Archive | FSP RSS feed for this section

Doug Smith: Age and Experience

6 Feb

DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith: Author, Historian and lead contributor to Free State Patriot

 

One of the (many, and legitimate) criticisms of Obama is his lack of experience before taking the Presidency. Many are leveling the same criticism at the top 4 GOP candidates for the replacement. It is worth noting that despite many with a great deal of experience, the folks are choosing people they think would do a better job without the experience of say, a Chris Christie or a Jeb Bush.  The founders did not include a requirement of political experience for the Presidency. Only age (which ostensibly equates to experience and wisdom, but then, they never met Donald Trump) and citizenship (which ostensibly equates to interest and loyalty to the nation, but again, they never met Barack Obama).

superhero-businessman-revealing-american-flag-classic-superman-pose-tearing-his-shirt-open-to-reveal-t-shirt-concept-59485146

Ought we to add to the requirements a demonstrated time of successful public service? Then a back bencher, who had the Gallipoli disaster on his resume, could never have become the Churchill who saved England. Perhaps it is more the nature of one’s experience that matters. Demonstrably, community organizing, encouraging riots and civil disobedience, orchestrating shakedowns of successful businesses, do not equate to preparation to lead a nation. While a failed shopkeeper may learn from his mistakes enough to lead an Army to victory and a nation to begin rebuilding.
Ought we to raise the minimum age, noting that 35 was well into the last quarter of life in the 1780s? Well, perhaps, but age, as we can well note, does not always denote wisdom or ability. Certain it is that not all our elders are men of vision or wisdom. How do we choose leaders that will make us better off than we were, who will keep us safe, who will increase our freedoms and not become tyrants?
Chances are, we will do none of these things. For we are of an era who chooses our leaders by the mob, as led by the most successful demagogues. And who has the courage to oppose the mob?
Mr. Churchill did, and the mob threw him under the double decker bus as soon as their need for a war time leader was past.

245px-Sir_Winston_S_Churchill
Do we have leaders of such vision, who, knowing the will lead the people through a crisis, and then be left behind, will lead anyway? How do we as a people choose to delegate our personal power into political power to leaders of wisdom and prudence?  How do we function as a free people, and not as a mob?
Free people stood toe to toe with the British Army and forged a nation. Free people carved out a government that set the stage for the most successful nation in history. The mob?
The mob is Robespierre, the French Terror, and the Guillotine.  The mob is Ferguson. The mob is Baltimore. The mob is Melissa Glick, the Mizzou prof who assaulted a student reporter and called, like some drug addled Marc Antony for the mob to come and complete her work.   The mob is senseless violence, soiling one’s own nest, turning on one’s own, for imagined slights and a sense of entitlement. Barack Obama depends on the mob for his leadership.

bald-eagle-american-flag-front-32160142
The survivors of Lexington and Concord did not expect anyone to give them anything. They did demand to be left alone to pursue their business and make their lives. They formed a government for mutual defense and common cause, to have life, liberty, and to pursue, each in his own way, and with his own effort, happiness.
If we are to be a free people, we must choose leaders who are committed to leading a free people. If we choose the loudest voice in the mob, we will become the mob. Or its victims.

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: Here’s to flawed candidates

1 Feb

DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith: Author, Historian and lead contributor to Free State Patriot

 

Donald Trump is a flawed candidate. Ted Cruz is a flawed candidate. But I’m not waiting for a perfect candidate. I’m ok with flawed. I am flawed. (Don’t let my wife read this!) I just want him to do a better job than the current POTUS. That is not a very high bar.

Trump and Cruz both bring a lot to the discussion, and address anger of the electorate and the fight against the decline of the country.

So I am not happy at NRO and the GOP throwing darts at Trump, and, to a lesser extent, Cruz, the number 1 and 2 candidates for our party; one in the name of Ideological purity and the other in the interest of status quo. Come on! No Republican candidate should have to run against both the Democrats and the GOP.

FLAWED

So how about we stop shooting at our wounded and think of reasons to vote for the next flawed POTUS.

Let’s throw the darts at Liberal Democrat policies. Let’s blast radicals and criminals who want to rule over us. (Not govern, Rule!)

NRO and the GOP leadership maintain it risky to believe what Trump says. Yet is it less risky to believe Mitch McConnell? John Boehner? Paul Ryan? Bush 41? Bush 43?

Has Mitch “repealed Obamacare, root and branch “, as he promised, or raced with Boehner to surrender to Obama’s every whim?

George HW Bush said, ” Read my Lips: No new taxes. “ Followed by, I’m in, I can deal with Ted Kennedy, thanks for the votes, but you’re screwed.”

Dubya said “I am a compassionate Conservative.” That translated to only 12 vetoes in 8 years, and huge increases in entitlement spending.

McConnell, Boehner, Bush 41, Bush 43 were all flawed Republicans.

FLAWED 2

donald

I first pulled the lever for Republican Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter. Reagan was a great, though flawed, President. I have consistently voted since then, for flawed GOP candidates. Sometimes I had to hold my nose, as when voting for John McCain, then wolfing down the Alka-Seltzers.

I have been pretty consistently lied to and betrayed by the GOP who ostensibly shares and will fight for my values for a long time. We had a brief shining moment with the Gingrich insurgency’s Contract with America, followed by increasingly blatant lies from my own party. That’s right, it was mine. I voted, I sent money, I worked to see Republicans elected. I saw a GOP takeover of my home state, WV’s legislature, for the 1st time in 80 years.

And for what? Could Obama have done any better with Democrats in control? The fact that a lifelong Republican can ponder that question speaks volumes to the flaws in the GOP.

Perhaps it is a bit Nihilistic to support Trump, a flawed candidate, hoping that his words will be more true than the GOP has been, that he will act on the ” Plague on both your houses” feeling, and, emulating Jesus with the money changers, tear down some comfortable crooks in the most second most corrupt crime family in history, The US Congress. (The Clinton Foundation, of course, is number one, with the Gambinos just behind.)

I recall William F Buckley’s Dictum to support the most conservative candidate who can viably hope to be elected.

We did not do that with Bob Dole. Or John McCain. Or Mitt Romney. Or even George W Bush. That gave us several losses and liberal Presidents. And one big government Progressive Republican. (That is what compassionate conservative apparently means.)

So, what does that leave us? We have a number of flawed people running for President. One of these flawed candidates is going to be the next POTUS.

We can easily look around and know we don’t need 4 more years of Liberalism.

Here’s to our flawed candidates.

 

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: A Way to end the “Cornfusion” in Iowa

30 Jan

 

 DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith:  Author, Historian and lead contributor to Free State Patriot

It is time to clear up the Cornfusion in Iowa.

 Ethanol from Corn has NOT worked out as a fuel source. Neither has Cold Fusion. (See what I did there?)   After all, what has Iowa given us? The Music Man, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and ethanol.

ETHANOL

 We don’t need ethanol in our cars. We certainly don’t need another Jimmy Obama. We do need that clarity.  So, here are my thoughts: 

 My neighboring state of Kentucky has a successful industry converting corn into ethanol. The Kentucky form of ethanol does not pollute or hurt car engines. It does not required taxpayer subsidies to survive: it sells very well, without coercion, and produces a tidy tax base.

 Whiskey has a long tradition in America. It was once practically currency. (See the Whiskey Rebellion)

 The 2 big centers for American Whiskey are Kentucky and Tennessee. Once, the technology centers were Boston and Silicon Valley. Then Raleigh, NC came up with Research Triangle and the 3rd great center was born.  

rye

  The time has come for Iowa whiskey. The corn is already there. Distilleries are already there. Add some oak barrels, some transplanted Scots, or Irishmen, or Kentuckians, and we have a whole new industry, ready to explode on the scene.  

 Or…NASCAR.  I can see it now: The Ethanol 500. We’ll promote it at the Newton Motor Speedway in Iowa. All cars for the race will be modified to run on pure Iowa Whiskey. It doesn’t need to be aged in Oak barrels for this. West Virginians will be glad to supply them with Mason Jars.  

  Never mind, we will work out the details.  I’ll get a jacket for the Landon Cassel (NASCAR driver from Iowa, for the uninitiated) team.  Kellogg’s can be a sponsor. 

 We can further start an Off Broadway venue and drum (see what I did there?) it up as the new face of Iowa. We can build the Professor Harold Hill Theater, on River City Drive. And the patrons, who will come from far and wide, can have a few shots of Paroo Whiskey along with their Corn Pudding for dinner before the show. 

 Baseball!  Kevin Costner showed us the way. Baseball diamonds in the midst of corn rows. Iowa needs the next MLB expansion team. Who doesn’t love baseball, and of course, Corn Dogs!

Ethanol_plant

 Politics is only every 4 years, but whiskey is all the time. Baseball has a nice long season. And they will all turn out for the games. Yes, the Sioux City Hawks will have a large and loyal following. Taking a note from Green Bay, they can wear a corn cob hat. 

 Those Hawkeyes are not very good at politics. The winners of the Hawkeye “Cauceye” are more often the loser than the winner of the big Enchilada. (That would be the Presidency, not the Mexican food made with, yep, you guessed it, corn). Yes, they will be making so much money, and having so much fun, that the next political train wreck “a La Carter” or Obama will have to come from somewhere else.

 Arkansas, perhaps.  

 This will work!

 

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Iran nuclear deal could yield disaster

29 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

1.29.16

Americans believe terrorism is our No. 1 problem, according to a recent Gallup Poll.

But could the U.S. actually be helping finance terrorist activity? Well, according to our nation’s top diplomat, it’s very likely.

iran nuclear 1

As reported by multiple news agencies, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted last week that a portion of the billions of dollars of U.S. sanctions relief from the Obama administration’s controversial nuclear deal with Iran will likely support terrorist groups. During an interview just outside the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Kerry confirmed the stunning information.

 

“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists,” he acknowledged to CNBC. “You know, to some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.”

 

These “labeled” terrorists could acquire a portion of roughly $100 billion in sanctions relief, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. The money, derived mainly from Iranian oil sales, has reportedly been tied up in international banks as a result of the sanctions. But now, these funds are being freed into the hands of people who really don’t care much for America.

 

So, let me see if I understand this scenario. Not only is the United States paving the way for a nuclear prolific Iran and a potential arms race in the Middle East, we’re actually going to help finance the terrorists who will eventually seek to use it toward our destruction?

 

Frankly, the elements of this agreement reach new levels of lunacy. Appeasement and compromise have always been deemed acts of weakness by our enemies and come as no surprise from this administration. But any proposition that actually helps fund our nation’s greatest fear seems to me to be nothing short of treason.

 

Iran has been recognized by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terror for years and has never given America any reason to trust it – in fact, quite the opposite.

Iran has perpetually lied about its nuclear aspirations, claiming it was strictly for peaceful purposes.

 

A December 2015 report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency indicated that Iran “had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” and that some activities may still be ongoing.

 

And Iran remains a sworn enemy of the U.S. and Israel. In March 2015, amid negotiations with the United States and its allies, a speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was interrupted by the chant “Death to America.” He reportedly smiled and responded, “Of course yes, death to America.”

 

Americans simply cannot feel safe with an administration that consistently proves it’s willing to gamble with lives for no other reason than to adorn this president’s legacy.

 

We need leadership in 2016 that will put an end to this deal and other “fruits” of this failed liberal experiment.

 

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran just might be pivotal to disaster for the U.S.

 

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Republicans must support their nominee

22 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

1.22.16

As I watch members of the GOP cannibalize their own day after day, I can’t help but wonder if we might be witnessing the total collapse of the Republican Party as we’ve come to know it.

Following President Obama’s final State of the Union address last week, the Republican response was given by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Now, typically, the response is used to offer the GOP perspective of the state of the union, often in stark contrast with the president’s. But this address was very different.

 

A significant portion of the governor’s speech took aim at Republican leaders and their rightful ownership of the dysfunction of Washington.

“We as Republicans need to own that truth,” she added. “We need to recognize our contributions to the erosion of the public trust in America’s leadership. We need to accept that we’ve played a role in how and why our government is broken.”

 

Well spoken, empress of the obvious. While confession is good for the soul, only substantive solutions will change the ebb and tide of this political storm.

