Why the current Stance of the National Rifle Association(NRA) is wrong (and needs to change)

Hello,

The title got you curious, didn't it?

If you are a liberal who thinks I want the NRA to be dissolved, you are sadly mistaken. If you are a conservative who is hoping to get a critique of the NRA, you are in luck. If you are a moderate that is content with the NRA, stick around, you may learn something.

In the past few years, especially since the 2016 election, the attack on gun ownership, certain guns and accessories, have received the full wrath of liberals, March for our Lives, the anti-gun Parkland survivors, etc. The media and guns rights advocates have been able to spin public opinion and are winning this fight. Their objective is clear: to to ban all guns and reduce our defense against tyranny. Why?  I wish I knew. If I were to guess, to keep Americans from defending themselves...from something much darker.

But that's not what I am here to write to you about, is it? This is about the NRA, a weak NRA at that. Which although its members, such as myself , take the Second Amendment and its purpose  seriously, the NRA does not seem to share the same passion and zeal. A passion for the second amendment and its purpose the NRA no longer has;  nor the spine or veracity for this fight. Why do I say this? and why am I so upset about it?

The NRA for the 20 years  has held that the purpose of the Second Amendment is for self defense. It is a vague  and weak argument, which cannot be easily applied to all guns or all situations.  The NRA therefore, needs to change the argument of the Second Amendment to the meaning of the founders: the Second Amendment is to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. If the the NRA does not do so, it is very likely  it will not survive; and with it's death the Second Amendment.

Now to their credit,  some NRA spokespeople have gone on the offensive. Like Dana Loesch and Colion Noir. Noir who made a tweet  on February 28th 2018 that said: "Because you all keep telling us we won't be able to fight off a tyrannical  government (The 2nd isn't about hunting)  with our little pistols so we also have AR's."  Point being that is  why we have the Second Amendment;  to be armed to defend ourselves as a people against a tyrannical government. So why hasn't the NRA as an organization been stronger in saying the exact same thing?

In a Join the NRA ad, the message is freedom, protect the right to own and purchase firearms, and  right to protect yourself. These are all well and good, so why the hell am I upset with their message? because with the recent assaults on our freedoms, their message doesn't go far enough. How so? because the argument made by the NRA is defensive, and not an offensive one. It fizzles out at protecting  your home and whether you should  have an AR-15...but does  little to back up why you should.

The even bigger issue is that by starting with this argument, it is easy to argue many guns and accessories illegal; because they are not needed for hunting or defense. For example, you truly do not need an AR-15 for self defense or hunting. You do not need a semi-auto AK or "assault weapon" for those purposes either.  You have shotguns, revolvers and bolt actions for self defense and hunting.  That's how it is argued. what it should be is ARs, AKs, etc are the last thing we the people can have to defend against tyranny. Cannot have fully automatic weapons or explosives or cannons, so that's it. If we lose those, we have nothing left.

So let's talk about the NRA shall we? The National Rifle Association along with its Institute Legislative Action , touts itself as the defender  of the Second Amendment. Per their  mission statement: "...[the] NRA continues  to uphold  the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime." From their recent achievements listed on their site; the  NRA  has worked  hard  recently to try and lobby against further federal and state gun laws; they are  pushing for statewide carry reciprocity; and  are the #1 organization in America with promoting firearms safety, training and  competition, respectively.

To understand this  we must start  with the history of the NRA  and review their history to the current day:

According to the NRA's website  in a brief history (NRA.org/about-the-nra), it was started by Union Civil War veterans Col. William C Church and Gen. George Wingate in 1871. Both were dismayed  by the lack of marksmanship of their troops, and founded the NRA with the "primary goal of the association would be to promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." By 1873, NRA sanctioned matches were being held. The NRA moved to promote  shooting  sports  to youth in 1903, and by 1906 NRA's youth program had 200 participants in a boy's rifle match that year. The NRA continued to market itself in its commitment to training, education,and marksmanship. It was not politically  involved until 1934, when it formed the Legislative Affairs Division. This was right after the  1933 national Firearms Act. It was not a direct lobby group, just mailed out facts to members regarding Gun legislation. It was not until the 1970's  that the NRA would become a Second Amendment "defender".

