BSA Stay Strong

This is the message I sent to the BSA National Council regarding the announcement that the BSA was considering lifting its long-standing restrictions on homosexual leaders: I was extremely shocked to learn on Monday, January 28, 2013, that the BSA was considering "removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation." After learning that Scouting conducted a 2-year study and announced in July of last year that the policy would not change, I am very upset to hear this latest announcement. As an Eagle Scout (1970), the father of 2 Eagle Scouts (2003), a member of my district’s Eagle Board of Review, and an active leader in the unit, district and council levels for over 25 years, I submit that removing the restriction would be an extremely bad idea that would permanently damage the wonderful traditions of the program and of the Scouting movement. I ask you to maintain the restrictions. I will, if you choose to lift the restrictions, no longer be involved in the program that I have devoted so much of my time, effort and life promoting and living. In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the BSA's right, as a private organization, to determine its membership requirements and criteria. There is no honorable reason for buckling under the pressure of such a small group, no matter how loud they are. Honor and character, two of the things the organization promotes and seeks to build in young men, dictate that you uphold the restriction and maintain the traditional values upon which Scouting was founded. The Duty to God we promise in the Oath means that we obey God's Law. God's Law does not tolerate the homosexual lifestyle or behavior. We cannot promise to do our duty to God, if we choose to violate God’s Law for what appears to be financial or public relations reasons. Buckling to the pressure from this small group shows cowardice. Bravery, which we try to instill in the scouts, means that we “do what is right in spite of what others might say” and that we “speak the truth.” The truth is that God’s moral law clearly condemns homosexuality of any kind. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. The latest statistics I have been able to find show that homosexuals make up 3% of the population, and yet they are committing 47% of the pedophilia. The fact that such a small segment of the population is committing such a large number of these acts means that removing the current restriction increases the threat to the youth in Scouting. As an organization, Scouting has a moral and legal duty to protect the youth, not to expose them to harm. All of those involved in Scouting promise to keep themselves “morally straight.” Since homosexuality is an abomination and violates God’s law, the mere practice of it violates the Scout Oath. Removing the restrictions then would be an act of immorality on the part of the organization. That part of the Oath in which we promise to keep ourselves morally straight would become meaningless. One of the great things about Scouting, and the reason most parents want their sons involved in the program, is Scouting’s promotion of traditional values. In a world where everything is relative and where many of the foundational institutions of our country and culture stand only for what is popular or politically correct, Scouting has provided a safe harbor from the cultural decay. The move to remove the restrictions looks like “going along to get along” with a strident minority group and the businesses and organizations who refuse to stand on moral principles. The homosexual minority seek to force the rest of the nation to agree with its unnatural behavior by bullying people and businesses into submission. Scouting should continue to stand as a bulwark in support of the traditional values the movement has promoted in its 103-year history in the U.S. Scouting should stand up to this bullying by those whose only interest is to intimidate, vilify, and isolate anyone who disagrees with their agenda. I wonder which members of the board are pushing for the removal of the restrictions. It seems to me that those board members should be removed from the board since they seem to disagree with the position that Scouting has taken in this matter. It seems that those individuals would have disqualified themselves from membership or involvement with the organization, because they do not believe in or support the values of the organization. The argument that removing the restriction makes Scouting more “tolerant” is bogus. Tolerance means allowing another to live their life as they choose and respecting the choices that other person makes, even if they are different than ours. But the homosexual lobby does not tolerate any person or any group that believes and thinks differently than they do. The homosexual lobby has no respect for those who disagree with their lifestyle and behavior. They are not interested in getting along. They are not interested in tolerance. They are only interested in forcing everyone to agree with their position and lifestyle using any and all methods of intimidation they can bring to bear. To them, any and all means, no matter how intolerant, are justified to reach the goal of forcing everyone to agree with their lifestyle and behavior. They claim that they are only seeking fairness and freedom from bias and prejudice. Yet, the homosexual minority continues to treat those who disagree with them unfairly. They are biased and prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with them. They use discriminatory tactics to force submission to their belief system. And they, who practice no fairness or tolerance, are the ones who whine about bias, prejudice, discrimination, and the lack of fairness. It is interesting that in response to the increasing secular focus of existing organizations for girls, and in an effort to promote a Judeo-Christian focused organization for their daughters, a group of parents started their own group called America Heritage Girls. American Heritage Girls is “a nonprofit organization dedicated to the mission of building women of integrity through service to God, family, community and country.” According to Jody Token, national public relations coordinator, “American Heritage Girls was founded in 1995 in Cincinnati with 10 troops and 100 members. It now has more than 22,000 members in 48 states and four countries.” If the homosexual lobby does like what Scouting stands for, they are free to not join. They are free to start their own group based on their lifestyle and principles. Instead, the homosexual lobby insists that Scouting does not have the freedom to its own beliefs and practices. Instead of being tolerant of Scouting, the homosexual lobby demands that Scouting believe only those things that they believe. And, if Scouting will not believe what they believe, they seek to destroy the foundation of a group with which they disagree. That is very intolerant. Scouting has the God-given right to determine who can belong to the organization. Succumbing to the pressures from the homosexual lobby goes squarely against the principles of Scouting. Removing the restrictions would make Scouting complicit in the destruction of our culture. And, that is wrong.

