Rule #2

Rule #2 -

ALWAYS Be Prepared - Keep Your Knife Sharp and Your Sidearm Cleaned and Lubed.

(photo credit)

An Ode to Hillary on Music Monday

Finally. It's over. The Clinton Regime is done. We Conservatives endured 8 years of the liberal, military gutting, law enforcement hating, gun control loving, couldn't keep it in his pants, Clinton presidency. Then, we endured Hillary's progressive tenure in the U.S. Senate. Next, we endured her embarrassing, leftist foreign policy initiatives as Secretary of State. Lastly, we endured her stint as the Democratic nominee for president. Now, thank God, all of that is over.

Through all of it and unlike when things don't go The Lunatic Left's way, we conservatives didn't break and burn things, nor did we riot. Heck, we didn't even threaten to leave the country like a bunch of babies. We endured it and made the best of it.

Now, we only ask for one, simple thing - Hillary, please "Don't Go Away Mad, Just Go Away." So, on this post-2016 election edition of Music Monday, this one's dedicated to Hillary Clinton. It's Motley Crue with "Don't Go Away Mad (Just Go Away)" from their 1989 #1 record, Dr. Feelgood (click here).

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. 

Clark Boyd and the 2nd Amendment

Last week I received, as did many of you, a fundraising letter from the Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA). The letter seems to portray Clark Boyd as an anti- gun, pro-gun control candidate who is unsupportive of the Second Amendment. At the same time, it makes current, incumbent 24-year career politician State Senator Mae Beavers out to be some kind of 2^nd Amendment savior. Unfortunately, for them, they are wrong on both accounts.

Wanna guess what the TFA is basing their “portrayals” on? It’s based on their candidate survey that I destroyed in a previous blog post. Remember it? It’s the one that 72% of the candidates it was sent to did not return. Boyd was one of them, so now just like the other 72%, the TFA is making him out to be an anti-gunner. However, here’s what the TFA is not telling you – Clark Boyd received one of the highest grades possible for a first-time candidate from the National Rifle Association (NRA), based upon his answers to the questions on their survey. But please, don’t take mine, Clark Boyd’s, or anyone else’s word or it. See Boyd’s grade for yourself on the NRA website by clicking here and then scrolling down. Just as my earlier blog post did, Boyd’s NRA rating shoots TFA’s allegations down. 

The Sheepdog's endorsement

One day last week, I spoke with Boyd about the TFA’s claims about him. He said, “Our (his campaign) concern is that the organization (TFA) is really functioning as an arm of Beavers’ campaign, and I think their members ought to know that their funds are being used to paint an Army veteran and NRA top rated candidate as not being pro-Second Amendment."

Boyd continued, “When I read the TFA survey I thought it had to be a joke, because two of the questions actually lauded Mae Beavers – even asking if I would co-sponsor legislation with her if I were elected. The fundraising letter doesn’t contain the same survey. Obviously a lot of other candidates didn’t take the survey seriously either or they would have answered it.” 

As I mentioned it my earlier blog post, other candidates who are well known for their pro-2nd Amendment voting record ignored the survey as well. Boyd answered the National Rifle Association’s survey and received one of the highest scores for a first time candidate. Could it be that that TFA is simply losing credibility and candidates are choosing to ignore them?

During our conversation, Boyd also pointed out that the TFA simply isn’t an objective organization, because the founder and leader of the group, John Harris, is a close associate of Beavers. Additionally, he and the TFA PAC routinely make campaign contributions to Beavers’, including during the current election cycle’s race against Boyd. 

So, knowing all that, how much stock are you gonna put in the TFA’s claims of Clark Boyd, a veteran, being anti-gun. Could it be that the organization is a little biased? It is true, though, that Boyd has no voting record in regards to gun legislation. However, and more importantly, it is also true that, unlike Beavers, he has NEVER voted in favor of Jimmy “No-Guns” Naifeh, a Democrat, being Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives. Beavers did so 4 times. 

Something to think about, my fellow District 17 gun owners, before you go vote on Thursday.

Related articles

• Tennessee's Voting Gunowners Deserve Better (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)
• A Second Chance for District 17 (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)

Tennessee's Voting Gunowners Deserve Better

In early July, the Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA) released the results of its "2014 Legislative Candidate Survey." I first saw it on the organization's Facebook page on July 1st and then received a copy of the results in my e-mail inbox a few days later on the 4th. The survey's purpose was to identify the pro- and anti-gun members of the Tennessee State House and Senate, as well as their challengers, in advance of the 2014 elections. TFA wanted its members and other voters to be informed in regards to which candidates support their gun rights when they vote this year.

Source - Wikipedia

Current incumbents, challengers, and candidates for open seats were asked 26 questions, including ones about their :

• support for a constitutional carry bill (carrying a firearm without a permit),
• support for nullifying federal firearms laws,
• support for allowing carry on public school grounds (by law-abiding citizens), and
• support for the elimination of taxes and fees on firearms and ammunition sales.

The 26 questions could be answered :

• "Y" = yes,
• "Y+ = yes and willing to sponsor bill, or
• "N" = no

As I looked over the questions and responses of each legislator (click here to view), my first reaction was one of disappointment, because at first glance, it appears that most of the candidates are anti-gun. But that didn't make sense ... in Tennessee. As I reviewed and thought about the results some more, I went from confused, to bewildered, to ultimately coming to the realization that the survey results are worthless. This is why I have put together the following review of the survey.

Why? Since "N" can represent an answer of "No" or "no response", the results are at best confusing and unclear. Now, in defense of TFA, when the survey was sent out to the candidates, it stated that the failure to return a completed survey "... will be assumed to have answered in the negative..."

I suspect that the "assumed to have answered in the negative" policy was to give an incentive to the candidates to complete the survey and take it seriously. I get that. However, the problem is that of the 230+ candidates listed, 165+ of them have straight "N's" across the board. That's about 72% of them. So, based upon those results, are we, voters and gunowners, expected to assume that :

1. 72% of the candidates did not return the completed survey?
2. Or, does it mean that 72% of them, are anti-gun?

Do either of those make any sense to you considering that we're in Tennessee? They don't to me. Consider this - if we go with assumption #2 that about 72% of the candidates, or nearly 3 out of every 4, for state legislative office in Tennessee is anti-gun, then how in the heck can any of us even legally own a gun, let alone carry one? Would we not have some of the strictest gun-control laws in the U.S.?

It's a seriously flawed assumption. The 72% anti-gun result is what I would expect if the survey had been conducted in liberal, anti-gun states like California, Illinois, and New York, not in Tennessee. Therefore, in my opinion, the survey results are seriously flawed and should not be relied upon by voters in Tennessee.

Over the last few years, TFA's rhetoric towards various members of the Tennessee legislature has become more and more intense and, in my opinion, rude on several occasions. Once you start using terms like "crucifying" and directing it at a legislator who doesn't do what you want, I think you've gone way too far. So, I'm wondering if the straight "N" rate of 72% is primarily made up of candidates who chose not to respond.

Now, some might try to make the point that, "They must have something to hide since they didn't respond." Not necessarily. Maybe they decided that, "It doesn't matter how I answer or what I say, TFA ain't gonna be happy. So, why bother?" Maybe there's now even a lack of respect for TFA due to the way some legislators have been treated. If so, who can blame them?

I generally agree with TFA on gun issues, including constitutional carry, lowering taxes on guns and ammo, and prohibiting local governments from passing gun control laws, just to name a few. However, I disagree with the way they have gone about pushing their agenda the last few years. It reminds me too much of the way some unions have pushed people around in order to get their way. I've always heard, "you get more flies with honey than with vinegar." If you're constantly demeaning the people you need to vote the legislation you want into law, what makes you think they will do so? If it were me you were treating that way, my response would be, "Screw you!!"

Shortly after TFA's 2014 survey results were published on their Facebook page on July 1st, I left the following comment / question for John Harris, TFA Executive Director :

Mr. Harris, would it be possible to modify the codes (Y, Y+, N) a little? I think it would be helpful to voters to add one for the ones that did not respond instead of lumping those in with the N's. As is it could be a little misleading to some. Plus, I think most would like to know who responded and who didn't.

To this day, 16 days later, I have not received a response from Mr. Harris. A few other members of the organization left follow-up comments after mine, but nothing from Mr. Harris. I've wondered what that means. I thought I was polite. I was just trying to make a suggestion and provide some constructive input, because I thought the proposed change would be helpful and clearer to voters. Maybe I offended him. If so, that was not my intention. Why would I? Mr. Harris is a smart guy, well-respected within the firearms community, he knows his stuff, and if he's not the best firearms related attorney in Tennessee, he's got to be in the top 2 or 3. Maybe he just didn't agree with me. Or, maybe the survey was designed to get exactly the results I have evaluated above as meaningless. I sure hate to think so, but I guess I'll never know since I never received a reply.

Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My whole point in sharing this survey and it's results today is to warn you about relying on election information from third parties, even conservative ones. As President Reagan used to say, "trust but verify." Glenn Beck would say, "do your own homework." I try to live by both of these. You should too. Otherwise, at some point you will get burned.

Early voting begins in Tennessee tomorrow, Friday the 18th. Prior to then, do your homework if you haven't already. If you're a gun guy like me, and you were planning on relying on the "2014 TFA Candidate Survey" in making your choices as to whom will represent you, I encourage you rely on something else. However, don't take my word for it either. Check it out yourself. Look at the results. Look at the candidates and incumbents you know to be pro-gun due to their record, including their votes, and see if the survey results match what you already know. In at least some cases, it may not.

In my opinion, the survey results are somewhat misleading at best and deceptive at worst. I'm concerned that TFA may be going the way of the NRA by becoming unreliable. It's one reason I resigned my NRA membership 5 years ago. Let's hope the TFA changes course.

Tennessee's gunowners, and voters, deserve better.

A Second Chance for District 17

Do you live in the Tennessee counties of Wilson, Macon, Clay, Cannon, DeKalb, or Smith? If so, you are in Tennessee State Senate District 17 and are currently represented by an entrenched, incumbent, career politician who's been in the Tennessee Legislature for the last 20 years (8 years in the House and the last 12 in the Senate). Prior to that, she was on the Wilson Co. Commission for 4 years. In other words, she has held some political office for 24 consecutive years. Do you realize that is 6 presidential terms? In fact, she's been in office since early in George H.W. Bush's only term in the White House. If that's not the definition of a "career politician," then I don't know what is.

Back in 2010, we, the voters of District, 17 had an opportunity to vote out this career politician, Mae Beavers. Unfortunately, we did not do so. Since then, she has sponsored silly, unneeded, and in some cases, ludicrous legislation, as I will point out below. The good news is that in 2014, we have a "second chance" to replace her. We cannot waste this opportunity. Furthermore, since there is no Democrat or Independent in the race, the Republican Primary is the race. The winner gets the District 17 seat.

Me with a Boyd for State Senate sign.

Clark Boyd is challenging Beavers in the August 7th Republican Primary for the District 17 State Senate seat. Boyd is a conservative, Christian, small businessman, family man, and veteran. He is also the former Chairman of the Wilson Co. Republican Party who stepped down in order to challenge the career politician, Beavers. He has good credentials. Personally, I think it would be a great idea to put a veteran in this legislative seat.

Beavers has been the master of political theater for a long time. She thrives at it, but often all she accomplishes is wasting taxpayer money and the time of her colleagues who have to debate and consider her silly bills. You may be wondering how taxpayer money is wasted? Well, there's labor costs involved with the time the clerks, state attorneys, and others spend writing and proofing each bill. There's also printing, sorting, and other overhead costs involved with getting copies of the bills to the legislators who actually debate and consider them. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Below is a few examples of "Beavers' Political Theater" from the legislative session just ended :

• There was the "Don't Spy on Me, Bro" Bill, as I referred to it in a January post. It's purpose was making it illegal for local law enforcement to gather information from folks' cell phones without a warrant. In my post, I pointed out that both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions prohibit these warrantless searches. Therefore, the bill wasn't needed. In my opinion, Beavers was only pushing the legislation in order to score points with voters during an election year while the NSA Spying Scandal was still a hot-button topic. The legislation passed into law and was signed by Governor Haslam, but it's one of those waste of time and taxpayer money bills I mentioned earlier.
• Beavers' sponsored a bill (SB 1607) which if passed would have made it a crime for federal agents to enforce federal gun laws in Tennessee. It was a silly bill. Fortunately, her colleagues voted it down and saved the state some embarrassment. The rest of the country would have looked at us and thought, "Those fools in Tennessee think they can arrest a Fed for doing their job?" I'll call this one the "Stay Outta Our Crib, Bro" Bill. I'm sure that had it passed it would have been smacked down real quick by Uncle Sam. Once again, a waste of time and money.

Additionally, during the legislative session just ended, the amount of over-the-counter decongestants we can purchase as consumers got reduced. Tennesseans are now limited to about 40 tablets a month per purchaser. So, if you're a single mom with 2 kids with allergy problems, you're not gonna be able to purchase enough medication to get through Tennessee's horrific spring allergy season. Thinking about having someone else purchase some for you if you run out? Better not. That's just as illegal as purchasing a gun for someone else. Isn't that wonderful?

In my opinion, even though Beavers didn't sponsor the newly adopted bill that reduced the amount of allergy medication we can buy, she is the one ultimately responsible for it. It was she, who just a few years ago, led the charge for legislation which now requires allergy medication purchases to be tracked. Currently, when you walk into your local drugstore or supermarket and purchase allergy meds containing decongestants, you have to register them like many states do gun purchases. You show your drivers' license, make the purchase, and it's logged into a database for government tracking purposes. I've even had to show my drivers' license to purchase plain Mucinex that doesn't even contain decongestants. It's ridiculous.

A Beaver Tale (Photo credit: kdee64)

I think it's only a matter of time until we will have to have a prescription to purchase allergy meds in Tennessee. When that happens, just remember - Beavers got the ball rolling with the meds registry. She'll tell you it was to help curb the meth problem. Let's be real - it'll help about as much as gun control has reduced gun crimes. Bad guys still find ways to obtain the tools of their trade. Such registration schemes only punish and inconvenience law-abiding citizens.

Lastly, the thing I've never understood is why Beavers gets much of her support from the pro-gun and anti-tax crowds. She's been heralded as spearheading the anti-state income tax movement in Tennessee and as the gun owners friend. However, these folks have apparently forgotten a few things about Beavers. For instance :

1. As I've pointed out before, while in the Tennessee House, she voted in favor of Jimmy Naifeh for Speaker on 4 separate occasions. Naifeh is the guy that on many occasions went out of his way to kill pro-gun legislation, including several carry bills. If questioned about it, Beavers will probably reply that he was the only candidate up for Speaker at the time. My response is that she could have voted "no". How the pro-guns folks who hated Naifeh forgive her for those votes, I don't know. I won't.
2. Second, did you know that Beavers has frequently voted to either increase taxes or to renew old ones that were set to expire? Well, she has. Many of them are the type of taxes that can get directly passed onto consumers by raising prices, such as taxes on nursing homes and HMO's. I shared these in a 2010 article **, but don't take my word for it, go to the Tennessee Legislature's website (click here) and "do your own homework," as Glenn Beck says. Anti-tax? Not really.

I've pointed out other Beavers' shenanigans over the years in prior posts. If you would like to read about them, just click here. I do hope, if you live in District 17, you will join me on August 7th in voting for Clark Boyd. I've laid out some reasons within this article about why I do not support the career politician, Beavers, who has been in office way too long. I've also mentioned why I will vote for Boyd.

Since the establishment Republicans gained control of the Tennessee Legislature a few years ago, they have been out of control. Since she's been in the legislature for the last 20, I think it's safe to say Beavers is part of that problem. Therefore, it's time to put some new blood in the Tennessee Legislature, and we can start by electing Clark Boyd.

** Due to the legislature using the same bill numbers over and over from year to year, the links to bill numbers in this 2010 article may not necessarily still correspond to the correct bill. However, to look them up, all one must do to find the correct ones is look back at past legislative sessions and plug in the bill numbers given.

Related articles

• The Beavers' "Don't Spy On Me, Bro" Bill (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)
• Jimmy Naifeh to retire after 38-year House of Representatives career (timesfreepress.com)
• Under the bridge (politics.nashvillepost.com)

Seventy-two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Boston !

"Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston !" from Vision to America

National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Wikipedia : British Army in Concord

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

** Note from The Sheepdog - I shared the story above from Vision to America solely for the simple purpose of it being a brief, but important, reminder of a little piece of American history. I hope my readers enjoyed it and that it got them thinking about what America is about - freedom.  

It Could Happen to You

Embedded below (or you can view it here) is a video of a New Jersey mom being attacked in her own home last Friday. It happened in front of her 3-year-old daughter, and according to some of the other reports I've read and heard about this story, all the doors in the house were locked, but that didn't stop the vicious, home invading thug from kicking in the door and gaining entry to the home.

New York News | NYC Breaking News

The thug is still on the loose, and he reportedly stole some jewelry from the woman, including her wedding ring. I suspect that in addition to police being on the lookout for this punk, her husband is, too. If something similar happened to my wife, I'd spend every waking moment trying to track the thug down.

New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Lately, we've heard a lot of talk about gun control. The Left is screaming for more, stricter controls. The question is, would more gun control have helped this woman ? The answer is a resounding no. In fact, gun control doesn't stop crime as evidenced by the fact that the home invasion in this video occurred in New Jersey. That state has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. It's possible that if this woman would have had access to a gun in her home, she would have had a chance to stop this vicious thug in his cowardly tracks.

If you don't have a gun at home, I encourage you to get one, become proficient with it, and be prepared to use it to protect yourself and your family. This type of crime can happen anywhere at anytime to anyone, including you and me. I suspect this poor woman never expected it to happen to her. When it does happen, the cops are several minutes away. So, it's wise to have a firearm only seconds away.

A gun in the home can be the difference between life, a severe beating, or death. If it comes down to you or a lawless cowardly thug, make sure it's the thug. Your family will be glad you did.

Source - www.TheBlaze.com article titled "Unbelievable Nanny Cam Video Catches Crook Breaking Into NJ Home and Brutally Beating Mom in Front of 3-Year-Old Daughter"

Related articles

• Woman brutally attacked in front of her child during home invasion: What can we learn? (VIDEO) (guns.com)
• Police Vow To Catch Suspect In Brutal Home Invasion Beating Of NJ Woman (newyork.cbslocal.com)
• Self-Defense Tip: 3 Rules to Defend Against Home Invasions (thetruthaboutguns.com)
• Video:Young mother beaten by large black man on the run in Millburn,NJ home invasion (littlebytesnews.blogspot.com)
• WHERE'S AL SHARPTON & JESSIE JACKSON ON THIS? Vicious Home Invasion Attack Caught On Camera... (redflagnews.com)
• Terrifying New Jersey Home Invasion and Beating Caught on Homeowner's Nanny Cam (amren.com)
• This Is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace: Home Invasion Caught on Video Edition (thetruthaboutguns.com)
• Brutal New Jersey Home Invasion and Attack Caught On 'Nanny Cam' Tape (VIDEO) (hngn.com)
• Quick Tip: Arming Your Security System While Others Remain at Home (simplisafe.com)

Today Will Be The Last Day of My Husband's Life ...

The Sheepdog has reprinted this article via Blue Collar Muse and the courtesy of Ken Marrero. The linkback to Ken's original article is here.

Ben and I have been married for 1 year, 4 months and 2 days. Ben has just 16.5 hours left here on this earth with me. Sixteen and a half hours of time and we have no idea the end is coming … The clock is ticking.

So my friend, Nikki Goeser, begins her story. On April 2, 2009 she and Ben were operating their karaoke business in Jonny’s Sports Bar in Nashville, TN. A man stalking Nikki was asked to leave the bar. He pulled a gun and murdered Ben while she watched, helpless, just feet away.

Denied a Chance: How Gun Control Helped a Stalker Murder My Husband is Nikki’s recounting of not just the tragic loss of her husband but of her transformation into a powerful and articulate voice for gun rights and advocate for the 2nd Amendment.

Far too many respond to the shooting of innocents in theaters and schools by blaming guns for violence, Nikki places the blame where it really belongs – on the murderers.

She came to understand legislators crafting bad law bear responsibility, too. The gun used to murder Ben was in the bar illegally. Nikki, although a carry permit holder, an Intermediate Handgun Certification holder and experienced gun range volunteer was required by law to leave her handgun in her car. She obeyed the law. The murderer did not.

Nikki can’t say with certainty that had she had her handgun she could have stopped Ben’s murder. She also knows a bad law denied her the chance to try.

In the aftermath of Ben’s murder, dealing with her loss, Nikki kept a journal which became Denied a Chance. She walks us, in poignant detail, through her last day with Ben and the murder itself. She tells the story of the Marine who tackled the murderer and the cop who stayed with her for the longest night of her life.

She tells her story honestly. She sought counseling and dealt with PTSD. Ironically, it was probably this that began her transformation into an activist.

Nashville provides counseling to those affected by violent crime. Nikki didn’t think twice about being armed while taking advantage of that program. The counselor felt differently. Nikki was told she was welcome to continue the sessions only if she left her handgun outside. Denied a chance once, Nikki wisely chose not to risk becoming a victim a second time.

Nikki went beyond asking merely “What happened?” to “Why did this happen?” Squarely at the center of the problem was Tennessee state law. She began to correspond with state lawmakers regarding the injustice of her being denied the chance to stop Ben’s murder.

Nikki connected with Suzanna Hupp, the woman who watched another lunatic murder her parents and 21 others in a Luby’s restaurant while her handgun was locked in her car in accordance with Texas law. Suzanna advised her not to fear standing up for what she believed and assured her such courage would impact others.

Nikki began seeking out like minded people and groups. As her story began to spread, she received offers to speak to various groups and eventually to testify before the legislatures of several states looking at ways to keep their citizens safer. Ultimately she would appear on programs like Nightline, Fox Business with John Stossel, ABC News, CNN, the BBC and other shows. She was awarded the Sybil Ludington Women’s Freedom Award by the NRA in 2012.

Thanks to her tireless efforts, Tennessee and other states changed their bad laws and began the process of protecting the law abiding and punishing those who are truly guilty.

Nikki’s tale closes with the trial where the law victimized her yet again. Despite the “open and shut” nature of the case, it took 3 years to come to trial thanks to the circus surrounding an insanity plea. Finally, however, some measure of justice was done and Ben’s murderer is behind bars for the next 25 years.

Nikki continues her work. She remains a tireless advocate for the rights of Americans to defend themselves in an increasingly violent world. No longer a victim, she has turned her pain into purpose. She will never again be Denied a Chance.

Hers is a story which must be read by every American.

Get your copy of Denied a Chance via Amazon by clicking here. If you would like to contact Nikki for an interview or to arrange a speaking engagement, you can contact her via her website and clicking on the Contact Us link in the top right corner.

By Ken Marrero on Blue Collar Muse

From The Sheepdog ---

First, I want to thank Ken Marrero for graciously allowing me to reprint his review of Nikki Goeser's book Denied A Chance. 

Second, as I read Ken's article and thought about Nikki's story, my thoughts quickly ran to thinking about my own wife. What if she found herself in Nikki's shoes ? Or, what if I did ? I can't imagine what Nikki's been through. 

Third, Nikki's story is just more proof of why gun control never, ever works in any form, in any time in history, or for any reason. The bad guys don't follow gun control laws - only the good guys do, and sometimes it's with tragic results.

Nikki is a tough lady who now advocates for individual gun rights in hopes that no one else will have to experience the horrific loss that she did. The Sheepdog applauds her.