With the President hell-bent on attacking Syria, and doing everything he can to garner support for his cause, it is of vital importance to contact your Congressional Representatives and let them know that America does not want this war.
Here is a copy of a letter I wrote to my representatives. Feel free to copy it, change it and make it your own. Just do it. Do it now.
If ever there was a time that you should pay attention to your constituents, it is now. The President’s ill conceived, plan to wage a limited strike against Syria will contribute nothing to our national security, will further increase our national debt, and will stretch our war-weary military to the breaking point.
Yes, the killing of innocent civilians by the Assad regime (if indeed it was Assad) was a despicable act and worthy of a response. But that response should be an international one, not one shouldered solely on the backs of U.S. service members. Despite the President’s assurances of a limited engagement, (which would only make us appear impotent), common sense tells us that this will lead to an escalation of hostilities that would keep us fighting in the Middle Eastern theater for years to come, and would result in far more bloodshed that the Assad regime’s chemical attacks. It would also activate the terrorist threat within our borders, and cause energy prices to skyrocket. There is no clear justification for our going it alone, no clear mission, and no clear exit strategy.
You were elected to your office as a representative of the American People. Your duty is not to the President, it is to us. I urge you to the job you were elected to do. To bring the voice of your constituents to Washington and vote against any resolution to attack Syria. The American People do not want this war, there is no immediate threat to our borders to justify this war, and it can only end badly for us.
Here is the way to contact your representatives.
As Obama rushes headlong into an ill-conceived and unwinnable altercation with Syria, I find myself asking, why. I’m skeptical that the current resident is really concerned with America’s image as a military superpower, since he has sought to undo that perception ever since he took office. No, Obama is a Socialist Liberal through and through, and one of Liberalism’s favorite imperatives is, “it’s for the children”. The only justifiable reason for taking any action against Assad, is that there are innocent civilians caught in the crossfire between his evil regime and an equally evil rebellion. Could it be, that this is how Assad plans to draw us into a conflict that we have no business entering?
By using chemical weapons against his own people, he has goaded the United States into a response. Like a playground bully who is too cowardly to pick a fight with the big kids, he tortures and teases those who are weaker, until the big kids can no longer stand by and watch the abuse. He wants us to bomb him. The only thing the radical Islamist groups hate worse than each other, is Israel, and by association, the United States. If he can coerce us into waging war against him, he may be able to garner the support of his Muslim neighbors and maybe even some of the rebels themselves. Once America’s involvement is secured, it’s all the reason any Muslim country needs to attack Israel. It is a brilliant strategy. After all, nothing unifies quite like having a common enemy. Just ask Hitler.
If Obama is hoping that this is his chance to appear as a confident Commander-in-Chief, he is sadly mistaken. He will be seen as a gullible fool. One who was tricked into entering a conflict that will cost us much, gain us nothing, and will further diminish our standing in the world for years to come.
Since the verdict of the George Zimmerman trial, I have watched the reactions from all sides with a sense of frustration. More than once I have found myself shouting at the radio, TV, or computer screen “just what do you want from us?” The supporters of Trayvon and his family were adamant in their desire for a fair trial, for justice. Once granted that trial and justice being served, they now want another trial in Federal Court under civil rights violations. OK, just what was it that you wanted? Justice or vengeance? The leaders in the black community are calling for an end to racial profiling. However, they refuse to earnestly acknowledge that it is the violent behavior of many young black men, and the undisputable fact that young black men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, that are the causes of such profiling. Instead, race-baiters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and local black leadership foment an unreasonable fear of white people, and authority. Many black parents now teach their children to keep their hands in view and speak respectfully to police officers. They tell them not to wear baggy pants, hoodies in the summer or let their underwear show. They teach them not to be out late at night or hang out in certain areas or with known gang-bangers. They teach their children that they must do these things not to instill better values, but because white people have an irrational fear of black people and because of this, young black men are always in danger of being unfairly incarcerated or worse. Funny thing is, these are some of the same things I have taught my kids. Not because they might be the victims of a perceived injustice, but because it is the correct way to behave. You are supposed to have respect for authority, and to dress and behave respectfully, if you want to be respected yourself.
