Friday, July 18, 2014


This is par for the course, I would say.

When impeaching the president at the helm of the most corrupt and tyrannical administration in the history of the Union is mocked and ridiculed by both sides of the aisle, what more can you expect? The President realizes he has cover from both sides at this point.

I know you can expect some DOJ hard drives to crash very soon.

The Daily Caller
A Justice Department fraud prevention program came under fire Thursday for allegedly morphing into actively pressuring banks to deny financial services to businesses for political reasons.Operation Choke Point functions as a partnership between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and various other federal agencies which deal with bank regulations, specifically the Treasury and the SEC. The objective of the project is to choke-off fraudulent businesses from accessing financial services, in an effort to protect consumers.The controversy, however, is over allegations that the DOJ is pressuring financial institutions to decline doing business with so-called “high risk” industries which line up squarely against the political leanings of the current administration. These businesses include ammunition sales, payday loans, pornography, fireworks companies, and others—24 industries in total, as listed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).“Operation Choke Point is one of the most dangerous programs I have experienced in my 45 years of service as a bank regulator, bank attorney and consultant, and bank board member. Operating without legal authority and guided by a political agenda, unelected officials at the DOJ are discouraging banks from providing basic banking services…to lawful businesses simply because they don’t like them,” said William M. Isaac, former chairman of the FDIC.

Not a smidgen of corruption. None.


I'm no military expert, but I am pretty sure that if a group of terrorists was carrying weapons into a facility I was in charge of, I would be able to figure that out pretty fast which makes this story so very troubling.

The Times of Israel
20 rockets were found Wednesday in a school in Gaza operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the organization confirmed Thursday.
The discovery would seem to confirm Israel’s oft-repeated claim that Hamas and other Gazan terror groups use civilian infrastructure to hide weapons.“Yet again, Gaza terrorists abuse UN facilities to carry out their violent activities. Hamas and other terror groups are determined to put civilians in harm’s way and will respect nothing in their violent frenzy,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor told The Times of Israel. “We expect the UN and the international community to condemn and to act strongly against this brazen violation of international humanitarian law, which endangers children and UN humanitarian activities.”
How's that anti-semitic narrative working out for you, Mainstream Media?


A wonderful piece by Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post.

It was less than 10 years ago that worldwide television showed the Israeli army pulling die-hard settlers off synagogue roofs in Gaza as Israel uprooted its settlements, expelled its citizens, withdrew its military and turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians. There was not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli left in Gaza. 
And how did the Gaza Palestinians react to being granted by the Israelis what no previous ruler, neither Egyptian, nor British, nor Turkish, had ever given them — an independent territory? First, they demolished the greenhouses. Then they elected Hamas. Then, instead of building a state with its attendant political and economic institutions, they spent the better part of a decade turning Gaza into a massive military base, brimming with terror weapons, to make ceaseless war on Israel. 
Where are the roads and rail, the industry and infrastructure of the new Palestinian state? Nowhere. Instead, they built mile upon mile of underground tunnels to hide their weapons and, when the going gets tough, their military commanders.

Definitely worth reading it all.

Sunday, June 1, 2014


Have you seen this video yet?

Men who claim to be Second Amendment activists visit a local Sonic acting as if their Second Amendment rights are being infringed when the manager asks them to put their rifles in their cars before sitting down to eat.

First, let's watch, and then I will break this down for you piece by piece.

Please at least watch enough to hear the audio of the fella rolling tape, and how gleeful he is to have garnered the reaction for which he was looking.

That's half the point, but I will get to that in a moment.

First, I work in a gun store. I have had multiple, loaded firearms pointed at me by people just like this; people who think they know and understand firearms, but they don't know basic decorum when dealing with other people and their firearms.

I carry multiple firearms with me on a daily basis. One in the vehicle, one on my person. I don't say that to brag, I say that to highlight that I am obviously not anti-gun. I am a strong advocate of being prepared and being smart.

These men are neither prepared or smart.

First, let me take on "Open Carry". Open Carry is different than the standard ability to carry a gun in most states. In most states you are allowed to carry a gun on your person as long as it remains concealed and out of view of the general public. With Open Carry, you get exactly what you hear: the ability to openly carry a firearm on your hip or shoulder in view of the general public.

