Skip navigation

Tag Archives: current-events

DXXXV


Thomas Hobbes, who wrote that legitimate political power must be representative and based on the consent of the people, born in Wiltshire, England. With that being said can anyone tell me what is wrong with Mitch Mcconnell? This member of Congress has for the past 5 years and probably beyond been as obstructionist as possible. I am not sure how one become the leader (?) of the house but this is one leader who  shouldn’t be.  The recent leak from some one on what was said in his office is enough to show what type of person we have representing (?) voters. He has been vocal on some many fronts but only to play to what he thinks his constituents want.  He (McConnell) is asking for a FBI probe to determine how the information  was obtained but did not deny the allegation. The conversation was regarding how to attack a potential candidate for his seat  (Ashley Judd) by using her publicly known bouts of depression. There are many Americans who have and have had bouts of depression yet are still high functioning people. It is about time to relieve our selves of Congressional members who cannot run on their own merits ( which are few in number). Mr. McConnell is just one instance of  our overall Congressional malfeasance. If  a FBI probe is required , it should start with the DXXXV.

Please Donate

Please Donate

Clarification


I ran across this article by Earl Ofari Hutchinson, this addresses the misinterpretations selective interpretation of biblical passages. The selective use could also apply to how Congress applies the legal mandates of our country.

 

  Earl Ofari Hutchinson

The long standing reason for shoving the courts, the federal government and the states into the private relations between two adult consenting men or women is the Bible. There are those two infamous and interminably cited passages in Leviticus 18:22 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 that deem it “detestable” a man lying down with another man. Then they castigate men for doing “shameful things” with other men.

The ultimate punishment is that the two offenders must be put to death. The only fair thing about this is that in the modern interpretation the part about putting the two men to death for their alleged detestable act is not cited. This would be murder, and that bumps up against the law. But the first part is read and acted upon literally. It’s after all written in the Bible.

But then why take one passage out of the Bible so literally and not others? Consistency in Biblical citing would do much to shut the critics up who finger point those as hypocrites for cherry picking a passage from the Bible to prop up a personal hatred or a political agenda on gay marriage.

Here is a checklist of Biblical prescriptions that gay marriage opponents must embrace if they want to shed the tag of hypocrite. Gay men aren’t the only ones that must pay the ultimate price for their Biblical prescribed un-godly transgression. Leviticus 20:10 also is stern that a married man that commits adultery with any man’s wife must be immediately dispatched. Girls don’t escape Biblical wrath either. If she has the temerity to have sex before marriage Deuteronomy 22:20-1 demands that she must be stoned to death, by no less than the men of her town, even presumably that could include one of the men that caused her to lose her virginity.

 

Psalm 137:9 has something to say about children when it orders to revel in those that seize children and smash them against a rock. If a man, and presumably it would be warring men that smash the children, the children’s mothers could not raise a peep of protest since Timothy 2:12 absolutely forbids a woman to have any authority over a man. But if for a moment she forgets her place, she runs the risk of being branded a sorceress.  Exodus 22:18 commands that she must not be allowed to live. If she somehow escapes being rapped as a sorceress and simply has a relationship with any of the male child smashers she could be tossed around sexually among many men, and according to Judges 19:25-28 she would just have to meekly accept her lot. The same rule of merciless and pitiless retribution doesn’t spare a man’s daughter either. Judges 11:30-1, 34-5 makes it clear that she must be sacrificed to satisfy the triumph of the Lord. It was not just a daughter who could be slain in sacrifice. A son could also be the designated victim in Genesis 22:2 which commanded Isaac to take his only son to another place and dispose of him “as a holocaust.” But the son or daughter can’t protest their fate since Leviticus 20:9 insists that talking back to a parent is disrespectful and once again the ultimate price that must be paid is death.

