Come do business with us...but only if we like you?

With the state of this economy, and the lack of job growth we have been experiencing for several months now, isn't it ironic to hear several big city mayors speak out against a company and seeking to block it from coming to their city. This week the mayors  of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco all spoke out against the fast food restaurant Chick-fil-A citing a difference of opinion with its President Dan Cathy. Mr. Cathy is on record as saying that he personally believes in a traditional marriage as being one with one man and one female as per biblical references, he then went on to say his company's policy is now and always has been one of non discrimination for age, race, sexual orientation , or gender. Regardless of the company policy these mayors have personally decided to block the restaurant , as legally as possible, from expanding in their cities just because they don't agree with the personal opinion of its President.

I personally could care less who marries whom, pretty much I just worry about who I may marry someday. It would be easy for me to say, "Go ahead and fight it out guys I could care less about either of your causes" but the reality there is a bigger issue here. Mr. Cathy's opinion is not an illegal one and his businesses are successful and provide plenty on jobs and tax revenue for these cities, he is being singled out by these mayors for his beliefs. What happened to freedom of speech in this country? Now you may personally agree with the beliefs of these mayors on this issue and think it's all just great but remember one thing, they are setting a precedent that anytime they don't agree with someone's personal beliefs its ok to attach them. What happens when they don't agree with someone else that you might be perfectly ok with? By going along with them on this issue can you really fight them when it finally hits closer to home? Anyway, if you live in Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco hopefully new business will come your way and there will be plenty of new jobs someday ,but only if your mayors like them...

The last Independance Day?

On the eve of yet another American holiday celebrating our independence this past year has seen a flurry of activity aimed at reducing our personal independence in the name of security. It was Benjamin Franklin that famously quoted, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety", with this in mind let's look how things have quietly unfolded.

January 1, 2012  wasn't only the start of a new year but the day our president signed into law the National Defense and Authorization Act , or the NDAA. Sections 1021 and 1022 allow the U.S. military to indefinitely detain without trial, anyone suspected of involvement in terrorism, including American civilians on American soil, and provides for the eventual trials to be carried out by military commissions rather than civilian courts. This portion of the NDAA practically annihilates due process of law as provided by the fifth and sixth amendments of the Constitution.  

Fast forward and on March 16th 2012 Obama strikes again signing a new Executive Order 13603, referred to as The National defense Resources Preparedness order. this little gem of an order give the Executive Branch the power to control and allocate energy, production, transportation, food, and even water resources by decree under the auspices of national defense and national security. The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order's functions includes the command and control of resources in peacetime determinations. By authority of the President the following agency heads would have complete control of their perspective resources:

1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials

Section 601 gives the President the power to sidestep congress and implement the draft in the military at will and even crazier than that section 801 gives the President the power to retain "skilled labor" without compensation. It does not define if the "skilled labor' is ditch digging, and being forced to work without compensation sounds an awfully lot like SLAVERY to me, a surprising feature to be signed into law by a black President. This Executive Order goes on to define the Presidents complete control of all food consumed by either human or animal including all tools, such as farm equipment, that are used to produce such foods.

Most recently The President has moved to have the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, speed up the process of issuing special certificates allowing unpiloted drones to fly on patrols in the skies over American cities. These drones, to number as many as 30,000 by 2015, are reportedly to be used for surveillance purposes only but clearly have been weaponized to kill terrorist overseas and the domestic ones are to be built with the ability to weaponized "as needed".

Clearly modern technology has brought the once unrealistic possibility of George Orwell's 1984 world into ever closer reality. Unlike any other people of this planet Americans hold a belief that our freedoms are God given and inalienable, and not to be denied, taken away, or given up without a fight. One of the last remaining weapons we have, for now, is the ability to fight back with our votes. The world wide web, as flawed as it can be, is still a source of free information and ideas, and everyone should use it while we still can to educate themselves on what candidate is our best hope for a free America. So on the eve of Independence Day why not make a personal promise you yourself not to give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety.

