Hui Cho that h...

One of the photographs of Seung-Hui Cho that he sent to NBC News on the day of the massacre

The Virginia Tech massacre of 2007 also involved a crazy man. Seung-Hui Cho (age 23) shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others. And he did it using hand guns which would never have been banned under the previous or currently proposed assault weapons ban. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994 lasted ten years before expiring. We’re not talking about a few months or a couple of years. The ban was in effect for ten years. And yet, nearly every study of it found it ineffective in deterring or diminishing gun violence.

FBI mugshot of Timothy McVeigh.

FBI mugshot of Timothy McVeigh.

Timothy McVeigh didn’t even need a gun to commit his horrible crime. He just needed a U-Haul truck and some fertilizer. McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City killed 168 people and injured 800 more. No gun was used. Until he detonated his improvised bomb no law had been broken. And no law should exist that prohibits the purchase of fertilizer and the renting of a U-Haul truck. We all just have to accept, Shit Happens.

One week after the Sandy Hook shooting the NRA responded by proposing that every school in this country should be staffed by an armed, trained, security guard. They were roundly criticized by the anti-gun crowd and do you know why? Those lobbying for a greater number of 2nd Amendment infringements said of the National Rifle Associations proposal that it would “cost too much”. Really? Cost too much? How’s that for hypocrisy? President Obama has said repeatedly, including this week during his Press Conference on Monday, that “If there is one step we can take to save one child’s life then we should do it”. I guess he should have added, “unless we’re talking about spending real money”.

The City of Chicago was sighted by the President as the model for gun laws throughout the United State‘s. Chicago led the nation last year with over 500 murders, most of them by guns. Democrats don’t really want to do anything about problems with guns. They just want to appear to a naive public that they are doing something, while they can wink and nod at the gun lobby who helps them pass useless and toothless legislation to placate that ignorant public.

The fact is tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre will happen and short of repealing the 2nd Amendment and taking away all our guns they’ll happen again. Shit Happens. But the 2nd Amendment won’t be repealed any time in my lifetime because too many Americans have guns, over 310 million guns are known to be owned in the U.S. by law-abiding citizens. It’s a practical impossibility to somehow think you’re going to get them all, or anything close to them all.

We need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Period. End of discussion. Find out how to do that and most Americans will shout “Hallelujah”.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

Desperate Times and Desperate Measures for the President.

English: Seal of the President of the United S...

Recent decisions, announcements and policy steps by President Barrack Obama show two things. They show how far to the left his true politics are. And they show that he is approaching near desperation in his attempts to secure his re-election.

Obama would be only the fifth U.S. President to fail in his bid for re-election since the start of the 20th Century joining the list of

William Howard Taft (Bones 1878), son of the s...

William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover,

President Herbert Hoover.

President Herbert Hoover.

Jimmy Carter,

English: James Earl "Jimmy" Carter

James Earl “Jimmy” Carter (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

and George H. W. Bush. Taft and Bush were both victims of a third-party candidate that took more from their presumed voter base than from their winning opponent. Such a situation doesn’t and isn’t currently likely to exist in this year’s Presidential race. Hoover and Carter were both booted from office in large part for presiding over bad economies. Something very much in play in this year’s contest.

In recent weeks Obama has seen voter polls between himself and Republican candidate Mitt Romney narrow to a point of where statistically its a dead heat. Obama has changed his previous position and declared himself in favor of Gay marriage. Then declared by Executive Order that illegal immigrants who were brought into this country by their illegal immigrant parents, could stay in this country and not face deportation from HIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Finally in the past week at the request of his Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama declared Executive Privilege on the documents sought by a House Committee in the Fast and the Furious gun running investigation.

The polls reflect the fact that Romney no longer has Republican opponents throwing daggers at him, and the increasingly discontented publics view of the stagnating economy. It’s natural that GOP voters would coalesce behind their candidate and that independents would come his way the more they learn about him. But Obama’s problem is that too many people who voted for him in 2008 are expressing disappointment and a desire to not support him this year.

In a widely viewed televised interview with Pastor Rick Warren Senator Barrack Obama said  “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian…it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” Apparently no longer thinking it was sacred and that God  was no longer in the mix Obama bent to political pressure and pandered to his liberal base and said, “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Obama had been forced to address the issue by his gaffe prone Vice-President, Joe Biden. The week before Biden said on a National TV show that same-sex couples ought to be able to get married. The media didn’t leave the subject alone everyday thereafter until Obama capitulated, once again demonstrating his lack of leadership. While some believe this change in position won’t lose him any votes it’s a widely held view that many blacks and Catholic Hispanics don’t look favorably upon this decision and won’t be as enthusiastic in supporting their man as they clearly were in 2008.