The two groups that fare best in the Bible are faithful husbands and slave masters. The word of a faithful husband is law says Ephesians 5:22 and his wife must obey him unquestioningly in whatever he says and does. Then there are the slave masters. The iron rule from 1 Peter 2:13, 2:18 is that their chattel, human that is, must not only serve them faithfully but must serve them in “reverence.” This rule doesn’t apply just to kind and charitable slave masters but the lousy and brutal ones as well. But there is an element of equity here since Leviticus 25:44-45 permits anyone to buy their neighbor if they have only been a neighbor for a temporary period and they can then press them into slavery.

Biblical scholars have written volumes alternately debunking these passages for their errors, misinterpretations, and for being taken out of context, and worst of for being selectively used to make any moral point one wants to make. Yet, the truly scary part of this is that no volume of meticulously researched and documented scholarly assessments of the Bible, let alone rationality, mean little to millions of Americans. A Gallup poll in 2011 found that nearly one out of three Americans is convinced that every word written in the Bible is the literal truth. About half of those polled were more charitable and simply said it was the “inspired word of God.” But inspired or literal, the danger is the same. The Bible is not simply taken on faith but for millions is the basis of moral conduct, and even law. But then that begs the question, whether it calls for the stoning of women, or being a cheerful slave, or slaying sons and daughters in the name of God, why not trumpet these acts too as appropriate conduct just as is routinely and passionately done to condemn gay marriage? But then that’s less a question than the ugly example of the never ending hypocrisy of hiding behind the Bible.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KTYM 1460 AM Radio Los Angeles and KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.

Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson

 

Please Donate

Please Donate

Views: 549

Apathy


I read this with interest even though the subject is specific to the firearms debate, relates to our approach to voting and who we vote for. Take firearms out of the equation and we have the basic subject of this writing.

By Tim Schmidt USCCA Founder

I once heard a man say, “Apathy is always at the door.  He’s waiting for you to let him in.”
Apathy is like a thief who is waiting for you to slip up and give him access to your home.  Once Apathy gets in, he steals your livelihood and takes away everything that is valuable to you.
While this metaphorical image seems obscure, it’s a perfect picture of what can happen to our rights if we are not vigilant.  Sure, it’s easy to speak up for your rights, beliefs, and convictions in the heat of an election or public debate, but what happens six months after the debate dies down?  What happens a year after?  Most people let Apathy in the door and they let him rob them of their values and convictions.
Becoming apathetic about the natural born rights we have to defend ourselves and our loved ones is not something that anyone can afford.  The moment you become apathetic about your beliefs, you risk the chance of losing them forever.
What am I getting at?  You’ve probably noticed by now that I, along with many of our writers, have been saying the same things about our rights over, and over again lately.  Do you know why?  Because we are unwilling to let Apathy in our front door to rob us of our liberty.  Our rights are worth causing a stir over, and you will not see any of us sitting down to see how this plays out.  Waiting for things to pan out will only lead to defeat.
I want to encourage you to stave off apathy during a time of political and corrupt scheming.  Lend your voice to the cause of freedom, and contribute to preserving the rights that were afforded us by the blood of countless patriots.  Call and email your state and federal representatives.  Sign petitions.  Support organizations and businesses that are fighting for freedom.
Your action can preserve the freedom that our children deserve.  Not acting can cause devastation they should not have to bear.

Take care and stay safe,

OCE


OCE is the abbreviation for  the Office of Congressional Ethics. How odd that this office is investigating Aaron Shock of Illinois for alleged ethical errors(?), when so many of the current sitters are possible just as culpable in many ways. Let’s remember the past 20 years of political infighting and wars. If we want to look at the work of this office  as being of value perhaps we want to have them (the office) looked with an objective eye. This brings to mind the question of “who are the watchers and who are the watchees?” The ability of a section of Government to police itself  could be classed as an oxymoron, as I consider  the existing modern day Congress to be.

