The gun control advocates are going full bore to eliminate U.S. made rifles that are complimentary to our military models. These civilian rifles use the same type of magazines and the same caliber of ammo, making a readily available supply of spare magazines and ammuntion outside of military stores. Such is necessary to maintaining a strong, indigenous firearms manufacturing base for national defense. The Second Amendment and Alaska Statutes require that we as citizens maintain a firearm for use during a call up of the unorganized militia (AS 26.05.010, AS 26.05.110).
The fact that owning this type of rifle is a good investment and shooting them is just plain fun is an affront to the civility and righteous indignation of the liberal gun control advocate.
The howl for gun control and the banning of "high capacity" magazines are red herrings designed to obscure our politicians’ and state and local leaders’ negligence and outright ignoring of the very real danger to our schools. A danger that was promised by fatwa before and after September 11, 2001. Bin Laden had signed a fatwa in February, 1998 "to kill the Americans, civilian and military" that was inclusive of killing American children.
Another danger had been building since the 80s that was the result of the overuse of anti-depressants on young male children. A result that was unforeseen in the mad rush to ‘calm’ little boys into being quiet and to "behave" without instilling discipline or a sense of right and wrong. A result forced by liberals who believed that little boys should act other than as normal male adolescents. In the liberal view of man, males were too aggressive.
What was a noticeable change between those children who were in school since the early 80s, and those generations before? What could their parents and even schools do that was not legal prior to the 1980s?
The drugging of male children. At times, without the parents’ consent. That is why the shooters in school shootings are all male. Every shooter in the schools who was a student had been on prozac, luvox, ritalin or some other anti-depressant. They had taken themselves off of their prescribed medication and had gone ‘cold turkey’. The result was to create a paranoid, violent, psychotics. There was never any long term clinical study on the use of these drugs on male children, before they began to be prescribed for young children. Yet, these drugs have been used on male children as young as 3 years old. Behavioral modification by drugs, a liberal dream come true. In the 1990s, ritalin presecriptions rose to 2 million and then doubled every two years. (Merrow Report, PBS, 1995).
These dangers coalesced into the threat of armed attacks upon our schools, with the goal of killing children, creating terror, and gaining notoriety for the organization or the attackers themselves. Armed attacks were anticipated and mitigation for such was provided for under the Department of Homeland Security’s homeland security grant program to the States.
Adam Lanza was a terrorist. He did what terrorists do: he killed to create terror, for whatever his reasoning, he assaulted the school--he had to break in, and he attacked staff and students to gain noteriety and to send a message to his dead mother. He killed 27 people. It has been reported, that given his mental issues, he too may have been on anti-depressants.
Studies have been done at the federal level on how to protect our schools from an armed attack. Our military and our civil security know that the threat exists to the schools, but little or nothing has been done to create security protocols and to place armed security at elementary schools that would certainly reduce the potential for carnage, if not outright eliminate the potential for such.
In Israel, school security includes armed guards and armed staff. This model has been effective in preventing armed attacks on Israeli schools by terrorists.
At Sandy Hook Elementary a single point of entry through a locked door with a security camera was in place. That was a good first step. Evidently, the windows were not shatterproof, as that is how Lanza gained entrance after the door would not open. The principal put Lanza’s yelling and shooting on the loudspeaker system to notify the teachers to lock their rooms. The implication is that they lacked a common code word that would have notified staff to immediately go into lockdown. No armed guards or armed staff.
Did CT have the money to mitigate the armed threat that Adam Lanza demonstrated?
The State of Connecticut each year receives homeland security grants:
2011: $23M
2010: $142M
2009: $192M
2008: $37.5M
2007: $98M
2006: $22.6M
2005: $34.2M
2004: $60.6M
2003: $47.15M
2002: 11.85M
Total 2002-2011: $668.85 million in homeland security grants.
The DHS homeland security grant monies are designated by the applicant (State, county, city, school district) for planning, threat evaluation, disaster mitigation, hardening of vulnerable targets--including schools, training for emergency management, first responders, and impacted personnel--school staff for example; equipment for WMD and emergency response, communications, and emergency management.
Why did the state and local police, civil leadership of CT and DHS not act to harden the schools, against an armed threat? In failing to do so, they were negligent in their duties and responsibilities.
Schools have been targets of terror world-wide. On September, 1, 2004, over 1,000 school staff and students were taken prisoner at School 1 in Beslan autonomous republic with disastrous results for the students. 186 children were killed in the ensuing attempt to rescue the children. 334 people total were killed. How could this happen in a country with draconian prohibitions against private gun ownership? Russia has such strong gun laws, that only three groups have weapons: the Russian government agencies, including the military, the Russian mob, and the jihadis.
Was CT's problem simply being too politically correct to accept the idea of armed security and staff in elementary schools, or was it a sitaution of recognizing the threat, but dismissing it, because of the small probability of an armed incursion actually happening?
NEA, liberal administrators and staff do not want armed security in elementary schools. Guns! are bad!
We need to adopt the Israeli policy of an armed guard and at least one trained armed staff member. Teachers should be allowed concealed carry.
Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry in a school when they come to visit their kids, to pick them up, or to attend functions. This increases the armed security protection significantly at no cost to the school district.
Had there been an armed security guard or had there been armed staff, Adam Lanza's attack would have been truncated very early on, probably at the door.
Instead, we have liberal gun control advocates howling about 'high' capacity magazines and other nonesense that has no bearing on the problem. They express anger and outrage that the NRA would even suggest armed security. Yet, the liberal gun control advocates and politicians want a meaningful dialogue.
Why do banks have armed security? To protect the customers’ valuables. Were the 20 kids killed at Sandy Hook unworthy of the protection afforded . . . money?
The liberal politicians at every level of government, including President Barrack Obama, do not want to owe up to the fact that all they did when the school firearms prohibitions were passed was to put words in a code book. Without the rest of the program--locked doors, training, security protocols, and armed staff and amred security--the words of the law only created safety zones for the Adam Lanza’s.
Who's to blame for our school massacres? Liberal politicians and anti-gun groups.
The only effective remedy to reducing crime has been arming the law abiding citizen. Criminals do not want to encounter, armed citizens. They want unarmed victims. Same for terrorists.
CT had collected over $668,850,000 from the federal DHS homeland security grant program. Why did CT’s leaders not see to it that their schools were hardened against an armed threat? Heads should roll. They ignored the threat. The children and the school staff paid the price.
Now, do we learn from that inexcusable negligence, or do we let the red herring of ineffective gun laws take away our attention from the reality of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre: CT had the money, but did not protect their children!
Showing posts with label 2d Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2d Amendment. Show all posts
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Will the Alaska Army National Guard be there for us . . .
The congressional super committee that was to allegedly make an effort to reduce the deficit has apparently chosen to play politics. It now appears that an impasse has occurred that will result in $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over the next 10 years. The portent for Alaska and the rest of the country of this taking effect is something that this governor and this Legislature need to ponder before the next legislative session begins in January.
The automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts will have an immediate and devastating impact upon the military. As a result of current FY 2012 cuts already in place, with additional cuts imposed by the automatic reduction in spending, the military’s portion of spending cuts will rise to $1 trillion. The result of this reduction, says Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta “will be devastating.”
Allegedly, the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operations are over. The troops will be coming home. Unfortunately, the war is not over, as additional areas of operations have been opened in the Middle East and Africa by President Obama. The latest operation being troops and helicopters very recently deployed to Ghana. Syria is now on NATO’s hit list with ever increasing threats and war talk by NATO countries. Another Alaska Army brigade is getting ready for another deployment to Afghanistan, even though the war is allegedly winding down. An Alaska Army National Guard unit was recently deployed to the Middle East.
Defense cuts necessitated by the recession will negatively impact capability, readiness and manpower in both active and reserve components through at least this decade. More military bases will be closed bringing the threat of the Congressional base closing axe upon Alaska’s two major military bases.
Under the Obama Administration, the National Guard and reserves play a major role in Libyan operations, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Balkans (Kosovo), and the expansion of the war into Africa, Libya, and Yemen.
Due to the weakening of U.S. force structure by spending cuts already in place, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Russians have initiated open military challenges not seen since the Cold War. The Russians have increased their presence and spending in former Soviet Republics in the Caucus Region with their invasion of Georgia (South Ossetia) and have increased their military presence in Moldava, Dagestan, and Chechnya. Russia has signed a treaty with Ukraine for an additional 25 years for the use of the former Soviet naval base at Sevastopol. Recently, the Russians moved two brigades of troops and additional air and naval units to the far north of Russia to once again challenge the West in the Arctic. The Peoples Republic of China has openly warned the U.S. to stay out of disputes in the China Sea with Vietnam and the Philippines. Chinese naval and air harassment of U.S. and Japanese naval units and aircraft continues off the coast of Japan and elsewhere in the China Sea. Both Russia and the PRC have adopted a first strike policy, with the PRC’s military doctrine being very explicit in designating the United States as its primary adversary.
The reality of our military situation is that our forces are stressed and overextended with multiple deployments ongoing at any time, all the while, suffering concurrent manpower reductions and budget cuts affecting readiness and capability. Major airlift capability is now limited with the closure of the C17 production line by the Obama Administration.
Given the realities of the recession, and the underlying causation of overspending for too many years, the impact upon the military capability of the United States will be draconian through this decade.
Entitlements, which have outgrown military spending, will be the last items reduced by politicians who put their reelection above the defense of the country.
With the downgrading of our military capability will come the wolves seeking advantage, first at the periphery of American military reach, then ever closer to our borders as they sense opportunity. This challenge to American power has already begun in our hemisphere. There are almost daily incursions from Mexico by armed paramilitary forces in support of drug smuggling operations. Iran is militarily invested in Chavez’s Venezuela. The PRC runs the Panama Canal and is expanding its influence in the Caribbean. Al Qaida and Hezbollah have a presence in South America, training personnel for infiltration into the Great Satan of America. Meanwhile, Russian TU95 Bear bombers of Cold War fame once again regularly test U.S. and Canadian air defenses.
Submarines of the PRC Navy have embarrassed the United States Navy at least twice during the Obama Administration. The PRC is accelerating development of tactical nuclear missiles intended to deal a death blow to the U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups in the Pacific.
The Canadians will not be much help in any Arctic defense strategy in the face of a declining military. The Canadians have already admitted that they may have to rely upon contractors for personnel and logistics.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the Afghanistan and Iraq operations was the reliance on Russian contractors for air transport of military equipment and supplies.
One of two strategies for maintaining the U.S. military will develop as the recession, inflation, and resulting world civil unrest increase. The increasing turmoil will result in an ever increasing dependence upon the reserves and National Guard for troops and equipment to augment regular military units. Or, the National Guard and reserves will be stripped of their equipment and reduced in manpower in favor of maintaining a viable, standing military.
The regular U.S. military will continue to be reduced, but called upon to do more, given the ever increasing decline in military capability in Western Europe and Canada. The U.S. Navy played a major role in support of the Libyan campaign by having to provide the majority of aircraft for the Libyan bombing campaign.
The impact of the increasing violence into the U.S. from Mexico’s drug wars will undoubtedly force future administrations to defend our borders from the threat of narco terror, further stressing the military.
James J. Carafano, a defense analyst for the Heritage Institute, in his article on State Defense Forces (SDF) “Small Answers to big problems” in the March 23, 2011 Washington Times, advocated for increasing the number of 32 USC § 109(c) State Defense Forces in the U.S. He also pointed out that the greatest resistance to the State Defense Force concept comes from the State Adjutant Generals, for reasons unknown.
In his letter to then Governor Sarah Palin in September, 2008, then LTG Craig Campbell, Commissioner/Adjutant General (TAG), DMVA, envisioned an expanded role for the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), including combat support, and a retention of the ASDF State Military Police Constabulary role as part of the State’s military force structure.
Since 2010, MG Thomas H. Katkus, Commissioner/TAG appointed by Gov. Sean Parnell, has worked purposefully to diminish, disarm, and render ineffective and irrelevant the ASDF. The Parnell Administration acted to disarm and to render ineffective the state-only part of the organized militia in favor of a federal-only emergency military response to disasters in Alaska.
The National Guard belongs to the President, not the Governor, and to believe otherwise is incredibly naive in the face of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary.
This action on the part of the Parnell Administration in a time of war calls into question the Parnell Administration’s support of the 2d Amendment and Art. 1 § 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
The Legislature is complicit in its silence.
Those Alaskans who value their 2d Amendment rights need to be very concerned. The stage has been set and the precedent established with the disarming of the ASDF for the disarming of the Alaska unorganized militia in an emergency.
This is the first time that I can remember in my 57 years as an Alaskan that the Legislature and the Governor have acted with open eyes and clear intent to make Alaskans less safe.
The automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts will have an immediate and devastating impact upon the military. As a result of current FY 2012 cuts already in place, with additional cuts imposed by the automatic reduction in spending, the military’s portion of spending cuts will rise to $1 trillion. The result of this reduction, says Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta “will be devastating.”
Allegedly, the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operations are over. The troops will be coming home. Unfortunately, the war is not over, as additional areas of operations have been opened in the Middle East and Africa by President Obama. The latest operation being troops and helicopters very recently deployed to Ghana. Syria is now on NATO’s hit list with ever increasing threats and war talk by NATO countries. Another Alaska Army brigade is getting ready for another deployment to Afghanistan, even though the war is allegedly winding down. An Alaska Army National Guard unit was recently deployed to the Middle East.
Defense cuts necessitated by the recession will negatively impact capability, readiness and manpower in both active and reserve components through at least this decade. More military bases will be closed bringing the threat of the Congressional base closing axe upon Alaska’s two major military bases.
Under the Obama Administration, the National Guard and reserves play a major role in Libyan operations, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Balkans (Kosovo), and the expansion of the war into Africa, Libya, and Yemen.
Due to the weakening of U.S. force structure by spending cuts already in place, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Russians have initiated open military challenges not seen since the Cold War. The Russians have increased their presence and spending in former Soviet Republics in the Caucus Region with their invasion of Georgia (South Ossetia) and have increased their military presence in Moldava, Dagestan, and Chechnya. Russia has signed a treaty with Ukraine for an additional 25 years for the use of the former Soviet naval base at Sevastopol. Recently, the Russians moved two brigades of troops and additional air and naval units to the far north of Russia to once again challenge the West in the Arctic. The Peoples Republic of China has openly warned the U.S. to stay out of disputes in the China Sea with Vietnam and the Philippines. Chinese naval and air harassment of U.S. and Japanese naval units and aircraft continues off the coast of Japan and elsewhere in the China Sea. Both Russia and the PRC have adopted a first strike policy, with the PRC’s military doctrine being very explicit in designating the United States as its primary adversary.
The reality of our military situation is that our forces are stressed and overextended with multiple deployments ongoing at any time, all the while, suffering concurrent manpower reductions and budget cuts affecting readiness and capability. Major airlift capability is now limited with the closure of the C17 production line by the Obama Administration.
Given the realities of the recession, and the underlying causation of overspending for too many years, the impact upon the military capability of the United States will be draconian through this decade.
Entitlements, which have outgrown military spending, will be the last items reduced by politicians who put their reelection above the defense of the country.
With the downgrading of our military capability will come the wolves seeking advantage, first at the periphery of American military reach, then ever closer to our borders as they sense opportunity. This challenge to American power has already begun in our hemisphere. There are almost daily incursions from Mexico by armed paramilitary forces in support of drug smuggling operations. Iran is militarily invested in Chavez’s Venezuela. The PRC runs the Panama Canal and is expanding its influence in the Caribbean. Al Qaida and Hezbollah have a presence in South America, training personnel for infiltration into the Great Satan of America. Meanwhile, Russian TU95 Bear bombers of Cold War fame once again regularly test U.S. and Canadian air defenses.
Submarines of the PRC Navy have embarrassed the United States Navy at least twice during the Obama Administration. The PRC is accelerating development of tactical nuclear missiles intended to deal a death blow to the U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups in the Pacific.
The Canadians will not be much help in any Arctic defense strategy in the face of a declining military. The Canadians have already admitted that they may have to rely upon contractors for personnel and logistics.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the Afghanistan and Iraq operations was the reliance on Russian contractors for air transport of military equipment and supplies.
One of two strategies for maintaining the U.S. military will develop as the recession, inflation, and resulting world civil unrest increase. The increasing turmoil will result in an ever increasing dependence upon the reserves and National Guard for troops and equipment to augment regular military units. Or, the National Guard and reserves will be stripped of their equipment and reduced in manpower in favor of maintaining a viable, standing military.
The regular U.S. military will continue to be reduced, but called upon to do more, given the ever increasing decline in military capability in Western Europe and Canada. The U.S. Navy played a major role in support of the Libyan campaign by having to provide the majority of aircraft for the Libyan bombing campaign.
The impact of the increasing violence into the U.S. from Mexico’s drug wars will undoubtedly force future administrations to defend our borders from the threat of narco terror, further stressing the military.
James J. Carafano, a defense analyst for the Heritage Institute, in his article on State Defense Forces (SDF) “Small Answers to big problems” in the March 23, 2011 Washington Times, advocated for increasing the number of 32 USC § 109(c) State Defense Forces in the U.S. He also pointed out that the greatest resistance to the State Defense Force concept comes from the State Adjutant Generals, for reasons unknown.
In his letter to then Governor Sarah Palin in September, 2008, then LTG Craig Campbell, Commissioner/Adjutant General (TAG), DMVA, envisioned an expanded role for the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), including combat support, and a retention of the ASDF State Military Police Constabulary role as part of the State’s military force structure.
Since 2010, MG Thomas H. Katkus, Commissioner/TAG appointed by Gov. Sean Parnell, has worked purposefully to diminish, disarm, and render ineffective and irrelevant the ASDF. The Parnell Administration acted to disarm and to render ineffective the state-only part of the organized militia in favor of a federal-only emergency military response to disasters in Alaska.
The National Guard belongs to the President, not the Governor, and to believe otherwise is incredibly naive in the face of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary.
This action on the part of the Parnell Administration in a time of war calls into question the Parnell Administration’s support of the 2d Amendment and Art. 1 § 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
The Legislature is complicit in its silence.
Those Alaskans who value their 2d Amendment rights need to be very concerned. The stage has been set and the precedent established with the disarming of the ASDF for the disarming of the Alaska unorganized militia in an emergency.
This is the first time that I can remember in my 57 years as an Alaskan that the Legislature and the Governor have acted with open eyes and clear intent to make Alaskans less safe.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Sarah Palin running for President?! NOOOOOOOO!!!!
I just read an article on Real Clear Politics that confirmed my worst fears. Sarah Palin is definitely going to make a run for the brass ring of the Presidency. This egotistical, paranoid, soap opera queen and failed governor of the GREAT STATE of ALASKA, this individual who stated time and again while running for that high office "This is the greatest job that I could have," and who promised that she would never leave that office for national office before her two potential terms were up . . . Sarah Palin would be a disaster as a President.
I worked for that campaign as a volunteer, I wrote in support of her campaign, I talked to people, I did what I could to support her in her race for governor. Sarah called me, I did not call her and volunteer.
When Sarah Palin took her oath of office, she closed the door to most of the peons like me, and on her promises regarding change and open, conservative, pro-family, pro-life, constitutional State government.
Her administration was characterized as being left to itself without clear leadership or direction from her. She did something none of us thought that she would do. Instead of a new start for State government as she campaigned on--the Palin Revolution, remember?--she rehired many of her predecessors' commissioners and appointees. She changed nothing. If anything, she muddied the waters of State government further.
Her theme of open and transparent government was a joke. Contact with her office was a trial, without much chance of any call being returned. I heard this again and again from people who tried to contact the governor’s offices for one reason or another and were told that their call would be returned, but never was.
I have personal experience with her administration's public access policies. Open and transparent? Anything but.
I understand that the commissioners were left to work out amongst themselves what they thought she wanted from them. Sarah Palin was described as being above details, and uninterested in anything other than what she was trying to accomplish at the moment. A recent interview with Walt Monaghan, the former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner under Palin, confirmed this characteristic of her administration. She was distant and aloof and out of touch with her commissioners.
As time went on, she increasingly made public appearances to respond to specious and idiotic attacks upon her family, character and ethics. Something she should have left out of her job as governor. It seemed she was making more retorts to these detractors than policy statements. Instead of hiring a publicist, attorney, attack dog, whatever, it was the governor's office that was dragged into the soap opera that was Governor Sarah Palin. She embarrassed us, and she acted immaturely, and foolishly by letting herself be swayed from her responsibilities as governor. She failed as a leader to keep the governor's office above the circus atmosphere, and, instead, used that office a bludgeon against those she did not like. The governor’s office was allowed to enter into the realm of a family feud between her sister and her former husband, an Alaska State Trooper.
Sarah is not a conservative. At best, she is a RINO with a great public persona who says all the right things, but shows her true colors in the record of her administration as governor.
Sarah Palin added 800 employees to the State of Alaska and oversaw the biggest expenditures since Statehood. She handed out a $1,200 fuel rebate to Alaskans in a shameless exhibition of pandering to the public with the public’s money. She expanded her cabinet to include a sub-cabinet that was devoted to . . . get this . . . climate change. She named the sub-cabinet the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet whose executive director was a federal EPA employee. According to her commissioner of DNR, and her Climate Change Sub-cabinet, global warming was a man-made problem.
Worse, the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet composition was the antithesis of her claims of supporting the State's sovereignty over ever increasing federal encroachment.
It is difficult to believe that she really supported the State of Alaska's sovereignty as expressed under AS 38.05.500-505 when she let a federal employee act as management in her offices. Especially, when a single source contract for approximately $80,000 was let to Climate Change Strategies (CCS), a progressive, anti growth, anti-development, population control cookie cutter global warming consultant to give the liberals the tools that they needed to feel better about destroying an economy through carbon tax initiatives. CCS was contracted to set up and administer her sub-cabinet. Sarah Palin signed up the State as an observer in the Western Climate Initiative arm of this organization.
Sarah Palin a supporter of the Second Amendment and our military? Highly suspect, given what she ordered where the 32 USC §109(c) Alaska State Defense Force is concerned.
Sarah Palin was the first Republican Governor to reduce the military forces of the State of Alaska by disarming the Alaska State Defense Force and rendering it from an operational, disaster response unit with an outstanding record of achievement over eight years to that of an unarmed "reserve of last resort". In doing so, then Governor Sarah Palin ignored the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, AS 26.05.070, AS 26.05.100, and the intent of NGR 10-4 sec. 5 and sec. 6, something her Adjutant General, LTG Craig Campbell should have been most aware of.
Her zeal for diminishing the Alaska State Defense Force and thereby removing from the State’s disaster response resources a proven operational unit that was a state military police constabulary has only been exceeded by her successor, Gov. Sean Parnell. Both former Governor Sarah Palin and Governor Sean Parnell have shown an incredible indifference to the fact that by their actions against the Alaska Sate Defense Force that they have shown a complete disregard for the militia’s right to bear arms. They also demonstrate a callous disregard for the fact that unarmed troops cannot afford protection and safety to those whom they serve. Alaskans are less safe because of Sarah Palin’s acts against the Alaska State Defense Force.
In diminishing the military forces of the State of Alaska, then Gov. Sarah Palin, and Gov. Sean Parnell,her successor and her former Lt. Gov., both went against the Alaska Republican Party's plank in support of the military in Alaska:
“C. We recognize Alaska’s strategic military location and unparalleled training opportunities and welcome the expansion of forces in Alaska, including our Active Duty, Reserves, Alaska National Guard, naval Militia, Coast Guard and Alaska State Defense Force.”
That this was done in a time of WAR should cause serious consternation on the part of any who might be considering Sarah Palin as qualified for the Presidency. That she stepped all over the Second Amendment and Alaska's constitution in doing so by diminishing the right of the organized and unorganized State militia to be armed should give cause to all who own weapons to worry about our Second Amendment rights if she actually achieves the presidency. That she did so during time of war should give considerable consernation to any who is concerned about the security of this great country.
Sarah Palin is not intellectually or politically qualified to be president. By intellectually, I mean that she has never studied or been interested in international affairs. Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she lacked the judgment necessary to weigh local and State issues concerning Alaskan much less weigh global issues against national interests. Sarah Palin failed miserably as the governor of the Great State of Alaska, as she did not even make it through her first term. She did not even make it two years into her administration. If Frank Bailey’s book has any truth to it, Sarah Palin can be characterized as a petulant, spoiled child who wanted to quit, because she could not stand the criticism.
You think criticizing Obama produces a spectacle, wait until Sarah Palin becomes President.
I have only seen one other as poor a candidate for the highest office. That one other is the communist and Muslim sympathizing, socialist, apologist heretic that is currently occupying the highest elected office of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama. A close second is former president James Carter.
Unfortunately, I personally believe that Sarah Palin as President would make Obama into a statesman by comparison.
That Sarah Palin just purchased a house in Scottsdale, Arizona for $1.695M is an indication of how much an Alaskan this woman really is.
Yeah, she is good looking and she says the right things that resonates with conservatives and most middle class family oriented, hard working Americans. However, that is all that Sarah Palin is and does. She is a mouthpiece and a lightning rod for the opposition.
Can you imagine her soap opera on national television with her as President? We would be more of a laughing stock than we are under Obama. She is worse than Obama where a sleight is concerned. She would rail publically against any who dared criticize.
Surely, we won't be that stupid to elect someone who is clearly unqualified for the presidency so soon after getting rid of the pretender that is now in that office?
The Republican Party has some serious soul searching to do. There has to be a candidate that has a consistent record of fiscal and social conservatism, who will not compromise our Constitution and our social and moral values, who is not afraid to say that they are an American and that our culture is distinct, that English is our language, and who will not BOW to a foreign potentate, and who has the credentials to be President. Who, like Ronald Reagan will not place his/her ego above that of the country, and who will not only say the right things about America, but will act upon those words to make it so.
Sarah Palin is NOT that candidate.
Real Clear Politics piece on Palin:
I worked for that campaign as a volunteer, I wrote in support of her campaign, I talked to people, I did what I could to support her in her race for governor. Sarah called me, I did not call her and volunteer.
When Sarah Palin took her oath of office, she closed the door to most of the peons like me, and on her promises regarding change and open, conservative, pro-family, pro-life, constitutional State government.
Her administration was characterized as being left to itself without clear leadership or direction from her. She did something none of us thought that she would do. Instead of a new start for State government as she campaigned on--the Palin Revolution, remember?--she rehired many of her predecessors' commissioners and appointees. She changed nothing. If anything, she muddied the waters of State government further.
Her theme of open and transparent government was a joke. Contact with her office was a trial, without much chance of any call being returned. I heard this again and again from people who tried to contact the governor’s offices for one reason or another and were told that their call would be returned, but never was.
I have personal experience with her administration's public access policies. Open and transparent? Anything but.
I understand that the commissioners were left to work out amongst themselves what they thought she wanted from them. Sarah Palin was described as being above details, and uninterested in anything other than what she was trying to accomplish at the moment. A recent interview with Walt Monaghan, the former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner under Palin, confirmed this characteristic of her administration. She was distant and aloof and out of touch with her commissioners.
As time went on, she increasingly made public appearances to respond to specious and idiotic attacks upon her family, character and ethics. Something she should have left out of her job as governor. It seemed she was making more retorts to these detractors than policy statements. Instead of hiring a publicist, attorney, attack dog, whatever, it was the governor's office that was dragged into the soap opera that was Governor Sarah Palin. She embarrassed us, and she acted immaturely, and foolishly by letting herself be swayed from her responsibilities as governor. She failed as a leader to keep the governor's office above the circus atmosphere, and, instead, used that office a bludgeon against those she did not like. The governor’s office was allowed to enter into the realm of a family feud between her sister and her former husband, an Alaska State Trooper.
Sarah is not a conservative. At best, she is a RINO with a great public persona who says all the right things, but shows her true colors in the record of her administration as governor.
Sarah Palin added 800 employees to the State of Alaska and oversaw the biggest expenditures since Statehood. She handed out a $1,200 fuel rebate to Alaskans in a shameless exhibition of pandering to the public with the public’s money. She expanded her cabinet to include a sub-cabinet that was devoted to . . . get this . . . climate change. She named the sub-cabinet the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet whose executive director was a federal EPA employee. According to her commissioner of DNR, and her Climate Change Sub-cabinet, global warming was a man-made problem.
Worse, the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet composition was the antithesis of her claims of supporting the State's sovereignty over ever increasing federal encroachment.
It is difficult to believe that she really supported the State of Alaska's sovereignty as expressed under AS 38.05.500-505 when she let a federal employee act as management in her offices. Especially, when a single source contract for approximately $80,000 was let to Climate Change Strategies (CCS), a progressive, anti growth, anti-development, population control cookie cutter global warming consultant to give the liberals the tools that they needed to feel better about destroying an economy through carbon tax initiatives. CCS was contracted to set up and administer her sub-cabinet. Sarah Palin signed up the State as an observer in the Western Climate Initiative arm of this organization.
Sarah Palin a supporter of the Second Amendment and our military? Highly suspect, given what she ordered where the 32 USC §109(c) Alaska State Defense Force is concerned.
Sarah Palin was the first Republican Governor to reduce the military forces of the State of Alaska by disarming the Alaska State Defense Force and rendering it from an operational, disaster response unit with an outstanding record of achievement over eight years to that of an unarmed "reserve of last resort". In doing so, then Governor Sarah Palin ignored the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, AS 26.05.070, AS 26.05.100, and the intent of NGR 10-4 sec. 5 and sec. 6, something her Adjutant General, LTG Craig Campbell should have been most aware of.
Her zeal for diminishing the Alaska State Defense Force and thereby removing from the State’s disaster response resources a proven operational unit that was a state military police constabulary has only been exceeded by her successor, Gov. Sean Parnell. Both former Governor Sarah Palin and Governor Sean Parnell have shown an incredible indifference to the fact that by their actions against the Alaska Sate Defense Force that they have shown a complete disregard for the militia’s right to bear arms. They also demonstrate a callous disregard for the fact that unarmed troops cannot afford protection and safety to those whom they serve. Alaskans are less safe because of Sarah Palin’s acts against the Alaska State Defense Force.
In diminishing the military forces of the State of Alaska, then Gov. Sarah Palin, and Gov. Sean Parnell,her successor and her former Lt. Gov., both went against the Alaska Republican Party's plank in support of the military in Alaska:
“C. We recognize Alaska’s strategic military location and unparalleled training opportunities and welcome the expansion of forces in Alaska, including our Active Duty, Reserves, Alaska National Guard, naval Militia, Coast Guard and Alaska State Defense Force.”
That this was done in a time of WAR should cause serious consternation on the part of any who might be considering Sarah Palin as qualified for the Presidency. That she stepped all over the Second Amendment and Alaska's constitution in doing so by diminishing the right of the organized and unorganized State militia to be armed should give cause to all who own weapons to worry about our Second Amendment rights if she actually achieves the presidency. That she did so during time of war should give considerable consernation to any who is concerned about the security of this great country.
Sarah Palin is not intellectually or politically qualified to be president. By intellectually, I mean that she has never studied or been interested in international affairs. Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she lacked the judgment necessary to weigh local and State issues concerning Alaskan much less weigh global issues against national interests. Sarah Palin failed miserably as the governor of the Great State of Alaska, as she did not even make it through her first term. She did not even make it two years into her administration. If Frank Bailey’s book has any truth to it, Sarah Palin can be characterized as a petulant, spoiled child who wanted to quit, because she could not stand the criticism.
You think criticizing Obama produces a spectacle, wait until Sarah Palin becomes President.
I have only seen one other as poor a candidate for the highest office. That one other is the communist and Muslim sympathizing, socialist, apologist heretic that is currently occupying the highest elected office of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama. A close second is former president James Carter.
Unfortunately, I personally believe that Sarah Palin as President would make Obama into a statesman by comparison.
That Sarah Palin just purchased a house in Scottsdale, Arizona for $1.695M is an indication of how much an Alaskan this woman really is.
Yeah, she is good looking and she says the right things that resonates with conservatives and most middle class family oriented, hard working Americans. However, that is all that Sarah Palin is and does. She is a mouthpiece and a lightning rod for the opposition.
Can you imagine her soap opera on national television with her as President? We would be more of a laughing stock than we are under Obama. She is worse than Obama where a sleight is concerned. She would rail publically against any who dared criticize.
Surely, we won't be that stupid to elect someone who is clearly unqualified for the presidency so soon after getting rid of the pretender that is now in that office?
The Republican Party has some serious soul searching to do. There has to be a candidate that has a consistent record of fiscal and social conservatism, who will not compromise our Constitution and our social and moral values, who is not afraid to say that they are an American and that our culture is distinct, that English is our language, and who will not BOW to a foreign potentate, and who has the credentials to be President. Who, like Ronald Reagan will not place his/her ego above that of the country, and who will not only say the right things about America, but will act upon those words to make it so.
Sarah Palin is NOT that candidate.
Real Clear Politics piece on Palin:
Friday, June 5, 2009
Our rights are now . . . selective
A recent decision of the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Chicago’s hand gun ban.
The decision of the 7th Circuit in favor of Chicago in maintaining its hand gun ban revolved around the idea that the Second Amendment does not have to be obeyed by States and their subdivisions of government. According to the 7th Circuit, States, counties and cities are exempt from obeying the Constitution—but only where Second Amendment rights are concerned.
The Chicago decision puts the 7th Circuit at odds with the 9th Circuit (!), which ruled last year that the Second Amendment applied to the States and lower subdivisions of government.
This decision brings into sharp focus the self-deluding mindset that sets the liberal apart from the conservative. To liberals, the Constitution is perverted to fit their world view, without respect to what the Framers intended. If the liberal mind cannot conveniently find the context under the Constitution that supports their goal, they invent penumbras to enable their ideological desire.
One has to remember that the individual rights enumerated in the Constitution merely affirm individual rights conferred upon a free people by our Creator. These rights were not conferred by man, to be given or revoked at the whim of any political power or despot.
The assault upon talk radio demonstrates that the First Amendment does not protect political speech in the liberal mind, but only serves to protect the policies and ideology of the party in power. Under a Democrat regime, talk radio must be “fair” and “equal” in its presentation of the issues.
Can you imagine our Forefather’s reaction to a demand by the Crown for “fairness” in the presentation of their arguments for independence from England?
The Crown’s idea of fairness was the bayonet and hangman’s noose.
President Obama’s, Sen. Harry Reid’s and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s idea of “fairness” is to silence the opposition once and for all. How far they are willing to go is demonstrated in the unrelenting assault upon the Second Amendment and the perversion of the First Amendment into an instrument of political repression.
During the closing days of the presidential campaign, then Candidate Obama stated those rights that he considered “individual” rights. He excluded the Second Amendment in that dissertation.
The recent selection of appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court further demonstrates Pres. Obama’s subtle intent to scuttle any impeding Constitutional authority. By appointing a judge in whose opinion the Constitution is a work in progress ensures that the liberal agenda will be interpreted favorably, no matter the wording of the Constitution.
Awhile back, I wrote on Pres. Obama’s incredible refusal to divulge proof of his citizenship qualification required by Article 2 §1 of the U.S. Constitution. My point was that if this requirement could be ignored, then so could other articles of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
The First and Second Amendments and Article 2 are under assault in the Democrats’ expression of power.
It was a liberal Supreme Court majority that did most of the damage where the Ninth Amendment was concerned.
How long before any of the 1st through the 15th Amendments become inconvenient to those in power?
Obviously, the First and Second Amendments already are.
How long before the “Crown” resorts to the bayonet and the hangman’s noose to silence opposition?
The intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the arguments of that creative process have been well documented leaving little doubt as to the limitations imposed upon government intended.
There can be no compromise where the Constitution of the United States is concerned. It means what it says, and it only means what is stated.
The government cannot restrict that which was conferred by our Creator. To do so is to confirm the reason and need for the Second Amendment.
Regardless of party label, beware the political power that acts to silence the opposition.
Above all, beware the President who ignores the Constitution.
Educate your children as to the meaning and rights affirmed by the Constitution. Every family, and every citizen should have a copy of the Constitution.
There is no other document in the history of this world that confers upon a people the power to prevent government excess. The balance between the peoples’ freedom and government power
is maintained by the Second Amendment.
The decision of the 7th Circuit in favor of Chicago in maintaining its hand gun ban revolved around the idea that the Second Amendment does not have to be obeyed by States and their subdivisions of government. According to the 7th Circuit, States, counties and cities are exempt from obeying the Constitution—but only where Second Amendment rights are concerned.
The Chicago decision puts the 7th Circuit at odds with the 9th Circuit (!), which ruled last year that the Second Amendment applied to the States and lower subdivisions of government.
This decision brings into sharp focus the self-deluding mindset that sets the liberal apart from the conservative. To liberals, the Constitution is perverted to fit their world view, without respect to what the Framers intended. If the liberal mind cannot conveniently find the context under the Constitution that supports their goal, they invent penumbras to enable their ideological desire.
One has to remember that the individual rights enumerated in the Constitution merely affirm individual rights conferred upon a free people by our Creator. These rights were not conferred by man, to be given or revoked at the whim of any political power or despot.
The assault upon talk radio demonstrates that the First Amendment does not protect political speech in the liberal mind, but only serves to protect the policies and ideology of the party in power. Under a Democrat regime, talk radio must be “fair” and “equal” in its presentation of the issues.
Can you imagine our Forefather’s reaction to a demand by the Crown for “fairness” in the presentation of their arguments for independence from England?
The Crown’s idea of fairness was the bayonet and hangman’s noose.
President Obama’s, Sen. Harry Reid’s and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s idea of “fairness” is to silence the opposition once and for all. How far they are willing to go is demonstrated in the unrelenting assault upon the Second Amendment and the perversion of the First Amendment into an instrument of political repression.
During the closing days of the presidential campaign, then Candidate Obama stated those rights that he considered “individual” rights. He excluded the Second Amendment in that dissertation.
The recent selection of appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court further demonstrates Pres. Obama’s subtle intent to scuttle any impeding Constitutional authority. By appointing a judge in whose opinion the Constitution is a work in progress ensures that the liberal agenda will be interpreted favorably, no matter the wording of the Constitution.
Awhile back, I wrote on Pres. Obama’s incredible refusal to divulge proof of his citizenship qualification required by Article 2 §1 of the U.S. Constitution. My point was that if this requirement could be ignored, then so could other articles of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
The First and Second Amendments and Article 2 are under assault in the Democrats’ expression of power.
It was a liberal Supreme Court majority that did most of the damage where the Ninth Amendment was concerned.
How long before any of the 1st through the 15th Amendments become inconvenient to those in power?
Obviously, the First and Second Amendments already are.
How long before the “Crown” resorts to the bayonet and the hangman’s noose to silence opposition?
The intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the arguments of that creative process have been well documented leaving little doubt as to the limitations imposed upon government intended.
There can be no compromise where the Constitution of the United States is concerned. It means what it says, and it only means what is stated.
The government cannot restrict that which was conferred by our Creator. To do so is to confirm the reason and need for the Second Amendment.
Regardless of party label, beware the political power that acts to silence the opposition.
Above all, beware the President who ignores the Constitution.
Educate your children as to the meaning and rights affirmed by the Constitution. Every family, and every citizen should have a copy of the Constitution.
There is no other document in the history of this world that confers upon a people the power to prevent government excess. The balance between the peoples’ freedom and government power
is maintained by the Second Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)