Obama Wants To Take Your Guns

January 3, 2013

- See all 8 of my articles


“The Regulars Are Coming Out!”

From October 1774 through April 1775 the American Colonies were preparing for the worst. Americans formed companies, bought arms, stored up powder, and prepared for war if it was to come to that. Much effort was made to avoid more conflict but the British rejected the grievances of the colonies.

Governors loyal to the British reported the preparations but were unable to do anything about it. On April 18 1775 General Gage, commander-in-chief of British forces in the American Colonies, sent 800 soldiers 18 miles from Boston to Concord to confiscate American guns, ammo, and stores. Dr Samuel Prescott said “the regulars are coming out!” Then Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Dr. Samuel Prescott spread the word across the countryside. This is the famous ride of Paul Revere.

It’s interesting that the ride of Paul Revere is so famous but the gun control aspect of the events is almost never told. England tried several times to confiscate guns and also banned the importation of powder to the colonies among other things. This is how tyranny behaves; this is how the Obama administration is behaving. This is why we have the Second Amendment.

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.

The Second Amendment has two clauses. The first clause is about the militia. A militia is to be well regulated. The word “regulated” is often misinterpreted and wrongfully applied. If we look at Federalist Paper 29 it says:

…To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia…

Obviously ‘well-regulated’ doesn’t mean limited or restricted but it means a ‘degree of perfection’.

The second clause of the Second Amendment is about “the people”. This is the same group referred to in the First Amendment. The purpose is to guarantee the voluntary arming of citizens. The arming of citizens “shall not be infringed”. The right to bear those arms “shall not be infringed”. Federalist Paper 46 says:

…To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves…

Obviously citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, any arms the militia has. The framers of the constitution certainly intended for an armed citizenry and for it to act as an opposition to the militia if tyranny threatens our country. I’ve heard from many people that some guns only purpose is to kill. My answer is “so?” The Second Amendment isn’t about less-than-lethal weapons and it’s not about hunting either. It’s only about defending ourselves and our nation with the most lethal arms and ammunition we can afford.

Should citizens have so-called military type rifles? According to the Second Amendment and Federalist Papers the answer is yes. Realistically our military uses nearly every type of arms available to civilians. This includes shotguns, handguns, hunting rifles (Remington 700, etc), and even a hugely popular hunting rifle the Ruger 10/22. Obama’s big push to ban guns is a violation of our constitutional rights. Any gun ban is unconstitutional and disrupts the checks and balances intended by the constitution.

What gain could there be from a gun ban? Studies have shown that guns are used around 2 million times a year in self-defense. The harm a gun ban would cause far outweighs any benefit. The CDC lists guns 25th cause of death in America. Swimming pools, bicycles, and crossing the street are more dangerous than guns. FBI statistics show that more people are killed with knives than rifles like the one used at Sand Hook Elementary in Newtown Connecticut. FBI statistics show that more people are killed by fists and feet than by rifles. Nothing good comes from any gun ban. We have no reason to trust an administration that arms the drug cartel and al-Qaeda but aspires to disarm the People. Quite possibly a severe restriction of our rights might have the same effect as it did in 1775.


A New Religion – And Obama Is Their Profit

November 29, 2012

- See all 8 of my articles


I totally flubbed up my election prediction last month. I don’t feel bad, GOP’s experts who are paid millions totally flubbed up too. Nearly all of their polls were wrong on battleground states. Half of the Democrat Obama voters I knew we’re voting Romney this time around and I didn’t even have to give them the ‘vote your values’ pitch.

Jamie Foxx’s recent praise service to Obama is quite indicative of neo-American Culture which many credit to Obama’s win. I always assumed “Hope and Change” was faith and expectations in the Obama policies. How in the world could Obama win after breaking every campaign promise? The only promise I can think of that he’s kept is universal healthcare (AKA Obamacare). I remember George HW Bush, our 41st president, only breaking one campaign promise “…no new taxes” and he lost. Learning from his father’s mistake’s, George W. Bush our 43rd president, worked quickly to fulfill campaign promises his first term and won reelection.

The faith of liberals is not in policies and campaign promises but in the cultural change of President Obama. Nominating Romney fulfilled the doctrine of the New Religion. A rich white male is the antithesis to the New Religion and is, symbolically, the devil. Obama has it out for the rich and the successful. Obama’s followers worship at the same altar. Obama doesn’t have to succeed today or keep any of his promises as long as the rich suffer. Obama doctrine is that it is better that all suffer if the rich suffer more. It is not allowed for all to succeed if the success is unequal. That is the first commandment:

“There is a certain point where you have made enough money.”

