Sunday, October 30, 2011

The Supreme Court and the Road to Tyranny

One is never too old to learn, I suppose.

There are only two gate-keepers that should protect the people against tyranny: the ballot box and the courts. If the one fails, one should be able to rely on the other to apply the remedies that will return the country to health.

It is already evident that forces, who claim to be patriots but act like Trojan-Horse militia, are doing their level best to invalidate the ballot box. We constantly hear of Democrats who oppose proper identification of voters at the voting booths degrading the integrity of the outcome; recent public utterings of senior Democrat officials suggesting the suspension of elections; and the criminal position of the Speaker of the House of the previous Congress that delegates should vote for the Obama Health Care Bill to find out what's in it.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to expect this kind of behavior from people who have demonstrated empirically that they want to break down the very principles that brought this country to world leader status and being the most benevolent country towards its citizens and others in the world.

What was unexpected, to me at least, is that the U.S. Supreme Court, reportedly, allows their opinions to be influenced by public opinion and election results.

Do we even comprehend the magnitude of the cracks in our defenses against tyranny if this is indeed the case? The ballot box is already under mortal assault.

The two instances that have fiduciary custody of the public's trust, elected officials and the media, have already demonstrated that they are wholly incapable of executing their offices with even the remotest reference to integrity. It is rather a wild orgy of political incest, embezzlement, and moral destruction, all to serve the one god they all worship with daily devotion and sacrifice.

Their self.

The one body perceived to be that bastion of defense against tyranny is the Supreme Court. Although that august body is millennia removed from the ordinary citizen who bears the moral, financial, and loss-of-liberty brunt of the obscene, public ingratiation of politicians, it is almost impossible for the people to contemplate defiance of the Supreme Court's rulings. It spoke, it must be obeyed, is rather the order of the day.

Now, however, we learn that the Supreme Court allows public opinion to influence its rulings. If that doesn’t stun any rational citizen, nothing will. Public opinion is crafted by the very people who architect the destruction of the Constitution, who demonize the very fiber of this country's prosperity, fraudulently calling on the people's compassion, and covering their real objectives, which is either full-blown Marxism or a Monarchy.

If the Supreme Court would introduce in their consideration of cases the public's opinion, as reported by the charlatan media, or election results, its rulings would be suspicious and appear to be subject to the course set by the custodians; while it is the custodians who were supposed to be subjective to the rulings of the court. The court subjected itself, it appears, to a vague, biased, manipulative and very fickle source of information, using that as standards in the highest court of the country.

The Federalists, during the founding of this country, were avowed monarchists, who would have wanted nothing more than to have established a monarchy to oppose King George of England. They are still among us having just changed their spots to revenge a centuries old defeat.

George Washington were, reportedly, offered either a President-for-Life office or that of King of America. He refused both. That is the caliber of judgment that is required at all levels of government, especially in the courts. Most especially the Supreme Court. It appears to be a vain expectation.

The time has come for the people to take back the custody of their trust. Politicians may well be elected to run the affairs of the people within the four corners of a Republic to avoid mob-rule, but the accountability of their actions should rest with the people directly.

Why do the electorate continue to vote for these wreckers of the American society?
It is called the Stockholm Syndrome.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Picking a Presidential Candidate

Should the Presidential Candidate Be Picked Now?

I couldn’t help shuddering when I heard a caller to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show today say that it is Rush’s duty to pick a candidate and promote him/her over the nomination finish line. It is his duty, according to the caller, because Rush is such an influential member of the media having 20 million listeners per week that take his advice seriously.

Typically, Rush declined the call to “duty,” as the caller labeled it, because he doesn’t believe that cheerleaders can push a political candidate over the finish line. It all depends on the candidate and an endorsement without control over what the candidate can do or say, is foolishness.

Exactly.

There is another reason, too. It is called individual liberty. Appointing or pushing Rush, or any other media maestro, to act like a Moses to lead us out of this quagmire, is to abandon individual liberty and embrace group liberty, which always leads to tyranny.

Even if we could find a benevolent dictator who will truly lead us to prosperity and liberty, after he or she is gone, who will take over and not become a tyrant? There are no guarantees; at least not on par with the guarantees inherent in individual liberty. So, Rush, trust your gut-feel and don’t back a candidate before the primary. After a candidate has been appointed, it becomes a free for all.