Chris Kyle


The recent murder of Ex Sniper Chris Kyle is a tragedy for America. This combat veteran devoted his time to assisting fellow vets with after service problems and was killed by one of the same veterans he was helping. This tragedy points out the need for more professional help on the part of the military for the discharged and active members. No matter what so called firearms laws exist or will exist, the mental state of veterans and others is a big unresolved issue. It is unfortunate that it takes a tragedy to bring the mental health part of the problem to the front-again. The NRA and others have seemingly failed to grasp the idea that no one in Government is trying to put more laws on Fire Arm owner, the impetus is focused on keeping weapons out of the hands of persons who should not have them. The many State and Federal laws which many firearm owners have just a small amount of knowledge about need some adjusting so they work as first proposed. The divide between government and pro firearm factions is  resolvable if the “I am right and you aren’t” attitude goes a way.  We already know that the criminal elements will never, ever register a weapon of any sort but seem always be able to get them. The legal forearms owners and purchasers pay the price for it. The legal firearm owners pay again when these assorted reports on proposed or just talked about new or improved fire arm laws creates a flurry of demand  further boosting prices on firearms and accessories. This on top of asinine proposals like a tax on firearms and ammunition above what is already paid. There needs to be a more respectful legacy for folks like Chris Kyle who spent his military afterlife doing what the military should be doing.

How the ATF works


The ATF works in typical government fashion to protect us as evidenced by the following article. 

In the fictional world of television police dramas, a few quick clicks on a computer lead investigators to the owner of a gun recovered at a bloody crime scene. Before the first commercial, the TV detectives are on the trail of the suspect.

Reality is a world away. There is no national database of guns. Not of who owns them, how many are sold annually or even how many exist.

Federal law bars the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from keeping track of guns. The only time the government can track the history of a gun, including its first buyer and seller, is after it’s used in a crime. And though President Barack Obama and numerous Democratic lawmakers have called for new limits on what kinds of guns should be available to the public and urged stronger background checks in gun sales, there is no effort afoot to change the way the government keeps track — or doesn’t — of where the country’s guns are.

And tracing a gun is a decidedly low-tech process.

“It’s not CSI and it’s not a sophisticated computer system,” said Charles J. Houser, who runs the ATF’s National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, W. Va.

To trace a gun, the search starts with police sending all the information they have about the gun — including the manufacturer and model — to an office worker in a low-slung brick building just off the Appalachian Trial in rural West Virginia, about 90 miles northwest of Washington.

ATF officials first call the manufacturer, who reveals which wholesaler the company used. That may lead to a call to a second distributor before investigators can pinpoint the retail gun dealer who first sold the weapon. Gun dealers are required to keep a copy of federal forms that detail who buys what gun and a log for guns sold. They are required to share that information with the ATF if a gun turns up at a crime scene and authorities want it traced. Often, gun shops fax the paperwork to the ATF.

That’s where the paper trail ends.

In about 30 percent of cases, one or all of those folks have gone out of business and ATF tracers are left to sort through potentially thousands of out-of-business records forwarded to the ATF and stored at the office building that more closely resembles a remote call center than a law enforcement operation.

The records are stored as digital pictures that can only be searched one image at a time. Two shifts of contractors spend their days taking staples out of papers, sorting through thousands of pages and scanning or taking pictures of the records.

“Those records come in all different shapes and forms. We have to digitally image them, we literally take a picture of it,” Houser said. “We have had rolls of toilet paper or paper towels … because they (dealers) did not like the requirement to keep records.”

The tracing center receives about a million out-of-business records every month and Houser runs the center’s sorting and imaging operations from 6 a.m. to midnight, five days a week. The images are stored on old-school microfilm reels or as digital images. But there’s no way to search the records, other than to scroll through one picture of a page at a time.

“We are … prohibited from amassing the records of active dealers,” Houser said. “It means that if a dealer is in business he maintains his records.”

Last year the center traced about 344,000 guns for 6,000 different law enforcement agencies. Houser has a success rate of about 90 percent, so long as enough information is provided. And he boasts that every successful trace provides at least one lead in a criminal case.

“It’s a factory for the production of investigative leads,” Houser said of the tracing center.

