Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Hillary the Ironic Maiden


"We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people… We’re going to have to do a better job protecting the vast majority of our citizens, including our children, from that very, very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence and now with automatic weapons can wreak so much more violence than they ever could have before."

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Obviously, Hillary, who appears to be in full campaign mode for the 2016 Presidential election, thinks that the "gun-rights" crowd in this country is such a "very, very, very small group" that she isn't going to waste the time pretending she likes or supports them so as to garner some of their votes.  Well, isn't that a breath of fresh air?  A politician that refuses to lie to get votes from people she loathes?  Who would have thunk it?  But there are certain ironies in what she did say that I would like to take a moment to point out.

Some libertarians have tried to split hairs with Hillary over the exact proportion of Americans that believe in their right to own weapons, but I think the simpler answer can be found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..." and among these unalienable rights is "the Right to Keep and Bear Arms."  Now the last time I checked, "all" is equal to 100% which I think is the largest fraction one can derive from a single grouping which would therefore make that a clear majority.  Now my area of expertise is not Advanced Mathematics so if someone who is more versed in the calculation and crunching of numbers and statistics can explain to me where my error is, I would be willing to listen.

Secondly, Hillary says, "We cannot let a minority of people...hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of (the people)..."  But isn't that the very essence of government?  For what is government but a small group of fallible human beings who have decided to "live long and prosper" at the expense of a large number of their fellow human beings who they terrorize and intimidate through fear of prosecution and punishment for disobedience.  And we all know that Hillary and her family have prospered quite well (contrary to her own opinion on the matter) by being at the top of the food chain in that certain organized criminal enterprise.

Thirdly, Hillary, who has claimed in the past that she always sticks up for the "little guy," now appears to advocating for trampling on the rights of the minority as long as a majority of the voting electorate (but not necessarily of the affected population) agrees with her.  Socialists of all types - Communists, Fascists, Nazis, and Progressives, as Hillary has described herself - have always embraced absolute, unfettered democracy as it worked for them to achieve total control over a nation, but not after they have obtained the pinnacle of power they desired.  This was what Jefferson referred to as the "Tyranny of the Mob."

Unfortunately for them, the United States federal government was not established as a democracy, but rather as a Constitutionally-restricted Republic, where the powers of the government are few and limited while the rights of the people, particularly the small groups that are different from the larger population, are limitless and respected and protected by the government (supposedly, at least).  It seems that Hillary wants to reverse this so if she gets the political backing of 50% plus one, she can then dispense with the Constitution and the restrictions placed on the powers of the government contained within.

Last, but not least and most certainly the most ironic point so far, is that the very type of firearms that Hillary is whining about here - what she calls "automatic weapons," though fully automatic firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934, and other ignoramuses (or is that "ignorami?") call "assault weapons," which is a meaningless political term and not a genuine classification - are the best type of weapons to use when dealing with a criminally aggressive and unruly mob.

Imagine for a moment that a whole village is aroused to storm Dr. Frankenstein's castle.  There they are marching up his driveway with torches and pitchforks in hand when suddenly Dr. Frankenstein (or his monster) steps out on the front porch (or is that a "portico?") with a Colt AR-15 at the ready with a standard-capacity magazine inserted and fully loaded and a dozen more securely attached on or about the good doctor's person.  Can you not see one member of this crowd, realizing that Dr. Frankenstein has enough ammunition to deal with each and every person present twice over, shouting, "Hey everybody,  'America's Got Talent' is on in five minutes!"  Then the whole mob disperses as everyone rushes home to watch television (and some people say you have to fire a gun to make it stop criminals in their tracks...hmmm?).

Now Hillary, the presumptive Presidential candidate for the Democrat party in 2016 (for some the presumptive next President in 2017), strikes me as a reasonably intelligent woman and she has to remember what happened to the Democrats during her husband's reign of terror in the White House after the 1994 "Assault Weapons" (sic) Ban was passed, so why would she hitch her wagon to the gun control/victim disarmament horse this early in the race for the Presidency and draw the ire of those who would vote against her on that issue alone?  Two divergent, but possible paths come to my mind at this point.

The polls, or the Powers-that-be, have told Hillary that the job is hers for the asking and all she has to really do is show up on Inauguration Day.  The fix is in and it's not who votes that counts but who counts the votes.  In that case Hillary doesn't have to lie or otherwise engage in subterfuge to win any particular voting bloc.  We can just consider her to be warming up the American people to be more accepting as she installs the Fourth Reich in our halls of government.  Or...

The polls, the Powers-that-be, or her personal physician have told Hillary that she will not make it to the White House.  Therefore, as a dutiful party member, she is running interference for a more moderate candidate to step forward.  In the role of the "bad cop," she calls for more restrictive gun control laws as another candidate from either party, as long as he or she is a Progressive, will play the role of "good cop" by saying, "I respect the Second Amendment and I only ask for some reasonable laws that help keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands."  What goes unsaid is that this candidate considers the "wrong hands" to be those at the end of our arms.

Only time will tell for sure but I wanted to give all of you a heads up as to what to watch for over the next couple of years.  I hope you all appreciate the risk to life and limb I've taken here to post this little expose.  Like many powerful people, Hillary maintains an enemies list.  The good news is that it is a short list.  The bad news is that it is a short list because people are just dying to get off of it.  Maybe, if I'm lucky, she'll just throw a lamp at me...

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

While he's at it, here's a few other Authoritarian Regimes that President Obama can praise for their Gun Control Laws


Unless you've been drifting down the Mississippi on a cheap raft, I'm pretty sure you've heard about President Obama lamenting the fact that he hasn't been able to "bully" more draconian gun control laws through an electorate-responsive Congress.  He decried that gun-violence in America is "off the charts" (even though it isn't) and praised the government of Australia for its gun control laws that supposedly are better than the ones here in the U.S., even though many Australians don't like these laws and some attribute gang/gun-violence being "off the charts" in that country to their passage.  Well, since the President is praising the governments of countries that pass the kind of gun control laws he would like to inflict on the American people, I thought I would suggest a few other authoritarian regimes he might want to heap some accolades upon.

1.  The monarchy of King George III - Yes, the fellow with the fancy headgear who tried to maintain his rule over the colonies in America when the colonists wanted no more of him and the officers, agents, and governors that served under him.  The mission of the British military that fateful day in April 1775 that led to the "shot that was heard around the world" was not only to arrest a few Founding Fathers but to enforce some new gun control laws.  People can't rebel if they are not effectively armed to fight back against their oppressors.


2.  The Third Reich - I'm sure some of you had already expected that one as a given.  Whole books have been written about the strict regulations the Nazis imposed on the German people and the peoples that lived in the occupied territories when it came to the private ownership of weapons (oh look, here's one).  This is the regime that gassed and killed six million Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and other "social undesirables."  People can't stop their own extinction if they are not effectively armed to fight back against those who are attempting to exterminate them.

3.  The Communists of the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc., etc. - People often embrace communism for its promise of everyone getting a fair share of the wealth of a nation, but in practice history shows that, due to the egocentric tendencies of human nature, there are always those minorities of folks who receive a larger "fair share" of the wealth than the rest.  This allows this group to live like kings, emperors, and popes.  One way to keep anyone from stopping their systematic plundering of the population they enforce the most stringent of regulations as to whom is allowed to own weapons.  People can't stop themselves from being robbed if they are not effectively armed to fight back against those who are trying to rob them.

4.  Al Qaida...oh wait, the Taliban...no wait, it's ISIS...oh it's so darn confusing - Claiming to fight for their own freedom by the use of terroristic tactics and techniques, some folks have absolutely no problem with taking away the freedom of others, particularly in the area of owning firearms.  Of course, fear of these freedom fighters (usually stoked for good effect) allows other governments to infringe on the rights of its own citizens in order to protect the citizens from these freedom fighters who are thousands of miles away.  People can't stop being terrorized if they are not effectively armed to fight back against those who are terrorizing them.

5.  The governments of the United States - I can hear some of you protesting, "But we have the Second Amendment here in America and the Founding Fathers wanted the people to keep and bear arms."  Well, I hate to speak ill of the dead but we have to remember that the Founding Fathers, and many of their "Brothers" that didn't make the history books, were just human and open to all the frailties of the human condition, with the most readily apparent being their ethnocentrism.  When they said "We the People," they were referring to themselves and others of similar racial and ethnic origins and they had no problem suppressing the Natural Rights of "other peoples."

The first gun control laws in America were passed to bar African slaves, indentured servants (a form of white-on-white slavery), apprentices (a form of white-on-white child slavery), and Native Americans from owning firearms and other implements of war or combat.  Somehow these folks, for one reason or another, were not considered "people" when it came to respecting their rights.  People can't secure their freedom and their own existence if they are not effectively armed to fight back against those who want to keep them enslaved.

Many other laws barring certain types of weapons were passed not because of the deadliness of the weapons, but for the type of people - immigrants, original natives, or ethnic minorities - that liked to keep and bear these types of weapons.  Tomahawks, billy clubs, switchblade knives, brass knuckles, and other small tools of self-defense have been outlawed so as to authorize law enforcement types to lawfully harass these "other peoples" who carried them.  After being sufficiently disarmed, these poor folks were left open to all forms of abuse based on racial hatred.  People can't resist the criminal acts of bigoted scoundrels if they are not effectively armed to fight back against those are prejudiced against them.

This is what President Obama is praising when he salutes other governments of the world that have imposed more stringent gun control laws of their respective populations than already exists in the United States.  It would do us all well to remember that the main purpose of gun control laws is not to protect the law-abiding from armed criminals or to ensure that guns don't get into the hands of people that shouldn't be allowed to have them.  The main purpose is for a heavily armed minority to attain, maintain, and retain control over a large disarmed majority (quite the opposite of Hillary's view on the matter; Hillary's view on many things is often the opposite of the truth) that the minority needs to support them like fatted cattle.  It's high time to withdraw our support...

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Could the Ol' Grey Ghost actually be in agreement with Senators Boxer and Feinstein?!?


A reader wants to know, since I have proposed in the past that allowing family members to file suit against one of their own to have that person declared mentally incompetent would be a reasonable gun control law, would I be in favor of the bill proposed by Senators Boxer and Feinstein?  The simple answer is no, I would not, and it's not because they are a bunch of "strong" (read:  bossy and misophallic) women from the People's Republic of California (of course, I could be against it because they are white but that would just be silly).

What the small-government, libertarian side of my brain (the anarchistic side considered the whole affair a waste of valuable time) was arguing for was the full application of the "due process of law" which to be fair and impartial must be "adversarial," as in all parties (at least two) in disagreement are brought before a fair and impartial judge and/or jury and both are allowed to make a presentation of their case and argue in favor of their case being decided as the true and just one.

When a group of concerned family members decides that one of their own has, through senility, dementia, or another form of mental illness, become incapable of handling his own affairs to the point that he can no longer live independently, then those concerned family members can file suit through a court having jurisdiction against that family member so that he will remanded to their custody to be taken care of as the same as if that person was a minor child.  And, yes, that would include his firearms being taken away from him by the custodial family member for safekeeping, but not by the government.

In this adversarial setting the affected family member would also be allowed to present evidence to prove that he is not incompetent and should be allowed to continue living independently, exercising his full Natural, Constitutional, and civil rights.  This person would also have the right to have his case argued by competent legal counsel.  In some cases where the evidence is overwhelming that the affected person is incompetent, the court will still assign an attorney to make sure that the defendant's rights are respected by the court and the family members to whose custody he is remanded.

What Boxer and Feinstein propose is not the "due process of law" that these two claim it to be, but rather an unilateral exertion of power by the government that includes the use of potentially compensated informants.  Under their proposal, a concerned family member, friend, neighbor, coworker, doctor, lawyer, Indian chief, hair stylist, etc., can petition a court of competent jurisdiction with a possibly false, somewhat retaliatory claim that they think a certain person has become a danger to himself or others and should have his firearms taken away from him.

Erring on the side of caution, as they often do now in the abusive over-use of domestic violence protective orders, judges will issue these confiscation orders in rapid fire succession.  The affected party will not get his day in court until after the firearms are taken by the police and then only as he has to file suit against the department to get his property back from them.  And with some new gun control laws, the police might not be allowed to give him his (or her) guns back even if the person is entitled to them.

What Boxer and Feinstein are proposing has nothing to do with fairness or the protection of the American public, but instead is just another attempt to provide a smokescreen of moral justification for their desire to disarm the American people.  It's time to turn on the fans and clear the air so everyone can see things more clearly.  It will also help reduce the stench of Fascism these two are pushing...


Thursday, April 3, 2014

Fort Hood Commanding General Implements Strategic Withdrawal from Battle of Wits When He Starts to Lose


During a press conference late last night that was broadcast on our local CBS affiliate, KWTX News 10, Lt. Gen. Mark A. Milley was asked a very relevant and poignant question by an unidentified reporter.  Now I don't have the transcript of what was said in front of me and I didn't record the event, but except for a few misplaced prepositions and verb tenses, the discussion went a little like this:

Reporter:  "In light of this most recent shooting, will there be any changes to Post policies in regard to soldiers being able to carry concealed weapons on Post so as to protect themselves from tragedies such as this?"

General:  "No, we will not be allowing soldiers to carry concealed weapons on Post.  We have enough well-trained law enforcement personnel to take care of problems like this."

Reporter:  "But it took law enforcement personnel 15 minutes to respond..."

What went unsaid was that this fifteen minutes was all the time the shooter needed to wreak all the carnage that he did.  General Milley, obviously sensing that he was tangling with a superior force that held the high ground of impregnable logic, decided to retreat to a safe base of operations outside the theater of combat.

General:  "I will not debate that issue - concealed weapons - with you!"

Yep, that settled the matter.

It is needless to say, (but I'll say it anyway for dramatic effect) that commanding officers, all the way up to the Commandeerin'-Thief who lied his way into the White House twice, do not really care about the lives or safety of those under their command, or that of their families.  These folks couldn't care or they would not hold the ranks that they do.  It goes with the military profession.

If you are a service member and you are worried about your safety, and since these folks are scared silly at the prospect of you being armed and ready to defend yourself if another such tragedy should present itself, then I suggest that you look into wearing body armor any and every where that you go.  You might also want to get some for your family members.

Of course, some commanders will suggest that wearing armor will have a deleterious effect on your uniform appearance so they will probably not allow this either.  But I've seen a lot of soldiers carrying backpacks throughout their daily treks around a military installation like Fort Hood and there are inserts for these packs that will provide some protection.  It won't be much, but it will be more than the poor folks had with them yesterday.

When it comes to individual survival, it requires individual decisions and individual actions.  If you depend on someone else to protect you, they will always let you down at the worst moment, and after that moment, there is very little you can do to get even with them...

Author's Addendum 04.04.2014:  Late last night I found this article at InfoWars.com that has a short video of some of the Press Conference.  As you can see, my memory wasn't that far off base...
 

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Pretending to Measure the Immeasurable in order to keep the Unseen from being Seen


There is a big push going on by Big Labor and advocates for the "Working Poor" (sic) to raise the U.S. Minimum Wage to $15.00 per hour.  I think they are aiming that high in order to make President Obama's target of $10.00 per hour appear to be more reasonable in comparison.  Proponents for this increase are trotting out the tired, old tearjerkers - "No one can support a family on slave wages!" - once again and, if anything else but ignorant, they are at least consistent.

Some of them have dug up a new weapon to use against fiscal-conservatives, free-marketeers, and libertarians like myself, to refute the logical economic argument that artificially increasing the cost of labor will result in less labor being purchased or employed.  They like to refer to studies completed and compiled by the Economics Department at the University of Chicago that supposedly show that there has rarely been an increase in unemployment after a new increase has been made to the country's minimum wage.

I've covered before how price floors cause surpluses in the product whose price is being supported (a surplus in labor is measured as involuntary unemployment) and such floors for labor usually harm most those that advocates for such floors purport to be helping.  Now dismissing the possibility, if not the high probability, that the government statistics used in these reviews and surveys are heavily manipulated for political reasons (No, no, say it isn't so!) let us shine a little light on that which, as Frederic Bastiat referred to it, is Unseen that they are trying to hide with that which they think is Seen.

First off, there is usually a large amount of lead time from the point that the government decrees that there will be a raise in the minimum wage and when it actually goes into effect.  During this time period is when businesses begin to trim the fat by firings, lay-offs, and natural attrition.  If measured properly as the employment participation rate (how many working-age Americans are actually working) this will show an increase in unemployment.  Government figures might actually show this, but the figure will stabilize long before the actual increase kicks in.

Let's say the government has measured the unemployment rate at 7% when the new law is passed.  As the date approaches, the unemployment rate climbs to 10% and stays there for a few months.  Then the new rate goes into effect and the next month unemployment is announced to have gone down to 9.8%.  The proponents of the increase will shout from the rooftops that this is proof of their position that the minimum wage does not cause higher unemployment though they are only measuring the amount of the unemployed that are seeking new employment after the new rate goes into effect and not those lost their employment beforehand.

Secondly, though those who are currently employed might keep their jobs, mostly because the majority of them are already working for a wage above the minimum, there are those who are coming up after them that will not be hired because of the prohibitive costs of purchasing labor.  As the economic law of supply and demand shows, if one artificially raises the cost of something, there will be less demand for that commodity.  Though someone is not necessarily "disemployed" (fired, laid off, or mandatory retirement) because of the wage increase, there will be someone who is not hired because of it and, though a logical certainty, that situation cannot be measured in any way because it is a non-event.  Though non-events, by definition, cannot be measured, able-bodied persons of an employable age that are not members of the country's work force can be measured in the employment participation rate and those figures are at their lowest point in thirty five years.

And there are plenty of studies that refute the findings of the Chicago studies, so it appears the myth that needs busting is the one that the proponents of a higher minimum wage are pushing.  Interesting that these folks who claim to be wanting to help the little people never call for an equal increase, by percentage, for those poor folks on fixed incomes coming from government "entitlements" or retirement contracts.  Imagine an increase between 38% ($10.00 minimum wage) to 107% ($15.00 minimum wage) for Social Security recipients, government retirees, and disabled veterans.  Even they must realize that if the government must pay more, then it must steal more first and nobody wants that, or so we like to think.

One of the newest tactics I've seen these people employ (all puns intentional) when asked that old stand-by, fiscal-conservative counter-position question - "Why not raise the minimum wage to $20.00, or even $50.00, or $100?" - they respond by ridiculing the questioning party and refer to the question itself as absurd.  Just to make sure we're all on the same page, the answer as to why they don't create that much of a jump in the minimum wage is that the damage to the economy, like tiny cracks in a window that can only be seen when the light hits them just right, must be kept to a minimum so people aren't able to notice what carnage is being wreaked upon the labor force to wreck the economy.  If the minimum wage was raised to these supposedly "absurd" levels, then the damage would be so great that even a blind man could hear the destruction as the window and its frame are torn from the wall in which they were set...

Monday, December 23, 2013

My List of Dire Predictions for 2014 and Beyond


One of my most popular articles from 2012 was "My List of Dire Predictions for 2013 and Beyond."  Even I was surprised how some of them were almost fulfilled in one fashion or another (hey, I'm not perfect).  Now I am most assuredly not "blessed" with some "gift" of prophecy, but if I can observe where a gun barrel is pointed and how the front and rear sights are aligned, I can make a pretty good guess as to where a bullet fired from that gun will strike.  With that in mind, let me give you my new list of dire predictions for 2014 and beyond.

1.)  Inflation, measured both as the ratio between the unlimited amount of U.S. currency in circulation and the limited amount of goods and services in the U.S. economy, and the increase in prices of consumer goods purchased by the average American household, will continue to take flight into the stratosphere.  Our benevolent government officials will continue to mismeasure any statistics that might measure this phenomena in order to distract the American people from realizing that it is government programs and policies that are causing the problem.

2.)  More and more Americans will wake up to the realization that the "War on Poverty" is a total failure since if you pay people to be poor, people will strive to remain poor, and more people will want to be poor in order to earn "free money" (and free food, and free medical care, and free phones, etc., etc.).

3.)  Unemployment, measured both as the number of Americans who want to work but can't find gainful employment and the number of Americans who can work but don't want to, will continue to rise.  Our benevolent government officials will continue to obfuscate, obscure, and "oblivionate" any signs of these worsening conditions in order to fool the American people into believing that the problem is a natural occurrence and not the result of government interference in the labor market through minimum wage laws, "fair" labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, and equal-pay laws.

4.)  The whiny, effeminate man-child (formerly known as a dandy, sissy, or faggot) will continue to replace the doltish dunderhead as the leading male roles on American television programs (except for fathers, who will continue to be portrayed as doltish, yet doting, dunderheads if they have teenage children).  Any males displaying the vestiges of traditional manliness will be portrayed as racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and conservative Neo-Nazis, Neo-Confederates, or Neolithic cavemen with anger management issues.  Of course, this pogrom to further emasculate the American male can be traced back to Fascist feminists who are themselves phallophobic and misophallic.

5.)  The "War on Guns," like the wars on smoking and drunk driving before it, will become more of a local issue, not so much as encompassing new laws meant to disarm the American people, but through the application of already existing laws in new, interesting, and un-Constitutional ways so as to have the same effect.

6.)  The "War on Private Property" will continue unabated as more things that are prohibited in public places will be prohibited on portions of private property that can readily be observed by persons (particularly law enforcement personnel) standing on public property.  There will be a rush by homeowners to build taller privacy fences, but many people will be disappointed when they find that many cities already have ordinances limiting the height and locations where privacy fences can be installed.  Many people will also be disappointed to find that privacy fences are useless when their local police department and/or code enforcement officers have hovering drones that can be used to spy on them in order to find code violations that the property owners didn't realize they were committing.

7.)  The law enforcement heroes portrayed in many popular television series and movies will become more aggressive in their fight to control, and beat the living daylights out of, the independent outlaw community in ways that are both criminal and un-Constitutional.  Steve McGarrett and his dedicated defenders of law, order, and public decency will continue to punch, kick, and occasionally murder any suspects that backtalk them in a disrespectful manner.  Jethro Leroy Gibbs and crew will continue to convince defendants guilty of petty offenses to give up their rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of an attorney with one magic word - "Guantanamo."  Many viewers of this form of self-righteous vengeance on the part of these brutish peace officers will consider these acts of violence and civil rights violations as necessary "to get the job done."  Some other people will awaken to the fact that this form of programming is meant to soften the will of Americans when it comes to resisting an actual totalitarian police state.

8.)  As the pogrom of the public school system to ensure that America does NOT have an educated populace becomes more readily apparent, more parents will start doing the job of teaching their own children by themselves through homeschooling.  As this movement gains momentum, our benevolent government officials will be compelled (or coerced by professional educators' unions) to step in and control it.  While the socialistic philosophy that children belong to society, and subsequently the state, more than they do to their parents or families permeates the country, expect to see more court decisions and laws passed to oppress parents in their right to see that their children receive a quality education.  This will all be done in the name of insuring that "no child is left behind."

9.)  Expect book-burning, both literally, virtually, and figuratively, to come back in vogue.  Any volume, pamphlet, or document of the written word that contains a term, phrase, or passage that offends, alarms, or otherwise upsets the delicate and distended digestive tract of the most sensitive dipstick anywhere at anytime - the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, Dick and Jane, etc. - must be plucked from common discourse and shoved down an Orwellian "memory hole."  Any person quoting from these banned works will be persecuted, if not prosecuted, by the social stewards of political correctness, judged and defamed in the court of public opinion by those willing to perjure themselves, and then censored and banished to a level of Dante's Inferno reserved for such "social misfits and miscreants."

10.)  The march to another world war will continue as old cold wars are revived and current cold wars heat up all in the course of official U.S. government foreign policy.  Don't expect any peace-loving messiah figure to rise from the endless sea of politics as "war is the health of the state" and any politician stating that he is for peaceful noninterventionism is either lying or will soon be drummed out of politics.  I don't expect ICBM's to be falling from the skies in 2014, but I do want people  to start looking at the evidence that it is being planned at the same time it is being covered with a facade of peace deals and treaties.  Like the outer band disturbances of a hurricane still far out at sea, we can see the warning signs and prepare for the horrific bad times to come.

That's the dime's worth I could think of for this coming year.  Please feel free to add any that you think might occur.  Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and, as always, live free and in peace...

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

A Short Quiz on the "Pledge of Allegiance"

There has been a lot of talk lately in certain social circles and legislative bodies, including here in the Republic, that the laws mandating schoolchildren to recite the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance every day that they attend their local public schools should be better enforced than they currently are now.  The most outspoken voices come from military veterans.  That stalwart group of men and women who, carrying the most modern of weaponry, marched to war to oppress foreign peoples to protect Americans when Americans choose to exercise their natural right to live free, now believe that forcing young people to recite an oath of loyalty to the U.S. government, before these young people have the chance to reach a stage of emotional and intellectual maturity at which point they could decide for themselves to do so or not, is the patriotic thing to do.

Well, is it?  I have a small quiz here for folks that might be straddling the fence on this issue.  It will only take a few minutes to complete:

1.  Francis Bellamy, the author of the seminal piece of prose that would become the P.O.A., wrote his particular loyalty oath for children to promote what form of government?

2.  The first persons to challenge laws mandating recital of the P.O.A. on First Amendment grounds that those laws forced them to violate their religious convictions were:

  (A)  Atheists/Agnostics

  (B)  Muslims

  (C)  Jews

  (D)  Christians

3.  The original hand salute that was proscribed by Mr. Bellamy to accompany the "Pledge of Allegiance" was:

  (A)  The right hand over the heart just like today

  (B)  The right hand at the forehead like a military salute

  (C)  The right hand pointed up with palm forward like when one swears an oath in a court of law

Now I'm not going to give you the answers for this quiz, but will instead leave it for you to do your own research on the subject (I have provided a few links to get you started).  But if you are one of those liberty-loving Americans who thinks that forcing young people to swear to something before they have a chance to reach adulthood is the patriotic thing to do for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way," then you just might find reality to be a bit (D)-pressing...