There is a deeper, more dire consequence if we should be lulled into the guidance of a Moses-figure now. It is the furnace of affliction that the American people, and all people of the world for that matter, are in right now. We have to pass through this furnace to be purified of the rot embedded within us, which is socialism and liberalism. A Moses-type leader might just pull us out of this burning fire before we have been rid of the rot; before the temperature has been reached that will remove the impurities from among us. A goldsmith will confirm that nothing but the proper temperature will clear gold of impurities.

That is why the people alone must decide who their candidates are. If they choose wrong again, the misery index of this country will reflect destruction and misery challenging that of the Civil War.

Nowhere in the world, ever, has a communist/socialist regime relinquish power without mass-violence, -torture and -murder. This administration is showing serious, visible signs of an unwillingness to give up power under any circumstances, regardless of the cost, lost, and rot.

The road they are currently on is the same path that previous despots walked before they suspended elections and their constitutions (Democrats already voiced those precise sentiments, so pay attention) and claim dictatorial power. The administration's reckless rush to socialism without regard for future electoral repercussions, is an alarming confirmation that they are indeed on this road.

The problem is that the American people will not stand for that. But when the ballot box has been rendered useless, what will it cost to fix this? Is this what would be required to rid us of this Democrat Party?

Of these manipulators that care none, build less, and destroy more, so that they may bask under a sun painted in the blood of others, it can well be expected. They are already saying such things shamelessly in public. Nobody has any excuse to pick the right candidate.

No, Rush, trust your gut-feel. Don’t pick a candidate on your own. You are exactly right, it is the people who must decide and it is the people who must live with the consequences.

It is the people who must be edified or afflicted by their choices. One individual person at a time.

May God help us all.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Evil Corporations and Choices

It has been a while since I have written, mostly because of time constraints. Times are very volatile today making business sustainability a prime focus.

Occasionally, I make time for tennis and on Saturday mornings I hit with a dear friend, a psychiatrist, to get some outdoor time, working out muscles, heart and lungs. When we take a break we talk about people and their behavior and, since he knows infinitely more about it than I do, it is always a very interesting learning experience for me. Not that I can do much with that information, but it does fill in some of the many blank spots in my mind.

Recently we inherited a home crowd on the court: a homeless guy who sleeps nearby (he won't say where) and then comes to the tennis courts at dawn. We started talking to him since he shares the benches on the court with us. He sounded highly educated and it particularly intrigued me that he said he was an aeronautical engineer with NASA, among other places. Not a newcomer to aeronautics, I'd steer the conversation to aspects that only one who has been involved with the profession would know, and, lo and behold, he would encourage the conversation offering more facts and times and places that I asked for.

He garnered a bit of respect from me, except it didn't jive with his situation. It turns out that he is out of work for various reasons (didn't want to divulge particulars about that either) one of which is a visible tumor on his foot.

My psychiatrist friend, who also has a PhD in pathology, immediately recognized the tumor, which appears to be benign, but still a major obstacle in finding a job, I'd say. However, we got to talk about bank failures today and the immoral things that corporations do. Hitler's actions were legal, too, he offered. Wait a minute, I retorted, Hitler's cabal were convicted at Nuremberg, so their actions were not legal and additionally, immoral people are not constrained by laws to act immorally and neither do moral people need laws to act morally. So, one would find moral and immoral people everywhere regardless of the laws of the land.

Yes, he said, but he is often approached by some of his previous colleagues to come and work for them because of his skills. They only want to pay him a much lower wage than what he is worth because all they are interested in is to rake in as much profit as they can, and he is not prepared to accept that.

This is the point where my head explodes. So, living like a tramp is preferable to a bit less money than expected?

I said that now he knows why he is living on a tennis court. It's of his own choosing.

It is, he said.

OK, I said. As long as he understands that it is not due to some evil corporation or immoral people that he is where he is.

That's cool, man.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

The Speed of Time

Time flies so fast nowadays that it's hard to believe that it's Friday, Monday or one's birthday, depending on where and how one tracks time.