There is clearly a disconnect between how the black community and the white community perceive identical situations. In the white community, it makes perfect sense to assume that someone who dresses like, talks like, and has the same swaggering posture as a thug, is a thug. According to the black community we should not make such assumptions unless the person has actually committed a crime against us. Mind you, it’s OK for blacks to be suspicious of other blacks, but if it is done by a white person, it’s profiling and should be illegal. To most business owners, it is a sound business practice to analyze inventory and to secure merchandize that is often stolen. If those items happen to be frequently purchased by blacks, then it is not business, it’s racism.
Almost without exception, black people will tell you of how they have been followed by store clerks, heard the locking of doors, and witnessed white people clutching their purses tighter when they approached. Even the President told of his experience. I know that personally, when I meet a black person, unless that person, is dressed like or acting like a thug, I don’t behave that way. In fact, I can’t think of anyone I know who does. Could the experiences passed down from generations past, documented accounts of past horrid treatment at the hands of whites, affect how you perceive your world today? Could it be perhaps, that you have been conditioned by your culture to expect this kind of treatment and are hyper-sensitive to it?
No one in my generation, black or white, has attended a segregated school, used a segregated bathroom, eaten at a segregated lunch counter or knew anyone who owned or was a slave. Our parents may have, our grandparents surly did. But that was two generations ago. We get it. We really do. Judging someone by the color of their skin is wrong. It’s why we no longer form lynch mobs, or petition to keep black people out of our neighborhoods. It’s why we think nothing of working, shopping or commuting with our black neighbors. The thought of returning to the pre-civil rights era is as abhorrent to us as it is to the black community. That is why whites in America are becoming increasingly frustrated at being judged for what our ancestors did to your ancestors.
Told by politicians pandering for their votes, a media desperate for ratings and leaders within their own community hungry for power, that they deserve reparation, many of today’s blacks are no longer content with seeking a level playing field and a color blind society, they seek retribution. By allowing themselves to be used by leaders more interested in increasing their own power, and by becoming dependent on government entitlements, the black community has embraced victim-hood. By doing so, they have willingly become slaves all over again. And this time no amount of white guilt can undo the damage. It’s something the black community must do for itself.
- Black America’s True Nemesis: Liberals, Not Zimmerman (americanthinker.com)
- Dear Black America (uiowa.uloop.com)
At first glance, that seems like a really pointless question. We know without a doubt that George Zimmerman pulled the trigger and shot Trayvon Martin. But the question isn’t about a trial verdict. It’s about racial profiling. Was Zimmerman profiling Martin? Of course he was. The question is why?
In spite of how white people are portrayed in the ratings starved media, and by race baiting politicians, I was never taught at any time in my childhood that I was to fear or hate black men. No white person I know in my circle of friends or acquaintances was ever taught this. I cannot name a single person who honestly believes, whether in public or private, that black people, simply by virtue of the color of their skin, are intellectually or morally inferior to whites. Yet, I have to admit, that when I see a black man in baggy pants, and hip hop chains, arrogantly swaggering through the parking lot, I hold my purse closer and quicken my steps to my car or store entrance. If I ask myself why this is, if I truly examine my feelings and ask my self is it only because he is black, I can honestly and without reservation answer no. Why? Because if I saw a white or hispanic kid dressed the same way and displaying the same attitude, I would react the same way because both would seem to be punks looking for trouble. If a saw a black man taking his toddler by the hand and walking across that same parking lot, or a wearing a suit standing on the sidewalk, or walking out of a church, I would have no fear of these men. When my black neighbor, who happens to be a successful business man, has a barbecue in his back yard, I don’t give the black people coming to and from his house a second look, because none of these people look or act threatening in any way. Did I profile these people? Of course I did. Whether we want to admit it or not, all of us, regardless of our race, profile. We all observe the people around us and determine whether or not they are a threat to our safety. George Zimmerman was profiling when he, based on the fact that several crimes in the area had been committed by young black men, felt Trayvon, someone he didn’t recognize as living in the area, was suspicious. Trayvon was profiling when he was suspicious of a “creepy ass cracker” following him. In both cases, both men viewing each other as suspicious, was a reasonable reaction.
Why are young black males so often perceived as a threat? It’s the elephant in the room that nobody wants to name or talk about. It’s the culture of violence so many of them choose to live in. Every Rapper who has ever sung the praises of killing cops, beating women, and stealing from “whitey”, shares the responsibility for Trayvon’s death. Every young black man who thinks raping a woman is “just having a little fun”, and killing someone for his expensive clothes isn’t wrong, it’s evening the score, shares the guilt. Every gang-banger who has ever participated in a drive by shooting, or armed robbery has Trayvon’s blood on his hands. For it wasn’t the color of their skin, it was the words and actions of these people who caused George Zimmerman to view a young black man, his head covered with a hoodie, who was doing nothing wrong and had every right to be there, with suspicion.
We are longing to welcome young black men into society. They are free to become, whatever they dream to be. There are black businessmen, lawyers, and teachers. There are black astronauts, scientists, and neurosurgeons. We have a black President. But are these men, who became successful because they valued education, and hard work, the role models for many young black men? No, they are seen as sellouts and “Uncle Toms”. Instead, many young black men look to gang leaders and drug dealers, people who attain their wealth from committing crimes, as their source of inspiration. This is a truth that the black community has to come to terms with. If they want to protect their sons from being perceived as dangerous, they can no longer ignore it. And no amount of governmental aid, political correctness or white guilt will change it. It is a cultural shift, the black community must achieve for itself. The black community needs to listen to the white perspective without the filter of perceived racism, just as much as the white community needs to listen to them.
In this light, I am proud of the reaction of the Sanford community. Their anger and disappointment at the verdict is understandable, their restraint commendable. The grace and dignity of Trayvon’s parents is an example for us all. Let the healing begin.
- Did Zimmerman Profile Martin – or the Other Way Around? (conservativeread.com)
- It’s Not Just About Trayvon (blogher.com)
Saw this video on Chicks On the Right. When will those in the government learn that they work for us. There are those who understand what this country was founded on and will not stand by and let our Constitution be trampled.
Earlier this week the Boy Scouts of America made the decision to allow gay boys into the organization. Gay leaders however will not be allowed. I stated in an earlier post that I had mixed feelings about the decision. I still do. But mostly I am disappointed and this is why.
The BSA was bullied into this decision by groups who are less interested in becoming Boy Scouts than in changing American culture. I am disappointed that the BSA did not fight for its Supreme Court confirmed right to make its own rules.
The half-hearted compromise to allow gay boys but not gay leaders will please no one. Radical gay rights groups will continue to push until both gay adults and boys are allowed to exhibit openly gay behavior at Scout functions. Rather than solving the issue, the BSA will now be faced with many more court challenges. Most likely from Atheist groups seeking to force the organization to abandon its Declaration of Religious Principle.
The BSA needs to draw its line in the sand, and draw it now before the organization’s values are whittled away to irrelevance.
From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.
Consider this quote from Karl Marx for a moment. Imagine a society where you are free to pursue your passions. Do you like to write poetry? Fine you can spend all day writing poetry without worring where your next meal is coming from. Have you always dreamed of healing the sick? You can go to medical school without worrying about crushing debt. Enjoy music? Sit on the corner and play your guitar all day then go home to a mortgage-free house. Have a talent for fixing cars? Open up your own garage and don’t worry about overhead costs. To the Socialist Progressive, this is the goal. A moneyless society where everything belongs to everyone and the abilities balance out the needs. A place where, without the encumbrance of providing for our basic necessities, there will be enough people who are smart enough to become doctors, engineers and scientists, enough people know how to grow crops, make clothes, and build houses, enough people who enjoy flipping burgers, picking up trash and scrubbing toilets, to balance out those who don’t. Sounds wonderful doesn’t it? No one has less than anyone else. Everyone is a Prole. But…….. No one can ever have more. No matter how hard you work, how much you apply yourself, you will never have any more than the slackerd who donates his time and nothing more to the collective.
It is man’s basic human nature to desire a reward for his hard work and ingenuity. To take pride in caring for the things he owns. When these feelings are suppressed and made out to be evil, gone is the incentive to build, create, improve. It is basic human nature that the Socialist Progressive ignores. Most people will not willingly hand over rightfully owned property. We are not meant to merely survive and when reduced to that existence we will cease to produce. The idea of a self-perpetuating Communist utopia is a lie. In order for there to be enough makers to feed the takers, someone must be in charge. Someone who maintains the balance of farmers, factory workers, skilled labor, and entertainers. The promise of pursued passions is replaced by assigned careers, and forced labor camps. The Communist goal of freeing people from the slavery of the factory owner, replaced by slavery to the government. This is the great irony of the Socialist Progressive movement. You do not need to look any farther than our recent past, to Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, China, and North Korea, to find evidence that this is so.
The United States was never meant to be a place where we are controlled by the government. Every Article, Section, and word of the Constitution and Bill of rights, were carefully drafted to protect the rights of the people to control their own destinies, own property, and enjoy the fruits of their labors. Read the Bill of Rights. Then realize that every one of those freedoms were paid for with blood. The heros of the Revolutionary war understood the kind of life they would lead if ruled by a tyrannical government, and they were willing to die to prevent that from happening. From that time on, our American military has fought time and again to stop the spread of tyranny thoughout the world. From freeing slaves, stopping the spread of Communism, to keeping Islamic terrorism from our shores.
We don’t like war. The whole idea is abhorrent to us, and it should be. But consider this quote from George Orwell,
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
The phrase “Freedom isn’t free” is not just a tired cliche’. It is the truth. Men and women have died defending the ideals of our Constitution. As we go about our business and barbecues this weekend, take a few minutes to think about how we as a nation have honored their sacrifice. We have elected to office men and women who seek only to increase their own power, whose idea of a perfect America is closer to that of Marx than that of Jefferson. We have allowed our own government to attempt to disarm us, and to use its power to intimidate and silence us.
We should honor our fallen veterans by demanding our government be accountable to us. To demand that our government uses our taxes funds wisely, and respects our individual freedoms. We have a responsibility as citizens to be informed, to show up and vote, and vote wisely. It is not too late to take our government back. Don’t let our heros’ deaths be in vain.
Congress is now debating Senate Bill 649 The Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. As the Obama administration continues to increase the strong-arm of the government over us, it is important that you contact your representatives and let them know your view. We cannot depend on the media to accurately reflect the views of conservative America, they won’t be taught in the schools. If we are to change the culture and return this nation to its once exceptional state, we must make our voices heard. Here is an example of an email I sent to each of my state’s Congressmen. Feel free to copy, edit, or write your own letter, JUST DO IT. You can find the addresses for your representatives here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/
As a registered voter in the state of _________, I am informing you of my opposition to the various gun bills, specifically S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, that are being introduced in Congress. As you debate these bills in the coming days, please keep the following in mind:
There is little evidence that any of the proposed measures would indeed reduce violent crime, however there is evidence to show that in many areas of the country where the legal ownership of guns is encouraged, violent crime has been reduced.
The Constitution guarantees our right of gun ownership for more than just hunting and personal protection against crime. It was clear from the other writings of our Founding Fathers, that gun ownership was a way to protect the citizenry from the overbearing tyranny of a government out of control. As an informed voter, I would strongly reconsider my support for a Congressman who votes in favor of any bill that would increase the stranglehold of governmental power, while decreasing my right as a citizen to maintain control over it.
Common sense dictates that one of the best ways to increase safety in our schools and communities is to improve services to the mentally ill. Our system now is a revolving door where treatment is fragmented and inadequate. Steps need to be taken to make it easier for parents, legal guardians and law enforcement officials to commit violently mentally ill persons for treatment. There also needs to be in place a system by which such persons are monitored to be sure that treatment plans are followed.
All schools should be required to provide adequate armed security based on the number of students and staff on the property, and funding should be made available for this purpose. This security could take many forms, from district created police forces, to support from local law enforcement, to the training and arming school staff. The choice on what form this should take should be left up to the local school districts.
Background checks are an important tool to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. I personally do not object to background checks for the personal sale of firearms. However the exchange of guns between family members, whether through sale, gift, or inheritance should be exempted from this requirement. Furthermore the checks should be accomplished using existing databases. There should not be any database created to track applications for background checks, or gun purchases.
We were all horrified by the slaughter of innocent children at Sandy Hook, but as terrible as these types of incidents are, it is important that as a representative of your constituents, you put the emotional considerations aside and base your vote solely on the constitutionality of the bills at hand. Our personal liberties are precious and come time for reelection, my vote then will be heavily influenced by your vote now.
This coming May the Boy Scouts of America will make a decision on whether or not to allow gay people into the organization. As a scout parent, I have very mixed feelings about this issue. For more that one hundred years the organization has fulfilled a need that may be greater now than ever before. As our society increasingly seeks to emasculate the male gender, young men need a place where “boys can be boys” while still learning the foundations of integrity taught by the Scouting program. The values enumerated in the Boy Scout Law, trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendship, courtesy, kindness, obedience, cheerfulness, thriftiness, bravery, cleanliness, and reverence are values that are sorely needed in all aspects of today’s world. From the White House, to the board room, to the schools, and the media, our society is yearning for men (and women) who will place personal integrity above their own needs for power and glory and wealth. The kind of men Scouting creates, and yet, this same society has sought on several occasions to tear down the tenets of Scouting as outdated or discriminatory. This is a dark place for the organization to be in. The issues are complex and weighty, and there is no solution that won’t hurt the program in some way.
The safety of the boys is the most important consideration in this issue. The idea that allowing gay leaders would somehow lead to an increase in sexual abuse is based more on emotion than fact. Homosexuality, and Pedophilia come from two different mindsets. I would expect any leader, regardless of his or her sexual orientation to keep their private lives, private. Just as it would be inappropriate for a man and a woman married or not to engage in sexual behavior during a Scout function, so would it be for a gay couple. Because the standards of behavior for adult leaders are well established and could apply to any sexual orientation, removing leaders who violate the rules could be accomplished without valid accusations of discrimination.
Allowing gay boys into the organization is more problematic. Navigating the hormonal seas of adolescence is difficult for any teenager. Add in an immature frontal cortex, the judgement center of the brain, and you have a recipe for all sorts of bad decisions. That is why coed groups such as Venturing, have strict rules of behavior. Many of those same rules could be used in a mixed group of gay and heterosexual boys, but it would be impossible to segregate tenting and bathing without discriminating against the gay Scouts. To be fair, there are already gay boys within the ranks who are engaging in camping and other Scouting activities alongside their fellow Scouts without any problem. But this could be attributed to a boy’s trying to hide his homosexuality from the other Scouts. If homosexuality is an acceptable behavior, would gay boys continue to be discreet about it? Regardless of your stance on the issue, this is something that has to be considered and appropriate rules put in place. Other wise it could lead to an incident that could be emotionally devastating to all boys involved.
The solution that the BSA seems to be favoring is to leave the decision up to the local units, based on the criteria of their chartering organizations. This will leave individual troops vulnerable to lawsuits if they choose to exclude gay members. As long as the National Organization is will to offset the legal costs to these troops it may be the best alternative. Solving the problem at a local level will make it possible for gay boys to form their own troops if there are none available.
No matter what decision the National Organization makes, it faces an uncertain future. If they decide to allow gay persons, they will lose the backing of the churches where so many troops are chartered. Many Scouting families, attracted by the emphasis on moral behavior, will leave in droves, possibly crippling the Scouting movement. If they do not allow gays, the organization will face an exodus of members sympathetic to the gay cause. They will also face legal pressures from outside groups who opposed any organization with Christian ties. Sadly, this is a battle the Boys Scouts of America should not have to face. The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the BSA had the right as a private organization to establish its own policies regarding who it allows to join. The state of California is proposing a law, SB323, that will strip the BSA and other organizations that exclude, gays, atheists, and others based on their religion, gender, or sexual identity, of their tax exempt status. This will essentially prevent these organizations from being able to operate in that state. This is wrong. It is not the place of any government, local, state or federal, to remove an organization’s Constitutional rights, in order to promote a social agenda. Indeed it should be society that will ultimately decide whether the BSA is still relevant in today’s world, and it will be society that will pay the price should it decide that the BSA is not.