-President Obama

Congressional Democrats are on board with this and certainly approve of taking from the rich so the poor can stay home.

“Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program.”

-Nancy Pelosi

Sounds nice don’t it? None of the government programs have created jobs including unemployment benefits but what she says is good doctrine because it punishes the rich. All this spending and debt will force the hand of conservative to raise taxes to pay for it. Guess who Obama wants to tax. Everyone! Tax everyone but start with the rich they must suffer more.

Harry Reid and others are doing their part by pushing UN treaties like UN Agenda 21 whose purpose is:

“…to promote patterns of consumption and production that reduces environmental stress and meet the basic needs of society.”

– Agenda 21 Chapter 4 Objective 7(A)

I added emphasis because it is the New Religion’s doctrine that “basic needs” are provided for by the government after wealth is confiscated from the rich. Agenda 21 is anti-capitalist and fits nicely with the New Religion. The UN is a perfect vehicle for limiting wealth, production, consumption, and destroy capitalism. This is why Harry Reid pushes UN treaties so hard in the Senate. Watch the Senate this next week on the UN CRPD treaty Harry is bringing to a vote. If the US enacts UN treaties our standard of living will decline but the rich people will suffer more.

Romney and others said the “47%” will vote with their pocket books. Conservatives have said The People have voted for free stuff. That is half the truth. The People voted to punish the rich, for free stuff, and ‘basic needs’ taken care of by the government. It is the only thing the Obama administration has succeeded at in the last four years.

Mitt Romney Can’t Lose

November 1, 2012

- See all 8 of my articles

1 Comment

Mitt Romney can’t lose.  President Obama won’t let him.

A person once asked on Facebook “Does the presidential debate make a difference?” At first I thought about Regan’s debates. He didn’t just impress the People, he connected with them. His ideas resonated with the audience. His humor even garnered laughs from his opponent. President Reagan was likable, presidential, and his ideas became our ideas. I think the vast majority agreed the government wasn’t the solution it was the problem. His one and only debate in 1980 possibly won the election for him. What got him reelected was his ideas worked. When Reagan ran for reelection the economy was turning around. People saw their lives improve, the Iranian hostages released, and no more gasoline rationing.

Mitt Romney has ideas not tag lines. The first debate Mitt Romney devastated his opponent. Mitt didn’t do this with general terms like hope or change. Change can mean anything and different people have different hopes. Romney did a wonderful job explaining why cutting taxes works. Romney did an excellent job explaining what reduces violence including gun violence. Romney connected with the People with ideas.

Mitt Romney was very specific. He was specific on the effect of taxes and economic behavior. He was specific on national defense. Romney was very specific on what policies and promises President Obama failed in. Romney’s ideas are measurable. Reducing permanently unemployed and unemployed is measureable. Not cutting spending on national defense is measureable. Reducing taxes and limiting deductions is measureable. All these ideas are attainable and relevant.

People notice the greatest economies are in states with oil and oil exploration like North Dakota and Texas. Romney’s ideas for energy independence are attainable and relevant. Green technology is not there yet. Romney’s ideas are time-bound. Green technology isn’t there yet, clean coal and clean oil production is.

S Specific

M Measurable

A Attainable

R Relevant

T Time-bound

Romney is SMART and smart. President Obama’s hope and change could mean anything to anyone. While this may have helped him get into office it hindered his ability to get reelected. People have wonderful imaginations which lead to great disappointment when their ideas of change are not achieved. Hope is quickly erased with every policy that don’t match their idea of change. Failing to be specific is a failure of leadership.

President Obama did do measurements correctly but when it’s not coupled to specifics it is useless. He promised that if we pass TARP we won’t see 9% unemployment. He wasn’t specific on how this was to be achieved. We know throwing money at a problem doesn’t fix it and it didn’t fix employment it made it worse. He promised green jobs and energy independence. He failed and added billions to the debt in the process. He promised to cut taxes but only provided 18 tax incentives and extensions. Every April I pay more taxes and the President’s so-called “tax-cuts” are not relevant to the working middle class.

The last debate on foreign policy should have been a slam dunk for Romney. The Libyan embassy attack was and continues to blow up in Obama’s face beyond any Lewinski scandal or Watergate cover-up. Romney could have gone on the attack with near impunity but he chose not to and played it safe. With what I consider only a fair performance Romney still gained in the polls.

President Obama is not time-bound and is asking for four more years to somehow find success with the same failed policies. President Obama’s attempts to impress have failed to connect with the People. President Obama has failed in every debate to sound presidential, SMART, and smart. Debates matter and President Obama did everything right to ensure a Romney win on November 6.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The History of Media Bias

October 4, 2012

- See all 8 of my articles


Media bias has a long, sordid history.