 

But then, and possibly for the first time ever in a state of the union response, Haley and the GOP establishment she represented proceeded to challenge the Republican presidential front-runner, Donald Trump, and his hardcore stance on immigration.

 

“Immigrants have been coming to our shores for generations to live the dream that is America. They wanted better for their children than for themselves,” she said. While the immigration system must be repaired, she said, “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

 

While I’m no fan of “the Donald,” how can the GOP be so short-sighted! Heaven forbid that Trump would indeed win the Republican nomination, but stranger things have happened. What if he’s successful at carrying this torch to his final destination? What if Americans really feel they’ve exhausted all other options? Where will Republicans be then?

It’s very telling that not only are half of Americans willing to give a neurotic liar and a professed socialist a shot at the presidency in order to perpetuate their progressive, leftist regime, a significant portion of the right are considering a paradigm shift in their conservative mentality simply to get our nation back on track. Hence, the Trump factor.

 

The one condition most Americans can surely agree upon is the state of our nation is in no way being improved by the listless group of elected officials who have lied and bamboozled their way into office only to sell their constituencies down the river. And the GOP is falling exceedingly short in presenting a unified front with real solutions to our nation’s woes.

 

And if Republicans refuse to support their party’s nominee in 2016, it may indeed be the end of the Grand Ole’ Party in the U.S.

 

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Our nation’s woes result from poor choices

17 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Jan 15, 2016

Have you ever noticed how liberals respond when a Christian suggests the precepts of God’s Word as a solution to our nation’s woes?

cross

 

In fact, commentary regarding Christianity and its value in our society seems to draw the most vehement confutation from progressives. Following any such “Godly” expression, one will surely be poorly lectured on the “separation of church and state” and the edicts of the First Amendment.

 

I never cease to be amazed at how liberals are so “proficient” at ensuring “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” but so inept at protecting “the free exercise thereof ”

It isn’t difficult to correlate the plight of our nation with the decline of our acceptance of God’s will for our country. Deuteronomy 11:26-28 clearly makes the connection.

“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse – the blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the Lord your God”

 

Each of us makes choices, directly or indirectly, based upon the values and principles we’ve adopted through our life’s learnings. But as a nation, we’ve made some devastatingly poor choices, many within our own judicial system. And as a nation, we’ve paid the price.

 

The decision by the Supreme Court in 1962 that allowing prayer in public schools amounted to government promotion of religion was a huge mistake and gave progressives the foothold they now leverage in attempting to remove any semblance of God from a public venue. It also paved the way for the 1963 decision to remove Bible reading and make the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer unconstitutional.

 

Abe Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” We are now reaping from those progressive seeds of the ’60s.

 

A decade later the court gave us the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade that protected a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The decision was meant to be balanced between protecting the women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life and viability outside the womb.

 

Half a century later, it’s potentially easier to take the life of an innocent baby than it is to purchase cold medicine. And way too often, it’s not to protect the health of the mother – it’s simply a matter of “inconvenience.”

Our nation didn’t go astray overnight. Our country has been progressively desensitized to inhumanity. The clarity between good and evil has become blurred and it’s driven society to choose the temporal pleasures of life.

 

The Bible says, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

 

Have we come too far to ever comply with this condition for restoration? I’m not optimistic.

 

But we must begin at some point. Now is a good time.

 

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Obama plans surge in executive orders

14 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Jan 8, 2016

President Obama has but one year to complete his fundamental transformation of America into a humble, apologetic nation satiated with socialist and progressive tendencies. And unfortunately, whether by design or fortuity, Congress has become so dysfunctional, he just may be able to complete his mission via executive order.

In what I expect to be a rampant executive surge by Obama that frankly could border on the edge of dictatorship, we could see our lives impacted by major policy decisions made without any congressional or judicial input.

immigration 1

 

In a New Year’s Day address, the president shared his 2016 resolution was to complete “unfinished business,” which included addressing gun violence, as reported by multiple news agencies. In his message Obama paraded his frustration over a feckless Congress and its inaction and said he planned to meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch “to discuss ways of reducing gun violence unilaterally through measures that do not require congressional approval.”

Allow me to re-ask liberals a simple question I posed in a previous column on gun control. What stricter gun law would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings?

Interestingly, Glen Kessler, a Washington Post fact checker, recently decided to fact check a statement made by Sen. Marco Rubio during a “CBS This Morning” interview in which he said, “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”

 

In his “fact checker” column, Kessler writes his decision to scrutinize Rubio’s remark was prompted by a colleague who suggested that “it was almost certainly incorrect” and “posed an interesting challenge.”

 

But after a thorough vetting, Rubio’s statement received “The Geppetto Checkmark,” which is given only to statements and claims that contain “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

 

The fact is, Obama and liberal Democrats cannot name a single gun law that would have prevented these shootings, yet they continue to shamelessly exploit these tragedies in order to advance their gun ideology.

 

So, what is the liberal motive here? In an era when the average citizen’s greatest concern is domestic terrorism, shouldn’t the conversation be about protecting Americans – not disarming them?

 

In fairness, Obama’s initial proposals, such as broadening background checks, are likely to be fairly easy sells to the American people.

But progressive methodology involves advancing the status quo one victory at a time. As with the tragedy of abortion over the years, expect the restrictions on gun owners to continue to evolve and increase, until the final objective is met. And remember, liberals believe the fewer the guns – the fewer the crimes, so you do the math.

 

Sadly, it will take both Democrats and Republicans to stop the Obama surge, and that isn’t likely.

 

It’s time for conservatives to take a “progressive” approach to regaining control of Washington and focus on accumulating our share of victories.

 

Returning our nation to greatness will be a marathon; not a sprint.

 

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Liberals apply double standard on religious tolerance

3 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Updated Jan 1, 2016

Progressives waste no time quoting the First Amendment when there’s the slightest reference to Christianity in a public venue. But where is their outrage over similar references to the Muslim religion?

 

In a September Fox News opinion column by Todd Starnes, he shares an incredulous example of what can easily be viewed as public school “indoctrination” of the Islamic religion.

 

Seventh-graders at Spring Middle School in Maury County, Tenn., spent three weeks covering Islam in a social studies class. Some parents were outraged, claiming the lesson plan not only crossed the line into indoctrination, but proselytization as well.

“I am not pleased that my 12-year-old was taught the Islamic conversion prayer,” parent Brandi Porterfield told Starnes.

 

Starnes shares that another parent, Joy Ellis, was also “fired up” about her daughter’s class work.

 

“I was very angry that my child, my Christian child, was made to profess that Allah was the only God,” she told Starnes.

 

Apparently, part of the lesson included requiring each student to write the “Shahada” – “There is no God but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” Starnes also writes the students learned the “Five Pillars of Islam.”

 

Porterfield told Starnes she did not have a problem with the school teaching about Islam, but was upset that other religions didn’t get equal time.”to me, that is state-sponsored prayer in schools,” said Porterfield.

 

Porterfield is exactly right. I whole-heartedly agree with Starnes when he asks, “Could you imagine the outcry from liberal activists if the students had been forced to write, ‘Jesus is Lord’? ” The ACLU, along with every other liberal-minded group, would be climbing all over this public school system. And the liberal media would be like “white on rice” with their coverage!

 

The double standard in religious tolerance by liberals in our nation is as obvious as the nose on your face and fostered, in part, by President Obama. While many quotes are available from various sources, Obama’s 2009 speech at Cairo University is very telling in his understanding of his role as “protector-in-chief” of the Muslim faith.

 

“That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

So, one may ask, where are the president’s long and eloquent speeches protecting the Christian faith? Certainly one would have to agree Christians are increasingly under attack both at home and abroad. But on this, our president’s silence is deafening.

 

Frankly, the Muslim faith, at this point, is inconsequential to the progressive movement and poses little threat. Liberals couldn’t care less if the Five Pillars of Islam were posted in front of a courthouse or if a copy of the Koran was left in your hotel room.

 

Any you’ll never hear a liberal question “Allah’s word.”

 

Liberals attack Christianity in America because it denies the “free-form” tenets of the progressive movement; hence the double-standard.

