Chuck Chuck: No Defensive Senator for Defense Secretary

Why a Presidential appointee for Secretary of Defense shows up for a confirmation hearing so totally unprepared and clueless, bumbling, mumbling, and stumbling over simple yes/no answers is beyond me. If this is the choice of the President, Obama is truly doing what he can to destroy our defenses.

A Commander-in-Chief that has control of the most formidable weapons one the planet, must have a Defense Secretary that is competent in military and political strategies when dealing with the types of enemies that we have created.

Charles "Chuck" Hagel is obviously not the choice that I would make. Actually, I would like to see someone like Ron Paul in that spot. A true statesman that has military background and knowledge that would surely be a positive in our national defense interests. Unless the goal is not to strengthen but to weaken our defenses.

So let me see if got this right: The government wants to take our personal defenses away, while they are arming the IRS and other Homeland Security agents with "assault' military weapons using hollow point ammunition that is prohibited by international laws or treaties, design for maximum kill capacity. And they want the People by proxy of their Senators, to confirm a man who has little clue about any defense beyond covering his own hind quarters when caught in a lie or just plain demonstrably wrong about an issue.

While all the economy goes to hell in a hand basket,our elected representatives are looking out for our best interests by putting a self important member of the Republican Party up for confirmation by the Democratic-controlled Senate, showing the public that the liberals are willing to "reach across the aisle" and select a member of the "opposition" for a cabinet position. If anyone watched the badgering he got from members of his own party, it seems obvious that he is not the Republican choice for the position.

In all the time he was being questioned, it seemed that he was lost, unable to think quickly or clearly enough to even seem credible. Not the person that I would want between the President and the military. I can't imagine how he was elected as a Senator by a majority. The other choice must have been really bad!

Health, Wealth, Laws, and Rights

With all of the hype in the media lately regarding abortions, guns, health care, and immigration, Americans as a whole are being duped by the people we trusted to protect our rights and our borders.

First, abortion is not a choice. Having sex is a choice and doing so with responsibility is what needs to be taught and not legislated. As a teenager, my parents spoke with me at length about sex and how it will be my responsibility to take care of a child that I father. Neighbors with daughters also taught them that having sex was not just about feeling good, as it is a reproductive process that will produce a child. Abortion was never considered as an option to carelessness and disregard for the sex act itself.

Second, regarding all of the media propaganda and the power grab by government to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights, it is the duty and the right of We the People to oppose this tyranny. It is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment. It was written to insure that a government duly elected as representatives of the citizens, could not use force in order to take our rights from us. The safety of our persons and of our family is not the responsibility of government; it is our responsibility to protect our person and property. Law enforcement was never meant to replace personal responsibility rather it was to enhance it.

Contrary to popular social ideology, health care is not a human right or a right of an American citizen. Medicine as it is practiced today is an extension of the pharmaceutical industry, and it does nothing to further cures or to maintain good health. Sure, diet and exercise are both stressed as important factors in health care today, but it is drugs that are relied upon to accommodate those with unhealthy lifestyles. And now with the unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Patient Protection Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, the decisions regarding your own health are being handled through government bureaucrats who will decide whether or not you are worth the treatments you require. In other words, even your doctor has little to say in regards to your personal health.

Finally, we are now faced with proposed new legislation to make it easy for immigrants to gain legal status and a path toward citizenship, even though they have been breaking the laws of immigration for many years. While I am writing this, I am also listening to the President speaking about this issue. He wants to make new laws when he and his administration has refused to enforce the laws already there. He wants us Americans to believe that we will benefit from immigration laws being changed.

Obama wants to punish businesses that take advantage of illegal workers by having them work long hours and with less that minimum wage pay. Most of these workers are supposedly doing labor that Americans will not perform for these low wages. But if these businesses were able to afford to hire American workers at living wages, don’t you think more Americans would take those jobs? Perhaps the underlying problem is the value of our money and not greedy employers. It’s greed of the banking cartel  that must be addressed, and by We the People not just by the politicians we elected to protect us from them. 

When my ancestors arrived here from Europe, they did not receive benefits. They worked and saved, educated their children to strive for a better life here. Many succeeded in businesses and professional careers, paid their taxes and contributed to charity to benefit their community. They did not have any government programs that entitled them to benefits from taxpayers. They themselves were taxpayers. And whatever laws on immigration and naturalization there were at the time were obeyed and eventually they became citizens. Why do we need to change a system that worked so well? What is needed is enforcement of the laws currently in place.

There is always the cry for being humanitarian and allow these illegal immigrants to stay here. But look at other nations around the world and you will see that we are the most lenient on the planet when it comes to illegal immigration. We cannot continue to subsidize those who break our laws and reform the laws so that they will go unpunished for their crimes.

Gun Law Illusion of Security

There are a lot of people who believe more restrictions on purchasing weapons will have a positive result in stopping gun violence, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. These are the most dangerous people in our society today. These are the people with tunnel vision based on their own narrow focus on reality.

Most of these people hold degrees in history or law. Some may also have degrees in social services and they have been taught incorrectly, that weapons cause violence. It is just nonsense.

I have been around hammers more than guns, and I know a hammer is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of someone wanting to harm someone else. A gun is just another tool, yet it was so important to the founders of the United States, to include it in the Constitution as part of the Amendments collectively named, The Bill of Rights. The gun debate stems from the Second Article of Amendment which states, "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It was another limitation placed on the government, explicitly stating that no laws restricting that right is lawful.

Many will argue that today's social problems with drug cartels and dealers on the streets were not known to our founders or they may have made some concessions. It is arrogant and deceitful to expound on what the founder's may have done differently when it is obvious to anyone that studied the history of the American Revolution and even the Civil War, can plainly see that the resistance was against a federal government interfering with the rights of the free individuals residing in the free and sovereign States.

To even claim that we have law enforcement today that was lacking in the past is absurd also. Those inclined to do a crime, will do so regardless of laws. We have absurd drug laws and yet we have drugs rampant in American cities. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation and they enjoy the highest murder rate with guns as the number one weapon. Maybe if victims had guns they would have at least prevented someone else from being shot by a criminal.

There is no evidence and there will be none that demonstrates any correlation between tough gun laws and lower rates of crime. How can there be any, when the opposite is true? Global statistics reveal that where there is little or no restrictions on citizens owning weapons, there is reduced violent crime.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Tell your Congress that!

A Tribute to Martin Luther King

History will show that Dr. King was pioneer of equal rights but few will see him in the context that portrays him as a true Statesman. He was first and foremost a clergyman, a man well versed in the Christian faith.

Some will call him an activist although he was much more than that. Dr. King was a rebel, an insurgent who dared face down the establishment that kept race an issue and a nation divided.

A man who won the Nobel Peace Prize at the age of thirty five he was the youngest winner ever. But he was a man of peace in the same way that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were. He was for peaceful civil disobedience to laws that were unjust to any free individual as was all Americans as their birthright. He was a true patriot to country and a rebel against tyranny.

While much of the nation is focused on Obama's second Inauguration, and the second time he as taken an oath of office and lied to  us all, I will pay tribute to the memory of a man who stood up against a tyranny and gave his life in revolt against the system that allowed and even condoned the inequality in rights and freedom expressively given to all humanity by their Creator.

God bless you Dr. King. May your memory inspire others to stand with courage for the rights of all people.

Teach Your Children Well

Updated August 7, 2013

Ask most individuals today and they will tell you that the government needs to do more for educating the children. The problem is no matter how much money they take from the taxpayer or borrow from the banks, education in America is dying.

Most of our founders did not have formal education. Yes, some had wealth and attended university, but many were taught at home. And they did not have easy access to a wealth of knowledge as we do today. The internet and online classes allow more individuals to learn, so why are Americans so dumb?

This is caused by what is taught and not necessarily who is taught. It is further eroded by a generation of teachers who are more concerned with policy than what they are teaching. And they too lack the skills, not because they are stupid, but because they also suffer from incorrect educational information and are themselves taught how to present the slop they are federally mandated to teach.

Standardization equates to control and poorer quality based on results. During the debates, only one person advocated the elimination of the Department of Education and a return of control to the local communities. After all, who knows what subjects will best serve the needs and wants of the people who live there? Obviously there will be increased diversity in curriculum  and that is a positive move toward making education work for American.

In his book, The Underground History of American Education,





 John T. Gatto explains how and why the quality of education has plummeted in the U.S. and offers common sense to fix the problem. It puts the responsibility to educate on the parents instead of the government. and it further makes it clear that schools that are private will be forced to compete in order to be successful.

Home schooling and charter schools offer more diversity in education than public schooling because they can tailor to the needs of the students instead of to some government mandated social standard. Further, they teach that which the students want to learn to further their dreams and aspirations and in a manner that parents are aware of and approve of.




There are many detractors who will claim that only the wealthy will be able to afford to send their children to the best schools. In fact the opposite will be true as the "affordable" institutions will compete with the most expensive schools in what they teach and how they present it to create the greatest comprehension levels. The end result will be students who learn and excel in their respective fields, and once again compete for the best jobs.

It Began With We The People

It began with the words, “We the People” in very large type, indicating the it is by the People’s consent that they be governed according to the Constitution for the united States of America. Clearly a statement that puts those who will be chosen to represent the People, to follow the laws of the Constitution when making any other laws regarding the whole of the sovereign individuals, making up the People of the States.

Both the authority and limits placed on the national government were meant to restrain it from passing laws that would jeopardize the rights of the People in any manner.

One of those rights that was explicitly defined in the Constitution was to protect the religious freedom of all People.

The 1^st Article of Amendment clearly states that,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

And one of the most important amendments, the 2nd Article of Amendment, makes it emphatically clear,

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

During the time of its writing, “well regulated” was to mean well trained.
“Necessary to the security of a free State.” Simply it means it is a State’s right to form its own army to protect itself of attacks from enemies. Granted that the Constitution also states, the President as Commander-in-Chief may call up the Militia, the Governors of each Sovereign States must call up the Militia for their particular State before the President can assume the Commander-in-Chief authority over them. That would make sense if the President was to call forth the Army by declaring war on a State because it was threatening the union through conflicts with either, other States or the Union itself.

That part about “keep and bear arms,” itself is an explicit limit placed on the national government, as it was feared by our founders that a government that became corrupted and tyrannical can only be stopped with parity in weapons of war. It was never implied that hunting and target shooting was ever considered as a thought in this amendment.  And the part that states, “shall not be infringed” is also protection from limitations placed on an individual’s type of weapon or inventory of ordinance.

Even the fact that guns must be registered or that permits must be issued is an infringement. It allows a possible tyranny to overwhelm the public with superior arms with less fear of reciprocal casualties. In other words, they can kill you without fear of significant reprisals as they would easy defeat an ill equipped rebellion.

This short lesson in Constitution is brought to you by the many who have fought for and who gave their lives fighting for the liberties that some take for granted. It protects my rights to free speech and to present alternative views from those of the privately-owned and government-controlled major media. And then there are others who are willing to give up freedom for some illusion of security, when bombarded with constant images of deaths in which guns were used. They soon forget that they have the right and the duty to defend themselves, and not reliance on government to protect their persons which cannot be done.

Every dictator throughout history slaughtered their own countrymen after passing laws that prohibited the People from keeping and bearing arms. The only difference here in the US is that they are doing it gradually with propaganda campaigns like Germany did during the Nazi years.

Once we give up our ability to arm and defend ourselves we will become full slaves or murdered. It’s the same story repeated over and over, so what makes you think it will have any different result this time?

The Second Amendment: Meaning and Purpose

Ever since the first federal laws prohibited convicted felons from owning firearms was written, the federal and state laws concerning guns proliferated. Now we are facing outright bans on certain types of arms and not only by our own government, but also from the international body of the United Nations.

I for one find the laws are all unconstitutional and therefore null and void. The   Constitution is explicit. The Second Amendment as it is written states:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not make any provisions for government to infringe on the rights of the People based on their social standing, criminal history, or the types of weapons they may possess. It was meant as a protection of the people from a tyrannical government or other enemies of the people. Now the first part of the amendment has been taken to mean a state's guardsmen, which is in fact incorrect.

Militias were local citizens who banded together to form their own protective guards. It does allow for the governors of states to call up the militias of the various communities and to assign or conscript them to serve under the President as Commander-in-Chief during times of war. Later laws such as the War Powers Act, shredded the explicit limitations placed on both  the State and the Federal governments by the Constitution by allowing standing armies during peacetime and by virtually eliminating the militias by the creation of the National Guards, a federally mandated army under the authority of the State Governor but in actual practice the President of the United States.

Any law that limits the organization of citizen armies (militias) or limits the right of the People to "keep and bear arms" is by virtue of the Constitution, null and void. It is not the government that needs to protect these rights when it it clear that the government is disobeying the limits place upon it by the People.

http://modernmilitiamovement.com/

It is the duty of the People to protect their own rights by resistance to laws that clearly violate their rights. There are groups today who are exercising those rights much to the opposition of the federal government. (See: The truth behind  America's 'civilian militias')


Additional Info:
Freedom Outpost: All Federal Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional

The Problem is Not The Government

There is a belief in America today that our government is taking rights away from the people. Each day we hear and read about how government passes laws that chip away constitutional rights or how the President writes executive orders that by-pass Congress and the judicial review process entirely to make laws as a dictator.

But the problem lies with the people and not the government. Yes, that's right, you are the reason that it is happening.  In all that is happening, the blame lies with the American People and not the American Government.

We all know the history we learned in school about Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and even Castro in Cuba. What you don't learn in school is that all of them were financed by the wealthy bankers and industrialists, all of whom profited through the imprisonment and murder of innocent citizens who willingly gave up rights for the illusion of security.

We are bombarded by the privately-owned and government controlled major media to believe that America's lax gun control is responsible for the shooting in schools and movie theaters. That the drive-by shootings in drug-infested sections of metropolitan areas will somehow cease if weapons are banned. Even Hollywood celebrities come out clamoring for stricter gun laws or the outright ban of weapons by private individuals.

The problem is not the celebrities or the media, or even the government that produces this propaganda to frighten the masses into submission to loss of rights with the illusory promise of security.

In most nations around the globe, those with the strictest gun laws are  the ones that have the highest rates of crime. By contrast, the nations with the most armed citizens are those with the lowest crime rates. But you don't even have to look beyond our own borders to see  the absurdity in the media reports. While shooting like those in Sandy Hook grab the attention of the media, the stories of crimes being prevented or thwarted by armed citizens go unnoticed and unreported.

Every other alternative news story I read claims that are Second Amendment is under attack and that we stand to lose it entirely due to treaties being negotiated and signed by our President. If you really bothered to read our Constitution and truly understand its meaning, then it will become obvious to you that the President nor Congress has the authority to do anything beyond what the Constitution permits. The infringements made against us by our government is treason.

So when will you all begin to come to terms with the fact that it is by allowing it to happen that it does? When will you choose to stand up and fight for your nation in the face of a government that has been taken over and is being destroyed by true un-American activities? Huh? When?