I Am A Proud Extremist

About 1-1/2 weeks ago Senator Chuck Schumer (despotcRAT - NY) described the spending cuts proposed by the republicans as extreme. By extension, the despotcRATs want the country to believe that those who support the spending cuts, that is, the people who voted to change the make-up of the House of Representatives, are extremists. Schumer, in his own words, has been instructed by the despotcRAT caucus to use the word extreme to describe the proposed spending cuts and to describe how the Tea Party has caused Boehner and the republican leadership in the house to move so far to the right.

I support the principles of the Tea Party, i.e., limited government, huge cuts in profligate federal government spending, a return to the true meaning of the Constitution, and the promotion of individual liberty, the protection of life, and the individual pursuit of happiness.

According to a recent Gallup poll, those who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters are "slightly more likely to be employed, male and definitely more conservative." Well, I am a Tea Party supporter, I am employed, I am male, and I am very conservative. So, I fit the profile. I am proud of that.

According to the despocRATs, the tyrant-and-liar-in-chief, and the leftist mainstream media, I am in the right-wing fringe. Yet, according to the poll, "age, educational background, employment status, and race [of Tea Party supporters] . . . are quite representative of the public at large." So, who really are the extremists? Are those who want to save this country from bankruptcy and restore it to the Constitutional principles established by the Founding Fathers the extremists? Or, are those who would rather drive this country into bankruptcy through irresponsible spending policies and who seek to keep their power by buying votes by giving to their favored groups the money that is earned by the hard-working people in this country?

If I am extremist, then I am proud of being an extremist. I own my extremism. Those elected to Congress last November need to be proud of being extremists, also. They need to own it. Then, they need to use it against the despotcRATs, without fear. I am an extremist (in the eyes of Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, tyrant-and-liar-in-chief, and Matthews, and the rest of the leftists), because I believe in limited government, low taxes, living within the original meaning of the Constitution, getting rid of the deficit, balancing the budget, giving people a hand up rather than a hand-out, deciding for myself how to spend my money and how to live my life, etc.

I am extremist just like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and the rest of the Founding Fathers. And, if I am the modern extremist in the mold of the Founding Fathers, then what does that make Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, tyrant-and-liar-in-chief? Are they not the modern equivalent of King George and the British Parliament? Are not Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, tyrant-and-liar-in-chief, and the despotcRAT party the oppressors?

The Republican leadership in the House needs to have the same attitude as the president expressed after he won. We "extremists" are in the majority in the House. We "extremists" in fly-over country will have their back. It is absolutely necessary that huge cuts in government spending are made, NOW. We cannot wait. Republicans in the House need to lead without fear of what the despotcRATs and the liberal state-controlled media say. They must do the right thing. They must have courage. They must have guts. They must have a backbone. We "extremists" elected them because of the promises they made to make these cuts and limit government's power. The "extemists" in the House must not back down. There is too much at stake.

If the government shuts down for a time, until we get the cuts we were promised, so be it.

God Bless You.
God Bless our Troops.
God Bless the BSA.
God Bless America.

Patriot Mark

The Repeal Amendment Would Make a Real Difference

Here is the language of a new Constitutional Amendment that would make a real difference in controlling the out-of-control federal government:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

This is the Repeal Amendment (www.repealamendment.org). According to the group’s site, “Our Founding Fathers gave enumerated powers to the federal government and reserved most of the power to the states and the people. Today, the federal government has usurped the power that the Founders originally intended for the States and the people. The Repeal Amendment is dedicated to restoring our nation’s liberty by advocating for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that restores the balance of power between the states and federal government.” I like it.

Some have suggested that the passage of the 17th Amendment, which provided for the direct popular election of Senators, was a huge breach in the wall that limited the federal government’s power. The proposed Repeal Amendment would have the effect of giving the State legislatures the ability to limit the power of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the federal government, by allowing 2/3 of the state legislatures to repeal any law or regulation by a resolution passed in the state legislatures. This could be considered a back-door way of undoing the 17th Amendment, and I really like it.

This proposal comes from Randy Barnett, who is a noted expert on the 9th Amendment. He is the author of a book titled “Restoring the Lost Constitution, the Presumption of Liberty”, which in part suggests that we should be looking at the original meaning of the Constitutional provisions, rather than the original intent of the Founding Fathers. It is not an easy read (I am only half way through it after over a year of reading it), even for a lawyer. But, from what I have read so far, it is worth reading and should be added to your library on liberty and Constitutional construction.

Marianne Moran, from south Florida, is the Executive Director of the organization promoting the amendment. Her e-mail is: marianne@repealamendment.org; her phone number is: 561-247-0502. I am getting involved. I invite those of you who are truly concerned about preserving our constitutional liberties and restoring our constitutional republic to get involved, also.