 

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , ,

It’s time for U.S. to deal with “Jihadist” abuse

26 Dec

DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith: Author, historian and lead contributor to Free State Patriot

12.26.15

islam first

 

The Muslim world is rampant with cultural pathologies that keep it living largely in the mean and barbaric world of the 7th Century Arab peninsula. Common sense says that Western, civilized nations will look askance at that world, and view them with suspicion, and natural fear, and a sense of self preservation.  We do not fear the Muslim world because they look, speak, or believe differently. We do so because they demonstrably generate people who try, often successfully, to kill us because we look, speak, or believe differently. Fearing this is a sensible thing to do. Defending against it is a sensible thing to do.

Rational people begin to question why leaders continue to assure them of things they know to be wrong. They wonder why they tell them not to fear that which they know to be fearful, and trust that which they know to be undependable.

islam 1

I think one answer may be that Islamists are analogous to abusive men, and their apologists play the role of the battered woman. He didn’t really mean to hit me.

(They don’t really want to blow us up, they love peace.)

 

It was my fault. I started it. I told him that he needed to get a job and stop drinking.

(It was our fault. I started it. We locked up some of the murderers and noted the fact that such murderers seem, overwhelmingly to issue forth from one group of people. We said stuff they don’t like. Of Course they would want to murder us in return.)

islam 2

 

He’s really sorry.  He’s being so nice now. I have to forgive him or he’ll get mad again.

(CAIR regrets that people died. Muslims are really worried that we will get made and hurt their feelings.)

 

All I have to do is figure out how to change so that I never do anything to set him off. .  I know if I’m nicer to him, he won’t hit me again.

(All we have to do is do everything exactly like they do, and we won’t set them off.)

 

Reality check?

Abusive men will beat and assault the women in their lives many times before they report it. They will finally either kill her, unless she finally manages to escape.

islam 3

The cycle repeats over and over, building tension, violence, contrition and affection.  Finally the learned actions no longer work.  Avoiding the things that set him off don’t matter: he will still beat her. Giving him what he wants always, being properly submissive no longer works: He will still beat her.

And in dealing with Islamism, they attack and murder over and over. They plan, prepare, attack, then we hear how the big fear is not the attackers murdering us, but the victims over reacting. No matter what the West does, it is not enough, and leads to more attacks. Many try to deny it, or excuse it, but still they beat their victims.  (Is it totally coincidental that in Islamist countries women are beaten regularly, legally, and often fatally?)

The abusive man does not cease to abuse because of what his wife or girlfriend does to change him.  He stops because either he gets help for his issues, he kills her, she kills him, or he is shot by police.

Or:

She finally manages to overcome her learned helplessness and escapes to a shelter. She finds protection from someone stronger.

For the abusers of Islamism, their victims have limited escape: the West. Most notably, the US.

They can gain safety because the US military, like the police, will react with outrage to atrocious acts. The US, like right thinking people, will defend their victims, and kill murderers until they are unable or unwilling to murder any more.

Unless the US becomes the battered victim.

martial law

It is time to remember that we are strong. It is time to stop being the helpless victim, trying desperately to placate the one who beats us at a whim, and at will.

It is time to remember that we are still, for the moment, the biggest dog on the porch. And that biting our tail, or stealing our food, is a terrible mistake.

 

Tags: , ,

Writer “fact checks” Obama’s reaction to San Bernardino shooting

21 Dec

kevin rice

Kevin Rice: Regular contributor to Free State Patriot

12.21.15

 

Speaking to CBS News moments after news of the shooting, President Obama said in the interview. “We should never think that this is just something that just happens in the ordinary course of events because it doesn’t happen with the same frequency in other countries.”

The tragedies of gun related violence are horrific. There is no justification for the cold blooded termination of people’s lives. But instead of consolation or offering a measure to assist the average citizen protect and defend themselves and others from such events. Such as the training and liberty to own and defend oneself. The training and arming of the average American citizen would greatly reduce the number of casualties associated with these events. The reduction of the occurrence of these events may be completely outside of the control of the average American citizen but the reduction of mass shooting related casualties is a viable option with appropriate training and liberty to exercise our right “to keep and bear arms.”

2nd amendment

Let us take a moment to fact check Mr. Obama’s claim that these events do not happen at the same frequency in other countries. According to the archived data based on OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) statistics the United States ranks seventh in rampage shooting fatalities per million people.

