BluegrassBulletin.com

Government Cartoon Training Children To Submit

When the communists in the 50's vowed to take over America without firing a shot they focused on indoctrinating the next generations with propaganda via the schools and universities.  The technique has now re-educated our nation into being very much more accepting of socialism and other government controls.

The same techniques are now being used to make children more compliant with government intrusions into their personal privacy and away from the concepts embodied in the Fourth Amendment and the remainder of the Bill of Rights.  Here is just one example of how kids are being taught to think.  Removing distrust of government and teaching submission to government are the lessons of this cartoon.

 

Does Rand Paul's Support Come From The "Hate America" Crowd?

Representative Peter King of New York had this to say about Rand Paul:

The New York Republican accused Rand Paul of “lies” and “misperception” :

“So Rand Paul does not know what he’s talking about. And, Rand Paul is really spreading fear among the American people. And, he also today, I understand on the show, he was also was comparing General Clapper to Snowden. To me, he’s either totally uninformed or he’s part of that hate America crowd that I thought left us in the 1960s. In any event, he doesn’t deserve to be in the United States senate for spreading that type of misperception and absolute lies to be honest with you.“ [Gateway Pundit]

What he was referring to was a comment by  Rand on the  Sunday shows discussing his lawsuit against the NSA over illegal snooping.  In some of those comments he had this to say:

"I don't think Edward Snowden deserves the death penalty or life in prison; I think that's inappropriate, I think that's why he fled, is that's what he faced," Paul, a possible 2016 contender for the Republican presidential nomination, said on ABC's "This Week." "Do I think it's OK to leak secrets and give up national security [information] that endangers lives? I don't think that's OK, either. But I think the courts are now saying he revealed something the government was doing that was illegal."

Paul, who's pushing a class-action suit against the National Security Agency over its data collection tactics, has said that Snowden and Clapper should "share a prison cell," charging that Clapper lied to Congress.

"It is a grand tradition," he said. "Part of that tradition is, you pay the consequences. If you break the law because your conscience says you have to, you stand trial." [POLITICO]

So the question I have for readers today is this: Does some part of Rand Paul's support come from the "hate America" crowd that Congressman King mentioned?

Let's take a look.

Clearly there is a portion of the Obama support group that one could argue hates many things about America.  Dinesh D'Souza has made the argument that Obama is out for revenge over what his father hated which is "colonialism", the kind of attitude he attributed to the United States participation in "raping" third world countries of their riches to make Americans rich.

In addition Obama has aligned himself with radicals and domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who clearly hate many things about America.

So, is Rand Paul courting those folks?  I think not, but on the other hand he might find some support among the less militant among the remaining sixties liberals who like his stance on personal freedom and pot and the kind of things Richie Havens and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were singing about.

But who among the GOP crowd might be pegged as part of the modern day "hate America" crowd?  Well, that depends upon which America you are talking about.

The "big business" America which has become the controlling interest in most legislation and regulations over the past thirty years has its share of supporters.  They don't hate America.

But the small business, ultra conservative TEA party crowd does have its share of "hate America" folks.  At least they seem to hate the incumbent elected officials who they view as ruining America.  They see America headed in the wrong direction.  And some of them even hate many of the institutions of America such as party politics, checks and balances and the orderly interpretation of the Constitution through the court system.

Some of the more militant among this last bunch seethe with contempt for the "mainstream", which of course is the American mainstream and tend to lean very far toward the very liberal philosophies of Libertarianism and even anarchy.  They hate that America won't let them steer the ship of state, are angry about it and do in fact pose some threat to our national security.

And then out there on the real fringes are those who are systematically plotting against America, the true enemies of our way of life, whether driven by religious extremism or a desire to consume our resources even if it means war.  They are the ones who stir up civil unrest, engage in acts of terrorism to disrupt society and take advantage of every opportunity to destroy America because they truly, to their core, hate us.

Obviously Rand Paul is not courting the support of any of the fringe or the near fringe.  But, and I say this with obvious respect for Senator Paul, the razor's edge he walks in order to build his own constituency on his way to a 2016 run for the White House is a topic of frequent discussion in the media.  Clearly any divergence from the hard line of the TEA party gets him nailed by its members.  Any time he leans toward a more moderate position his TEA party friends try to pull him back.  And then he goes and tries to win them over again by standing firm on issue after issue of greatest concern with them, like his lawsuit against the NSA.

I'd like you to weigh in on this, but in my humble opinion, Rand Paul does in fact get some of his support from those who hate the way America has been run, who hate the excesses of our government and hate the fact that they seem to be fighting the very people they entrusted with the reins of power.  Is this what Peter King was referring to?

Those of us who have been standing up for civil liberty, freedom from government overreach, demanding accountability and honesty from our elected officials for as long as I have don't consider ourselves as hating America, but rather loving all that is good about America and hating that those are the very, most precious things about the America we love which we seem to be losing.

Rand has the chance to stand very tall in this fight, but he needs to be very careful not to give in to the other forces at work on the fringes and in the shadows.  The closer he becomes with what can be labeled "extreme" positions the more frequently he will have to face accusations like those of Peter King and though his TEA party friends might rush to his defense he will have to work that much harder, and spend that much more money to discredit people like King than he needs to.

Has TEA Party Won The Battle Of Ideas In Washington?

POLITICO has a piece up on top of its website today that starts like this:

If this was a dud year in Washington, get ready for 2014 — the year to “go small.”

Lawmakers had already lost their appetite to “go big” this year, letting reforms of immigration, guns and the Tax Code slip away in the face of gridlock and dysfunction.

And now there’s a new problem. Lawmakers are reluctant to rely on the federal government to get anything done — a guilt-by-association consequence of Obamacare’s botched rollout. Republicans have called it an indictment of more than a website, but of Big Government itself.

While Democrats argue the problem is obstructionism — not ideology — the result will be the same: As Washington laments the end of a do-nothing year, lawmakers are fully prepared to do as little — or even less — in the new year.

“I think anything that has a significant expansion or role for the federal government is going to be problematic,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a top Republican message strategist, told POLITICO. “Because I just think there’s going to be such a cynicism and skepticism attached to any promises made with regard to the federal government’s role.”

Ron Paul, the Grand Poobah of the smaller is better ideology has been saying that the Republicans and Democrats are all the same, even saying on some occassions that they are all part of the same party.

Does this mean that his brand of governance which has usurped the TEA party movement has finally caught on?  The answer is no.

The reaction that POLITICO is predicting for 2014 is more a response to the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration and a growing uneasiness with what many used to dismiss, but now fear, are his nefarious plans for America.  In fact most of the anger and angst of the TEA party was born in reaction to Obama, has fed off of Obama's agenda and is still a reactionary movement rather than a pro-active one.

I saw this meme on Facebook sent out by a local TEA party group:

 

You have to ask yourself, what does this really say to people?  Is it some sort of rallying cry to keep the flames of discontent burning hotter than ever?

The phrase "More Constitution" means what exactly?  Lower taxes?  Taxes are undesirable no doubt, but they are certainly constitutional.  Does it mean more civil liberty?  We certainly have suffered in this area lately and numerous cases are working their way through the court system which ultimately decides, as the arbiter of these debates, what is and what is not constitutional.

How does this meme fit into the reality of political life?  What, no republican who wants more civil liberty and lower taxes can be trusted, and neither can any democrat?  Then who?  What other party is out there?  Aren't most of the TEA party candidates running as republicans?  And isn't it a fact that in places where they do, for the most part, they give democrats an added advantage of being able to run on their liberal agenda while republicans eat each other alive in primaries?

So just what does the observation of the POLITICO piece mean.  Has the TEA party won the battle of ideas in Washington?  Is there really some meaning to the concept of "More Constitution" that is controlling how elected officials act?

No, and no.

The fact is that even the proper role of government, as seen even by TEA party types, is considered dangerous territory.  Standing up in favor of building bridges and fixing roads, and repairing a half century or older infrastructure lights a match under the "big spender" accusers who have found a way, much like the protesters of the sixties did, to get attention in front of cameras and try to steer the policy of the nation.

Spend no money, collect no taxes, go to Washington, do nothing, dismantle the federal government, weaken our military, and withdraw into a kind of isolation that fools people into believing that the world will just leave us alone and allow us to prosper so long as we don't intervene in anybody else's business.

Foolhardy, reckless, ignorant thinking like this makes America vulnerable to the evil forces at work in the world.  If the worst happens it will be on the shoulders of those who failed to take charge in difficult times.  The blame will be squarely upon the heads of those who would give Israel over to the Palestinians, chemical weapons to Assad, control of Afghanistan to the drug cartels, who would remove border security and issue terms of engagement to our military that told them to stand up and take the first shot before firing back.

War is, as the saying goes, hell.  And hell is at our doorstep.  The last thing we need is a nation of bong hugging gamers driving the ship of state.

If the TEA party really wishes for an America that used to be, maybe they ought to be asking things like, where are the real men, the John Wayne's of our time, instead of asking that old time policy be implement by a bunch of impotent 'fraidy cats. 

Think about it.  America was strong, and stood up for itself in the days the Ron Paul folks wish they could return us to.  To get there might take a much tougher, rougher approach than the rally attending, flag-shirt wearing, malcontents and protesters can deliver on their own.

If a do nothing Congress is the result of a TEA party victory, then I think Merle might have asked the right question a long time ago: Are the good times really over for good?

 

NSA Could Destroy Democrat Chances

EDITORIAL

Statistics show that young voters make up only a small percentage of the overall vote totals but they are an important part of the picture nonetheless.  Why? Because winning their loyalty has been, historically, the way to keep them in the fold until they get old enough to feel like voting.

Democrats won the youth voters in the 1960's and kept most of them.  Ron Paul began his revolution on college campuses where "Google Ron Paul" was a brilliant strategy aimed at capturing the loyalty of what has become the core activists and young elected officials coming out of the TEA party who are now in their 30's.

What did both of these movements among young people have in common?  Freedom from the government.

In the 1960's it was all about ending the war, free love, pot smoking and a general desire to have no rules.  The Ron Paul movement tracked very similar to these things.

But now with daily news of an even bigger Big Brother spying on the text messages, cell phone conversations and emails of American citizens on a staggering scale, the idea of government intrusion into private lives has taken on a far more menacing visage, and in most of these areas that intrusion is touching young people where they meet, socialize and communicate.

It would be a very good idea for the GOP, including mainstream republicans, to ride that bull and not get thrown.  If there is any one area where the GOP can take the lead and get on board with the angst of the next generation of likely voters, it would be a dedicated effort to end government snooping.

Obama can't pull it off and neither can Hillary.  Their fingerprints are all over this mess.

Of course the Bush administration started the ball rolling after 9-11 with the Patriot Act, and as many of us predicted, it has been perverted from its original intent (to catch terrorists BEFORE they acted) into a runaway vehicle indiscriminately mowing down civil liberties all across the nation.

Rand Paul is on the forefront and this might be his best single message at this time.  Others in the TEA party are on top of this issue but as usual the mainstream GOP is a little late to the game.

If the GOP wants to regain its status as the party of smaller government, more individual responsibility and the defender of liberty, then now is the time to grab this issue and claim it.

The NSA problem spells disaster for the democrats in the long run.  Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, and all good republicans to stand up for liberty.

Told Jah: Washington Post Says Obama Deserves Third Term

It has been a common them on many websites, that Barack Obama wants to be president for life, or at least a dictator.  People point to his repeated use of Executive Orders to circumvent Congress, his compulsive lying and his open respect for the powers that dictators have which he does not.

Until now this concern was dismissed as nothing more than a crazy conspiracy theory.  But now the Washington Post has published an editorial suggesting that at least one more term for BO would be a good idea.

End presidential term limits

In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.” I’ve been thinking about Kilgore’s comments as I watch President Obama, whose approval rating has dipped to 37 percent in CBS News polling — the lowest ever for him

Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?

Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear.

Oh isn't that nice?  What Jonathan Zimmerman is saying is that we need a president who is powerful enough to make people fear him and Obama could get that with a third term in office.

Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?

“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.

Oh it would take a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the term limits and that process isn't likely to happen, but since we have a president who seems very willing to find ways by which to shred or at least ignore the Constitution, might he find another method by which to accomplish this goal?

Though the Washington Post didn't come right out and say as much, might that be what they meant when they said: "[I]f the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?"

Keep your eyes open.  Don't forget what I've Told Jah:  There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Mental Health Evaluation To Keep Your Gun?

There is a very sneaky way in which the Obama administration is trying to implement stricter gun control measures without Congressional action.  He has recently begun using the "regulatory" features of Obamacare to require insurance companies to provide "mental health" coverage and impose "transparency".

What does this mean?  Well, consider this:

Polls also indicate the public favors increased mental health treatment as a way to prevent gun violence. Asked how much better mental health services would help the problem, 46% said "a lot," while 35% said "some," and 9% said "not much," according to a CBS News poll from February 2013—at the height of this year's gun control debate.

When President Barack Obama announced a series of 23 executive actions in his gun control push this year, four of them focused on mental health components. [CNN]

And what does the "transparency" feature mean?

On Friday, the Obama administration announced new rules that place mental health and substance abuse services on par with medical and surgical benefits.

The rules, which will apply to almost all forms of health insurance, will likely have far-reaching consequences, states the New York Times, as they are critical to Obama’s program for preventing gun violence, i.e., his belief that more availability of mental health treatment will reduce gun violence. In issuing the new health insurance regulations, the administration said it will have acted on all 23 executive actions that Obama announced earlier this year to reduce gun crime following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut last December. [Breitbart]

So how does 'nudging' the American people into believing that more "mental health" treatment will result in fewer mass gun crimes help the Obama agenda to impose stricter gun control laws?

As odd as it seems, Obamacare contains provisions that jeopardize gun ownership, especially for veterans. Anti-gun provisions were added to initial drafts of Obamacare legislation under the pretext of prohibiting people with mental illness – which can include PTSD - from owning guns. Fortunately, the NRA stepped in and got some of the worst language revised last December. Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c. prohibits the creation of a firearms database and stops doctors from disclosing or collecting information relating to a patient’s firearms. Ironically, this provision was probably the only positive result of most members of Congress not bothering to read the bill before voting on it. However, the provision does not go as far as prohibiting doctors from asking their patients if there are any firearms in their home. In January, Obama issued 23 executive actions and orders regarding firearms. Order 16 stressed that Obamacare does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about their firearms, and the fact sheet includes, “Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence.” What constitutes a “threat of violence” could be very arbitrary. [TownHall]

Arbitrary indeed. Just think of all the "mental health loopholes" that could be used to take away your right to gun ownership.  Depression and PTSD are so common that they advertise drugs for treatment on television every single day.  Could these conditions be enough to take away your right to defend yourself and your family?

A 72 year old war veteran had some things on his mind so he went to see a VA counselor at his doctors suggestion.  He had high blood pressure and bad memories of helicopter crash rescues he'd been on.  He'd lost his mother, his wife, a son and a granddaughter in the last few years.  He was very sad.

Then when he got home the police called.  They asked if he had any guns in the house.  He told them that he had three antique firearms, including a musket that was more than 100 years old, but no ammunition.

But that night about 11 p.m. there was a knock at Lovi’s door. His son answered and saw four or five police officers standing outside.

“Dad, you better come out here,” he said. The police came to his house and took his antique firearms. [BluegrassBulletin]

And of course gun confiscation is effectively underway in New York, California and Florida.

And if you still think that it can't happen here, think again.  Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes has been identified by First Lady Michelle Obama as an important part of Barack Obama's plans to impose gun control.

You need to remain "situationally aware".

Related articles

Grimes Is The New "Obama Girl"?

New ObamaCare Mental Health Regs Tied To Gun Control

Obama's Chess Game: How Snowden's Leaks Could Spell More Government Secrecy

If anything happens in politics you can bet somebody planned it that way.  When Edward Snowden leaked to the British Press that the US was spying on everybody the reaction was predictable and swift.  From all parts of the political spectrum came calls for tightening security coupled with calls for less spying.

But as the dust around the initial revelation settled more and more information about the extent of government spying became available which of course sent everybody scrambling to put an end to such abuses.  Now however the other shoe has dropped.

The Obama administration has ordered a government-wide reassessment of how almost 5 million Americans have been granted classified information security clearances and whether each person currently approved to see sensitive national security secrets truly has a need for such access.

Clapper asked agencies to perform a top-to-bottom scrub of the teeming rolls of people authorized to access classified information and to remove anyone deemed not to have a so-called need to know. [POLITICO]

At first this may seem like a perfectly good step to take, considering that nobody really knows who is among those 5 million folks.  But consider this.

The Obama administration has been accused of "purging" the military of leaders they don't trust.  While the top to bottom scrub of "people authorized to access classified information" sounds good, might it also eliminate those who are in a position to warn America about further abuses yet to come?

I for one do not thing Snowden is a hero.  I believe he is a criminal.  But what part in a larger chess game might he have played?  Is it possible that Snowden's revelations about the extent of government spying created a "crisis" too good to waste?  Might the outrage over his revelations have provided the Obama administration with exactly the kind of atmosphere they needed in order to put blinders on others who could report on abuses yet to come? 

Many people today say that they do not trust "government".  This is a common expression and one that reveals a core of ignorance.  There is no entity operating on its own called "the government". We are a nation of self governed, a representative republic which functions through the actions of human beings.  Saying that you do not trust "our government" suggests that you do not trust people to govern themselves.

What is I believe a more correct statement would be for these people to say "I don't trust those people who are now in charge of our government".  So in the context of the news that the Obama administration is going to "purge" people from the list of those entitled to know what is going on behind the scenes, might it not be appropriate to ask: "Do you trust Obama to determine who gets to see what he is up to?"

Granted, national security does indeed require some things be kept secret, but since liberty likewise extends at least the same amount of privacy to the rest of us which should be our greater concern, that our privacy is being violated, or that the private actions of those who run our government is protected from view?

In Obama's world it's all a big chess game.  What moves will the King authorize for his own protection?  That's the real question.

Obama "Faked" Job Numbers Just Before Election

The New York Post says it has proof positive that Obama faked the unemployment numbers making him look better just before the November elections.

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

How much longer will the Congress tolerate a president who openly lies, manipulates data, exceeds his legal authority and may have even been the beneficiary of widespread election fraud?

No wonder Congress has such a poor approval rating.  They are letting this guy get by with murder.

Related articles

Grimes Linked To Obama Lies

Ky Court Shredding The Constitution Behind Closed Doors?

Because there is a statute making the proceedings in Kentucky juvenile cases confidential I am not at liberty to discuss any particular case or reveal anything that could identify a child or the proceedings in a Family Court case.  In otherwords, the public is prevented from seeing what is going on.

But I'd like to ask you this: suppose a Kentucky judge has, behind these closed doors, made these ruling:

Based solely upon the claim by a social worker that an anonymous caller accused two Kentucky parents of smoking marijuana in the presence of their children suppose the judge ordered both parents to submit to a blood test within 24 hours and to give statements to the government about their home life.

It is quite clear in the law that a blood test is a search and a seizure.  It is also quite clear that before a search can be conducted there must be presented probable cause that a crime is being committed.  And it is also quite clear that an anonymous tip cannot alone form the requisite probable cause to order a search.

It is also the right of every citizen to remain silent, that is no person can be compelled to become a witness against himself, in other words be forced to give a statement to a government official. 

But suppose a Kentucky judge ordered two citizens to submit to a blood test and give statements to government officials in a juvenile case behind closed doors in which the officials admitted under oath that the results of the blood test and/or the statments could expose the parents to criminal charges.

By what power would this judge be acting?  The answer is simply this: the power to punish the citizens for contempt if they do not comply, putting them in jail for up to six months, all behind the closed doors and out of view of the public under the protective cloak of the juvenile court confidentiality statutes.

The Kentucky Child Protective Services has been under close scrutiny for some time and has been the subject of at least one heated legislative hearing earlier this year.

And as a lawyer I can tell you that this agency of the government feels quite at ease intruding into the lives of ordinary citizens under the guise of "protecting children" when in fact these agencies themselves all around the country, and in Kentucky have had some serious questions raised about their ability to protect children in the past.

It should be of concern to every liberty loving Kentuckian that the rights of citizens not be violated and that the Kentucky Cabinet For Health and Family Services operating as a government agency be constrained by the Constitution rather than be permitted to engage in their intrusive behavior by judges operating behind closed doors and out of public view.

What Would The TEA Party Say About Women's Rights?

We are constantly being told that the GOP is struggling to win votes among American women.  This suggests that the democrats have a better reputation among women voters for women's rights.  Now we hear of a shocking answer by Secretary of State John Kerry to a female reporters question on his trip to Saudi Arabia.

Following recent news of a Kuwait woman being arrested for driving her ill father to the hospital, in violation of the law there that prohibits women from driving cars, a reporter asked Kerry where he stood on the issue of the Saudis having the same rules in the larger context of women's rights.  Here was Kerry's response:

“It’s no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody . . . [but] it’s up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure.”

As one commentator pointed out:

[T]he response was immediately noted by civil libertarians as coming off as remarkably relativistic and restrained. Yet these responses are clearly scripted on diplomatic trips. Women’s rights is not a question of “social structure.” That is how the Saudis view it. It is their religion and social structure that is cited for the medieval treatment of women. Equality is a human right that by definition transcends “social structures” and national preferences. Otherwise, racial and religious discrimination would be simply a matter of cultural tastes. [Turley]

I want you to re-read that again.  It was "civil-libertarians" who objected.  Aren't the "civil-libertarians" a big part of the TEA party?  And isn't the Ron Paul influenced TEA party decidedly "non-interventionist" when it comes to foreign policy?

So why would civil libertarians feel entitled to even comment on how another country treats its women?  Moreover, let's not forget that this is a democrat Secretary of State presumably representing our democrat president.  So tell me now, how is it that the democrats can claim the "women's vote" and the civil libertarins can complain like toothless dogs on a short heavy chain barking with no chance of biting, but the GOP with its strong record of standing up for women's rights is the party that has problems winning the women's vote?

Oh, yeah, I forgot.  The GOP thinks the government shouldn't pay to have baby girls suctioned apart or burned alive with chemicals or pulled out of the womb and stabbed in the brain.  It's all about that abortion thing isn't it?  You know, the FIRST civil right, the "right to life".