Is Ted Cruz Trying to Sabotage the Elections?

“Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the Internet” – Ted Cruz

This is one of the least thought out statements made by a politician in recent history, and unfortunately this individual is running under the GOP banner. Folks that are simply trying to elect a conservative candidate will have to endure debates that will most likely mirror circus acts – much like what happened in 2008. What I’m expecting to see is all but maybe one (Rand Paul) Republican candidate trying to shout louder than each other on the same issues which are geared toward energizing the base but pushing away moderates. Most likely we will see some sort of call to action with regards to foreign policy, and a lot of rhetoric aimed at Obama not as an effort to find a better solution to the problems Americans face but rather to see who is more Alpha than the other.

Unfortunately, many voters will vote with their impressions of masculinity etc. rather than educated research on the topics at hand. I’m quite interested in seeing who presents the most reasonable answer to American foreign policy, Second Amendment rights, and privacy. Another issue that needs to be tackled is that of mounting US National debt and consistent budget deficits – however I have a notion that this will be pushed to the side in favor of spending more on military adventures and further subsidizing governments around the world. Will Ted Cruz be a serious contender for the White House? I have my doubts but who knows what will happen in the next few months. Will Ted Cruz damage Republican image in the minds of Moderates and Democrats? Definitely, the damage has already been done and will just get worse – for someone to label Net Neutrality an “Obamacare of the Internet” means that we will most likely see more statements which are easy to fit in one sentence and repeat but are far from the truth.

Free Speech is Under Fire

Free speech is under fire from a variety of directions. For most people free speech is limited by their company, in other words their words are stifled by what they might think their company thinks about what they say. They go from outgoing and outrageous to virtually a politician – too afraid to say anything that might be construed in the wrong way and are brought into silence as to not offend anyone.

Secondly, free speech is under fire from certain governments across the world. It is not uncommon to be jailed for what you say on Facebook whether it is against a politician or a government practice. In these countries the government is not really representative of the people but rather in control of them. Some countries forgo this hassle by simply blocking Facebook, Twitter, and any platform where people can “congregate”. In the US, free speech is allowed but closely monitored and recorded. Private emails and messages are a joke.

The last and most serious threat to free speech are those who would terrorize and kill to silence their opponents. Also this has previously been confined to third world countries, the practice is spreading to Europe especially. This kind of activity is a threat to a free and just society, and if not stopped may be the biggest threat to human civilization and the progress it has made.

Every human should have the right to express themselves or their thoughts on a subject without facing danger or imprisonment. That includes you and me, and the more people who reject the notion that they should keep silent the more sinister the things folks will get away with.

Forbes Shows Bias in Reporting – Not Amused

Check out the following article:

The title reads “Only One-Third of America Support Repealing Obamacare. They do not mention in that less than 1/3 of those polled want the Obamacare law to take effect! Now whether or not you support Obamacare is a completely separate issue – it would be like saying having a headline saying “Only 1/3 of the population want to impeach Obama” when less than 1/3 of the population supports Obama. Either way if that was the case we can safely say Obama does not have good support – the same which now applies to Obamacare.

Although the news sometimes presents facts, it will twist it for the general populace to be deceived into following its agenda.

Obama Receeds

After successfully not intervening  in Syria with Russian help, Obama once again is trying to focus his efforts of undermining second amendment rights and ironically pushes this topic after two shootings in Chicago – the city with the most strict gun laws in the Midwest. Two cases where criminals were using guns on lawful citizens who are discouraged from owning them based on city politics. The biggest failures of Obama as a president were signing too many executive orders, focusing too much on tearing up the 2nd amendment, and intervening in Libya.

It’s quite ironic that a former KGB agent is the champion for peace between countries while our Nobel Prize winning president was at one point trying to force us into another war.

Fox News Gets It Wrong On Obama

Fox news has been lambasting Obama for not successfully getting permission to strike Syria or unilaterally strike Syria without congressional approval – the kind of reporting done by folks in Fox news is utterly and wholly disgusting for the narrow-mindedness they display and their dogged determination to play for partisan politics instead of the good of our nation. I for one am not a supporter of Obama based on his track record on gun rights and civil liberties but I think he’s right to think twice about striking Syria and it’s good we have one level headed politician that doesn’t risk American lives based on his or her ego for once. I can’t speak for all of his presidency, but for the Syria case, I think he has done the right thing by playing it slow and waiting for congressional approval before a strike. Furthermore, I find it encouraging that Obama is open to a diplomatic solution involving Syria surrendering its chemical weapons for destruction.

Gun Control Activists Continue To Ignore Reality

All gun tragedies are horrible, however the recent drive by Sandy Hook relatives to expand background checks is misguided to say the least. The shooter in Sandy Hook did not buy a gun without a background check, he borrowed his mothers who was completely within her rights to purchase guns. Tragedies, such as the Boston marathon bombing, are horrible when they happen but unless a police state is set up to watch everyone all the time they will happen. Are we going to ban all fireworks, fertilizers, sugar, pressure cookers, heavy objects, and cars from citizens? Will licenses need to be issued for each of these items?

Instead what is going on is a push towards a global UN managed registry of gun owners and a very crucial step towards the eradication of the 2nd Amendment. Not allowing citizens to own guns or any weapon for that matter means each family will be helpless to defend themselves against criminals and criminals will know that – a pack of five men would be pretty confident they could ransack a place knowing that lawful families will not have guns in their house – be it an 8 gauge shotgun or AR-15. What else will be confiscated after guns, well probably gold and silver.

I’d like to think that our world is peaceful and everyone gets along – however this is false. Most people will fight each other when they feel their survival is at stake, many will fight for resources to come out on top, others will fight for the front of the line if no checks are put in place, and yet others will fight just because they feel like it. My point is that most folks know what the law is and what the consequences are for breaking the law, given the someone lax system we have in place some will risk breaking the law knowing the punishment combined with the risk is less than the reward and will then break the law. If lawful folks have the capacity to maintain the law in their own jurisdiction (their home) then folks will think twice about testing the punitive system of any given home.

The most important reason that Americans should own guns is that we have fought too long and hard against tyranny to let our freedom of self defense to be undermined by a tragedy.

LAPD Opens Barrage of Fire On Two Females in Truck


Two females, a 47 year old and her 71 year old mother, were wounded in a hail of gunfire today as LAPD officers mistook the truck for that of Chris Dorner. Dorner recently killed three people and released a manifesto declaring that he was at war with the LAPD for perceived wrongs that resulted in his being fired years ago.

It is important that the general public remains safe as this man is being hunted, it is unacceptable that innocents be caught in the crossfire especially when Dorner is nowhere in the vicinity.

Obama Defies Founding Fathers and Attacks the 2nd Amendment

Obama showed his true colors today by releasing plans that he had harbored until his re-election to effectively bash the second amendment and the intent the founding fathers had when they drafted it – to protect themselves from an unjust government. Today he proposed 23 executive actions that he would take against gun owners that did not require congressional approval, effectively smearing the Constitution with rubbish as socialist America becomes one step closer to reality. He also proposed new legislative proposals which included global background checks, limiting magazines to 10 rounds, and banning weapons that look like assault rifles.

Piece by piece, Americans are letting the government erode the freedoms that were won with blood and sweat of patriots. America is slowly becoming a restrictive police state where most people work for the government and whose jobs are to spy on their neighbor. People need to take a stand against this repression and realize that taking away our freedoms is ultimately going to be our undoing as a civilization built on the idea of liberty and justice.

The lawful are being punished for the actions of the unlawful, which is simply not right. Write to your representatives and show them your disgust with what is happening in the executive branch. Protect your family, and protect your freedoms. Look up operation ‘Fast and Furious’ online and find out how Obama has cost American lives in the past in an attempt to find an excuse to ban military style weapons in the United States. Search Google for what happened in the UK and Australia after guns were confiscated and destroyed, and ask yourself if you want the same to happen around the US.

Criminals around the country will immediately realize that all they have to do is to do home raids in packs of two or three and they will know for sure they can defeat a single law abiding citizen with the capacity of only 10 bullets, since even cops miss 2/3 of their shots! Stories of homeowners surviving attacks by multiple intruders will no longer be happening once assult rifles are banned, and people will be at the mercy of the police which take 8 minutes to respond to priority 1 calls even in our capital!

Percent distribution of incidents where police came to the victim, by police response time and type of crime. source: U.S. Dept of Justice, 2008. (most recent data available.)

Response Time
Within 5 min
6-10 min
11 min to 1 hour
Within 1 day
Longer than 1 day
Length of time unknown
Not ascertained
Violent Crime *
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Property crimes
Household burglary
Motor vehicle theft

* Includes data on rape and sexual assault.

If someone is attack you in your house, you need to be ready the minute of, and not put your family at the mercy of an unknown intruder for up to an hour.

On The Issue of Gun Rights

What If Americans Didn't Have Modern Weapons During The Revolutionary War? Would We Be Free?

What If Americans Didn’t Have Modern Weapons During The Revolutionary War? Would We Be Free?

The Obama administration and a few prominent liberal politicians such as Michael Bloomberg have taken advantage of a recent shooting to pounce on the second amendment. While the indiscriminate killing of innocents by a deranged individual is certainly something horrible and wrong, the piece by piece sacrifice Americans make unwittingly through incessant bombardment by a liberal media and White House administration is also deplorable. The confiscation of legally purchased weapons in America is unthinkable from a constitutional perspective and could be a precursor to the loss of additional freedoms we take for granted today. It’s shameful that foreign nationals are pulling the strings in getting the best country on Earth to bend and contort into a truly socialist society where individuals have no say whatsoever, are monitored their entire lives, and are restricted on where they go and what they own.

Every law abiding citizen should have the right to have a weapon that can adequately defend them, reducing the magazine capacity limit will only get adequate defense weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens and effectively nullify the purpose for the second amendment – which was to keep the power to defend liberty against both foreign and domestic in the hands of Americans. Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX News, has attacked the second amendment and shown his true ignorance in calling for a ban on automatic weapons. This is the same Murdoch who runs NewsCorp, a company that has gotten into trouble for wiretapping victims of tragedy and bribing officials throughout the UK.

If you don’t know already, none of the weapons used in any shooting as of late was done by an automatic weapon. Michael Bloomberg also took advantage of a tragedy to get his fingers into forcing more regulations and restrictions on Americans – the same Bloomberg who got a approval to impose a ban on restaurants from serving large containers of soda!

I’m not saying drinking a lot of soda is a good thing and I’m not telling everyone to buy as many assault rifles they can, I’m saying that chipping away at our liberty piece by piece will eventually result in us having no liberty at all. In the words of Benjamin Franklin,

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

I agree with this statement, and hope our country remains free.

Should CEO’s Tell Employees How To Vote?

There have been numerous instances this year of leaders of companies forcing their employees to show up at political rallies or making it clear which candidate they prefer – just recently the CEO of Westgate Resorts wrote an email informing his employees that their jobs were on the line if Obama got re-elected.  Of course, David Siegel has no way of knowing which way his employees voted but made it clear in his email that Obama’s policies have damaged his company’s bottom line and that he’d rather retire than lead a company through four more years of Obama’s leadership.

I don’t think it’s wrong that corporate leaders make it known which way they are voting and why certain candidates would be better for their company than others, its covered under free speech. I think it’s important that employees know how the political climate will effect their jobs just as it is important that they know based on their own research how different candidates will affect them on all issues of importance. There are more and more instances of these emails popping up this election based on a clear cost employers will have to pay for the Affordable Care Act (sometimes dubbed Obamacare). In an email Lacks Enterprises CEO sent to employees, it was noted that employee salaries would not be as high under an Obama administration. After being questioned whether Obama’s bailing out of the auto industry helped his business, he responded that his company did not benefit from the auto bailout.

On the other hand, as a note to the employees of these companies whose leadership is sending out these emails, many CEOs would be classified under the group of people that would be taxed at a higher rate than if Romney is elected. Anyone making more than $250,000 would not be extended a continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts under Obama, and that would certainly affect small business owners and those Obama considers rich. Every day we are inundated with suggestions to vote one way or the other, be it commentary by the media or signs across the street. CEOs certainly can voice their opinions as well but if such is the case employees should have the same opportunities to have their voice heard, unfortunately this is not the case as it is rare that a entry level employee would email his/her entire company with a political view.

So, in short, yes – employers should be able to make political suggestions. On the other hand employees should have that same right.

Where’s the Hope?

Obama ran a pretty good generic Presidential campaign in 2008 – the theme was “hope”. This is not something Obama wants to run under again because he has had four years to fix our country – and realizes people want results quickly, even though four years might not be enough time to fix everything. This year, it looks like Obama’s team is relying more on bashing the opponent – and today I saw just about my 10th iteration of Obama reminding me of Romney’s 47% remarks. I agree that Romney having the audacity to make those comments basically means he is unfit to lead. However, I think just about everyone has already watched the video and are looking for leadership from the Obama administration and proactive solutions to problems being presented as running material on top of the reminders.

There’s No Easy Answer To Syria Civil War

I don’t think it’s wise for the US to get involved in Syria, and I think it’s a bad idea to put troops on the ground to help the Syria uprising. The reason behind this is simple – we don’t know them, they aren’t our allies, and it would cost us money and lives we really shouldn’t be wasting. To be honest, I think it’s a job better left to those in the region – the Syrians themselves if they want a new government and Turkey since it has been targeted by artillery from Syrian lands. Of course, some in the US believe this to be weak – but I think its premature to believe that the rebels in Syria will automatically become our friends if we help them. In fact, there have already been articles published quoting rebels saying that since we haven’t helped them enough they may target us after the war is finished. So, in summary, these rebels may end up being our enemies – they have proven that they are not against using terrorist tactics against Assad. For example, last weekend four rebel suicide bombers killed 40 civilians in the city of Aleppo – I’m sure this is news you haven’t heard of from our friends in the media. I believe that both sides of this conflict have terrorist elements, Assad is surely someone who will eventually be ousted by rebels – the question is when and do we want to be involved in the policing role after the civil war has finished? Putting troops on the ground would probably result in a proxy war between the US and Iran, and would ultimately result in real war with Iran which would cost more than our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined- this war would benefit few and harm many. The benefits would come to those in the defense industry and those who have large investments with defense contractor companies, the harm would come to every town that sends troops along with everyone that uses gasoline in their cars and buys groceries at the local supermarket. The national debt would probably double and inflation would be inevitable.