Musings on Sports, Politics and Life in general

Latest

Let Trump Walk


Have we ever been here before?

Have we ever had a candidate for President who thought himself so far above the process that he felt as though he should dictate the terms of a debate? Who throws temper tantrums when he doesn’t get his way? Who treats the body politic as if it were there solely for his personal gratification?

None that I can recall.

Here’s my suggestion to the RNC: let him walk. If he wants to mount a third-party bid, let him. Do not fear him and do not fear his minions. Those mindless, spineless fools are not your partisans. They inhabit the same criminal, delusional world bereft of morals and moral fiber as their champion. Better to be a minority party of principle than a minority party led by a buffoon.

But make it plain. Be sure to put it in words that even the charlatan can understand. Failure to respect the American citizen and the Republican party means you are NOT on the ballot in any Republican primary or caucus. Being a rich boor will get you nothing but treated as a wealthy crank. He wants respect? It is time for him too start respecting us. Too many good men have died for our nation and our freedom to willingly give it to a slumlord sleazeball.

Otherwise, good-bye. And good-riddance.

Trump


Trump RatOur nation is in great trouble and we seem to have lost our collective minds as a result. Rather than focusing on actual solutions to the things that need solutions, we’re gravitating towards creating even greater problems that may well prove unsolvable. The very dissolution of the Republic is foreseeable in these circumstances.

Allow me to explain. We are fortunate in that we get to choose the people who create and enforce our policies and laws. It’s both a privilege and responsibility. Yet, too many of us do not see it as the grave responsibility to our fellow citizens that this opportunity entails. We do not participate in the process, or when we do, we do not take the time to understand the choices or the people we’re entrusting to make those decisions.

It’s been festering for more than a generation, this lack of civic responsibility. Our founders envisioned a democratic republic and provided the tools required to see that vision through. Even the greatest calamity to strike our nation, the Civil War, wasn’t a result of a failure of those tools. It came about from a deficiency in the nation’s moral character that couldn’t be solved by earnest debate. Yet, even the earnest men of the 1850’s would be shocked to see what has become of us. At the way so many of America’s citizens no longer care enough about the national character to do more than rant, rage and fire off a few nasty tweets.

Which brings us to the current election. At one time, there were 21 declared candidates for the Presidency of the United States. Twenty-One. Amazingly, none of those candidates has been able to elucidate a plan for how the country moves forward while handing the problems we currently face. On the Democrat side, we are given the choice of a septugenarian who wants to return a system of governance thoroughly discredited 25 years ago or a person of such low character that threat of indictment for corruption, murder and treason casts a gloomy shadow over her campaign.

The Republicans haven’t been any better. That the leading contender from that side of the aisle is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing carnival barker should be immensely obvious to even the most daft among us. Yet, somehow it escaped the millions pledging their support that the very character flaws they’ve spent the past eight years deriding the current president for, their champion exhibits.

This is beyond whether the Trump is a conservative or a liberal. This goes straight to our own deficiencies as a society. After all, if we weren’t as morally bankrupt as we’ve become, a third-rate reality TV personality, devoid of ideas and unable to even identify the real threats to the nation, would have been exactly what he should be: a public laughingstock, chased from the political process before the first chill winds of autumn blew. Instead, the modern day PT Barnum continues on, dragging the nation closer to self-immolation with every nonsensical statement he makes, egged on by a hallelujah chorus of sycophants unable to see the danger he represents to their own well being.

“Wait!” you cry. “The Trump speaks the truth I know, when no one else will!” you lament.

But does he?

His entire campaign is based on playing off the legitimate fears of the American people, and the continuing inaction of the Powers That Be to address them. A lackluster economy, a growing terrorist threat and changing mores have all left middle America wondering what happened, and left those who want to be led looking for what they perceive as a strong leader. Trump, whose entire life was built around being the ultimate huckster, the shyster, the carnival barker, selling himself in order to sell his services, is tailor made for this pathos. Ideas and thought are minimized; all that matters is being that perfect reflective surface in which everyone can see the things they want to see. It is Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” mantra on steroids. It is as fake as the winter is long. It is the proof that perception can be reality.

Were that all there was to Trump, we would survive (albeit not without pain). But what makes him far more dangerous to the nation is not campaign style nor the way he’s hoodwinked so many of you. We’ve survived empty suits in the Presidency before. We’ve even thrived with some. No, the danger of Trump lies in his history and the few policy positions he has taken. The Trump continuously demonstrates a Machiavellian tendency to get his way. Combined with his proposed solutions to America’s situation, you should be quaking at the very thought of a Trump presidency.

Those solutions are, at best, extra-constitutional. The electorate is supposedly upset over the last two administrations’ use of the Executive Order as a way to get around the Congress and enact policy against the will of the Congress and the people. Yet the idea that you would now support, unequivocally support, a man who plans to use that questionable instrument as a sledgehammer must be acknowledged. Too few of you have bothered to understand what Trump says, and what it means in practice. You do not want to hear that enacting those policies can only happen by suspending the Bill of Rights, a declaration of martial law, and the end of the United States as the world’s preeminent moral compass. In your rage and impotence, you cling to the megalomaniac and the promise of stability. Little do  you realize that attaching the nation to the whims of one such as Trump will bring us all to ruin.

So please, by all means, vote for Trump. Just remember that when you do, you aren’t just pulling on a lever in the voting booth. You are also pulling the handle on the toilet and flushing the United States of America away.

Honoring Homeless Veterans


(Author’s note: I originally published this post in November, 2014. Now that the Northeast Corridor is bracing for the first major storm of this winter season, it seemed a good time to remind everyone that the problem hasn’t gone away)

On any given night, some 50,000 veterans end up spending the night outdoors or in a homeless shelter. Additionally, there are estimates that as many as 1.4 million veterans are at risk of becoming homeless.

In a nation where politicians trip over themselves to prove how much they care about veterans, this should be impossible. Yet the facts are what they are. Men and women who’ve sacrificed years of their lives in defense of their country often find themselves reduced to begging for scraps of food and a bit of shelter. The reasons for veteran homelessness mirror those in the general population: mental health issues, substance abuse and just plain bad luck top the list. But if any subset of the population has earned the privilege of not freezing on a winter’s night, veterans should.

The VA, for all of its shortcomings, actually does a reasonable job of trying to care for homeless veterans. But funding remains an issue. For instance, there is the VASH-HUD program, which provides homeless veterans with housing vouchers and community support (such as job assistance and counseling). It has proven to be one of the best homeless programs in the country with less than 5% of the veterans accepted returning to homelessness within 5 years.

For FY2014, VA was granted funding to assist 78 homeless veterans in New Jersey. 78. For the entire year. I can go to Military Park in Newark and find 78 homeless veterans.

But there is a solution, and one that would actually save the government money in the process. All across the United States, sequestration and other budget cuts have resulted in hundreds of military bases being closed. They sit, abandoned, awaiting a government  auction where the property will be sold for pennies on the dollar. In New Jersey, Fort Monmouth sits abandoned, falling into disrepair while the former megabase of Fort Dix/Lakehurst Naval Air Station/McGuire AFB occupies 10 1/2 square miles in the New Jersey Pinelands, struggling to find a purpose after the 1991 base closures. Today, it is used a training area for National Guard and reserve units, with a federal prison and aircraft maintenance wing. Fort Monmouth once housed 21,00 troops; Dix-McGuire 27,000. On both bases, the buildings sit, more intact than less.

The proposal is this: turn a portion of either base (and the dozens more around the country) into a Veteran’s Homeless Prevention and Community Reintegration Center. Rather than hiring outside contractors to maintain the buildings, grounds, power stations and the like, assign those jobs to the veteran population living there. That would solve two problems that are often at the heart of veteran homelessness: a lack of civilian job skills (infantryman isn’t exactly a skillset required on Main Street) and providing a sense of purpose. Rather than requiring the VA to provide follow-up care on veteran’s scattered throughout the state, they would be centrally located: a VA clinic could be opened there, proving treatment for medical and mental health issues. Finally, rather than spending up to $25,000/year in housing vouchers per veteran, the government would roll that money into a facility it already owns.

Everyone wins. Homeless veterans find shelter, camaraderie, purpose, services and the opportunity to reclaim their lives. The government honors its promise to “care for him who shall have borne the battle.” And our nation’s citizens can rest easy in their beds at night, knowing that no veteran needs to sleep on a sidewalk.