A 1968 overhaul of federal gun laws required licensed dealers to keep paper records of who buys what guns and gave ATF the authority to track the history of a gun if was used in a crime. But in the intervening decades, the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups lobbied Congress to limit the government’s ability to do much with what little information is collected, including keeping track on computers.

“They (lawmakers) feel that the act of amassing those records would in essence go a step toward creating an artificial registration system,” Houser said.

What the ATF can do is give trace information to the law enforcement agency that asked for it and in some cases uses the data to help point them in the direction of other crimes.

Houser said the “manually intensive process” can take about five days for a routine trace. In some cases, completing the trace can mean sifting by hand through paperwork that hasn’t yet been scanned.

In more urgent situations, including the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting in Connecticut last year, ATF agents run a trace within about 24 hours. Oftentimes, that involves sending agents to the gun dealer that first sold the weapon to quickly find the paperwork listing its original buyer.

Despite having access to millions of records about gun purchases from dealers that have gone out of business, the ATF isn’t allowed to create a database of what guns were sold to whom and when.

ATF does keep tabs on how many guns are manufactured and shipped out of the country every year, but only gun makers and dealers know for sure how many are sold. There are also strict limits on what the agency can do with the gun trace information. And that’s just the way the gun lobby and Congress want it.

Various laws and spending bills have specifically barred the ATF from creating a national database of guns and gun owners. And due to the efforts of lawmakers, including former Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, ATF agents who trace the history of a gun can’t share that information with anyone but the police agency that asked for it.

As it stands now, local law enforcement doesn’t have access to regional data about gun traces. So if the police commissioner in New York City is trying to figure out where the guns are coming into the city from — whether they’re going to New Jersey first or upstate New York, for example — that data is not available because of an amendment introduced by Tiahrt, said Mike Bouchard, a former ATF assistant director for Field Operations. ATF can tell police where most crime guns are traced from, by state. But it does not release information on gun shops or purchasers.

If police chiefs want that, they have to reach out to individual chiefs at other departments and ask.

“It’s pretty ridiculous when we have an automated system that will do it for the chiefs,” Bouchard said.

Tiahrt said he first proposed limiting access to trace data to make sure the information wasn’t available under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. It was an issue of keeping undercover police, informants and innocent gun buyers and sellers out of the public eye, Tiahrt said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

Knowing who legally buys guns won’t prevent gun violence, the former Republican congressman said.

“We’re chasing these wisps of smoke that won’t solve the problem,” Tiahrt said. “Get to the root cause. Put out the fire. Deal with mental illness. Deal with situational awareness.”

Houser said he would prefer the tracing center’s operations to be expanded and a center built that would use some technologies to help more easily trace a gun. But until the law changes, his staff will continue removing staples, turning pages right-side-up and taking digital pictures of records.

“Our job is to enforce the laws that are passed to us,” Houser said. “What they give us is what we are required to work with.”

___

Associated Press reporter Eileen Sullivan contributed to this report.

___

Follow Alicia A. Caldwell on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/acaldwellap

Another View Of The 2nd Amendment and Militia.


I read an article the other day in the Wall Street Journal by  Chris Bray-a former Army Infantry Sargeant who is now an adjunct assistant Professor at a college in California. I have transcribed his article as it was printed in the Journal. I see this as another view in a shouting match where no one is really heard or listened to :

It’s the discussion Americans can never settle: Does the Second Amendment convey an individual right to bear arms, or does it only establish the means to arm the state military institutions that the Founders knew as the militia and we know as the National Guard? Those stark choices shrink our history into cartoonish simplicity. The real story is far more complex and illuminating. At the nations beginning, there was a variety of middle ways regarding militias, a set of expectations and boundaries built in culture and enforced by community. In a box at the Rhode Island Historical Society, a contract describes the creation of a militia in Kent County during the crisis year of 1774. ” We the subscribers do unanimously join to establish and constitute a military independent company”, reads an agreement signed by dozens of local men. “That on every Tuesday and Saturday in the afternoon for the future, or as long occasion require it shall be judg’d   necessary or expedient a Meeting to be held at the House of William Arnold in East Greenwich for the purpose aforesaid.”

