Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Politics Today’ Category

It’s the beginning of the election season for the President of the United States.  Where are we now compared to 7 years ago?

The economy has basically stabilized at low GDP growth 1-2.5% range.  The unemployment numbers are at 2009 levels, yet this seems clouded with out of the labor force numbers of nearly 94,000,000.  That’s a mighty big number, even if it were 1/4 that number 23,500,000 people, that’s huge!  Even 1/10th would be 9,400,000, very large indeed.  So employment is basically still terrible after 7 years.

After 7 years we’re pushed a media-propagandist driven agenda on a remarkable number of social ideologies which pitch one part of our citizens against another part of citizens furthering the division and divisiveness like we have never seen before.

Under the President he has either incorrectly judged or incorrectly decided foreign policy which has positioned America in a weaker position internationally.  Several of these situations include: Syria-Assad/Russia, Iraq-ISIS/L, Ukraine-Russia, Iran-Nuclear/Russia, Israel-Palestine, North Korea-South Korea, China-Currency Manipulation/Cyber Warfare.

Four years ago, we wrote an article which described 5 dominoes which may fall. While each area may have mutated from what was visible, these dominoes are real.  Take a look;  Another 4 Years, The Dominoes are Visible 

The Presidency is the toughest job in the world.  In fact, it’s become so complicated by special interests, by over-reaching authority that it’s stretched beyond it’s capability to operate with competency.  Look at the IRS scandal , as individuals extend their authority to harm citizens of opposing views and of course we hold no-one accountable !  We should be very afraid of this, consider the EPA, FCC, DOJ, DHS-TSA, BLM all of these alphabet soup agencies actually have very limited oversight, are fraught with such potential for agency abuse at the various leadership levels within each organization.  The abuse and potential yet to occur abuses have now outweighed the original usefulness of why the agencies was created in the first place!

This all suggests that less government, a constitutional based government is the only way to turn.   However, this is not and will not be reality unless the silent majority elects the right President, needed at precisely the right time, to pull back on government excesses, take control of fiscal responsibility, adheres to the rule of law and levels the playing field back in favor of the citizens and not special interest or the political elites!  November 2016 cannot come soon enough!

©republicunited 2015

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Most every time you watch the TV news, read a political Facebook post or listen to the talking heads on the radio or news stations, it’s this group blaming that group.  th

Our freedoms have given us such important standing in the world by the way in which we operate in the public square, discourse with generally minimal if ever fear of reprisal.  Certainly there are cases where those in power pressure individuals and the masses as to things to become disgruntled about, protest and drive for change.  Change is good, as status quo really isn’t so great.   But thinking back to even our revolution, the public square while available was limited in the breath and depth of public dissemination and consumption. As we’ve moved into the modern age, this ability to communicate to the masses has shifted from word of mouth, selected articles in weekly or monthly newsprint, to daily newsprint, radio (and talk radio), TV, around the clock Cable, to near-real-time internet information flow and through such social media tools as Twitter and Facebook just about everything and anything happening around the globe if spread like wild-fire. As we shift from minimal spoon-fed information to moderately and now near real-time information, we’re deep into everything all the time.  Issues which otherwise would have never been worried about or certainly were resolved between neighbors, at the town square can now be elevated to world-wide status.

With this instant fodder, we now see things that require immediate broad brushed government intervention for everyones own good, or is it? Politicians weigh in on things that frankly have little to do with government intervention.  Look around today on the internet, when a politician weighs in first thing is blame the other party.  Blame the corporations, blame the Christians, blame the media, blame, blame blame, blame a flag, blame a race, blame this group or that group.

We should ask ourselves, is blaming actually solving any problems? th-1

We are lacking real leadership today in the United States. We are lacking people with discernment as to what needs to be done.  Is blaming a flag really any sort of answer to a problem?

The real problem is we have elected politicians, people in power in government and who are incapable of leading. We lack leaders with clarity, we have instead leaders who pander to the special interest, blow with the winds of the latest bit or byte and their social media answer is frankly irresponsible, pointless and half-baked with senseless and inane solutions, “ban a flag”.

When will the book burning begin?  s_w41_80430015

We need to expect more from our elected leaders.  We are in need of real common sense leadership.

©republicunited 2015

Read Full Post »

Let’s Put A Tired Argument To Sleep…
by Guardian

I recently got into a brief discussion on the topic of firearms with a friend of mine. It involves the use of an old argument about gun owners and gun rights advocates being paranoid, overzealous nuts who think the whole world is in on an imagined conspiracy to forcibly confiscate all their guns. Many of you are probably already cracking a sardonic smile or rolling your eyes in exasperation at this. I know, because I was equally surprised and exasperated to see it being used, and found that a lot of the things this argument represented were deeply offensive, and that was part of what fueled this passionate discussion…

The backstory is straightforward enough. I posted this video to one of my social media accounts.

A casual friend of mine responded to it with this bit of wisdom from John Stewart.

I was surprised to see that this is still an argument/angle being used by the gun-control advocates. I thought the discourse had long since moved past such circular nonsense; but there it was for everyone to see. I didn’t respond right away, and after thinking for a moment I realized that there were a lot of things that were fundamentally offensive and flat out wrong about this approach to the debate on gun rights. That’s the real debate, not the one on TV wherein the media openly salivates over potential legislative repercussions to tragedies and certain commentators spend the ensuing weeks bullying and harassing guests.

My first reaction was that it is ironic that he should post this quote from Stewart when the video I had just posted shows that many people (or at least likely voters) would clearly be willing to support, or at least not oppose all kinds of atrocious things being done to gun owners; the very things that Stewart is mockingly dismissing. My initial response to my friend was to say that it is easy for modern day jesters like Stewart to point at people who are concerned over the very real erosion of our Second Amendment rights, and make fun of them, but as usual, he has nothing of any real substance to say. On this I was immediately challenged. My friend asked me to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a concerted effort to erode the Second Amendment. I thought briefly about the endless things I could go into, but opted for a shorter, pointed response; this clip from an interview with Senator Dianne Feinstein sprang to mind.

It was dismissed right away by my friend as being slightly dated (20 years old) and therefore irrelevant. I replied that I fail to see how this video of her is irrelevant, unless Feinstein no longer holds office in the US Senate? Or has her position changed, do you think? Her stated intent is pretty clear, and there are certainly others who would have openly supported such a measure both at the time of the interview and today. Nevertheless, my friend demanded I provide some other source for my paranoid delusions. I decided to dip into recent, local legislation and from there I got a little carried away.

We just passed a law in California that created a fast lane for people to have their guns confiscated. Just about anyone can say you’re unstable or want to hurt people, and can have a court order issued for a temporary seizure of all your guns. All of them. Confiscated. As in, the police literally search your home and take away all of your guns and ammunition and they get to keep them for a period of three weeks while they determine if you’re guilty of being unstable. What if you live in a bad neighborhood with a lot of break-ins? What if you have a stalker? What if you depend on your rifle/pistol to put food on the table and/or pay your bills? What if you have a psychotic ex-boyfriend who abused you? That really doesn’t matter to the court because they can now accept hearsay as a justification for disarming you. It’s not just flying in the face of multiple constitutional amendments, but it flies in the face of a fundamental principle of individual liberty: innocent until proven guilty.

Those of you that take a moderate stance or even a decidedly anti-gun stance: surely you wouldn’t like to see the government start creating categories of second class citizens…but maybe you think there are people who should have just a little bit fewer rights than the rest of us. The problem, as I see it, is that it reduces the rights of gun owners to a fair, due process. Police already have the authority to confiscate guns in the case that they receive reliable information about a person with problems. They can also already put people on a 72 hour psychiatric evaluation if they think they are a threat to others. This law isn’t going to make us any safer; it’s just going to be a thing that gets abused by divorce lawyers or crazed ex-boyfriends/girlfriends.

It’s a non-solution to a non-problem created by gun control advocates in the aftermath of that killing spree of the young man in Southern California at UC Santa Barbara. The police were told many times that he was a threat, had serious problems, and was armed, and they failed to act. It’s easier for the government to say “we need more power,” rather than to admit you screwed up and didn’t act. It was a knee-jerk reaction to a situation where our existing process just didn’t respond. Let’s also not forget that he didn’t just use guns to kill people in that spree; he used a car and (I think) a knife to kill/maim people. My point is that, even if we had all the gun control in the world and he was identified and disarmed long ago, that wouldn’t have magically prevented him from killing a bunch of people. In fact, he may have chosen to express his psychosis in other ways such as bombing or serial killing, and both have the potential to take far more lives than an isolated mass shooting.

At this point I was fired up, offended that my friend had not simply unthinkingly passed along a bit of nonsense from a popular funnyman, but had actually doubled down on what I had believed to be a dead argument, so I went further….