I would never open carry because it's a bad idea on two levels that both revolve around the same point: When in the arena of the general public, nobody should know you have a gun. Ever. Period. Until the moment arrives in which you must use deadly force to defend yourself or your family, nobody should know you are carrying a gun. I'm not preaching, I'm just talking about what I think is proper strategy for maintaining your own safety and tactical advantage in a life or death scenario. If you wnat the bad guy to know that you have a gun, because you think that will deter him from shooting, more power to you. What I believe is that the bad guy came armed with the intent of hurting innocent people, and he is probably going to shoot the guy with the gun on his hip, that he can see, first.

Further, The general public gets antsy around firearms because they don't understand them. When these weirdos that carry ball pythons with them around their necks walk near me, I walk away because snakes creep me out. That's the same feeling some people have around guns, and I respect that, and I refuse to treat them like they are stupid for feeling that way (unlike Open Carry Texas). The fact is, the Sonic manager in the video above, has more of a proper, healthy respect for firearms than all of these fellas combined.

Now back to the poor display by Open Carry Texas.

What these guys want is to gain sympathy by hopping on the current wave of strong Constitutional regard by so many people fed up with big government and hoping for a return to our nation's founding principles. What they miss here, is that their behavior is not helping that cause at all. In fact, I am of the opinion they are doing exponentially more harm than good.

Their behavior is threatening, foolish and disruptive. I know, that doesn't trump their right to openly carry their firearm in public, but even that right is not Constitutional, that's a state issue, and even guys like me, who you can judge through very public forums in which we post our beliefs (I even co-host a podcast if you care to hear me say it out loud) don't really argue that point. But what is neglected here is the purposefully intimidating approach these guys are using.

Two quick points -

1.) You will be hard pressed to find a shooting range which DOES NOT REQUIRE patrons to lock the bolt or slide to the rear and remove their gun's magazine before walking around with their weapon.

Why? Because it creates an environment of comfort to the general public. People don't want to shop around strangers carrying what appear to be loaded guns standing next to them. In fact, I have been through live-fire training scenarios and in every one of them, you clear the gun and drop your magazine between each round of practice. It's all about safety.

2.) Carrying a gun across your chest with a plate-carrier strapped around you is a sign that you are expecting a violent confrontation. Not a sign that you are going to dinner. You are not a soldier, your back yard is not a battlefield. You are a regular person in Texas doing regular things with your family. Strapping up like you are expecting a fight makes the general public feel like you are looking for a fight.

Again - I pause to recognize that my opinion and feelings about the idiocy with which these men operate does not trump their right to carry openly in public in the state of Texas. But what they fail to recognize is that being so confrontational and aggressive with their approach, they are absolutely doing more harm than good, and quite frankly I am beginning to wonder if they are legitimate or a planted group of progressives working to give guys like me a bad name.

This video is not the first time Open Carry Texas has made trouble; they've raised eyebrows with their behavior before now, and they will likely continue to do so.

The hope here is that guys like this can take a step back and wonder how they would react should they be in public and a supremacist walk in and start using the N word left and right at the dinner table next to them. Likely, they would ask him to stop since they don't care to have their children hear that kind of language (which is why no hip hop music is allowed in the house). But the KKK guy has every right in the world to use that word, and you need to respect him and his space, right?

How dare you act like he's being absurd for practicing his First Amendment right.

What would the reaction be if he and his friends started posting "PRO FIRST AMENDMENT RALLY AT SONIC" videos where they hurled racial slurs at everybody and then walked off saying, "I fell like I live with my mom again, having to put a dollar in the swear jar. Ha ha ha!"?

Our Constitutional rights are given to us by God, we need to enjoy and respect them, but we need to practice common sense in our approach to convert others to our point of view.

I would imagine that given the chance to chat with these guys I would agree with so much more than I would disagree about with them, but on these sensitive and paramount issue, we cannot be on a more polar-opposite side.

You see, should I ever find myself surrounded by strangers with rifles while eating at a restaurant, I'm leaving. End of story. The preservation of my life, family and liberty is the whole reason I advocate training with firearms and preparing your family for bad scenarios. Rule number one: when you're outgunned by strangers, you need to execute your exit strategy immediately. And that's the bigger point these guys miss: As gun owners and advocates we bear the responsibility of making sure that while we protect our right to carry and defend, we advocate those rights in a way that wins people's support rather than making them think we really are the nutjobs the liberal media keeps talking about on TV, and from what I can see, Open Carry Texas is full of the nutjobs the liberal media keeps talking about on TV.

Thursday, March 27, 2014


Remember when America was the land of the free? Those were the good old days.

They lasted for about fifteen years. From 1789 - 1803.

The founders of our great nation signed a deal in 1787 that took effect in 1789 to put the power of government in the hands of the people and rest it all on their own consent to be governed.

That ended as the Supreme Court decided in 1803 to give itself the luxury of judicial review on all laws implemented and executed by the people - the real source of government. In essence, an oligarchy was created in 1803 and has existed ever since.

And for some reason, we continue to put up with it.

This week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) began hearing arguments from companies which are owned by people who have a strong religious objection to post-conception birth control. Meaning, these people believe in life at conception and refuse to do any harm to the living soul inside its mother's womb. For some reason, some mothers do not refuse to do harm to the living soul inside their womb, but that's an argument for another day.

For now, let's focus on what a justice on SCOTUS told those with religious objections to ending the lives of the unborn.

[Justice] Kagan noted that the Obama health law doesn't require corporate employers to provide insurance. The Hobby Lobby owners could have paid a fine, which, she observed, is much less than the cost of insurance. It's "a choice," she said.
Interpreted: If you want to practice Judeo-Chrisitian beliefs in the United States, pay a fine and get over it. It's a choice.

In fact, Ms. Kagan is quite wrong. It's not a choice; it's a fundamental God-ordained right enshrined in everlasting security by the Constitution of the United States.

It's not a whim or a decision, it's natural law.

Life and my religion are the laws entitled to man to by nature and nature's God.

The Declaration of Independence is the most concrete and concise formulation of human rights ever developed. By its content we are reminded that 
"to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Try to remember that when the act of treason that was our Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, it was signed with full knowledge that it was treason against the most powerful military in the world.

That should be sobering and inspiring at the exact same time. But remember, we don't need a call to arms to cause revolution, we have the ballot box and it can be our greatest asset against tyranny. We must elect people who believe in a limited judicial system. No more life-time appointments for any position in the three branches of our government. Term limits on all levels. Lower taxes and zero compulsion to purchase products by mandate from the government. Property rights that allow us to develop our farms and land without the EPA fining us thousands of dollars per day, and certianly no more radical judges or states seizing children from their families because they believe the state knows best.

The government can only reach as far as we allow it. This year is a good time to start slapping its hand a little harder every time it reaches for the dollar in our wallet or the Bible on our shelf.

Saturday, December 21, 2013


It's hard to turn your head this week without reading a headline involving Duck Commander founder and patriarch Phil Robertson.

Mr. Robertson gave an interview to GQ's Drew Magary for the January 2014 issue of the magazine, and his quoting of Scripture as well as his application of that Scripture to current popular culture's lifestyle did not go over well at all. In fact, it has seemingly cost him his job with A&E.

The common argument from the right has been "Phil has a First Amendment right to free speech!" and they are right.

The common argument from the left has been "A&E is free to fire Phil for his comments, get over it." and they are right.

Phil Robertson is/was an employee of A&E, and A&E has every right to suspend or fire him for comments they deem disparaging to their brand. Mr. Robertson's right to free speech is not being impeded by the government, but by his employer and therefore there is nothing illegal about this scenario and there is nothing worth getting worked up over from a Constitutional perspective.

What should be highlighted and noted is the actual content of the interview versus the reaction from detractors.

In fact, the author of the article, Drew Magary, makes no attempt to hide the fact that he himself is a detractor from the outset. His condescending tone is overwhelming throughout the article as he attempts to intertwine it with a feigned admiration of Mr. Robertson. Why else would so much vulgarity be necessary in an article about the biggest name in Christianity today?

Describing Mr. Robertson, Magary writes:
He spends most of his time out here, daydreaming about what he calls a “pristine earth”: a world where nothing gets in the way of nature or the hunters who lovingly maintain it.
No cities. No buildings. No highways.
Oh, and no sinners, too. So here’s where things get a bit uncomfortable. Phil calls himself a Bible-thumper, and holy shit, he thumps that Bible hard enough to ring the bell at a county-fair test of strength.
Cute, right?

What Magary misses is the fact that Phil's entire point in the interview is that we are all sinners and if we could turn from the sin to serving God and loving Him with all our heart, things would be better in the end.

Says Phil -
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Mr. Robertson is paraphrasing I Corinthians 6: 9-10 which reads - 
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And therein lies the problem.

You cannot call out ever culturally celebrated lifestyle and not offend a massive amount of people.

When even right-wing pundits say, "I don't agree with everything he said..." it's likely because their soul was deeply stirred with conviction, and in this day and age conviction is easily confused with offense which is pretty much illegal.

Offending people has become our society's unpardonable sin, and conviction is deeply offensive to most people. Much like when someone you care about tells you what a jerk you're being; you're not offended because they are wrong, you are convicted because you know they are right.

And that's a hard pill to swallow.

The great hypocrisy of popular culture is how they care so much about the feelings of them and theirs but not of others. What about the offensive nature of nearly every show on MTV and Comedy Central which glamorizes and celebrates drunkenness, adultery, immorality, idolatry and yes, homosexuality? Why is the media not concerned with the feelings of Christians everywhere?

Because living a healthy, moral lifestyle is not largely entertaining. And that's exactly why Duck Dynasty has been so phenomenally successful. Americans relate and are entertained by people living the way they live - God-fearing people who have found success and do not allow society's pressure to hamper their own convictions and principles.

Make no mistake: America is not offended by Phil Robertson, it is convicted, as was I, by his words.

We are all imperfect. None of us will make it out alive. Hell is the punishment we deserve, but there is a loving God who wants to shower you with His mercy if only you will accept Him at His word and have faith that His way is right. But in so doing, we must abandon our sinful way, the ways that have become natural to us, the ways that say "If it feels good, do it." We are all equally guilty in the eyes of God, but there is hope in salvation.

That's all Phil Robertson was saying, and A&E and the media's quick turn against him is not because it was hateful or offensive, but because it was true, and it was overwhelmingly convicting.

We all do wrong every day. If we would admit that and do our best to do right, the world would be such a better place.

How is that so offensive?

Sunday, December 15, 2013


It seems to be a really good thing that so few people read the newspaper anymore. If they did, and if the whacko, agenda-driven websites to which the archaic medium of news aggregation is running was proving a succesful venture (it's not), then people may soon realize that we live in a world where when you murder two innocent people because you can't get over a girl, the papers will immortalize you as the victim and focus solely on you and ignore your victims. If people knew that to be true, they may begin to hate the type of people we have become.

Take a look at this gem from the online home of The Birmingham News -
MOBILE, Ala. -- Friends of the man who killed China Barber and Augustus "Gus" Bennett said that they want people to know that he was not a monster.
Robert "BJ" Sprinkle Jr., 23, arrived at an apartment near the University of South Alabama on Tuesday of last week before the sun rose.  When his estranged wife, Barber, answered the door, Sprinkle shot and killed her as she begged him not to, and then turned the gun on her new boyfriend, Bennett. Sprinkle then took his own life, leaving no one to answer the question "why?"

Cassie Holmes, a student at USA who had been a close friend to Sprinkle for more than 10 years, is upset by how Sprinkle is being portrayed in the aftermath of the shooting.
The two grew close beginning in their early teenage years and rode the same bus to school, forging a close bond shortly before Sprinkle began a relationship with Barber.
Holmes said Sprinkle's family became like a second home to her when she needed to get away, and that relationship made him feel like family to her.
"He was the sweetest, most gentle and kind-hearted person I still know to this day," she said.
The article goes on to describe the killer as a super nice guy without a "violent bone in his body."

If I were to conduct minimal research, say, reading the article posted above, I am beyond certain I could ascertain an entire portfolio of evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, and more disturbingly, notice that every ill, misguided teenager in the world who comes across this eulogy of the violent offender now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the best way to get their story told, and their name immortalized, is to murder those who do them wrong so that the papers will hold them in high regard and make the masses take note of why doing them wrong proved to be worthy of death.

An epic failure on the part of our media, but that should be expected, I guess.


In an unlikely turn of events, Hollywood liberals like Joaquin Phoenix, Casey Affleck, Russell Simmons, Bob Barker, Tim Gunn, Alyssa Milano, Pamela Anderson, Christina Applegate, Justin Bieber, Alec Baldwin, Drew Barrymore, Alicia Silverstone, Paul McCartney and many more Hollywood and government elitists and supporters of PETA have now taken a stand in favor of "Stand Your Ground" laws.

Sort of....

A representative for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals penned a letter on behalf of the organization to a bear mauling victim asking her to use the incident to rethink her position on hunting.

The letter, obtained by website We Are Central PA, was authored by Alicia Woempner, special projects division manager at PETA, to Camille Bomboy, 18.
“This seems to be a good opportunity to put yourself in the place of the individuals you and the rest of your hunting party were trying to kill,” the letter said. “As terrifying as it must have been to be attacked by a bear, please consider the frightening and painful experiences that hunters set out to impose upon animals.”
“Now that you’ve experienced the horror of an attack—although this one was in self-defense—we hope you will choose to enjoy nature in only nonviolent ways. Thank you for your consideration.”

What PETA (and its supporters) is saying here is that this girl deserved to die because the bear was acting in self-defense. PETA, who would likely say guns are bad and George Zimmerman deserves hell, thinks mauling someone in self-defense is no big deal and should, in fact, be defended.

Remember this.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013


Obamacare is the Titanic. Democrats are the orchestra. Harry Reid is the Captain who has already left in a life-raft.

"The Harvard "Millennials" poll found only 22 percent of young Americans -- defined in the survey as between 18 and 29 years old -- plan to sign up for ObamaCare. Even more troubling for the administration, fewer than a third -- only 29 percent -- of people who currently do not have health insurance plan to enroll."
 If young, healthy people refuse to fund the healthcare of the sick and needy, well, I don't have to spell it out for you, but just know that everybody dies in the end.


 If the left's continual proclamation that the invasion at our southern border is innocent and being perpetrated by only those who hope for a better life, why is this such an attention-getting story?
Would Mexican news networks cover the theft of materials in Benton, Arkansas? Because that's the same distance from Mexico as Tepojaco is from the US.
Below is a list of some of the major news networks and liberal blogs who are covering the theft of a truck full of cobalt-60 in the town of Tepojaco, Mexico. 








Cobalt-60 is used in fighting cancer, but when mixed with other easily obtainable materials can be used to create a "dirty" bomb.

If the flood of strangers pouring into the US is really as innocent as the media has tried to make it seem, this story would have never been covered. There should be little concern for those of us in the states if what the left and its friends in the media have been telling us for so long is true.

Why the sudden worry?

Sunday, December 1, 2013


Watch the discomfort envelope the MSNBC anchor.

Shift in the chair. Wring your hands. Lean forward to seem domineering.

Monday, November 18, 2013


Remember when Congressman Alan Grayson from Florida said the Republican plan for health care was for you to "die quickly"?

And then, remember when Democrats fought non-stop to pass Obamacare, and then Obamacare canceled elderly people's policies by the thousands and then started shutting down their doctor's offices all around the country?

From Yahoo!
(Reuters) - UnitedHealth Group dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
The insurer said in October that underfunding of Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly could not be fully offset by the company's other healthcare business. The company also reported spending more healthcare premiums on medical claims in the third quarter, due mainly to government cuts to payments for Medicare Advantage services.
Moral of the story - elderly people are unable to get proper health care because the government is not capable of making adequate payments to doctors on time. Now, thanks to people who agree with Alan Grayson, the government is seizing the medical industry by the throat and hoping and praying that old people will die quickly since they are nothing more than the drain on the system.

Is there a greater example of irony? Those who have long applauded Roe v. Wade as keeping a doctor's visit between the doctor and patient private have now demanded that the government be overtly involved in every detail of that visit.

One thing that hasn't changed though is how many people will continue to die because of the progressive stance on doctors visits.

Monday, November 11, 2013


November 11 is Veteran's Day and there is no lack of stories of heroism and courage in the news feeds today.

However, of all the stories I've perused thus far, this piece by Benny Johnson at Buzzfeed is my favorite.

Here's a sample, but the full affect is only felt if you make the time to read it in full.

We are a generation winding down from a decade of war.

We are a generation winding down from a decade of war.
Getty Images

There is a really good chance you know someone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There is a really good chance you know someone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Here are some nice ways to welcome them home or just say thank you.

Here are some nice ways to welcome them home or just say thank you.
Eric Draper / Getty Images

1. Look them in the eye and give them a firm handshake.

Look them in the eye and give them a firm handshake.
Eric Draper / Getty Images

No one appreciates a firm handshake more than a soldier.

No one appreciates a firm handshake more than a soldier.

2. If they prefer not to shake hands…

If they prefer not to shake hands...

…then a chest bump will do.

...then a chest bump will do.

Just make sure you do duckface afterward so they can laugh at you.

Just make sure you do duckface afterward so they can laugh at you.

 So very well done.

As an amateur blogger I feel compelled to put my own Presidential tear-jerking Veteran pictorial piece together. Here goes....


Have him hold your umbrella if it gets misty outside.

Raise his elbow with your hand to indicate he's not doing it right.

Say thanks.

Sunday, November 10, 2013


How have those strict gun laws helped Mexico? So much that the people have had to ignore them in order to stay alive.

Tepalcatepec, Mexico -- For lime grower Hipolito Mora, it was time to organize and pick up arms when a packing company controlled by a brutal drug cartel refused to buy his fruit. For Bishop Miguel Patino Velazquez, it was seeing civilians forced to fight back with their own guns that made him speak out. For Leticia, a lime picker too afraid of retribution to give her last name, it was the seeing a taxi driver kidnapped in front of his two young children that persuaded her to join those taking the law into their own hands.

In Mexico they call it "the drop that makes the glass overflow," and it came at different points for the people living for years under the brutal Knights Templar in the western Valley of Apatzingan, an emerald green tapestry of orchards bordered by blue-gray peaks.

"We lived in bondage, threatened by organized crime," said Leticia, 40, who ekes out a living picking fruit and selling chicken on the side. "They wanted to treat people like animals."

Eight months after locals formed self-defense groups, they say they are free of the cartel in six municipalities of the Tierra Caliente, or "Hot Land," which earned its moniker for the scorching weather but whose name has also come to signify criminal activity. What's more, the self-defense group leaders, who are clearly breaking Mexican law by picking up military-style arms to fight criminals, say the federal government is no longer arresting them, but recruiting them to help federal forces identify cartel members.

The Mexican government, which has been fighting cartels in Michoacan state for years with little to show for it, has reached its limit as well: an Oct. 27 attack by alleged cartel agents on power distribution plants and electrical sub-stations in 14 towns and cities that were intended to terrorize the public. At least 400,000 people were left in the dark.

The self-defense groups started small with just a few dozen civilians. The ragtag groups now claim several thousand members in a valley of more than 300,000 people, competing with the cartel in raw numbers if not firepower.

Despite some success in the six municipalities of Tierra Caliente, the cartel continues to enforce a stranglehold on other parts of Michoacan, a rich farming state


Runner's World ran a surprising column on their website this week. Since Runner's World is about running and not about Constitutional philosophy, I was surprised to find an article by Nick Symmonds decrying the people's right to keep and bear arms.

You can read the article in its entirety here, and then read my response to Mr. Symmonds below. I'm sure Runner's World will be running it for the sake of balance very soon.

Mr. Symmonds,

     I was surprised to see your column on Runner's World's website this week. Runner's World (as far as I know) is a magazine dedicated to running, not political philosophy. However, since RW has decided to venture into political punditry, I will weigh in with some real-world, studied critiques of your position and hope you can see the other side for what has become an all too political topic. Let me assure you from the outset that we have more in common than you may think, which is really the point of this letter. We both love the outdoors, revel in the pride of providing for our families, and hold dear the Sovereign rights of man as given us by God and outlined and protected in our nation's uniquely wonderful Constitution.

    We have also both had life-altering experiences that changed our view on guns. You arrived at a crime scene in Los Angeles and felt violated enough to be willing to surrender your right to protect yourself with equal force against the bad guys. I, on the other hand, was sitting on the couch in my apartment in Birmingham, AL, all alone, when an intoxicated intruder began to force his way into my front door. Half of a pool cue was my only defense, and I realized that had he been successful, I could have been in some serious trouble.

     I am also glad to see that you are willing to publicly state your support for the Constitution and its Second Amendment which states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That stand is not a popular one these days, and I am glad that we share a comon bond over our public supprt for it.

     However, I am perplexed by your article for three reasons which I would like to outline to you:

1.) You state: "I would gladly hand in all of my weapons if I knew that doing so would prevent any more gun-related murders in this country." So I wonder: Have you handed over all of your guns, or do you still have them and admit that good guys without guns does not equal bad guys without guns?

2.) You wrote: "We also have a government built on compromise, so here is the compromise I propose: Ban assault rifles and handguns for everyone except police and military personnel. These weapons are made to kill humans and should be strictly limited. At the same time, allow responsible citizens to own rifles and shotguns. Rifles are for hunting big-game animals, shotguns are for hunting birds; non-automatic versions of these weapons should be available for those with an interest in hunting or target shooting." That statement is a textbook definition for Fascism, a people controlled by a government, but more so it leads to this question: Would you rather allow only the government to elect our leaders due to rampant, proven voter fraud, or should the good people be allowed to continue to vote while the government designs better ways to keep known fraudsters out of the election box? Do you see how your logic can so easily be so horribly applied?

3.) The story of Christopher Lane in Oklahoma is a sad one. I hate to see another innocent victim dragged into the discourse of politics in order to prove a point. It's a shame you did so. Rather, I will ask you this: How many guns that are used in a crime are acquired in a legal manner, and do you believe it is the majority or minority? Furthermore, are you aware that the government with which you so willingly place all of the world's firearms is the same government that knowingly sold guns to drug cartels, refused to arrest the straw purchasers after they made their purchases, ignored and refused the pleas of gun store owners to stop supplying these evil men with weapons,  and then allowed those guns to be used in the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Mexico as well as American law enforcement officials all for the sake of advancing the very same agenda you now propose? In fact, that government  was held in contempt of Congress for obstructing their investigation.

Let me close with a quite brief description of our differences and implore you to consider them carefully.

I believe we were created by a loving, kind God who forgives us our sins and trespasses against Him no matter their severity. I believe he created us with certain inalienable right that cannot be desecrated or modified by man, no matter the goodness of his intent. I do not know if you believe this or not, but I hope you do.

I believe the American Republic protects the individual's rights from the opinion of the majority, and that we are all accountable to God Himself for how we live our lives. You believe the individual is always and only accountable to the majority, and that the majority may change the individual's freedoms at their leisure. That is called tyranny and is not a good thing.

Finally, I believe that every person, regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation has the God-given right to live a full and happy life and to protect themselves and their family with equal or greater force than whatever the bad guy may wage against them. You believe they should call the police and hope they get their in time. What a horrible stand to take against the good people of this country.

Mr. Symmonds, claiming that we should allow only "responsible citizens to own rifles and shotguns" is as hypocritical as the morbidly obese preacher who preaches hell-fire and damnation for homosexuals. It is an elitist mindset that claims one individual should have rights that others do not. God hates sin all the same. How you define sin is between you and God. And how I protect myself, my wife and my son is between me and God as defined in the Constitution. With all due respect, Mr. Symmonds it is none of your business.

Best of luck to you. And may you never need a firearm to defend yourself or the innocent around you.

It seems you have no desire to do so.


This is my favorite story in a long time. Not because this guy duped the electorate or because a Republican won a Democratic stronghold district, but because it highlights the ignorance of the modern day voter.

A white Texas man won a political campaign Tuesday in a heavily black area using an unconventional tactic — according to a local media outlet, he pretended to be black.


“I’d always said it was a long shot,” Wilson said. “No, I didn’t expect to win.”
According to KHOU-TV, Wilson’s campaign “printed direct mail pieces strongly implying that he’s black.” The materials reportedly featured his campaign slogan emblazoned next to the faces of smiling black individuals.

One of his mailers even said, “Endorsed by Ron Wilson,” implying he had attained support from a famous former black state representative. In fact, in fine print below the endorsement, the campaign clarified that “Ron Wilson and Dave Wilson are cousins.”
“He’s a nice cousin,” Wilson told KHOU-TV. “We played baseball in high school together. And he’s endorsed me.”
 The question becomes, "Would you take your vote back if you voted for Mr. Wilson?", and if you answer yes to that question, does that not make you a big time racist?

The election of Barack Obama was the greatest exploitation of black Americans since slavery, and this story seems almost reminiscent of the Obama approach to pretending to be whatever it takes to get elected. Few black voters who chose to cast their ballot for Mr. Obama recognize his affinity for suing other candidates off the ballot, his ardent support of infanticide or his membership in an organization that promotes segregation and racism, but even if they were aware they would not be likely to change their vote since he met the only criteria to them that mattered: race.

Some would note the racism of that last line, but that's the whole point of posting this story. If the majority of those who voted for Mr. Wilson would indeed like their vote back, they are proving the idea of how Obama got elected 100% infallible. It's up to them where they go from here.