This fundamental shift in the NRA came from an internal revolution, aka the Cincinnati Revolution in 1975. This came at a time the NRA wanted to move their head quarters, ditch the political activism, and be committed to hunting and  competition...much to the begrudgement of many members. So when members at the time revolted, they took over the board of directors and  cleaned house. What was formed consequently was the Institute for legislative action (ILA). According to their website: The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the lobbying arm of the NRA. Established in 1975, ILA is committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What followed in the 80's and 90's  was  activism through the NRA and ILA to lobby and  try to stop any new  gun laws and restrictions  from being passed. The Modern era of the NRA that most of us are aware of is the Charlton Heston era; who was president and spokesperson of the NRA from 1998-2003. A member since 1941,  Heston was influential in making the NRA-ILA known for  defending the Second Amendment and overall rights to own and posses guns. Most of us think of the NRA in this way. Many of us remember Heston holding that Kentucky Rifle over his head  and proclaiming: "From my cold dead hands!" Likewise we remember the interviews of Heston stating the Second Amendment right was non negotiable on news Shows. This is what we know the NRA for being, it is clearly not this today. Today it is a multi-million organization that compromises  with the ATF and the Federal government.

I started writing  this in August 2018. Since that time the ATF  and NRA supported bump stock ban has gone into effect. I was not sure at the time  how people reading this would react.  With recent developments it has become clear  that the NRA is not a true defender of the Second Amendment. The NRA will not  fight to remove current Federal laws or  try to enforce the original intent of the  Second Amendment.  Furthermore with the history of the NRA presented here, it is no wonder  why the  NRA is not going to push or fight for "assault weapons" or weapons to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. They will protect guns for hunting, collecting and at times self defense; but not support your right  to have weapons to defend yourself when the Army is sent to take you.  Sound extreme? well it wasn't in 1776, and should not be so now.

In closing, the NRA must choose a more aggressive course and correct itself. it must through strong leadership and  a stronger message  be able to start its argument that the Second Amendment  shall not be infringed. That the purpose is not for self-defense of the individual but protect the people and free state from tyranny. if they do not do this I fear they will be nothing more than a national gun club again. That the Second Amendment will be lost, and although there are better groups out there such as Gun owners of America, the loss of the NRA will mean an end to defending the last wall between freedom and oppression.

Author's note: I joined the NRA in 2016 as a 5 year member. As a member I am disheartened by their  lack of interest in defending the second amendment.

A Warning to those causing our second Civil War

Some thoughts: It is one thing, in fact it is one's duty as a citizen to scrutinize their government. To make sure our government officials are held accountable and follow the Constitution; so that we do not live in tyranny...

However, it is quite another to cause insurrection and usurp authority and to call for the death of our President. To stoke the embers of hatred and violence into death and fear is not "protecting democracy" nor is it "fighting fascism", it is making the very thing you are fighting against: a totalitarian state.

I get it, you think you are fighting a just cause...but where were you when Obama betrayed our country to foreign powers? When he told the UN we as Americans needed to accept a one world government? Or bailing out the big banks multiple times? You were SILENT. Which means the your cause is as hypocritical as your timing.

I will be the first to tell you that I cringed when those on the right hoped for Obama to be assassinated...he was voted in by the people, through the electoral college. We did not burn businesses, we did not kill Democrats, and we did not ask our bosses days off to protest; we we protested peacefully and waited for the next election.

Furthermore, I saw this coming. Which is why I didn't vote this election. It would either be revolution with Clinton or civil war with Trump; either one is Americans killing Americans. This cannot be laughed off or thought as a conspiracy theory anymore...this is happening now. And just like with any war, it starts with incidents and mobs...who turn into a movement and then becomes organized into an army. A nation divided against itself cannot stand and we are about to fall apart as a country. It won't be pretty and it saddens me beyond words...

In closing, the left, the liberals, antifa, etc have chosen the path to war. They have chosen this path. If you (the aforementioned) are reading this, understand what you are doing: you are exciting violence, you are playing into the hands of the powers that be and once Martial law is declared from this we all lose our freedoms. Stop while there is still time because once it starts it won't end...

I pray God will have mercy upon us and upon our country. That His judgement that has been stayed for so long can be delayed and he will see that a majority of this country are righteous...but if not...that he spares the righteous from His holy wrath.

The ban and the wall.

I don't normally rant but but with the travel ban of a few Muslim countries and proper vetting even of those who may have green cards... I hope that those who wish to annihilate us are scared.

I was appalled that feminists in the women's March chanted allahu Akbar...That liberal spinsters say Sharia law is just a cultural thing we need to accept....Or that we can trust them....

