Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.
“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”
Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
It is clear from the results of recent elections that the country we live in now should be renamed the DSA: Divided States of America. The country has not been this divided along ideological lines since the (un-) Civil War. Everyone knows this intuitively, but most are afraid to admit it.
This division is very clear along geographical lines. If you look at the election map of the 2012 election by county, you will note that small concentrations of cityots, mostly in the northeast and far west, voted for Obama while the vast majority of the rest of the country voted for more freedom and less taxes. Keep in mind that more red would be showing if it weren’t for massive voter fraud in swing states.
Looking at the map, it certainly looks like red country, doesn’t it? Why would so many people in so many counties and states allow small concentrations of people dictate how they live? Why would they continue to let cityots take away our freedoms, our way of life, and more specifically our wealth, that they waste and redistribute as they see fit?
The reason is because the political system is set up that way, and unfortunately, more people are on the take now than are actually producing the wealth in this country. If you take the 47% of the people that are being subsidized by the government via welfare and redistribution, and add to it the number of people that are on the government payroll as employees or contractors, you have about half of the country effectively on the taxpayer bill. These people will mostly vote for bigger government, when given the choice.
The truth is that the red county and red state people are fed up with the federal government, and don’t want the government as the manager of everyone’s money. Most people want to manage their own money, without government first getting their greedy paws into it, and then telling people how to spend it and mandating things for them to buy (such as health insurance.)
The US government is now operating well outside the bounds of the Constitution and other written laws, and this has come to a degree of separation for many of our citizens. If we can’t change who is running our country with a fair election, which we can’t, because the voter fraud machine has proven to be insurmountable, then we have to look at other means of separating from the vile tyrants that bind us.
Are we really to believe that Romney got fewer votes than Mccain, after 4 years of economic disaster under Obama? Should we believe that 2012 was the first presidential election in history with less voter participation than the previous one? This is what they would have us believe, despite the fact that it makes no rational sense, without the specter of massive fraud.
The 2010 election map corroborates the fact that these swing states were all seeing a lot more red than they supposedly did in 2012. More congressmen from one party got fired in 2010 than in any other election in history, and for the specific reason that people did not want Obama’s rubber stamps posing as congressmen.
The point is that the red state people do not want to live as the blue state liberals dictate to them. Red staters do not want larger government, more taxes, more spending, more welfare, more food stamps, and more restrictions on freedom; all of which result in less individual wealth, happiness, and liberty.
That’s why they voted against the blue way of life in the last two elections, but now their votes do not count because the democrats are “counting” the votes. The democrat/communist party learned and mastered Stalin’s most important lesson: that the voters decide nothing, but those who “count” them decide everything.
So it is clear then that the red staters cannot effect the desired change via elections which are managed and rigged by their opponents, who are oppressing them through illegal and tyrannical means. Is it any wonder then that many are speaking of secession now? Many people gasp at the sound of the word, but it was secession from a tyrannical England from which this country was born.
Yes, the last secession attempt resulted in the largest loss of American lives in history, due to the “hero” Lincoln declaring war on his own people, and allowing them to slaughter themselves to the tune of over 600,000, making it the deadliest war in US history . And why? Because the north knew they could not live without the economic output of the south, and Lincoln didn’t want to lose control.
The Yankees would have never survived on their own, because the only businesses they had were fueled by products of the south, where people worked an honest living. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that the Uncivil War was about slavery; that is just another falsehood taught by the communist public schools, and a big excuse for massive violence and death. The war was strictly about economy, as are most wars throughout history.
You don’t save a nation by declaring war on it, and sacrificing over a half a million of its most capable young men, many of which were businessmen, job creators, and family men. It was about saving the Yankee states from living in poverty, by keeping control of the agriculture and business in the south.
This explains why Lincoln and his northerners thought there needed to be a war. It was all about control. This was the first major power grab by the US federal government, and resulted in the deadliest war in US history. It had to come to bloodshed because enough people in the south were fed up with the government dictating their way of life, and they were willing to fight to the death to preserve it.
Could the US and Lincoln administration let the South secede peacefully as they desired to? Of course they could have, and in fact they could immediately have established free trade with the south, similar to how our country has free trade with almost every nation in the Americas and Europe. But then the government wouldn’t CONTROL the south and its resources. It was all about control.
Now we find our country in a very similar situation. The only slaves are those on the government welfare payroll, paid to sit around, do drugs, and make nothing out of their lives so that the government can use them as an excuse to raise taxes on those working for a living, who create jobs and wealth. The government is currently in an abhorrent state of control over all of our lives.
The red state people are quite tired of this, especially seeing as the situation is worsening. Slavery can’t be used as an excuse for war this time. Would there be a war if the red states seceded? It might be that this time, if done correctly, a peaceful secession could be possible.
You see, the blue state people at this point in time truly believe that they can live without red states. They believe that the government is the creator and manager of all jobs and wealth, and therefore everyone will be taken care of. They don’t realize that the people paying for this setup via the income tax, are red states or red state type of people. So most blue staters would not disagree with recession.
The federal government of course knows better. Obama and his communist administration and most supporters in the democrat party and congress, know that it is impossible to run a welfare state without having job creators, which they can steal wealth from, in order to fund their operation.
In the case of secession, almost all business owners would move to red states, no matter what they claim their political affiliation is. This certainty would be cause for a militant communist such as Obama to declare war on them, but that war would seem to be largely voluntary. The majority of DOD and military are not in support of Obama or his policies, and thus its commanders would be unlikely to mobilize their troops against American citizens, which they’re not allowed to do in the first place.
Let us explain how this works. First let’s draft a rough constitutional framework for the New Confederate States of America (NCSA). We may just call them the Articles of Confederation, the documents which probably should have been used instead of our current constitution, but since the latter wasn’t adhered to, it may not have made much of a difference either way.
The NCSA and its central (Confederate) government would be based on the following tenets. The current US constitution and Bill of Rights could be used as the basis, minus the fraudulent 16th amendment, and with the following amendments:
• No income tax legal at any level of state/local/national government and will not be tolerated
• States and municipalities may institute any sales tax they desire up to 20%
• National sales tax starting at 10% which may never be raised, but can be lowered. Surpluses will be returned to those who paid it, in proportion to how much they paid.
• 25% tax on all imports, which may be raised by the government but not lowered
• Confederate government will only have one department: Department of National Security (DNS), responsible for defending the country against enemies, and collecting the sales tax. (in other words, no other departments of socialism, education, so forth)
• The government may not spend any money which was not already raised by the sales tax. Printing of money is allowed only for replacement of shoddy currency
• The confederate dollar will be backed by its equivalent value in gold
• No states or municipalities will receive confederate funds for any reason
• Confederate DSA may provide relief for national disasters, but not by donating to states
• No national welfare of any kind will be allowed. States and anyone else may run welfare
• National government will not be involved in any business not related to national security
• Infanticide will not be allowed. People may go to blue states for abortions, and not return
• Active confederate military troops will be maintained at a minimum of 1% of the population
• National Guard troops commensurate with 1% of the population of each state, will be paid for by the Confederacy, may not be mobilized without order from their state’s governor
• The DSA and military may not be used in any way against citizens of the Confederacy, unless such citizens are plotting or in the act of undue violence against other citizens
• The right to bear any non WMD weapon for any individual for any legal reason including but not limited to hunting, self-defense, target practice, intimidation, or show and tell, is incontrovertible. Further, firearm ownership will be mandatory for all homeowners and businesses
• The Confederate Congress is on a part time, on-call basis, to meet when necessary to create or enact laws, rather than sitting around wasting taxpayer money all year
• Term limits: no congress person of any kind will serve more than two consecutive terms, and the President of the Confederate American States (POCAS) is limited to one term. Terms will be 2 years for House, 4 years for Senate, and 4 years for President.
• POCAS may not selectively enforce any laws. The DNS will enforce laws that are on the books and not enforce any that are not. Once a law is revised or enacted, the DNS will enforce it under the supervision of POCAS and Congress.
• Congress may only enact laws concerning national security, including items such as military strength, counterterrorism measures, and possible lowering of the sales tax
• The congress will be paid minimum wage for their hours served in session, and may not vote into law raises for themselves, or extended terms in congress
• Minimum wage will start at the current level and will be adjusted annually in a linear correlation with inflation levels, which should not exist
• Labor unions will not be recognized by government at any level and will have no power
• Labor laws: any child of any age may work at any job they are physically qualified for, as long as they are paid at least minimum wage, and with pay equivalent to their colleagues, with of course, the permission of their parents if under 18. The child may elect not to sit at a desk in school all day and decide to work for a living at any age that its parents allow it to.
• No discrimination of any kind by employers will be tolerated. No collection of racial or gender information is allowed by any employer, who may hire whomever they wish without any intervention by any state, local, or federal government
• States and municipalities may run their educational systems in any manner they choose, and will not receive any confederate funds or intervention
• Any person over the age of 18 is considered an adult and their parents have no legal responsibility to them of any kind
• Each adult person is responsible for their own life and its outcome, not the government
• Welfare recipients of the old USA will be offered relocation to an appropriate blue state ghetto, or they may stay and receive an unemployment stipend for a maximum of 3 months so that they may find an appropriate occupation. After that they are on their own.
• Anyone, from any former USA state, may choose to live in the Confederacy, and as such agrees to follow their laws. Anyone can choose to move to a blue state if they desire.
• Businesses of the old USA will be recognized as such, as long as they are forking over the 10% national sales tax for goods or services rendered; otherwise they will be in trouble with the DNS
• Free trade with the blue state DSA and other countries, considering the 25% import tax
• The Confederate States will require nothing of the former USA government except the DOD resources, including personnel, located in the red states. This is non-negotiable.
• The nuclear problem can be solved by allowing the red states to take control of the nuclear arsenal. Obama and the blue states want a nuclear-free world anyway, so they should be happy to get rid of them.
Now let us look at the ramifications of the above Confederate Constitution. First of all, where will the remaining DSA get the money to fund their welfare state? They won’t. 90% of business owners not already located in red states will move to the Confederacy in order to pay no income tax and a maximum 10% federal income tax.
The blue states will continue to print worthless money that they can’t pay for, to run their socialist operation, creating immediate hyperinflation. The DSA dollar will become worthless as soon as this happens, and the remaining residents of the DSA that weren’t already on welfare will be on welfare after hyperinflation. Obviously, the CSA dollar, backed by gold, and not overprinted, maintains its value.
Anyone on a fixed income in the blue states, would then have an income equivalent to maybe 10% or less of what it was worth before, and has limited buying power. The federal government will set up bread lines for those that can’t afford to buy food for themselves and their families.
Obviously, many will flee to the Confederacy in order to have some kind of life again. They will be welcomed with open arms, but without any government handouts. Those without any means or money will be sent to state employment centers. There, they will be given access to computers and job banks, including all the agricultural jobs and other manual labor that anyone who is not disabled can perform, with some instruction.
The poor, homeless, and destitute from any state will be given the opportunity to clean up trash along public roadways and parks, and other basic janitorial tasks for the state, in return for basic dorm-style room and board, as long as they can stand it. They will not be given any monetary compensation from the state, or anything besides food, a bed, and a roof, for that matter.
On the contrary, poor from the blue states could also choose to stay there and stand in bread lines, until their government runs out of bread, without any hope of ever having a job or their own place of residence. Eventually they may actually come to their senses, and try to use the “free” election to make a change in government from a doomed socialist state, but many will put even more hope that their communists masters will somehow provide something out of nothing.
In the meantime, it wouldn’t take long for many DSA blue state residents to start flocking to the Confederacy, where the job creators are creating jobs and making lots of money. The red states have most of the agricultural resources and plenty of other means for business; and without excessive government intrusion, businesses will prosper everywhere in the CSA.
Blue state cityots are foolish enough to think they have all the resources, because they have their precious cities. But what exactly are cities? They are structures built with the money of mostly private investors and builders, with authorizations (and restrictions) from the government, with the purpose of giving businesses buildings in which to operate, and people to have housing close to their place of work.
Now, cities are certainly filled with businesses in some parts, and in the other parts contain a mixture of private homeowners and welfare housing recipients. The ghettos in particular, formed from housing that middle and upper income families have given up on, comprise most of the population of almost any given city, which is one reason why cityots tend to vote for communists.
What do these businesses in the city produce? Many city businesses are restaurants and stores which get their products from industrial parks outside the city, and foods produced in the rural areas, but what do the big city businesses do? Mostly, they manage businesses that actually operate in other parts of the state or country, and some simply “manage” other people’s money.
So you can see that any of these city businesses can operate from any city, suburb, town, or rural area for that matter, because they don’t actually produce anything. What they do is sell or manage goods that are produced elsewhere, or services rendered elsewhere. These businesses will mostly relocate their operations to the Confederacy in order to avoid excessive taxes and regulations.
So you can see that the cityots are highly mistaken. They have no precious resources needed by red states or by anyone else. Cities are built and managed with funds from businesses, which is what the Confederacy will be oriented around: small, medium, and large businesses that will donate 10% of their proceeds to the government. And most of those businesses will migrate to red states.
Given that the Confederate government can only get income from businesses handing over 10% of their sales of goods or services, the government will be doing all in its quite limited power to promote the creation and expansion of business across the land. That’s what government does for its only precious source of funding, even if they’re only making minimum wage.
The Confederate States’ motto will be something like, “We’ll take your hungry, tired, and poor, as long as they are willing to work for a living. Otherwise go back to the socialist state from which you came.” Of course, this is how red staters think already, but are afraid to say it, for fear of being labeled as an extremist by the communists running the country, who have already threatened to lock up patriots.
What if a war does ensue? Undoubtedly, the first attempt to quell secession would be for the administration to enact martial law, and suppress any citizen who disagrees with DSA laws. Martial law will be a certainty, resulting in more civil and uncivil unrest among secessionists.
This martial law would be difficult to enact against armed citizens. In case you haven’t tuned in to NRA type news in recent years, red state citizens have been buying up guns, including semi-automatic assault rifles, and stockpiling ammunition, as if the war has already begn. Perhaps they know something the socialist utopians in the blue states don’t know.
The truth is that martial law is in effect a declaration of war against a certain set of American citizens, and it will be taken as such by the targeted citizens. As aforementioned however, many of these are heavily armed citizens that won’t go quietly into the night in handcuffs. Military troops, if they even participate, and federal police forces such as the FBI, will be met with violence at every turn.
In fact, most red state military commanders will not only refuse, as they should, to target American citizens, but in the event of secession, many will turn themselves and their troops over to Confederate command. This would not only even the playing field, but in fact give a major advantage to the red states, which already have many armed civilians ready to fight.
There is no amount of economic, political, or military pressure that the current US government could apply to stop secession. The only great equalizer, of course, is the atom bomb. There would have to be some agreement reached, or procurement by the Confederacy of at least part of the nuclear arsenal, in order to thwart the possibility of a psychotic megalomaniac like Obama using such weapons against Americans.
Obama may have gone around the world apologizing for America and bowing to Islamic dictators, but he is extremely mentally unstable and could be insane enough to use nuclear weapons against Americans, even if he would never consider using them against enemies of Americans. That’s just the nature of his mental illness called communism, which has consumed his mind. Remember that Joseph Stalin killed more of his own country’s people than any dictator in history.
Obama does not like Americans. He doesn’t like the United States as it was founded, and he doesn’t like what America represents: freedom, prosperity, business, people profiting from the sale of goods and services. He hates all of it, and that’s why he’s in office, to rectify it. Businessmen who create jobs are evil and greedy and must be dealt with, according to his philosophy. Obama is the most delusional and insane president this country has ever had, without a doubt.
So it is not beyond the possible at all for Obama to order all the forces that he can get his hands on to suppress a secession, knowing that the disunion will not survive without the agriculture, wealth, and business from the red states. Like Lincoln, he would do all in his power to prevent it.
The big question is, how much power will he have? Many military commanders and their troops will desert and oppose him. There are also many closet red state commanders that will be ready to drive state militias against their opposition. There will be blood, and Daniel Day Lewis will want a prominent role in the movie made about it after events have been settled.
But the fact is that the military suppression will not work. US federal troops will find themselves outmanned and outgunned at every confederate outpost. The only option will be nuclear, but it is unlikely. If somehow, some dimwit commander and his troops agree to that, and lets Obama press the nuclear button against his own country, that would be the beginning of the end.
Obama and his entire administration would be taken out soon thereafter by active military patriots, defending their country, which would probably result in a military coup for the office of POTUS. At this point, to prevent further bloodshed, the remaining politicians in power would approve of a peaceful secession and then begin worrying about controlling the riots and bread lines.
This is just the most likely several possible outcomes, and the nuclear option is probably not very likely, because no commander in his right mind would fire a nuke on US citizens, but we know already that some leaders in this country are not in their right mind. Let us hope that it will be a peaceful secession.
It is best to conduct such a divide along some clear geographical boundaries, and without “island states” in the middle belonging to another country. After all, the red states will want borders to keep communists and terrorists out. The red states are taking New Mexico, Colorado, and Florida, which are red states anyway without voter fraud.
Indiana can go to the blue states, and the Virginias will be allowed to decide for themselves on which side of the border they will lie, but this time their state governors and legislatures will decide, not the democrat/communist voter fraud machine that controls the counting of the popular vote.
It could well be that the blue states decide to be annexed by Canada, for the common good of all socialist states. Canadians enjoy a reasonable socialist way of life while relying on the US military for any defense needs it may have in case it pisses anyone off, which it dearly tries not to.
The blue states have much in common with Canadian states and may decide to merge into that socialist umbrella to pool their resources. That is up to the socialist blue states and whatever they decide to do. After secession, the Confederacy will not be too worried about how the blues conduct themselves.
What is required for secession? Simply, the red states have to agree within themselves that they will totally do away with federal funding. West VA is one of the reddest states in the union, according to their presidential election record, but they consistently voted for Robert Byrd, the king of pork barrels, as their senator.
The states will simply have to decide to do without federal union funding, and support themselves, as all states are able with a proper tax structure. It is not an easy decision, but one that will give the people of those states long-lasting freedom that they currently do not enjoy, as slaves of the almighty federal government.
The red states MUST band together as a nation to have any hope of survival, however. Otherwise they will be bullied incessantly by the DSA which retains a powerful military and nuclear threat, and eventually they may be compelled to give in to socialist tyranny again. The secessionist states must all form as one common nation with common principles, because no state will stand on its own.
This article is not an advocacy for any war, but in fact is against any such violence. The socialists are in total control of this situation: they can either allow a peaceful secession, or try to prevent it with violence. This is a stern warning however: violence will be met with violence.
The violence and genocide just aren’t worth it. Let socialist states live in their socialist utopia, and let capitalists live in the real world, and earn their living, while doing what is natural for the human, to create business and a better life for oneself.
We can all disagree on which philosophy we want to live by, communism or freedom, but let’s agree that it is not worth sacrificing half a million humans this time. Just give peace a chance.
The US Presidential Beauty Pageant that occurs every 4 years is a thorn in the side of the American people. Neal Boortz was the first public figure known to use the term beauty pageant to describe the election, and he was absolutely right. Further, the only way a known communist such as Obama could have ever won a presidential election, is its current American Idol format.
Barry Obama, although not beautiful by any means, was much smoother and more impressive in person (and could probably sing better) than the aging patriot Senator John Mccain, who as a young soldier was much better looking than the scrawny, eggheaded Obama. Mccain also dedicated most of his life to serving his country in the military, even sitting in a POW camp for several years, which might be considered better service than delivering communist speeches as a community organizer.
None of this really mattered to half the US public, the half that are brainwashed morons that sit around and watch American Idol, Jersey Shore, and generally believe, say, and do anything Jon Stewart tells them in his comedy show. Because they know that comedy shows are where the real facts come from, not actual news reporters that deliver factual information.
Where were these reporters before Obama’s 2008 beauty pageant? Aside from Sean Hannity, they were largely silent on the facts that Obama was raised in a radical muslim madrasa in Indonesia, that he was in Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright’s church for decades, that he was raised as a communist after returning to the US, and his closest friends and political supporters as an adult were known communists and terrorists.
The mind-numbed zombie portion of the US population didn’t want to hear these things anyway. All that mattered to them was the beauty pageant, and it was obvious to them that Obama was the winner, even before it started. Obama was younger, had much more energy, talked about hope and change, and his teleprompter-induced speeches delivered a soothing rhythm that was just perfect for their feeble brains.
But how do you prevent something as important as the election of the President of the United States from being a beauty pageant? Simple, you don’t have the public participate in that election. In Boortz’s beauty pageant speech, he prescribed that the US House of Reps should elect the US President, and that the House would be the highest office that any regular voting citizen would vote for.
Now before you say, “they would have voted for Obama anyway,” perhaps yes, if that were the first time such a law went into effect, but they also could have voted for Hillary. However, after the election of 2010, I can guarantee that the House wouldn’t be voting for Obama today, and in fact could vote for whoever they wanted, because the beauty pageant running for the past year would be non-existent. They could in theory be deciding right now whether to vote for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, or even someone who was knocked out of the GOP beauty pageant early such as Rick Perry.
We trust the House of Reps to make all the laws for our nation, so why wouldn’t we trust them to elect us the right president? Without the presidential beauty pageant, people would be forced to pay a lot more attention to their local beauty pageant in their local congressional district. IF they knew that the person they’re voting for is not only going to write their laws, but choose a president for them, they would scrutinize the candidate’s record more closely.
Furthermore, the presidential beauty pageant is a gigantic waste of untold millions of dollars, not only every 4 years, but during their tenure. Obama has proven that a president can campaign non-stop during his occupation of the White House. What if all that wealth were used instead to invest in business or create jobs for the economy, instead of lobbies wasting it on presidential contenders? The economy would be much better off regardless of the candidate chosen.
Boortz’s rant went further to say that the state legislatures should choose the two state senators, so there would not even be state-wide beauty pageants for US senate positions. A brilliant idea no doubt, that would again force people to actually pay attention to their local legislature elections to make sure that the candidate would vote for a senator of their liking.
This eliminates any state-wide or nation-wide beauty pageants, and all the time and money and TV and radio advertising, paid and unpaid, that is wasted on them. The local election for the House position is not a beauty pageant because most of the nation isn’t watching them, and their budgets are much smaller, and normally they are driven by party affiliations and issues. If the Boortz law went into effect, every 2 years the local House elections would be the most important thing the non-politician ever votes for.
Furthermore, the national media would have very little say in the matter. Jon Stewart couldn’t cover all 870 House candidates and incumbents unless he extended his show to 3 hours per day and that’s all he covered. It simply wouldn’t happen, and would be much too boring for his zombie audience to withstand.
Neal went further to say that the President should be limited to one term of 6 years; however that is no even necessary if you eliminate the national beauty pageant aspect. Without the ignorant masses able to go out and pull the lever for a candidate they know nothing about like Obama every four years, it’s not necessary to limit the term. People could always pull the lever against the Reps that voted for the president in the subsequent election.
Neal Boortz retires this year from his long and storied radio career as a noted libertarian broadcaster, and will be missed dearly by his audience of around 6 million people. He has had a great impact on politics in this country, drawing national attention to the Fair Tax idea, and many libertarians are now serving in the House of Reps, even if they are disguised as Republicans. Neal will be replaced by Herman Cain. This article is dedicated to the great career and influence of Neal Boortz.
August 26 2012
NASA has announced that astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man known to have set foot on the moon, has been stripped of his “first man on the moon” title due to a violation of space program regulations.
Armstrong was found to have the performance enhancing drug caffeine in his system at the time of his historic Apollo 11 flight in which he was reportedly the first astronaut to set foot on the moon, but the results were withheld until recently.
In fact, the entire crew of his flight, including Buzz Aldrin, had consumed the caffeine which was embedded in a beverage called coffee. They not only consumed the coffee before the flight, but illegally smuggled it in dry form on board the Apollo 11 flight, rendering them disqualified to land on the moon, a NASA spokesman has said.
The spokesman said that caffeine was never allowed by astronauts performing the Apollo missions, and that anyone who consumed it during or before flights are heretofore disqualified of their missions. Unfortunately, the coffee consumers include all Apollo astronauts, meaning that none of them ever officially landed on the moon, or even went into space for that matter.
The timing of the announcement is particularly poor considering that Armstrong recently died due to heart complications, but the spokesman said that the government bureaucracy knows better than we do about what, when, where, and how to make a statement.
The news that no American has ever landed on the moon is not easy to break, but the unidentified NASA spokesman said that rules need to be followed, whether it means changing history or not. Armstrong should have adhered to the rules.
It turns out that Armstrong and Aldrin also knew of a colleague that was having an inappropriate sexual affair with a subordinate, which they did nothing about except report it to the authorities, which did nothing about it, and decided instead to blame it on the astronauts. Other Apollo astronauts also knew about the affair.
This means that not only Apollo 11, but all of the successful Apollo missions have now been vacated. It was determined that none of the space travelers should have been allowed to complete their missions given their drug addiction and knowledge of sexual abuse.
According to NASA’s modified records, now no American has ever landed on the moon. It is a shame, indeed, but politicians have promised that man will go back to the moon in 2030, once the US pays off its ever-increasing debt; in other words never.
This article is dedicated to the outstanding pilot and humble astronaut Neil Armstrong (1930-2012), the first man in modern history to land on the moon. Neil we appreciate all that you accomplished and we apologize for what we have done to the space program, and to our country. Come back and save us when you get the chance. RDP
There are many derogatory jokes about red necks, a non-protected species, but if you think about it, which few do, they are the very same people that:
1. Repair your car or boat
2. Fix your plumbing
3. Raise your beef and dairy cattle
4. Grow your fruit
5. Harvest your grains
6. Build your house (or at least supervise those who do)
7. Make your beer and whisky
8. Rewire your electricity
9. Provide your lawn service
10. Protect your neighborhood with a shotgun
How long do you think you would make it without rednecks?
Part of the problem we’re facing today is that many young people just don’t know the difference between right and wrong in this society of blurred boundaries. When someone is wrong, they can always claim that they’re a victim of something else. Society made them that way.
Where does one get the notions of right and wrong from anyway? Today, most are getting it from the media, politicians, sports and musical entertainers, and anyone else they idolize. This is probably the worst group of people to get morals or ethics from; they’re not only a very flawed cast of characters, and corrupted by their fame and fortune, but most of them are shameless about their constant immorality.
Our society is headed further down the slope of the dark side of immorality as it has for decades, and its relative morality travels with it just like an index fund.
If right and wrong are defined by politicians and the media, I would suggest we are all going to hell if we follow their notions. Politicians and the media both lie to us incessantly, then take no responsibility for it, and, for some reason, are not held accountable.
Is right and wrong defined by law? To some extent perhaps, but law is nothing more than a version of the legislated morality of the society it represents. Let’s look at some examples.
Speeding is wrong, right? I would argue that some people can safely operate their vehicles at a higher velocity than the posted limit. I see no wrong in that, as long as they are in control, and not unnecessarily risking the harm of others.
Is it wrong for an 18 year old to drink a beer? It wasn’t 30 years ago, so why was it suddenly wrong 10 years later? Remember prohibition? A lot of people were illegally drinking during that time.
Adultery has been long considered wrong by many. In fact, there are laws against it in most states. However, they have not been enforced in decades. Is it now right to have sex with another’s spouse? If you think so, think about whether you would like their spouse or family to find out, or how you would feel if it was your spouse.
(I understand in our sexually addicted society that there are ‘swing couples’ that are OK with sharing their spouse. I see their point, but not sure why they got married if they want to behave in that manner.)
There used to be laws about sodomy on the books, but now most have been erased or are not enforced. Does that make it right? If homosexual marriage is legal and right, then why not polygamy? Those are consenting adults also. Why can’t man or woman marry a consenting animal?
It is legal for our government to tax a large percentage of our income, before we even see it, in order to waste most of it on fraudulent bureaucracies, and other programs as they see fit. Many of these people in charge didn’t pay their taxes, but are forcing the rest of us to, which is another story. But is it right?
You are legally allowed to sell “snake oil” to the public, on the internet, or wherever, and if you make the worthless product sound good enough, many people will buy it, only to be disappointed afterward that it doesn’t work at all. Is that right or wrong?
Greedy banks, while extorting their customers at every turn, got too greedy and lured customers into paying for things with credit that they couldn’t afford, which ran their businesses into the ground. Then they accepted billions of dollars of taxpayer money from the government as a bailout. Is that right?
Some rap gangsters, doing what they preach in the form of various crimes, have rap sheets longer than any of their rap songs. But they’re not behind bars; they’re still out there freely performing their “art.” Right.
It’s also legal to sell your body for sex, sell your soul for rock and roll, kill the unborn, lie and deceive others, be unkind to your neighbor, curse at an old lady, buy and sell people, mismanage someone else’s money and take no responsibility for it, adopt an underage child to have sexual relations with him/her, and the list goes on.
Some people would find the aforementioned items of questionable morality. In fact, some would call them just plain wrong. So we’ve proven that the law does not provide an accurate authority on right and wrong, right?
What is right and wrong then? Do we just feel it? Some do, I would argue, but why, and how? Clearly murderers, rapists, thieves and others don’t see it the same way I do.
Morality and ethics used to be well-defined, once upon a time in America. Schools and parents alike taught kids the real difference between right and wrong, and why it was so. The Ten Commandments were used as the general standard.
Today, most parents leave it up to the government, schools, and media to raise their children. Now, God and his Commandments can’t be mentioned in schools without bringing about a law suit. They are even scoffed at in the public square by the media.
In the not too distant past, half a century ago, Americans knew the difference between right and wrong. Crime was low, mostly because people were punished for doing the wrong thing, having been taught what that is.
Then we had the drug induced, sexual revolution, anything-goes, moral relativity, “awakening” decade of the 60’s. Manson, Bundy, and a whole host of other serial killers sprouted out of this era.
The children of this generation have terrorized others in schools with guns and bombs, for no apparent reason. But there is a reason: they have no moral compass. They simply subscribe to the moral authority of the day: Moral Relativism.
Pure Moral Relativism states that the morality of anything is simply relative to the people or society of the day, or even to personal preference.
Fortunately, for now, most Moral Relativists will at least admit there is a line you don’t cross: you can’t hurt other people. But if you listen to the rest of their debate, you may not agree with their definitions of hurting people.
Some interesting examples:
A drug addict hurts nobody except himself right? Ask his family members: his wife, kids, etc. whether they think this is true. Aside from that, has he helped or harmed society?
A sexual relationship between an adult and child hurts nobody, since they are both consensual participants, right? Again, ask the child’s family if they feel this is true. The same argument can be made for the adulterous relationship.
If a man presents an investment without substance, such as a Ponzi scheme, or snake oil, and people buy into it, then that is their choice. It’s just another stock market gamble. The victims would disagree.
What if a man makes money off others by a legitimate business such as selling food or cloth? Does he therefore hurt others by taking their money while he makes a lot of it? Some would argue so.
The fact that Moral Relativists will mostly agree to not hurting others is convenient, but who decides whether even hurting others is right or wrong? What if most people were to agree that hurting others for your own benefit is right, as in survival of the fittest? We have still to define the “hurt.”
Such is the slippery slope of Moral Relativism. If there is not an absolute right or wrong for most issues and crimes, then who defines it? Simply, it’s the individual.
Therefore, if enough individuals decide that it is right for them to kill, maim, rape, steal, and destroy, then it is OK according to Moral Relativism. The “moral majority” has already decided it’s OK to take money from wealthier people and redistribute it as the government sees fit.
Suppose you end up in an isolated survival scenario, and there are 10 men and 3 women. The nine other men have collectively agreed that, due to numbers, it is OK for any man to rape any of the women. They further determine that 7 men need to be sacrificed and cannibalized. Is that right?
In order to prevent sliding further down the slope to complete immorality, we must admit that there is an objective right or wrong. We can either do that now, or continue pretending that we don’t have a standard for this so that we can be “tolerant” of others’ rights to be immoral or unethical.
Regardless of your version of how Moses’ Ten Commandments came into being, it is generally agreed by scholars that they appeared about 3500 years ago. Since then, they increasingly took hold in the western world as the moral standard by which most laws have been based.
If you haven’t ever read the Ten Commandments, look them over real quick and then answer this question: Is anyone harmed by the following of these rules?
Perhaps you are an atheist, and disagree with the first three. I still aver that nobody is harmed if you follow those. If you don’t know how to follow them then don’t. (An aside to atheists: those first three are meant for you.)
The bottom line is that, if people did adhere to these Commandments, regardless of your religion, the criminal harm of others would be almost nonexistent.
Realistically, if nobody steals, murders, adulters, lies about their neighbor to his detriment, or covets other’s property, how many more serious crimes are there? Assault and rape, perhaps are not mentioned, but generally covered under the “covet” commandment, and every civilized country has laws on the books about this, because we know they are wrong.
Some financial scheming crimes aren’t covered, you might say, but we can categorize most of these under the 8th Commandment regarding theft and burglary.
The fact is that, unless we admit that there is a higher authority regarding morality, then the pure relativity of it that leads to chaos, will take over, as it has already begun to.
In the past, court witnesses were required to raise their right hand, put the other on the Bible, and state, “I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
Obviously some people didn’t believe in the truth, or God, but this method was still very powerful, because the witness was consciously condemning himself before God if he did not tell the truth, whether he believed in God or not.
Now, that commitment on top of the Bible and God no longer exists in courts, since it offended some people. The government was afraid of offending criminal suspects, apparently. But without swearing to God, who are the witnesses swearing to?
Since the truth is relative, and without making an oath to God, the witness or suspect is only swearing to himself and his own relative morality. What good is that? Can we expect any modicum of truth out of him?
The entire justice system of our society has been compromised by Moral Relativism, from the courts to how police can handle the suspects without offending them, to the definitions of the crimes that are committed.
Remember how OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder because the lead detective had made a racial joke in the past? Which is worse: the joke or the murder? The slippery slope of relativism simply leads to more crime and more chaos, with fewer repercussions.
This is what happens to a society that abandons its commitment to God and his Commandments. Immorality, unethical behavior, and crime are not only tolerated but promoted from the Moral Relativist segment of the society, under the banner of Tolerance of course.
I’m not trying to sell religion here. Each person is free to worship what they want. What I’m proposing is that we respect the commitment to God and the Judeo-Christian ethics that our Founding Fathers set forth in this country. They obviously had good reason for doing so, and serious crime was kept to a minimum before the country abandoned such principles.
If you are one of the minority that doesn’t believe in God, then you’re in a small enough segment that you shouldn’t be able to enforce your version of morality on the super majority.
Even so, consider following the Ten Commandments anyway. Just think: if you are wrong and there is a God, then at least you will be doing the right thing by him, and that may count for something one day.
In the meantime, we need to admit as a society and nation that there are universal truths, rights, and wrongs. We need to return to following God’s law as it was stated thousands of years ago, which doesn’t hurt anyone, but in fact protects people from getting hurt.
What have we got to lose? Since abandoning the Commandments in the US, violent crime has skyrocketed, including the rape and murder of children and adults alike. In fact, kids can’t even go to school anymore without going through airport-style security systems. I used to walk to school on my own.
In addition, the economy has gone down the drain as people believe redistribution is OK. The educational system, once one of the best, is now one of the worst among “first-world” nations.
Some people think this represents an age of “enlightenment” but I can’t bring myself to believe that increased violent crime and immorality is somehow enlightened. It’s more like the Dark Ages.
Other great nations that had such “enlightenments” and ended up shunning the 10 Commandments in favor of immorality were the Roman Empire, the Russian/Soviet Empire, French Empire, Mongol Empire, and the list goes on. Surely they all had other complications, but immorality that led to internal war doomed them all.
Perhaps we should return to following a standard of morality that when adhered to, had been successful for millennia, and in the USA, for two centuries, before the unholy alliance of public schools, media, and government talked our society out of it.