BAD NEWS: For Republicans


It seems the Donald is about as electable as limburger cheese on a hot day.

politicalconnection

“Several recent stories, like this one from the Washington Post’s Philip Rucker and Robert Costa, report that influential Republicans have become increasingly resigned to the prospect of Donald Trump as their nominee. One theme in these stories is that the GOP “donor class” seems to have persuaded itself that Trump might not be such a bad general election candidate. On that point, the donor class is probably wrong. It’s hard to say exactly how well (or poorly)…

View original post 400 more words

The Eligibility Question


cruztrumpSo, Ted Cruz has started surging into Donald Trump’s self-declared country, the land of the public opinion poll, and the Donald isn’t happy. As is his wont, the Donald unleashed an ad hominem attack on Senator Cruz. Unlike poor Jeb Bush (weak! low energy!) or Rand Paul, Trump couldn’t  attack Cruz based on any outward attributes. He can’t somehow claim that poor polling should relegate Cruz to being a “loser.” In fact, Trump was forced to admit that Cruz is gaining in the polls – something that galls the GOP’s favorite narcissist to no end.

No, Trump decided to attack Cruz on the only thing he can hope to make stick: that because Cruz wasn’t born in a state, he is ineligible for the Presidency. Never mind that only 3 months ago Trump was saying it was a non-issue. Donald has gone full “birther” before on a political opponent, one whom he once fully supported: Barack Obama. That he’s going down that path again shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Trump (and the other birthers, who this time largely reside in the Democrat Party) are focusing their attention on Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The applicable part reads as follows:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The contention lies in the phrase, “natural born citizen.” What exactly does that mean?

Regardless of Trump’s reason for raising this as an issue, he inadvertently has brought up a question that needs to be answered. The fact that there is any doubt over who is a natural born citizen highlights how the lack of civics education in our schools has left even the most basic knowledge of how our government is designed to work untaught. No wonder we keep electing would-be petty dictators who prefer executive orders to actually working within the Constitutional framework.

People rightly point out that the Constitution does not define who qualifies as a natural born citizen. Not unlike other areas in our founding document, the framers sought to leave grey areas for future Congresses to address, modify and change as time went along. They were pretty prescient, for a bunch of 18th century farmer-philosophers, in recognizing that as the country grew we might well need to change the mechanics of citizenship. This is why they granted Congress, in Article 1, Section 8, the final say over citizenship matters.

So, the question of who is a natural born citizen is not a Constitutional matter. It is a statutory one. Congress has the ability to define who is born  a citizen, and it has the ability to define who is a naturalized citizen. In one important aspect, the Constitution was amended to define anyone born in the United States a citizen, regardless of parentage or circumstance:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now the entire question of Senator Cruz’ eligibility comes down to this: his mother was an American citizen who birthed Ted in another country; Canada, to be exact. Has Congress ever enacted a statute that defines someone of that circumstance as a citizen?

Well, sorry conspiracy nuts and Trumpsters. Yes, in 1952, the Congress enacted 8 US Code 1401, “Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth.” It covers the exigencies of Ted Cruz’ birth: his mother was a US citizen, his father a legal alien, both had resided in the United States prior to the birth.

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States…

Question closed. Ted Cruz is eligible, by statute and under Article 2 of the US Constitution, to be President of the United States.

 

America Remains Dangerously Asleep


” Oh what a tangled web we weave.
When first we practice to deceive.” – Sir Walter Scott

That seems to apply to the way “islamic extremists” have coerced the US government into supporting the destruction of the USA.

A Texas View

What is the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)? It is a Saudi-backed financial powerhouse linked to the Moslem Students Association, and by extension, the Moslem Brotherhood. NAIT finances and holds titles to mosques, Islamic schools, and other real estate in order to safeguard these properties and pool the assets of the American Moslem community. It also develops financial vehicles and products that are compliant with Sharia law, and it publishes and distributes Islamic literature, provides legal advice to Moslem organizations, and facilitates and coordinates Islamic aspirations inside the United States of America.

The North American Islamic Trust is a not-for-profit entity that qualifies as a tax-exempt 503(C)(3) organization; it supports and provides financial services to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Moslem Students Association (MSA), their affiliates, and other Islamic centers and institutions. NAIT owns the title to the Islamic Center of Greater Kansas City. Attentive Americans…

View original post 782 more words

Media Darling: Marco Rubio


rubio-traitor1

There was another GOP debate last night, as you might have heard. When it all was over, I gave my unvarnished opinion on how the candidate’s fared on Twitter:

 

When I awoke this morning, I was greeted with articles like this one in the Washington Post and this one in Politico. There are plenty of others out there, but if you’ve got a few minutes (that is, a few minutes you are not spending reading this post), perusing those two will do two things for you. First, you’ll immediately feel a need to purge lunch. Second, you’ll wonder (as I have) if they were watching the same debate as the rest of the country.

It is an important question, since most Americans still get their information from the same type of people who wrote those pieces. Obviously, the MSM was watching an old Dean Martin roast or something. Because otherwise, how could they possibly come to the conclusion that Marco Rubio was winner last night?

Of course, they weren’t watching a Dean Martin roast. And before you chime in, please let me state for the record that the pundits and writers who populate the airwaves and fill the white spaces in the newspapers are, for the most part, really intelligent people. But their problem is, as it has been for this entire cycle to date, that those really intelligent people haven’t been smart enough to leave the Beltway Bubble behind and get out with the people who are actually voting in these primaries. Because of that, we keep getting flawed coverage. They’ve been at a loss as to why Donald Trump polls higher than any candidate. They’ve been at a loss as to why Jeb! (or maybe just Jeb) is sinking more spectacularly than the Titanic. They’re at a loss as to why Ted Cruz is surging.

Everything Rubio did last night was geared towards winning over the Beltway crowd, which shows how bad of a pol he really is. Rubio punched all the buttons that pundits, spinmeisters and consultants love. He was polished. He was confident. He stood tall. He gave lengthy, wonky answers in a relatable way to policy questions. Heck, for once he even managed to leave the water bottle alone (mostly). So I can see how they thought he had a knock-out performance. His “optics” were durn near perfect, as if scripted by Hollywood. Rubio is, now that Jeb! is thoroughly discredited as a viable candidate, the establishment’s best hope. And last night, they projected their hopes on the canvas that is Marco Rubio.

But this year, the people doing the voting are paying attention to what these guys are actually saying. The candidates who are succeeding understand that the electorate is 180 degrees from DC. In fact, the quickest way for politicians to alienate themselves from the voters this year is to even have a whiff of “Eau de Establishment” on them. Optics (so long as nobody spontaneously combusts) are taking a back-burner to positions, and wishy-washiness is the second fastest way to obscurity. The fastest way? Taking positions that are at odds with what the electorate wants. This isn’t a new”phenomenon.” It’s been percolating through the GOP for a few years now. Ask Eric Cantor. Ask John Boehner.

So, when Rubio gave a vigorous defense of unnecessarily toppling foreign governments, you could hear the hiss as the tires on his campaign bus started leaking air. When he attacked Ted Cruz as being soft on defense because Cruz doesn’t think governments spying on their citizens is cool, you could hear the engine start to sputter. And when Rubio came out full-bore for illegal alien amnesty, the bus came to a screeching halt. Really, Rubio’s night was lost the moment Rand Paul hit him in the mouth (figuratively speaking) by labeling him “as the weakest of all on immigration” and Rubio had no retort. None.

Anyway, I feel somewhat vindicated: in post-debate polls on Brietbart and Drudge (which are decidedly unscientific), my three winners match up almost exactly – the difference being that Trump is 1, Cruz 2 and Rand Paul 3. but you know what? The NSRC – a Republican establishment organization – released their post debate poll, which was conducted using scientific methods. Guess what?

Trump: 43%
Cruz    : 27%
Paul     : 13%

But hey, there is some good news for the MSM. In the NSRC poll, Rubio finished with 8% of respondents saying he won, which is better than Drudge (7%) or Breitbart (6%).

Mighty Barry Strikes Out


Presidents give prime-time, televised speeches for one of two reasons: to reassure the nation during times of crisis, or to lay out major shifts in policy. After two major terror attacks in less than three weeks laid bare the futility of his foreign and military policy, Barack Obama needed to do both last night.

He failed miserably.

First, let me give praise where praise is due: the President finally admitted that the Ft. Hood shootings were an act of terrorism. It only took him 5 years to get around to admitting that. At that rate, he’ll admit that ISIS, Al-Qeada, Boko Haram, etc., are offshoots (at the very least) of Islam somewhere around 2025. Who knows? Perhaps one day he’ll even identify Wahibism and the Saudi government as the biggest sponsor of terrorism and religious warfare in history.

as mentioned, this was a prime-time speech, and the White House pulled out all the stops. Think of the Oval Office addresses you’ve heard in your lifetime. Think of Ronald Reagan, after the Challenger accident. Think George H. Bush, announcing the war to liberate Kuwait. Now compare that to last night’s performance.

First, there were the strange optics. I can’t fathom what message Obama was trying to visually convey. (Nobody else can, either). A podium, in front of the Resolute desk in the Oval Office? I know the Oval Office is actually a rather small workspace, but this is the first time I’ve seen it presented in a way that made it seem smaller than it actually is. And why one earth were the curtains open in the background?

The speech itself was incredibly tone deaf. The only way the President could have possibly reassured the nation was to announce a chnage in policy, a new strategy, for dealing with Islamic terrorism. Instead, we got a lecture: my policies are working, dummies. Maybe he thinks we haven’t been paying attention and didn’t already know that  70% of the airstrikes launched return without firing a shot. Maybe he didn’t understand that we see ISIS beheading unarmed civilians on YouTube daily. It could be that he thought we forgot about the “hashtag war” against Boko Haram. It might even be that he forgot he told us Al-Qeada is “on the run” again – right before they took over a hotel in Mali. After all, he also assured us that “ISIS is contained” (day before the Paris nightmare) and that “ISIS cannot strike in the US” (2 days before San Bernadino).

No, he told us his weak coalition, leading from behind, and being kind to Muslims is the key to winning. He doubled down on admitting refugees (albeit, recognizing that maybe his vetting process isn’t exactly vetting anything). And he once again demanded more gun control – although this time with a twist. Rather than just outright banning the Second Amendment, he suggests using a the no-fly list (universally recognized as a flawed program, rife with errors) to abridge those individuals Fifth Amendment rights and thereby nullify their Second Amendment rights. He actually had the nerve to ask “what possible objection” anyone could have to that suggestion. Talk about ideology over national interest – there was a perfect example, if ever he gave one.

Last night was much more than a confusing, flawed speech from a failed President. It might as well have been Obama’s farewell address. Barack Obama, the man who built a Presidency on rhetoric and pageantry more than any in recent memory – perhaps in American history – found the rhetoric leaving him when he needed it most, found the pageantry reduced to a confusing scene when he most needed to seem in charge. The saddest part of it is that we still have him in the White House for another 14 months. That’s 14 months the world will be left to deal with the Jihadists as best we can.

God help us.

America: Land of the Restricted, Home of the Coward


Now that I have your attention…

You’ll have to excuse me, but it looks to me like the liberal loony bin that’s been in charge of things for the last quarter century has finally blown their last gasket. The saddest part of it is that so many of you out there are buying the idiocy they’re selling.

I’m referring to the argument they’ve put forth that we need to willingly rescind our rights in exchange for the presumption of safety. Never mind that there is no way to be “safe” in a world where there are close to a billion people who want you dead simply because you breathe. I’m not even going to bother shooting that argument full of holes. Anyone who thinks safety can be purchased by compliant subjugation should probably be killed, anyway. They’re already brain dead.

The latest attempt at subverting the Constitution (and, not so incidentally, the very principles the Nation was founded upon) comes in the wake of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA. Before the smoke had cleared, the liberal vanguard was literally yelling about restricting gun rights. Never mind the facts – which as the hours wore on, made it increasingly clear it was a terrorist attack – the only thing the left saw was an opportunity to play on the understandable fear and revulsion the attack created. And the drumbeat has only intensified in the days since. Indeed, the quasi-communists in the media and government have hardly acknowledged the fact that it was a pair of Muslim jihadists who shot up that conference room. Instead, we get the President lecturing us about “common sense gun safety laws.” We get the flagship of liberal bias in the media, the NY Times, running their first page 1 editorial in 95 years, demanding that Americans voluntarily ignore the 2nd Amendment.

Perhaps no line in that op-ed better summed up the liberals derision of the idea of inalienable rights than this:

“No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”

When I read that, I nearly puked. I’m serious. It made me physically ill. No right is unlimited? Rights can – and in the Times’ view, should – be regulated? Excuse me , but WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK, over? This is still the United States, right? Is this still the country who fought for independence over the idea that rights are immutable and the entire purpose of government is to ensure they are neither limited nor regulated?

There is nonsense, and then there is dangerous nonsense. This type of misinformation is not only dangerous, but seditious. Don’t think so? Which other rights should be regulated and limited? Of course, we’ve seen other manifestations of this thinking since 9/11. There is the Patriot Act, subverting the 4th and 7th Amendments. We’ve had the Department of Justice arguing before the Supreme Court that 1st Amendment protections of religious practice should be subsumed to the greater good. Likewise, The DoJ has filed arguments against the free exercise of political speech. We’ve had this very President argue that the right to life doesn’t exist – he has the authority to launch drone strikes on unarmed Americans.

Enough is enough. A gun is nothing more than a machine built of metal, wood and plastic. A right is a permanent gift from God. If either of those concepts fill you with enough fear that you’re willing to become a midless drone, then you have no business calling yourself an American. You are nothing more than a lilly-livered communist wannabe and I am asking you – nicely – to get the fuck out of my country. Because quite frankly, if you’re that afraid of inanimate objects, you’re going to be too much of a coward to fight in the war that was thrust upon us. And if you’ve lost sight of the very principles that separate Americans from the rest of humanity, then you’ve lost the privilege of calling yourself an American.

ranch_rifle

Save Us from Ourselves!


The gun grabbers are out in foBen vs Obamarce.

Yes, there was another shooting on a school campus. Yes, the gun used was legally obtained. Yes, it shows that for all the attempts to date to restrict gun ownership, bad guys can still get their hands on firearms.

Rather than admit the folly of their attempts to prevent Americans from owning a weapon, the gun grabbers are doubling down on their attempts to take weapons away. They’re doing this, despite admissions that none of their proposals would have prevented the most recent tragedies. Once again, though, they are making an emotional appeal: “Guns are evil” they cry. “Why do gun owners need these guns?” they ask.

Once again, the left wing is out to deny Americans a God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed right, all in the name of saving us from ourselves. The arguments they’re using are no different than the ones they’ve trotted out to try and deny us the ability to purchase a 32 ounce soda, a juicy prime rib or a McDonald’s Happy Meal. The offending item is bad for you, ergo, it should be banned!

Here’s the thing we seem to have forgotten in liberal land: the government shouldn’t be the instrument that restricts anyone’s right to ownership of anything. The Constitution was written with three goals in mind: First, to ensure the federal government could pay the bills. Second, to provide a way for the states to work out their differences. Finally, and perhaps most important, to ensure the individual liberties that all Americans enjoy. It’s this final point that has been slowly eroded, in the name of “responsible governance”. That’s code for protecting us from ourselves.

Should the Founders come to visit us today, undoubtedly they would be shocked. Shocked by the sheer number of regulations and laws to which we have willingly subjected ourselves. Shocked that the American character is no longer identified by self-reliance and responsibility. They would doubtless be amazed by their descendants willingness to cede rights for which they fought and died to the federal government.

This is the sad state to which we’ve arrived. This latest tragedy is a perfect example. The gunman’s own parents continuously abdicated their responsibility, not only to their son, but to their fellow citizens. Why? Both parents were well aware of their son’s propensity to violence and his mental health issues. Yet, his mother kept those weapons in the house and his father had the temerity to suggest that the government failed – by not having stricter gun laws, by not institutionalizing his son. One has to ask, if the father had been more than a sperm donor, would the son have been so screwed up? If the mother had said, “gee, my son has some serious issues – maybe I should store my weapons elsewhere” would he have had access? But nobody seems to be asking those questions. A little responsibility would go further towards preventing not only this tragedy, but the vast majority of these incidents.

Nope, it’s far easier to say we have to “do something.” We have to take away your guns, because some people are irresponsible. Your rights are abridged because I need a political soundbite, even though I know that even outright confiscation of private weapons won’t stop the madness.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,124 other followers