“Rampage Shooting Index, covering the five year period beginning on January 1, 2009 and ending on December 31, 2013”

Rampage Shooting Fatalities (2009-2013) Per 1,000,000 Total Rampage Shooting Fatalities (2009-2013) Fatal Rampage Shooting Incidents (2009-2013) Per 1,000,000 Total Fatal Rampage Shooting Incidents (2009-2013) Population Level of Firearm Regulation
Norway 15.3 77 0.19 1 5033675 Restrictive
Finland 1.85 8 0.37 2 5421827 Restrictive
Slovakia 1.47 8 0.19 1 5445324 Restrictive
Israel 1.38 11 0.25 2 7941900 Restrictive
Switzerland 0.75 6 0.25 2 8000000 Restrictive
United States 0.72 227 0.12 38 314941000 Permissive
Belgium 0.63 7 0.09 1 11041266 Permissive
Netherlands 0.42 7 0.06 1 16751323 Restrictive
Germany 0.31 25 0.04 3 81799600 Restrictive
United Kingdom 0.19 13 0.02 1 62262000 Restrictive
Canada 0.17 6 0.06 2 35010000 Restrictive
France 0.06 4 0.02 1 65350000 Restrictive

 

Could the frequency of rampage shooting not be a factor of guns but of population tendencies towards violence? To examine this hypothesis let us look at the fact that the USA has a population of over 315 million people. When you compare this to the number of people living in countries like France (65 million) or Israel (79 million) it is obvious that the USA is a massive country. The probability of a mentally disturbed individual going on a shooting spree could be uniform (let’s say and average of 1 per million) and the USA would still have more shooting in 5 years than most other countries.

This being said the rational of a mass shooter is an irrational unpredictable variable. Obama would lead the people to believe that the common variable in all these shooting is the access to firearms. When you evaluate this data you can see that of the top 10 countries with mass shootings only 2 have permissive firearms regulations. Within the top 5 all have restrictive firearms regulations. In light of this increasing restrictions of guns possess a greater risk of the US moving into the top 5 as opposed to away from the top 5.

So what of firearm related deaths? Does the US lead the pack in the number of gun related homicides per capita?

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year

Country Method of Calculation Homicides
 Honduras (incomplete) 64.8 (2010)
 El Salvador (incomplete) 39.90 (2008)
 Jamaica (mixed years, incomplete) 39.40 (2009)
 Venezuela (mixed years) 39.00 (2000)
 Swaziland (incomplete) 37.16 (2004)
 Guatemala (incomplete) 34.8 (2010)
 Colombia (mixed years) 27.1 (2010)
 Brazil (mixed years) 18.1 (2008)
 South Africa (mixed years) 17.00 (2007)
 Panama (mixed years) 16.10 (2010)
 Mexico (mixed years) 10.00 (2010)
 Paraguay (mixed years) 7.30 (2009)
 Nicaragua (mixed years) 5.90 (2008)
 Costa Rica (mixed years) 4.6 (2006)
 United States -2013 3.55 (2013)

 

This incomplete data set listed on Wikipedia appears to indicate that the US is not even in the top 10 of the homicides per capita. As this table shows the US ranks 15 of the countries who have data listed on this webpage.

Mr. Obama needs to check his facts. The truth of the matter is “Guns do not kill people. People kill people.” No amount of gun restrictions will alter the gun related fatalities or mass shooting related fatalities within the US population. The most critical steps in curbing the number of these events and associated fatalities is

  • To be vigilant with regards to spotting behaviors that may predict such violence.
  • Improve access to affordable mental health for people who are struggling
  • Provide freedom for the American Citizens to arm and protect themselves and others especially in soft target areas.

progressives

There is no quick fix to PRVIWCISE “people related violence in which a gun is employed” Taking the guns does not help. The data present here indicates this fact. There are violent people in the world. They will find a way to act out this violence. We need to have an open discussion regarding gun freedom and mental health, not a slander campaign against the innocent gun, which if left alone would harm no one.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all the families of San Bernardino as well as all of those effected by human violence in the form of mass shooting.

 

Tags: , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →