My Thoughts on Torture....

I don't know if the torture report from the Senate reports facts or opinion, but I'm going to give mine. People should not be tortured. Period. Anybody who thinks we should has seen too many movies and read too many books. If you grew up when I did, you saw plenty of movies with Chuck Norris in POW camps, and we villainized the North Vietnamese for torturing our prisoners. It isn't wrong for someone to do it to us but right for us to do it to others. Congratulations, if the report is true, we became the enemy.

I also do not approve of the way the report was handled, especially not if the CIA simply followed the orders of the President. It is a great example of what happens when you have weak leadership at the helm, willing to listen to whatever he is told will work. We went through eight years of Bush and now eight years of Obama. Do the math. Sixteen years without a decent leader, and many people actually blame Congress. Blame it for what? If you want to blame Congress, blame it for being too complicit with the plans of a President instead of acting independently as it is able to do within the framework of the Constitution.

The job of Congress is not to work for, or even with, the President, nor is it the President's job to tell Congress what to do. This is a fault of our two party system. When one party controls both branches, you get exactly what I just described: the President becomes the de facto head of Congress, and you get crap like Obamacare. Great job America, way to read your Civics textbooks. The only way you get true government oversight in this pathetic two party system is to have each branch controlled by a different party.

Dear geniuses, the government was designed to be gridlocked with each branch jealously guarding its own authority and privilege. That's what prevents overreach. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Why I'll never compromise.

Gun owners know that any give on our part always results in take by the other part. It is one reason why I, personally, will never consider any restriction, reasonable or not, upon my ownership rights.

All too often, in states such as New York, California, et al, what started as a small restriction under the auspices of public safety converted into a gun grab by those most ignorant of what legal gun ownership really entails.

Law abiding gun owners are not criminals, and criminals do not buy guns legally. Just like anything bought illegally, there will always be a source. Even the military has weapons stolen from it.

Laws meant to prevent criminals from buying guns actually have the opposite effect of preventing normal people from exercising their rights as free individuals.

Crime prevention is not law enforcement and is the reason why police cannot arrest anyone until a crime has been committed. Crime prevention starts with you. You cannot reply upon your legislator or your neighborhood cop to do it for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/buffalo-police-search-for-firearms-at-home-after-funerals/?intcmp=obnetwork

To my disadoring fans (disgruntled followers, LOL)

Regardless of how you interpret what I write, I can tell you who I am and what I mean.  I'm a civil libertarian if you need a title, and I believe in freedom.

I believe that both sides of what you consider the political spectrum: the left and the right, sold themselves to corporate interests.  The left goes a bit further in my view to restrict personal liberty which is contraindicative of how they sell themselves to the general public.  The left forces me to pay into a collective and gives my wages to people who have not earned it, able bodied people.  I have no problem with disabled and mentally incompetent people receiving public assistance.  The left wants to restrict my speech, my freedom of religion, my freedom of association, and my ability to protect myself.

Political speak and the spectrum as we know it is completely wrong.  I believe in limited government, and I cannot understand why other people do not.

Did anyone actually expect the USA to last forever?

Just a thought, but does anyone actually expect the USA to last forever? If so, it would be the first in the history of the world to do so. If not, what's next?

You don't have to be a prepper to be a realist, and the country is fundamentally different from what it was in 1776.  Back then, people despised and mistrusted government, but nowadays they want to know why their check is late.

Lastly, and quite frankly, I don't want to share a country with a bunch of neoSocialists. I'd rather throw down and get it over with.

President Bush Warns What Would Happen if the U.S. Withdrew from Iraq To...

I may not have been a Bush fan, but he called it. Obama did exactly what Bush warned not to do. An amateur would understand that troops will be necessary in Iraq for the long term, and I was no proponent of the Gulf War. For it or against it, we did it, and the difficult part is to stay the course. Instead of shoring up the gains, Obama did the expedient and politically popular action which was to bring the troops home. In the short run, it proved beneficial to his popularity, but now we see the results of poll chasing: Americans beheaded on social media. Who brought the popcorn?

To make matters worse, he doubled down on Bush's failed incursion by doing worse in Libya, and as if Libya weren't enough, Obama has steadily chipped away at the stability of Syria by funding and supporting the Free Syrian Army. As instability reigns, what was our reward: a murdered ambassador, a very strong ISIS, and horror flicks fit for Faces of Death. Yes, that's our President, who after spiking the football immediately following Bin Laden's death, surrendered our very security in order to win an election and to pursue his bent ideological beliefs.

Are we better off now than we were six years ago. My business is not, and our national security is not. Al Quaeda is on the rebound, and ISIS sprouted death and destruction. No doubt, Obama supporters can make a million excuses, but that's what they are, excuses. Bush messed up by invading Iraq in the first place, but Obama made it worse by shirking our national duty to fix what we broke. He created hotbeds of unrest and instability by deliberately and willingly unseating Quaddafi and then attempting to do the same with Assad. NONE of these actions, BY EITHER PRESIDENT were in our best interest, but instead of doing the right thing, this president did the politically expedient action and set us on a course for long term failure, thus ensuring that the thousands of Americans who died during the war did so in vain.

Obama is a feckless bastardization of what a leader should be and ought to be. He ought to consider resigning, but he's too arrogant to do so. Over the next two years, you will see worse actions than this, and within the next six years, you will see a terrorist attack to rival that of September 11. Just wait.

The downfall of government

We're kidding ourselves. Political systems are inherently flawed by the designs of people who are forever influenced by money and relationships. People will always seek to exert their will upon others, and to that end, the offices people hold will forever be corrupt.

My Life Without Bullet Wounds

It is a known fact that I have never been shot by the police nor by any other law abiding citizen.  One reason for this part of my life is that I never put myself into a situation where a police officer might feel the need to shoot me, and I never broke into a person's home, attacked them, or otherwise made someone feel for their life in such a way that then needed to shoot me.  I am actually proud of this fact.

Have you ever noticed that most people with bullet wounds from police officers and law abiding citizens actually received them under circumstances whereby they challenged someone in a way that normal law abiding people never act?  I mean, they punch someone or beat them.  They use a weapon of blunt force and intimidate their victim.

I submit to you that most people who get shot by police and law abiding citizens were probably doing things they never should have done in places they never should have been.  I do not say that it is not a free country, but let us face it, if you want to punch someone in the face for no reason other than to intimidate them or more likely to take their property, then perhaps getting shot might just be on your bucket list.

When dealing with a police officer, who would actually try to run or worse, to punch them in the face?  If you obey laws, can you conceive of punching a police officer, hitting him with a stick, or even yelling at him to make him angry?  Personally, I would not, and it is not because I am afraid.  I choose not to do it because what point would it prove?  Even if I were right, who would believe me?  I would end up with a ticket or even in jail for being a jerk.

When you find yourself in a bad situation, why not simply answer a question or two from a police officer instead of punching him in the face or hitting him with a stick.  I certainly do not recommend kicking him or otherwise causing physical harm to him.  What is it about people who having been shot by a police officer or a law abiding citizen always say they themselves were unarmed?  Unarmed but left the person with the gun having a bloody and swollen head.  As the perpetrator of the beating, you think beating your victim with your bare hands is harmless, but the victim's head does not agree.  To the victim, he has no idea when you might stop or when you might grab his gun if he has one.  To the victim, it kind of makes sense to pull that gun out and use it to defend what life he has left before you beat it out of him.

