The Lone Ranger – No Milk For Me

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

There are things I like, dislike or don’t care either way about. I think I like the latter the best. I have gone through different periods in my life as I would think everyone of us has, or eventually will. The latter I like the best came back to me when I was literally dying with heart failure. Enduring a massive heart attack for 2 days, Saturday morning to Monday afternoon, I couldn’t sleep anywhere but the easy chair I had used for a year since my back surgery. No, the bed was where I would normally sleep, but I couldn’t lie down because of the pain.

I had a heart attack 7 years before. A classic one with pain shooting down the arm. This one was just a pain in the chest and I remember moaning both nights interrupting any grasped sleep. I went to see the doctor on Monday morning thinking I had pneumonia because of my struggles with breathing. He wrote me a prescription for my congestion and sent me for a blood test and an ECG. I went to the hospital and 5 seconds of getting the ECG the lady giving it said she would be right back and came back with a wheelchair and so my saga started.

It was during this life event that I actually lived what I always said, “None of this will matter when you are lying in your death bed.” That was my philosophical approach to life to sort of force myself to see what really is important in life. Hence, I always chose to do what I was raised to believe what is right and morally correct, not always mind you, but tried as any self respecting human would.

Now here I lay, in my death bed. My wife at my side. All bitterness in me magically disappeared. I was living what I always said. Two main arteries blocked, one totally, the other 95%, the source of my pain. But there was an added twist, a bad heart valve and open heart surgery was the cure. Am I to die, I thought?

I made sure I said my peace with my wife of 10 short years and thought of everything in my life that I had done, or didn’t do. Funny thing, never once did I think of what was done to me. I went to parochial school growing up and had it impressed upon us that current events is history and we can see it, hear it, or read it, in the daily news. Consequently, I forced myself to become a news media junkie. Back then it was the nightly news, local and national and newspapers.

I vaguely remember hearing about the Harvey Milk shooting when it happened. I was in between being a news media hound and sowing my oats as they say, but the memory is there nonetheless.

My first interaction with homosexuals, to my knowledge and my best to date, came during this time period. They called me Charlie back then. Wasn’t even remotely close to my name, but a sort of friend who had a mental deficiency and possible couldn’t hear well, heard my last name and thought they called me Charlie and the rest is history. I had my first nom de plume.

I worked for these two guys who owned a neighborhood pizza shop and got hired to deliver pizzas in a van with a steam oven that kept the pizzas hot. They bought the building, had 1 tenant and 2 apartments. I rented the vacant one. Then they sold it to this guy who happened to be gay, or so the rumors said. I was 19 at the time and led a very sheltered life somewhat to this point. The new owner also bought the adjoining building. It was there, when he asked for my help that I was bold enough to ask him that foreboding question when we were later alone.

His answer, and I still firmly believe is the correct answer that should be given and also how one who is gay, transvestite (transgender), or whatever should carry themselves. He simply said, ‘Charlie, I don’t care what people say about me, or call me. I laugh all the way to the bank. I don’t bother anyone and I expect the same in return. He died 6 months later.

I didn’t see anyone from the government wanting to print a stamp in his honor and none was really expected. So why Harvey Milk? Why are they forcing this issue, shoving it in our faces? Why are they, as my gay friend said, bothering with us? Is Harvey Milk somehow special, so special that we will now be told stories of how he walked on water? Harvey Milk was just a man, no special talents, no special accomplishments, at least not nationally. So why a stamp?

It has been very apparent after obama was elected and Nancy PelNAZIosi, then Speaker, that she personally decided and cried about Harvey Milk being shot in front of her on national TV to shove this individual in our faces as she has said and done with redistributing the wealth in this nation – stealing is the normal word we used to use.

What bothers me is, I believe as many others do, that progressives are an immoral bunch of characters. Letting a woman choose what happens to her body, preventing discrimination against gays, or anyone else that thinks differently is one thing, but to justify shoving it in our face daily in every TV show and condition our acceptance of what we perceive as moral, is ludicrous at best.

There was a law in this country that forbade the US government from using propaganda to influence its citizens like the Nazi’s did to the German people in WWII. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was amended in 2012 as an addendum to the passage of the NDDA. So now, just as the NSA, a foreign spy agency, can legally snoop on us, the government can now tell us the truth, as the government sees it anyway. It’s all legal, but still unconstitutional. The Supreme Court told the American people when they said Obamacare was legal: “We the People” are allowing this to continue, because we freely elected those making the laws to continue to do this to us.

Think about that the next time you vote for your favorite incumbent. Ask them at their next campaign rally if they trust you to make your own decisions? Can we no longer be trusted to know what is good for us, or do we need federal nannies to tell us?

Some may ask the federal government, “Please sir, may I have more.” I say, No More Milk For Me!

The Lone Ranger – Reprint – The Federalist Today – Pragmatism, Planet D.C., And Planet Earth

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Progressives have mastered wag-the-dog statesmanship.

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson claimed that the pace of change in economic life was so rapid that “nothing is done in this country as it was done twenty years ago.” As he drew out the consequences of this radical transformation, he argued that it “calls for creative statesmanship as no age has done since that great age in which we set up the government under which we live…”

The Progressive rallying cry for the century since has been a series of appeals to meet the needs of ever-revolutionizing circumstances, to stay in step with history, and create the government apparatus–power and institutions–necessary to make room for the next wave of “creative statesmanship.”

Yet along the way, the most basic, permanent functions of government have been too often neglected, trivialized, or performed by a faceless bureaucracy that moves from one stack of paper, email, or memo to the next. Leaders are increasingly becoming political front men tending to matters of public relations through the use of rhetorical device.

Some would contend that there is nothing new under the sun: this has always been the way of politics. Who but an Alexander, a Caesar, and a Napoleon was better prepared to communicate affairs of state to their political communities? Add to this that our leaders today operate in a political environment where communication advances have produced a media-driven politics, and you have a solid defense of wag-the-dog statesmanship.

As recent events have illustrated, however, this does not come without a price–nor, as we’ll see without a viable alternative. Jay Carney and friends were in spin overdrive last week with the release of an email that seemed to suggest the White House was behind Susan Rice’s erroneous claim that the Benghazi attack had been inspired by a YouTube video. On Wednesday, Carney claimed that the email was not about Benghazi at all, but about the broader protests occurring at the same time in a number of Middle Eastern nations–which, as one reporter pointed out Thursday, made it an odd email to include in a response to a Freedom of Information Act filing requesting documents related to Benghazi. Better ask the State Department about that, replied Carney.

As the Administration passes the hot potato from the White House to the State Department to the CIA and back, much to the delight of the longtime actors and voyeurs of “As Washington Turns,” the most fundamental failure in the Benghazi attacks all but disappears from view. Hidden in plain sight just below the email’s “Internet video” language is the real heart of the matter: “To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests . . .” Twenty months later, whatever the Administration’s degree of resolve, justice has yet to be done.

The same problem is evident in the debate over Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent remarks concerning Israel. After suggesting in a private Trilateral Commission meeting that the nation might devolve into an “apartheid state” in the absence of adopting his preferred two-state solution to its ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, Mr. Kerry expressed regret–principally that his words had opened him up to criticism. Again, the substance of the matter disappeared from view, while Mr. Kerry waxed indignant on the “partisan, political purposes” that had inspired his critics. In concluding his press release with a citation of members of the Israeli government who have also invoked the specter of “apartheid,” Mr. Kerry snuggled into his warm political covers, either oblivious to or simply negligent of the fact that he had committed more than a rhetorical faux pas.

The Administration’s pose in both cases rests upon the pragmatic philosophical premise that the claims it makes matter little unless they produce practical differences.

Leaving aside the fact that bad demographic data had led him to pose a false choice for “one-state” Israel between oppressing a future Palestinian majority or being subjugated by one, Mr. Kerry’s remarks before the Trilateral Commission elites, even if never made public, would increase the pressure on Israel to accept not just a two-state solution, but hisnow. America’s chief diplomat, in other words, should understand that such remarks cannot be understood as idle academic speculation (“What is the universe of possible futures for Israel?”), but as a means of excluding any alternative to his plan and, thereby, undercutting Israeli efforts to negotiate terms more compatible with her long-term security.

The Administration’s pose in both cases rests upon the pragmatic philosophical premise that the claims it makes matter little unless they produce practical differences. Carney, Kerry, and others presume that no claim is beyond repair if they have a new claim, the next press conference, and another news cycle at their disposal. If you are always prepared to use words to sally, you can always stay ahead of whatever practical difference your words make. Or translated into Obamian millennial speak: that was two years ago, dude.

Thoroughly grounded in the alternative to this alternative reality, aka the real world, James Madison wrote in Federalist 42 that “[i]f we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations.” What follows this claim is a straightforward, even pedestrian defense of the diplomatic powers lodged in the national government by the Constitution–the ability to appoint and receive ambassadors, consuls, and the like.

Unfortunately, the Articles had failed to specify these powers carefully, leaving out any mention of consular officials and therefore suggesting, in keeping with its stated principle of hyper-strict construction, that none but (high-level) ambassadors could be appointed or received by the government.

Progressives at least might ask: why this eyestabby, worse-than-watching-paint-dry excursion into the minutiae of a dusty old, long-replaced government charter? Madison explains:

A list of the cases in which Congress have been betrayed, or forced by the defects of the Confederation, into violations of their chartered authorities, would not a little surprise those who have paid no attention to the subject; and would be no inconsiderable argument in favor of the new Constitution, which seems to have provided no less studiously for the lesser, than the more obvious and striking defects of the old.

Throughout Federalist 42, Madison characterizes the powers conferred upon the Federal government in the Constitution’s attempt to improve upon the Articles of Confederation as “obvious and essential” and speaking “their own propriety.” Given that even the smallest provisions within all constitutions “become important” over time, small errors like the one above had forced the Congress into choosing between usurping unappropriated powers and neglecting necessary duties. The members of the Constitutional Convention labored hard to make such choices unnecessary for the new Congress because they expected American statesmen to be as careful in their implementation of the text as they had been in the framing of it.

Unlike the pragmatists who have come to dominate American political thought and practice a century later, Madison realized that words relate to real things and that people behave accordingly. That truth applies to our nation “if we are to be one nation in any respect.”  That truth applies to the Constitutional powers conferred to the federal government. And that truth applies to what happened the night of September 11, 2012.

Jay Carney has said that repeated calls to get to the bottom of what happened that night amount to “a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy” and that there is nothing here to see but D.C. business as usual (everyone writes talking points and preps Administration officials for Sunday morning talk shows). But that’s exactly the problem. The Obama Administration can be expected to continue to operate upon the basis that its words and deeds do not matter unless they make a difference. Unfortunately, they often do in unlooked for ways, as, for example, when meaningless “red line” talk regarding Syria turns into a real Russian annexation of Crimea.

The job of a House Select Committee, in retracing the steps of an obscure Benghazi email trail, must be to show the American public the heavy price that ruling class pragmatism has exacted on the government’s ability to carry out its constitutional responsibilities, starting with the four men who died for their country that night twenty months ago. Either way, the rest of the world at least won’t be fooled. As John Jay wrote in Federalist 4, “foreign nations will know and view it [our nation] exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly.”

David Corbin is a Professor of Politics and Matthew Parks an Assistant Professor of Politics at The King’s College, New York City. They are co-authors of “Keeping Our Republic: Principles for a Political Reformation” (2011). You can follow their work on Twitter or Facebook.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/05/pragmatism-planet-d-c-and-planet-earth/

The Lone Ranger – Reprint – Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege by Tal Fortgang ’17 / April 2, 2014

Tags

, ,

Image

There is a phrase that floats around college campuses, Princeton being no exception, that threatens to strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them. “Check your privilege,” the saying goes, and I have been reprimanded by it several times this year. The phrase, handed down by my moral superiors, descends recklessly, like an Obama-sanctioned drone, and aims laser-like at my pinkish-peach complexion, my maleness, and the nerve I displayed in offering an opinion rooted in a personal Weltanschauung*. “Check your privilege,” they tell me in a command that teeters between an imposition to actually explore how I got where I am, and a reminder that I ought to feel personally apologetic because white males seem to pull most of the strings in the world.

I do not accuse those who “check” me and my perspective of overt racism, although the phrase, which assumes that simply because I belong to a certain ethnic group I should be judged collectively with it, toes that line. But I do condemn them for diminishing everything I have personally accomplished, all the hard work I have done in my life, and for ascribing all the fruit I reap not to the seeds I sow but to some invisible patron saint of white maleness who places it out for me before I even arrive. Furthermore, I condemn them for casting the equal protection clause, indeed the very idea of a meritocracy, as a myth, and for declaring that we are all governed by invisible forces (some would call them “stigmas” or “societal norms”), that our nation runs on racist and sexist conspiracies. Forget “you didn’t build that;” check your privilege and realize that nothing you have accomplished is real.

But they can’t be telling me that everything I’ve done with my life can be credited to the racist patriarchy holding my hand throughout my years of education and eventually guiding me into Princeton. Even that is too extreme. So to find out what they are saying, I decided to take their advice. I actually went and checked the origins of my privileged existence, to empathize with those whose underdog stories I can’t possibly comprehend. I have unearthed some examples of the privilege with which my family was blessed, and now I think I better understand those who assure me that skin color allowed my family and I to flourish today.

Perhaps it’s the privilege my grandfather and his brother had to flee their home as teenagers when the Nazis invaded Poland, leaving their mother and five younger siblings behind, running and running until they reached a Displaced Persons camp in Siberia, where they would do years of hard labor in the bitter cold until World War II ended. Maybe it was the privilege my grandfather had of taking on the local Rabbi’s work in that DP camp, telling him that the spiritual leader shouldn’t do hard work, but should save his energy to pass Jewish tradition along to those who might survive. Perhaps it was the privilege my great-grandmother and those five great-aunts and uncles I never knew had of being shot into an open grave outside their hometown. Maybe that’s my privilege.

Or maybe it’s the privilege my grandmother had of spending weeks upon weeks on a death march through Polish forests in subzero temperatures, one of just a handful to survive, only to be put in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp where she would have died but for the Allied forces who liberated her and helped her regain her health when her weight dwindled to barely 80 pounds.

Perhaps my privilege is that those two resilient individuals came to America with no money and no English, obtained citizenship, learned the language and met each other; that my grandfather started a humble wicker basket business with nothing but long hours, an idea, and an iron will—to paraphrase the man I never met: “I escaped Hitler. Some business troubles are going to ruin me?” Maybe my privilege is that they worked hard enough to raise four children, and to send them to Jewish day school and eventually City College.

Perhaps it was my privilege that my own father worked hard enough in City College to earn a spot at a top graduate school, got a good job, and for 25 years got up well before the crack of dawn, sacrificing precious time he wanted to spend with those he valued most—his wife and kids—to earn that living. I can say with certainty there was no legacy involved in any of his accomplishments. The wicker business just isn’t that influential.Now would you say that we’ve been really privileged? That our success has been gift-wrapped?

That’s the problem with calling someone out for the “privilege” which you assume has defined their narrative. You don’t know what their struggles have been, what they may have gone through to be where they are. Assuming they’ve benefitted from “power systems” or other conspiratorial imaginary institutions denies them credit for all they’ve done, things of which you may not even conceive. You don’t know whose father died defending your freedom. You don’t know whose mother escaped oppression. You don’t know who conquered their demons, or may still conquering them now.

The truth is, though, that I have been exceptionally privileged in my life, albeit not in the way any detractors would have it.
It has been my distinct privilege that my grandparents came to America. First, that there was a place at all that would take them from the ruins of Europe. And second, that such a place was one where they could legally enter, learn the language, and acclimate to a society that ultimately allowed them to flourish.

It was their privilege to come to a country that grants equal protection under the law to its citizens, that cares not about religion or race, but the content of your character.

It was my privilege that my grandfather was blessed with resolve and an entrepreneurial spirit, and that he was lucky enough to come to the place where he could realize the dream of giving his children a better life than he had.

But far more important for me than his attributes was the legacy he sought to pass along, which forms the basis of what detractors call my “privilege,” but which actually should be praised as one of altruism and self-sacrifice. Those who came before us suffered for the sake of giving us a better life. When we similarly sacrifice for our descendents by caring for the planet, it’s called “environmentalism,” and is applauded. But when we do it by passing along property and a set of values, it’s called “privilege.” (And when we do it by raising questions about our crippling national debt, we’re called Tea Party radicals.) Such sacrifice of any form shouldn’t be scorned, but admired.

My exploration did yield some results. I recognize that it was my parents’ privilege and now my own that there is such a thing as an American dream which is attainable even for a penniless Jewish immigrant.

I am privileged that values like faith and education were passed along to me. My grandparents played an active role in my parents’ education, and some of my earliest memories included learning the Hebrew alphabet with my Dad. It’s been made clear to me that education begins in the home, and the importance of parents’ involvement with their kids’ education—from mathematics to morality—cannot be overstated. It’s not a matter of white or black, male or female or any other division which we seek, but a matter of the values we pass along, the legacy we leave, that perpetuates “privilege.” And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Behind every success, large or small, there is a story, and it isn’t always told by sex or skin color. My appearance certainly doesn’t tell the whole story, and to assume that it does and that I should apologize for it is insulting. While I haven’t done everything for myself up to this point in my life, someone sacrificed themselves so that I can lead a better life. But that is a legacy I am proud of.

I have checked my privilege. And I apologize for nothing.

Tal Fortgang is a freshman from New Rochelle, NY. He plans to major in either History or Politics. He can be reached at talf@princeton.edu.

Original article:  http://theprincetontory.com/main/checking-my-privilege-character-as-the-basis-of-privilege/

* a comprehensive view or personal philosophy of human life and the universe

The Lone Ranger – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Welcome to the Finger-Wagging Olympics

Tags

, ,

Kareem seems to get the picture that a crime was committed, just not who the culprits are.  TMZ and the rest of the news media who played this private conversation are also guilty as they all knew this was private, but freely chose to play it anyway.  All deserve jail time, including the harlot.

 

Also who gave Kareem the right to use a racially divisive word as Sambo?  Why is it the ones who are always crying racism are the ones guilty of most infractions?  Where is it written that just because someone uses racial terms, its ok for them to use also?  Why is it ok for Dianne Sawyers of ABC Nightly News to outright say discrimination exists for 12.3% segment of the US population because they are only in 19% of commercials?  Where the same segment represents 75% of the NBA with outrageous salaries and equally outrageous lifestyles? That isn’t bringing people together.  The majority of Americans are not guilty and never have been guilty of racism and that includes their forefathers.  Can the same be said of their forefathers who helped enslave and sell their own ancestors?  Where is the cry against those offspring’s?  What we have been guilty of though, is allowing people to besmirch us all by trying to shame us for theirs’ and others’ sins.

 

Yes, I have no use for people like Donald Sterling (born, Donald Tokowitz) who like Kareem (born Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor, Jr.) changed his name because it didn’t suit him.  The same for V. Stiviano (born Maria Vanessa Perez.)

 

Moral outrage?  Last time I checked it’s not immoral to be a racist, or say racist comments.  What is immoral is to commit adultery, or bear false witness against one’s neighbor, unless of course we are having the new state religion of progressivism shoved down our throat.  What is illegal and should trump everything else in this issue is that specific laws were broken and the executive branch of the state government of California is following the lead of our national Liar-in-chief and not enforcing laws leaving “Mob Mentality” rue the day.

 

Democracy is having “Mob Mentality” rue the day, while a Republic protects the rights of all individuals.  Exactly the reason why Justice is blind and why so many Supreme Court decisions have previously been controversial and disliked by the populace.   The transformation of America is happening before our very eyes.  The hope and change is actually the death knell of our once proud nation, where the government will provide us with everything from cradle to the grave and you won’t be able to protest or speak your mind.

 

http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/

The Lone Ranger – Silence is Compliance: The paradigm shift (reprint from the Scranton Independent Gazette) 04.14.2014

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Image

As time moves on and the footprint of humanity trails behind us, there are many things to reflect on, and the choices ahead of us become clearer, one way or another. We must all make our own decisions about what side of history we will be aligned with: will you be a spectator to history and obediently follow any orders you are given without question, or will you play an active role in the grand human drama, helping to mold and shape the world in which we live?

That we face an uphill battle is abundantly clear. That is, if one’s stance lie on the side of individual liberty, self ownership, and property rights, and against a police state, surveillance society — in general, if one does not want others to have the final say in how he lives his own life. With the fascist government/corporate hybrid that never stops introducing new programs, rules, regulations, and laws that restrict human behavior and interaction — yet never seems to offer more liberty or freedom — it should be obvious that the logical and natural conclusion to this pattern is complete totalitarianism. Examples can be seen in federal legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), in states with laws like New York’s “Safe Act,” which makes it nearly impossible to have any type of gun, even in your own house, and in the “new standard” in government-run education termed Common Core. Curiously, it seems that the Common Core Standards are supported by nobody, except for the individuals who have vested interests in the federal initiative, of course.

And let’s not forget about local regulations and laws that erode more of the Bill of Rights, giving additional power to local governments, like Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Pittston, where now agents of said municipalities may come into your house without a warrant on a fishing expedition to “make sure the dwelling is up to code,” which seems to provide an endless stream of revenue for the city, until the unintended consequences happen and everybody loses. That so many Americans are finally speaking up and/or acting out against the boot they now feel on their neck might be because it’s becoming so obvious that government and the money behind it are not the answer to the problems we face. More and more people are starting to feel the effects of all these new policies as they make everyday life truly difficult.

Couple all the above with the immoral and unethical demands that are being forced upon We, the People, our families, and friends and now maybe we’re seeing the beginning of the consequences of genuine oppression — yes, right here in America. If you think that this is a bit dramatic, that you live in the “land of the free,” you should go back and read my other columns or take a little time to look into these matters for yourself — it won’t take long to see that nothing in this column is being exaggerated. What can be stated confidently is that this resistance should not have taken so long and that not enough individuals are standing up and/or speaking up. While both assertions may be true, I view this as a mere starting point. What’s long overdue is for the sovereigns in these united States (yes, small “u” united) to start truly raising their voices and questioning everything their government says and does, all the way down to the gatekeepers in the mainstream media who supply cover and allow for the massive deception to continue. This explains why their credibility is in free fall. This is what happens when deceivers continue to get caught in lies: others stop paying attention to them.

It’s telling that we now witness so many coming to the internet for their information, so they can try to figure things out for themselves, rather than blindly following some “official.” We also see many personalities who already have a platform to speak or write continue to discuss trivial issues and refuse to allow for real debate and conversations, many times even willfully ignoring certain stories. The people are noticing and are finding that they are the answer, that they don’t need some “official” to tell them something they know is not true. They are finally waking up to the fact that they themselves are the answer, and now they are doing something about it. Get on the right side of history and be one of the brave who stands up and declares that you will not simply comply.

“Be the change you want to see in the World” —Mahatma Gandhi

http://wilkesbarrescrantonig.com/2014/04/14/silence-compliance-paradigm-shift/

The Wilkes Barre/Scranton Independent Gazette is a free newspaper in Northeast Pennsylvania (N.E.P.A.)

Aside

The Lone Ranger – A List of Cliven Bundy’s Supporters, Now That We Know He’s a Pro-Slavery Racist

Tags

, , , ,

Well let’s sort this mess out…First it was about an intrusive government forcibly enforcing its self made rules onto its citizens when it doesn’t have that authority. Second, while what Clive said can be offensive to some, since when is what anyone says what they believe in negate what they are presently doing?

This is nothing more than political correctness run amuck driven by daily senseless morons who pretend they are the speakers for a nation. Maybe Mark Potok would have the self appointed cows of the View for the new Nazi like purveyors of lies where they can spout anti Catholic remarks on national TV and in the same breath say how holy they are because they are Christians and Baptists at that.  Where Dianne Sawyer of ABC News can boldy say on her nightly news that a segment of Americans that make up 13.1% of the population is somehow under represented by only having them represented in 19% of commercials, while not even mentioning the Hispanic segment which is rapidly overtaking the top segment.

Before Mark Potok and others open their mouths again, they should be reminded that this is a Republic, a nation of individuals, not cookie cutter progressives, or whatever the flavor of the month is, as they would like us all to be.  Each individual is granted by a higher authority free will to think and act as they choose to and many do so daily.  Who is actually representing liberty and freedom in this country?

http://news.yahoo.com/list-cliven-bundys-supporters-now-know-hes-pro-133625625.html

 

The Lone Ranger – Retired Justice Proposes Changes to Constitution Come No Where Close To Mine

Tags

,

“…In his new book, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, two of which are directly related to guns. Others would abolish the death penalty, make it easier to limit spending on elections and rein in partisan drawing of electoral districts…”

Maybe we need a constitutional amendment to take old goats like retired Justice John Paul Stevens off the taxpayer’s teat.  The only reason why there is a Constitution and a Bill of Rights is because our founding fathers wanted the Unalienable Rights from God written down for all to read.  The fact is, none needed to be written down as people should always be free to choose how to live one’s life without interference from any government or others like religious zealots.

My Proposed Constitutional Amendments:

1. Eliminate all federal retirements and other benefits including claw backs of all previously paid benefits for still living recipients, or their families.
2. All federal salaries 20% less than the national average.
3. No staff, including a secretary (with new communication technology secretaries are no longer needed in the private industry and hence no longer needed in government.)
4. 2 term limits.
5. Ban all other forms of income while in office including books like the newest senator, Elizabeth Warner. Now she will become a millionaire.  All one has to do is just follow the money, who is buying the books?  That is who has her in their back pocket.
6. Any stocks, bonds, businesses are to be put into a federal National Blind trust and all profits realized to be taxed at 100%.
7. Include Supreme Court judges and the Chief Justice as national elected positions every 5 years.
8. Eliminate Executive powers of the president.  No more exemptions no one every sees, no more changing laws they don’t like.  Enforce the laws or face automatic impeachment.
9. The federal workforce never to exceed 1% of the total population except in time of wars and the military is not included.  Again, no secretaries are needed.
10. All federal employees’ salaries to follow the 20% less than the national average salary rule.
11. Death penalty is the punishment for accepting bribes.
12. English language will be the national language. No other languages are permitted including signage.
13. All illegal aliens from this planet or any other planet to be immediately deported, no exceptions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/retired-justice-proposes-constitution-23418260

 

The Lone Ranger – Up in Arms: Georgia Governor To Sign Controversial Gun Bill Wednesday

Tags

, , ,

“…There was a time when the government and the governed understood that both the common law posited by judges and the statutory law posited by legislators had to find its legitimacy in the natural law posited by their common Creator. Today, however, when, as George Will recently noted, democratic process rather than moral content has become the measure of a law’s legitimacy, the only rights Progressives like Justice Stevens offer are those that have run the gauntlet of democracy–which, in practice, means those which have the approval of the governing class…” ~ David Corbin and Matt Parks – The Federalist Today ‘How Not To Fix The Second Amendment’

This is what happens where any single political philosophy hijacks control of a major political party, Progressives in the Democratic Party and the Religious Right in the Republican Party. It also follows that all liberals are not progressives as all Republicans are not conservative nor Religious Right. Nor are all Tea Partiers Religious Right. Progressives exist in all political parties. Former mayor Bloomberg and his Nanny policies are a prime example. Mayor de Blasio, Gov. Christie, McCain, McConnell, etc. also are. In fact anyone who uses the largeness of the government to reshape attitudes of the citizenry and have it do their bidding over them.

Gun rights as any other right is not granted by any Constitution or Bill of Rights. They are just pieces of paper with ink. All people have the same rights to freely choose how they live their life, right or wrong. That is the one disagreement I have with the Religious Right. They are tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with and unless it follows inline with their Religious upbringing it is wrong for everyone. I am not ready to return to a Puritan based country.
We have lost our moral compass and individual rights to freely choose how to live our lives. The Georgia gun law is a first step taking back our rights.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/04/22/23585785-up-in-arms-georgia-governor-to-sign-controversial-gun-bill-wednesday?d=1

The Lone Ranger – Boston bombing: why survivor walked off ‘Meet the Press’

Tags

,

If she is that mentally upset over the names of the brothers then she has not moved on and never will until she forgives and leaves it behind to move forward. What does she think she has been doing since she was one of those hurt or killed by the brothers? She’s been using her involvement as a ‘victim’ to gain popularity and venues where she probably would never have had the opportunity. Currently, she is her own worse enemy.

Now saying that, the news media is no more than the Jerry Springer show, made up fairy tales to get their political bosses’ agendas across. If the agreement was such and then they reneged, then woe on them and a pox on their house for once again they are in the business of making the news rather than reporting it.

And one final point…Who actually watches these boring, need something to fill up some empty time since we had to drop the religious service hour…

Someone asked: Why do you put victim in quotes? She is a victim. You wouldn’t understand because you didn’t have your leg blown off, but then again you don’t come across as the sympathetic type.

My response: You will never understand cause you’re just another bleeding heart…Boo…Hoo…Hoo. You judge people by their actions, not what happened to them. Where are all the other countless ‘victims’ of horrible acts done to them the last 13 years? Where are all our men and women who have had worse to overcome and are still fighting their demons?  [Meant as reference to our military.]

You can find Sympathy between two words in the dictionary. If you don’t know those two words, ask around. There are people that know. [Words are Shit and Syphilis] Feel good stories are nice like having her on DWTS but is something that would never have happened if she wasn’t a ‘victim’. So that is the real reason why you have the temerity to see and say that I am not the sympathetic type, but are blind and mute to what the issue in all this really is. If she is that upset to set parameters for what a public talk show can ask for questions, then I submit she should have opted out of appearing at all.

Someone else commented: The reason, I believe, is to not give the terrorists recognition by name, similar to many radio talk show hosts who will also not identify terrorists by name – to not give THEM any additional fame or glory for their horrible acts.

My response was: Understand the reason, but do not understand the action…Sort of selfish. We spent over $3 Trillion to have the NSA to not find these two terrorists, it cost nothing for Russia to warn us, and then watched the ‘Keystone Cops’ hunt them down.

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombing-why-survivor-walked-off-meet-press-194428451.html?bcmt=1397480726475-ede6b85f-c0f8-44a6-a57f-7e47afe7f15d&bcmt_s=e#mediacommentsugc_container

The Lone Ranger – “The Liar of Benghazi” Hillary for President in 2016? Let’s Take A Test…

Tags

, , , , , , ,

A little history test*: If you don’t know the answer make your best guess.  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.  Who said it?

1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

A. Karl Marx

B. Adolph Hitler

C. Joseph Stalin

D. Hillary Clinton

2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”

A. Lenin

B. Mussolini

C. Idi Amin

D. Hillary Clinton

3) “(We) … can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

A. Nikita Khrushev

B. Josef Goebbels

C. Boris Yeltsin

D. Hillary Clinton

4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”

A. Mao Tse Dung

B. Hugo Chavez

C. Kim Jong Il

D Hillary Clinton

5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”

A. Karl Marx

B. Lenin

C. Molotov

D. Hillary Clinton

6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”

A. Pinochet

B. Milosevic

C. Saddam Hussein

D. Hillary Clinton

Answers: All are D: Hillary Clinton.  Much was made about these statements, that they were taken out of context.  Below are the statements, you decide:

(1) D.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/28/2004

QUOTE: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” The occasion was a June 28, 2004 fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer in San Francisco. Standing before an audience of wealthy Democrats, Clinton criticized the Bush administration’s tax cuts for upper-income Americans: Many of you are well enough off that… the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. [Source: Associated Press]

(2) D. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

QUOTE: “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few….. And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.” Taken from a speech given in Manchester, New Hampshire on May 29, 2007, outlining what Clinton called her “progressive vision to aid the middle class [and] address rising income inequality.” Here are her exact words, in context: It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an “on your own” society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a “we’re all in it together” society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. [Source: Boston Globe]

(3, 4) D. Statements were made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
QUOTE: “(We) ….can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
QUOTE: “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground.” Both of the above passages were taken from the Sojourners Political Forum broadcast on CNN’s “The Situation Room” on June 4, 2007. Addressing the difficulty of reaching a political consensus on issues such as health insurance reform and climate change, Clinton stressed the need to compromise for the common good: CLINTON: I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy — you know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation, and just let business as usual go on.

O’BRIEN: Senator…

CLINTON: And that means something has… (APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: … to be taken away from some people. [Source: CNN]

(5) D. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

QUOTE: “I certainly think the free-market has failed.” During the same CNN forum, Clinton was asked what could be done to reduce the frequency of abortion in the United States. She began by speaking of the necessity of assisting young people in making the right choices: CLINTON: We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally. And, so, I think there is a great opportunity. But it would require sort of a — a leaving at the sides the suspicion and the baggage that comes with people who have very strong, heartfelt feelings. [Source: CNN]

(6) D. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

QUOTE: “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.” Speaking to an audience in Syracuse, New York on September 2, 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Hillary Clinton accused the big oil companies of profiteering — “trying to make money off the backs of this tragedy” — as gasoline prices shot through the roof. She called for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission: I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they’re being watched. I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that’s what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage. [Source: Washington Post]

Now, would you vote for the “Liar of Benghazi”?

When the call from Benghazi came in a 2 a.m., Hillary refused to answer that phone call…

* Source:  Test from comment about “The Liar of Benghazi” Hillary thinking of running for President in 2016 and statements from http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/clinton_quotes_2.htm