Friends, acquaintances, co-workers, etc both liberal, conservative or other; I can promise you that under Sharia law we will all take part of it, and the kufars (unbelievers) especially the infidels, blasphemers (Christians), Jews, gays, hippies, and so on... Basically all non Muslims will be either killed, raped, forced to live in poverty, enslaved, etc...All for not being Muslim.

When over 50% of Muslims in American Muslim communities want Sharia law you should be concerned. If you've ever heard of voice of the Martyrs, you should be concerned.

One final thing about the wall, as it has come to be known, is a hot topic. Now I will grant that there is valid debate on how to finance it, who's to build it, etc...But there is no questioning the principal behind it or the enforcement of our immigration laws already on the books...

It's not a race or a rich versus poor debate; but whether we are governed by law.  Mexico has strict immigration laws...In fact they locked up an American soldier who they claimed crossed over illegally for 100+ days.  Canada enforces their laws...Want to move there because you're sad about the election? Good luck on a work visa and trying to make 6 years before you can get Canadian government benefits. Britain enforces their laws, Ukraine enforces their laws, Saudi Arabia enforces their laws, etc why do we have to make an exception? If you want to come here then you come here legally...Heck if Mexico stops enforcement of their laws then by all means come in as you have, until then know that the law, not feelings and usurpations, take precedence in the USA.

Done

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to...

What a presidential candidate should be running on.

A Review and Summary of Dinesh D'Souza's Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

Last night I watched D'Souza's new movie last night and here is a brief summary and some critiques that I have.

The Summary:

Introduction: D'Souza starts with his conviction of breaking campaign finance laws.  His time in jail and  that his idea of America changed, getting an idea of Hillary through conversations with gangs in jail.

The History of the Democratic party:  Using Andrew Jackson, the civil war and Woodrow Wilson as the main examples of how the Dems have been on the side of racism, using Ida B Wells to show that blacks were Republican until the New Deal was formed.

He then used Margaret Sanger to coincide  Democrats  being not just against blacks but  against women and pro eugenics (making a master race and getting rid of undesirable peoples).

Hillary Clinton: Using her mentor Saul Alinsky to open,  D'Souza makes the case that Hillary and her husband Bill are crooks and criminals, going back to their first meeting (and prior to) through being in Arkansas and the White House and recently the  Clinton Foundation and as Secretary of state.

Ending: Trying to tie it all together,  with the history of the Democratic party and the Clintons; how can one with a conscience vote for them? Ending with a choir singing the complete Star Spangled banner.

Now obviously this movie is to convince people to not vote for Hillary. Will it be successful? Well I offer the pros and cons of the movie's purpose and a couple critiques. Let it also be known that  Dinesh D'Souza is an immigrant from India, is a conservative and had made an earlier movie of the same vein; Obama's America.

The Pros:

• Accurately showed how current Democrats try to distance themselves or outright lie about their party's history.
• Showed why Blacks and women, Hillary's  projected largest blocks of  voters, should not vote for her.
• Showed how Dems have  been involved since the  turn of the century to get involved with immigrants to vote Democrat.
• Showed well that Obama and Hillary had a similar mentor, Saul Alinsky and his ties to the mafia.
• Finally, Hillary's past shows that she doesn't care for the things she allegedly represents.
• Great coverage on the Clinton Foundation.

The Cons:

• There was way too much time spent on racism.
• The movie seemed aimed for an audience of democrat blacks and democrat women; completely missed a Bernie Sanders audience.
• Very little marketing of this movie meant hardly anyone will see it.
• Unlike his movie about Obama, there was no listing of what an America with hillary would look like other than her "stealing" it.  So kind of anti-climatic.

A few critiques:

1. Again, too much time on racism.  when he got to Woodrow Wilson, I was hoping he would show him as helping with making the IRS, the 16th Amendment, and founding the Federal reserve...that democrats empowered the same banks.  

2. He should have made points as to what America will look like with Hillary in office; a better summing up.

3. Finally, the constant focus of the civil war only being about slavery. This only distracts from the message.

Overall, I thought it was good, but did not sum up very well in my opinion.

What ISIS Really is.

This is an article by Graeme Wood from The Atlantic.  I am posting the link to it in its entirety.  Please read and understand.  

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

CNN Reports that ISIS wants to attack US homes

If you don't know how to use a gun, bout time you learned how to use one. The last 15 seconds should convince you as to why:
(Click on link)


http://news.msn.com/world/video?videoid=0b9ec157-ecde-4fef-a289-5a7ac97dff80

The US Gestapo Starts with Doctors if bill passes

This is an article from the NRA posted May 30th.  Here is the link:   http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2014/5/chair-of-federal-gun-violence-prevention-task-force-introduces-wide-ranging-gun-control-bill.aspx                

 If this law were to pass doctors can ask about firearm possession; if you are  deemed mentally ill you will have them confiscated.  Seems great, but here is the biggest issue:  if "mentally ill" is expanded as to its meaning (i.e. a conspiracy theorist with no prior violence or breaking the law, is deemed mentally ill because he/she is paranoid)  .  Please read and contact your US  congressmen and women. 

Chair of Federal "Gun Violence Prevention Task Force" Introduces Wide-Ranging Gun Control Bill

Posted on May 30, 2014

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA-5), chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, has introduced what he is calling "the Promoting Healthy Minds for Safer Communities Act of 2014."  In truth, the bill is largely composed of gun control measures that mirror and supplement acts being pursued in the states by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and his "Everytown" gun control cabal.

After a nod to more general mental health reform in its first two Titles, the bill gets down to gun control in Title III. There, it explicitly authorizes the Centers for Disease Control to study "gun violence," a code phrase for smearing the concept of firearm ownership generally. It also undermines protections placed in Obamacare to prevent physicians from inappropriately collecting information about lawful firearm ownership. Some opponents of these protections claimed they were unnecessary, asserting that the healthcare legislation had nothing to do with firearms. Yet Thompson's bill would authorize doctors to question "a patient about the ownership, possession, use, or storage of a firearm or ammunition in the home of such patient," whatever the patient's need for treatment.

Title IV of the bill would expand existing prohibited person categories under the federal Gun Control Act. Outpatient mental health treatment would become prohibiting in some circumstances. Misdemeanor prohibitions would also be expanded, including an entirely new prohibition related to "stalking convictions." As defined in the bill, such convictions would not require any finding of violence or even violent intent, nor would they be limited to offenses occurring between persons with preexisting relationships.  An existing misdemeanor prohibition would also be expanded to capture a much larger class of people. These prohibitions, moreover, would apply not just to future outpatient "commitments" or convictions but to those that had occurred in the past.  Thus, persons who have long been in lawful possession of firearms without problem or incident could suddenly find themselves subject to federal felony penalties for continued possession.

Another provision would limit states' eligibility for certain federal grants unless the state had certain types of gun control laws or procedures. One option would be for the state to authorize police to seize the firearms and ammunition of individuals who are deemed to pose an "elevated risk of harm," even if no other criminal or mental health proceedings are initiated. Such findings, according to the bill, could arise from a "history" of substance abuse or a determination that the person "lacks impulse control." Another option would be for the state to "temporarily" prohibit firearm possession by persons involuntarily hospitalized for at least 48 hours for mental health reasons, even if just for an evaluation that ultimately determines the person does not pose an elevated risk. Because the term "temporary" is not defined, however, it could conceivably mean anything short of permanent disarmament.

Still other provisions would undermine the relief-from-disabilities provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA). For several years, states have been changing their laws to comply with the original provisions of that act.  Those changes, however, would prove meaningless if the bill were enacted. Also unclear would be the status of persons who had undergone rights restoration under the original version of the NIAA but not under the greatly expanded procedures that would be mandated under Thompson's bill.

The NRA strongly opposes this unjustified incursion on Second Amendment rights. Not only is it unjustified and expansive in its prohibitions, it exploits and stigmatizes stereotypes of the mentally ill, most of whom do not pose an elevated risk of harm.

Rancher Bundy's Blunder? Or Advantage Liberty?

Many have seen the drama unfold in Nevada as a good ole standoff ensued this past week.  The cause is a Rancher Cliven Bundy and the cattle he has allowed to graze on Federal land, managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Now let us back up a bit; according to the article : Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Descend On Nevada To Help Rancher Defy Court Order by Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgess.com: "This conflict arises out of rancher Cliven Bundy’s many years of illegally grazing his cattle on federal lands. In 1998, a federal court ordered Bundy to cease grazing his livestock on an area of federal land known as the Bunkerville Allotment, and required him to pay the federal government $200 per day per head of cattle remaining on federal lands. Around the time it issued this order, the court also commented that “[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock.” Fifteen years later, Bundy continued to defy this court order."

Now I want to put this into some perspective.  Mr. Bundy has about 300 head of cattle.  If we simply do the math from 1998 to 2013, Mr. Bundy owes the feds $60,000 a day x 15 years (5,475 days) = $328,500,000!  What is even more fascinating is the Feds waited Fifteen years to collect on the court order.  Notice I said collect, not enforce. 

You see, you must understand how the federal government work.  They are nit-picky and they are bullies; nit-picky in who they go after and a bully for their harassing nature.  For example IF the Federal government in 1999 slapped Mr. Bundy with a fine and enforced the ruling, I doubt most people would have been  bothered by it.  Mr. Bundy broke a law, continued breaking it and was punished in a reasonable amount of time.  However, the Federal Government did not do that.  They wait nearly 16 years to choose to make Mr. Bundy pay up and as leverage, threaten to confiscate his cattle.  Now some might still wonder: Well Travis he was breaking the law, it was only right, he deserved this.  To that I wish to enlighten you.  Since the days of monarchs, a government is viewed to have a parental role, which is partially correct.  A Government can be a good parent or a bad parent and can drive it's children to wrath, Biblically speaking.   Anyone who has children knows that making threats is no way to have your children take you seriously.  Those that later understand that and then try to punish their children usually have kids that despise them.  I know this is overly simplistic, but here is my point: if our Federal government  wishes for us to respect them, then they should not do things to spite us or anger us, the people.

It has also been raised that the militia members and Mr. Bundy's claim of the unconstitutionality of the BLM's approach is unfounded, citing Article 4, Section 3, clause 2 of the US Constitution which reads in part:  “[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." Great point, and certainly no one is questioning whether this is federal land or not.  The question is whether Federal land is to be treated as public or private property, concerning land rights.  Now you might be thinking: "Whoa! What about Yellowstone! Yosemite! etc" Those are national parks, that are preserved under the National Historic Preservation Act. However the Bunkerville Allotment is not a National park, a prehistoric site, grounds of a landmark, claimed by native Americans as a ancestral site, or a "site of Antiquity" (think Williamsburg, VA).  So who's land is it anyway?

This brings me to my second and final point.  This land is our land, not the government's land; We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  The Allotment is NOT private property, nor will you and I go see the acres of brush, it is the people's property.  The oxymoron that the federal Government wants to fine Mr. Bundy is amazing; he has paid taxes to the IRS, allegedly this goes to maintaining this land in the BLM's budget.  Not to mention the amount of this fine borders breaking the 8th Amendment by imposing excessive fines.  Also the notion that this is our land is not socialism, as we are using land all ready belonging too the people.  Socialism is taking private land and giving it to everyone.   In short, Mr. Bundy was using land that belonged to him by proxy and if the Feds do not want it used, they can put a fence on it.

In conclusion, when the Federal government refuses to enforce it's own rules and when it does confiscates property and chooses when it will enforce it becomes a matter of liberty.  When the Federal government uses land  that serves no distinct purpose and denies access to the very people who pay for it, it becomes tyranny.  That is why the Feds backed down, because in the weights of justice, it did not have a case.  Long live liberty!

Supreme Court: Consequences on deciding Prop 8 and DOMA.

In the recent media blitz concerning the two cases regarding Proposition 8 in California and DOMA (which we still await a decision), much is talked about regarding the right for people who love each other to marry vs Traditional Marriage.   This is fine and dandy for a political pundit show and I am all for traditional marriage, but there are two respective points that are being missed in the consequences of each case. 

What I am putting forth are the scenarios of different decisions and argue that a vote that is not yes to both cases ("yes" being they are constitutional) will dramatically change our country forever.  That the supreme court should not only look at what is morally right but also what is the best decision for the country; either progressively liberal or constitutionally stringent. 

Proposition 8:  The court is taking this case after the California supreme court voted that voting on whether Traditional marriage was the only legal marriage or not was not constitutional. Moreover, I am sure that would not be the case if the majority of Californians voted yes on it.   The reason according the the California Supreme court is that Homosexuals are their own people and it is a civil rights issue; that barring marriage goes against the 14th Amendment.

Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):  An act to say marriage is between a man and a woman (a law but not an amendment) is being branded unconstitutional not only for the reasons of Prop 8 but also for stating this goes against the first amendment because this is a Federal act based on religious grounds. Again the decision for this case has sweeping complications as well, to the effect to more than marriage.

