The Colorado Gun Restrictions – Dem’s Loose two Seats – Is it About Guns or Civil Liberties?

In a recent upset during a recall election in Colorado, two Democrat state reps lost their seats at the table, when the supported strict gun control legislation. According to the New York Times article – both Angela Giron of Pueblo and John Morse of Colorado Springs lost seats to Republicans in their respective districts. The Times points out the money spent by both sides of the gun control debate, as well as one of the districts voter registration make-up, being slightly less Democrat than the other – there was no other explanation of what the resounding defeat in an otherwise Democrat state might have been the cause (New York Times)

Colorado has passed more “liberal” leaning laws, including lifting restrictions of the use and sale of Marijuana (and then promptly taxed it to the extent that there are now protests! (Huffington Post). Seriously, what did they expect? In a state where the Democrats control the legislature, one might anticipate a tax on just about anything that moves – (See Massachusetts – tax on Dogs) – therefore, the legalized marijuana offered an opportunity for more – taxes, to fund more schools, ebt cards, programs, programs, programs.

That said, in such as state it is more than being outspent on advertising that ousted two Democrats who were in sync with the party line of “control the guns” – It is a growing distaste by the American Public for one more rule to follow and one more tax to pay. Little by little there has been an erosion of our economy, big-brother is constantly watching, fishing is regulated down to the recreational level, and one might pick any other subject that interferes with Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to find it has been taxed, removed or trampled upon.

That might be the reason why there is a sudden interest in those who are more “Libertarian” in nature, a growing sense that neither major political party has the “right stuff”, nor perhaps, just perhaps, it is time for something new. In cases where one sees the opportunity to vote the individual who’s party represents the remove of rights, (the Democrats), then they look to the opposition. If that happens to be a Republican (most often in DC, one can’t tell the difference between the two), then so be it – if that individual is a Jeffersonian Republican (i.e. Libertarian) all the better.

The Libertarian’s scream Liberty – it’s in the name, thus truth in advertising – and for all the common sense about throwing a vote away in favor of a party that has dose not stand a chance at a national office – (thinking 2014 and 2016), then one might look towards those Libertarians who are co-opting the Republican Party. They are Tea Party and Progressive at the same time, and a bit difficult to figure out for most that have to neatly stick a politician under one or the other category – left or right – they are – more – Independent.

This is why the media tags Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) with the “Tea Party” label as often as possible lately – knowing they are both potential 2016 candidates. The “Tea Party” label may have been the “kiss of death” in 2012, but..that was then and the entire nation is not as narrow minded or gullible as the east and west coast elites and especially the political class.

In the gun debate, it is not the right to shoot whomever one pleases or own tanks that is at issue, it is the concept that drives individuals to the polls, even those who never intend to own a gun, are now looking at the issue as ever increasing Federal encroachment – even at the State level. One cannot otherwise explain the rush for gun permits by thousands upon thousands of individuals in the wake of the announcement that Gun Control was part of the national spotlight.

Background checks are always on the table; one might be insane to think that would not be reasonable. If one is looking to carry concealed, then surely a fingerprint test at the local PD would be sufficient to determine if that individual was – oh – dangerous. To reduce the number of bullets one might put in a magazine does nothing – one bullet, one knife, on baseball bat is all it takes to kill someone, therefore, the over the top reaction to “keep the children safe” (while adding more regulations and of course, taxes and government jobs (even more taxes), and licensing) may have been partly well meant, but a simply crafted legislation on the state level modifying any loose ends as far as identifying who might be buying a gun (i.e. the simple background check) would have kept those two Democrats safely in their seats.

The panic over Obama care – now evident on both the right and the left, allowed a small group of Liberty minded (Libertarian) lawmakers to postpone voting on the budget apparently, there is a split in the GOP, according to USA today, but they fail to mention the Democrats who have become increasingly reluctant to go forth with the law. (USA Today) This is simply because it has reduced our liberties – nothing more, nothing less. It has costs jobs in the private sector, and increased jobs at the IRS, it does include those darn death panels, and restricts access to health care, especially for seniors. It was a badly crafted bill from the get-go – and now individuals are growing increasingly aware and they are not happy.

From fraud and abuse by those on entitlement programs, to the increasing costs of food and fuel, to the general malaise that has settled like the ghost of Jimmy Carter’s presidency upon the formerly fruited plains – something has to give. It started in Colorado, and one might suggest it will not end there.

President Obama’s Speech on Syria – Failure to Convince – Analysis – The President Needs a New Speechwriter

Monday morning quarterbacking is always the rule of thumb for both amateur and professional pundits and with the President’s speech on Syria last evening, there is plenty of fodder available – thus adding two cents is a natural inclination for this blogger.

Understanding the text of the speech as written here: at nationaljournal.com - the first mistake was not having another speechwriter take a crack at it.

It was apparent from the beginning of the delivery to the final painful minutes that the President did not particularly believe what he was saying – in parts of the speech, specifically as it related to actual “war”.

As the speech sent two or three messages – from the need to attack, the actual fact that the U.S would attack (Syria) to the President playing nice and asking Congress for permission to attack – and it was with immediacy – then switching gears and speaking to the Putin’s rescue of the world, back to having Congress not vote on authorizing force – yet keeping the military at the ready – it is no wonder that those watching were somewhat confused! (Ft. Way News Journal –AP)

Therein lay the problem mixed messaging delivered by an individual who appeared totally uncomfortable about the message – two things were striking. One, that the children were the important aspect of his interest in the Syrian matter – that is without a doubt a moment of sincerity, and secondly, that he was not enamored of war at all and would prefer a peaceful solution. Other than those two instances – it was difficult to believe that the President believed a word he was saying.

This is the takeaway from a personal perspective. The man has been in office for two terms, he has never preferred military action, and is not familiar with the workings, relying on advisors, he prefers to wait for an answer to come – an epiphany if one will to any given global or local situation that deserves of military intervention. That epiphany may take weeks, or months – it is not that he is a coward, or that he has no ability, he appears to be a man who does not wish to dirty his hands with conflict and would wish anyone else would make that decision. The aforementioned explains a lot – as to why we were a dollar short and a day late on Iran in 2009 – which would have quelled the nonsense in the middle east, had those opposing the regime been supported and allowed to have their way. Then Libya, Egypt, etc – world leaders supported, then abandoned – much like Staten Island in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

It is the crushing weight of the decisions to make, and not have made in time, that appears to weigh heavy.

If only the speech had touched on the following points: There is evil afoot in Syria, they have used chemical weapons on their own people. I had contemplated a strike on Syria, which I feel would have been justified. However, understanding the lack of support by the American People and the willingness of the Russians to intervene, we can rest a little easier tonight. The Russian intervention was likely due to my saber rattling, and for that contribution we are grateful. The Syrians have decided to come clean to Russia, and the world, and will allow the destruction of their chemical weapons. WE will make sure of that. Should they pull a fast one – then our military will be able to strike. I don’t plan on a ground war, rather, I’ll lob one of those pin-point targeted missiles we own (remember Saddam's sons?), right at the Regimes living room – that will end the problem – for us. Now I can move on to domestic issues. Thank you and goodnight.

That would have been more believable.

Right now, this late in his Presidency – he needs to take care with his speeches, and to make sure that he is who is really is at all times – so that he is comfortable and therefore believable.

This is all tongue in cheek, as anyone with sense knows that the man is a Politician – and that few if any politicians actually say what they mean, but – there is hope – it always springs eternal – He needs a new speechwriter. – or he should start writing his own.

The Use of Dating by CE – Confuses – Comments on Jerusalem Gold Find at the Temple Mount Spur Debate!

Apparently the modern use of the abbreviation for dating are somewhat confusing to some – the more modern use of the CE/BCE (Common Era – Before Common Era) are dates aligned with the abbreviations AD/BC – or more commonly After Divinity and Before Christ – A discussion (Comments) regarding this date format came up in an interesting article at Ynet news – “Rare golden treasure found in Jerusalem” – discussing a find of gold coins, a gold menorah and such found at the Temple Mount and dated at approximately 600 CE – (or 600 AD).(Read entire article here

The Ynet article goes on to discuss a period where the Jews, Christians and Persians were living in Jerusalem and the Persians and Christians then ousted the Jews. (A period that was well before the crusades – therefore a more local disagreement.) As the finds suggests the Jewish people had been in Jerusalem consistently throughout history and solidifying their claim of ownership in the City/State.

There is more under and at the Temple Mount – the “holy site” where the Jews will build a third Temple, however – it is currently a Muslim Holy site – when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem several years after the death of the profit. There ensued a bit of a war between the Meccan’s and those from Medina who were fighting with the Syrian Muslims. A Caliph (ruler) from Syria, suggested that they make Jerusalem a substitute place of pilgrimage and built the Mosque of Omar in 691, followed in 715 by a mosque built on the Temple Mount. History of Jerusalem

The comments are not about the fabulous find, rather they are more religious and educational in context, as some are not sure that Christian’s expelled Jews from Israel, and suggested that the Romans were feeding both to the Lion’s – History suggests otherwise – and the CE confuses. What has been declared by many educators as the dummying down of America is perhaps, a worldwide phenomenon as History and basic civics are no longer subject matter in lower grade levels, and sometimes merely glossed over as an overview course in secondary schools and college. There are, sadly, many that do not know where we (globally) came from, or for that matter do they care, as History is a boring subject – so one might think.

However, those who are vested in the subject, find that more often than not, patterns develop over periods of time, and that the repetitive nature of man to make the same mistakes over and over again, is deeply rooted in historical repetition. A case in point for introducing the subject at an earlier age and more in depth for those students who wish to avoid the downfall of a nation, for example.

The Great History Debate – Religion and Politics from the Right – and the Left – Who’s Right?

From Politico comes an interesting article regarding a man known as an Historian from the right - ” Historian remains key ally of right”, offers some insight into Historian, David Barton, who suggests that the U.S. was founded on Christian Principles, and goes further in a book written on Thomas Jefferson, which suggests that Jefferson was looking for a state that was not separate from religion. The man is an advisor past and present to key political figures on the right – Huckabee, Cruz, Santorum as recent.

One has to understand that the different theories regarding the science of History is subjective according to the Historian’s take on a specific period (which would include the individuals of the time). It is a science in so much as one must have letters, artifacts, and accounts of the period in order for form an educated account/opinion of what had taken place.

As regards to our founders, the arguments surrounding their religious affiliations as well as their intent in writing the documents that would form the basis for our nation are readily available, both in the documents themselves, as well as letters written back and forth between the men who wrote said documents – easily found in the “Federalist Papers”. Dry reading to some and in a form of English that is most likely not understood by today’s students (for the most part, given the dismal state of education in this nation). Suffice it to say, that when one looks at the formation of the nation from Jamestown to Plymouth, there were actually two driving factors – the first was money –the second religion – a Christian religion. Like it or not, that is a fact.

Those that came seeking freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit, without interference from a crown that demanded one form of worship – were financed by individuals seeking a return on their investment.

The Pilgrims at Plymouth brought with them a harsh brand of Christianity, so much so that the State of Rhode Island was formed by those wishing to practice a different brand of – Christianity.

In writing the Documents that formed our nation, the writers were – different sects of Christens.

It is without question that the laws brought down by Moses factored heavily in the creation of document founding the Republic under which we live.

However, one might not get inside the mind of a centuries dead founded, unless one has access to the letters written by that individual – and those are readily available to those who would be able to – read.

Some religious consider this proof positive that the intent was to have a biblically based society – which, in essence, it was so – however, as Christian sects are consistently bucking one another as to which is “right” and which is “wrong “about religious specifics – those founders suggested that there be no one religion established in our nation - (i.e. a theocratic republic) rather that the choice of religion would be left to the individual rather than the state – thus we have “Separation of Church and State” – most often misunderstood and misinterpreted or manipulated- one can take their choice.

Therefore, to have the Historians who lean conservative (of which there are few and far between), one must understand they have a penchant for researching the letters and books written by said founders and forming an opinion - so do those on the left, who may do the same, but, as is the nature of Progressives, make the story a bit more in line with their ideology – otherwise known as – rewriting history.

The only way to really get to the bottom of a certain Historical argument, one must read the books/articles/letters – to form an educated option, - boring, true, but to get to the actual gist of the facts one must learn to do so – finding those on the right, with their quirks, are not called “right” for nothing.

The nation, One nation Under God, had its humble beginnings invested in all things Godly – that’s an indisputable fact – as we are a young nation historically – the documents exist to support the science. The Progressive School of thought is that the “masses” would not be able to handle the “truth of history” – as it refers to the political agenda that drives the movement – rather than enabling all to be educated, one might be able to control a group of individuals that were – less than educated in the facts of history – as one is first given to understand – History – repeats itself – given time.