His move on illegal immigration seems less a change of position than it does a timely gesture toward the Hispanic voting block that he desperately needs to support him big-time in order for him to win re-election. It remains unfathomable to me that Obama and other Democrats can be so blind and insensitive to this nations least educated and poorest legal citizens by continually pushing for some form of amnesty for all illegal immigrants. All one needs to do is compare who you find working at your local fast food restaurant now compared to who used to be their 10-20 years ago. Where such jobs were typically held by teenagers, now their held largely by Spanish-speaking persons, many of whom we can presume are undocumented. A few years back I had carpeting installed in my home a few weeks after doing the same at a rental property we owned. Installation was done by two different companies. In each instance none of the 4-5 workers present at each job spoke English. I feel comfortable saying some, if not all, were illegals. And whats wrong with these observations? Simply, these jobs are not for the wealthy or well-educated or experienced. These jobs were for our young, and our less educated, less schooled, our poorer citizens. Furthermore, since these workers are not in this country legally and often work “off the books” they work for a lower wage, thereby forcing down the wages of competing businesses who hire legal citizens, subsequently making them poorer. One need only look at the unemployment rate overall, and specifically for those without a college education, those in a minority community to see that Obama has abandoned them in order to score some cheap political cache. At the time of this writing the overall unemployment rate is 8.2%. Among blacks its 13.6%. Hispanics its 11%. For those with only a high school diploma its 9.4%. For those without a high school diploma its 14.1%. Their jobs are being taken by lower wage illegals whom Obama lets stay in this country, and come into this country by failing to secure our borders, our security.

In the Fast and the Furious investigation, clearly Obama is doing one of two things. He’s either trying to cover his own ass. Or he’s protecting his hand-picked Attorney General. To claim that the House committee’s investigation, led by California GOP Congressman Darrel Issa, an election year Republican ploy ignores the fact that Obama waited 18 months since the time the subpoenas  were issued. It also ignores the fact the story was only being covered by the FOX News channel until Holder and the President put it front and center by ignoring a Contempt vote against Holder by Issa’s committee and moved to have the documents made off-limits by declaring Executive Privilege. Fast and Furious is the name given an il-advised American investigation of Mexico Drug dealers. The plan was to sell guns to associates of the drug lords in order to trace the guns, or follow them back to the heads of the gangster families. It became an issue when a U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed, allegedly by a person firing a gun bought from the Americans. To date guns sold in this scheme have been found at the scenes of 170 shootings in Mexico. Obama previously claimed he had no previous knowledge of or involvement in the Fast and the Furious operation. Now he claims Executive Privilege which he can’t do in most cases unless the documents under subpoena were from him or to him. Which is it Mr. President? To date Holder has yet to fire anyone responsible for the Fast and the Furious debacle. To date, no one has been held accountable.

Obama has attended more campaign fund-raisers than the previous five Presidents seeking re-election combined. He’s desperate to hold onto his office. We can only hope that American voters feel likewise about not retaining his services.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

D-Day Anniversary- 68 Years Later

English: President Ronald Reagan and President...

English: President Ronald Reagan and President Francois Mitterrand of France attend a wreath-laying ceremony at the American cemetery at Omaha Beach. The ceremony is part of the 40th anniversary of D-day, the invasion of Europe. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On this day in 1984 President Ronald Reagan spoke beautifully of the importance of the Allied invasion of Europe and the defeat of tyranny imposed by the evil Nazi regime.

Thanks for Visiting. Comments are welcome.

George Washington Knew What he was Talking About.

Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stearns, Wash...

Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stearns, Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, 

In November 1787 General George Washington wrote a letter to his nephew Bushrod Washington, who would later become one of the early Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose of the letter was for the Father of our Country to explain his support for the yet to be adopted U.S. Constitution. Washington had served honorably as the President of the 1787 Constitutional Convention which crafted this great document.  In the letter the Great General wrote “No man is a warmer advocate for proper restraints, and wholesome checks in every department of government than I am; but neither my reasoning, nor my experience, has yet been able to discover the propriety of preventing men from doing good, because there is a possibility of their doing evil.” In so writing few men have ever more fully and properly espoused the arguments for individual liberty. In essence Washington was saying TRUST your fellow man.

In the 223 years since the adoption of our Nations most revered document people have forgotten that it was hardily debated, and strongly opposed. The mere presence of Washington and fellow American Revolutionary hero Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin 1767

Benjamin Franklin 1767

within the Convention was perhaps the greatest argument the Constitution’s advocate’s had for its adoption. And a strong argument it was. Franklin and Washington were held in near God-like reverence by early Americans. Since Franklin and Washington supported adoption of the Constitution as it was ultimately written its adoption became far easier.

Opponents feared the Constitution produced too strong a government, and gave the office of The President too much power. Opponents were aghast at the fact that the Constitution enabled the continuing existence of slavery. Having just fought an eight year bloody Revolutionary War for liberty and freedom from the tyranny of British rule, continuing to hold fellow human beings in forced servitude was an hypocritical conflict some members of the Convention couldn’t stomach. Opponents of the Constitution also objected to the absence of a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution granted, or acknowledged, the individual rights we all enjoy and fight over today. But they came after the Constitutions adoption in 1789. Ratification of 10 of the first 12 proposed Amendments (yes 12), The Bill of Rights, was finally ratified by the states more than 2 years later in December 1791.

Washington’s admonition to trust that good not evil would be the end result of a God-fearing and moral people speaks to today’s Democrats calls for increasing government regulations, laws, and controls on the American people. Democrats specifically say more control is necessary in order to prevent some from doing evil (in some form or another).

1795 - 1823

George Washington

Though Washington was responding to specific concerns about the fear he would become President and subsequently Monarch, and that slavery would continue, and more importantly to the opponents, that recognition of American citizen’s individual rights was not and would not be addressed; he said this is a good document, it should be adopted, and stopping its adoption didn’t make sense merely because some didn’t trust that what did ultimately come-to-pass would come-to-pass.

Were the Constitution not adopted and ratified the 13 original State’s would have split up to ultimately fall under the control of some more powerful and organized nation; perhaps Spain, France, and perhaps Britain again. Imagine. The Bill of Rights would never have been created and the shining light on the hill that the United States of America became for the rest of the world, would never have gotten started. And it would have failed because some didn’t trust their fellow Americans to do the right thing.

Where have we heard THAT before.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

It Takes a Village? What Crap!

Somewhere along the line a significant portion of our proud American populace got the wrong impression of what makes America great and what led us to becoming the world’s most powerful nation, and desirable destination. The wrong-headed philosophy is summarized in the abbreviated title to

The ghostwriter for Hillary Clinton's memoirs ...

Hillary Clinton‘s 1996 book, “It Take’s a Village: And other Lessons Our Children Teach Us.” “It take’s a village” thinking has grown into what we see today from President Obama and Democrats everywhere. It’s the belief that if we are going to go forward we must all do so together. And I’m here standing shoulder to shoulder with John Adams, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and many other great leaders from our past saying such thinking is crap. At best, such thinking is misguided. And at worst such thinking is highly destructive.

According to our current Secretary of State, her book’s title derives from an old African saying. It’s full statement being: “It takes a village to raise a child.” Being a life long Democrat it’s not the least bit surprising that Mrs. Clinton would believe such a philosophy. The actual fact is it takes a family and whenever possible two parents.

But the mentality which now infects everything pursued by Barrack Obama

Official photographic portrait of US President...

started back in the 1960s with the advent and temporary popularity of communal living. The idea, championed by the hippies and drug culture, was that you could live together in a small community and collectively share food, water, living space, and philosophy. To determine the wisdom of such thinking I would simply tell you to ask yourself, how many of those 60s and 70s commune’s flourish today?. How many exist?

I’ll admit it’s an attractive philosophy that’s very tempting to embrace. It promises security, and friendship, and a sense of one-ness with others. All of which is good. Right? The problem is, like the philosophy espoused by

A portrait of Karl Marx.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx it doesn’t work. It’s a lie to think that we can all live equally.

President Obama said repeatedly in his 2008 election campaign that he wanted to fundamentally change America. I have no doubt he wants to do exactly that. But here is what must be understood. You must understand what America is and what the former Illinois Senator wants to change it from. You must understand from whence we came.

On the subject of security and comfort as promised by the “It Takes a Village” philosophy Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”

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.”

Restrain the people? The men who believed in Liberty and founded this country would never stand for such a thing. Over the course of more than 200 plus years our Government has continued to plague its people with increasingly more laws, rules, regulations and restrictions all in the name of need or necessity forgetting the words uttered by

William Pitt

William Pitt

William Pitt on the floor of the House of Commons in 1783 “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” 

Sadly I know that too many look back on the words and writings of 18th Century heroes as quaint, but impractical for today’s living. In their minds the collective is far superior than the individual. Twenty years ago Russian author Tatyana Tolstaya observed in an issue of The New Republic:

Taken individually, in short, everyone is not good. Perhaps this is true, but then how did all these scoundrels manage to constitute a good people? The answer is that “the people” is not “constituted of.” According to [collectivists] “the people” is a living organism, not a “mere mechanical conglomeration of disparate individuals.” This, of course, is the old, inevitable trick of totalitarian thinking: “the people” is posited as unified and whole in its multiplicity. It is a sphere, a swarm, an anthill, a beehive, a body. And a body should strive for perfection; everything in it should be smooth, sleek, and harmonious. Every organ should have its place and its function: the heart and brain are more important than the nails and the hair, and so on. If your eye tempts you, then tear it out and throw it away; cut off sickly members, curb those limbs that will not obey, and fortify your spirit with abstinence and prayer.


 Hungarian immigrant Professor Tibor R. Machan summarized the “It Take’s a Village” philosophy in a 1993 essay called “The Fear of Individualism”. He referred to such thinkers as “collectivists”: 

“Members of society do have different roles; the economists speak convincingly of the benefits of the division of labor. The errors of the collectivists are (1) their presumption that they know better than the individuals involved which members of society are less important, and (2) they have the right to eliminate those members. But individuals are ends in themselves, not animals to be sacrificed on the altar of the collectivist state.”

Respecting individual capabilities, including the ability to fail, is the only way the United State‘s came to its great position of power and leadership in the world today. Do we really want to disrespect each and every individual by claiming “we know better”? George Orwell‘s “Animal Farm” captures THAT belief when the lead pig states, “Some are more equal than others.” With Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama…they’re the pigs.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Another Kid is Shot and our 2nd Amendment Cringes

handgun

In the Seattle area three kids have been shot by handguns in the past three weeks. According to The Seattle Times the third happened at a gas station near the Tacoma Mall. A man with a license for carrying a concealed weapon placed the gun underneath the driver’s seat as he exited the car to fill the gas tank. A three-year old in the car got the gun and fatally shot himself in the head.

This kind of tragedy is avoidable if only people exercise a little more common sense when it comes to the ownership of handguns. Don’t. Don’t own them. Far more people are shot with guns they or their family members own than by the strangers with guns. If you want to dramatically increase the likelihood that you or a member of your family is shot, own a handgun.

Where I put my foot down is on government getting involved and telling us we may not own guns. The government is not needed in this discussion. Just common sense. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “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 Founding Fathers thought so much of this Right that they placed it second on their list of the first ten amendments, commonly known as The Bill of Rights. But a key aspect of the amendment is frequently ignored by 2nd Amendment advocates, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”.  Remove that phrase and the amendment takes on more meaning. It does not say “We shall have the right to keep and bear arms in order to kill our fellow man”

World Peace

. So some regulation of firearms can and should be exercised. To say there should be none is to argue that anybody can own, build, and possess a nuclear weapon; for what is that if not a more extreme form of “arms”.

Still I oppose government banning or severely restricting handguns. But there are lots of things we as people have a right to do that common sense dictates we avoid. I always tell my kids to look both ways  and make eye contact with drivers before crossing the street, even at a cross walk. Entering an unregulated cross walk in heavy traffic may be your right. But you’ll be dead.

I’m a gun owner. Rifles and shotguns, for hunting. I have been since I was twelve years old and my Grandpa gave me a .22 rifle as a Christmas present. He had made an annual gesture of giving guns to the boys in my family for a couple of years. So in a very real sense guns are a tradition in my family.

The author with his shotgun

But for reasons I’ve already explained I have never and would never own a handgun. The only time I would ever own a handgun is if I lived on my own. Then I can be sure to never angrily use it or accidentally use it against a person in my family; and I would be sure to not have it used against me either angrily or accidentally. It’s all well and good to claim I would never use my gun in anger. But I’m sure there are many, many murders behind bars who said or thought the same thing.

Three children shot and severely injured, or killed in only three weeks in the Seattle area is too much. It’s too painful. How much do you really need your gun. Does it really protect you? Or does it just excite you? Perhaps the more important question should be, does having it increase your chance of being shot or of someone you care about being shot, or does it increase your chance of you or someone else you love ending up dead? I’ll answer the obvious question: own a handgun and dramatically increase your chances of a quick, tragic death.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

If you like this blog or find it interesting please do the author the honor of sharing it. TY.

EDITORIAL: Obama’s goofy green gas – Washington Times

The Washington Times Printing & Distributi...

Washington Times building

My Conservative friends may find it surprising that I think we as a nation should go green. My Conservative friends would appreciate that I don’t think government should be directing that movement.

As gas prices sore past $4-per gallon President Obama acts helpless. But as is pointed out in this Washington Times editorial he doesn’t need to be standing in the way of us doing for ourselves what he refuses.

EDITORIAL: Obama’s goofy green gas – Washington Times.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

(Credit to Gds44’s blog where I first came across this commentary)