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.

And In This Corner.....

 As a boy growing up, I loved professional wrestling.  Back in the day before cable made professional wrestling a national phenomenon, it was a local production.  I discovered wrestling on one of the local stations out of Amarillo, Texas.  In those days, the local heroes were the Funk family.  They were led by the wrestling legend, Dory Funk who was semi-retired when I was a kid.  The NWA world champion was his son, Dory Funk Jr.  I rarely got to see his matches on our Saturday afternoon wrestling programs.  So my favorite and the favorite of all the boys in Gruver was Dory Jr.'s little brother, Terry Funk.  Wrestling was the ultimate story of good against evil, and the Funk family was definitely the good guys.  No one in their right mind would be caught cheering against any of the Funk family.

Dory Funk Sr. and Dory Funk Jr.

Terry Funk

After a few years of being a huge Terry Funk fan, my family moved to Graham.  One of my adjustments was the loss of my Saturday afternoon wrestling programs.  My Grandma Mae introduced me to Channel 11 out of Dallas and professional wrestling, LIVE from the Sportatorium!  I was really excited to see in the TV Guide that Terry Funk was going to be in the main event.  You cannot imagine how shocked and disappointed I was to learn that my hero, Terry Funk was the villain!  To make matters worse, the evil Von Erich's were the local heroes.  Talk about conflicted.  After living in Graham for awhile, I became a fan of Fritz Von Erich and his sons Kevin, David, and later Kerry.  Instead of practicing Dory Funk Sr.'s spinning toe hold, all the neighborhood boys became masters of Fritz Von Erich's dreaded Iron Claw.  

Fritz
Kevin, David, & Kerry Von Erich

No one in the Channel 11 viewing area would dream of cheering for any wrestler, other than one of the Von Erich's.  In the mid 1980's, pro wrestling went to a nationwide audience with favorites like Hulk Hogan and villains like Andre the Giant (another hero from my Amarillo wrestling memories).  The WWE exploded on cable channels and overtook the locally produced programs.  Wrestling became even more cartoon-ish with purely evil villains and purely good  heroes who eventually would win the hearts of the fans, even while losing matches due to incompetent referees.  Somewhere along the way, maybe because fans no longer had a "local" hero, things changed.  Fans split into two camps.  Of course the majority of fans supported the hero, the good guy, but some cheered on the bad guys.  The good guy was seen as too clean, too wholesome.  Pro wrestling seemed to push promote the villains even more than the heroes.  A large number of fans took pride in their support of the villains.  Eventually, this attitude seemed to bleed over into other sports.  In Texas from the 1970's through the late 1980's, everyone was a fan of the Dallas Cowboys.  People who moved to Texas from other areas might follow their former hometown favorite, but eventually they almost always became Cowboy fans.  Sure there were a few oddballs that grew tired of the way the Cowboys were worshiped, and became vocal fans of Bum Phillips' Houston Oilers, but they were rare.  But as the "pro wrestling" mentality became more prevalent, some football fans started buying Redskins' gear or worse, Steelers' merchandise.  Fans weren't necessarily cheering for a team, but they seemed to be cheering against the local favorite.  

When we moved to Colorado, I saw the perfect example of this attitude.  Of course in Colorado, the Broncos are the NFL team to follow.  At the time we moved, the Broncos weren't too far removed from their Super Bowl championships with John Elway as quarterback.  In the store I managed, Broncos' gear was the top seller, but it was followed very closely by the Broncos most hated rival, the Oakland Raiders.  The majority of the Raiders' fans weren't so much Raiders' fans as they were Bronco haters.  As a football or just overall sports nerd, I would talk about the Raiders, current or past and most of the Raider "fans" had no clue about their chosen team, either current or past.  I think it's just an example of the contrary attitude that most people used to outgrow after their teen rebellion years.  I think an increasingly large number of people no longer outgrow the rebellious stage, but take pride in their unique-ness.  

This attitude has spilled over from the entertainment of professional wrestling to legitimate sports, to the rest of everyday life in America today.  It's a little jarring to read history and learn about men spending the evenings in the local tavern discussing and debating religion, politics, science and so many other subjects from a base of knowledge.  Most Americans were self-educated.  They listened, they read, they were interested in gaining knowledge.  The quote from Emerson that I mentioned before, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds," was a popularly held opinion.  A person's position on an issue should evolve as that person gains knowledge.  That no longer seems to be the case.  There is no longer a debate.  A person is a Global Warming believer or denier, a 9-11 truther or a Muslim hating Conservative, a Tea Partier or a Progressive, a baby killing pro-choicer or a woman hating right to lifer.  Having a debate about these issues is not a bad thing.  What is so destructive right now is how uninformed our positions are.  Rather than having an honest debate, we pick a side and defend it to the very end.  When the chosen side is not backed up by a base of knowledge, the debate soon turns to the name-calling we heard so much of during the most recent campaign season.  When opinions are not backed by knowledge, manipulation becomes much easier.  Honesty is not necessary if the public is not curious enough to do their own research.  

It is very discouraging to talk to people about the recent election and learn the basis of their choice.  It is almost never "for" someone or something, but "against" the other person or policy.  If our society is going to survive, we must have intelligent debate on issues.  We have to have intellectual honesty from ourselves and our candidates.  We have to force our politicians to be honest.  If they talk about the rich paying their "fair share," make them say what they believe is fair.  Is raising taxes on those making over $250,000 a year going to help solve our fiscal problems, or is it in the interest of redistribution of wealth (are they,  or are we honest enough to call it what it is - Marxism) to buy votes?  Is it all right for your candidate to listen in on cell phone conversations, or hold those suspected of supporting terrorists indefinitely without charging them with a crime, gather information from private e-mails, or to send our troops to war without the approval of Congress, but not ok for the candidate from the other side?  We need to read and learn enough to know what we believe and what we support.  Then we need to read and learn what candidates from all sides not only say they will do, but what they have done and are doing.  The sad thing is that we live in an age where all this information and more is easier to find than ever before in the history of mankind, we are just too lazy or uninterested to find it.  

I have seen interviews with a woman who said she thinks the president did an "acceptable job" in the Benghazi situation.  "Ben Ghazi is hard to predict, you can never tell what that man will do."  I have a friend who voted for Obama because Romney would cut programs that help single women.  But she works a job that pays her in cash, so she doesn't pay taxes on it.  I have relatives that vote Democrat because "I'm a fiscally conservative bleeding heart liberal."  How can anyone claim to be fiscally conservative and support the president and his $6 trillion and climbing debt?  I have another relative that when questioned about individual policies holds positions to the right of the most conservative Libertarian, yet votes Democrat every election because Republicans only care about the rich.  I know several people that didn't vote at all because there was "no difference between the candidates."  These are the pro wrestling voters, their votes have no basis in fact, only in emotion, or possibly in rebellion.  The political consultants call these people "low information voters."  Stalin had a more accurate, if less politically correct description.  He called them "useful idiots."  

 

Choice. Use It or Lose It.

Other than football or Davy Crockett, my favorite topic seems to be choice.  Choice is one of those topics that conservatives or Republicans have done a horrible job of presenting their case.  Choice is not only about the abortion issue.  But because Democrats claim to be the party of choice in the case of allowing a baby to live, they have claimed the mantle of the party of choice.  I would really like to see an instance of Democrats or Progressives actually favoring choice on any issue.  As of last January, they are taking away your choice of health care insurance.  Like it or not, you are going to be paying for Obamacare.  Does your local school district teach your child as well as you would like?  Would you prefer for the money you pay to support public schools to go toward your child's education at a private school or even better toward materials and programs to help you home school your child?  Thanks to your Progressive Democratic party, that's not an option.  In spite of the public support of a voucher system, all of your tax dollars allocated to education goes straight to teacher's unions through your local public school.  If you want to put your child in a private school, or home school your child, you'll be paying extra for that.

Do you want your tax dollars bailing out banks like J.P. Morgan Chase?  Your money being flooded into General Motors and Chrysler?  Do you believe that abortion is not a form of birth control, but is immoral?  Do you want your money going to Planned Parenthood, who in spite of the repeated lies by the president does NOT provide any type of cancer screening?  They are primarily an abortion provider.  Not just primarily, almost exclusively, an abortion provider.  Want your tax dollars going to them, so they can perform an act that you find immoral?  Do you want to invest in solar panel manufacturers with a very questionable chance of success, such as Solyndra?  Would you prefer to invest your hard earned money in proven oil, natural gas, or coal exploration and research?  Well, unfortunately you have absolutely no choice in any of those matters.  If you pay federal income tax, a portion of your money goes to teacher's unions, General Motors, Chrysler, and Planned Parenthood.

Whether you like it or not, your money went to green energy companies like Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Beacon Power, Ener1, Abound Solar, A123 Systems, Willard & Kelsey Solar, Raser Technologies, and more.  This is just a portion of the list of companies that received YOUR money and later declared bankruptcy.  Here's a complete list of companies that received taxpayer money, including those now bankrupt.    These companies received a total of $80 billion of your money.  Companies that are no longer in business received $8 billion of that total.  Was that your idea?  Did you support that decision?

How about the federal regulations proposed solely by the appointed, not elected, EPA that severely limits the ability of oil companies to provide proven relatively inexpensive sources of energy for you everyday?  Want to eliminate the coal industry entirely?  Your president does.  He's doing it through the Environmental Protection Agency.  You vote for anyone in that agency?  Nope.  You couldn't.  It's staffed by presidential appointees.  Doesn't matter whether you approve or not.  There's absolutely nothing you can do about their actions.

If you think all these decisions that affect you everyday of your life are frustrating, just wait until Obamacare is fully implemented.  The federal government makes all these decisions on your behalf with really no justification.  Some, like many of the investments in green energy, were payback to donors to the president's campaign.  Some, like the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler were payback to unions for their support.  What do you think the federal government will do to your individual choice, your freedom, your bank account, using the cost of healthcare as justification?  Think Mayor Bloomberg in New York City has been heavy-handed by outlawing sugary drinks of more than 16 ounces?

Imagine that policy on a national level.  Think it will end there?  Or do you think that's just the start?  Is it more likely that, first sizes, then the availability altogether of candy, energy drinks, alcohol, fast food, snack food will be limited?  What about other things on the Progressive wish list that can be even remotely linked to healthcare costs?  Except for their own personal use (ever see how Al Gore gets to any of those climate change conferences?), Progressives absolutely hate big SUV's.  They emit too much CO2, right?  That's bad for your health.  If you must drive, your only choice will be to pay $40,000 for a Volt.  Do you own a gun?  It is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but how long will it take to make it a right regulated by healthcare policies?  The government could eliminate hunting accidents by eliminating firearms, right?  If you really don't think that's not only a possibility, but a likely outcome just find a single instance in the past century  where the federal government exercised a newly gained power responsibly.  No, history shows that with power and the government, not just ours, but any government, the phrase "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is actually an understatement.

I believe this sense of helplessly watching the federal government taking more and more of our choices away is the basis of the secession craze that took hold after the reelection of President Obama.  One positive of the past two election cycles is the return to office of Republican governors, even in traditional Democratic strongholds like Wisconsin and Ohio.  Governors and states need to find a backbone and stand up to the federal government as it grabs all this power.  Out of all the programs I have mentioned, how many are a power given to the federal government in our Constitution?  I'll give you a minute to do a little research.  You back yet?  Still looking?  I'll give you a hint how many.  The answer rhymes with "hero."  Or "done."  That's right zero.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  The federal government, mainly over the past 100 years, has just taken these programs upon themselves.  The programs, if they are to be implemented at all, are the right or responsibility of the individual states to implement.  Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lists 18 powers that We the People granted to our federal government.  By design, this is a short list.  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserves any other power, not part of this list of 18, to either the people or the states.

The states are supposed to be, as Mitt Romney said in one of the debates, the "laboratories of ideas."  Massachusetts can try a state run healthcare.  If it's successful, other states will follow suit.  If it's not, citizens of Massachusetts will have a choice, either end the experiment or move to a state without the policy.  Same with green energy projects, environmental regulations, land use restrictions, public education.  These policies should be state mandated.  Allow the citizens of the United States to vote with their feet.  They will move to a state that is successful, has jobs available, has affordable housing, and good schools.  Voters in other states will elect state officials that will bring successful policies to their state.  Even in times like now where the federal government has taken control and mandated so many of these failed policies nationally, there examples of states succeeding with their own policies.  See the gas boom in South Dakota for an obvious example.  Unemployment is almost non-existent in the state, the housing industry is booming, the  state is bringing in record amounts of tax revenue, not by raising tax rates, but because the citizens are prospering.  So if it is spent wisely, their education will improve and they will be a model for other states to look toward.

But as is usually the case, the federal government rarely celebrates success by an individual or a state.  Rather they seek to punish it.  Watch for the EPA's report on fracking, a main component of the success of the gas industry in South Dakota.  If past behavior is a predictor of future actions, the EPA will crack down on the practice.  States have been negligent in standing up to the federal government's power grabs.  I think that whether consciously or just intuitively, we the people, know these powers have been granted to us by our Creator, by Nature, or Nature's god as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  We failed to push our states to stand up to the federal government as it took more and more of our choices away.  The deep divisions in our society that seem to become so prominent in the past 10 years are a result of our choices being eliminated.  The current secession phenomenon is the latest consequence.  I hope our states push their Constitution-granted rights and that the Supreme Court is still responsible enough to uphold the Constitution. If not the next step is up to the we the people and our choices are becoming more limited by the day.

Secession?

Since the re-election of President Obama, secession has been in the news frequently.  It started with a petition from an individual in Louisiana to be allowed to peacefully secede.  At last count similar petitions by all 50 states had been submitted to the White House's official website.  The number of electronic signatures to these petitions range from just over 4,000 to over 100,000 at the time of this writing.  I do question the wisdom of creating a personal account, including all your personal information to the website of this administration, in order to criticize them.  After all, they have shown a great deal of grace and tolerance of opposing viewpoints (sarcasm intended).  The media, with voices muffled because they are soooo far up the backside of, umm I mean because they are so deep in the pocket of the president, have been very vocal in their criticism of these petitions.  Most have focused on the legality of secession.  In fact, Supreme Court Justice Scalia has been quoted saying that secession is only legal with the permission of the United States government.  The scary part of that argument is that Scalia is one of the conservative justices.  If those quotes are actually reflective of his opinion, we are further lost than I had feared.  The basis of our Constitution and the foundation of our country is found in the Declaration of Independence.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...."  The government does not grant these rights.  We were endowed by our Creator with these rights.  The next, less quoted portion of the Declaration deals with the people "empowering" a government and the right given the people by "Nature, or Nature's god" to dissolve a government when it no longer serves the people.  Now, I'm no Supreme Court Justice, but that seems pretty clear.  Nature, Nature's god, or our Creator granted rights to the people.  The people grant the government power to govern.  That's the chain of command, so to speak.  The government is not at the top of the chain, but at the bottom.  We and our government need to remember, or in some cases, learn this basic fact.  While I don't think we have reached the point where states need to seriously consider the topic of secession, I definitely understand the feeling of a lack of representation of my views and beliefs in our federal government.  That being said, I have absolutely no doubt of the right of the people to secede from a union or government that no longer serves the interests of the people.  I have absolutely no doubt that right is granted by our Creator, not by our government, therefore the government cannot restrict that right.  

Below is the Declaration of Independence in its entirety.  I believe that all Americans need to familiarize themselves with the document and its meaning.  Before talk of secession becomes serious.  In my next posting, I will discuss the easiest remedy to these very serious issues.  Not surprisingly, the remedy is in our founding documents.  We have just strayed from those documents in the past 100 plus years.  

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

We Lost, but When?

I wrote over a year ago about how history is being changed.  Even as a kid, I realized it was happening with the history of Davy Crockett.  What many of us don't realize is how important our history is.  What we learn of our history basically provides the lens through which we see ourselves.  While so many of us were slow to realize the importance of history, others have known for years.  They planned to change history to fit their world view.  They haven't been very secretive in their plans, it's just that we don't pay attention, or don't take them seriously.  The Obama campaign in 2008 told us that they planned to change history.  Listen toMichelle Obama on the campaign trail, she doesn't speak of making history, she speaks of changing history.  That's not a mistake, that is exactly what they have planned.


So maybe the revision of the Davy Crockett story was a test run?  Just to see if we would buy it?  Well, our education system sure did.  Now, they are going big.  They are going after our founding fathers.  I have felt that Texas is one of our last hopes of regaining our country and our past.  But did you know that right now, today, the Boston Tea Party is being taught in Texas as an example of terrorism.  Now, reading the curriculum, it is possible that this lesson is being taught to teach students to reason, to read the information and see it from multiple angles.  From the British perspective at the time, the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.  Only through reading the causes of the revolution will a student learn that the American Revolution was justified.  But is it being taught that way?  Frankly I doubt it.  If it were, why are parents being denied access to the lessons?  The "Parent's Portal" to the online lesson plans offers information that differs greatly from the lesson plans being presented in class. If this is happening in Texas, what is happening in California?  In New York?  In Oregon?

Take a look at what is happening, and has been happening for over a decade with our knowledge of Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson did own slaves.  That is known.  It has been taught since the textbooks published in the 1880's.  What was taught before, but is no longer being taught is that he spent most of his life trying to abolish slavery.  The Virginia Constitution made it illegal for a slave owner to free his slaves.  After George Washington freed his slaves upon his death, Virginia even closed that loophole.  It was illegal for a citizen of Virginia to free his slaves.  Jefferson worked tirelessly to change that.  Unfortunately that was one of the few instances that Jefferson failed.  For a true view of Thomas Jefferson, through his own words and the words of people who actually knew him, who actually lived in Jefferson's time, read The Jefferson Lies, by David Barton.   Barton uses Jefferson's own words, the original documents to clear up the lies being told about him.  The interesting thing has been the response to the book.  David Barton has been attacked from every directions by scholars pointing out the "inaccuracies" in his book.  Their evidence of his inaccuracies comes from scholars writing more than 100 years after Jefferson's death.  These scholars use each other as references, completely ignoring the primary sources - Jefferson himself and his contemporaries.  One interesting chapter in Barton's book deals with Jefferson's supposed love child with his slave, Sally Hemings.  Remember in the late 1990's when a DNA test was done using genetic material from one of Hemings' known descendants that "proved" Jefferson's affair with his slave.  Interestingly enough this report came out just as the current president, William Jefferson Clinton was being impeached for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, making the point that infidelity in the White House was nothing new.  Coincidentally, a retraction was released a few weeks after the initial report that the DNA tests actually concluded that with a 97% certainty, Hemings' child was NOT Thomas Jefferson's.  The retraction did not receive the front page of Newsweek treatment that the original, erroneous report did.

Thanksgiving is a couple of days away.  While the Thanksgiving story that children from my generation were taught is a little simple and doesn't give the complete story of the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving, students are more likely today to learn the perspective of MSNBC commentator, Melissa Harris Perry who says that "European settlers brought violence, disease, and land theft to the indigenous peoples who were already in this land before it was discovered."
 
So why is it important to the president's backers to smear the reputation of our country's founders?  Their view of the United States is that it was founded by rich white men who were only interested in making themselves more wealthy.  The system is set up to benefit the rich white men.  It is stacked against black Americans, immigrants(whether legal or illegal), women, Native Americans, against anyone not white and rich.  The president himself says that rugged individualism, self reliance, and small government is "part of our DNA" obviously in reference to our founding principles.  But then he goes on, "but it doesn't work, it has never worked" to the applause of his audience.


That is why it is so important, in the president's view,  to change history.  It has worked.  When applied as our founders intended and as they stated in our Constitution, it always works.

We did lose the election earlier this month.  But that defeat actually started when we lost the battle of truth about our history.  To get back, we have to make truth matter again, and make history matter again.