Heroes Real Heroes

Like many people, I was shocked to hear, this weekend, about the murder of Chris Kyle.  He was doing what he has spent most of his adult life doing - helping someone in need.  I'm not going to recap his murder or any of his life story.  Here's a link that will tell you many of the details of his remarkable life.  I'm reading his book, American Sniper.  Some reviewers on Amazon are disappointed in the book because Kyle doesn't detail his kills in Iraq, doesn't tell the distance, what kind of weapon he used, how he adjusted for wind, etc.  Other reviewers have political or moral issues with the war and criticize the book on that basis.   Still others claim that Kyle wrote for a paycheck and/or the glory (actually the proceeds from the book go to  help returning veterans adjust to life after war, what Kyle was doing when he was murdered).  What I found interesting in the book was his views and motivation.  He truly was a patriot.  He was at war to protect and defend his country.  In fact one of the major conflicts he mentions in the book is that his wife did not agree with his priorities.  He lists them as 1. God  2. Country  3. Family   Obviously his wife and many others would find fault with numbers 2 and 3.   One passage that really caught my attention today was his criticism of the Iraqi soldiers he was trying to train.  He said they were worthless.  They had  very little motivation outside their family or possibly their village or tribe.  Country meant absolutely nothing to them.  Then he speculates on the reason for this.

I realize that a lot of the problem has to do with their screwed-up culture in Iraq.  These people had been under a dictatorship for all their lives.  Iraq as a country meant nothing to them, or at least nothing good.  Most were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein, very happy to be free people, but they didn't understand what that really meant-the other things that come with being free.  The government wasn't going to be running their lives anymore, but it also wasn't going to be giving them food or anything else.  It was a shock.

That should be a wake-up to all of us.  We seem to be moving toward a dictatorship, by choice!  We should know that government won't be able to give us everything, healthcare, security - both personal and national, 100% safe food, transportation, cell phones, etc.,  without at the same time running the rest of our lives.  Gerald Ford is not known as a deep thinker, but even he got this basic fact.  He said, "any government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have."

Read American Sniper and also Marcus Latrell's Lone Survivor.  We all need to know the sacrifices these men are making for us.  We need to see through their eyes what we are so casually throwing away.

                  

What Can We Do?

One of the questions many of us are asking, is what can I do to express my support or my opposition to what is going on in Washington D.C. now.  I found a site that lists all upcoming legislation, gives an unbiased summary of the proposed legislation and a simple way to let your Congressman or Senator know your position on the bills.  It will also give an up to date poll of what other users are supporting or opposing, by congressional district, state, or nationwide.  I was shocked at all the gun control legislation already being proposed.  This is only a few of them.

Popvox  is an interesting site.  I had no idea so much legislation was already being proposed.  This gives us all the  opportunity to easily educate ourselves and make our opinions known to our elected officials.  It also tells us how often our representatives and senators voted for and against our wishes.  Clicking on any of these buttons will take you directly to the site's page where you can learn about specific bills and contact your representative.

In Their Own Words...and Actions

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

--George Santayana

To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens by re-inventing their collective memory of the past.

--Joseph Goebbels

The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.

--George Orwell

Barack knows that we are going that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we are going to have to change our traditions; we are going to have to change our history to provide the kind of future we all desperately want for our children.

--Michelle Obama

To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.

--attributed to Adolph Hitler

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of its arms as the blackest.

--Mohandas Gandhi

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby.

--Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 215

I just want you to know that we are working on it.  We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.

--Barack Obama to Sarah Brady regarding gun control.  Jason Horowitz, Washington Post, April 11, 2011

What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool; that it's not acceptable; it's not hip to carry a gun anymore; in the way in which we've changed our attitudes about cigarettes.  ...we need to really brainwash people to think about guns in a vastly different way.

--Attorney General Eric Holder

You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste.  And what I mean by that is [it]is an opportunity to do things you could not do before.

--Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff and current Chicago Mayor

In response to the massacre of 20 children and 8 adults in Newtown, CT, President Obama proposed three gun control actions to be passed in Congress.

1.  Universal background checks. 

2.  Renewal of a ban of military style assault weapons.

3.  Ban on high capacity ammunition magazines.

He also enacted 23 Executive Actions dealing with gun control.  You can see these Executive Actions here.

Anyone Recognize This?

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

I realize that education in our government controlled public school system today fails miserably in teaching everything but government dependence.  Therefore reading comprehension is not exactly a strong suit anymore, but the one sentence above is fairly simple and straightforward.  There is absolutely nothing, not a single word, about hunting deer.  In fact, I do believe the only animal mentioned in the Second Amendment is a bear.  Upon further inspection, the word "bear" in the Amendment is not the noun, but rather a verb meaning to hold, own or possess.  There is nothing in the single sentence comprising the Second Amendment that protects citizens' right to own a firearm in order to hunt deer, ducks, elk, moose, or even bears.  There is not a single word about owning a handgun or any type of firearm in order to protect yourself or your family from a meth-crazed maniac or a post-Apocalypse zombie.  

Break the single sentence down into its two components; "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." is the first key.  A well-regulated militia is a well-equipped, i.e. well-armed, population of civilians, not federal troops, civilians.  Why do we need a well-armed population?  It's necessary to the security of a free state.  That's pretty easy to understand, right?  The founding fathers believed that having a well-armed civilian population was necessary not only for hunting or protecting individuals, their homes, their property.  A well-armed civilian population was necessary for the security of a free state.  Why did our founders believe that it was necessary?   

First of all, an armed population was necessary to protect itself against attack from Native Americans and other aggressors trying to take property from citizens of the newly created nation.  If you think that personal private property is no longer susceptible to attack from forces hostile to the United States, do an internet search for stories about citizens of the United States protecting their property and lives and begging the federal government for assistance in protecting their property and their lives along the southern border.  Citizens along the southern border are under attack daily by invaders from a foreign country.  If you really want an eye opener do a little research about terrorists from overseas and their ability to invade our borders, northern and southern.  

Most importantly our founders included the Second Amendment as a counterbalance to the power they were granting the federal government.  They had just fought a bloody and costly war to win their independence from a central government that they considered tyrannical and power hungry.  When our government today passes healthcare legislation that will impact the lives of 100% of the population and is supported by approximately 45% of that population; when our government sues a state for enforcing federal immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce; when our government takes, through threat of force,  more and more of the money its citizens work for and earn, then passes that money on to organizations like Planned Parenthood and whatever name ACORN is operating under today; when our government is racking up annual deficits of over $1,000,000,000,000 a year, money that will somehow have to be paid by our children and grandchildren; it's pretty easy to see the dangers of a power hungry federal government.  When our newly re-elected president proposes 23 executive actions in direct violation of the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, specifically because these actions would never survive the process required to change the Constitution, it's easy to see the seeds of tyranny.  Exactly the reasons the founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  

Another common argument against the Second Amendment is that, even with the evil assault weapons in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens, an army of civilians, a "well-regulated Militia," would stand no chance against the most powerful military in history.  In general those who favor this argument would also point out the failure of that same most powerful military in Korea, Vietnam, and today in Afghanistan against an army of civilians.  So it should be obvious that a well-regulated militia, a well-armed civilian army, is as necessary today as it was in 1789.

The second component of the single sentence Second Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  First of all, keeping and bearing arms is a right.  In the view of the founders, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, a right is granted by God or Nature's god.  The right to protect yourself, your property, and your State, your country, your beliefs is granted by God or Nature's god.  It is not a power granted to the federal government to limit the citizen's ability to protect these things.  The founders, in the Supreme law of our country, the very foundation of our country, stated that the right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  I don't know how much more clear the founders could be short of using the phrase popularized by Moses Charlton Heston, "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."  I recognize the Second Amendment.  I recognize the wisdom of our founding fathers in including it in the Constitution.  I recognize the necessity of the Second Amendment, today and in 1789.  When well-educated, I'm assuming well-intentioned, people do not recognize the absolute lunacy of our modern power hungry, borderline tyrannical federal government attempting to illegally circumvent the supreme law of our nation, I'm not sure I recognize "us" anymore.  

Journalism 101

Who?  What?  Where?  When?  Why?  How?  That's journalism simplified.  I took journalism in Mrs. Kirtley's 8th grade class and learned that, even in the Jr. High Newspaper, a journalist will answer those questions.  It's that simple.  When was the last time you read or watched or heard a news report that answered those questions about an important event?  Let's take a look at a couple of current events and see what we have learned from our "journalists."

Last night our federal government avoided the fiscal cliff.  The United States would have "gone over the cliff" if an agreement on taxes and spending cuts was not reached between the Democrats in the White House and in the Senate who want to deal with our $16,000,000,000,000 (the 12 zeroes make more of an impact than just "trillion," doesn't it?) debt and the Republican controlled House of Representatives who want to cut spending to deal with the $16,000,000,000,000 debt.  The president campaigned on a balanced approach that would ask the wealthiest to pay more in taxes and cuts in spending to start to rein in the out of control debt.  Both sides agree that deficit spending is "unsustainable."  Who?  The House of Representatives, the Senate, and President Obama.  What?  Agreed on a deal that would raise tax rates for individuals making over $400,000 a year and families making over $450,000 a year.  Agreed on "future" spending cuts to be negotiated by the end of February, conservative estimates of $10 of tax increases for every $1 of spending cuts or realistic estimates of $410 in tax increases for every $1 cut.  That's Washington D.C.'s definition of a "balanced approach."  Where?  That is an easy  one, in Washington D.C.  When?  Another easy one, last night.  How?  Through negotiations between Vice President Biden and Senator McConnell in the Senate and a yes vote in the House that included all Democrats and 84 Republicans.  Here's the important one that is almost never answered by "journalists."  Why?  Why do Democrats, including the president, insist on raising taxes on high earners even though the increase in taxes collected will not fund even one month's spending?  Why did 84 Republicans, including the Speaker of the House, go against their principles and agree to raising taxes on 77% of the population when you include increases through the loss of the payroll tax cut and the new Obamacare taxes in addition to the negotiated tax rate increase on the "rich" or "more fortunate" with no guarantee of ANY spending cuts at all?  "Journalists" have not answered the why, so we can come to our own conclusion.  But first lets look at a couple of more current events and answer these same basic questions.

Who?  Adam Lanza.  What?  Killed 28 people, himself, his mother, six adult teachers and school staff, and 20 kindergarten students.  When?  The morning of December 14, 2012.  Where?  Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut.  How?  With a gun.  Why?  Starts getting a little unclear here again, but if you look to the solutions offered by the president, lawmakers like Harry Reid, Senator Diane Feinstein, New York City Mayor Bloomberg, "reporters" like Piers Morgan of CNN, and the majority of Hollywood, since their solution to the mass murder problem is more restrictive gun control laws; the gun is the answer to both how and why.  We all know it's the answer to how, although it's not clear exactly what type of gun was used, maybe we can look into that question in another post.  Is it really also the answer to why?  Can an object, a tool, be a reason why?  Is a rock why Cain killed Abel?  Is an ax why Lizzie Borden killed her family?  Is a knife why someone killed O.J. Simpson's ex-wife?  Is a derringer why John Wilkes Boothe killed Abraham Lincoln?  Is an airplane why terrorists killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001?  Seems a little illogical to have a weapon as a reason.  So let's take a look at another set of questions.

Who?  Progressives, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senators Biden and Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, reporter Piers Morgan, Hollywood in general.  What?  Promoting tighter gun control laws, up to the complete overturning of the 2nd Amendment.  When?  As soon as possible.  Where?  In the United States.  How?  Through federal law or regulations, or as the president put it, "under the radar."  Why?  Supposedly to prevent another tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary murders.  But if the gun is not the reason for the murders, can eliminating or restricting access to guns be the solution?  If it's not, then what is the why, for the what - gun control laws?

The answer to why takes a little more work, a little more thought.  I was taking the journalism class shortly after the Watergate scandal, and actually read Woodward and Bernstein's All the President's Men in 7th grade.  One thing I learned from reading that book is that lust for power is a common motive, or a common reason why.  Another is greed, or lust for money.  Hatred is a motive.  Rage is a motive.  Jealousy or envy is a motive.  Sometimes there might not be a motive, just flat out evil is the reason why.  Of course there are good motives too.  The most basic is love, whether it's the motive for working to take care of your family or the reason for donating to the local food bank.  At its most basic, love is the motive for any positive action.

So back to the why for the first "what" in this post, the fiscal cliff deal reached by our legislative branch and the president.  Why would both parties agree to raise taxes and not cut spending when both sides agree that our deficit is a major problem and raising taxes will not reduce it?  Let's be generous and say the reason is love.  Both sides don't want to cut social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, unemployment benefits, and on and on and on because they have such a heartfelt love for their fellow man.  Basically our government is the parent that just cannot say no.  They give their children (us) everything we want and some things we don't want, even though they have maxxed out all the credit cards and it will be up to our grandchildren and great grandchildren to pay them off.  But they do it because they have such love for all of us.

Yeah.  Right.  What's the more likely motive?  Lust for power, lust for money, or most likely a combination of the two. What better way to consolidate a politician's position than by taking from a small group to pay for benefits to a larger group.  If there was anything learned this past November, it was, as one pundit said "personal responsibility will lose out to Santa Claus every time."  

The second "what" listed above, Adam Lanza's killing spree.  Why did he do it?  There are reports of mental health issues.  Speculation about medications he may have been taking.  The bottom line is that the only possible motivation for killing 20 kindergartners is evil.  Pure evil.  Killing his mother and even the officials at the school could be motivated by rage, jealousy, or hatred, especially when combined with mental health problems and medication.  But killing children?  Evil.  There is no other explanation.

That brings us to the motive for the response to the murders.  Just as there is no way to legislate "good," there is no way to legislate to prevent "evil."  Good and evil just are.  They exist.  But as humans, we all feel the need to do something to prevent a mass murder, especially of children, from ever happening again.  Many, maybe even the majority, of the people pushing for new tighter gun control laws are doing so out of the need to just do something, anything, in response to the tragedy.  They know, deep inside, maybe even subconsciously, that there is absolutely nothing we can do to completely eliminate evil.  Because there is nothing to be done to stop the "why," they target the "how"-the tool, the gun.  Again, the basic motive here is love, the need to make sure that no other young lives are lost and no other families or communities have to feel the pain of such loss.  But for some; the president, Senators Reid and Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, Michael Moore, and others, the motivation once again is a lust for power. They have the need to control us, their subjects.  As the president's former chief of staff and current mayor of the United States' murder capitol (Chicago), Rahm Emmanuel said, "never let a crisis go to waste.  They give you the opportunity to accomplish things you would never be able to accomplish otherwise."  Those motivated by a lust for power are pushing hard to accomplish legislation with this fresh crisis that they have been trying unsuccessfully for years to accomplish.  They are using those with other motivations to help them.  Once again, Stalin's definition of useful idiots applies.

I think in the next few posts, we should take a look at other current events and issues and see if we can answer not just the who, what, when, where, and how, but the why as well.

No Longer Self-Evident?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government......

--The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

July 4, 1776

  

It wasn't that long ago that the truths mentioned by our founding fathers were self-evident.  They weren't up for debate.  We knew that we were endowed by our Creator with these rights.  The  government worked for us, not vice versa.  Somewhere along the way we lost sight of these truths.  We have allowed the government to grant us our rights.  The problem with the government granting rights?  The government can also rescind the same rights.  The government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed (us).  The government   creates power for itself, if not through legislation, through regulation.  And we, the people, are allowing it and in many cases, even encouraging it.  

If our form of government is destructive to the people's unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property), and it is our right to alter or abolish that government, how we do we achieve that alteration or abolition?  That is where the first two amendments to our Constitution come into play.  

Amendment I

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

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Without the right to peaceably assemble, speak freely, and petition the  government; and the right of the people to bear arms,  it would be impossible to secure a free state or ensure the other rights granted by our Creator and guaranteed in the Constitution.  Without free speech or an armed populace, how can the people control the government as it grants itself more and more power?  We can't.  When we lose the rights guaranteed in the first two amendments, all other rights are granted at the whim of the government.  I don't think anyone, right, left, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian are prepared for that eventuality.  Yet that's where we are heading at a breakneck speed now.  

When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

--Edward Abbey

See What You See, Say What You See

One of the "gadgets" on my blog is right above the posts, random quotes from Ronald Reagan.  The quote that convinced me to add the gadget is "Don't be afraid to see what you see."  Fortunately for us, Reagan lived before political correctness completely overran our common sense.  When Reagan called the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire," Americans weren't afraid to see the truth in the description.  That is no longer the case.  Because of fear of insulting someone, or a particularly easily offended group, we progressed from being afraid to say what we see, to now, being afraid of even seeing what we see.  The most ridiculous example is "Muslim extremist."  It's was more than a year ago when Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set of The View because Bill O'Reilly described the 9-11 terrorists as Muslim extremists.  Our "Justice" Department, I'm assuming in the spirit of political correctness - they couldn't be that incompetent, could they?, described the shooting of U.S. soldiers on a U.S. Army base by an American Muslim soldier screaming "Allah Akhbar" as an incidence of workplace violence, rather than what it obviously was -  an act of terror by a Muslim extremist. We have a president who campaigns on a theme of redistribution of wealth, the very definition of Marxism, but we can't call him a Marxist.  He's only interested in fairness.  I won't give further examples of political correctness run amok, just the latest and its consequences.

This week, in Portland, Oregon, a 22 year old man walked into Clackamass Town Center, a mall packed with Christmas shoppers and started shooting.  He killed two people and seriously injured another, before reportedly killing himself.  The focus immediately was placed upon the gun he used, an "assault rifle."  Gun control advocates would have us believe that the blame for the crime should be placed on the gun.  If only Oregon had stricter gun control laws, this crime would never have happened.  The problem with this argument is that Oregon already has fairly restrictive gun laws.  To buy the gun, Jacob Roberts would have had to pass an federal background check.  He bypassed this requirement by breaking the law.  He stole the gun and ammunition.  The mall, like the theater in Aurora, Colorado, was declared a "Gun-Free" zone.  Persons who take a firearm onto property declared to be "Gun-Free" are breaking the law and subject to prosecution and penalties that vary by location.  Mr. Roberts broke that law too.  So how exactly will making more laws prevent actions by a person like Jacob Roberts from committing these crimes?  Obviously the law had no meaning to him.  We are afraid to blame Mr. Roberts for being evil?  A person who commits an act of random violence against people that he doesn't even know, has no reason for killing, is evil, PERIOD.  Why are we afraid to see that?  Why are we afraid to say that?  The second amendment did not kill two people.  Oregon's gun laws did not kill two people.  Mr. Roberts' friend who owned the gun did not kill two people.  The mall's Gun-Free policy did not kill two people.  Jacob Roberts killed two people. Are we afraid to say Roberts was evil because his friends and family described him as a "friendly," "adrenaline junkie," "video game player," who "just wanted to make you laugh."?  Were his friends and family afraid to see what they saw in him?  Were they afraid to see that he was troubled?  Afraid to really talk to him, to really get to know him?  Were there signs that he might be troubled, and friends and family were just afraid to see them?

The shooting of strangers by an EVIL deranged man in a mall was bad enough.  But yesterday evil struck again.  This time at an elementary school in Connecticut.  A man walked into an elementary school and shot six adults and twenty kindergarten students before reportedly killing himself.  Once again, the focus went immediately not to the killer, but to his weapons.  He was found inside the school with a 9mm Sig Sauer, and a Glock, both handguns.  A .223 Bushmaster rifle was found in the backseat of his mother's car in the school parking lot.   So once again, an evil and senseless murder is being blamed on an assault rifle, this time one in the backseat of a car parked outside the scene of the murders.  Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, the school, once again is a "Gun-Free Zone."  And the evil deranged murderer was too young to legally purchase either of the guns he used.  But many people, including the president are demanding that we "take action," i.e. pass laws, to insure that heinous actions like this do not happen again.  So once again, they are demanding that more laws be written to prevent people like the one who broke countless laws to commit this crime from doing it in the future.  Apparently just one more law would have stopped him in the view of the president and others.  As Einstein said, the "definition of insanity is repeating the same action, expecting different results."  So Rush Limbaugh makes perfect sense when he says that "liberalism is a disease," it's a disease that causes insanity.      Like the health care laws, EPA regulations, and tax hikes for the "wealthy," gun control is about control.  It's not a policy to solve any problem, it's a policy to control people or a group of people.  It's about eliminating choice.  As horrible as yesterday's crime is, as much as any of us want future crimes like this to be prevented by an easy fix, a new law will not prevent an evil person from committing evil acts.  The only way to prevent atrocities like this is for each of us to not be afraid to see what we see.  Adam Lanza is described as "troubled," exhibiting "autistic-like behaviors."  So were friends and family afraid to see his troubles until after he killed 20 kindergartners and 6 adults?  Were they afraid to say what they saw and try to get Adam Lanza some help?  The only way to stop this violence is to stop being politically correct.  We must see evil where there is evil.  We must say we see evil when we see evil.  We can't be afraid to say what we see, for fear of hurting someone's feelings, or damaging their self-esteem.   Inaction can lead to much worse.

So, what I see today is a country shocked by a horrible crime.  A crime that is so unimaginable that we absolutely must do something to make sure that nothing similar happens again.  But once again, a very large number of us want to take the easy way out.  Rather than taking personal responsibility, we want our "mommy," the government, to do it for us.  Blaming the weapons is an emotional reaction that is being reinforced by the president and the media and it is the lazy, easy way out.  Once again, the president and the media is counting on Americans being "low information voters" and useful idiots.  Yes, the idiots are being used once again.  Yesterday I saw almost everyone shocked and hurt by the actions of an evil lunatic.  I saw Americans imagining themselves in the place of those parents in Connecticut.  I saw media and the president's press secretary saying it's too early to bring politics into the discussion about the murders.  I then saw the same media, on CNN, MSNBC, and others immediately bring up the need for more regulations.  I saw celebrities like Alec Baldwin (his photo, along with Sean Penn's is in the dictionary beside the useful idiot definition) use Twitter to call for Americans to "stop defending your right to bear arms.  You're stupid."  Then finally I saw the president speak about the murders.  Most of us saw our own emotions and outrage reflected in the president's face as he spoke about the children and the fact that they would never experience life's events that all children experience.  We could see our own sorrow reflected as he paused, clenched his jaw to hold back the emotion he was feeling, the emotion we were all feeling.  For once, I could actually see the president had the same feeling and reaction that I did.  Then he wiped away a non-existent tear, and another, and another.  Then he made the statement I was hoping not to hear, but fully expecting, "And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."  I expect that his "meaningful action" does not involve personal responsibility, but instead more restrictions of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution.  Never let a crisis go to waste, as you fundamentally transform the United States, right Mr. President?

Just saying what I see again, I see a president expressing great emotion at the loss of 26 lives, 20 babies.  A president, who as Illinois state senator voted multiple times AGAINST, not his usual "present," but AGAINST  legislation that would require doctors to act to save the lives of babies born during failed abortions, babies born, living through abortion procedures.  The same president who campaigned this past fall that taking taxpayer money away from Planned Parenthood was part of the Republican Party's war against women.  Taxpayer money that funded 289,750 murders or abortions in 2008 alone, according to their own website.  So either he feels great sorrow at the loss of children taken by gun related violence, but not those taken by physical violence at the hands and instruments of a government funded murderer, or what I see.  I see a president that feels nothing about either.  He sees both as a crisis to be taken advantage of.  We have all seen many examples of evil in the past few days.

Just an update that has been published since I started writing this, Adam Lanza, the Connecticut murderer, tried to buy a rifle at a local sporting goods store two days before his killing spree.  He was blocked by the state's gun sale waiting period.  He stole the guns he used from his mother.  The door of the school was locked as required by the school's security policy.  Lanza broke a window beside the door to enter the school.  Laws and physical obstructions will not solve our problem, not a gun problem, a people problem.  Only we, individually, can fix a people problem.  Don't be afraid to see what you see.