Ramifications of Prop 8 Decisions:   First of all, this going to the supreme court is a liberal's dream come true.  Why might you ask?  because either a vote of "no" or simply not hearing the case would be a huge victory for the left.   Here are the scenarios:

A vote of yes:  This means that a true republic with voting to majority rule is able to vote upon their consciousness what is good for them.  It also means that the homosexual agenda has truly been defeated in the state that houses a Sodom and Gomorrah.

Not hearing the case: It would be an utter cop out by the Supreme Court not to hear the case, one because it would affect the DOMA ruling and it would send back to the California supreme court which said Prop 8 was on unconstitutional.

A vote of no: MAJOR consequences, as this does three things: 1) This would mean that the majority does not have say in voting or that voting has no point.   If I am a voter then my purpose for voting on an issue is worthless.  Meaning now anyone who may want to vote for a cause will not based on this decision.  The people not the state should make a decision and a vote of no means their vote carries no weight. 2)  This would also mean states cannot vote for something that the Federal government deems unconstitutional. This would truly eradicate state's rights and state the the citizens of said state have no binding power in a vote. It would mean state sovereignty was suspect as states would be nothing more than satellites of a National government.  3)  Future cases: What about gun rights? What about tax laws? etc if the Federal government thought these were "unconstitutional" they could override to what they deemed fit. 

Ramifications of DOMA Decisions:  This is pretty straightforward:

A vote of yes:  Not much to say here except a vote of yes means that, as has been the case for years and years, that a marriage of one man and one woman is what is correct and what has been marriage defined for thousands of years.

A vote of no:  This would mean marriage between a man and a woman are unconstitutional, past the point that it is protected by the federal government.   It would mean that now that if marriage is not between a man and a woman, then what is it?   Is it man and man? Woman and woman?  Human and animal?  One man and 20 wives?  Adultery is OK?   These are things that are not thought about.  In countries such as The Netherlands bigamy is already legal.   For some people, marrying Fido is appropriate.  The slippery slope this creates does not end until all degenerate things have come to pass for marriage.

Conclusion: Clearly a vote for yes on one is a vote of yes on the other and vice verse.   Branding both of these as unconstitutional in which we do not have laws to refrain the onslaught of an opened Pandora's box will ruin us.   Our country will no longer a democracy but truly that of a Socialist union.   That in both cases, the tenth amendment which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."    would be no longer effective.   California states these rights are not to the people and the Supreme court by voting no to both would say these rights are not to the states.   We have to understand that (even those who are for gay marriage) that the effects of these decisions reach farther than the votes themselves and if they vote no on each, the path will not end until we are all in a totalitarian state.

Letter to the Editor Daily Reflector 3-2-2012

There are so many things going on right now that I could only choose one topic and one that has been on my mind a lot lately is the recent issue with President Barack Obama mandating that religiously affiliated employers must provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions.

This flies right in the face of our constitutional First Amendment rights, that the government should not make a law to interfere with religion. Moreover, this is not just a Catholic issue as the media is taking it (recently many Protestant-affiliated colleges said they would drop health care coverage for students once Obama’s mandate was enacted), this is and issue for all Americans.

Remember how Obama promised that his health care reform would not include the funding of abortion? Well that seems to have been a lie and the compromise in which Obama said he would make insurance providers write contraceptive coverage into the plans is a violation of free enterprise. What we should all be concerned with is what is it the president we have in office wants to achieve. It would appear through his actions and his administration’s concerted efforts that he wants to make bigger government, which encroaches on civil liberties and forces the agenda of an elite few. That is why I am asking anyone who reads this, anyone who enjoys the freedoms we still have left in America, to support the Respect for Rights Conscience Act (H.R. 1179 and S.B. 1467) that will override such offenses to our liberties. Please contact your federal congressman or woman as soon as possible.

TRAVIS TYSON

Bethel

Hello!

I am back for real and ready to do some writing!

OK I am still here

I am slowwly working on this....lot of things (good things) going on in my life. Not much time to write lately. Stuff coming soon.

Big Bailouts hurt small banks

By DANIEL WAGNER, AP Business Writer Daniel Wagner, Ap Business Writer – Wed Jul 14, 11:43 am ET
WASHINGTON – To the list of economic woes squeezing small banks, add another one: government bailouts.
The Treasury Department's bailout program was designed with Wall Street megabanks in mind, according to a new report from a congressional watchdog. The "one-size-fits-all" program may actually be hurting small banks that are struggling to repay the money or even deliver quarterly dividend payments, the report says.
The main bank bailout program anticipated banks springing back from the crisis and raising fresh funds to repay the government, the report says.
That's exactly what happened to most of the big banks that took the most bailout money. Yet small banks continue to struggle, dragged down by souring loans for commercial real estate and high unemployment. Hundreds more small banks are expected to fail by the end of next year.
The 690 small banks that took bailout money are even worse off, according to a report Wednesday from the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitors the $700 billion financial bailout. Already, one in seven has failed to pay a quarterly dividend due to Treasury. They can't afford the payments, which will nearly double in 2013.
Treasury spokesman Mark Paustenbach disputed the findings, saying in a statement that the bailouts helped many of the banks "weather the storm and continue to extend credit in the economy."
But the bailouts' costs are troubling because of small banks' crucial role in lending to small businesses and supporting economic recovery, said Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the panel.
The program "was not intended as a bailout for Wall Street," said Warren, who also is a professor at Harvard Law School. "It was intended to support ... homeownership, retirement savings and banks across the country."
Warren said the bailout bill, known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, did stabilize the financial system. But she said that was only one of the program's goals. She said efforts to boost lending and support consumers have been less successful.
"There is very little evidence to suggest that the (bailouts) led small banks to increase lending," the report says.
In the end, that could mean that the biggest banks get even bigger, the report says. Dozens or hundreds of bailed-out banks could collapse or consolidate because they can't afford their obligations to taxpayers, it says. That would leave the handful of biggest banks with an even larger share of the banking system.
"The result could be that 'too big to fail' banks grow even bigger," Warren said.
The Congressional Oversight Panel was created by Congress to report on whether the bailouts are meeting their goals. The law also requires regular audits by the Government Accountability Office and creates a special inspector general to investigate fraud and other problems.

One Lone Light

I stand in a room that has One Lone Light.
The room, I do not know its size, ‘tis hard to tell,
Because the room is surrounded by the night;
I feel I am in a station of Dante’s hell!

The floor is of plank wood while the bulb gives hope,
But there is a darkness that surrounds both me and the light;
Much like a fog, which scares me, a fear I cannot cope,
For there are shadows in it that hide inside the night.

I hear them call me to turn off the bulb,
Others ask for me to join them in the darkness.
However I stay, to guard the lighted knolb.
And sit without fear, for with light there is no loneliness.

Some come into the light but like the darkness better.
They do things in secret which is a sin,
And follow one another exactly to the letter;
As they always go back, over and over again.

God however, gives me the courage to stay and fight,
They that do not wish to be made known;
Those specters that ask me to turn out the light,
So that their deeds, if in light, would be shown.

I want them to join me, to have the freedom that feel.
For in the One Lone Light there is liberty in its gaze,
No longer do I want them slinking in the darkness like an eel.
I want them to come out, to come out of their darkened maze.

They deny me and the One who has told me to be on guard,
Forever in the darkness do they perform their deeds;
They laugh, “He will never leave that light, for his head is hard!”
But I know they do not understand, for it is the light that their soul needs.

So I guard the One Lone Light,
To save myself from the deeds of darkness
And choose not to join their plight;
For with them it is utter loneliness.

God has given me this task to do,
Although I am weary, for it is for rest I am desiring,
I must keep the bulb shining, for it is I who
Am responsible, to keep the One Lone Light still burning!

Ephesians 5:3-14

(3) But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you, as becometh saints; (4) Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. (5) For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (6) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. (7) Be not ye therefore partakers with them. (8) For ye were sometimes in darkness, but now ye are light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (9) (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) (10) Proving what is acceptable to the Lord. (11) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (12) For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done in secret. (13) But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever is made manifest is light. (14) Wherefore he said, Awake thou that sleeps, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

Hello

I finally got around to setting up my blogger account. The content of my Blog will be about political goings on, Christian theological issues (in the sense of trying to agree on things instead of pointing fingers), and (as my Blog title suggests) try to wake people up to what is going on and at the very least, keep them from being swept up in the emotional tide of today's media.

Some posts will be originally posted on here, other will be things I have written in other places to put on here. My hope is, along with the objectives I have mentioned, is to develop my persuasive and informational writing skills in order to help with books i want to write in the near future.

I hope anyone who gives me the satisfaction of reading my Blog (especially down the road) will enjoy and find it beneficial in their own life.