Screen-Shot-2014-10-16-at-7.49.02-AMA couple of towns in New York just got ousted for asking pistol permit applicants log into their Facebook pages and let a police officer poke around and make notes to send to the court. Later on, it came to light that they were also asking applicants to reactivate their Facebook pages if they had been deactivated for any reason (update). If it were anything else, like getting a permit to hold a small public rally, there would likely be national outrage at such an intrusion of privacy. Pundits would be lined up to talk about the overreach of government. Can you imagine if it had been instituted for a marriage license? What if it were an office in a courthouse of a state that prohibits gay marriage, and the officer just wanted to take a peek at what you’ve been up to on your social media. Now, I’m sure many of you are responding to this notion with a sentiment along the lines of,“well guns and marriage are not the same thing at all!” Just think about it for a minute. If we empower the government to take a look into the private lives and thoughts of people for one thing, then that power can certainly be given to them for another thing, or just abused in general. The recent scandal with the IRS targeting political groups comes readily to mind. Democrats and Republicans had a rare moment of agreement on that. If the IRS was abusing its power to regulate conservative non-profit groups, then it could certainly be done for left-wing groups as well.

We should also never forget that guns were needlessly, forcibly confiscated from people (without even getting receipts) on a massive scale in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. People who had done nothing wrong. To this day, many, if not most of those people still have not had their guns returned. There gunconfiscationwas a silver lining in that it prompted a major backlash that led many states to pass laws expressly forbidding the confiscation of guns in the event of natural disasters and emergencies, but other states have not done so and it could easily happen again under the right circumstances. Additionally, when California passed its own assault weapons ban, there were a few different kinds of guns that people were told they didn’t have to register. Sometime later on the state decided to retroactively classify them as assault weapons and demand they be either registered, turned over to police, or sold out of state. Not sure which specifically, but it was well documented and you can look it up at your leisure.

Even our earliest federal gun control laws are pretty clearly antiquated and served no real purpose other than to generate revenue and punish gun owners. Just look at anything from the 1934 National Firearms Act. We can have shotguns with barrels that are 18″ in length or longer, but if you get or make a barrel shorter than that, it’s a felony worth up to 10 years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines, unless you paid a special ($200!!) tax on it (do some quick inflation math on that and you’ll realize that $200 in 1934 was the equivalent of over $3000 today), did some paperwork, and waited a few months. How is that keeping us any safer? How is that anything other than a way to jerk gun owners around and trip them up, turning them into criminals? The NFA ‘34 also regulated machine guns. Here is a homework assignment for you readers; go and look up how many crimes have been committed with legally registered machine guns since 1934. And how many of those were violent? The regulation of machine guns has certainly put a dent in gun cri….oh wait. Nevermind.

At this point, my friend got a bit flustered with the novels I was pouring into the Facebook comments in response to his prompt. He said, quote, “So your saying there should be no gun regulation? I want a missile launcher. It’s basically a gun….” I have had many debates with anti-gun people and I have long since adopted a policy not to let myself get dragged into nonsense like this. I take comments like the above as a signal that they would like the rational, civil discussion to end, but at this point, another one of my friends (someone who is not opposed to gun rights but rarely has time to hear independent thought on the topic) had joined the discussion and I decided to make one last salient point for her benefit…

Did you know that it’s more than just a popular mantra when gun rights activists say things like ‘gun laws don’t work on criminals’. Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 11.52.03 AMRegistration, permits, licenses and background checks only apply to you if you’re not a criminal already. What? That probably doesn’t make sense to many of you. I found out that, for my friend, someone who is admittedly not very focused on firearms as a matter of politics and law, it was also quite a revelation. Let me explain:

The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that convicted felons, or anyone prohibited from possessing firearms, can’t be tried or convicted of violating any of these various gun control schemes because it would constitute a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights. Even if you are a convicted criminal, you still enjoy many rights in this country and one of those is that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. Haynes, in his lawsuit, successfully argued that being prosecuted for failing to register his illegally possessed firearm would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. Look for yourself: Haynes v. United States

This Supreme Court case from 50 years ago continues to block prosecution of federal (and state-level) gun crimes. Now I should clarify that this case doesn’t mean criminals are off the hook. They can still be tried and convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, but the point here is that, as you can see, by definition, these laws are only punishing those who were not criminals in the first place. Another name for those people would be law-abiding citizens.

I hope that many of you now see how it is not a paranoid delusion that there are many people who want to use government authority to punish gun owners in various ways, up to and including outright confiscation, and in some cases has actually led to a degree of protection for the criminal elements who take up arms. I am happy to debate people all day long on what should be done about gun violence in our society, but please, it’s deceptive and insulting to my intelligence when people try to suggest that my concern over real efforts to erode my rights is somehow borne out of paranoid delusion. I hope I have adequately shown you all how tired this argument is and that it can safely be put to sleep.

©RepublicUnited 2014

Read Full Post »

History of Civil Rights Support – Republicans 94% / Democrats 35%Donkey

1854 Republican Party formed to “Stop the spread of slavery”, Democratic Party was Pro-Slavery.

1854 Republican Party Opposes Kansas-Nebraska Act upholding slavery.

1863 Abraham Lincoln (Republican) issues Emancipation Proclamation to free the slaves.

1865 13th Amendment passes abolishing slavery – Republicans 100% / Democrats 23%

1865 KKK launches as the “Terrorist Arm” of the Democratic Party

1866 Republican Party passes Civil Rights Act for freed slaves

1868 14th Amendment makes freed slave US Citizens – Republicans 94% / Democrats 0%

1870 15th Amendment passes for slaves to vote – Republicans 100% / Democrats 0%

1871 Republicans pass The Anti-KKK Act

1875 First Anti-Discrimination Law in America – Republicans 99% / Democrats 0%

1909 NAACP is created by three Republicans; Mary White Ovington, William English Walling and Henry Moskowitz.

1914 Democrat President Woodrow Wilson segregates Federal Gov & US Military

1915 Democrats showcase first movie ever shown in the White House “Birth of a Nation” praising the KKK

1922 Republicans pass first Anti-Lynching Law – Republicans 92% / 18%

1957 First Civil Rights Law in 82 years – Republicans 92% / Democrats 54%

1960 Civil Rights Act of 1960 – Republicans 93% / Democrats 68%

1963 Republican Martin Luther King Jr. gives his “I Have A Dream Speech”

1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Republicans 80% / Democrats 63%

1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Republicans 80% / Democrats 63%

1983 Martin Luther King Day signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan

1990 Americans with Disabilities Act signed by Republican George H W Bush

1991 Civil Rights Act of 1991 signed by Republican George H W Bush
Note: Both 1990 & 1991 Acts are recognized as the most Pro-Civil Rights Acts in decades

2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act pushed by George W. Bush, to create a citizenship path for undocumented immigrants as well as guest workers. This Act was derailed by Democrats.

So, I think Condi Rice can summarize this even better as to where we are in 2014;

Condi Rice Quote

Read Full Post »

User beware, if you choose to create an account and submit your personal information in healthcare.gov you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy with your personal information.

Here we go again.  Incompetence or something else going on here?

Read Full Post »

Wow, it appears that the incumbent Sheriff Laurie Smith has not only lost the support of her rank and file, but seems to have lost the support of local law enforcement associations and past Chief’s and Captains throughout and surrounding Santa Clara County have come out in favor of Sheriff Candidate Kevin Jensen.

Read Full Post »

Fellow Americans we are watching the expedited erosion of our rights. bill-of-rights  We watched earlier this year as less than credible warrants were pushed through as several intrusions on the Associated Press (AP) and on a Fox News reporter James Rosen.  There was some media mention/noise, but like all good media outlets, they fell back in with the party-line message from this Administration.

The latest weak-ass warrant served August 6, 2013 on a Washington Times reporter, via a search warrant made on her husband for suspected “unregistered firearms”.  Of course the gestapo technique used by the Homeland Security officials included picking-up his wife’s notes and other files that she was making on a news investigative story she was writing.

So what was the reporter working on that had the Homeland Security so interested as to sideways access her life?  Well,  it seems she’d been doing some investigation of the… wait.. wait for it… the Homeland Security.   Yep, the very people that had deprived her of her Liberty and her First Amendment rights;  the very agency who is supposed to protect us from “Terrorists”.

Homeland SecurityIn a predawn raid her family home, reporter Audrey Hudson said the investigators, including an agent for Homeland’s Coast Guard service, took private notes and copies of government documents that she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.  Of the documents taken by these “Federal Agents” none of them were disclosed to Ms Hudson.   What was in the 5 files that concerned the Agency?

The warrant referenced no specific permission to seize reporting notes or files per the Washington Times.  The Times also said it is preparing legal action for unwarranted intrusion on the First Amendment and serious violations of Audrey Hudson’s Fourth Amendment rights as well.

Interestingly, Hudson’s husband has had no charges filed against him nearly three months later.  What’s that all about?  Oh yea- that’s not what they were looking for at that time.

3%20monkeysWhere’s the rest of the media on this?  SILENT.

As Americans, we can’t just stand idle while a new generation of leadership is taking advantage of the citizenry right in front of our faces.  Call Congress, post on Facebook about this case and others like it.

What’s next?  They coming for our blogs, our Facebook pages that don’t agree with them?  Our websites?   They coming after anything we have or say if we don’t agree with them?  Your thoughts?

Thought-Police

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »