Chuck

May 072013
 

Something really strange is going on in Washington D.C. We are used to seeing Barack Obama issuing Executive Orders to get around a recalcitrant Congress who do not like his liberal ideas. We have seen the President use agencies like the EPA and the NLRB to promote his liberal agenda when the American people reject his liberalism. But now I think we are seeing something even more devious from this administration. Obama has not been able to establish an end run around Congress as far as guns are concerned. That pesky 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gets in his way. But this president does not give up so easily. If you can not take away the people’s right to own a gun, then take away their ammunition.

According to Investors Business Daily, different agencies in the Obama administration are buying ammunition at an unprecedented level.

According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That’s sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.

To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.

By law federal law, the federal government has first choice in buying ammunition and guns. Anything left over is available for the American people. That is why there are so many ammunition and fire arm shortages. The fact that the government should come first, especially during a war makes sense. But this begs the question, how do you know when the government has enough ammunition? To put the number of bullets the feds have bought into perspective, look at these facts. The 1.6 billion bullets the government is buying is enough ammunition to shoot every American, including illegal aliens, 5 times each. So we are reducing our roles in two wars and we are buying more ammunition than ever before, more than we could possibly use. There can only be one explanation for this buying spree–Obama is executing an end run around the 2nd Amendment.

There is another side effect to the buying of ammunition by this administration, and that is that EVERYONE, but the federal government, is having trouble buying bullets. I was talking to a local sheriff yesterday who said that he and several other local law enforcement agencies are having trouble buying enough ammunition for them to qualify their police, deputies, etc. Normally police and other law enforcement agencies practice a few times a year and re-qualify once a year. How are they to qualify on their weapons is they can not get any ammunition. In fact, this sheriff I said that he had to buy bullets made in Russia to have enough for his people.

If that were not disconcerting enough, add in the fact that President Obama is using every loophole, law, executive order, and agency directive he can to take away your Constitutional right to own a gun. Going as far as clearing the store shelves off all the ammunition, to me, is an all time low. This is no longer about protecting the American people, this had become a personal ambition of an ultra liberal president to shove his agenda down the throats of Americans, whether they agree or not. I found a quote by Learned Hand, the most quoted lower court judge in history and he had this to say about liberty. It is long but worth repeating here.

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. “

The next time you go to buy ammunition and the store shelves are empty, be sure to write a thank you note to the President. If you voted for him….. I hope you are happy with your choice. It is time for the American people to stand up to King Obama and reclaim our Constitution.

So, let me get this straight. According to Barack Obama, I do not need to own guns to protect myself. I should depend on federal government and local law enforcement for protection. But…..they will not leave enough ammunition on store shelves for our local law enforcement to practice. And this will make me safer? Right!?

 Posted by at 6:45 am
May 062013
 

Russian strategic bombers conducted flights within the U.S. defense zone close to northern Alaska and the Aleutian Islands last week in Moscow’s latest incident of nuclear saber rattling against the United States, according to defense and military officials.

I served in the USAF in Virginia during the early 1980s. During that time we were tasked with protecting the coastline against Soviet incursions. I still have pictures in my house of our F-15s escorting a Russian Bear (Tu-95) off of the coast. These ‘games’ were played several times a year as the Soviets used these nuclear capable aircraft to test and spy on their American counterparts. The Cold War was kept alive for those of us who served in this capacity as well as our military leaders and our civilian leadership. The game basically ended when the Soviet Union fell. That is until now.

Thirty years later, Vladimir Putin seems to want to renew the Cold War hostilities between Russia and the United States. In late April, Russian ‘Bears’ flew along the coast of Alaska once again testing US resolve and a rather weak president by his actions. In early February Russia tested the coast of Guam. Earlier in July of 2012 a Russian Tu-95 attempted to invade the west coast airspace during the Fourth of July celebrations.

So this begs the question, what is Putin’s objective? Is it the Cold War all over again? Is he trying to rally his hardline base? Or maybe he is a bit nostalgic for the past as the US and the USSR sought for supremacy. Either way the US should not take Russia lightly. Alone, they are not dangerous, but should they attempt to take over any of their neighbors, particularly Ukraine and Belarus. With either one of those, Russia would be seen as trying to expand their dominance in the region and would then have the resources to do it. This would be a threat to Europe, and by extension—the United States. The saber rattling by Putin comes at a bad time for our country. President Obama has cut the military’s budget, the nuclear arsenal of the US, and he has cut back on Air Defense forces as well. Because of the Great Recession and the policies of Barack Obama, we are too weak economically too. Simply put, we are unable to defend ourselves, deter anybody, or to attack any country that attacks us. And even if we tried, we would not be able to afford a long confrontation. We are weak now.

So far, Barack Obama has not shown himself to be a particularly strong president in international affairs. His apology tours and lack of clarity and action in the hot spots of the world display this very fact. Russia sees a weak president in the White House and is probably using the incursions as a way of thumbing their collective noses at Obama and showing the weakness of the US on the world stage. Neither of these are good for America. I expect Vladimir Putin to continue to tweak Obama until the end of the President’s term. What can we say, Obama is weak and Russia knows it. Then again, I think everyone knows it.

 Posted by at 12:23 pm
May 012013
 

When asked about Benghazi today, Jay Carney made this incredible state, It was ‘a long time ago.’ Really, really Mr. Carney. Did you really say that the deaths of our ambassador and three other Americans more than six months ago was ‘a long time ago, and therefore is not worth discussing? Jay Carney’s statement can be taken together with former Hillary Clinton’s equally outrageous statement of the Benghazi affair by saying “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Duh, Americans were ignored by their superiors at the State Dept., abandoned by the Obama administration, and killed by terrorists–that is why it is a big deal. This continual ‘rope-a-dope’ by Obama and Clinton will only work for so long before the American people demand an accounting of what really happened in Benghazi.

But there is another point I would like to make about Jay Carney’s idiotic statement. And that it the Benghazi event only occurred about six months ago and yet President Obama continued to blame President Bush more than FOUR YEARS after the former President left office. Maybe we should told Barack Obama, “…that was a long time ago, so come on….” If six months is too long of a time to investigate the murder of four Americans, then four years is way too long to blame a former president for the state of the economy. It is time Barack Obama to put on the grown up pants and start acting like the adult in the room.

 Posted by at 6:29 pm
Mar 052012
 

Barack Obama has once again tried to pull one over on the American people. Apparently some people think that just because a president talks good about the military, he supports them. This has got to be THE most anti-military president ever. America has a huge debt. That I understand, but to ask our military members to bare a huge burden for this debt is wrong. These men and women have sacrificed much so that the rest of us can live in freedom. Don’t we owe it to our veterans to at least give them what they were promised?

To pay for 10 years of wars, Congress, through the President’s Department of Defense and Veteran Affairs, is proposing 10 key cuts in benefits given to our military members.

• Increase healthcare premiums for military retirees on TRICARE
• Increase pharmaceutical fees for troops, families and retirees
• Eliminate presumptive service-connected conditions for disabled and ill veterans
• Lock out or increase fees for Department of Veterans Affairs Priority Groups 7 and 8 veterans
• Reduce cost-of-living allowances
• Freeze military pay
• End government subsidies to military commissaries
• Eliminate Department of Defense elementary schools stateside
• Eliminate the 20-year military retirement plan
• Eliminate DOD tuition reimbursement programs for service members

Everyone one of these draconian cuts hurts members of the military and their families. Bill Clinton first started this mess. He sought to cut health care coverage’s for millions of veterans in an effort to balance the budget. Now Obama has taken his cue from the former President and has proceeded to cut benefits promised to our military members. These are benefits promised to our veterans and as such are a breach of faith with our military and their families.

Like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama has an anti-military image he has failed to dispel. Most of our military that I know has nothing but disdain for the president. And there is little wonder considering the unprecedented cuts he is imposing on its members. They do not like or trust this president. Those who do not think these cuts will affect recruiting are fooling themselves. Our best and brightest will first search the civilian world for financial security for their families before going into the military.

Cuts to the members of our military is not the only way the President is undercutting our armed forces. President Obama has decided to impose draconian cuts to the Defense Department which displays his contempt for the military as a whole. As a result of these cuts, the United States faces a dangerous position. In a few short years, the US may not even be able to adequately protest itself. This is not the President we need to lead the world. We hired a leader and got a wimp. What we need is a real leader. And Obama is not it.

 Posted by at 10:36 pm
Feb 272012
 

The huge national debt is not our only debt problem; we also have a huge local debt problem as well. Most of America have rightly kept most of their focus on the out of control spending in Washington with its burgeoning debt quickly approaching $15.5 trillion. But local debt is also a problem as it rapidly encroaches $2 trillion.

Two main problems we must fix are causing our state’s debt to soar, decreasing our prosperity.

Local officials need an injection of common sense. Spending is not the way to prosperity. It is time government tighten its belt just like families do every month. This is critical if we want our children and grandchildren to have a more stable and secure future.

The second issue that must be addressed is much of the local debt is taxpayer approved. Local officials sell initiatives as absolutely necessary, touting them “for the children.” In fact, these initiatives are misguided and wasteful. Texas taxpayers deserve better.

It may be a municipal swimming pool, a state-of-the-art stadium, or a Taj Mahal school facility in their community. The trick is in the salesmanship. Local governments often claim the cost to be just a few pennies here, a few dollars there.

Those pennies add up to dollars, and we’ve built ourselves a monster of a debt, one dollar at a time. Texas’ local debt totals are headed in the wrong direction. Texas ranked third among the most populous states in per-capital local government in 2008 before taking our current dubious second place standing. (emphasis added by TRS)

The highlighted part of the quote is particularly troubling to me since I, along with the other residents of Grimes County in Texas, were sold a bill of goods when local school officials told us that we needed a new school. When the bond was presented to the taxpayers, it failed for obvious reasons—we did not need it. So the corrupt school officials went back, hired a firm to condemn the old school building and proceeded to offer another more expensive building. This information was passed along to the taxpayers with the understanding that the price of the new school would go up again if the initiative did not pass this time. Many of the understandably addled taxpayers bought the scare tactic from the corrupt school officials and the bond passed by a mere 23 votes.

And so now the good people of Anderson have a Taj Mahal in the place where a simple school building should be. To pay for this monstrosity, taxes went up by 37%. All of this to fuel the egos of a bunch of corrupt local officials who wanted to leave a legacy. Instead, the local officials sold us a crushing debt that the locals can hardly afford. And the old condemned school building which was too dangerous to house our children is still standing and houses county offices.

All of this goes to show, it is not just the politicians in Washington who enjoy spending other people’s money. Local politicians like to spend money too. How can we deny raising bonds when the project in question is, “…for the children?” And only an old curmudgeon would be against the children.

Is it really, I mean really for the children? It is time to take our country back. We need local, state, and federal leaders who know that the money they are spending is not their own. If they treated it as their own, we would not be in the dire financial straights we are in. In the end, it is not us who will pay the price for our irresponsibility. That burden will fall to our children and their children. They are the ones who will pay the price for our inability to curb our financial diet. Doing it for the children means making sure we are doing it for the children and not ourselves. So, when we say, “cut out the out of control spending,” it is intended for our local officials as well.

 Posted by at 7:05 am
Feb 232012
 

I am so sick of Barack Obama’s constant apologizing for this country. Come to think of it, I am also sick and tired of his bowing down to almost every world leader he comes across. The President is an embarrassment to the US with all of his kowtowing. This is the United States of America, we bow to no one. So….Enough already.

This time the apology comes as word gets out about the accidental burning of a couple of Quarans. The Qurans in question were already written in by the Gitmo detainees in a violation of Islamic law. And, according to Islamic law, the Qurans as supposed to be destroyed by burning them. Again, the Quurans were burned by accident, but by accident the US followed Islamic Law. So why is Obama apologizing. All he is doing is giving the radical Islamists more ammunition in which to attack US interests.

With my children, I learned a long time ago to pick my battles, because you as a parent can not win every one of them. Obama seems like he is taking this same idea to the extreme. His first knee jerk reaction to any possible crisis (even before there is one) is to apologize for the US. Note to the President: Quit Apologizing and LEAD.

 Posted by at 5:02 pm
Feb 222012
 

Whitney Houston died more than a week ago and I said nothing. There were people who knew her far better and could talk of her accomplishments more accurately than I could ever hope to do. When Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey ordered his state flags to be lowered to half-staff in honor of Ms. Houston, I said nothing, even though I felt our soldiers deserved at least the same treatment as a celebrity singer. But when a liberal says something as idiotic as “Whitney Houston was a Hero Too,” I can no longer hold my silence. I have to say something.

These liberals who put Whitney Houston on the same pedestal as our soldiers have no idea of what our military does, or else they would not make such idiotic statements. Ok…I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, hoping they would not intentionally make such an idiotic statement. But in the end, does it matter? The liberal mindset says there is no such thing as evil and there is no such thing as good since everyone is the same. The liberal mindset say that it is patriotic to denounce the US and unpatriotic to criticize those same individuals for doing so. The liberal mindset says there is no such thing as a military hero since we are all the same, but if there were, anyone who contributes to society is a real hero. The liberal mindset can not see the difference between those who protect our freedoms and those who use those same freedoms to abuse their own bodies. I guess the liberal mindset would also say that it is a tragedy that someone like Whitney Houston killed herself, but at least she did not kill anybody else like our soldiers are trained to kill and do so all the time. The liberal mindset can see no difference between those who kill for freedom and those who kill for money, or greed, or whatever. The liberal mindset has a screwed up view of the world since they see the US as the bad part of that world.

I found a post which sums up how so many liberals feel. Take a look at the last paragraph of the writer from the uber-liberal website, The Huffington Post:

The moving testimonies of those that knew her and worked with her define her as a very kind, giving person and a loving parent. How can anyone be so heartless as to disrespect Whitney by making these unfair, idiotic comparisons to how we view our military soldiers? If you really want to honor our fallen heroes, treat everyone with respect, especially one who gave so much of herself to the world through her art. (emphasis by TRS)

Ok….so Whitney Houston sang….okay, I get that. But that does not put her in the same boat as our fallen soldiers who gave their all so that those on the left could say such idiotic things. The writer made a passing reference to Lt. Michael Murphy who was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for his bravery and linked it to Whitney as if they were the same thing. The writer is wrong. The two have nothing in common at all. The first died by her own hand by abusing her body. The former died trying to save his comrades and protecting our freedoms.

We could say this post was just an isolated incident, that the writer is a lone maverick in the liberal world. Unfortunately this is not the case. The liberal mindset can see no difference between those who contribute to society and die in a drugged stupor and those who gave their lives defending our freedoms. You have to understand, our soldiers kill people and that is wrong, they say. The liberal mindset does not like our military and they do not like the United States of America as they continually show to the world.

Whitney Houston was a great singer, but she essentially killed herself with drugs. He death is a shame and a loss to the music world, but to say that she was a hero just like our soldiers is misguided, foolish and wrong. Our soldiers are the true heroes and that is something we should strive to remember.

 Posted by at 11:02 pm
Feb 102012
 

There are a lot of people who have this question: why is it the government’s role to define what constitutes a marriage. There are many sides to this issue. Those on the left espouse the belief that a marriage is what ever you want it to be. As I was told a few short days ago when I expressed the view that sometime soon a man may want to marry a ham sandwich. I was told, that as long as it was not my ham sandwich, it was none of my business. That basically characterizes the left’s view: anything goes as long as it does not expressly impinge upon someone else’s freedom. That view of course is not set in stone. If you represent the clergy or conservatives, then they do not care if it inhibits your freedom.

Those on the right believe it is in our best interest to define what constitutes a marriage. They would limit ‘marriages’ to a legal bond between a man and a woman. Anything else is up for debate as long as the ‘anything else’ is not defined as a marriage. Call it a ‘civil union’ if you wish but not a marriage.

The views expressed by Libertarians is somewhere in the middle. They claim the Constitution does not expressly allow the government to define or constrict the views on marriage. They want the government to ‘butt out!’ There is some merit to this view that the government need to butt out. Politicians try to control too many aspects of our lives now. So now what?

The Constitution is rather vague, but in my opinion this great timeless document does allow some wiggle room on the issue. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says the following:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (emphasis added by TRS)

General Welfare?! The dictionary defines the term as: health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. Now that we have the definition, we have to understand what the definition means. For that, we need to look at history. To achieve that I am not going back to the pre-Constitution days, because a going back just under a century will do the purpose.

After the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in October of 1917, the Communists came to believe that under Communism everyone needed to be equal. And since marriages are inherently un-equal, the party decided to redefine marriages. What it essentially did was to outlaw marriage. Since most of Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was Orthodox Christian, and most people believed that having children out of wedlock was against the teachings of the bible, people quit having children. The low birth rate so alarmed the Politburo that they quickly reversed the decision and the birthrate went back to normal.

The United States is by-in-large a Christian country. We too do not like to have children out of wedlock, or if we do, the situation is usually rectified quickly. What would happen if marriages in this country we done away with or redefined to the point where the definition was a joke? (This is what is happening by defining marriage as any relationship whatsoever.) The very definition of marriage becomes meaningless. As a result it is very conceivable that birthrates will suffer.

Stability is also a factor. Marriage offers something concrete, a cornerstone if you will. If the definition of a marriage is watered down to the point where liberals want it, what incentive is there for couples to remain together even after they have children.

And so because of these factors, it is incumbent upon the government to define a marriage as being between one man and one woman. Without the stability of marriage, our heritage is lost and without our heritage our country is lost.

 Posted by at 6:57 pm
Jan 162012
 

The apologists for Barack Obama in the news media are in full swing. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit I am a conservative Republican, but I do not support any individual candidate. Well, at least not yet. MSNBC is castigating Mitt Romney not because of the issues he supports, not because he is a Republican, but because of his generosity.

So lets set the stage. A struggling black woman tells Mitt Romney of her troubles and in response he gives her $50. MSNBC, always the parrot of Barack Obama and the Democrats, says the Republican candidate was working the lines in South Carolina when he came across 55-year-old Ruth Williams, who also volunteers in his campaign office, and proceeded to tell her story. Romney then pulled out his wallet and gave her some money. This should have been the end of the story except for MSNBC news.

“As an African American woman it galls me. I don’t even like to watch it. I felt like it plays into every sort of patronizing stereotype of black people.” MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid said, “‘Oh, here is this little lady let me give her 50 bucks’. . . I think it plays into that conservative meme, that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we’ll just give them charity, I’ll just give him 50 bucks.”

“There are alot of very convenient elements to this story, as you said Joy, it really makes cringe. We have this black woman who suddenly almost becomes this mascot for the campaign.” said MSNBC contributer Janell Ross, “She is sort of affirming all sorts of Conservative ideas about whose poor and how certain people deal with their poverty and seek out the assistance of a wealthy white man to hand you some form of aid.”

Are you kidding me!!! This is an issue Romney can not win. If he gave her nothing, they would have criticized him for not caring. But because the former governor generously gave her money, MSNBC news rebukes Romney for what they see as disparaging her. As I said, he can not win. Then there is the information the network left out.

“I was on the highway praying and said, ‘God just show me how to get [my] lights on,’ and I pulled up to a stop sign and his bus was there,” said Williams, who has been unemployed since last October. “And then God said, ‘Follow the bus,’ and I followed the bus to the airport.”

Williams, who would not specify how much money Romney gave her, said also that South Carolina Treasurer Curtis Loftis paid her light bill on Thursday. A spokesman for Loftis, one of Romney’s major endorses in the state, confirmed to ABC News that he paid Williams’ bill. While Loftis didn’t know the amount of the bill, he confirmed that he gave her $150.

Williams said she has been volunteering at Romney’s Columbia headquarters since meeting his bus last week.
“I’ve been working at his campaign office cleaning and just doing little things,” she said.
“They really did, they really came through for real,” she said.

So MSNBC forgot to mention that Mrs. Williams was following her own heart and God when she decided to meet with Mitt Romney. The network forgot to mention that an aid to the Romney campaign also paid her light bill. And the parrots at MSNBC forgot to inform their viewers that because of the generosity of Mitt Romney and his campaign, she now volunteers in his South Carolina campaign headquarters.

Is there any wonder the American people have lost faith in the mainstream news networks? Is there any wonder MSNBC news has such a small audience? The people of America want the truth–pure and simple. They do not want bias, they do not want spin, sycophants or apologists. What they want is the news.

 Posted by at 6:03 pm
Dec 232011
 

Sometimes I wonder about the intellegence of the Republican leadership. By caving in to the Democrats on the so-called ‘payroll tax relief extention’ the Republicans have allowed the Dems to frame the debate. This article by Charles Krauthammer details what is at stake, for all of us. I have to include this one little tidbit from Krauthammer:

To begin with, what even minimally rational government enacts payroll tax relief for just two months? As a matter of practicality alone, it makes no sense. The National Payroll Reporting Consortium, representing those who process paychecks, said of the two-month extension passed by the Senate just days before the new year: “There is insufficient lead time to accommodate the proposal,” because “many payroll systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial programming change before January or even February,” thereby creating “substantial problems, confusion and costs.”
The final compromise appears to tweak this a bit to make it less onerous for small business. But what were they thinking in the first place? What business operates two months at a time? The minimal time horizon for business is the quarter — three months. What genius came up with two? U.S. businesses would have to budget for two-thirds of a one-quarter tax-holiday extension. As if this government has not already heaped enough regulatory impediments and mindless uncertainties upon business.
But making economic sense is not the point. The tax-holiday extension — presumably to be negotiated next year into a 12-month extension — is the perfect campaign ploy: an election-year bribe that has the additional virtue of seizing the tax issue for the Democrats.

Could not have said it better.

Hat Tip: Outside the Beltway

 Posted by at 7:50 am