Police officers are targets.  They can make a legitimate traffic stop and unwittingly be shot and killed by the driver before they even realize what happened, so as a police officer, every action against their person might be life threatening.  I submit to you that if you physically attack a police officer with so much as a finger, you willingly take your life into your own hands.  If you end up with a bullet wound, you really ought not to complain.  Further, if your relative is the idiot who attacked the police officer, you are no different than the family and friends of the BTK Killer who said, "We never knew.  He was such a nice guy."  Remember, no mother of a child molestor would believe that her son would do such things as touch little boys and girls.  In effect, you have the same outlook as the parent of a child molestor in believing that your relative is not capable of doing anything violent or bad at all.  Of course, unbeknownst to you, it probably is not the first time that your son hit someone in anger.  After all, he just took the giant step of slugging a police officer.  Were you born yesterday?  Wake up.

A Wager on Employability

I always hear that I should feel sorry for homeless people and that I should be compelled to help them out.  To this, I do not necessarily disagree with the concept but with how the concept might be applied.  For instance, one way to help might be to volunteer at a soup kitchen or to donate food to a local food bank.  A totally different way to help might be to pass a law requiring everyone to give "equally".  Hmmm.....

What if the unemployed individual does not want to be employed or if the homeless person does not want to have a home, and how can we tell the difference between the individual who wants no responsibility and the one who needs help to get back on his or her feet?  If someone wants no help at all, then how can the help you provide actually result in the end product that you desire?  Said differently, if a person likes to be unattached to a home or a job and if you enable that person to accept a check every week or month with the expectation that the person will get a home or a job at some point in the future, then what expectation have you set, and is it really attainable?

I wager a bet that I could make a final success out of any homeless or unemployed individual in the country as long as they meet two criteria.  First, they have to be willing to take any job and hold it until they reach retirement age, no matter how petty, insignificant, and boring the job might be.  Second, they have to have a clean criminal record with no moral turpitude.  Find me someone like this without a home and a job, and I guarantee they will not be lacking for long.  To the rest, let them be held accountable for their choices.  Is it my responsibility to ensure that drug addicts, felons, and all out irresponsible people can eat at my expense?

I do believe that certain people ought to be assisted who are altogether unemployable by no fault of their own; however, how this assistance might be distributed is up for debate.  People with physical disabilities so severe that they cannot achieve employment ought to have choices, and by physical disabilities I mean blind, deaf, paralyzed, amputees, brain damaged, those with Downs Syndrome, etc.  Also in this group are those with mental illness so severe that they cannot even think straight, but they have to be bonified and verifiable.  It is for those without choices to whom real assistance should be given for they are the ones who are truly helpless.  Show me a system that supports only those incapable of helping themselves, and I can stand behind it.

Failure and Success

If you don't like to fail, then do something you can win.  If you like to win, then try to do it more often.  Usually, it is more entertaining to do things you enjoy than to do things that you don't.  In the end, distasteful things do not taste good, and painful things hurt.  So try to win and feel good and eat tasty food.  Life will be more enjoyable.

Thought on the Israel Crisis

Having served as a Marine, and continuing to be one to this day, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of second guessing that non-war, long hair, hippie type people vocally demonstrate about those in harm's way.  They do so from the comfort of their air conditioned home knowing that their own home would never be bombed by an aggressor.

What is worse is when a historically persecuted people defend themselves in the only manner they can, these American arm chair quarterbacks swing into action in an effort to demoralize the underdog while rationalizing the actions of the instigator.

Before stepping into an argument that you know little about, you should realize that everything being done is similar and the same to what we, as a country, have done in defense of our own offensive capability, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.

The death of civilians in any conflict is unavoidable, especially when the enemy chooses to conduct operations in populated areas.  Research the number of civilian deaths in any conflict in the history of mankind before accusing a lawful government of genocide, especially when the citizens of that lawful country were actual victims of genocide in gas chambers, firing squads, and who knows what other sick and atrocious things they encountered.

We have no responsibility to support that country's efforts, but neither do we have an obligation to support the other side simply because a news outlet chooses to select those pictures engendering the most emotional reactions.  They do so because it directly translates into viewership which in turn positively affects ratings.  Those ratings in turn convert themselves into higher dollar value of commercials to sell to corporate America.  In effect, your criticism serves to persecute Jewish people to the benefit of corporate America.  Yes, that's you, driving up ratings so that media executives can afford private yachts.

Let there be no mistake, I stand with Israel, as one who served and as one who has knowledge of that type of combat.

Socialists and Pedophiles

Socialism is a political/economic system expounded upon and delineated within a book called "The Communist Manifesto" written by Karl Marx.  As a child, I learned that Communism was bad.

In today's society, if you refer to a socialist as a communist, they dispute your meaning and challenge your reasoning, but the socialist philosophy comes from the book "The Communist Manifesto".  Is a pedophile not a sex offender but merely a lover of children?

Think about it....

A poignant thought on racism...

What if the only racists are those talking about racism?  Think about it.....

Malaysian Jet "Crisis"

Am I the only person who thinks this Malaysian jet is nobody's business except for that of Malaysia, Ukraine, and the individual countries' who citizens were on board?  Might anyone ask why this professional jet might be flying anywhere near or around such an area of instability where ground to air missiles might be circulating?  How many of us would actually drive through a ghetto just to save a few minutes drive time on the way to grandma's house?

I feel for the victims' families, but the fact that it is a travesty to them does not make it a travesty to me.  Many more people die every year of even worse deaths right here in America, and does it make it so much worse simply because it was on an airplane and there may have been a reasonable expectation of safety for the travelers?  If you die when a drunk driver hits you on the freeway or you die because some idiot shoots down your plane, you are still dead, don't you think?

How did Putin's name get drawn into this, and why am I being told that he needs to take responsibility?  When is the last time that our President took responsibility when our country errantly hit civilians in a bombing run while we carried out operations in Afghanistan or Iraq?  I'm not thinking I've ever seen such a thing, but since he's Russian, and I've been taught to hate Russians, he should just do it?  Why?  How about this: Ukraine is not a stable country, and stuff like this happens in unstable countries.

So, we're actually just mad at Putin because he may be contributing to the instability of the Ukraine.  What exactly was our role in Iraq again?  Oh yeah, we dethroned their President and created instability because we didn't like the leader or his government.  How's that working out right now?  And please remind me, what exactly was our role in Libya?  Oh yeah, we dethroned their President and created instability because we didn't like the leader or his government.  How's that working out right now?  Yes, an assassinated ambassador along with a bunch of dead Americans.  Upon further examination, it doesn't appear to me that Russia is doing anything in Ukraine that we are not actively doing now in other countries as well.

Have terrorists ever used stolen American weapons, or even weapons we gave to groups who turned terrorist, against friendly elements?  I bet more than one plane has fallen victim to an American stinger missile albeit not commercial, but how many other innocent people have been attacked by weapons we sold to pariah states?  Think back to the early 80s when we supplied pre-Al Quaeda mujaheddin with weapons to fight the Soviets before they turned against us.

Why is John McCain castigating Obama for attending a fundraiser instead of addressing this "crisis"?  First, let's be thankful that for once, Obama DIDN'T open his mouth and promise something we don't need to do.  Second, do we really need our President addressing every world "crisis", and if so, what is the threshold?  This time is was 289 people, but is the minimum 100, 50, 10, etc.?  Why not hold it to 500?  Or even 1,000?  The tsunami was a significant event killing a quarter million people.  I'd accept a presidential address for something such as it.

I just have such a hard time believing that I'm the only independent thinker anymore.  Show me a dead American, and I'll show you my concern.  In the meantime, take the Putin accusations, the cries about a new cold war, the political posturing to throw the other party into the fire, and anything else resembling Chicken Little, and you can shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  Our priorities ought to be on America and American interests, and no one ought to let the media, or the politicians, persuade us to care about anything else besides our own homes and families.

Local Reporter: Jay Carney is given Press Briefing Questions in Advance

How interesting.  I saw this initially posted on The Weekly Standard, and since it is something I have long believed anyway, I clicked on it and listened.  Presidents refuse to answer any questions but those that are scripted, and they only answer "softball" questions regardless.  Do you know what is more interesting: when their cronies grovel at their feet and come to their desperate aid whenever their master comes under attack.  What is more unnerving to me is when that person is none other than one of my own shipmates and a Naval Academy Grad.  I will address this individual by name because he is a public servant in a politically appointed position.

 Reuben Brigety is a government wonk in the State Department and was serving under Hillary Clinton when President Obama was, in Brigety's words, rudely and offensively interrupted during a press conference a couple of years ago.  On Facebook, Brigety went on to ask where the respect for the office of President had gone.  Interesting.  I responded to his post because at that time we were "friends" on Facebook, but I realized that he could not engage me due to his position as a public servant.  I stated to him that the President leaves reporters no choice when he only chooses to answer questions from predictable reporters, those whom the President can "trust" not to ask unscripted questions.  To Brigety, I asked when the public can approach its President to ask him the difficult questions given the fact that the President limits his access to the public to these extremely short press conferences and even then to limit it to only his favorite reporters.  To make matters worse, even those reporters can only ask approved questions; therefore, the entire process is a dog and pony show.

I do not know whether Brigety was simply trying to be loyal to his boss or if he truly feels like reporters should not be able to ask real questions to which the public, the President's constituents, want to know the answers.  Since I am a curious individual, I took the liberty of looking up my acquaintance on Facebook in order to send him a message with the link to the subject story along with my question of whether or not his stance changed.  He is a public servant after all and ought to answer questions when asked.  To my chagrin, he had "unfriended" me, which I suppose is an honor in that he proved to me another belief I always held: All public servants are political tools, cogs in the government's machine.  They have no interest in public welfare except in maintaining power for as long as it lasts.

Forget the fact that I'm no less critical of Obama than I was of Bush.  When pressed with a stance counter to their own, Democrats reduce your opinion to be that of only ever to have been against them, and they give no credit to previous criticisms that you may have placed against Republicans previously in power.  To this end, I maintain that regardless of your party status, if you maintain a role in government, you stand a good chance of being a disingenuous turd, incapable of maintaining integrity, seeking your own benefit, and being a self aggrandizing fool much like the sitting President, regardless of party.

During our country's foundation, we recognized that government was inherently bad, but necessary to protect Life, Liberty, and Property.  Under this recognition, the framers drafted a Constitution to outline a limited government which in modern times has been stretched as far as it can go without being reigned in by any self interested parties possessing the necessary authority.  Instead, they sit back and watch in selfish blindness thinking that no little step would seriously damage our framework, but in their ignorance, they forget that even a meter has one thousand millimeters.  Given enough time, the most tiny iterative changes transform a mind and then a country.  It's time to wakeup.  It's time to rattle some cages.

Rescue the word.

Ever wonder how people and organizations name themselves? I do. Take liberals for example. Do you know what the word "liberal" means?

Liberal in its old use described freedom and liberty, the opposite of authoritarian, but does it mean the same thing today? If you check a dictionary, the word roots from a Latin word for liberty, yet new definitions have been added. Specifically, you can now see that liberal describes a political party that uses the government to enforce equality. How has government enforcement ever resulted in equality?

If I'm not mistaken, it was laws that created segregation, slavery, and the inability for women and minorities to vote. How then do we subsequently credit the law for somehow giving it back? It was the law that started the original disparity.

Without laws to enforce privileges to the ruling class, we would have been a much more equal society. Now, liberal refers to the use of government to engineer income equality, religious equality (or lack of it), job equality, etc.? We need to get back to the original definition of the word. We need a rescue.

The word liberal ought to belong to those with minds of liberty. We need to take it back and keep it with those who cherish its real meaning. As misrepresented, it misleads the youth of our country when they see the word liberal, presume it stands for freedom, and see it as the moniker of the authoritarian party. Do you not find this confusing? An act of fraud?

Rescue the word. Take it back. Wake up the public and educate America on the real definition of liberal, the definition that founded our Republic. Strip those who would use the government as a bully pulpit of the euphemism which they claim that covers their felonious actions, then leave them naked and exposed.

Respect Nothing!

The latest in the news is John McCain decrying Ted Cruz for his collective statement that people, of which Bob Dole happened to be one, lacked principle in their previous political existence.  McCain demands that Cruz apologize for the lack of respect which Cruz bestowed upon the undeserving Dole.

Respect nothing.  We're Americans, not subjects.  I also am a veteran.  I hear the "respect" mantra from some in response to what they consider to be disrespect to politicians, but I disagree.  In America, politicians are public servants, not public employees.  I don't think they should be treated like slaves, but they don't deserve favored status either.  These people buy and sell favors behind closed doors and use tax dollars to live in conditions that are way beyond normal.  Everything from their food to their housing, parking, and vehicles is subsidized by our tax dollars; therefore, to the demand for respect, I shake my head.

We are not subjects, but when you tell me that we need to respect our politicians, you ask me to switch roles such that the public master becomes the servant and the political servant becomes the master.  Forget that jazz.  The minute you submit your package to run for office, all your previous events that proved your integrity become a faded memory.  You don't live in a jailhouse for 20 years and come out unscathed as if you are a saint.  When you kiss the ring and become a public servant, it is because you want to achieve elite status.

If you are a veteran and run for office, regardless of your wartime status, when you choose to become an elite by your own volition, you become one of "them".  Don't expect me to believe that because you stormed the beaches of Normandy as you were commanded that you somehow achieved teflon status and have been immune to the thirty years of graft and corruption within which you immersed yourself in Washington DC when you chose to run for office.  While you certainly did not create it, you also were powerless to stop it, so leave the uniform at the door and don't tarnish that of honor with the dishonor of a political life.  When you conduct yourself as such you act as if we should look to you, the veteran, like one incapable of doing harm, all the while the memory of your uniform and heroism fights for you up front as you cash in favors in the rear.

Freedom to choose

Freedom isn't always pretty, and  sometimes it hurts people's feelings. When you were in school, certain people liked you and others didn't. No one forced you to be friends or enemies, so people choose their own path. In the end, I still believe people ought to be able to choose for themselves, without the government choosing sides.

Government ought not be used as a bully for any groups' agenda. No exceptions. If you want to be the morality police, be careful, one day, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the gun with someone telling you what to do instead.

Power and arrogance

Politicians are so arrogant to think themselves capable of separating the qualifications of one constituent over another as if the opposing viewpoint is unworthy or criminal. Such is the life of one charged with supporting and defending the constitution that when finding himself in a situation whereby a constituent disagrees with his viewpoint, he engages in censorship instead of moderating his actions.

I can say with utmost sincerity that if the earth opened up underneath all the capitols in our society, thus swallowing the entirety of our system of governance, I would not lift a finger to assist or even turn my head in the general direction of the occurrence. I would rest,  satisfied that a great right had been wrought in favor of our society as well as our dignity as free men.

http://nypost.com/2014/01/18/gov-cuomo-to-conservatives-leave-ny/

Lambs to slaughter

Politicians in Washington DC within both parties live in million dollar abodes.  Is this the government you prefer?  I think we enjoy self immolation as if we were Buddhist monks in violent protest of ourselves.  Clothe us in misery and throw off the chains of freedom for we can be infinitely more secure within the confines of a jail cell.  Let us all view ourselves in the mirror and realize what we are: materialistic naves more concerned with comfort and individual selfish needs than individual responsibility and personal control.  We are a despicable people.

The Power of Information

The power of information works both ways. In one hand we have those who act as Snowden to inform the naive while on the other we have all the agents of government to spy on everyone as did the NSA.

Information and its gathering will be our downfall as the age of technology has quickened and strengthened the ability of the few to control the many.