selfie...

There is a time and a place for selfies.  A memorial service for a deceased person is not one of them.  But if you consider that progressives want to erode traditional values and codes of conduct, then it makes perfect sense for President Obama to do a selfie in South Africa. It's just another way to erode ethics and morals to appeal to the youth of our country and the world. If the leader of the free world believes it is ok to take selfies at a memorial, then what should stop others?  This lack of decorum and respect goes right along with the lack of respect more and more people show each other.  I hope President Obama didn't do this intentionally but even if he didn't it is another unintended consequence of not thinking things through. If it was intentional then it is all getting clearer.

walk the walk....

It was reported that as FEMA began rolling in (later than many private charities) to offer help for tornado victims in the midwest, some already on the ground help turned FEMA away as they already had things under control. What an encouraging thing to see.  Hopefully they recogonized that along with FEMA help comes FEMA/gov't control.  As smaller government proponents we need to remember that with less government help comes a greater responsibility to help ourselves. What a chance to show how charitable we can be.  Be sure that we, as small government proponents, do our part to look after each other. Let's be sure we back up our talk with action. 

miscalculation?

Follow me on this.  As it sits now, the President has to backtrack and "apologize" for a health care law and website that don't seem to work and that he seemingly knew wouldn't work as planned.  Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and any other constitutionalists were ripped apart for holding up Obamacare.  Would it have been better for the President to delay everything at that point rather than start it up without being ready and now lose credibility and have to "apologize?"  That way he may have been able to better save face with his base and fellow democrats. It may have been easier to explain away delaying it than to explain away the problems.  I think Cruz and Lee were doing him a favor. But if you understand how progressives think and how they don't really care how bad things as long as they push through their agenda.

extreme?..really?

The tea party and constitutionalists are deemed extreme by the left. Let's put a little perspective on this idea.  Following the principles of the costitution are extreme yet our presidents wants to "fundamentally change' this country.  If Bo Ryan wanted to fundamentally change basketball he would tell his players to dribble with their heads down, stand straight up while on defense and never use the backboard. How many games would they win? Probably none. That's extreme!  Changing the fundamentals is extreme. Just like Obama is trying to change the fundamentals of our country and constitution.  Who's the extremist?  Get ready for a long losing streak...

need I say more...

...Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, 2nd Amendment, criminalizing reporting...need I say more.

"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth. "

Abraham Lincoln

Gettysburg, PA 

November 1863

*N

Common Sense Sheriff

Letter from Washington County Sheriff, Dale Schmidt, to Washington County residents:

"Protecting the Constitution

To Washington County Residents,                                                    03-08-2013

Recent comments on gun control by Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn highlight, for me, a problem with law enforcement in this country.  Too often, law enforcement leaders confuse all citizens with criminals, and see themselves as “kings” of their jurisdiction instead of employees of the people.

In 2009, when Wisconsin’s Attorney General issued his advisory memo on open carry, it created little discussion within my department.  That is because we already knew it was legal and protected by the Constitution.  Chief Flynn’s position quoted from JSOnline was, “my message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.”  Sounds like a man who makes no distinction between law abiding citizens and criminals.  That is one example, but I believe other law enforcement leaders operate under the “end justifies the means” policing model, Constitution be damned.

Law enforcement in America was never supposed to be about “ruling the people.”  We are hired by “the people” to do that part of crime fighting they cannot do themselves.  The citizens never gave up their protection against unlawful search of their persons, or seizure of their property, or the right to own guns and defend themselves, in that process.  Does that make it harder to ferret out the criminals amongst us and arrest them?  Yes it does, but it is how we protect our free society from a tyrannical government.  I believe Chief Flynn is truly concerned about the safety of his officers, but law abiding citizens are not the threat, and any law to improve officer safety must first be Constitutional.
The way it is supposed to work, is that the citizens elect people to run the government.  Those elected people then hire police chiefs and officers to enforce society’s laws within the confines of the Constitution.  In the case of Sheriffs, the people elect them directly.  Either way, we are allaccountable to the people, we are not their rulers.  The law abiding people are on our side and we should be focused on protecting their Constitutional rights, not limiting them!  How did this get so backward?

The assertion, by President Obama, Senator Feinstein and Chief Flynn, that if certain types of guns or features of guns are banned, then violent crime will go away, is a fantasy.  More importantly, they should not even be talking about it because the people hired them to protect that right.  We should be talking about how to identify and stop people before they commit mass murders.  We should be talking about why criminals remain on the street after multiple convictions for violent crimes.  And we should be talking about how to change the sub-culture in this country that places no value on human life or personal responsibility.
Every American was appalled when they learned Adam Lanza inexplicably killed 20 children in their own classroom.  But President Obama showed no leadership when he immediately took the focus to banning guns.  That “kingly” position, shared by Senator Feinstein and Chief Flynn, essentially blames any American who supports the 2nd Amendment for those deaths, and excuses the perpetrator. 

What if after Sandy Hook, President Obama had said, “this is bad; dangerous people are committing mass killings in public places, drug addicts are robbing banks, pharmacies and gas stations, and the Drug Cartels are operating in our central city neighborhoods.  The violence in this country is more than our law enforcement people can handle right now.  We work for you, and we need your help.”   Might that have produced something more positive for this country than a threat to turn half its citizens into criminals for owning guns? 

Rotten and disturbed individuals commit violent crimes, and that is where law enforcement leaders need to focus their energies.  We were elected and hired by the people, and then took an oath to protect their Constitutional rights.  I suggest we try a fresh angle on violent crime by inviting the law abiding public to be a part of the solution instead of carpet bombing their individual rights.  It would do Sheriffs, Chiefs and the President well to remember Sir Robert Peel’s 7th Principle of Policing: 

      Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Mr. President, Chief, it’s time to trust the People, not rule them.

Dale K. Schmidt, Sheriff
Washington County, WI"

http://www.washingtoncountysheriffwi.org/sheriff_articles.php

*N

need I say more...

Wow. I thought it is the the right is insensitive.  Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski's comparison of Scott Walker to Jeffrey Dahmer sort of changes the dynamic.  I guess people shouldn't complain too much.  He didn't compare him to Hiltler. Need I say more... His tweets:


“@GovWalker had better lawyers than Jeffrey Dahmer in beating the rap. Clear that he committed crimes,”


“What do @GovWalker and Jeffrey Dahmer have in common?”

*M

cheap at any price...

So, according to the Wisconsin Elections Board, it's going to cost 12 million dollars to create a system to have voter registration in Wisconsin that halts same-day registration. Something like a motor-voter arrangement.  Let's think this through using progressive thinking.  The left and progressives are willing to strip away more of our liberties with more gun laws and with gun bans because it could possibly save one life.  Even for what seems to be an over-inflated estimate to put in place a new voter registration system, it is cheap at any price if it prevents one illegal vote. But you have to assume progressives are concerned with illegal voting.  How do you put a price on liberty?  To progressives, the value of liberty is cheap.

*M

things that make you go hmmm...

Why in the world would unions want exemptions from the Obamacare laws after supporting him and his policies so long and so strongly?  It doesn't really make any sense unless there is a hidden reason for it.  As more and more info comes out about the costs of Obamacare, maybe a big reason is just that, the cost.  It's just a thought, but if unions are able to gain exemptions from Obamacare, and insurance costs go down for the unions, maybe it is a way to get gain membership?  Push policies to get him elected, then use those same policies to game the system they helped set up and Obama pays back the unions.  Just a thought...hmmmmm...

*M

Hail to the king...

Once again, rather than let our elected representatives decide an issue, our President will use executive powers to decide fiscal issues and gun control issues. Edicts from on high will decide. The validity of these executive orders need to be vigorously questioned.  Congress is foolishly letting themselves become irrelevant by caving in on issues.  HE WANTS TO BE KING!!

*M

snowball effect...

Okay, maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world if high capacity magazines, semi-automatic "assault rifles", and registration free gun shows were banned. The problem is that it chips away yet again at our liberties.  Furthermore, once  concessions are made you can bet that it won't end with those.  More and more concessions will be demanded. The snowball effect starts.  The snowball is far too big now.

*M