Fractured Government

To Work and To Represent the People

    What ever happened to the politician who finds it to be an honor to represent the people?  To feel it is a privileged to serve those one represents?

     These days are gone unfortunately.  99% of politicians are what we call "career politicians".  A career politician is a person who is "serving" only to advance oneself's career.  This consist of those Senators and Congressman/woman who have been in office for more then 10+ years.  These are people who start their terms with "those I represent are asking for..." to "I believe that people need this...".  Now the development of a "nanny state" begins.  These are people who think that they themselves know what is best for their constituents without having town hall meetings for votes or listening to the people.  Like a Barrack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, John McCain, Micheal Bloomberg, and many many others.

     Picture this, a Senator has the same office, never really changes.  Same nick knacks on the shelf, same desk, same office supplies, same staff.  But what they are not noticing is that their constituents are changing, their districts are changing, their states are changing.  So constituents are getting a broken record essentially who are more influence by what other Senators feel or think of them instead of the people who voted or did not vote them in.  These "representatives" are becoming only out for themselves, how to advance their image not with the people but with the media and peers.  They forgot those who they are to represent.  So we need term limits to remind politicians that they are not going to become career politicians.  We need term limits to make sure the office changes with the times and the people they represent.

THIS IS WHY WE MUST HAVE TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESSMAN/WOMAN & SENATORS!

     We need find people who find it a right time for them to serve, for them to represent the people.  I was excited for Paul Ryan and Romney because in their language I heard "we represent the people" and "we work for the people".  Obama would say "My plan is what America needs" and "I know what is best for Americans".  Since when did Obama become my Father?  I am also appreciative in how Rand Paul is using classic ethical tactics to make a point; like he did with the filibuster.  These are people who are making sacrifice for the people.  Otherwise Rand Paul could have been just satisfied with making a statement and head back to his cozy hot tub and feel he did what he was suppose to do.

What Happened to Education?

    Did you know that high schools no longer teach government or government economics?  I have spoken to two students who verified a rumor that they were taught government in just one day.  Isn't it America's responsibility to teach the young before they are able to vote about how government works?

A semester of U.S. Government education should be REQUIRED by law to graduate from high school!

    The younger generation (including some older ones) do not even know there are three major branches of government; Legislative, Judicial, Executive branches.  I have found that majority of people assume that the President is the supreme leader or "big boss" or the "man in charge".  They don't understand that the President is only in charge of the Executive branch and that it is the President's job to represent the people by delivering proposal's, ideas, organization, influence to achieve what majority of American's want.  It was never intended for the President to become our Nanny and decide for themselves what they think is best for the people.  It is the Legislation branch responsible to take the ideas of the President and pass a law that supports what the people want in a bi-partisan way.  Then the Judicial Branch decides if it is legal or not.  What has destroyed this way of governing is the introduction of executive orders.  What use to be only allowed in times where the American people are threatened life and liberty is now being abused by President to pass policy that only they think is right for the people.  Do the people agree?  Are the people being educated about what the President wants to change or initiate?  No.

Executive orders should be limited to protection of American's life and liberty NOT person beliefs of what the President solely thinks is best for all people.

    We need to vote for those who truly want to serve, those who understand they represent the people, and those who provide the forums to become informed about how their constituents feel about a proposed policy or law.  These people need to understand that term limits are necessary for what is the only constant known to man; change.  We need to require students to learn and understand how Government works before they vote because it is our responsibility to each and every one of us to ensure that every vote is a vote based on the essential education of government.  I believe success of educated voting will prevail and our country will benefit over time.  I believe we need to limit who and when a President utilizes an executive order and force Presidents to use the legislative process to ensure proper governing; never make a person feel as if tyranny is just around the corner.  Our priority is to start at the grass roots and start conversations with people so the seed can start where it needs to be and grow.  Nothing will every happen if we just sit on our hands and only use our voice for our immediate needs without our own bubbles.

We the people need to start a peaceful revolution for change.

Knee Jerk Reactions Threaten Our Constitution

     Let me first say that what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary was a complete tragedy, a sad sad loss.  But so was the Portland mall and Aurora Theater and so on and on and on.  I was at work that day when I heard the news of Sandy Hook and my blood boiled for hours.  I was disgusted and angry with people.  And it wasn't till later when I begin to become upset at the reasons this happened.  I want change, I want to find solutions, I WANT TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!

     Not once in my mind did I think the gun was the problem; what did come to mind was mental health.  Another problem I realize is that EVERYONE knows that guns are not allowed on school grounds by ANYONE.  It is really that simple people, these are the two problems that can be fixed that will have instant long term results. Armed guards and a larger, much larger, focus on mental illness.

     You can ban all guns and it won't stop those who want to do harm with or without a gun; that is fact.  Even if a individual wanted to do harm with a bat or knife, how will an unarmed individual stop them at the doors of a school or elsewhere?  The chances are they won't be able to.  And guess what, a baseball bat can kill.  An armed teacher or professionally trained security officer or retired police or even local on duty police is the only answer to protect the one thing we cherish more than anything in this world.  There are no statistics that prove that the ban was successful.

     I ask you this, why are we not protecting our most precious innocent children when they are away from home?

     Another thing to think about.  When we ban the sales of guns, gun parts (such as magazines) then has anyone thought about who is to most benefit from this?  It will definitely not the general public because they will follow the laws and now they will be in a much more vulnerable position then ever before.  I suspect it will be the Mexican Cartel, who will find a new market to become more powerful financially, criminally, and politically.  We already know making drugs illegal in America has excited the Cartels in which they push more across the boarder then ever before.  Next it will be guns and gun parts, a highly lucrative black market even more so if they were to be banned.  I also suspect another group of our communities that will benefit from this is the criminals and gangs who are willing to do harm.  They will get the guns if they want them, but even without them, they can still be successful in crime even more then imagined simply because people will have been restricted more in defending themselves legally.  There will be more victims because those who do not necessarily want to do harm can now easily threaten others with a dangerous weapon to get what they want.  So again, who wins?  Who is safer?  Who will ultimately benefit from any sort of ban or restrictions on guns?  Definitely not law abiding citizens.

 
 I do think it should be a requirement that all gun owners have a gun safe more so if there are kids under the age of 18 living in the home.  I have heard resistance to this as well, but what harm does it really do to anyone to have a gun safe?  What about your children's friends who happens to be snooping around the house?  Or your teenagers throw a party with alcohol involved?  We all know that teenagers will attempted this no matter how well you educated and raise them.  There are safes available to keep by a bedside that is quick enough to open in order to pull out a pistol in self defense if there were a home invasion.  But I cannot say this will be the right suggestion for everyone, it must be a state issue and managed by the states and counties.  This is something we can compromise on because it doesn't restrict our ability to defend our homes and family, it just gives us more security when we are not watching our guns.  This simple addresses one of the problems with the Sandy Hook tragedy and the Portland Mall tragedy where both killers stole the guns used.

     Mental health is the top reason for these massacres.  And the second one is the locations, where it is either posted a no gun zone (malls, theaters etc.), or it is against the law to have a gun on the property (schools, court rooms etc.).  So why are we not focusing on beefing up our ability to provide the tools, resources, avenues for parents, people to use to get help?  We are obviously not doing enough.  Maybe if the mentally ill knew there would be someone shooting back at a target location, they may be forced to seek help as an alternative.  Let me repeat that, if the mentally ill knew that there would be a chance that another person would shoot back then maybe, just maybe, they will rather seek real help to avoid such anger.  I can't say this will happen but I can't say it won't.  But I can definitely say there is a better chance that it could happen.  Something I would advocate.

     What we are seeing is a knee jerk reaction by an enormous liberal, Democrat anti-gun faction.  A faction of people that are infamous for knee jerk reactions and impulsive irresponsible decision making.  As parents we know this is not responsible thinking and we do what we can to assure our children think about what they are doing before doing it.  Nothing justifies irrational, impulsive, knee jerk reactions to anything.  This sort of reaction threatens our Constitution because impulsively people suddenly are willing to burn it for good only to regret it or see no results later.

     Be careful America, our founding fathers considered the 2nd Amendment to be one of the most important rights to citizens, thus why it was #2 on the list of rights.  Then you have what the founding fathers considered to be the most important right for man kind, the 1st Amendment.  People are using the 1st Amendment to infringe on the 2nd Amendment.  People have already made progress to abridge the 2nd Amendment by using the power of the 1st Amendment.  So we have a serious issue here, an issue that could be the seed of Civil War in America.  Can it happen, absolutely.  Will it happen, god only knows; there are people who will do anything protect our constitutional rights if our government and politicians go too far.  First lets work on impeachments from local levels to the federal levels.  The people do not need a process but only their voice and willingness to stand up against our government.  I honestly believe that people are afraid of government, when in fact government should be afraid of us; reality check!

CLICK HERE FOR A HISTORICAL FACTUAL TRUTH ABOUT "ASSAULT WEAPONS"

     We must end this ridiculous assault on the semi-auto rifles just because they "look" like a machine gun or military grade gun.

     What do you support? Real solutions?  Or solutions supported by myths?  Should we target, not the operator, but the tool?  Does this make sense?  Should we make law abiding citizens more vulnerable?  Should we help the Cartels become bigger threats?  Should we avoid the nasty truth of mental health?

    All questions you should ask yourself, because its pure common sense.

  

    We the people, don't forget that!