El Presidente'

This past week our glorious dictator, I mean President, announced his decision to relax rules for deportation of young illegal immigrants. Not even one year ago Obama admitted, on the Latino television network  Univision, that he did not have the authority to make such decisions saying, "It’s beyond his power to suspend deportations for anyone because there are laws on the books that he’d be breaking by doing that". Obama is not using Executive Powers but taking action through the Department of Homeland Security, basically side stepping the very congress he admits in his televised interview he doesn't have the power to do as President.  

When asking why would he do such a thing we only have to look at his track  record of ignoring the law, his illegal Presidential appointments while congress was technically still is session (using guideline previously established by the Democrats) , his decision to ignore and not enforce the "Defense of Marriage Act", and now altering the immigration laws to suite his own agenda.

I don't think many people would admit that helping people brought to this country without their consent isn't a good thing, hey how about that 13th Amendment, but there is a process and it's for a reason. Obama's actions are only a temporary fix, where as a congressionally arrived at answer would be permanent. I'm not sure as a young illegal immigrant I'd want to register my address and status into a system that "could" in the future use that info to find and deport me.

Marco Rubio, a republican and possible Romney running mate, has a book coming out next week and has been actively working with members of congress to come up with a permanent plan much like the one Obama unveiled and is reportedly very close to having the bi partisan support needed to make it law. Obliviously Obama is seeking to steal a bit of Rubio's thunder within the Latino community and appear to be the primary supporter of the Latino population. Obama also has made "The do nothing Congress" one of the focal points of his political attacks .

The biggest problem with the decision made by Obama is his apparent lack of respect for the rule of law and the dangerous precedents it sets for him and those that will come after him. Our system of government has 3 branches and a system of checks and balances for a reason. With these latest decisions made by the Obama white house we just have to wonder how far is he willing to go and at what point do "We the People" go from calling him Mr. President to El Presidente'

Where is your warrant?

Law enforcement officers all over the state of Indiana are upset by a law signed  by Gov. Mitch Daniels in March. The new law allows for citizens to use deadly force against public servants they believe are illegally entering their home.

The supreme court in Indiana had previously ruled, in a domestic violence case, that the defendant did not have the right to resist law enforcement officers he believed had entered his home illegally.  The court ruled "no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers" which many argued gave the police the legalized right to commit unjustified entries in violation of the 4th amendment, and its guarantees against illegal search and seizure. Of course the NRA supported and lobbied for the new law while organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police were dead set against it believing it will lead to someone getting away with killing a cop doing his job.

The news coming from various other states about the TSA stopping folks for random checks on their highways and other public locations, and wondering if such searches would eventually lead to private homes, had left me wondering just what would I do when the TSA came a knocking. The decision to give citizens the right to defend their homes has to make a few in power squirm and hopefully other states will see this as a solution to the growing sense that we are slowly loosing the freedoms guaranteed to us in our Constitution. All I can say to the TSA or any other government agency coming to private homes in Indiana is, "Where is your warrant"?  

IT's not REALLY about smoking

As of April 1, 2012, according to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, 79.8% of the U.S. population lives under a ban on smoking in "workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, or local law," though only 48.2% live under a ban covering all workplaces and restaurants and bars. Everyone from the AMA to most of main stream media promotes the idea that "Because cigarette smoking is bad for you it should be regulated or outlawed", people by the millions have jumped on the band wagon. I ask the question, "Are smoking bans as much a health issue as they are a personal rights issue"?

Once we give ourselves the mental OK to feel comfortable with banning "something" for being unhealthy what is there to stop "everything" that's deemed unhealthy from being banned? It's easy for someone to say, "Heck I don't smoke so why should I care if they ban smoking"?  The issue won't be obvious to you until they do ban something you like to consume, then suddenly you'll care, but the "We can ban anything that's not healthy" genie will already  be out of the bottle.

 Once they have banned enough things in this world that we can consume that are deemed "unhealthy" what is there to stop them from taking the next leap to things that we do that can be deemed as dangerous or "unhealthy", and frankly who gets to make these decisions for me and everyone else?

Freedom isn't "Free"

In these times of worldwide turmoil, and many countries in a state of "revolt", let's ask ourselves two questions. How are other countries dealing with their dissenters and even more importantly how would THIS country deal with the very same situation?

First let's look at the situation in Syria. It gained independence in April 1946, as a parliamentary republic. The post-independence period was tumultuous, and a large number of military coup attempts shook the country in the period 1949–1971. Between 1958 and 1961, Syria entered a brief union with Egypt that was terminated by a military coup in Syria. Syria was under Emergency Law from 1963 to 2011, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens, and its system of government is considered to be non-democratic. Bashar al-Assad  been president since 2000 and was preceded by his father Hafez al-Assad who was in office from 1971. Presently the Syrian government has been accused of using a campaign of violence that includes such actions as attacking opposition forces with tanks, bombings, and mass killings, along with imprisoning its own citizens for aiding and hiding the rebels.

We look at Russia, Boris Yeltsin was elected the President of Russia in June 1991, in the first direct presidential election in Russian history. On 31 December 1999 President Yeltsin resigned, handing the post to the recently appointed Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, who then won the 2000 presidential election. Putin suppressed the Chechen insurgency, although sporadic violence still occurs throughout the Northern Caucasus, some observers have argued that Russia's efforts to suppress insurgency in the North Caucasus have been the most violent in Europe in recent years in terms of ongoing military and civilian casualties and human rights abuses. Through what is considered a series of rigged elections he has managed to remain in office to this day. This past week Putin signed into law steep fines for protesting the government that are as much as 150 times the previous fines and add up to a typical middle class person's yearly income.  It is reported that Syria receives 75% of all its military equipment and weapons from Russia it's no wonder the Syrian government is taking its approach to revolt straight from the Russian playbook.

Egypt has been in a state of turmoil ever since 2011. Egypt has been officially named a "Republic" since 18 June 1953. However, it has been under Emergency Law continually since 1967. Between 1981 and 2011, Egypt was ruled autocratically by Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, who came to power after the assassination of President Mohammed Anwar El-Sadat. Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik was sworn in as Prime Minister on 29 January 2011, following the resignation of Ahmed Nazif. Since President Mubarak's resignation during the 2011 revolution, Egypt's de facto government has been the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, chaired by Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. Protesters again filled the streets in Cairo to reclaim a revolt they say has been hijacked after Hosni Mubarak was jailed for life and his top security officials freed in a sign they say his old guard is still in charge. Many fear radical Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood will gain control and invoke harsh and socially restrictive Sharia Laws.

Americans have been bombarded on all sides of news of other governments using extreme military action to squelch civil unrest and revolt all over the world. When asked the question what is OUR government willing to do in America to hold onto its growing power ? As at least a hint we could look at the actions taken in Waco Texas on February 28th 1993 against the Branch Davidian compound.  Acting on a tip from a UPS driver that they had been receiving weapons and other military supplies the US ATF,  FBI,  and various Texas law enforcement officers, carried out a full scale siege and assault on a compound known to contain as many as 75 people. Because the Davidians were heavily armed, the FBI's arms included .50 caliber (12.7 mm) rifles and armored vehicles (CEVs). The assault took place on April 19, 1993. Combat Engineering tanks used booms to puncture holes in the walls of buildings of the compound so they could pump in CS gas ("tear gas") and try to flush out the Davidians without harming them. The stated plan called for increasing amounts of gas to be pumped in over two days to increase pressure. Officially, no armed assault was to be made, and loudspeakers were used to tell the Davidians that there would be no armed assault and to ask them not to fire on the vehicles. When several Davidians allegedly opened fire, the FBI's response was to increase the amount of gas being used.

FBI also delivered 40-millimetre (1.6 in) CS grenade fire from grenade launchers; very early in the morning, the FBI fired two military M651 rounds at the Davidian construction site. About mid-morning the FBI began to run low on 40mm Ferret CS rounds and asked Texas Ranger Captain David Byrnes for tear gas rounds; the tear gas rounds procured from Company "F" in Waco turned out to be unusable pyrotechnic rounds and were returned to the Company "F" office after the fire. 40mm munitions recovered by the Texas Rangers at Waco included dozens of plastic Ferret Model SGA-400 Liquid CS rounds, two metal M651E1 military pyrotechnic teargas rounds, two metal NICO Pyrotechnic Sound & Flash grenades and parachute illumination flares.

 After more than six hours no Davidians had left the building, sheltering instead in a cinder block room within the building or using gas masks. The FBI claim that CEVs were used to punch large holes in the building to provide exits for those inside. At around noon, three fires broke out almost simultaneously in different parts of the building. The government maintains the fires were deliberately started by Davidians.  Davidian survivors maintain the fires were accidentally or deliberately started by the tank assault. As the fire spread, Davidians were prevented from escaping; others refused to leave and eventually became trapped. In all, only nine people left the building during the fire. 75 people died that day in the fire including 25 children under the age of 15 and two pregnant women.

I'm not saying the Branch Davidians were all innocent, certainly the 25 children that died were, I'm simply pointing out our government's willingness to use ANY and all means to achieve its ends. Even if those means include the very tactics our government criticizes other governments around the world for using as well.  All this happened in a post TSA era, before 911, before the Oklahoma bombing, before the Department of Homeland Security, and before the NDAA. Internet reports of the TSA branching out in authority are NOW performing random searches on our highways and even public events. Our skies are filled with over 15,000  drones with another 15,000 to be added by 2015 all for our "protection". We find out daily that our internet activities have been, and will be, monitored  as well as ALL phone calls, text messages, and emails. I'll close with one last thought. We have all seen the famous photo of the lone man standing off with a few tanks in Tianiamen Square China, but what most don't realize is that that photo has been severely cropped. What you see is a line of 5 tanks, which is in its self is amazingly brave, but what you don't see is that the reality is there is a line of over 60 tanks behind those! Brave citizens all over the world have had to face some harsh realities and freedom isn't "Free"

Something "Not Right" in Syria?

Is it me or does something just not seem right about the recent events going on in Syria? A mass killing in the small village of Houla  involving as many as 83 women and children, 108 total killed, were first deemed victims of government tank attacks and international outrage soon followed. France, Germany, Italy, and Spain immediately voted to expel Syrian diplomats and called for NATO intervention, Canada,  Britain, and Australia are moving to expel their Syrian diplomats as well.   

Closer examination of the video and photographic coverage shows that the photos published by the trusted BBC were from an mass killing in Iraq back in 2003, and the original photographer Marco di Lauro, posted on his Facebook page his astonishment that no one checked their sources before publishing them. The BBC later quietly removed the original photos from its online story and replaced them without any retractions, highly un usual.  The original story also blames Syrian government tanks for bombarding the village causing the deaths but video footage shows something much different. The Syrian  government noted no tanks were even in that area at the time and all of the deaths occurred at near point blank range from either gunshot wounds to the head or stab wounds with a knife.

The Syrian government is claiming that outside forces are using al-Qaeda forces to stir unrest and keep the conflict growing while the outrage over the killings has increased international calls for the removal of the Syrian president and his staff. I am far from saying that the Syrian government is innocent in all this but what makes this smell is the inconsistencies in the reporting of these stories by so called trusted news media. What possible advantage would the Syrian government gain from the killings of its own women and children, and who WOULD have the most to gain from these actions?

If one were conspiracy minded they "might" conclude that indeed similar tactics have been used in other counties to further the agenda of western nations in the middle east. Many of the NATO nations have grown weary of war and its cost and have been slow to move on Syria, including the US, and maybe one big event could move NATO to military action. Die hard conspiracy folks might have further considered that as war ends in Iraq and Afghanistan international bankers looking to profit from war need a new source of revenue as Nations borrowing for more military funds would surely boost their bottom lines. Then again maybe it WAS the Syrian government employing terror tactics on its own people to quash a rebellion within its own borders? Food for thought may make you wonder what the Unites States government would be willing to do to its own people if a similar rebellion broke out within its borders, but then again only conspiracy minded folks would consider that?