May I Propose A New Year’s Resolution For Everyone?

Posted on Updated on

Every year in December we all start making goals in our heads: Lose 20 pounds, walk more, gym memberships, new cars, buy a house, etc. and rarely do any of us actually stick to our grand plans. So, I have a resolution to propose, one that we could all use, and one that will greatly benefit our fellow man.

Be rational.

That’s it! No gimmicks, no memberships, and nothing out of your pocket, but it might be the hardest thing you’ve ever done. It might challenge you, it demands that you remember what your Faith stands for, what your convictions stand for, and it means you have to question where your allegiance should lie. We have become reactionary, and not reasonable. Passive, and not compassionate. Quick to defend, slow to mourn.

Years ago I watched as someone on a show trained one of their dogs to respond to clicker training. Upon hearing the sound, her dog would respond by doing whatever her master requested of her, and immediately she would be rewarded. At first she questioned it, she was confused, but eventually the response was automatic. Eventually she would respond with or without a reward, because it had become chiseled into her mind that upon the “click” she needed to heed the request of her owner.

In this post, I’ll show you how we are all just a bunch of clicker trained dogs. That’s what this is all about, not just the actions of our government, but the reactions of the people. I’m going to touch on multiple topics, today’s blog is my alphabet soup of opinions, and I’ll probably say enough to offend everyone at least once. Fingers crossed.

This week two large, news worthy topics took center stage: Gruber was questioned about admitting to the fact that the architects of the ACA lied to the people in order to pass a bill that harmed the people. Then arrived the – suspiciously timed – release of the Senate report that detailed CIA interrogation tactics. Last week Ferguson was still in the news, followed by the news about Garner, pouring gasoline on an already thriving fire. It seems as though it is one thing after the other, and very few people have been rational.

Issue #1: CIA Interrogation Tactics

I’ll go ahead and rip this band-aid off first. I was challenged by a post that I read by Matt Walsh. He made an incredibly good point concerning the release of the Senate report, and by “Senate report,” I mean Democrat Senate opinion report. I digress, the point was, if we are going to say we have the moral high ground, we should stand by it. This is something I need to think about when it comes to torture. I’ve never lost sleep over the idea of water boarding a man who would murder my family without a care, but at the same time, can I justify calling America the moral high ground when “rectal rehydration” and “hypothermia” are practices we use on our enemies? Like I said, this is something I need to mull over. This is not to say that the report should have even been released, but it was, so I’ll think it over.

I believe that torture has the potential to save lives, I’ve held that position for quite a while, and will probably continue to do so, regardless of what the “findings” say. The report was written by Democrats, by cherry picking through 6 million documents, and they didn’t interview anyone with the CIA. Personally, I don’t want to hear the bleeding hearts on the left preaching about the suffering of terrorists. I noticed that there were a few practices that we don’t use. For example, we don’t behead them, we don’t fly planes into their buildings and force their innocent family members to burn alive or jump to their death, we don’t steal, rape, torture, and behead their women and children, etc. So my questioning has nothing to do with whether they deserve it, but rather who we wish to be as a country, and what techniques we want to put our stamp of approval on. Let’s all be honest, the level of care that a terrorist deserves would probably be something worse than what Jack Bauer could deliver while armed with a towel, hack saw, and table lamp.

Democrats: “Those poor terrorists!”

Republicans: “Yeah, those poor tortures, beheaders, rapists, and child slaughterers. Give me a break.”

While I might agree with the Republican viewpoint, I have to mull over who we are, not just what they deserve. For example: I’ve studied Calvinism vs. Arminianism (I don’t align with either), but I always hear the same thing from the New Calvinist perspective, “But we ALL deserve hell, Marybeth, so it’s not unfair to say that God made some people with no hope.” My reply has always been, “It’s not about what we deserve, it’s about what He promised.” I see interrogation tactics as the same type of issue, it’s not all about what they deserve, it’s about what we stand for. Put a bullet in their head, I’m not going to lose sleep when the terrorist that looked into the face of a child while he took off their head loses his life. It’s not about how evil he is, it’s about how good we claim to be.

That said, CIA, playing a Janeane Garofalo audiobook as torture? You’ve gone too far.

Like I said, my mind is not made up by any stretch of the imagination, but I am willing to think outside of the box. I’m willing to question the response I’m supposed to give upon hearing the “click.” I love having my position challenged, we all should, and that’s the reason for this post. We have become accustomed to spitting out a canned response before thinking. We hear a news report, a certain politician we support, a tagline, etc. and we don’t even take the time to think through our convictions and responses, we just go dig out that over baked one-liner, or that thoughtless opinion, and throw it back at the world. We become one huge food fight, where nobody even cares what the fight is about, they just want to defend their own.

Issue #2: Gruber & The Really Stupid Voters

Someday that will be a movie title. What can we all take away from this? The Democrats in charge do not care who they hurt. Their reactions are not based off of logic, but are instead based off of defending their own side. They don’t care if you lost your insurance, they don’t care if your Grandparent was denied chemo, they don’t care if you can’t afford groceries AND healthcare at the same time. They don’t care. They care that they were caught, but they don’t care about what this bill has done to families across America. When questioning Gruber, Trey Gowdy dropped the mic, threw down the gauntlet, and made Gruber wish he was never born, and every Conservative cheered and fist bumped over the much needed take down. Rightly so. But I think Issa won the show with a very important question to Gruber, one that I believe was widely overlooked by both Liberals and Conservatives. Issa asked Gruber if anyone at any of the events he spoke at (vast majority, if not all, were democrats) ever stopped Gruber to say, more or less, “Wait a second! You’re openly calling those that vote for our agenda ‘stupid?’” Of course Issa worded it differently, but the point was made, and Gruber said that he had not been corrected by anyone. That, to me, speaks wonders. This wasn’t just an opinion by an MIT Professor going off the rails, this was more than likely the opinion of the room, and anyone who felt differently and didn’t speak out concerning such a detrimental topic to the American people, is nothing but a coward. Period.