For Instance:You and Bill and I hereby agree to make an Army, and let’s meet at Bill’s house to practice.

Formed by an  agreement between armed individuals, the Kentish Guards became a militia organization without being  a government institution, though the members would soon approach a colonial government of Rhode  Island for a charter. It was a “militia association,” built in equal measure from  multiple foundations. The men of the Kentish Guards weren’t a militia merely because they each owned guns, and they weren’t a militia because the government said they were. They became a militia when they talked among themselves, agreed on rules and a shared purpose, and signed a mutual contract. They were a militia as a community. The agreement to make a militia empowered its members and restrained them at the same time , allowing them to act but demanding that they act together in considered ways. The early American militia was neither purely individual nor purely governmental; rather, it was deeply rooted in a particular place, making the militia a creature that stood with one foot in government and one foot firmly in civil society.

In this social vision, government couldn’t properly take guns from the men who then made up political society but those men couldn’t properly use guns in ways that transgressed community values and expectations. The bearing of arms was a socially regulated act.

That mixed reality grew from a social world that looks nothing like our own. The first few American police departments were still many decades in the future and the victims of crime could only shout for their neighbors. Whole neighborhoods raced into the street in response to a cry for help and victims could personally bring the accused before a local magistrate. Communities turned out to face military threats, neighbors joining neighbors for mutual defense. Adulterers and wife beaters were often punished in the ritual called “skimminton” or “charivari” (where they were ) bound to a fence post and paraded in shame by their jeering neighbors. With this kind of local experience, the bearing of arms was an individual act undertaken in carefully shared and monitored ways. The historian T.H. Breen has described the citizen-soldiers of colonial Massachusetts as members of a “covenanted militia”, bound by agreement.

Another historian, Steven Rosswurm has described the negotiations between Pennsylvania’s Revolutionary government and the ordinary men, service as privates in the militia, who formed a “committee  of Privates” to present the terms under which they would perform armed service. Government did not just command; state and communities talked, bargained and agreed. individuals were both free to act and responsible to one another for their actions, in a constantly debated balance.

In the predawn hours of April 19th, 1775, militia men of Lexington, Mass. gathered around their commander, Captain John Parker greeted each man, writes the historian David Hackett Fischer in his book “Paul Revere’s Ride” as ” neighbor, kinsman and friend”, joining them to decide what they would do about the British Regulars marching towards their town.  “The men of  Lexington gathered around Captain Parker on the common and held an impromptu town meeting in the open air.” They had a commander and he joined them for discussion.

Today, we are presented with a false choice in which either the government bans  assault weapons or an unfettered individual right makes it possible for a monster to spray bullets into school houses. The forgotten middle ways of our nation’s earlier days, that world of mutuality that  excluded more people than it included ,its shortcomings are well known but the benefits of a strong civil society are lost to us when we expect government to address and solve our every problem.

The Answer to The Question: Did Beyonc`e Lip Sync?


Don’t we have better things to talk about?  if not I suggest looking at our elected officials who have perpetrated the worst hoax on us-getting elected on promises they never keep!

WASHINGTON (AP) — There’s no question Beyoncé’s  rendition of the national anthem was a roaring success. The mystery: Was it live  or lip-synced?

On Tuesday, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Marine Band told news outlets that  Beyoncé  had lip-synced at President Barack Obama’s inauguration. Master Sgt. Kristin  DuBois said the band was notified at the last minute that Beyoncé  would use a prerecorded voice track.

But by late afternoon, the Marine Corps backed off that statement.

Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Gregory Wolf said that because there was no  opportunity for Beyoncé  to rehearse with the Marine Band, it was determined that a live performance by  the band was ill-advised. Instead they used a prerecorded track for the band’s  portion of the song.

“Regarding Ms. Knowles-Carter’s vocal performance,” Wolf’s statement  continued, “no one in the Marine Band is in a position to assess whether it was  live or pre-recorded.”

A representative for Beyoncé  did not respond to requests for comment.

Du Bois declined to answer further questions. Earlier in the day, she told The  New York Times that the rest of the inaugural performance was live and they did  not know why a recorded track was used for the national anthem.

“It’s not because Beyoncé  can’t sing. We all know Beyoncé  can sing. We all know the Marine Band can play,” she said.

Kelly Clarkson’s representative said she sang live to perform “America (My  Country ‘Tis of Thee).”

All inaugural music is prerecorded in case weather conditions or other  circumstances interrupt the program.

The use of a recording is typical in big events. In 2009, cellist Yo-Yo Ma  was questioned about “hand-syncing” for Obama’s first inauguration. Ma said  instruments weren’t functioning properly in 19-degree weather

What we Need to Do.


As I look at President Obama’s second inauguration, it occurs to me that there we all have taken sides and in truth there are no sides. What we really have are individual opinions Based on information we read, hear and perceive. Not enough of us broaden our scope of knowledge to see that our real issues are not going to be resolved by our elected officials. These elected folks have an agenda that does not necessarily include what we want or need. Taking the recent and fiery issue of firearms, the President has never stated he would take away any firearms from anyone; the desire is to keep the firearms out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people (including the mentally ill). I believe we all can agree that no matter what weapons are available there are reasons to exclude the availability of certain people to possess and acquire firearms of any kind. The controversy over stronger laws against acquisition the so called “assault weapons” means only  future purchasers of these types of weapons will need to undergo closer and more intense scrutiny  prior to purchase. There is nothing said about taking the weapons from existing owners. The one issue should be the purchase of additional high capacity magazines and that I believe should be the only cause for concern among owners of the high volume weapons that use them. If the various Gun rights organization would assist in informing their memberships of what is really in play perhaps we would have better laws that could prevent repeats of the recent events which took so many lives. What we have is as stated in a classic movie: “a failure to communicate”.  The beauty of America is the ability to dissent and voice opinions but an informed opinion is better than a crowd mentality of misinformation.

The Many Faces of The Firearms Issue


The firearms issue has many faces, all of which appear to be reasonable to their advocates. Many feel that the government should have no hand in creating firearms regulation, many feel the government should have more involvement and then there are the folks who believe that only the states (and sometimes municipalities) should hold sway over firearms laws. These all appear to be good arguments as far as they go. The real trick is to create a safety net so to speak that would address all of the issues and create a conversation piece that would suit every need. This is possible but implausible given the great amount of vitriol over this subject. There are (unbelievably) several ideas that could work collectively to address all  (or most)of the needs of the majority. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done. These items range from  more comprehensive background checks, limits on who can own or purchase high capacity weapons and related  magazines. These are just the main topics on this subject, there are several others less prominent but just as important. The overall effect has been a lot of confusion on the issue  which promote the idea that firearms will be confiscated, restricted to law enforcement  or be banned outright. These ideas have been floated before but reached no conclusion beyond new unenforceable regulations and costly additional handling of paperwork. There are many people who do not own or want to own firearms, there are those who use them for sport and there are the hunters. These are the people who are for  regulations and licensing if the regulations are reasonable and enforceable. No one is  for the wild west scenario where everyone carrys a firearm even though this option is available under license from various states. The real test of a proper conclusion on this issue is an examination of the FACTS and reviewing all of the regulations from every state and create a universal policy with some room for the individual states to have exceptions according to the needs  of their residents. This whole issue has manufacturers, buyers and sellers on edge and needs to be resolved. . The real danger in all of this is the extreme rhetoric that flows from the uninformed and those who believe their way is the only way. Lastly, involve the manufacturers but do not regulate them out of the business or the country and strongly consider the ideas of Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado.