Obama's Audacity

I didn't read Dreams From My Father, nor did I read The Audacity of Hope. Not because there is nothing of value between the hard covers-- certainly Dinesh D'Souza found value in pouring over the pages-- but I have built my image of Obama based on his actions rather than his (rather, his ghostwriters') carefully crafted syntax.

And what an image I have. It's truly telling when the President of the United States cancels 62% of his daily intelligence briefings in 2011 and 2012, including the briefing the day after the American Consulate in Libya was attacked, which resulted in the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans murdered, so that he could attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his reelection campaign. 

It's telling when the President uses the full force of his power to create and pass the destructive health care law that gives the government control over one-sixth of the private sector, yet neglected to meet with his "jobs council" (the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness) that he established in January of 2011. He let the council expire in January of 2013, after the organization only met four times in two years (but he did manage to hit the links 33 times within that same time frame).

And it is telling when Obama's own ATF sold 2,000 guns to suspected criminals thought to be linked to Mexican drug gangs in an effort to trace those guns as part of an investigation of the violent cartels, which came to light tragically when two such guns showed up at the scene of a shootout that killed a U.S. Border Patrol agent.  Meanwhile Obama's own IRS doggedly investigated Catherine Engelbrech, an American citizen who did the unthinkable and submitted applications for tax-exempt status to establish her own conservative organizations:

In December 2010 the FBI came to ask about a person who'd attended a King Street Patriots function. In January 2011 the FBI had more questions. The same month the IRS audited her business tax returns. In May 2011 the FBI called again for a general inquiry about King Street Patriots. In June 2011 Engelbrecht's personal tax returns were audited and the FBI called again. In October 2011 a round of questions on True the Vote. In November 2011 another call from the FBI. The next month, more questions from the FBI. In February 2012 a third round of IRS questions on True the Vote. In February 2012 a first round of questions on King Street Patriots. The same month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did an unscheduled audit of her business. (It had a license to make firearms but didn't make them.) In July 2012 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration did an unscheduled audit. In November 2012 more IRS questions on True the Vote. In March 2013, more questions. In April 2013 a second ATF audit.

In both situations we are asked to believe Obama when he says he knew nothing. For the President of the United States, the contrast could not be more stark: what is and what is not worth investigating.

And with daily congressional hearings unveiling more and more dirt under the White House Persian rugs, we only need to wonder what's inside the closets. Rarely are blood-stained hands caught the first time. 

Though many Americans believed that Obama was a danger to our country pre-2008 elections, the "I told you so" has lost muster when lives have been lost and billions stripped from the economy while "low information" voters carry on about the surprising "Dancing with the Stars" finale. The "I told you so" crowd should put its efforts to speak loudly and carry a media stick-- speak now or never. Just Google "NSA Utah Data Center." 

Speak on, Americans. But actions still speak louder than words. 

...With NO Warrant!

http://independentprinciplesapplied.blogspot.com to watch the video.




This thing pivots on the warrant. 

If this happened to me, and the police show up to my house with a warrant....I stand down peacefully and let the legal system run its course. But if they show up to my house the way they did in this case, without a warrant.....I safeguard my child in a hard room and refuse them entry into my home.

Honestly, at what point should resistance to the State involve total non-compliance? What is actually so sacred that you would defend it with your life? If not this, then what?

The Age of Sustainability?

"Our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

~ New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, April 22, 2013

THIS......IS NOT......A GOOD DEFENSE. It is not sustainable if we desire to maintain the liberal freedoms we cherish.

I wonder if New York and the elite writ large will set future trends for interpreting Constitutional Law for the rest of the country? You know, the same way they set fashion trends? I wonder if the definition of freedom will be reduced to fashion choices, menu selection and music preferences? My guess is that in time, the media will shun people as extremists who do not subscribe to our liberties being violated on a regular basis.

I believe the dial will only turn increasingly higher with time....to add pressure that forces these people (libertarians) to be isolated from the mainstream. And for the record, Lindsey Graham and John McCain are not libertarians. They are about 180 degrees off (or so) in their approach, but who's counting ticks on the compass, right?

The video above is a prime example of why the best defense is not letting terms be dictated to you. People suffer as a result. The best defense is a good offense. The video shows what our society will be continually subjected to so long as we remain in our current mode of dealing with threats using a reactionary approach. This cannot go unchecked indefinitely.

We need to be on offense. This offense need not include military occupation, counterinsurgency, or nation building. Let humanitarian organizations do nation building. An offensive strategy does not need to be verbose in its objectives or come flailing with unclear mission statements. It just needs to define the enemy, locate him, and take him out. No bullshit. Just go to MEMRI TV to see an example of target selection out in the open around the world (MEMRI does an amazing service to the world with the translations they provide).

If these enemies happen to be a naturalized American citizens, well, then we have to treat them with the protections afforded to citizens under the Constitution. Not doing so essentially negates liberty for the rest of us. But dammit if we might review our naturalization protocols to deny our enemy from using our liberal society as protection! If we fail to take these steps, you can expect to see empty metro streets on non-holiday workdays, curfews, and even the elderly escorted from their homes for cordon and search operations coming to city near you.

And should you live in a metro area, it is likely that renegade terrorists fleeing from the law and looking for a hideout will find it wherever there is a home not defended by a gun. So instead of the police being alerted to their presence by your shots fired in defense your family, they will be alerted (likely once the terrorists are long gone) when your neighbor screams bloody murder after finding the bodies of your family shot execution-style. Again, this is another example of why offense is better than reacting; reacting only serves to clean up mess after mess. It also is an example of why individual liberty saves the day against the bad guys.

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, shall have neither liberty nor safety."

~ Benjamin Franklin

Local vs National Control: let's do some critical thinking, people

If you're viewing this post via email notification, you may have to go to http://independentprinciplesapplied.blogspot.com/ to view the photo.

Above is exhibit A. I see this sort of thing all over the People's Republic of Madison, Wisconsin.

This begs the question, would you rather donate to a local charity or the United Way? Why? If you would rather donate to a local charity than a national one, let's apply the same principle to the overall rate of taxation in America.

I am such a nice guy. Really, I am. I believe the world is a harsh place, therefore I believe overall taxation rates need to be kept at current levels in order to help the "little" man in his battle for social justice. Therefore, let's give local government 30% of our income. After all, they know how best to help the diverse types of underprivileged people living in their unique community. Let's keep the state taxation rate at its current level. And lets give the federal government a flat-rate amount roughly equal to what municipalities receive from local property taxes.

Local is better, right? Come on buddy, be honest! Yeah! Slap hands! If you won't slap my hand, this means you are a big government hypocrite! You are voting to defeat the expertise that local community organizations can give to local people with local problems! It means that all the propaganda has fooled you into believing that ONLY national government can solve our problems!

With warm weather around the corner, I'll soon be greeting everyone I meet at the local farmer's market with a big grin on my face. My philosophy means that I am consistent in my approach in wanting to help local people directly rather than allowing elites to skim money off the top.

Deny my logic, and you deny truth. Power to the People. No, really. Very truly yours,

A. Critical Thinker

P.S. I offer free training if you are interested. I also believe in free education.

Dr. Maya Angelou, Freewoman

I encourage you to watch the entire interview. At about the 3:20 mark she discusses her views on firearms. This is the mark of a Freewoman.

All her comments considered, it hit me how sad it is that we must waste time discussing the firearms issue. She has so much more to offer; a grace and presence that is becoming increasingly rare in this world. While it is valuable know Dr. Angelou's opinion on the matter of guns, this is only so because our Rights have recently come under attack.

Her comments remind me how much the firearms rights issue should be an open and shut case. It is the mark of the free-thinking individual to be able to exercise the freedom to defend their life whenever it is threatened. Of course they should not need the permission of government in order to do so. It is so unnatural to consider any alternative that isn't consistent with a living being's natural instinct of self-preservation. And of course we should practice with the gun we carry regularly. It is common sense.

Dr. Angelou is proof that a citizen who wishes to exercise this right is not a killer, but rather a protector of life. Never allow yourself to be painted as the former; take pride in standing up for yourself as the latter!
 

"...with Freedom and Justice for All"

"I don't want to go to Disneyland," she said.

I have no doubt that this little girl will grow up in a house where she is taught that this sort of thing is unacceptable. But how many other kids will think such treatment by a government towards its citizens is par for the course? What part of the 4th Amendment still exists? It's only about 50 words long. Read it.

Honestly, with such a clear protection in place in the Bill of Rights, how could we have let this happen? We need to wake up.



What recently happened to this family is bad, but to be honest I have heard of even more graphic incidents. Youtube search "TSA."

It's time for a national disobey the TSA day.

You know what is strange to think about? It had once been an ambition of mine to work a high-level government job that required the highest of high security clearances. I wanted to do this to play a part in keeping the country safe. The strange thing is, if I participated in a TSA revolt incident like the one described above and was arrested as a result, there is no chance I would ever be granted a super-secret squirrel security clearance.

Let's number this hypothetical scenario out:

1. Join USMC at age 17. Take oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Re-enlist at age 26 where oath is taken again.
2. At age 31 participate in civil disobediance against TSA to peacefully defend the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Get arrested and charged with xyz.
3. Seek job with three letter agency to better apply practical experience and skills gained from almost four years spent in the middle east.
4. Get rejected from job because security clearance is denied, not because of the last speeding ticket I received over 10 years prior, but because of my defense of the Constitution.

The irony is that if given the hypothetical job, it would only be because I subjected myself to standard groping as my friends disobeyed the TSA. And if I accepted the job, I would have had another oath administered where I raised my hand and, again, swore to defend the Constitution. But would I have deserved it? This is a hairy eyeball, isn't it? Should the security apparatus of our Nation be put in this predicament? Shouldn't they just execute the law as it is written because they are simply policy enforcers not policy makers? Answers: no and yes, respectively.

But at some point, we, the sheepdogs, are morally required to reverse the answer to executing the law as it written (or the 'executive order' as is more often the case) because of the oath we took. This is not something to be taken lightly.  For the chain-of-command and overall societal order to remain in place, this type of limited-mutiny can only be pursued for the most dire of circumstances. I believe that is where we are now.

Welcome to 1984. Do you see the strain placed on our honorable government officials? They can either choose to fall in line, or they're done. They walk a fine line. The Collective places impossible demands on them - they can either follow their morals or keep their jobs. Many function brilliantly trying to do both, but it is getting harder and harder for them.

What about the ones who hold no moral objections to violations of Civil Rights? In terms of political bureaucrats, my gut tells me that this kind of person is in the majority right now in Washington. But what about our Nation's security apparatus? No, I think their majority still belongs to the aforementioned "moral" group.

For now. But they will resign and retire. What then? How soon will we have 26-year-olds applying for lethal positions with three-letter agencies and who, for their entire lives, saw the TSA's treatment of citizens as 'normal'?

As the baby-boom generation retires and others lose their willingness to conform to the demands of an increasingly oppressive government, who will replace them? We need to stop and think, "in ten years who will left at the helm?" What will be their character? How high will they hold their oath to defend the Constitution? Do you want to wait to find out?

Back to national disobey the TSA day. They will have to react. They will have to decide whether to bring in hundreds of paddy-wagons to haul off thousands of peaceful people with no previous criminal record. They will be forced into the open and we will discover how far they are willing to go. The USA will have its Tiananmen Square moment.



We know our character. We must force the issue to discover theirs.

Great perspective:

"How many people who voted for Mitt Romney or actual conservatives for Senate and the House want their Social Security and Medicare left untouched? How many of them give lip service to a flat tax proposal but would freak if their various tax credits and deductions were eliminated? How many of them talk a good game about getting rid of the Department of Education but would freak if aid to their kid's district were cut?

Of course Republicans are going to respond to these people. But these people who support all sorts of government spending while talking about "the damn government" and taxes are the problem.

It's simply too much to expect a political party to stand up to voters and say, "no". Politics is a market and voters have become consumers. If the GOP as a whole or an individual candidate won't give the customer what they want, they will find someone else to do business with. Consumers don't care about the health of the places they shop, they care that they get what they want. If Brand A doesn't have it but Brand B does, who cares so long as their needs are met.

What America needs is a movement that will not just tell people "no" but also convince them to stop being a consumer of government and look at themselves as they were meant to . . . an owner of the government. Once you own something your value set shifts. Owners care about efficiency, quality and the long term survival of the organization. Owners invest not simply take out.

No political party is set up to do this. It's irrational for someone selling a product to ask their customers to take on the responsibilities of ownership. Selling is about making things easier, ownership is about hard work."

Read the rest here:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/336633.php

FBI Statistics

Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1992–2011

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (Link)

 

Year	Population1	Violent crime	Violent crime rate (per 100,000)	Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter	Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate (per 100,000)
1992	255,029,699	1,932,274	757.7	23,760	9.3
1993	257,782,608	1,926,017	747.1	24,526	9.5
1994	260,327,021	1,857,670	713.6	23,326	9.0
1995	262,803,276	1,798,792	684.5	21,606	8.2
1996	265,228,572	1,688,540	636.6	19,645	7.4
1997	267,783,607	1,636,096	611.0	18,208	6.8
1998	270,248,003	1,533,887	567.6	16,974	6.3
1999	272,690,813	1,426,044	523.0	15,522	5.7
2000	281,421,906	1,425,486	506.5	15,586	5.5
20012	285,317,559	1,439,480	504.5	16,037	5.6
2002	287,973,924	1,423,677	494.4	16,229	5.6
2003	290,788,976	1,383,676	475.8	16,528	5.7
2004	293,656,842	1,360,088	463.2	16,148	5.5
2005	296,507,061	1,390,745	469.0	16,740	5.6
2006	299,398,484	1,435,123	479.3	17,309	5.8
2007	301,621,157	1,422,970	471.8	17,128	5.7
2008	304,059,724	1,394,461	458.6	16,465	5.4
2009	307,006,550	1,325,896	431.9	15,399	5.0
20103	309,330,219	1,251,248	404.5	14,722	4.8
2011	311,591,917	1,203,564	386.3	14,612	4.7

Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2011

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (Link)

 

State	Total murders1	Total firearms	Handguns	Rifles	Shotguns	Firearms (unknown)	Knives	Other weapons	Hands, fists, feet, etc.2
AK	29	16	5	0	3	8	6	5	2
AZ	339	222	165	14	9	34	49	59	9
AK	153	110	52	4	6	48	22	17	4
CA	1,790	1,220	866	45	50	259	261	208	101
CO	147	73	39	3	5	26	22	31	21
CT	128	94	54	1	1	38	18	10	6
DE	41	28	18	0	3	7	8	2	3
DC	108	77	37	0	1	39	21	9	1
GA	522	370	326	16	16	12	61	83	8
HI	7	1	0	1	0	0	2	1	3
ID	32	17	15	1	0	1	4	8	3
IL3	452	377	364	1	5	7	29	29	17
IN	284	183	115	9	12	47	36	43	22
IA	44	19	7	0	2	10	10	10	5
KS	110	73	31	3	5	34	11	16	10
KT	150	100	77	6	5	12	13	24	13
LA	485	402	372	10	8	12	28	29	26
ME	25	12	3	1	1	7	4	7	2
MD	398	272	262	2	5	3	75	34	17
MA	183	122	52	0	1	69	30	22	9
MI	613	450	267	29	15	139	43	89	31
MN	70	43	36	3	3	1	12	12	3
MS	187	138	121	6	4	7	26	14	9
MO	364	276	158	13	9	96	28	42	18
MT	18	7	2	3	1	1	4	5	2
NE	65	42	35	2	1	4	7	9	7
NV	129	75	46	2	1	26	20	25	9
NH	16	6	1	2	1	2	4	6	0
NJ	379	269	238	1	5	25	51	41	18
NM	121	60	45	2	2	11	21	32	8
NY	774	445	394	5	16	30	160	143	26
NC	489	335	235	26	19	55	60	57	37
ND	12	6	3	0	0	3	4	0	2
OH	488	344	187	8	13	136	44	80	20
OK	204	131	99	8	9	15	26	21	26
OR	77	40	13	1	2	24	22	10	5
PA	636	470	379	8	19	64	73	66	27
RI	14	5	1	0	0	4	5	4	0
SC	319	223	126	10	12	75	38	40	18
SD	15	5	3	1	0	1	4	3	3
TN	373	244	172	7	13	52	51	62	16
TX	1,089	699	497	37	48	117	175	134	81
UT	51	26	15	4	1	6	5	9	11
VT	8	4	2	0	0	2	2	2	0
VA	303	208	110	10	15	73	33	41	21
WA	161	79	58	1	3	17	29	36	17
WV	74	43	23	10	3	7	11	13	7
WI	135	80	60	7	3	10	21	13	21
WY	15	11	7	0	0	4	0	1	3
VI	38	31	27	0	0	4	5	2	0
Total	12,664	8,583	6,220	323	356	1,684	1,694	1,659	728
	100.0%	67.8%	49.1%	2.6%	2.8%	13.3%	13.4%	13.1%	5.7%
	Total murders1	Total firearms	Handguns	Rifles	Shotguns	Firearms unknown	Knives	Other weapons	Hands, fists, feet, etc.2
1 Total number of murders for which supplemental homicide data were received. 2 Pushed is included in hands, fists, feet, etc. 3 Limited supplemental homicide data were received.