God Bless You.
God Bless America.
Remember to Keep Christ in Christmas.

Patriot Mark

Amendment 8 Would Loosen the Class Size Requirements

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 8 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 8 would revise the class size requirements for public schools.

Arguments for: Proponents of the amendment argue that its cost is simply too high in today's poor economy. They say the state can't afford to build more classrooms and hire more teachers. They say the amendment would provide needed flexibility that does not exist in the Constitution as amended in 2002.

Arguments against: Opponents say the state's voters made it clear in 2002 that they wanted to limit class sizes. Smaller classes make a better learning environment, they argue. The statewide teachers' union, the Florida Education Association, opposes the bill. The union is calling on the state to fulfill the constitutional mandate and implement the limits approved at the ballot box.

I am in favor of this amendment. Education is a participation sport -- i.e., the students must actively participate in their own education. Based on my experience both as a student and as a parent of students, the class size is not as important a factor in educating students, as is the ability of the teacher to motivate the students to want to learn and to show the students how to learn. Teachers are really facilitators. They cannot open the students' heads and pour the knowledge into the brain cavity. Besides, if class size were a factor, then no freshman in college would get good grades any of their first year classes. Unfortunately, the unions convinced everyone that students would not learn unless classes were small. I have seen no evidence that smaller class sizes have significantly improved test scores, grades, discipline, etc.

Patriot Mark

If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote, and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives. Vote against those initiatives which increase government's power and control over the individual and private entities. Vote in favor of those individuals and items that are in line with our Founding Principles.

Amendments 5 & 6 Would Change the Way Re-districting Would be done

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 5 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 5 would require that legislative districts not be drawn to favor one political party over another or deny minorities equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Arguments for: Incumbents, both Democrat and Republican, have traditionally drawn district boundaries to give themselves political advantage. Redistricting should not favor any incumbent or party.

Arguments against: The amendment might reduce minority representation. Abiding by the amendment would be difficult, and redistricting under its strictures could lead to a flurry of lawsuits.

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 6 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 6 would require that congressional districts not be drawn to favor one political party over another or deny minorities equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Arguments for: Incumbents, both Democrat and Republican, have traditionally drawn district boundaries to give themselves political advantage. Redistricting should not favor any incumbent or party.

Arguments against: The amendment might reduce minority representation. Abiding by the amendment would be difficult, and redistricting under its strictures could lead to a flurry of lawsuits.

I am voting NO on both of these. Remember, we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. The leftists, liberals and progressives want a democracy, because it works on mob rule. Our Founding Fathers specifically set up the government to prevent mob rule. From past experience, because this is supported by leftist, liberal and progressive groups, the law of unintended consequences will prevail. Thus, the arguments against will most assuredly come to fruition. I also know that when the liberal trial lawyers support it, it will become nothing more than a lawyer employment protection act. The courts should not be involved in what is a legislative process. The courts are not empowered or qualified to decide the issues of redistricting. The courts are not and never were intended to be the branch of last resort in these matters. Because the guidelines are so strict and so detailed, any minority (except white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males) will be able to scream foul, file a law suit, and tie up the process. This is a horrible idea.

Patriot Mark

If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote, and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives. Vote against those initiatives which increase government's power and control over the individual and private entities. Vote in favor of those individuals and items that are in line with our Founding Principles.

Amendment 4 Would Change Way in Which Landuse Planning would be done

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 4 would give local voters a veto over any changes in comprehensive plans.

Arguments for: Local governments have proven themselves incapable of placing the public interest before the interests of real estate developers. The people should have the final say.


Arguments against: The amendment would require votes on every change, no matter how minor. Ballots would be long and involved. Voters would be overwhelmed. Growth would grind to a halt, and the state's economy would remain mired in recession.

I will vote NO on this initiative. This is more of the progressive agenda. The progressive agenda pushes democracy. However, this country was not established as a democracy. It was set up as a republic. Pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Our republic is a representative government using democratic principles. We elect officials to represent the interests of the constituents. Mobs can be easily swayed by emotions, intimidation, and coercion from loud minorities. Our Founding Fathers sought to diminish the effect of the mob mentality by setting up the government's structure as a republic.

Making the voters cast ballots on any and all changes would overwhelm them and would slow growth. I find the arguments against, listed above, to be most persuasive. If you do not like the decisions that your representatives are making, then you have the opportunity to change those representatives during the next election. We must trust the decisions our representatives make. If you do not, then you need to elect honorable, trustworthy people to office.

Patriot Mark

If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote, and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives. Vote against those initiatives which increase government's power and control over the individual and private entities.

Florida Amendment 2 Would Provide for Further Homestead Tax breaks for deployed military personnel

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 2 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Instruct the Legislature to enact an additional homestead exemption for Florida homeowners on active military service outside the country. The size of the tax break would be based on the amount of time served overseas in the previous year.

Arguments for: Military personnel based overseas are performing important services for our country at considerable sacrifice. This amendment would help compensate them for that service.

Arguments against: Providing an additional exemption to certain property owners would reduce tax collections by hard-pressed local governments.

Frankly, our military personnel are not compensated nearly as much as they should be for the sacrifices and risks they voluntarily undertake on our behalf. This would also benefit the families of those serving. I am in favor of this Amendment.

Patriot Mark
If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives.

Florida Amendment 1 Would Repeal Public Election Financing

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 1 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 1 would end taxpayer financing of political campaigns.

Arguments for: The state is experiencing tight financial times. It makes no sense to spend taxpayers' money to subsidize campaigns when candidates can raise the money themselves.

Arguments against: The people voted overwhelmingly for the present public financing requirement 13 years ago. Public financing reduces the effect of money on politics and can open the door for candidates to run without big-money backers.

I believe that it is time to get rid of the public financing of elections. I do not believe that it has accomplished the purposes intended. Furthermore, this goes against the idea of limited government. While the State Constitution gives the Legislature the authority to pass laws regarding the conduct of elections, public financing seems to give the government too much involvement in the election process. It distorts the process in some ways. It gives the government the power to control the message, because the government controls the money.

Patriot Mark
If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot.

BP Shakedown Cop-Out

Friends:

The is adapted from an e-mail message I sent to Todd Schnitt, after hearing his idiocy regarding the Shakedown of BP by the Tyrant-and-Liar-in-Chief (a/k/a T&LIC, i.e., Obama):

Schnitt:

I am not happy to hear that you espouse and agree with Rahm Emanuel’s philosophy that “we should never let a good emergency go to waste.” Unfortunately, that is the attitude of tyrants and despots—the tyrants and despots that now occupy the White House and control our government. I have known for a while that you have a bit of a lefty bent to you and your rant about the shakedown during the 4:00 p.m. hour on your June 17, 2010 show confirmed it.

I agree that the oil spill is a disaster. I agree that BP has a huge share of the responsibility for the spill and the damage it has and will continue to cause. However, they should not be held responsible for ALL the damages caused to everyone along the Gulf Coast. Legally, they would not be responsible for the damages caused by the moratorium on drilling, etc., put in place by the Tyrant-and-Liar-in-Chief (a/k/a T&LIC, i.e., Obama). In legal parlance, the moratorium is an unforeseeable, superseding, intervening cause of the damages to all those who have been put out of work by the moratorium. There was no need for that action . . . unless you are trying to destroy the industry, or take it over. When the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred, the shipping of oil in tankers was not shut down. When a plane crashes, killing hundreds of people, the government does not ground all flights. When a car crashes and kills people, the government does not stop people from driving. The moratorium was an extreme overreaction by the T&LIC. He had no clue, and still does not have any clue, about how to manage this disaster. So, to look like he is doing something, the T&LIC resorts to bullying. Those tactics work just fine in Chicago, especially since corruption is normal in Chicago. They are morally and legally reprehensible when done by a president.

There is a more important principle here that you are completely ignoring. This is a nation of laws and not of men or of emotions. Your reaction in this situation is purely emotional. BP has admitted that they were responsible and would pay all “legitimate” claims. They have been paying legitimate claims. They have been paying for clean-up. Because we are a nation of laws, laws should be used to solve this problem, not bullying tactics. The T&LIC and his regime have done more to prevent the resolution of this problem, than they have done to provide solutions or assistance. But, this is typical of what happens when government and bureaucracies get involved.

Once you get your emotions out of the way and analyze the situation logically and objectively, you cannot conclude anything but that the $20 Billion Escrow Fund set up by BP was a shakedown by the regime. If it was “voluntary” as you claim, they would have set it up sooner. There is no doubt that the regime threatened BP with all kinds of prosecutions and legal action, including taking them over, if they did not pony up. But, to you and the regime, it appears that the rule of law does not matter in this case. This is exactly the kind of thing the FDR regime pulled during the depression. It outrages me that the rule of law and the Constitution are discarded, just because there is a disaster like this.

I fully support Barton’s initial apology. Just because Boehner, Miller and other repukegans don’t like what Barton said, doesn’t mean they are right or that you are right. You are bootstrapping your argument that Barton’s comment was wrong by using other repukegans who disagree with his assessment of the situation. You claim to be an independent thinker who calls it like it is. So, what happened to calling it like it is? I guess, you call it like it is only so long as your desire to dive in the Gulf and spend time on the beaches is not threatened. This action by the T&LIC and his regime is morally reprehensible, legally unsupportable, and totally unconstitutional. But, I guess, for you, those wimpy repukegans, the regime of the T&LIC, and the despotcRATs, the Constitutional limitations on government aren’t valid or important when there is an emergency and a disaster. Besides, we should "[n]ever let a serious crisis go to waste. . . . [because] it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." It gives the T&LIC the "opportunity" to do things like forcing a private company to divest itself of all of its profits for a year by intimidating and threatening its officers. Wait, . . . isn't that what happened to the financial institutions who were forced to accept TARP money. Oh, wait, . . . isn't that what happened to Chrysler and GM when they were taken over by the regime. The government is the root cause of this whole disaster because of it regulations and its cow-towing to the extremist environmentalists. You are wrong, Schnitt! Where and when will the rule of bullying end? Will radio stations be next to be strong-armed by the regime? You need to put your emotions aside and base your assessment on the facts and the rule of law. If this action by the regime continues and no one steps up to stop it, our Nation is doomed to become a dictatorship under the T&LIC and his regime.

When we are afraid of our government, instead of our government being afraid of us, we are in serious trouble as a republic. (By the way, the USA was set up as a REPUBLIC, and not a democracy. The Founding Fathers abhorred a democratic government, because they knew it was nothing more than mob rule.) I would suggest that you seriously consider the long-term consequences of the position you are taking in this matter. It is unfortunate, because a lot of people are being hurt. But, we have laws and courts to deal with it. It is not within the authority of the president to take these kinds of actions. It is the president’s responsibility to enforce the existing laws; it is not his prerogative to make it up as he goes. He does not have the constitutional right or authority to usurp the power and authority of the legislature or the courts. You either support the Constitution and the rule of law or you don’t. We either abide by the rule of law and the Constitution all of the time and in all circumstances, or we allow tyranny to exist. In this case, you are not supporting the rule of law or the Constitution. You cannot have it both ways. I am disappointed in your misguided, emotionally-driven position in this matter.

God Bless you.
God Bless the BSA.
God Bless our Troops.
God Bless America (the greatest country that has ever existed in the history of man).

Patriot Mark

Profiling is Good

I was watching an episode of "The Good Wife" a couple weeks ago. One of the story lines involved a law suit brought against a newspaper for contributing to the death of one of the paper’s staff in a bombing of the newspaper building. The bombing was allegedly the work of Muslims upset about the paper having published a political cartoon depicting Mohammed going through an airport security screening. While the defense firm was working on the newspaper's defense, the firm’s investigator was asked to look into the backgrounds of all the employees who might be middle eastern and/or Muslim. The investigator made a comment complaining about having to engage in racial profiling.

I am sick and tired of the race card being played in these circumstances. I have been a practicing lawyer and litigator for 28 years. I spent about 12 of those years doing criminal defense work. So, I am very sensitive to and adamant about protecting individual civil rights. I was on the front line for many years defending the Constitutional rights of my clients against the overwhelming resources of the state. I was always (and still am) suspicious of law enforcement. They are human and are subject to the same imperfections, motivations, and weaknesses as the rest of us. Unfortunately, I have come into contact with some bad apples in my career. On the other hand, the vast majority of them are fine professionals who are trying to do a very difficult and dangerous job. Yet, as in any walk of life, there are bad ones.

The complaint about racial profiling is political corruption run amuck. In my opinion, the people screaming the loudest about it are the biggest racists. And because these racists scream so loud and their voices are amplified by the liberal media, the rest of us are intimidated and fearful of speaking the truth. The truth is that there is no racial profiling when law enforcement does its job properly. It is because these politically correct loud mouths scream so loudly and have intimidated so many people with their willing accomplices in the liberal media that law enforcement’s job is made more difficult and our safety and security are jeopardized. Profiling is a standard law enforcement and criminal justice technique. Let me give you an example.

A burglary is committed in a home, at night. This is a very serious felony in my state. The owner is threatened with a hand gun and beat up by the burglar. The burglar makes off with money, jewelry and electronics. Law enforcement is called to the house. The first thing they ask the victim to do is to describe the burglar. So, let’s say that the victim describes the burglar as a black man, about 6 feet tall, with a moustache, and driving a dark sedan. A sketch is made based upon the description of the victim, and it is circulated throughout the city. A BOLO (be on the look out) or APB (all points bulletin) is broadcast and disseminated by law enforcement. Now, the description given by the victim is broadcast by the newspapers, TV and radio stations. The sketch is shown on the TV and printed in the newspaper. In the world of political correctness, the liberal loud mouths would be screaming racial profiling. Why? The suspect is a black man, and describing him as such is racist.

Once the description of the suspect is disseminated, law enforcement begins looking for a person that matches the victim’s description of the burglary suspect. Law enforcement officers begin stopping and questioning individuals that match the description given by the victim. According to the liberal loud mouths, law enforcement is now engaging in racial profiling, because the only individuals they are stopping to question are black men, with moustaches, about 6 feet tall, driving dark sedans. If law enforcement were being politically correct, they would not limit their questioning to black men. Instead, they would be stopping 70-year old Hispanic grandmothers and interrogating them about the burglary. Or, maybe, to appease the liberal loud mouths, they stop white clean-shaven males who are 5’6" feet tall and riding motorcycles for questioning. What sense does stopping and questioning people who do not match the profile make? It is a total waste of time, effort and resources to stop and question people who do not fit the profile. In the world of political correctnes, law enforcement does stop and question those who do not fit the description, because they are afraid of offending the liberal loud mouths, or are afraid of being investigated and sued for trumped up civil rights violations.

So, if the 9-11 hijackers were all middle eastern males between the ages of 25 and 34, why are white grandmothers being stopped and searched more thoroughly? How can one be a racist and a bigot when looking at people who match the description of the bad guy? The answer is simple: political correctness. Unfortunately, this political correctness will be the death of many of us and of our nation if it continues unchecked.

God Bless you. God Bless our Troops. God Bless the BSA. God Bless America.
Patriot Mark

Net Neutrality Destroys Freedom

Net neutrality is nothing more than government control of private activity and business. Net neutrality will allow the government to control content on the internet. That leads to a reduction of freedom and liberty for the individual. Those of us who believe in freedom understand that government control of information means government control of thought and beliefs. We instinctively know that this is wrong in this country, which was built on the idea that government is limited in its power over the individual. We understand and believe, just as our Founding Fathers did, that our rights come from God and that “We the People” have given some of those rights to the government so that we can live in an ordered society. We also know that information is power, and that the power is in the hands of the people, not some government bureaucrat.

The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights guarantee and protect that bedrock principle. Those who advocate net neutrality do not believe in freedom and liberty. Well . . . they do believe in freedom and liberty, but only when the words or positions of others agree with their viewpoint. According to the proponents of net neutrality, you can be free to agree with them all you want. But, when you disagree with them or show them where they are wrong, then you must be silenced. Disagreement or dissent will not be tolerated by those who wish to control us.

True freedom exists when all viewpoints, opinions and ideas are allowed to be spoken and put forth. The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make NO LAW . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” With even a rudimentary understanding of English, it is abundantly clear that NO LAW means NO LAW, including “net neutrality.” Political speech was meant to be the most highly protected of all speech. The right to truly free speech dovetails into “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The voices of the people, who consent to be governed, must not be silenced or controlled by the government.

Net neutrality is a law that is unequivocally prohibited by the First Amendment. The internet grew the way it did, and has become a place where the individual has real power, because of the lack of government control and regulation. The internet gives the individual real power to get his message out and to find answers. The liberals, lefties, progressives, socialists, and political elites hate the internet and the free flow of information it provides, because it threatens their desire to control the minds, words and actions of the masses. Cable programming has grown so fast and has become the source of information for many people, because it is not as controlled as the “public airwaves” are by the government. “Alternative” media are hated by the liberals, lefties, progressives, socialists, and political elites, because it gives out information that often disagrees with the “party” line, or it exposes the truth that they wish to keep hidden. The liberals, lefties, progressives, socialists, and political elites think that the rest of us are too stupid to know what is good for us. They think they know better about how we should live, what we should eat, what our children should learn in school, what kind of cars we should drive, what kind of light bulbs we should use, how hot or cold we should set our thermostats, what we should be allowed to read, watch or listen to, etc., etc., etc., etc.

The internet is an open market place of information. It is unfettered capitalsim. The liberals, lefties, progressives, socialists, and political elites hate capitalism because capitalism is freedom, and freedom is capitalism. Capitalism is also an expression of individual desires and dreams. The liberals, lefties, progressives, socialists, and political elites hate that also. They are more interested in the “common good” or the collective. They would rather be herding us like sheep toward their goal for us. But, we are not sheep to be herded by the elites. Our system guarantees equal protection under the law; it does not guarantee equal results by law. But, the latter is exactly what the liberals, lefties, progressives, socialists, and political elites want to promote. And the latter is socialism, pure and simple.

History has shown us, and is showing us now (e.g., Greece, Europe), that socialism does not work and will never work. But, the liberals, lefties, progressives, socialists, and political elites think that they are smarter, more educated, and are better equipped to get different results from doing the same things that have been tried before. Isn’t insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? FDR and his regime did the same things that the Tyrant-and-Liar-in-Chief (T&LIC) and his regime are now trying to do to “fix” the problems that were originally created by the government. FDR and his regime failed, and so will the T&LIC and his regime. Patrick Henry said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Unfortunately, the T&LIC and his regime full of thugs, cronies, cheaters and criminals believe that it is an instrument to restrain the people. And net neutrality is the latest weapon in their arsenal to control and restrain the people and freedom.

Humans have a natural desire to be free. God wants us to be free. Our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights guarantee our individual freedom. Governments want to control human behavior, thoughts, and actions. The liberals, lefties, progressives, socialists, and political elites especially want to control human behavior, thoughts, and actions. We must have, and are guaranteed, a free and unfettered market place where ideas can be put forth and discussed and debated. The true test of one’s belief in freedom of speech occurs when one is confronted with speech that one finds offensive or disagreeable. If you believe in freedom in general, and freedom of speech, in particular, you can clearly see how sinister net neutrality is. Net neutrality is a tool of present-day despots, tyrants and dictators. We do not want or need it here.

Remember those who paid the ultimate price to obtain, preserve and protect our freedom.
God bless you.
God bless our troops.
God bless the BSA.
God bless America.

Patriot Mark

Effect of Arizona Immigration Law on Florida

I am a second generation American. My grandparents were brought here by their parents in 1910 from Czechoslovakia and Germany. They came here legally. I am proud of my heritage. I am an American, not an hyphenated American.

I have been railing against the federal government's handling of the ILLEGAL immigration issues since 2001. Todd Marks must be applauded for standing up for us citizens and legal immigrants.

Unfortunately, the debate has been misdirected. The mainstream media in conjunction with the regime in D.C., Al Sharpton, and others are trying to make this a race issue, when it is actually a matter of safety, security, sovereignty and economics. We do not need new comprehensive immigration reform. We have had enough of that over the last few decades, and you see where that has gotten us. Previous attempts at amnesty and fixing paths to citizenship have only resulted in a bigger flood of ILLEGAL immigration.

First, we need to seal the borders. We also need elected officials and law enforcement with the steely fortitude to fully enforce the laws that are already on the books. If we do that, it would remove most, if not all of the incentives that draw the ILLEGAL immigrants, here. If we make the decision to fully enforce the present immigration laws, we will not have to worry about rounding up the ILLEGALS and deporting them. If they cannot exploit the perks of our country, they will leave and go home. If there are no benefits available to them because they cannot show that they are legally here, they will have to go elsewhere.

We have already seen examples of the effect strict enforcement will have on the ILLEGALS. After Arizona passed its law requiring state law enforcement to enforce the federal immigration laws already in effect, I saw an interview of an ILLEGAL immigrant lady who was moving her family from Arizona to Colorado because of the passage of the law. She was moving even though the law has not yet become effective. In this case, just the threat of strict enforcement was enough to cause the ILLEGAL immigrant to leave.

We are a sovereign nation which has the fundamental right and duty to protect and preserve its sovereignty and protect its citizens. Many politicians on both sides of the aisle have shown no concern for acting in the best interest of this sovereign nation or its citizens. Instead, they are acting in their own self-interest. They seem only interested in finding more voters they can buy off with pork and earmarks. We don't need any more career politicians in our elected offices. We need citizens who take a temporary leave from their private lives to serve their country and their fellow citizens and then return to their private lives. We need elected officials who will do the right thing for this nation and its citizens, rather than do whatever is expedient to insure their re-election. We need more people like Todd Marks seeking public offices.

God Bless you.
God Bless our Troops.
God Bless the BSA.
God Bless America.

Patriot Mark

I Want B. Hussein Obama to Fail

Failure of the President will in this case keep some semblance of what our Founding Fathers created intact. If B. Hussein Obama succeeds, the America our parents turned over to us will be lost, and the blood, tears, lives and property that our Founding Fathers and the others who fought to preserve our way of life, spilled and lost, will have been spilled and lost in vain. If B. Hussein Obama has his way, we will turn into a copy of France and the other socialistic countries who are financially and morally bankrupt and where liberty as we know it no longer exists. If B. Hussein Obama succeeds, the government will be even more intrusive in our lives. With that intrusiveness, comes less and less freedom. With that intrusiveness, comes bureaucrats telling each of us what kind of house we can live in, how much we can earn, what cars we can drive, what kind of light bulbs we can use, how much food we can buy, what language we can use, what words we are prohibited from using, what we can read, what we can think, etc.

So, yes I want THIS president to fail, because his success means the destruction of the USA as a beacon of liberty and freedom. The destruction of this country by B. Hussein Obama and his henchmen would decrease the standard of living of everyone living here, and of every other person on this earth. I want B. Hussein Obama to fail. I pray to God every day that people in this country will wake up and see that they are allowing themselves to be enslaved by this president and his policies. I, as a person who believes in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and who understands what the Founding Fathers wanted and were trying to do to create Liberty and Freedom for mankind, want B. Hussein Obama to fail. The socialism and fascism that B. Hussein Obama is pushing has failed every time it has been tried. It is extremely arrogant of the president and his henchmen to believe that they can do it better. I do not want this country to repeat the same mistakes.

Some people ask, "Isn't the government better suited to solve the economic probelems in which find ourselves?" First, this economic mess was created by Presidents FDR, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton, and Senators Barney Frank, B. Hussein Obama, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and all of the rest of the liberals and DemocRATs, when they enacted the Community Reinvestment Act and then used the Justice Department and groups such as ACORN to threaten and badger banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for houses they could not afford, and allowed Frank Raines and others in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to cook the books so they could pay themselves millions of dollars in bonuses. Bonuses that were based on false numbers. Efforts by George Bush and others to correct the problems with Fannie and Freddie were prevented by the DemocRATs. B. Hussein Obama and his henchmen continue to create fear by their pronouncements. There is nothing positive in this administration's message. Their vision is bigger government spending more and more money. Second, George Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and then had to deal with the attack on 9/11. Because of Bush's tax cuts, the recession was very short-lived, and led to several years of growth and rising incomes. Third, these people forget that the democRATs took over Congress in November 2006. It was shortly thereafter that the economy started to falter.

Others ask, "But, what about all the money we have spent on those unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, money that could have been used here to help people?" Bush had to go after the Islamo-facists to prevent another horrendous attack from a group of people whose only purpose in life is to kill Americans and destroy the American way of life. His strategy worked as planned. All of the terrorists descended on Afghanistan and Iraq. But for all the handcuffs placed on our military by the democRATs and the unaccountable liberal federal judges, the war would have been even shorter and more of the terrorists would have been killed or captured.

"But, what about all those intrusions by Bush on private citizens?" The truth is that private citizens were not targeted by the surveillance. Only those communications from outside the US, and particularly those emanating from countries that are known havens for terrorists, were targeted. Oh, and there were judges reviewing those "taps" through the FISA courts.

"More tax cuts and de-regulation will not solve the financial problems we are having," others say. More tax cuts are exactly what we need. I don't know of any poor people who hire workers for their businesses. Only the "rich" have the means to take the risks to start businesses that employ people. Only those with the resources seem to have the desire to start new businesses and put it all on the line. A business' purpose is not to employ people; it is to make a profit for its owners and/or shareholders. Government sucks money out of the private sector. Every dollar of government spending is one less dollar available for private investment. And, what do we get with government spending? Princess Pelosi flying all over the country in a private jet. No other Speaker before her has done that! With government spending, we get bridges to nowhere. With government spending, we get studies on why pigs stink. With government regulation, we get higher production costs and companies moving their plants to other countries where costs of production are lower. With government control, we get minimum wages that cause jobs to be lost. With government regulation, we have higher medical costs because of all the costs of compliance. And the list goes on and on. With government thinking it can fix the problem it created, we have spending bills that contain over 8,000 items of pork-barrel projects.
With government bail-outs, we shore up the weak companies, and overburden the strong companies. With government bail-outs, we reward irresponsibility and punish those who conduct their businesses wisely.

We have a president who has trashed the auto industry, who trashed the airline industry, who wants to put the coal industry out of business, and who wants to control all of your health care. The mess cannot and will not be cleaned up by the people who created it, because those people are only interested in gathering power and wealth to themselves. Even though our own history and Japan's experience in the 1990's, shows us that higher taxes and more government spending do not fix the problem, this president and his henchmen are so arrogant that they believe that the only reason this course of action has not succeeded in the past, is because government did not act fast enough and did not spend enough. If more government spending was the solution, then there should be no poverty in this county, after 40+ years of the "War on Poverty," and our public schools should be the best in the world at graduating the best and brightest students.

The solution lies in true capitalism and personal responsibility. If the government would get out of the way, by reducing taxes and de-regulating, our economy would rebound so quickly that we could take the words recession and depression out of our vocabulary. I believe this because I believe in the ingenuity and spirit of the INDIVIDUAL American. Our country was founded on the idea that it is the individual, free to pursue his own happiness, that makes this country great. Government does not make this country great. It is only a necessary evil that provides some order. The Constitution put LIMITS on what the government can and should do. However, over the decades we as a body have forgotten that or, sadly, do not comprehend or understand that. B. Hussein Obama and his henchmen do not understand this or choose to ignore the limits because of their self-centered arrogant desire to control everything.

Please B. Hussein Obama, fail and fail miserably.

God Bless you.
God Bless the BSA.
God Bless our troops.
God Bless America.

Patriot Mark

A New Birth of Freedom????

I saw the other day that Obama’s inaugural theme is "A New Birth of Freedom." I know we will not hear anything substantive in his inaugural speech. And, based on what I am hearing about his plans for our country, I do not anticipate much freedom for me.

Under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Leftists, we will have a New Birth of Freedom from our money, a New Birth of Freedom from our jobs, a New Birth of Freedom from having to pay our mortgages, a New Birth of Freedom from being able to own a gun, a New Birth of Freedom from having to pay for our own gas, a New Birth of Freedom from protection from terrorists, a New Birth of Freedom from personal responsibility, a New Birth of Freedom from the truth, a New Birth of Freedom from accountability, a New Birth of Freedom from having to work, a New Birth of Freedom from having to follow the Constitution, a New Birth of Freedom from a growing and expanding economy, and a New Birth of Freedom from common sense.

Under these leftist, we will have a New Birth of Freedom for despots and tyrants around the world, a New Birth of Freedom for the U.N. to continue to erode our sovereignty, a New Birth of Freedom for even more political correctness, a New Birth of Freedom for more multi-culturalism, a New Birth of Freedom for the government to control our lives, a New Birth of Freedom for the government to take our property, a New Birth of Freedom for the government to raise our taxes, a New Birth of Freedom for the government to take our money and give it to others who do not work, and a New Birth of Freedom for the elitists to tell us how we should live our lives, and make us live it their way.

This new birth of freedom could be a very ugly thing for us freedom-loving citizens for the next 2 years. I pray to God that I am wrong.

God Bless You. God Bless our troops. God Bless the BSA. God Bless America.
Patriot Mark