Open Letter to Bill Lee, Governor of Tennessee

To the Honorable Bill Lee, Governor of the Great State of Tennessee:

 

I'm approaching my heart transplant's 14th anniversary. Thousands of my fellow Tennesseans and Americans currently need a life-saving transplant, but only a few will ever be fortunate to receive one. After an 11-year battle with heart disease prior to receiving mine, I know it is a tremendous blessing, and one I do not take for granted.

 

Due to my transplant, I'm required to take immunosuppressants the rest of my life to ward off rejection, which places me into the COVID high risk group along with the elderly and others with pre-existing health conditions. I have, therefore, severely reduced my activities outside my home by order of my doctors since March 17, 2019 - over 9 months. Therefore, when I do venture out, it's mostly for outdoor activities, such as walking in my neighborhood or going to a park with my wife where I can distance myself from others. I have only eaten in a restaurant once since early March. I cannot take my wife out for a "date night". I've seen my 80-year old parents twice since Christmas 2019. As a Christian, I've been going to church since 9 months before I was born, but I have now not been able to attend church since the last Sunday in February.

 

I do not share all that in order for you to feel sorry for me. I know I am fortunate, because myself, my wife, my family, and most of my good friends have avoided COVID to this point. I pray everyday we stay well and thank the Good Lord for His protection, as I know that thousands of my fellow Tennesseans and millions of Americans have not been as fortunate. Currently, approximately 590,000 Tennesseans have fallen ill with about 7000 of them losing their life to the virus (here). Nationally, the numbers are much higher as things are getting worse instead of better.

 

To this point, you have not issued a statewide mask mandate. Your position has been that you prefer to allow local officials to make that decision for the counties and cities where they are in charge. I can respect that - government closer to the people is best. However, it's not working. Most local officials refuse to issue a mask mandate, and many of the ones who have, such as here in Wilson Co., have not allowed for any enforcement action. Therefore, it's the same as not having such a mandate which makes it worthless.

 

Some Tennesseans feel mask mandates violate their freedom. Well, what about the freedom of us in the high risk group to be able to leave our homes and safely go about our usual activities? Does our freedom not matter since we're sick or old?

 

Besides, Tennesseans already have to follow safety mandates every day with seatbelt and helmet laws. Both of which are enforced by law enforcement via citations and the associated fines. So, what's the difference between those state law implemented safety measures and a mask mandate during a pandemic? All have the same purpose - enhanced public safety.

 

Some argue that masks "don't work anyway". There's been studies that support such a viewpoint, but for each one of those studies, another can be found that shows that masks do help prevent the spread of illness. If mask wearing saves the life of one Tennessean, then isn't it worth it?

 

COVID patients with more severe cases feel like they're suffocating. I have an idea of what that feels like. Do you? I spent several years battling heart failure prior to my transplant. Each night when I'd lay down to try to sleep, I'd feel like I was suffocating. It's a horrible, helpless, scary experience. So, when doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals all across our state beg for a statewide mask mandate as they continue to be overrun with sick, suffering, and dying Tennesseans, they should be listened to. After all, they are the experts.

 

Some have incorrectly claimed that you do not have the authority to issue a statewide mask mandate. While it is true there is nothing within the state constitution allowing it, there is also nothing within it prohibiting it. However, state law DOES provide you such authority within Tennessee Code Annotated section, "Emergency Management Powers of the Governor", 58-2-107(e)(11). It states that, in addition to your other powers, you may, "Take measures concerning the conduct of civilians". Therefore, you would be legally within your purview as governor to issue the mask mandate.

 

Over the last few weeks, I've learned of more and more COVID+ cases among people I know personally and their families. I have friends within the healthcare field who are exhausted and stressed. Businesses and livelihoods continue to suffer as Tennesseans can't provide for their families. The suffering and dying has gone on too long already. A statewide mask mandate should've been done months ago. In fact, you said back in July that if we'd had a mask requirement in March, we might not "have had to close everything down".

 

Governor - it's not too late, but the clock is ticking.

 

Like you, I'm a Conservative, but I 100% support President-Elect Biden's plan for masks nationwide. I have no doubt you will have opposition to a statewide mandate and maybe a price to pay at the polls. However, good leaders are the ones who have the courage to do the right and needed thing even when it's difficult and unpopular. Tennessee needs you to be that guy right now. We cannot continue to wait on a vaccine as a cure or on a large enough number of Tennesseans to voluntarily put masks on outside their homes to curtail COVID spread. It hasn't worked for 9 months. It's not sustainable, and if you continue to not issue the mandate, it will most certainly result in thousands more Tennesseans suffering and dying from this horrible virus leaving grieving loved ones. 

 

Please governor - 2021 doesn't have to be like 2020. Issue the statewide mask mandate. Also, give it some teeth with penalties for law enforcement to use to enforce it vigorously. Lives are at stake.

 

Sincerely, 

The Second Chance Sheepdog

  

Proceed With Caution

Today, the ones of us who voted for Trump are at a minimum relieved while some are thrilled and celebrating. If you supported Clinton, then you're probably a little down, maybe even pissed, but the one thing all of us can agree on is that we're glad it's over. For the first time in a long time, I won't have to empty my "BS" filter before going to bed tonight.

English: Seal of the President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you supported Trump, I want to encourage you to not get too excited just yet. He is just one man and try as he might, he cannot fix all that ails the country overnight. It will take time, and he will have to have help. Plus, there are other things to consider, too. For instance:

1. Exactly what are we getting with Trump? Are we getting the Trump who years ago was a liberal? You know, the one who was "pro-choice", supported some gun control, and contributed money to liberal politicians. Or, are we getting the Trump who campaigned for the presidency on much more conservative values? The answer is - we don't know. Only time will tell.
2. Trump smacked the establishment around unmercifully, both Republicans and Democrats. Heck, some of the upper echelon Republicans didn't even support him as the party's presidential nominee. I even heard today where former President George W. Bush didn't even bother to vote for president. So, I'm wondering if the establishment in Congress will even work with Trump in fixing what ails us, which they caused, or if they will just make his life difficult.
3. The Republicans now control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They have absolute power over us, which we have given them, and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Will they limit themselves to the powers granted them by The Constitution, or will it be "anything goes"? Will they keep Trump in check, or will they set on their asses like they did with Obama and let him do whatever he wants? House Speaker Paul Ryan said today that Trump had been given a "mandate". When I heard that, shivers went up my spine. It's eerily similar to Lamar Alexander, the U.S. Senator from Tennessee, saying, "Elections have consequences" after Obama won the presidency in 2008. One party with this much power could prove to be very dangerous, folks. Contrary to what some may think, just because it's the Republicans, it doesn't mean they're saints. Some Republicans are just as low-down evil as some Democrats. I know from first-hand experience.

So, I want to encourage all of my fellow Americans, and especially the Trump supporters, to proceed with caution in regards to their post-election celebrations. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that Hillary Clinton was defeated, but the fact is we don't know where a Trump presidency will actually take us as a country. We are in uncharted waters. However, I know one place it better take us to, or we're doomed to failure, and that's the instruction of 2 Chronicles 7:14, which says:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; THEN (emphasis added) will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (KJV).

Pure Evil

Up until now, The Sheepdog's been pretty silent regarding the 2016 presidential race, and there's two reasons for that:

1. I'm sick of politics. It just keeps getting uglier and uglier. The Republicans and the Democrats are basically the same - they're in it for themselves, not to serve, and are more interested in what's good for their party instead of what's good for the country. It's why I left the GOP back in 2010. The current GOP disgusts me as much as the Democrats.
2. Plus, all the candidates, from the more than a dozen so-called Republicans that started the race, to the few Democrats, to the current third party candidates, totally suck. As my friend, The Colonel used to say, "There ain't a statesman in the bunch". Not one. You disagree? Then, let's review some of them.

The so-called "Republicans":

• Bush III - really? Another one? I can already hear the Democrats if he had won the GOP nomination, "It'll be 4 more years of the same failed policies of the past."
• The anchor baby (Rubio).
• The birther (Cruz) - I still don't understand how the GOP supported this guy after raising so much cain about Obama's birth certificate. Cruz was born in Canada. Total hypocrites.
• The Billionaire, Brattish Bully (Trump)
• George Soro's boy (Kasich).
• Chris Christie - pro-homosexual marriage and governor of one of the most anti-gun states in the country.
• Lindsey Graham - not the sharpest tack in the box and the 2016 version of John McCain.

The Democrats:

• The Progressive Extremist, and
• the Socialist.

Really? Is this the best we can do as a country?

English: Khusruwiyah Mosque in Aleppo, Syria Français : Mosquée Khosrowiyé à Alep en Syrie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And then, of course, there's the third party candidates led by Gary Johnson. You remember him, right? He wants to be Commander in Chief and institute his foreign policies, but he doesn't know where Aleppo, Syria is, the center of the Syrian refugee crisis caused by that country's civil war. Additionally, Johnson is supposedly conservative, but yet he is "pro-choice" for abortion and wants to legalize marijuana. Neither of those stances equate to conservative principles and values. He should actually be a Democrat.

Since all the candidates suck like a Hoover vacuum, who should Americans vote for? Since a third party candidate has as much chance at winning the election as a Volkswagen Beetle does at winning the Daytona 500, and both major party nominees have more baggage than a Boeing 747 headed for Europe, it's a tough choice. That is until you are aware of the information I am sharing below. It's shocking and no one is talking about it.

In fact, what I will share the remainder of this post, regarding this presidential election, is far more important than the economy, foreign policy, gun control, jobs, and even abortion. I doubt you will see this information anywhere else, but in my opinion, it's the #1 issue to consider before casting your vote for the presidency.

Back in 2009, Hillary Clinton proudly went on record as someone who "enormously" admires Margaret Sanger (click here for video). Now, who the heck is Margaret Sanger? She was a well-known proponent of eugenics after World War I. In simple terms, eugenics is the idea that some people's lives are more valuable than others. It teaches that people with "undesirable" traits should not be allowed to reproduce and pass their "undesirable" traits to their offspring. Eugenicists desire to reduce or totally eliminate such traits from the human gene pool and are not opposed to eliminating living humans possessing these "undesirable" traits. These traits include:

1. physical disabilities,
2. mental disabilities, 
3. chronic health issues a.k.a. pre-existing conditions,
4. being poor, 
5. being an immigrant, and
6. being a members of a racial or ethnic minority.

Eugenicists consider "undesirables" as "unfit", as in unfit to live, and a waste of oxygen and / or other resources. On the other hand, eugenicists believe people with "good stock", not having one or more of the traits listed above, should be encouraged to have many children. In other words they want to build "a master race." Anyone see a problem here besides me? Eugenics is a dangerous philosophy and has it's pitfalls, such as:

A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power. Furthermore, negative eugenics in particular is considered by many to be a violation of basic human rights, which include the right to reproduction. Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression instead due to a low genetic variation. - Wikipedia

Does any of this sound familiar? Think back to the 1930s and '40s and Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the Jews. The Nazis were huge proponents of eugenics which led to millions of Jews being slaughtered during World War II. The Jews were considered "undesirable", so Hitler wanted them annihilated in order to establish a master race. He might have accomplished his goal, too, if he had not been greedy, arrogant, and power hungry in deciding to go to war with the Russians, while at the same time fighting The Allies. Heck, I even read somewhere that Hitler himself admired Margaret Sanger.

English: Margaret Sanger Square is the leafy intersection of Mott St. and Bleecker St. in New York City's Greenwich Village. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Take a few minutes and Google Sanger's name. You will find that she is also the founder of Planned Parenthood. You will also find some of the things she said and  / or wrote revealing her racist ideologies and attitudes regarding African-Americans and others. She even conspired with pastors in black communities in order to get them to encourage their members to use more birth control. Her motivation was to reduce the numbers of African-Americans. She was also one of the early promoters of abortion and even spoke at women's chapters of the Ku Klux Klan (read here). So, considering all this, could it be that the original intention of abortion was not about women's freedom to choose to end unwanted pregnancies, nor the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, but it was instead rooted in bigotry and racism as a means of reducing the African-American population and others considered to be "undesirable"?

Eugenics is PURE EVIL. The Nazis proved that. It amounts to humans, sinful, fallen humans, playing God. I could provide link after link in this post showing the connection between eugenics, Margaret Sanger, racism, and other evil, but the post would run on forever. So, I encourage you to take the time and educate yourself. Get on the web, Google Sanger, eugenics, eugenicists, and do your own research. You will be shocked. You probably never knew that such evil thought processes existed in this world except in movies and TV dramas.

Typically, when someone admires another person, it is because they have something in common with them. Many times it's a shared value, principle, ideology, or goal. Since Hillary Clinton is on record as saying she admires a racist woman whose life work was in eugenics, doesn't it also stand to reason that Hillary Clinton very well may hold the same, evil views as Sanger? To me, that's the scary part of thinking about her being president.

So, what might things be like in the U.S. if a Hillary Clinton presidency were to be influenced by the values of her "hero", Sanger? In addition to the traits previously listed as "undesirable", and thinking about the above quote containing the potential problems with eugenics, consider the following:

• We already know she hates guns. In fact, some Democrats have wanted them all banned for a long time. The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" and the Brady Bill, which became law during Bill's presidency, are direct evidence of that. Would gun owners become "undesirables"?
• She's previously expressed her contempt for Christians and their beliefs. Would Christians, and perhaps Jews, and other people of faith, also become "undesirables"?
• She's has contempt for the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" and conservatives, because she thinks they're out to get her and Bill. Would they, or the Clintons' other political enemies, or people who disagree, with them become "undesirables"?
• Remember the section in The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, regarding "end of life care"? Remember how Sarah Palin and others raised concerns about that? That section of the law is so broad that it could be interpreted to mean many things. What if that section was determined to mean that people who are elderly, have chronic health conditions, or some type of disability, whose care is too expensive, should not be given medical treatment but instead just be left alone to die because they're "undesirables"? That would be a eugenicist's utopia, and ObamaCare was basically HillaryCare once upon a time. Could it get any more barbaric than that? God help us.

Now, I'm sure someone reading this post is gonna object to this line of reasoning. They'll say something like just because Hillary admires a woman who was big into eugenics doesn't mean she shares those same ideas, or, that The Sheepdog's nuts and none of this will ever happen. Well, then consider this - do you remember the adjective Hillary used to describe Donald Trump's supporters? She referred to them as "deplorable". Sounds pretty similar to "undesirables" to me, but there's more to consider in making my point than that. Please, read on.

Hillary Clinton in Hampton, NH (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I've read reports telling of an incident, involving Hillary, which took place at the Arkansas governor's mansion during Bill's gubernatorialship. An Easter egg hunt for special needs children was held. She became frustrated and upset with the youngsters, because they were finding the eggs at a much slower pace than she would have liked. So, she popped off saying, "When are they going to get these f---ing ree-tards out of here?!? You can read more about the incident here. Additionally, within the same article, she is quoted as referring to Jews as "kikes" and one Jewish man in particular as a "f***ing Jew bastard". Plus, her temper and fits of rage over the years, culminating in furniture and other items being broken in the Arkansas governor's mansion, and the White House, have been reported in various media. So, in my opinion, if you mix her temper tantrums, with her racist remarks, and her love for a eugenicist, we have a major problem. These are not the qualities we need in the White House. It's a recipe for a disaster.

Hillary made her admiration for Margaret Sanger known about 7 years ago at a Planned Parenthood awards ceremony. Others have been influenced by evil people before and later recanted their admiration for their mentor as a mistake. Hillary has had plenty of time to do the same, but yet she never has. Therefore, it only stands to reason that she still admires Sanger and her ideals. At a time when race relations are tense in this country and people are held accountable and even ostracized for bigoted behavior and words, why has Hillary Clinton not been held accountable for her allegiance to Sanger?

Another thing to consider before voting is that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will likely have the opportunity to nominate more than one justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Does it not stand to reason that anyone she nominates for the highest court in the land will likely hold the same influences, values, principles, or lack thereof (depending on how you look at it), that she does? Do you remember what United States Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee said when he was criticized for his vote confirming Sonia Sotomayor as one of Obama's Supreme Court nominees? He said, "Elections have consequences" (read here). In other words, he took the viewpoint that since Obama won the presidency, he could appoint whomever he wanted and get a free pass in doing so. What if a majority of Congress takes that same attitude during a Hillary Clinton presidency? Consider for a moment the ramifications? We cannot as freedom-loving, decent people allow her that opportunity and give her the power that comes with the presidency. We CANNOT do it.

The answer to the question of which presidential candidate to vote for is a hard one to swallow, especially for a conservative like me. Even with all his baggage, such as insulting people, being rude and crude, arrogant, and a bully, we must elect Donald Trump as president. There is no other way to stop Hillary Clinton from having absolute power and potentially setting up her own "Evil Empire". "But Sheepdog, Congress and the Supreme Court will limit her power through our system of constitutional checks and balances?" Really? Where have you been the last 8 years and the last few years of W's administration? Congress and the Supreme Court have set on their "assets" and allowed Obama to run wild. Heck, the Supreme Court even ruled that ObamaCare is constitutional!! Yet the power to regulate healthcare is mentioned NOWHERE in the constitution. NOWHERE. So, what makes you think those lazy bums will do anything to limit a President Hillary's power?

Now, look back over this post and review who a eugenicist, like "Hillary's Hero", would consider "unfit" or "undesirable" or a "weed". Now, is that you, or one of your loved ones? Is that your spouse, your child, your boyfriend / girlfriend, your parent, your best friend, or someone you care about? If it is, then you have ONLY one choice in this election - Donald Trump. If you stay home and don't vote, or vote for a third party candidate instead of Donald Trump, then you will be helping Hillary Clinton, an evil woman, gain absolute authority over you and the country. It's the equivalent of a chicken voting for a fox AND leaving the door to the chicken coop unlocked and standing open.

If Trump were running against anyone else, it's likely that myself and many others would not vote for him. So, here's what it boils down to for me. Donald Trump has said and done a lot of unacceptable stuff. However, I'm not aware of him even once expressing his admiration for someone like the evil, racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger who was also admired by Adolf Hitler. Hillary has, and she's proud of it.

Now, this article should not be interpreted as my prediction that the potential scenario I've painted will definitely happen with Hillary as president. If I could predict the future that accurately, I would have already won the PowerBall multiple times. All I'm saying is that when you put all this information together, including Hillary's fits of anger, her bigoted comments, and her admiration for a racist eugenicist, it adds up to it being too risky to give her the power of the presidency.  I'm not willing to take that risk. Are you?

So, with early voting already starting around the country, The Sheepdog is endorsing, and will be voting for, Donald Trump. I do it for one reason and one reason only - to defeat Hillary Clinton and prevent her rise to power. I want to encourage everyone to do the same. Please do not stay home and not vote. Please do not vote for a third party candidate. If you do either of these things, you will be helping The Mother of All Wolves rise to power and risking her finishing Obama's "fundamental transformation" of this country.

The Sheepdog don't like wolves, and Hillary Clinton is the epitome of a wolf. Grrrrr.....

P.S. I'm sure this post has pissed off many people. However, that was not my intention. In fact, I hope in goes viral, so please share it. I am simply a patriot and am concerned that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be a disaster. America will NOT survive it. Therefore, she must be defeated at the ballot box. Therefore, I wrote this out of love for my country and am not concerned with losing, keeping, or making friends as a result of it. It had to be said, and no one else is saying it. Too much is at stake. I'm sure some will want to leave comments, which I welcome. If you do, you MUST follow my blog policy for comments (click here to read). I had the balls to put my name on what will be considered a controversial post. So, if you don't have the "cojones" to put your name on a comment, or you fill it with profanity, it will NOT be posted.

P.P.S. If I disappear from the blogosphere after this post, it's safe to assume that either "they" got me or Google and Blogger shut the blog down. Just know I fought the good fight and did what I could to save my country from a potentially Evil Empire. 

Absolutely Baffling

As I mentioned in Tuesday's post, I've been off the net for a while. However, I've kept up with some of the goings-on. I've noticed that the wolves have been busy and that some truly baffling things are going on. One such baffling thing was the election of Mark Sanford to the U.S. House of Representatives by the people of South Carolina.

Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina, seen here as a U.S. Congressman. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It all started when Jim Demint resigned his seat in the U.S. Senate in order to go to work for the Heritage Foundation. South Carolina's Republican Governor Nikki Haley then appointed South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott to Demint's vacant U.S. Senate seat. The appointment left the U.S. House seat held by Scott vacant which led to a special election for a replacement to complete the remainder of Scott's House term.

Sanford entered the race for the vacant U.S. House seat and won the GOP primary. Next, he defeated his Democratic opponent in the general election to win a trip back to the U.S. House where he had served from 1995-2001 before becoming South Carolina governor.

Sanford is a perfect fit for Congress. He's as untruthful and untrustworthy as they come. Apparently South Carolinians have forgotten that :

• In 2009, he went missing for 6 days. He told staff he was going on a long hike on the Appalachian Trail. It turned out that the scoundrel was in Argentina with his mistress.
• Father's Day was one of the 6 days he was missing. So, it stands to reason that Sanford preferred being with his mistress and cheating on his wife over celebrating Father's Day with his children. What a dad. What an example.
• He eventually confessed to inappropriate relationships with other women, too.
• Ethics charges were filed against him alleging that taxpayer funds were spent conducting his adulteress fling.

Now, here's what I don't get - if South Carolina taxpayers can't trust him to act ethically and spend their money appropriately while in the governor's office, why did they elect him to Congress ?

Better yet, if his now ex-wife can't trust him to keep his committment to be faithful to her, how can he be trusted to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution ?

Oh, that's right - the other members of Congress don't either, so .... it's all good.

Perhaps Sanford's Congressional campaign slogan should have been something like, "My wife can't trust me, but the voters can." No wonder the dang country's screwed up, and it's our fault. We keep voting these immoral, unethical people into office. Geez.

Absolutely baffling.

Oh, ..... one other thing - did I mention that Sanford's a Republican ? And people wonder what's wrong with the Republican Party.

Related articles

• Mark Sanford reclaims House seat in comeback (thestate.com)
• Once disgraced, Sanford victorious in SC special election (firstread.nbcnews.com)
• Sanford returns to Congress, says he’ll focus on finances (thestate.com)
• Mark Sanford to take oath in return to Congress (charlotte.news14.com)
• Comedian rips Mark Sanford: South Carolina has bottomless supply of duplicitous teabags (rawstory.com)
• Sanford beats Colbert Busch in U.S. House election (marketwatch.com)
• South Carolina joke worth crying about: Sanford wins (examiner.com)
• Lester & Charlie: Sanford & Scum (huffingtonpost.com)
• Sanford wins: South Carolina voters reject family values, honesty, integrity and responsibility (dailykos.com)
• Sanford's South American Walkabout Through the Busch (progressivepress.net)

Video - "2A Today for The USA - Part 3"

Today is Firearms Friday and as promised, I am wrapping up the 3-part video series I've run this week about the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. If you missed Part 1 or Part 2, they can be watched by clicking here and here.

I hope everyone has enjoyed these videos and learned something from them. The main point I hope they have made clear for everyone is that the 2nd Amendment, and gun ownership, is not about hunting and target shooting. It is about F-R-E-E-D-O-M ...... Freedom. Yes, it's about having the freedom to own a gun, if you want to, in order to protect you and your family from whatever. It's that simple.

I may run additional similar videos in the future. In the meantime, Part 3 of this series is embedded below or can be watched by clicking here. More such videos and educational material is available at the website of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/). Be sure to visit their site and check them out.

Also, before I go, I want to thank my friend over at "The Bullet Co." for passing these along and making me aware of them.

Video - "2A Today for The USA - Part 2"

Today is part 2 of the video series I started yesterday. The video is embedded below or can be watched by clicking here. I will wrap up this video series tomorrow on Firearms Friday.

Video - "2A Today for The USA - Part 1"

Lately, in response to the senseless Sandy Hook tragedy and other shootings across the country, there has been much talk about gun control. We've heard it from Obama, other politicians, and regular everyday Americans. Some folks think more gun restrictions are necessary. Others do not. Some think better mental healthcare nationwide could reduce and even prevent these shootings.

English: Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stearns, Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, signing of U.S. Constitution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Due to the varying number of opinions, and the importance of this issue, I feel like this is a great time for all of us to take a deep breath, chill out, and take a look at the purpose, history, and rationale surrounding the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In order to do that, the rest of this week's posts on The Sheepdog will be devoted to a three-part video series put together by the JFPO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). I encourage everyone to visit their website at http://jpfo.org/ to learn more about the organization. Information about the work they do can be found there.

I also want to encourage everyone to view this series with an open mind. Listen to the information provided and the testimony of the speakers. I think that if everyone does, there is a lot to be learned in each video. Today is video #1 and it is about 7-8 minutes long as are the other two. I have embedded it below, or it can also be watched by clicking here. I always make videos posted to this blog available both ways to make the reading of my posts more convenient for people who receive my posts via e-mail, through a search engine, or a blog aggregate service.

I hope everyone finds today's first video interesting, informative, and useful. I'll post video #2 tomorrow and #3 on Friday.

Is Obama To Blame ?

Today's post is one that I've been thinking about and "Ruminating" on, as my buddy Dale likes to say, for quite some time. Since early voting has started, I decided it's time to stop rolling it around in my head and "get it on the record." It's gonna be one of those that some people like and one that really pisses some off. However, the purpose of it is not for anyone to like it or hate it. It's purpose is to get people thinking. It will also be my last one involving politics for a while.

With 2012 being a presidential election year, people are once again clamoring that "it is the most important election in the country's history." Is it ? We hear the same thing every four years, and we could argue until we are blue in the face whether or not it's true. For the last four years, we've heard Obama blame all the country's ills on former President Bush. We heard the Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives blame everything on the Republicans. We've then heard the Republicans turn around and blame it all on the Democrats. It's been politics at its finest, or its worst, depending on how you want to look at it and which side of the aisle you're on. The question is, though, whose fault is it ... really ? I'm gonna give my opinion on that question below.

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Folks who have been reading my blog for a while know that I have never been a fan of Mr. Obama. Many of my past posts make that perfectly clear. I didn't vote for him four years ago and won't this go around, either. Since he supports higher taxes, bigger government, socialized medicine, more gun control, and wants more control over Americans every day lives, I suspect that the only thing he and I would agree on is the fact that both of us like sports.

Furthermore, in prior posts, I've also made it clear that I'm no fan of Mitt Romney, either. In many ways he is a big government Liberal / Progressive just like Obama. Additionally, he has a habit of flip-flopping on issues. In fact, he flip-flopped on each of the following issues just before or right around the time he got presidential aspirations. They include :

• gun control - Romney went from anti-gun to pro-gun. As Massachusetts governor, he signed into law some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, including a permanent "assault weapons" ban.
• abortion - Romney went from pro-choice to pro-life.
• taxes - as Massachusetts governor he signed into law one tax increase after another. Now, while running for president, he wants lower taxes.

My opinion is that Romney "formally" changed his position on these issues just to get elected president but actually still holds his original position. He knew that no anti-gun, pro-abortion, tax-loving Republican would ever win the presidency.

Additionally, while Massachusetts governor, Romney initiated, supported, and signed into law the state's version of ObamaCare. In fact, ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare. Romney has stated, while campaigning for president, that he oppposes, and would work to repeal, ObamaCare, but yet he stands by the Massachusetts version of it. His reasoning is that socialized medicine is o.k. on the state level but not on the federal. Say what ?

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, 2008 US presidential candidate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I suspect that many don't know that recently, on "Meet the Press," Romney announced that he is flip-flopping on another issue, too. According to a report in NewsMax magazine titled "Romney : I'll Keep Parts of ObamaCare", he now says that after originally promising to repeal all of ObamaCare, he now only wants to repeal part of it. He wants to keep the parts protecting people with pre-existing conditions and allowing kids to stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26. Now, I support preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. However, I do not support letting "kids" stay on their parents insurance until they're 26. They should get off their butts, go get a job or open a business, and get their own insurance. Stop living on mom and dad's dime. You're 26 for crying out loud ! Once again, Romney has flip-flopped on an issue. With all his flip-flopping, I don't think the dude can be trusted to keep his word.

As for the blame game that's been going around - Obama at Bush, Congressional Democrats at Congressional Republicans and vice versa - it's time for it to stop. In my opinion, there is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, Bush should get some of it as his administration was the bailout "initiator." The blame for the housing meltdown and current recession can be laid on Bush, Obama, and presidents going all the way back to Jimmy Carter and their applicable Congresses **. During Carter's administration, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed into law, and signed by Carter, forcing banks to give home loans to people with poor credit. No Congress or presidential administration afterwards made an effort to stop this government overreach. Therefore, they are all responsible for millions of Americans currently being out of work and losing their homes and businesses. Yes, all of them. The Community Reinvestment Act should never have became law. Never.

** During the rest of this article, any time you see the term "Congress," I am referring to the entire U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, all 535 members, combined.

As for Obama, let's take a quick look at some of his first term "accomplishments." They include :

• ObamaCare is now the law of the land.
• His administration has refused to allow the expansion of domestic oil drilling, contributing to higher gas prices.
• The Patriot Act has been re-authorized, and even expanded infringing on Americans privacy even more.
• He has hired 30+ czars to help implement his agenda.
• The federal debt is now over $16 Trillion.
• He has appointed two ultra-Liberal Supreme Court Justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Now, back to my original question and title of this blog post. Is Obama to blame for the mess the country is in ? The answer is ... no, not entirely. He is to blame for some of it but not all of it. Before you say, "Sheepdog, you're off your rocker again." Allow me to explain my reasoning below. Also, please know that I don't say this in order to support Obama in any way. I just want to make the point that the blame is not 100% his.

The country's founders set up our system of governance with a Constitutional implemented system of checks and balances. Each branch (executive, legislative, and judicial) of the federal government is set up to keep the others in check, so that none of them become too powerful and get out of control. Each branch is specifically delegated certain roles and powers that MUST be followed. The problem is that the three branches aren't following their Constitutional duties anymore, and the biggest culprit is Congress.

Yes, you heard me. Most of the blame for the country's problems can be placed on Congress. For instance, think about Obama's "accomplishments" above and consider that :

• Congress could have shot down ObamaCare. 
• Congress could have pushed domestic oil-drilling forward, whether Obama wanted it or not.
• Congress could have killed The Patriot Act and its overreach into Americans' privacy.
• Congress could have said, "No czars." 
• Congress could have cut spending, but they've even refused to pass a budget for the last several years.
• Lastly, Congress could have voted down Kagan and Sotomayor, but chose not to. In fact, Sen. Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, defended his vote to confirm Sotomayor by saying, "Elections have consequences." In other words, Obama won, so he can do what he wants. Do what ? He needs to go if he's not gonna do his constitutional mandated job. He's a joke.

Additionally, part of the blame for ObamaCare can be placed on The Supreme Court, also. They had an opportunity to shoot down the biggest unconstitutional power grab in the country's history and chose not to.

By now, somebody's probably thinking, "Hey Sheepdog, what about all of Obama's executive orders ? Those are on him." Ummm - not completely. There is no explicit constitutional provision that grants the president the authority to issue executive orders. There is only a brief open-ended phrase about "executive power" which Congress and The Supreme Court have allowed presidents to expand and abuse for years. What many don't know is that presidential executive orders can be squashed or overridden. Congress can pass a law to override an executive order and / or the courts can strike one down if they feel it is an overreach. In fact, both President Truman and Clinton had executive orders struck down. Therefore, Congress and the courts could keep Obama's executive orders in check, but they have chosen not to. As with everything else mentioned above, at least part of the blame for Obama's abuse of executive orders is on the legislative and judicial branches for not doing their jobs. They should have smacked his hand a long time ago.

In summary, here is where I'm going with all this. I'm not trying to tell anyone who to vote for as far as the presidency goes. Each of us has to do what he or she thinks is right. As for me, I won't support Obama and will have a hard time pushing the button by Romney's name. I'm considering going the Independent route for president for the first time ever. However, I'm still undecided.

English: President Barack Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The point I really want to make is that Congress is not performing their constitutional mandated duties, and that's the reason Obama and others have been out of control. Congress is too busy collecting their fat salaries, enjoying their nice benefits, playing the blame game, and trying to figure out how to get re-elected instead of doing the job they were elected to do. Usually, when someone doesn't do the job they are paid to do, they get fired. It's time to fire nearly all of Congress. There are a few good members left, but they can probably be counted on your fingers.

Four years ago, the Democrats praised Obama as being "The One" to solve all of the country's problems. Now, Republicans are blindly, due to party loyalty, heaping the exact same praise on Romney. I would encourage them to be careful. I believe Romney is dangerous for the flip-flopping reasons mentioned above. He is simply another big government progressive.

I believe that if Americans choose to elect Romney as president, then they need to take things a step further when they go into the voting booth. We need to vote out all the left-leaning, Liberal, Progressive members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. Then, replace them with people who will actually exercise their duties and preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. It is necessary in order to keep the progressive Romney in check if he wins, or keep Obama in check if he gets re-elected. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet against Obama, though. The fact is that if we don't replace the members of Congress who are derelict in their duties, then mark my words, absolutely nothing will change, and things could actually get worse with Romney. No problems will be solved, and just like with Obama, within a year of Romney taking office, the ones who voted for him will have a severe case of buyers remorse.

Think I'm wrong ? Well, think back to my October 21, 2010 post where I expressed my concerns about then candidate and now current Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam. I stated that I didn't believe he was a conservative, and therefore, would not vote for him. I also said I hoped I was wrong about him. People told me I was wrong and didn't listen to me. Now, Tennesseans everywhere are having buyers remorse. Why ? Well, less than two years into Haslam's first term, he has gone after the state's teachers, screwed gun owners by opposing the Safe Commute Bill, and also appointed a Shariah finance expert to his cabinet. That's just for starters. I could go on and on.

I nailed it on Haslam, although I hoped I was wrong. I hope I'm wrong about Romney, too, but I don't think I am. So, mark it down - just like with Haslam, you heard it from The Sheepdog first.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck .........

Case Closed

Back on August 9th, I received one of the most interesting, politically based e-mails I've ever received. In fact, it was rather comical because the words therein provided evidence backing up some of the points I've made time and time again. I should probably thank them. After "ruminating" on it, as my buddy Dale likes to say, for a couple of weeks, I thought I'd share a portion of the newsletter with you and then add a little commentary.

The portion of the e-mail newsletter that I want to call your attention to is the part titled "The Myth of the Independent Voter" and it's from the August 2011 Wilson County Tea Party Newsletter (you can link to it on their site by clicking here). The excerpt said :

"I think that most of you would agree that the two political parties are further apart in ideology today more than ever.

 

The left supports monstrous growth in government coupled with restrictive states' rights, higher taxes, unbridled debt, redistribution of wealth, expansion of the welfare state, class warfare, judicial activism, a weakened defense, intense government regulation and the rights and desires of the collective rather than those of the individual.  The left is against the execution of violent criminals but strongly supports the abortion of innocent babies. They want religion visually removed from every corner of our society and tried to regulate speech they oppose.  The left believes that America must apologize for her strength and view America's exceptionalism as 'greed' and 'arrogance'.  They believe that the Constitution is an ever-changing document - one that should be changed to cater to the whims of the politically powerful - rather than a document that should be revered and provide the core structure of our government.

On the other side of the spectrum are Conservative values.  They believe in smaller government in which individuals are allowed to keep as much of their earnings as possible and they support the rights of the individual.  They believe that the out-of-control debt is detrimental to our future and freedom and realize that we must live within our financial means.  They support states' rights and believe that hard work is the basis for wealth.  They believe that the welfare state, although needed for the truly  poor and disadvantaged, is destructive and addictive and that class warfare should not be part of our culture.  They believe in a strong defense, limited government regulation, the free market and adherence to the Constitution.  They believe in American exceptionalism.  Conservatives believe that innocent babies should be protected while supporting deserved punishments for violent criminal offenders who have made repeated destructive life decisions.  They strongly support the Constitution as the cornerstone of our government and judiciary and believe that this precious document should not be changed by a group of non-elected judicial activists nor is meant to be changed on a whim.

So how could someone truly place themselves ideologically in the 'middle' since the path that each of the two major political parties would like to take is starkly opposite?

 

You have to wonder if 'Independents' know what type of 'change' they really desire ?  In the recent debt ceiling debate, for instance, it was not possible to support fiscal responsibility while supporting higher taxes coupled with higher spending - the plan of the left.  Increased spending when the spending is based on a borrowed dollar is NOT fiscally responsible.  In addition, increased spending when you are forcibly taking money from a hard working American to give to another is not morally or fiscally responsible.

So, what is an 'Independent' voter ?

 

Many years ago, it might have been possible to support the ideological middle.  But now, no, it is not.  The sides are polar opposites.

 

You may find yourself on one side of the spectrum while supporting one or two issues from the other side but, unfortunately, your vote translates to 'all or nothing' support of the agenda of one side or the other.

There is no middle.

Most of us have a hard set of core values and beliefs that guide us through our lives.  These beliefs help us determine which stance we'll take on all issues in our life.  Therefore, if you are aware of your core values and you understand the differences between the two major political parties, you cannot be an 'Independent'.

Still consider yourself to be an 'Independent' at this point ?  You're not paying attention." (August 2011 Wilson County Tea Party Newsletter, section titled "The Myth of the Independent Voter")

My initial reaction was, "Not paying attention, huh ? Perhaps it is you who isn't 'paying attention' ?" It also occurred to me that the ideas and viewpoints expressed in the newsletter portion show exactly the kind of thinking that has wrecked the U.S. political system. I've made the point many times on this blog that for too long, we have blindly walked into the voting booth and looked for the "R" or "D" by a candidate's name and then pushed the applicable button. We've done it without knowing their stance on the issues or their voting record. We've voted for a "party" instead of the ideals we hold dear. By doing this, we've sold out the principles and values we believe in and that our country was founded on for the sake of "the party." It has to stop.

The quoted newsletter portion did get a couple of things correct. First, it correctly described the different political views of Liberals and Conservatives. Second, it accurately reflected the three main political mindsets - Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates. However, it's accuracy pretty much ends there. The referenced portion struck me as basically a partisan piece of political propaganda that infers that as a voter you have to be a Democrat or a Republican. You can't be anything else. That's un-American in that it tells you how you must vote. Such a viewpoint throws freedom of thought and freedom of speech out the window. It's just like Liberals who support freedom of speech except when they disagree with what you're saying. In that case, they want you to "sit down and shut up." I was under the impression that the tea party groups supported freedom of speech and thought ? Hmmm. Maybe I'm confused.

Furthermore, the referenced portion implies that all Democrats are Liberal Lefties and all Republicans are Conservatives. Nothing could be father from the truth. There are many Republicans that are as Liberal as Democrats. I could list them, but I'd be typing for the rest of the weekend. In addition, there is the implication that all Independents are moderates, or fence sitters, Once again, untrue. Some Independents may be moderates, but some Democrats and Republicans consider themselves to be moderates, too. Heck, there are many voters who call themselves Independents who are far more conservative than any Republican ever thought about being.

I guess the thing that really jumped out at me as I read is the lack of understanding of U.S. politics. The number of voters registered as Democrats or Republicans do NOT determine the outcome of our elections. Just ask anyone who has studied Political Science. It is a well established fact that the American electorate is about one-third Democrat, one-third Republican, and the other third consider themselves Independents. It is these Independents that decide the outcome of elections. Often, an Independent is not a moderate or someone who sits on the fence. They are voters who have simply chosen not to affiliate with one of the major parties for any number of reasons. Oftentimes, it is because they used to be a member of one of the major parties but became "disgruntled" with it. In other cases, it could be that an Independent may tend to vote Democrat but not call themselves a Democrat because they don't agree with some parts of the Democratic platform. Take gun control for instance. I know some people who tend to vote for Democrats but are firearm enthusiasts who completely disagree with the Democratic Party's desire for more gun control. Others are Independents because they think that some Democrats are too liberal while others aren't liberal enough. Other Independents, such as myself, may tend to vote Republican. However, we have chosen not to brand ourselves as Republicans because some Republicans are too liberal or moderate and not conservative enough. This is where I find myself. I believe that most Republicans aren't conservative enough. Simply put, Independents generally vote for issues, NOT parties. That's basic Political Science 101.

In an earlier blog post, I made the point that some of the tea party groups are giving the Lefty Democrats evidence to support their claim that "the tea party is nothing more than a wing of the Republican Party." The newsletter excerpt makes that point for me, too, by providing more evidence to support the Lefties claim. However, in my opinion, the most disturbing thing about the newsletter is what's not said. The Chairman of the Wilson Co. Tea Party (WCTP) is Sherrie Orange. Earlier in the year, she was appointed to the Wilson Co. Election Commission. I'm not sure if Ms. Orange actually writes these newsletters, but nevertheless she is in charge of the WCTP. In my opinion, the lack of political understanding shown in the newsletter could make one wonder why she, the WCTP Chairperson, was appointed as an election commissioner. Who appoints these people anyway ? Isn't it done by an elected representative from that district ? Who could that be ? Could it have been State Senator Beavers ? I wonder who would know.

Anyway, based upon the newsletter, the appointment doesn't make any sense. Or, ..... does it ?

I love it when people make my case for me.

Related articles

• The Rise of the Political Independents (psychologytoday.com)
• An Opening for an Independent Candidate? (politicalwire.com)
• Third Party in 2012? (outsidethebeltway.com)