I’ll never forget the famous black and white video of South Vietnamese Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting a Vietcong militiaman. It was a silent movie but when NBC acquired it they added the sound of a gunshot for drama. Does anyone remember that that Vietcong murdered Loan’s whole family? Hmmm.

I’ll never forget CNN’s report on the AK47 years ago. The AK47 uses the 7.62×39 round. The weight and velocity of the bullet is very similar to the old .30-30. If you fire one 124 grain bullet at about 2,000 feet per second it has a fixed amount of energy (mass x velocity = energy). If you fire a second 124 grain at about 2,000 feet per second it will have the same energy. CNN however denied the laws of physics. Their report stated that the fully automatic version of the AK47 was more effective with more penetration. That is a lie.

I’ll never forget CNN’s report just the other year showing a Tea Party protestor who was legally caring a rifle in public. The image was zoomed in on the nicely dressed man to show clearly that the rifle was an AR15 variant. They reported that this person is a white supremacy supporter. When the same picture was shown not zoomed in, it was actually and nicely dressed black man and Tea Party supporter.

I’ll never forget CBS’s Dan Rather and the Killian documents. Who could forget that one? I can see why liberals want to pretend it never happened. Dan was certain President Bush, while serving in the Texas Air National Guard in the ‘60s, disobeyed orders but was given special treatment. The forgery was quickly identified by bloggers and experts. Dan and others lost their job and credibility.

There is a serious pattern of abuse by media. It is one thing to give commentary, like my articles, and another to present lies and half truths as facts. The Press has been described as the fourth pillar of the government which keeps the other three in check. The description has never been accurate but don’t tell that to Chris Matthews. The Media Research Center’s study shows that Governor Romney gets 13 times more coverage for his gaffes compared to President Obama. Aikin was nearly crucified for his legitimate rape comment but it’s not any different from Whoopi Goldberg’s comment of ‘it wasn’t rape rape’. I know Whoopi isn’t running for office but it reveals the double standard that exists. Aikin should have received the same grace as Whoopi.

Don’t you love it when the national news does a piece on Romney which shows his portrait for a second then plays 30sec of video of Obama! Familiarity earns trust and loyalty and they know it. My local news would report on the coming Obama events but only report on Romney after his events were over. Apparently they were called on it and for at least one day at each newscast they stated they will disclose Romney events also.

A couple of years ago on a local AM radio station Rush Limbaugh show would cut out at the most unusual times. The technical difficulty never happened during commercials or the less spectacular moments of the Rush Limbaugh show (every moment is spectacular but some are more so) always when Rush was about to make his point. I ran into an old friend after that and we started talking about it. He had made some phone calls that day of the technical difficulties. He was convinced the operator at the radio station did it intentionally. After my friend called and confronted them it stopped.

When was the last time you read legislation? I read the first 100 pages of Obamacare and wondered if the Democrats were channeling Karl Marx. Have you ever read the transcript of an Obama speech? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Do not trust CNN or CBS to deliver news. I don’t even give Foxnews enough credence to take them for their word. Always look for the full video, read the transcripts, read the legislation, and get the first hand information. Be a skeptic of everything. Shape your perspective and understanding of the world we live in with facts and not commentary. Don’t let anyone appeal to your emotions but be stoic, wise, and vote Republican this November. Trust me.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Should The President Have Any Power?

September 6, 2012

- See all 8 of my articles

No Comments

The Irrelevancy of the Presidency to the People

In the beginning God created…………an imperfect union of the many states. Soon the confederacy of the United States of America gave way to a more perfect union. A republic was born with the intent to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” [sic] unto the People of the many states.

This republic did not alter or infringe on the states much. A common currency was introduced. A common defense was created. Treaties were negotiated by the Executive Branch and ratified by the Legislative Branch rather than individual treaties by the many states.

Today many people question the importance and purpose of the Electoral College. Obviously the States created the republic we refer to as the Federal Government or the United States of America. The States pick our ambassador to the world, the President of the Executive Branch of the United States of America. How States decide who their electoral votes go to is completely up to the States as laid out in their laws and constitutions. President General George Washington was elected with a majority of electoral votes but many states didn’t have a general election. Many states instead cast their electoral votes for General George Washington by consent of their state’s legislature.

As revealed in previous articles, the Legislative Branch is the predominant branch and the Executive Branch is tasked with executing law. What does the President of the Executive Branch of the United States have to do with individual Americans? Many observes, including the author of this article, say the president is irrelevant to the common US Citizen.

