BluegrassBulletin.com

USC Professor Caught On Video

A political science professor at USC was caught on a cell phone video delivering a 15 minute rant on the dangers of republicans last fall.  You might want to watch some or all of this to get an idea how the left is using our educational system to indoctrinate a new generation into the progressive mindset with tax dollars.

 

Army Reserves Trained That Catholics And Christians Are Extremists

The Army says it was a mistake, but only after they were caught, not before the program, it's moderator or any of the printed materials were put together.  So why was an instructor training new reserve recruits about extremist groups of American citizens in the first place?  And why list Catholics and Christians?

Here is the poster they used.

Category number 1: Evangelical Christianity

Category number 4:  Christian Identity

Category number 10: Catholics

Also listed are Jews and Mormons, right alongside of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the KKK.

Why are Christians being targeted by the US Army as "extremists"?

Why Oppose Gun Registration?

Right now in most parts of America you can acquire a firearm, keep it and never let the government know you have it just like you can keep a sword, a butcher knife, a baseball bat, an extra television, survival food, a jar of candy, a library of books or a two liter of soda.  But Harry Reid wants to end some of that.

He thinks that the government has the right to know who has firearms, and who doesn't.  Now why would the government need to know such things?  Sure, we need to prevent criminals and crazy people from getting guns, but the only way to be certain that those who shouldn't have them never get them is to remove all guns from everywhere, jail anybody who owns one and refuses to turn it in isn't it?  I mean, if there are any guns out there anywhere and a criminal or crazy person wants to get one, they will find a way, don't you think?

So next week when the Senate begins to debate and vote on the innocent sounding "universal background check" legislation, please pay careful attention and don't get in the van with the man offering you candy.  What Reid proposes is the first step toward gun registry, and of course gun registry is the first step toward gun confiscation.

Congress has attended carefully to the concern about a federal gun registry in the past. Thus, for example, section 103(i) of Public Law 103-159 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) regarding the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) provides:

No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may–

(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or

(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922(g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code, or State law, from receiving a firearm.

Unfortunately, the Reid legislation deviates from this strong guarantee that protects against misuse of the NICS process to start a national firearms registry.

In a departure from section 103(i) of Public Law 103-159, section 122(a)(4) of the Reid bill enacts a new section 922(t)(4)(B)(ii) of title 18 of the U.S. Code to direct Attorney General Eric Holder to issue regulations “requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee.” The legislation does not define the term “record of transaction,” does not specify any limitations on who creates and who keeps the record of transaction, and does not explicitly incorporate the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.

Thus, the loose language could be construed to allow the Department of Justice itself (or another agency specified by the Attorney General) to keep centralized records of who received what guns and where, by sale or gift from one individual to another.[Heritage.org]

People need to wake up.  The concept of gun confiscation is not lost on the leaders of the left.

• Senator Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”
• Governor Cuomo: "“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."
• Ill. Congresswoman Schakowsky: "I don't think [a gun ban] is precluded."
• Attorney General Eric Holder: "We need to brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."
• Obama Justice Department: Gun control doesn’t work and the only way to stop gun violence is a complete ban and the universal confiscation of all firearms.

And don't think it can never happened.  It already has.

 

Here's what you can do.

Another Lesson For GOP: Obama Gets It

POLITICO is reporting that a number of former White House insiders have started using Twitter to drive a message which is at the same time both brash and biting.  The interpretation is that these young Obama-ites are using social media as an effective end run around traditional communication sources.

Twitter is aflame these days with high-ranking former Obama aides. Liberated from any official constraints, overflowing with opinions and no small measure of old resentments at political foes and the news media, they are letting the world know what they really think — and seemingly enjoying themselves no end while doing so.

But of course, there wasn’t Twitter when John Adams was president, nor was Twitter an influential medium during the tenure of President George W. Bush. President Obama’s aides are the first to leave a White House in the age of social media. Where former administration staffers took their newfound freedom to cable news or the pages of an inside-the-White-House tell-all, Obama staffers are voicing their grievances — and building their post-White House brands — through social media.

The old guard at the GOP should pay attention to this article.  And in the process they should reach out quickly and with an open mind to people like Rand Paul whose understanding of the Internet, social media, the "echo chamber" of numerous pro-Paul websites and other modern methods of communication significantly contributed to his victory over the establishment candidate in Kentucky in 2010.

Just this week I have seen a glimpse of how the establishment of the GOP is trying to get up to speed, and though it is a very good start, they are moving more like the 89 year old woman holding up traffic at the end of the on ramp to the information super highway.

There are some incredibly powerful ways by which the republican party can come closer to parity with the Obama kids in reaching voters with their message, but right now they are still concentrating their daily efforts on direct mail, Rush Limbaugh and the geriatric demographic of FoxNews.

And while the establishment leaders fumble with their blackberries just to read an email, folks in the Rand Paul movement are blazing past those stale and moss covered relics of the past making use of forums, bulletin boards, email blasts, web videos and driving news stories about their candidates using technology instead of millions spent on consultants, media buyers and the "throw money at it" attitude of old school campaigners.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and Washington, the GOP has a problem that can't be solved by moderating your platform on every issue, capitulating to liberals or lurching around trying to find something to stand for.

It's not that the republican ideas are bad, it's that the sales force you are using is a bunch of old guys in rumpled suits dragging tattered sales cases in to see the next generation of business owners who place more emphasis on service and delivery than on relationships.

What's that old advice?  Oh yeah; If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.  Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Is The Ron Paul Revolution Winning Over The GOP?

Ron Paul left Congress last year but he didn't leave a void.  POLITICO is saying that Justin Amash might be the new Ron Paul in the people's house.  POLITICO also names Kentucky's Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, Raul Labrador, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee as part of the movement working to change the face of the GOP.

Amash says in the piece that

"This next generation of liberty Republicans...we’re interested in making sure that … we re-brand the Republican Party as a place that is welcoming to people from across the political spectrum and follows the founding principles of our country: limited government, economic freedom, individual liberty.”

Please read that again.  Amash wants to re-brand the Republican Party as a place that is welcoming to people from "across the political spectrum".  He doesn't say that those people need to embrace the Republican Platform, hold dear republican principles, honor the tradition and foundation of the Republican Party or become republicans.  Rather he says that he wants the party to be more welcoming to people from "across the political spectrum" and that IN ADDITION his group wants the GOP to follow our founding principles.

Now I'm all on board with following our founding principles, but what Amash seems to forget in this kum ba yah comment is that we cannot let people from all across the "political" spectrum take over the Republican Party.

At one end of that spectrum are the skin-heads and neo-Nazis.  At the other are atheists and those who favor partial birth abortion and have a socialist agenda.  Now what might escape young Justin is the fact that in reality both ends of that spectrum came together once before in Germany in the 1930's.  Why would we want to welcome any of that into the GOP?

Sometimes this garbage talk from the Ron Paul kids sounds good as the bong water bubbles but there are better reasons why the GOP needs to stand on its own and not become the flop house youth hostel for every vagabond from anywhere along the political spectrum.

A lot of bad things were done in the name of "limited government" and "individual liberty" over the years.  Not that I am advocating for more government or less liberty, but don't forget that we fought a civil war in this country to guarantee liberty to African Americans as human beings against claims that telling slave owners what to do was "too much government" and interfered with "individual liberty".  It was the Republican Party that won that war.

And don't forget the actions of southern democrats after that war all the way up into the 1960's who perpetuated a culture that denied African Americans the full rights of citizens under the doctrine of "separate but equal".  Gun restrictions were imposed to deny African Americans the right to defend themselves from lynch mobs and it was the Republican party and its leaders that put an end to those policies.

Three fourths of the "nay" votes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from the Democrats in the House.  Today's gun control measures are supported by far more progressive democrats than any republicans and calls for more social welfare programs, the removal of religion from society replaced by worship of the government are all moves which have much more support from within the Democratic Party than the GOP.  Why in the hell would we want to welcome those parts of the "political spectrum" into our party?  We need to work tirelessly to marginalize, minimize and ostracize those political notions, not sit and contemplate the possibility that they might have merit.

Maybe the Ron Paul revolution is winning over the GOP, but I'd like to think that it is the part of that revolution which calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve, balanced budgets, less military adventurism, lower taxes, less wasteful spending and a mature approach to the problems of the future with a healthy respect for the history which we share.

But if kids like Amash want to transform the GOP into a commune for "anything goes", I say the sooner the GOP rids itself of those ideas the better.

Related articles

The House's new Ron Paul

We Have To Elect Them To Know What's In Them

Ask any conservative, the voters sometimes fall for slick campaigns, well-known names or get swept up in a frenzy over a candidate's popularity and in the process can make some very bad choices.  With enough money and a skillful campaign designer almost anybody can get elected to office.

Conservatives can point to examples like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and of course Barack Obama.  Now we have another one, former Nevada legislator Steven Brooks.

Brooks received over 68% of the vote but was quickly removed from the legislature by his colleagues as too dangerous and unstable and then arrested for having threatened a fellow legislator. 

He was arrested again following a domestic dispute at his home during which he tried to get hold of an officer's gun. 

Shortly thereafter Brooks led police on a car chase which ended with Brooks being tasered.  During the stop he attacked a police dog with a socket wrench.[Newsday]

Political campaigns are intended to present a packaged image of candidates to the voters.  What's really in the package though isn't necessarily what you are told.  It's one of the risks of electing virtual unknowns.  As the Obama and Brooks examples show, voters can be easily fooled.

Bill To Make Obama President For Life Moves To Committee

From the Daily Caller:

New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced a bill in Congress on Friday to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which places term limits on the U.S. presidency.

Oh come on now.  You knew this was bound to happen right?  I mean Barry is the kind of guy who always wished he could become dictator, admires dictators and has people around him who quote dictators favorably.

His use of Executive Orders and pushing through complex legislation with hidden parts granting huge benefits to his friends would be SO much easier if he didn't ever have to leave office.

Now what seems to be a really weird twist to the story is that the bill has been sent to House Judiciary Committee, by a Congress run by a republican majority.  Let's hope it dies in committee.

Here is the makeup of that committee, just in case you wanted to track the bill: CLICK HERE

Rubio Takes Fight To Rand Paul's Sandbox

Marco Rubio came to Louisville this week and made it very clear: he and Rand Paul do not agree on all foreign policy issues.

In a soaring speech on the University of Louisville campus, Rubio made the case for American military might around the world, vowing that the U.S cannot “retreat” from international conflicts, must encourage democracy and continue spending money overseas aimed at bolstering the country’s image. He didn’t mention Paul by name, other than when he corrected a questioner who thought a speech he delivered recently called for the elimination of the Department of Education.

“I actually think that was your other senator’s speech,” Rubio said as he flashed a grin, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sitting stoically behind him. [POLITICO]

As I have been corrected many times by readers, Rand Paul's foreign policy and that of his father is not so much "isolationist" as it is "non-interventionist".  I'll let you decide if there is a significant difference in those two descriptions, not from the dictionary definition but from what the Paul crowd says.

In the meantime it appears that Rubio, recognizing that Rand has made some very good politicial moves recently, needed to make it clear that there is plenty of light between the two of them as they both scramble for attention in advance of the 2016 GOP presidential primary.

Both are considered to be looking at a run for the White House.  Rubio was the early favorite of one TEA party faction on the Hill, but Rand has coalesced an entirely different TEA party movement behind him through his father's network and his own growing favor among the "liberty" and old "Goldwater" factions of the GOP.  In addition, Rand has adopted a far more populist approach than Rubio has been able to demonstrate.

But Rubio's comments about foreign policy might cost him with the TEA party.  Such comments are often castigated as those of a "neo-con" and a throwback to the policies of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, the "pre-emptive" strike and nation building, regimen changing adventurism that many credit for having broken the bank of the federal treasury.

“We can’t solve every humanitarian crisis on the planet, we can’t be involved in every dispute, every civil war and every conflict,” Rubio told a concert hall filled with young adults and middle-aged Kentucky voters. “But we also cannot retreat from the world. It’s not that America will continue to function as the world’s police officer. The problem is that like anything in the world: If you pull back from it, a vacuum will be created.”

Rubio added: “The alternative to U.S. [engagement] on the global stage is chaos.” [POLITICO]

Rubio might be on a bit of thin ice with the TEA party bunch for some of the things he said in Louisville, but one thing is clear, he's not afraid to pick a fight in the other guys backyard.

Obama The President Nixon Wanted To Be?

Jonathan Turley has an interesting take on the Obama Presidency.  He says that Obama is the president  that Nixon always wanted to be (without the criticism or impeachment I might add). 

Here's a taste:

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon’s impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an “imperial presidency” with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

• Warrantless surveillance
• Unilateral military action
• Kill lists
• Attacking whistle-blowers and Journalists

Long after Watergate, not only has the presidency changed. We have changed. We have become accustomed to elements of a security state such as massive surveillance and executive authority without judicial oversight. We have finally answered a question left by Benjamin Franklin in 1787, when a Mrs. Powel confronted him after the Constitutional Convention and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His chilling response: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

We appear to have grown weary of the republic and traded it for promises of security from a shining political personality. Somewhere, Nixon must be wondering how it could have been this easy.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

GOP: A Big Elephat Stuck In La Brea Tar Pits

POLITICO is reporting, once again, how the GOP is promising to upgrade its digital technology after being strafed by the Obama campaign on that front.  As the story goes, the RNC can't seem to find its footing in the digital world due in part perhaps to long standing relationships with existing providers.  Here's a suggestion: get out of the tar pits.

As a techy myself I can tell you that I've watched this technology advance so fast in the past three years that if the GOP is just trying to get up to speed, they can't.  They need to fast forward past the learning curve, travel through the worm hole and accept that they will find themselves in a new and unfamiliar universe and will have to accept that.

For example, the story says that the GOP was really behind the eight ball when it came to targeting voters to get to the polls and that Obama did a much better job.  Well DuH!

Obama gave away how many million cell phones?  And you don't think that the government knew the phone number of those phones?  How about a simple text message multiple times a day to those with the free phones until the location services on the device showed that they were in proximity to the polling place? 

Did it happen that way, I don't know, but for crying out loud, the RNC can't fight this kind of corruption by upgrading its Twitter account.

I'm not sure the old codgers in the RNC have a clue how far behind they are.  I've been yelling for years about how every single campaign in Kentucky starts with every single candidate having to re-create the wheel.

I don't know how many candidates with good intentions have come to me and asked how much help they were going to get from the party.  I've had to hold back near uncontrollable laughter when I break it to them that there is no party help coming.

The RNC has the ability to raise the money and needs to take the lead on this.  They need to share that info with the states and put all legitimate candidates on the power grid of information.  This antiquated system which continues to lose elections because it can't get up to speed is like a big elephant stuck in the La Brea tar pits.

Break free GOP.  Or your place in history will be along side the bones of other extinct species.