Let’s just take a moment here to pretend that the President didn’t know and agree with Gruber’s opinion of the average Democrat voter. Okay. Moment over.

The immediate response is not anger over the lies, as it should be, it is simply anger over the fact that this was made public knowledge. Do you see how heartbreaking that is? We as Conservatives shouldn’t just be attacking Gruber, we should be asking Democrats why they betrayed their own people, why they lied to their own voters. Gruber doesn’t need to apologize to us, he wasn’t talking about our stupidity, we didn’t vote for the bill, but the average Democrat voter did, and we should be using this opportunity to show them as such.

The world we live in today is fogged by our own lack of compassion, we have been thoughtless about choosing our allegiance, and both sides of the fence have failed the people, as well as law enforcement, and our moral compass. We have put individuals in power that have hurt our neighbors, just for the sake of padding our own pockets.

Issues #3&4: Michael Brown & Eric Garner:

Concerning my comments above about immediately choosing allegiance, immediately upon hearing that Michael Brown was killed, the majority of responses were similar to those listed below:

“I’m sure the police officer felt his life was in danger, this kid was probably causing trouble.”

“Hmmmm…Black kid, white cop. Explains everything.”

Days later Darren Wilson had a support page, and the responses changed to this:

“Brown was a criminal, a thug, and didn’t respect authority. #ISupportDarrenWilson”

“Brown was an unarmed black child!!! #BlackLivesMatter.”

No one was in their right mind. No one. Those who right off the cuff supported the officer without having facts just seemed, well, cold. Plus, now everyone knows that you are going to support someone with a badge, with or without facts, and with or without cause. That’s called a gang mentality, friends. Those that immediately jumped to preach on race did nothing but follow the path laid out by the media and an incredibly corrupt Government. So what was the right response? Well, in my opinion, it would have been something like this:

“Wow, heartbreaking news about a guy that lost his life. Praying for all involved, and that the truth, no matter who it benefits, prevails.”

That statement doesn’t condemn anyone, it doesn’t defend anyone. But see, we’ve lost compassion, and as soon as the “click” takes place, we all jump to our own side and defend whichever person we hope is innocent. Basically, we are well trained. Recklessly we pledge our allegiance, not realizing that there isn’t a side to choose. Unfortunately, this happened with Garner as well, and both cases give us the opportunity to see both sides of a horrific coin. In the Brown case we find that Brown’s death, while tragic, was because he gave the officer a legitimate need for self-defense. In the Garner case we find that he should have never been killed, and that the police overused their power.

There is no side to win, and I don’t understand why people don’t grasp such a horrid reality. 2 men are dead. The declaration of innocence in the Wilson case is only justified because the facts were foggy, and the witnesses were conflicting. The majority said that Brown was attacking Wilson, and this gives Wilson the right to exercise self-defense. The Garner case, however, was an entirely different story.

If you are friends with me on Facebook, or you have read my Twitter, you’ll find that I didn’t reference the previous acts of Michael Brown, nor the “thug” mentality that everyone was touting. Why? Because it was irrelevant in my mind. Just like the emotional declarations of dedication from the Wilson followers, and the Police apologists who step over bodies just to defend a badge. I also didn’t base my opinions on the Eric Garner situation on whether or not he had a clean record, or had been arrest 436 different times. I didn’t, and don’t, care. None of it matters.

Last week I once again watched the video of Eric Garner, for what I would guess was the 8th time. It didn’t get any easier to watch, but I kept watching because I honestly wanted to see if I had missed something, I wanted to make sure that I had come to the right conclusion. Each time that I heard him say “I can’t breathe,” my heart broke a little more, and I can honestly say that I cried each time. Then I saw him lying there in the second video, and as the cops did not do anything to assist Garner, other than tap his shoulder and talk to him while he was unresponsive, I questioned what had happened to my country. As Pentaleo waved to the camera like a child while this man lay dying on a gurney, my stomach turned in revolt.

So today, with every bit of disdain that I have for this entire debacle, I’m going to debunk not only the worst excuses that I’ve read, but I’m also going to discuss why the past of Michael Brown and Eric Garner are irrelevant to the discussion, and once again note why we have become a nation of automatic responses with little regard for life. In addition, I’m going to chat about the false narrative that is the race issue.

“Well, don’t break the law and you won’t die.”

Not only is it sad that this is the first defense that most people fly to, it’s also incredibly stupid. Not the kind of stupid that people should have to call you out on, but the kind of stupid that calls for immediate realization and regret. That’s the kind of thing you say and then 5 minutes later think, “Man, that was really stupid.” Not something that the rest of the country should pick up and race around the podium of badges like it’s the most logical sentence proclaimed since Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream. It’s stupid, and if you said that, you should be horribly and deeply ashamed of yourself. Notice, I’m not calling you stupid, I’m calling that statement stupid. Beyond that, if you said that before saying ANYTHING else about the human being that lost his life, you should really evaluate your soul. Not in a, “Hmmm…I wonder if that was hasty” sort of way, but more in a “Hmmm…I wonder if I’m desensitized” sort of way.

Let’s break down the issue here:

The death penalty is different in each state, but the main reason it is used is for premeditated murder. In some states, treason, kidnapping, trafficking, espionage, rape of a child, etc. are also listed as reasons, but those are not widely known reasons since the vast majority of the time we hear of someone on death row, it is for premeditated murder. It’s your butchers, your serial rapists/killers, it’s the parasites of society that prey on the innocent, the monsters that give the horror film industry their wild ideas, the father of six selling loose cigarettes on the street.

Oh wait.

This is why the past transgressions of Michael Brown and Eric Garner are irrelevant. Michael Brown was killed in self-defense, and I support the right we have to protect ourselves. If someone breaks into my house, I’m not aiming to wound, I’ll leave it at that. They pose a direct threat, and I am in fear for my life. If you believe that any cop in the Eric Garner case feared for their life, I have a farm in Kentucky that I’d like to sell you. See, Michael Brown’s past was irrelevant to me because I KNOW that people can change, and I pray that they give up a life of crime and be productive members of society, that they find peace. While I hope they are held accountable, I would never say that the death penalty is optional for the crime of being a cigar stealing thug. What matters in the Ferguson case is that Michael Brown went after a police officer, another human being, and that person defended their life. That is what matters to me. How saggy Brown’s pants were does not matter. What matters is that Wilson, badge or no badge, had a right to defend his life.

When you justify manslaughter by saying that he simply shouldn’t have committed a crime, you automatically make the death penalty a logical choice for EVERY crime. Resisting arrest is NOT punishable by death. Period. So stop using that incredibly stupid tagline. If you attack a cop while resisting arrest, then you might have a case.

“I stand in solidarity with the protesters! Because I’m against a police state.”

Since when is burning down buildings a way to lessen the police state? Actually, you’re just giving people a reason, or at least they think it’s a reason, to support a police state, or what they don’t think will turn into a police state. You might not be out there lighting buildings in Ferguson on fire, but supporting those that do is not only dumb, but you should ask for a job in government since you’re currently helping them for free, you might as well get paid. Staaahhhhhhppppp.

“Fact: Garner was arrested multiple times before.”

Fact: So were many high profile pastors, CEO’s, and other productive members of society. People do dumb things all the time, that still doesn’t justify the death penalty. We hope that people change, and until they do, we hold them accountable for their actions, we don’t kill them. He could have been arrested 30 more times for the same crime, and guess what, IT STILL WOULDN’T JUSTIFY THE DEATH PENALTY. They don’t execute people for selling cigarettes. Apparently the fact that due process is for all people, even those with a criminal past, comes as a surprise to some people.

If you need more information on this issue, please see the section dedicated to “Well, don’t break the law and you won’t die” again.

Moving on to “He had a heart attack, the cop didn’t kill him.”

Have you ever been so amazed by what someone has said that you tilt your head sideways and give it a couple seconds so that maybe their brain catches up with their mouth? This kind of reminds me of that. I’m sure that choking him, cutting off his oxygen until he passed out, smashing his face into the ground and creating positional asphyxiation, leaving him to lay there unconscious, etc. had nothing to do with his heart attack and death. Nothing at all. By the way, what’s the price on unicorns in your world, have they gone up with inflation? The coroner ruled it a homicide for a reason, and I don’t think it’s because he owns a Guy Fawkes mask and moonlights as an anti-cop protester.

Prison guards are trained to avoid positional asphyxiation, even with larger inmates. I know this comes as a shock since they’re criminals, and jumping on their back and choking them out should be totally copasetic to the masses, but apparently the people who train Prison Guards realize that even inmates have rights. So those saying that positional asphyxiation just happens, that’s why rules are put in place in terms of force. Accidental abortions happen when you push your pregnant wife down the stairs too, maybe it’s a good idea not to push your pregnant wife down the stairs.

“If he said “I can’t breathe,” clearly he could still breathe at least a little.”

*Blank stare* If you can watch the video and have this response, you’re grasping. That’s like watching a house burn down and having the insurance company refuse to pay you because the microwave was still usable.

“It’s because he was black!”

Are there racial issues in this country? Of course. It’s on both sides. Do either of these instances have to do with race? Of course not, and no one can prove that they do. I could dig up multiple videos and news stories that involve caucasians being the victims of police overreach, but then I’d have to deal with receiving a bunch of pictures telling me to call a crackhead the next time someone breaks into my house.

Beyond that, you do realize that a black superior officer stood by and watched Garner be taken down like an animal, right?

“1,501 law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty in the last 10 years.”

Heartbreaking number, truly, it is. Whether it’s 1501, or 1, it is a sad number. We should always mourn the loss of an officer. We should always mourn the loss of a father, mother, sister, brother, daughter, son, etc. The problem that I have with this statistic is what it is being used for, and that I found this line on a Conservative site, mocking the “I can’t breathe” case. First we see a cartoon with a grave marked “Police: Killed in the line of duty,” followed by the caption: “We can’t breathe.” So because these 1,501 law enforcement officers have died, somehow Eric Garner’s death is irrelevant. The article then went on to call American neighborhoods “War Zones,” it was at this point that I stood completely still to see if I could feel the Founding Fathers turning in their graves.

Beyond that, this Conservative site is the same one that houses writers who will take Mom’s Demand Action to the cleaners for bending statistics to fit their narrative. Shannon Watts is constantly taking gun statistics and fitting it into her agenda, and we all, myself included, rip her to shreds. She even has me blocked on Twitter, which I consider to be a badge of honor. I, a responsible gun owner, don’t appreciate her false and damaging numbers, and I, an American who cares about our freedoms, don’t appreciate it when a Conservative site does the same. They tout 1,501, but they don’t give you all the facts. Nowhere in the article does it say that more than half of those officers died in automobile or motorcycle accidents, another group from heart attacks, etc. and it is misleading to not mention this information. Especially since the number of cops killed by perpetrators per year was, as of 2013, at its lowest point since the late 1800’s. You mention the facts behind the 1,501 number and all of the Conservatives say, “Well, they were in the line of duty.” but we all know that’s ridiculous, they were going for the shock value. They wanted you to imagine 1,501 officers dying at the hands of people like Michael Brown and Eric Garner, but the reality is that cops usually defend themselves with lethal force when the situation calls for it.

“Well, at first I was mad when I watched the Garner video, but then after the legal definitions were explained to me I realized that what the officer did was justifiable under the law.”

Hmmm… Please add on to that. How about, “I watched the video, and if what the officer did is justifiable under the law, we need to change the law.”

Seriously, is anyone not concerned with the fact that people watched that video, were horrified, and then calmed down after being told that the cop was within the law? Like “Well, I watched that woman get stoned by her husband, freaked out a bit, but then calmed down when I realized that he is allowed to do that.” What, shouldn’t that raise the concern level, not lower it? Everyone was spouting off over whether it was a chokehold or not, really? Like you’re going to watch the video and think, “oh, well, this is not a big deal if his arm is situated like this.” “I just watched a man die tragically, for selling loose cigarettes, but it’s okay because of a definition.” So, after being told that I need to wait for the entire story, that I need to look at the law, and that I need to understand his past and health conditions, I’d like to throw my blanketed response back at you: If you watch that video, and for ANY reason, think that it is okay, I’m going to disagree with you, vehemently. If that is allowed by law, I want the law changed. If we are going to allow this in the name of not paralyzing cops, then we need to embrace the label of “cold barbarians.” If we can’t find a happy medium between this and sitting back and forcing the police to do nothing, then we have finally succeeded at allowing our Government to become that obnoxious kid on the playground who refuses to play unless you let him change the rules.

This happened in Ferguson too. We said that having every cop look like the terminator was bad, and that military equipment should not be allowed, and then suddenly when law enforcement stands back and watches looters burn buildings, people look at me like, “See…I guess you got your way!” I’m to the point that responding to such ridiculous statements is a waste of time.

“People just need to comply with police. Period. It’s not that hard, do what they ask you to do.”

Said Soviet Russia. My problem with this statement is that it’s blanketing ALL issues. If a cop wants to see my ID, sure! If that’s the law, I’ll hand it over. If he wants to search my car without reason and warrant, ummm…no. People need to learn their rights.

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” – James Madison

“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” – Benjamin Franklin

Our Founding Fathers did not only warn of armies that attack other countries and destroy them, the majority of the time, they warned about armies that destroy their own country. Does that mean that I think every law enforcement officer is going to turn on the people? Don’t be silly. But it does mean that I believe the Founding Fathers wanted power over the people to be limited, very limited. Like not choking a guy out over a cigarette tax limited. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Many people feel that giving government more power will somehow make those who enforce such power side with us if anything were to go awry. People don’t seem to understand that law enforcement officers across our country – good, decent, brave law enforcement officer – are upholding laws against guns that go against our Constitution and tax laws – ahem – that support the nanny state ideals. Why? Because it’s their job. Sure, if the chips fell some of them would not do the government’s bidding, but friends, the reason why the Founders said that it was detrimental to keep control over such institutions is because the vast majority will follow orders, and will even use violence over taxes. Look no further than every other country that has ever welcomed such tactics. When/If gun control is enforced, guess who knocks on your door to collect guns? Do you think that everyone that lived in Russia and Germany were barbarians who didn’t care about their neighbors? You can’t possibly be that foolish. No, they were controlled by a few barbarians who demanded that those beneath them do their job, and guess what, they did.

“Let’s see who you call when someone breaks into your house!?”

I nominate this argument as the worst yet; the champion, the incomparable, the unparalleled. It’s horrible, ignorant, and downright silly. It’s overused, abused, and not even close to logical. It’s like poor rationale on steroids. I’ve covered this before, so now I shall cover it again…

If someone breaks into my house, I’m going to call the cops. Because it’s their job. If someone mugs me, I’m going to call the cops. If someone rapes me, I’m going to call the cops. If someone steals in the store, I’m going to call the cops. If someone hits my car, I’m going to call the cops. Heck, if I want to, I might just have the police on speed dial on my phone, because they’re the first people I’m going to call if I catch someone doing something illegal.

So, I have a wonderful doctor, he is one of the best doctors I’ve ever been to. (I have a point, don’t worry.) He’s a lung specialist, and a darn good one at that. As a chronic asthmatic, he changed my life. I can’t say enough about the man, and I honestly appreciate doctors more than most people because I spent a lot of my life in their care. I don’t care if they own yachts and large houses, they’ve earned them! Years ago, my doctor was on vacation for 2 weeks, but I had what I thought was a particularly bad cold and had to see whoever was available to get some help so that I didn’t step into overnight stay territory. The doctor I saw, in my opinion, was not just a mediocre doctor compared to mine, but she didn’t even deserve to be measured on the same scale. She had no idea what to prescribe me, I basically told her what to give me after she shrugged her shoulders. She wrote me prescriptions, didn’t listen to my lungs, and sent me out the door with access to more medications than the pharmacy could hold, but none that actually did any good. I walked out the door with what my doctor would diagnose as whooping cough 3 weeks later. I was miserable for weeks, couldn’t work, couldn’t sleep, and sick from self-medicating because she didn’t do anything to diagnose the issue.

My point in all of that is to say that I had no issue calling out this doctor, even though it’s a profession that I highly respect. She failed to do her job, and made the hospital look bad. My doctor found out who she was and wanted her location and information so that he could make a call to whoever was in charge that day (I had gone to a local hospital since I knew he was out), that instantly made me trust my doctor even more. Doctors are humans, and just like the entire human population as a whole, there are going to be some people that excel at being good, many that are decent, and some that wear see through Cheetah print pants, a pink sports bra, and curlers to Walmart.

I have something I need to tell you guys: Police officers are human. I love them, I respect them, and I appreciate them, but they’re human. Some of them are going to be outstanding at their job, some deliver Christmas trees to kids, some bring groceries to single mothers, some care about criminals and Mom’s that steal because they can’t feed their kids, some are really sweet and let me go with a warning, some work at homeless shelters, some give homeless men boots during the winter, and some may have grown tired of seeing people hurt and now have a hair trigger personality, and a few others joined simply because they have a superiority complex (They can usually be seen with shirts that say, “Police Officer, because bad-a** isn’t an official title”). Balance is found when we remember that every profession – even those who save lives in the medical world, those who fight wars, fight fire, patrol the streets, and restock your cantaloupe in the produce department – is going to have both good and bad individuals. If you limit their power and remove the government overreach attacking our nation like a plague, you’ll lessen the opportunities to use lethal force, which means you’ll lessen the chance of those few power hungry police officers getting in over their head, which means you’ll lessen the chance of a horrible situation. Add in the fact that we could use more training, and less warrior mentality type attitude encouragement, and we would begin to see a change.

I have something else to tell you: Scrutiny is not attacking. Holding an institution responsible for their actions is not anti-that particular institution. Limiting is not paralyzing. Respecting does not mean I need to worship.

So, when you ask me who I’m going to call when someone breaks into my house, I’m going to call the police, and I’m going to expect them to do their job. Sending videos to my inbox of cops doing good things after I ask us all to be vigilant of how much power we give law enforcement is like me sending you clips of Dr. McDreamy saving someone with brain cancer after you complain about your recent ER visit. It’s irresponsible, and has NOTHING to do with the problem. You heard the click, and you responded by bowing down to your idols. You didn’t do what the Founders told you to do, you instead tried to make me feel unpatriotic, uncaring, and anti-cop while you bounced on the body of a victim with a pogo stick. When in reality, my way creates a positive relationship between the people and law enforcement. So, now that I think about it, maybe you’re the one that supports a system which causes the police to be viewed in a bad light with the public. Chew on that one for a bit.

Do I share videos of the awesome things many cops do? Of course! Am I thankful for the police? OF COURSE! Are they who I am going to call if someone harms me? Of course! Am I going to ignore issues in law enforcement to fancy your narrative? No. I’m not.

And remember who we are. We are not Europe, we are not China, we are America. Our country was Founded on individual rights, self-protection, and a Government that is supposed to run on a hands off approach. The same rights that gave Wilson the right to protect himself, and Garner the right to live and face due process. Respecting the police is pertinent; not fearing what they can become with too much power is dangerous. That means we are ALL responsible to hold ANY guilty party responsible. Badge or no badge. Michael Brown was responsible for his death, Eric Garner was not responsible for his. So, where should your allegiance be placed? Right now I’m talking about politically, of course I know that God is the blanketed answer, but right now I’m talking about us as a country. Look to your left and your right, no matter what they are wearing, be it a police uniform or a waitress apron, they are who your allegiance should be dedicated to. The People of this country. Your first response should be to protect their rights, at all cost. Countless soldiers have given their lives in the name of our freedom, it is our job to respect that freedom. It is our job to protect that freedom from our Government.

So this year, I challenge you to think. Think about who you defend, are you defending the rights of the man behind the badge, or just the badge. Think about who we are, are you putting your opinions to the challenge and ensuring that they can face fierce scrutiny? Think about your neighbor, if they lost their home because their already impossible budget was stretched to the limit because of the ACA, would you care more about Gruber’s remarks? Until we start seeing people, and stop seeing color, uniform, and political party, we will never heal this country.

- MBnew-year-resolutions2

History is the Best Teacher… Pass the Gravy.

Posted on

At 4 and 5 my nephews have hit the age that when I say “later” to something they actually remember it. When they were younger and they asked for something I would simply say “maybe later”, and within 5 minutes they forgot what it was…But that’s what we as humans are supposed to do, we are supposed to grow and learn, remember the details, hold people in power accountable to their word. For my nephews, this scored them an extra cupcake on Saturday. For the rest of us, it should score us a new President in November. But unfortunately, even though a recent study suggested that 60% of the US population doesn’t trust the news, we still have an incredibly close race…Why?  Perhaps individuals working off of limited details are still swayed by the constant barrage of deceiving monologue.


I am strongly against the mainstream media at this point in time.  They have become nothing more than propaganda reciting machines for the Democratic party. Is that their fault?  Yes.  But the fault also lies with us…  If the mainstream media couldn’t get away with their tactics, if we held them accountable, if we didn’t fall for their pervasive rhetoric, well…facts are, they wouldn’t be as successful as they are at changing the election tides. We’ve said we don’t trust them, but the numbers in the polls (skewed though they may be) either dictate a selfish ideal where a large part of the population has refused to think beyond their own personal wants, or simply an estimate of the politically uneducated and the cleverly disguised wolves that guide them into the abyss…using entitlements and equality as bait. What if the sheep realized that the innocent lambs are the ones that will be left paying off the debts of such selfish ideals, both physically and financially?


This leads me to the point of my post…I’ve had multiple individuals explain to me that they have nowhere to get their news source, that the conservative media is just as biased.Yes, they are all biased. I do believe there is a HUGE difference between Obama’s media groupies and the conservative news outlets, but for the sake of meeting the confused where they are, we’ll call all news outlets unreliable for the remainder of this post.


This morning I read a great article by Shawn Mitchell (Townhall) about what the press should be asking President Obama. Yes, this post came from a conservative site, BUT the questions are quite legitimate and ones we can answer ourselves by just knowing world events. See, it hit me that these questions are answered by his actions, and if we ask the same questions we can come up with the answers quite easily. So, when approaching something like this, get your Google search engine ready…


“Ask him if his policies toward the Middle East may have contributed to current violence there.”


We know that this MSM isn’t going to ask a question like this. So, with a simple Google search, and an admittance from the Libyan President as well as Mr. Stevens journal, we can see that our President ignored warning signs, or better yet, his relationship with Muslim Brotherhood leaders skewed his ability to see danger…  Where America currently stands with the Middle East is at an unprotected, weak and knowingly vulnerable state. So clearly, his policies do have a direct line to the current violence.  


“Specifically, did his decision to pressure Mubarak out of Egypt and to forcibly remove Qaddafi from Libya enable radical elements hostile to the US to rise to power?”


Once again, after a 3 minute Google search on recent statements by President Morsi (Muslim Brotherhood) of Egypt tells us that yes, his policies have lead to a radical rise of power. Morsi himself being one of the greatest examples…this is a violent leader for a violent group, and under his power Christians are being murdered in Egypt with NO repercussions. This is the same man that Obama congratulated.  


“Ask him if his overall approach to engaging the Muslim world has produced positive results.”


No. It hasn’t. We have an extensive body count and a plethora of riots.


“Ask him why, after the attacks on Egyptian, Libyan, and other embassies, his administration immediately asserted the fiction they were spontaneous demonstrations of religious grievance at an obscure internet clip critical of Mohammed.”


Because a spontaneous demonstration could be pinned on a YouTube video maker, instead of on a terrorist attack initiated by a released Gitmo detainee. To say that these were planned attacks is to admit that the radicals see us as the weak country we have become… That wasn’t acceptable to the Obama administration during an election year.  


“Ask why for over a week it denied there was a deliberate targeting of America by terrorist groups on the anniversary of September 11th.  Ask him if it’s true the State Department had warnings of likely attacks in the Middle East at least 48 hours before they occurred.”


We will never get a straight answer to this question, but when the Libyan President himself says these were a planned terrorist attack, as well as multiple other facts, yes…America was warned. Americans were killed in a planned terrorist attack, and in order to get your vote it was not made public.


“Speaking of Obama team players, will any of you professional skeptics ask Harry Reid if he plans to apologize to Mitt Romney for falsely accusing him of paying no taxes for 10 years? And if he doesn’t, then why not?”


This seems like a petty question, but in reality it is incredibly necessary. Why do politicians and media feel that they can say “reliable source” and gain our complete trust. Romney and his taxes were dragged through the mud, now weeks later we find that 44% of his income went to others, but yet where are the apologies? Where are the demands for justice in the Brian Terry case? His parents are mourning the loss of their son, and they don’t even know the facts about his case because our President is hiding documents. I couldn’t care less about Romney’s taxes, but I care a great deal about a family mourning a child while the President treats him like a necessary casualty for the greater good.  


“Will any of you ask the president how he can serve all Americans, as he pointedly told David Letterman is his job, if he doesn’t even know what the national debt is or what he has added to it?”


Serving “all Americans” ended when he started class warfare. We had signs, but refused to see them. Michelle Obama herself quotes Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’ in her 2008 DNC speech. They had no intention of bridging the ever widening, now violent divide between the parties…They achieved exactly what they strived for, they made one class hate another. It was as though they had an RFR Presy-do-list on the fridge that they checked off within the first term. As for the debt? This worked in his favor, study the Cloward-Piven strategy…Breaking you and I was a necessary evil. As George Soros (Obama’s right hand man…or should I say left? lol) said while emptying the homes of Jews during the holocaust, it was never an act he felt guilt over…because the ends justify the means.


“Ask him—if Chrysler and GM couldn’t pay their bills–what he thinks would have happened if bankruptcy law had been allowed to operate in a normal way?  Would Americans’ demand for cars have been less? Wouldn’t Chrysler’s and GM’s assets have been sold in an orderly way to leaner competitors or start up companies, who would have created new jobs and joined other suppliers to serve the American market?”


SUCH an important question…The idea that the auto industry is saved is one of the more blatant lies of the Democrats right now. They are imploding. The auto industry is like a lovely home built on sand…gutted, with weight bearing beams removed. It’s been beautified by the Obama administration, and they are waiting until the election is over to let it crash. Don’t be fooled. The auto industry is in shambles, and the only way it will survive (short term) is with ANOTHER bail out.


“Will you ask if it isn’t it more accurate to say he saved the ruinous pay, benefits, and pensions of the United Auto Workers that GM and Chrysler employed, and did it by lawlessly ripping equity out of the hands of secured creditors and bondholders and gifting it to the labor unions?”


The truth is that the unions write WAY to many checks out to democrats for them to EVER by at the raw end of a deal.  


“And, isn’t it true that the happy talk a while back about GM paying back its loans was highly misleading, as in essentially false? That wasn’t income from auto sales, was it, just federal stimulus grants that GM turned around and handed back to the government? And don’t taxpayers still hold a major chunk of GM ownership in billions of devalued stock? And isn’t the company’s survival still very much in doubt?”


Bum bum bum…Ouch.


See, our lives revolve around our day to day business so much that we have forgotten that so many of these questions can be answered by simply paying attention. Look at the facts from multiple different news sites and then look at the actions of our President towards those facts. I see jokes about not following politics everywhere, why aren’t we asking them why? Maybe we should be looking at our fellow man and asking some questions as well…Like how we as a nation speak of success and hope for our children, but in the face of a Marxist takeover we talk about how we’d rather watch paint dry than listen to anymore politics. Why are we marching into voting booths blind?


I know everyone hates Hitler/Obama comparisons, but I just want to bring up a few points. This morning I was watching a show on the military channel titled “The Fatal Attraction of Hitler”, the show began with a nation of people praising a man who offered hope, he offered a change for the German people. They worshipped him, he was a celebrity. While he was on stage he would wait 1 minute while he took in the crowd, breathing in the energy…His faithful followers in awe of his love for them. They showed one of his speeches when he was campaigning, I imagined myself in the crowd overcome with hope that my nation would come together and grow in strength. The speech was rousing, it delivered goose bumps. One of the narrators explained that if he would have lost and disappeared out of the lime light he would go down in history as one of the greatest political figures, and greatly admired. For many Germans, they wanted Jews out…not helplessly slaughtered, but out.


Despite his hate of Jews, this man was undeniably a tidal wave of new promises for a falling nation. The poor in the streets heard his promises. The hopeless felt his hope. The deprived felt his apparent pain in their depravity. He was worshipped. (Sound familiar?) Tears of joy flowed when he was present, the swastika was proudly flown in the air like a triumphant banner of a coming hope (Now it brings bile into our throats). But at the end of the documentary you have a startling moment of clarity. Even after knowing all of the truths about Hitler, watching him work you are drawn into the captivating nature of his rhetoric, then suddenly it ends by watching the mounds of bodies be bulldozed into mass graves. Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Nephews, Nieces…etc thrown into a hole with no regard to their dreams, their hopes, their futures. Suddenly the rousing hope of a hero is the dangerous rhetoric of a maniac.


I am in no way saying that Obama is identical to Hitler. But we have a symbol of “Hope”, we have people placing their hands over their hearts pledging their allegiance to him. We have a crowd of the dedicated, worshipping him like he is a savior. What could he do to our country? What could Islam do to our country? The distain that he is currently showing towards the makers of an anti-Islamic film maker should be a red flag, though maybe some feel small, it is still a red flag. In comparison, maybe a few negative Jew comments from Hitler seemed small to the masses… Did they know what was coming? Do you think they did? When we start punishing individuals for being offensive to Islam do you realize that being a Christian is offensive to Islam? That it is the radicals receiving the apologies from Obama? That a bounty of 100K has now been put on the film makers head? That Obama’s friends in the Middle East want it punishable by law to speak out against Islam?


During the first raid of the Jewish people they were asked to leave, those who didn’t were imprisoned…but for one minute do you believe that the German people who had whispers of hope seductively sent their direction thought that ovens would be glowing red with the bodies of innocent people, that mass graves would be filled with family members, that scientific tests would be performed on human beings like they were disposable rats? No. They didn’t. Obama isn’t Hitler, and the takeover won’t be the same, the results may not be the same. But part of our nation is now pledging allegiance to a man, not our flag. Historically, that has been deadly 100% of the time. Just because you are an American doesn’t make you exempt. And the man they are pledging allegiance to is making us weak and vulnerable to a radical group of people that would rather us exterminated, and on top of that…he wants to remove our guns. The similarities are chilling, and maybe that is why everyone hates the comparisons so much.


On an end note, my brother hated politics…He would say “I’m not voting for Obama so what does it matter?”, I took him to see 2016 and he has been paying attention now…When I asked him why he said “Because that scared me”. THIS should be our feeling. No matter who you are voting for, you should know the truth. It is time to wake up from our slumber.


One Nation Under God

Posted on Updated on

“A nation of well informed men
who have been taught to know and prize the rights
which God has given them cannot be enslaved.
It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
~Benjamin Franklin~

       It baffles the mind… well, my mind at least, how some people can believe what they believe.  How is it even remotely possible that a near majority of the American people can be convinced of something that makes no economic sense whatsoever? Not only so, but for extremely well educated people in positions of influence, specifically those responsible for the dissemination of allegedly Factual information, to propagate the… the lunacy?
Don’t you wish it was that easy?

There is a certain appeal to socialism. Kind of the Star Trek mentality of “Money? We stopped using money centuries ago.” To each according to their need. From each according to their ability. An A+ thesis from Karl Marx. It DOES sound awesome! And it seems so viable! But (and I will assume that a chronological flow chart from pt. a to pt. z showing the obvious pitfalls of such a society is not necessary) it can’t work. But there are two – the two – that matter most, that people think of least, that warrant mentioning.

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
~ Bill Clinton ~

Ok, so that direct quote has nothing to do with it, but definition is everything. While ability (From each according to their ‘ability’) may be under stated and supply a small wrench in the spokes of socialism, need is quite often if not always overstated (To each according to their ‘need’) supplying the number one obstacle. A socialist society in which all people would be provided for according to their NEEDS would require not only a basic understanding of the definition of the word ‘need’, but a (quasi unanimous) consensus of the definition of the word ‘need.’
Ask ten different people what they need, you may get ten different answers, to varying degrees. In ’08 I asked a fellow worker just what about Obama was so appealing. “I could use some of (my employer’s) money! He’s got enough! You seen his house? He don’t need that much! He could give some more to all of us!” (I tie this into a tweet I saw concerning stagnant job growth not being Obama’s fault, but rather due to businesses not wanting to give up profits…. Uh…. You Think?!?)
I asked my coworker at that point if I could please have one of his cars. I told him I’d even take the older less reliable one. Told him my sedan was out of commission and we ‘needed’ another for my wife. “You see,” I said, “from where I sit, you have more than you need, and I could use some of your money.”
He told me that he wasn’t rich, though. I told him, “From where I’m sitting you are.”
This, if I were vying for socialism, would be our impass. And we’re just two people in a sea of millions.
I really didn’t need his car and I wish I could say he got it, but he still wants his employer to give more so he can get more, somehow not understanding that loss of profit by his employer, by way of extra taxes, will make him unable to give more – not understanding that unless he lost his job, he’ll never see a literal dime more of his boss’ money. And if that were the case, less total money anyway. Just basically not understanding.
But that is the way of the average American. Underinformed on the issues and taking everything at face value as presented by the main stream media. The idea of needs never comes into the conversation in a way that is anything more than casual, though, and the casual viewer is left feeling as though it sounds fair, this bridging of the income gap, and hoping there’s something in it for them. It certainly sounds like there should be. After all, they are definitely not the rich one and if the powers that would be are promising to bridge the gap then there must be something in it for them.
Needs: undefined, unspecified, and unaddressed. The details never really get mentioned or worked out because the definition would be the prohibative factor – any attempt would result in the revelation that ‘needs’ is just a bait for the people. And the real reason would come to surface.

Think about a crony capitalism. Content in their wealth, influence, and power… Certainly not willing to refuse more… In fact usually very comfortable with more. Desirous of more. Yet espousing the belief that it’s evil. Greedy. Selfish. Somehow it’s just not that way for them. Unwilling on any level to concede these benefits of capitalism to people who aver capitalism, they have no problem giving to the cause that would, by all appearances, cause them harm. They must either believe or be told that their backs will be scratched – that to the same degree that they give, it will be returned to them. That they will be immune. Well, consider who is exempt from the ACA. Unions, politicians, etc. Makes sense. To some it’s a bought vote. When the benefits of voting for something directly benefit you, you vote for it. It’s the New American Way. We would have elected officials held to a standard we don’t hold ourselves to. But either through combined belief/benefit, or coercion/benefit, it’s a bought vote. To others it’s an opportunity of a lifetime!
Just watched the movie “2016.” Obama’s meteoric rise to power, and subsequent grab of more power, was/is the opportunity of a lifetime! While his power grab would appear to be intended to correct several historic wrongs in his eyes, and therefore righteous, it is none the less “power” over the people. Along with the alleged meeting of needs comes the necessary subservience to the government – a loss of freedom. In order to correct the colonial wrongs of America, her people must be owned by the government and not the other way around. This is why DHS and Obama would label patriots ‘terrorists.’
On a side note, “2016” should be high on the bucket list of things to do before November… Extremely eye opening.

Power. How many big name leaders who have grabbed power used that power for overall good? Oh, they think they’re doing something good! Righting wrongs, hurting the friends of the purveyors of ‘wrongdoings’, punishing people who defend the ‘wrongdoers,’ killing the infidels, all that fun stuff.
You see, it is never to benefit the people as a whole that leaders seize power. It is at the expense of the people. It is not that Obama wants to give the poor more by taking a little more from the rich. It is to show all the people they had it way better than they realized… that their colonial background is the same evil occupation that crippled Kenya, and stole Hawaii. That the playing field is way uneven and that the people are not even close to destitute unless they have it as bad as the natives they have destroyed. The biggest tyrants view themselves as restorers of justice, frequently at the expense of people generations removed from the offenders. But the knowledge of our God given rights is the best defense against this type of tyrany, as hypothesized by B.F. It is therefore also a good idea to remove God from the equation. (See current state of the DNC) While it seems to a select few that dismantling ‘colonial’ America, would be the just desserts of her direct decendants, and worth accepting to many, imagine the attitude difference in a society that understands God’s freedom under such circumstances.
(Ezekiel 18:20) – “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
A God centered America would never accept 9/10 of what is happening, of what is being proposed. First and foremost, we would not need to recognize the movement towards socialism as we would be unwilling to accept the tenets of forced equality, of providing for people unwilling to try, of punishing success and rewarding faux victims while ignoring true victims. We’d be unwilling to accept God being removed from the equation. Unwilling to accept the anti Christian attitudes one toward the other. Unwilling to sacrifice integrity for personal gain.
It is in the ignorance of what God has intended for us these attitudes become possible… what opens the door for tyrany.
It is necessary to do what we can to delay this tyrany. We must not only vote our Christian conscience (life) this November, but a fair biblical approach to societal life as well.
But if we are unwilling to hit the true problem in the heart – to know and prize God’s freedoms… as a nation… To hit our knees as never before! Then hit the streets arming people with what we know, not just for America but for Christ… we may as well stay home November 6th.

~ Tim ~