Article I of the US Constitution defines the role of the Legislative Branch. Spending and government programs are created by the Congress. Taxes, fees, and other monetary confiscations are levied or authorized by Congress. War, or authorization of hostilities as it has come to be called, is declared by Congress. Does the president have any powers over individuals that wasn’t first authorized by Congress? Article II of the US Constitution gives only executive power to the president. No authority in domestic matters is given to the president except by law first enacted by the Congress. What relevance does the president really have with the common US Citizen? Provided the president does follow and enforce laws, he/she has little relevance to the People. True power rests in the Congress.

Why should we care if the president grew up poor? Why should I care if Romney has servants? Does he have servants? If so, he’s probably created more jobs than President Obama! Do I care if he favors the rich, he can’t write law anyway. Do I care if the president favors the poor what more can he do that Congress hasn’t authorized? Nothing.

Some people say the president’s veto power is important. It didn’t mean much in 2007 when President Bush vetoed Democrat pork barrel spending. True power rests in Congress. A true republic would keep the presidency irrelevant as it was in the beginning our nation. A true republic would keep the predominant power in the Legislative Branch. Do we still have a republic? President Obama repeatedly stated, contrary to the US Constitution, that if the Congress doesn’t act he must act. President Obama is the most powerful and most relevant president ever. Is he still president or a dictator? We must elect a candidate that will follow law and begin the restoration of the proper irrelevancy to the presidency.

Does Chick-Fil-A’s Leader Have Civil Rights?

August 2, 2012

- See all 8 of my articles


Do Christians Have Civil Rights?

Civil rights is a phrase whose origin can be traced back to the early 1700’s. The concept of individual civil rights can be traced back to England’s bill of rights in the 1600’s. Civil rights concept is almost perfectly interchangeable with constitutional rights. Constitutional rights typically refer to all of a US citizen’s rights protected by the US Constitution. Civil rights include constitutional rights while specifically referring to the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and plethora of anti-discrimination laws. Civil rights are enforceable laws protecting rights and privileges of individuals in a group.

Do Christians have civil rights? I think we can all agree that Christians are a group. I think we can all agree the First Amendment prevents limiting the free exercise of religion. Constitutional rights certainly protect Christians and other religions. This still leaves it a little murky as to whether Christians has civil rights. When we look at the most famous civil rights legislation in the 20th century, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we have our answer. This civil rights act (there were plenty more before this one) protects “all individuals”. In addition Title II, III, IV, and most of the eleven titles place religion as a protected class right along with race. Christians and other religious people without a doubt have as many civil rights as other groups.

What is religious discrimination? Religious discrimination is the unfavorable treatment or different treatment of an individual because of the individual’s religious beliefs. This includes sincerely held religious and moral beliefs. For example, if a Christian owned a business and was denied zoning, building permit or anything else that was needed to participate in the economy solely based on their religious belief is discrimination. It is a violation of their civil rights.

Let us consider other groups in the same situation. Imagine Mayor Thomas Manino, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, alderman Joe Mareno, or city councilwoman Christine Quinn opposed an establishment of business based solely on their race! Instead imagine those same people opposing female business owners. It would be a crime and equally so if discrimination was based on religion.

If you’re still not convinced then consider President Obama’s position on civil rights as stated on his webpage.

“…He knows that our country grows stronger when all Americans have access to opportunity and are able to participate fully in our economy…” [emphasis added]

The religious discrimination in our nation seems to steadily increase. A couple of high profile incidents come to mind. In 2008 McCain – Palin lost the election yet Gov. Palin’s church was set on fire. In 2010 the Cross in the Mohave Desert dedicated to WWII vets was stolen. Now most recently officials in Chicago, Boston, and NY have intimidated and threatened Chick-Fil-A because of the religious and moral beliefs of the franchise owners. President Obama should be appalled. Attorney General Holder should be investigating. The Civil Rights Commission should launch a parallel investigation.

The franchise owners and private owners of Chick-Fil-A restaurants have had their civil rights violated. You won’t find the Rainbow Coalition protesting. The Black Panthers don’t have a $10k bounty on anyone. What is going on is a peaceful expression of support for free speech and civil rights by being a patron of the Chick-Fil-A. This is powerful movement that any civil rights leader could envy. I’m feeling like chicken.

Enhanced by Zemanta

President Obama Violates Separation of Powers

July 5, 2012

- See all 8 of my articles


Whatever possessed the Framers of the US Constitution to separate the powers of government? How does anything get done with a committee of hundreds, a committee of one hundred and a president? Obviously a majority of the power must rest in one department, one partition, one branch of government so that the people’s work is done. That branch of government is today known as the Legislative branch. For a better understanding of the intended nature of our government I try to refer to the Federalist Papers.

Separation of powers is best described by Federalist Paper 51. The powers of the three branches are separate but not all branches are created equal.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.

We see that the Legislature is intended to be the greater of the three branches. It is further subdivided into the House and Senate with the House the greater of the two. The House is greater since it truly represents the people where the number of representatives is derived from the enumeration of the population. The House must be the origin of all appropriations bills, the House has the authority to impeach, etc…

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.

Here we see from Federalist Paper 51 that though the Executive and Judicial branch are the lesser of the two, they have powers to keep each other in check. Overall, the people keep all three in check.

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government…

The Press has been described as the fourth branch of government but truly the fourth branch is the People. An informed people is an energetic check on the government.

Today President Obama has breached our republican form of government and garnered more power unto the Executive Branch than ever intended by the Framers. Executive Orders apply to the executive branch only but the uninformed people of America seem to think it’s the law of the land. Obama coined another catchphrase for his power grab calling it “We Can’t Wait”.

If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.

– President Obama

Unfortunately President Obama has gone beyond his Constitutional powers. Obama works in a region transcending the Constitution and within the permissive will of Congress. Obama has restored funding to the terrorist organization Hamas despite federal law. Obama has restored funding to Egypt despite federal law. Obama has reduced deportations of illegal immigrants despite federal law. President Obama funds his czars despite being defunded by Congress. Obama creates czars despite no Senatorial consent as required by the US Constitution.

This unnatural power imbalance should result in the House restoring the proper Constitutional balance of power and impeach President Obama. Congress has failed to act and now it is incumbent upon the people to restore the republic, to be the check on the government that Federalist Paper 51 describes. We must hold Congress accountable for their inaction and unwillingness to defend their Constitutional powers. We the People must fire President Obama for his unilateral unconstitutional rogue behavior or it is the end of a republic.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Is This the Most Important Election?

June 7, 2012

- See all 8 of my articles

No Comments

Editor’s note: Peter Shaw is joining The Soap Boxers and will be writing a conservative political column the first Thursday of every month.  He replaces Squeaky, who will still write occasional articles, but on a less regular basis.  Welcome aboard, Peter.

Every election year I hear this phrase; “This is the most important election in our lifetime.” Sometimes you hear it’s the most important election since the Civil War. The recall vote in Wisconsin for Governor Scott Walker has prompted some people to say it’s the most important election ever. I am a political aficionado but the one thing I hate about politics are the emotional arguments. I don’t like being played by any candidate or cause.

I honestly believe the election of President George HW Bush, our 43rd president, was more important than this election in 2012. I believe the election of President Ronald Reagan was more important than this election. I believe the election of President Abraham Lincoln was more important than this election. In 2004 President Bush and other Republicans gloated that more people voted Republican than ever before. This claim is pointless since everyone knows there were more registered voters in 2004 than ever before. The real landslide was the 1972 election where Nixon won 49 states.

When President Obama tried to apply the Gospel of the Cross and the Golden Rule to same sex marriages he isn’t making a logical or theological argument. President Obama is playing on people’s reverence, love, and obedience to God. In the process President Obama is pitting Holy Scripture against Holy Scripture. I find this contemptible.

Recently the Department of Justice employed selective enforcement by not enforcing federal law titled “Defense of Marriage Act”. President Obama said this was done because the law doesn’t provide equal protection under the law. This interpretation of law is logical however it isn’t up to law enforcement to interpret but the courts. I find this unconstitutional yet preferable to President Obama’s emotional plea.

What needs to be done by every voter is examining their values and why they hold such values. Every voter should gain a deeper understanding of the issues and the institutions of our government and society. For example, we need to know why the state is involved in an ecclesiastical institution. We need to know what is life and when does begin? We need to know what made America great and why she is floundering. We need to know the real reason why the 2012 election is important.

I believe I have a distinct perspective on the issues because I always ask why. I naturally distrust second person sources. I make very attempt to approach every issue with a stoic, logical, and objective perspective. I will cover these issues and more in the coming weeks. I can’t tell you what your values are and why you hold them. I can share my understanding of politics, government, and society. Despite what Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats say, rhetoric doesn’t divide a nation. A diverse culture divides a nation. I hope my stoic contribution to our web magazine somehow narrows the divide between liberals and conservatives.

My name is Peter Shaw and I write for TSB web magazine.