Someone proposed a theory that the passage of time is experienced as a percentage of one's age. So, the theory claims, a one-year old would experience a year as 100% of his own age taking a life-time to experience, while a fifty-year old would experience the same year as one-fiftieth of the time.

I guess that's why time not only goes by a lot faster these days but it creeps up on one faster, too. I still think that I have a lot of time before this or that needs to be done and before I realize it, the event is upon me.

I cannot help but wonder about next year's election. That's the U.S. presidential election, of course. In recognition of the effect of time, it's just around the corner and not "next year" if you know what I mean.

So much is being done by opposing parties and institutions that a reference to war is not inappropriate. It's as if military hardware is assembled according to the battle that is imminent. And not only do we see battle maneuvers, there are also covert operations, stings, and espionage. If it were not that serious, it could be fascinating to watch. Unfortunately, it's deadly serious and we all better make sure we fall in for service on the right side of issues and history.

A good friend of mine compiled a spreadsheet with positives and negatives about president Obama and senator McCain back in 2008 and according to his list Barack was ahead of John by a healthy margin. I don't know how my friend voted -- it is not important now -- but it would be interesting to see an update on campaign promises that the winner made back then and how the race would compute today.

It has always baffled me that politicians openly proclaim that one has to campaign from the right or center and then govern from the left. What kind of trickery is that? Shouldn't it be stated for what it is: Lie to the voters when you seek their votes and screw them when you are in office; and then lie to them again when they complain so you can screw them for another term?

Unscrupulous politicians have been doing that since Pontius was a pupil pilot, but to have the entire cabal of elected officials practice that as stated (and slavishly accepted) policy is incomprehensible. What a bunch of fools we must be!

So, the candidates with lies that best soothe the ears of the public get into office from where they use our money to bribe us so they can remain in office.

There are, however, rumblings like thunder in the distance that appear to sound the end of this trickery. Accountability to honor above all their oaths of office is not going to be easily separated from the lies to which we have grown accustomed.

The people must enforce that accountability, and not the courts, for example, because there should never be one person, or one office, that could bind the people into debt or to foreign values. The people, who are expected to bear the burden of a political or financial decision, should be the final arbiters of whether things are right or wrong.

That's us.

We pay the bills, send our kids to die, and are fired, after all. We will decide what we are paying for; for what cause we will have our kids go into battle; and for what reason we are to be fired. Period.

Time goes by too fast for us to linger any longer getting our house in order. By the time today's children's time starts picking up speed, they must, at the very least, have a fighting chance to pursue happiness in safety and liberty and deal with matters that they brought upon themselves.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Cross Roads

In my (not always) humble opinion, the budget deal this week was such a disappointment that I didn't want to write unless I had a chance to let it settle in and see if others share my perception. Perhaps, or hopefully, I was mistaken and there was something after all that Speaker Boehner and his boys were aiming at that I missed. Alas, we were given the mushroom treatment, you know, where they keep you in the dark and feed you manure.

Where in anyone's logic is a promise to cut $100 billion successful by cutting only two thirds? The promise was not pro rata, it was $100 billion. That was the benchmark, no negotiation, no plea deal, no compromise, nothing - one hundred billion dollars! Missing that means failure.

Sixty-one billion dollars on a deficit of $3.4 trillion is like going to the financial institution where you overdrew your checking account by $3,400 and you offer $61 to increase your limit. You cannot be serious.

The only institution that holds the purse-strings is the House. That's 100% accountability. I recently heard Speaker Boehner say that one cannot impose one's will on others and one has to take what one can get. I wanted to yell so loud that they would have heard me in Washington D.C. all the way from California

What is there in the word "majority" that is so hard to understand? Where is the higher power, which trumps the House's clear mandate that we are only able to "take what he can get?" "Can get," like crumbs falling from the table, Mr. Speaker?

You have been given the authority to TAKE THAT WHICH BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE WHO SENT YOU THERE. You don't have to negotiate at all if you didn't want to, like the Democrats did with you. Let the Senate vote on and the president veto these bills if they are truly so convinced they are wrong. What's with the inferiority complex?

Mr. Boehner's stated position has been in line with the promises made to the American people, right up to the announcement of the deal, which is why it was such a disappointment.

His announcement that he will not allow the government to shut down under any circumstance gave the Democrats advance warning about the four corners of the Republican strategy. It gave the Democrats free reign to threaten that which they were not willing to risk. That was a fatal battlefield failure.

(See his interview with George Stephanopoulos here where George sets him up to declare that there won't be a shutdown)

Why is it so difficult to understand that the Democrats planned this show-down for more than two years and knew beforehand they will out-maneuver the Republicans?

Why wasn't it clear that we were being played for fools when the president gave the Speaker cold shoulders after numerous requests to work together on the budget? If the administration wasn't playing us for fools, then why did they show such contempt for the American people by not even proposing a budget?

Haven't we begin to suspect that the Democrats are laughing their butts off at the Republicans' total naiveté?

Have we not yet caught on that the Democrats cheat, connive, and lie while increasing the people's pain rack with two or three clicks of the ratchet and when Republicans do get into power, they "negotiate" only one click back? And when they run things again, they use the exact same narrative to latch on two or three more clicks to the pain rack. So it goes decade in and decade out, steadily advancing their anti-American agenda with a hiccup here and a hiccup there when the Republicans obtain power.

A few years ago I thanked Rush Limbaugh for almost single-handedly preventing a second civil war with his unrelenting education of the people. Even Rush said that he didn't think I should go that far, but I still believe that is a true statement. I hope that everybody can now see where this is heading.

The ballot box is truly the last barrier between us and anarchy. I predict that the voters will demand your head, Mr. Speaker and remove all those who vote for this thing that's touted as a deal.

I want to share with you an incident that happened almost 50 years ago when I was in junior high. A class mate challenged me to a fist fight behind the sports ground buildings during break. He had one condition, however, that I wouldn't hit him in the face. I agreed. He soon pounded me in the face at will while I tried to get the better of him by hitting at his body. I was clearly losing the fight when a bystander yelled at me, "hit him in the face!" I yelled back, "I promised I won't". My benefactor in the crowd yelled once more, "you can easily win this don't be an idiot, man." One punch to his face knocked him down. He wasn't defending his face relying on my honor to keep my word.

Honor must be given to whom honor is due. The side that steadfastly holds to honor while freely allowing the counterparty to abuse that honor, will lose every time.

Mediocrity is not an option any longer. We need warriors in Congress who will not dishonor their calling by aiming at anything other than victory.

The pain rack has started to pull the people's limbs apart; we need representatives who are serious about taking the ratchet all the way back to Libertyville, without fail, and undo the shackles that bind the people.

Even if it means hitting them in the face.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Things that burn

Well, well, I finally got to peck at the keyboard as writers of the past got to pick up their pens.

Many things have happened these past couple of months. The most prominent is the passing of my mother at age 92 and some change, perhaps the most influential person in my entire life. Yeah, yeah, my dad was also influential, but he was more the un-emotional one in the family, a trait we learned from him that held us separated from our emotions for many years.

This is not intended to be a tribute to my mother; those have all been given at places, times and in manners that every member of her family thought most appropriate. However, my mother was one of three disciples of God that changed my life for ever. The second was my wife's father, Joseph Aucamp, and the third is Mark Mueller in California.

There was only one manner in which any admonition or mentor-guidance could ever have penetrated my rebellious nature and these disciples knew that way. Although they never collaborated; my mother hardly ever spoke to my father-in-law because of the vast distance they lived apart; and the first two disciples never even knew the third disciple existed, their manner of bringing peace and calm to my life was identical. It is as eerie as it gets, you can imagine, that the Third Disciple could pick up where my father-in-law and my mother had left off, almost as if they were members of an orchestra with the Conductor leading them off the same sheet of music. I stand in awe.

My arrogance and irritable disposition towards irrational people hasn't disappeared, however, but like fire, it became less destructive as I learned how to control it. I am looking forward to the next 65 years to see if I can get to use it productively.

The mistakes that lay strewn in my past with the accompanying wrecks along the road haunt me, as they should. This haunt is not the terrifying kind, it rather turned into an early warning system for the same bends in the road that lie ahead. Not that I learn easily, don't misunderstand what I am saying here. There are many wrecks that are identical to ones before them and one would be justified in yelling at me, "What were you thinking!"

But, irrational people still seem to work me over and tug at the mooring lines that keep my fire in check. I need to find a furnace in which I can burn at my heart's content. Burn those who think that we are the cause of global warming, just as an example. Have you seen the tsunami footage in Japan? Aren't we as humans totally insignificant when the ocean rises by only a couple of feet? The sucker is over 30,000 feet deep in places and a few feet struck terror in all of mankind all over the planet? We couldn't even run away fast enough!

You believe you can change the climate of the globe by demonizing the natural and inherently necessary components of its composition. And when a perfectly natural phenomenon occurs, you are washed away in mere moments, like gnats, as if nature just breathed a moment longer to show you your absolute insignificance.

I am worked over when people think that the evolution of inferior elements could result in something superior to the originals. It's none of my business what people believe, including aliens and flat-earth theories, but when they behave as if they have the power to exclude what I believe from the public discourse, I burn.

I am worked over when people tell me that social security has a surplus when we all know that there is no real money in the trust fund. All that one can find in the social security fund are Federal Treasury Bonds. That's as solid as gold, I hear folks say, and I burn, because who are the folks that guarantee these Bonds? The taxpayers, that's who. It's the taxpayers whose hard cash was taken from them in the first place and instead of their cash kept in trust, it was removed from the fund and replaced by IOU's that the taxpayers guarantee. I burn twice.

If you are not on fire about this theft of our liberty and prosperity, you will be burned and swept away like those poor folks in Japan. We already had the earthquake; the tsunami is on its way.

Think or thwim.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Of ghosts and those pesky aliens

A business associate and I talked a bit during a breather taken in a grueling work session and for some reason the conversation ventured on the paranormal.

I am not one to take ghosts and extra-terrestrials seriously, which is why I was taken aback when he said that he believes in ghosts and extra-terrestrial life. It's not often that I have nothing to say, which he might have taken as a sign to continue and explain why he holds to a belief of the paranormal.

Apparently, an event occurred some time ago, he continued, where he and a friend who was with him, felt a hand touching them on their knees, while there was no one else in sight. One thing I wouldn't do is offer an explanation especially one that would discount his account of what they experienced. He was there, I wasn't. All I know is that, should there be such things as ghosts, which can interact with us, they would be spirits and exerting sufficient pressure on anything so that touch could be recognized would not be in the purview of a spirit. But, what do I know.

Without missing a beat he offered his explanation of his belief in extraterrestrial life. There are billions and billions of stars out there and each star is a sun with planets, he offered, and it is just not reasonable to believe that there wouldn't be life out there, some less advanced than what we are and some even more advanced. It is just that simple, he concluded, after relating a story told to him by a friend that a spaceship landed in Malibu a while ago. Why don't these folks have cameras with them when they need one?

I have heard the billions-and-billions theory before and, on the face of it, it sounds plausible. If plausibility could live with a few bedsores, that is. The millions of years between species, to explain the belief in Darwinism, came to mind. There always seems to be an inexplicable gap in which things "could have occurred" in the logic; the bedsore, if you will, in the plausibility reasoning.

Not to digress from the aliens from outer space monologue, the space and time continuum that holds the Darwin Theory together, fails to explain why -- if species evolved from other species producing more complex species by selective breeding -- there is not a single specimen of specie trapped in a fossil that is not a completely developed species. Surely, if selective breeding would cause, at first at least, a massive amount of life to be extinguished due to some failure or deficiency of the evolving species, having not yet adapted to the new conditions, some, no, perhaps one single fossil would have survived.

That's all too technical for me, anyway. A question closer to my pay grade is how was it possible for so many species to evolve male and female genders out of the same gene pool, so that a male and a female would be totally different and yet so similar that they are genetically compatible and arrive at the same place at the same time so that they can procreate. The place and time spoken of here are a few miles and a few days apart, miniscule dots on the timeline and geography proffered. The chances that a male and a female of each species that survived could get together at the exact viagra-moment without some outside intelligent planning and execution, just seems impossible.

It seems reasonable to believe, if the Theory is true, that the majority of these males and females would never have met to procreate causing millions of them to die off without offspring and leave fossils, somewhere, clearly showing their pre-evolved deficiencies until they got it right and took the next step on the evolution path. But, not one made it to stone.

Back to the billions and billions of stars and other people living somewhere else.

It's the same incomprehensible space and time continuum that's supposed to mold our reasoning to accept these chasms in their theory as truth. But, let's look at the probability that there is other life out there, somewhere, in spite of billions of stars with planets.

The earth is such a fine balancing act with exact temperatures, gaseous mixes, gravitational pull, sun distances from the earth, seasons, heat in the earth's inner core, oceans and their size, ocean temperatures and movement, atmospheric pressures, cross pollination of plants, different life forms that sustain one another as food, symbiosis, and other benefits, the exact earth's orbit around the sun, the earth's rotation, the wobble of its axis, and many other factors, that even if there were trillions of stars out there, the chances that all factors to sustain life would be present in their exact measure at the exact moment required in the exact amount, is almost impossible.

We talked a bit about other things for a while before getting back to work without me saying anything about this.

Afterwards, I thought I'd rather write about it, so that I don't get interrupted.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Gabriella Giffords

As one gets older fewer things have shock value. The barbaric shooting of Gabriella Giffords -- while doing what we hope all congressmen would do -- and a number of other, innocent bystanders, did shock me deeply.

Regardless of her political views, she was an elected official, who of necessity will have a higher profile and perhaps even be in the crosshairs of nut jobs and other human debris found in any society. The assassination of politicians and other famous people is not unique to any particular society. In fact, millions of innocent people have died in the carnage that followed the loss of a single life taken by an assassin, as it was with the single shot that set the world aflame in 1914.

Hardly ever is an assassination inexpensive in shock-value, human suffering, and the psyche of a nation. That is true regardless of who is murdered. John Lennon's murder had the same effect, perhaps to a different degree, than that of John Kennedy, for example.

There are two differences, however, that I'd like to look at. When a murderer sets out to purely kill the victim, it takes one unexpected act and one bullet. The unexpected act gives the element of surprise, and the bullet finishes the job. That's how President Lincoln, President Kennedy, John Lennon and Lee Harvey Oswald were killed. There is very little one can do about these killers to prevent the killing.

There is, however, a much more deadly strain of killer which is what I want to talk about, and that's the killer who wants to kill as many people as possible, which is what the case was here with Jared Lee Loughner who shot up the "Congress on Your Corner" initiatives of Gabriella.

Consider when politicians, who are eligible for security protection, have been assailed. The perpetrator was, without fail, rapidly wrestled to the ground and disarmed or killed before too much damage could be done. When the perpetrator acted in a mostly unarmed environment, numerous innocent people are maimed or killed before the killer either runs out of ammo or someone manages to successfully intervene.

Jared "human trash" Loughner managed to shoot 18 people killing 6, according to information available on Saturday night. Who had the ability to stop the killing sooner and perhaps save the 9-year old girl's life or that of the judge, or the staffer who was a promising, responsible young man of 30?

I thought it was one of those weird coincidences that I'd read about Vermont's gun-carrying laws the same day that this shooting occurred. I didn't know that there is a law, or it was proposed (State Rep. Fred Maslack?) that a $500 fine be imposed on anyone not carrying a concealed weapon. The argument is that those who choose not to carry a firearm expect others to protect them and defend the State; a question mark is placed on their loyalty and honesty about living in Vermont. Now, there's a novel thought.

Let's lay that template over the shootings of today and see what transpires. I am sure if someone in the audience at Gabriella's meeting today was armed Jared would not have had a chance to fire off his third shot, perhaps not even his second, before someone realizing he's about to commit mass murder, blasted him away first, saving the lives, injury and trauma of many innocent others.

If soldiers in Fort Hood were allowed to carry their firearms while on campus, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan would not have been able to kill 12 and injure 31 others. It was a colossal breakdown of common sense that Hasan could take two pistols on campus and empty them out on unarmed, unsuspecting bystanders.

All the hand-wringing and psychological analyses that follow these tragedies could still take place, as they should but the number of innocent lives lost can be minimized by allowing people to defend themselves. In my opinion, these costs in human suffering must be accounted to someone and those who prohibit people from defending themselves should be strung up and shamed out of their positions of power.

Besides the fact that the Constitution is clear in the Second Amendment that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, common sense and history prove that where people carry arms as a matter of garb, crime rates are substantially lower than where the Constitution is violated; and where gun-control laws are instituted, crime rates go up at the expense of innocent lives. Why then, if higher crime means more innocent lives are lost or injured, like we have seen today, why would legislators and judges continue to bamboozle and bully the population into believing guns are evil while the opposite is true: gun ownership dispels crime? Or, worse still, why would people buy into this kind of abuse from law-makers and politicians?

Indications and early prognoses are that Gabriella Giffords would recover, it's too early to be sure, but I was pleasantly surprised to learn that she is an ardent promoter of an armed citizenry in obedience to the Second Amendment. I would venture a prediction that, should she fully recover, she could be instrumental in returning some of these hacks of people's rights to ordinary citizen status and get the government out of the way so that we are able to defend ourselves and our homeland.

They have the blood of these innocent folks on their hands and consciences.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

The New Year 2011

I thought I'd write a blog about 2010 and reminisce about the things that happened. It was not a good year for me financially; on the other hand it was an excellent year for so many other things.

I remember the turn in my business' economy when assignments started to flow again into my order book. The struggle to find business changed my perspective a little bit, too, giving that extra bit for a client. I guess that I would work harder and smarter and more courteous as a matter of habit now until I can hear and see the wow-factor. It should be an 'are you even real' type of response. That's when I've done my job.

Instead of earning a paycheck, I go to earn admiration, respect, and trust and then, once that has been accomplished, I earn my paycheck. Admiration because I am doing more than what was expected of me; respect because I am courteous, firm and make sure what I say is true and well thought out; trust because I am punctual and deliver on time and within budget. OK, that's what I strive for and so far my clients like that.

Last year also had a few high spots, such as my mom's 92nd birthday when we believed we won't see her again when we went to South Africa in 2008 to celebrate her 90th birthday. There was the election in November, which showed the people of the world that the people of this country don't take well to aristocracy and being told what to do by pseudo-noblemen. Especially not after they built this country into one of the wonders of the world in less than 200 years, or even 100 years if one considers where she was at the end of the 19th Century.

We left South Africa because I refused to live under a communist regime, which we knew was coming from far off already. A communist regime only restrained by a U.S. type constitution is still a communist regime and it will find ways to enslave its people and enrich its leaders, as is happening in South Africa now.

Having pulled up roots (at great cost and sacrifice to my family) from this Petri Dish of political change to seek out a place where the people, in the first and last instance, decide their fate, not politicians and not judges, I am rather sensitive to certain trends and what they lead to; trends to which Americans are mostly immune and prone to tolerate for far too long.

When people in power lead people in directions where they, without a doubt, are going to lose their liberty, prosperity and the peace of the nation, with words that falsely preach liberty, prosperity and the peace of the nation, my angst-level goes up exponentially. Trying the same thing that elsewhere led to communism doesn't mean the outcome here will be different. Perhaps more bloody, but not different, as I am sure some folks won't just roll over and play along when the liberties-list becomes shorter and shorter.

So, don't be confused about my angst over the trend of the politics in the U.S. that the people allowed to persist for so long. There is no other country where the people feature so prominently in their affairs and can bring about change even at the highest levels of government. This is the last bastion of peace, prosperity and liberty. There is empirical evidence of that. That personal liberty leads to peace and prosperity is axiomatic.

That is why the elections in November were such a great victory for the people. But, like any place where there is a lot of power, money, and opportunity, there is certainly plenty of opportunity for the drunken stupor of victory to allow impurities to cloud the principles of good governance. The confusion that is evident among those who wish to enslave our people is temporary. They will regroup and again prey on the people, like they always do.

There is a saying in sport, "dance with the one who brung you." That means, don't abandon the winning tactics that brought you to where you are just because you can see the end zone. We will only keep our leaders pure if we constantly hold them in the furnace of affliction. As soon as they are out of the fire they cool down and become cold and hardened.

The New Year holds a lot of opportunity as every new day does, we all know that, but I am suckered every year by the euphoria of the reminiscences of the past year contrasted with the celebrations and expectations of the new, which then turns out to be just another day.

Bummer, huh?

Have a great 2011 all of you. We have no idea what it holds for us unless we seize the day. Carpe Diem.

About Me

Seeking the truth until I find it.