The recent atrocity that happened in Aurora has shocked the nation, and has appalled everyone. The heart of this blogger is with the victims and their families, and I say to the shooter "You're lucky that I don't get to pick your punishment; I would tie you to the back of a truck by your scrotum and drag you over nail strips until you were nothing more than a big red crayon streak visible in my rearview mirror"
That being said, however, this has raised a whole new debate on gun rights across the nation. Some things really need to be said about this tragedy and the discussion that it has sparked about gun rights in general. He acquired his guns legally, which means that he DID NOT have an assault rifle. Those two phrases, "legally" and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive. IF anyone wants to discuss the difference between a tactical rifle and an assault rifle, please comment. I could spend hours talking about that. America is also responsible for more gun sales and manufacture than nearly any country worldwide. Guns provide jobs, provide money, and provide protection.
To hold up victims of a shooting as martyrs for your idiotic idea that criminals can't get guns illegally is shameful. The fact is, much like the war on drugs, the prohibition of guns, or even the unnecessary regulation of them, only drives a huge market underground and puts money into the hands of the criminals that are willing to take the chance. So instead of keeping guns out of the hands of gunmen, the real idea is to keep guns out of the hands of victims? Tools that people could use to save their own and others' lives with?
No? Well then I am confused. If you're against legal gun ownership, and you agree that criminals can get their hands on guns should they want to badly enough, then what about bolstering regulations or banning sales makes people safer?
Indeed there are no right answers to what could have been done in Colorado last week. This man was well armed, well motivated, and well instructed. To the three heroic men who saved their girlfriends that night, I will always raise a glass. For the victims of the shooting and their families, I will always bow my head. But I cannot stand by while people are leveraging their political agendas against a horrible event.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Giuliani Warns Virginia Jobs are in Defense Cut Crosshairs
Former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani made a stop in Virginia Beach recently to warn veterans, citizens, and workers alike that the looming Obama Defense cuts are threatening to hit the Commonwealth the hardest. The article details Giuliani's warning that Virginia's job climate could be in for some difficult times ahead if nothing is done about these cuts.
We are home to the Pentagon, Quantico, Oceana Naval Station, and Langley Air Force Base; some of the most important and famous military installations in the world. This is not some far-off problem. Thousands of Virginian livelihoods are hovering in the crosshairs of these proposed cuts.
President Obama wants to cut the military, and that means Virginia jobs and Virginia families. Several Virginia Republicans have come out against Obama's proposed cuts, including Gov. McDonnell. Its time to let the White House know that cuts to our military don't only hurt our security abroad, but are dangerous to the welfare of Virginians at home.
See what elected leaders like Governor McDonnell, Lt. Governor Bolling, and Attorney General Cuccinelli have to say about Obama's Defense cuts here
We are home to the Pentagon, Quantico, Oceana Naval Station, and Langley Air Force Base; some of the most important and famous military installations in the world. This is not some far-off problem. Thousands of Virginian livelihoods are hovering in the crosshairs of these proposed cuts.
President Obama wants to cut the military, and that means Virginia jobs and Virginia families. Several Virginia Republicans have come out against Obama's proposed cuts, including Gov. McDonnell. Its time to let the White House know that cuts to our military don't only hurt our security abroad, but are dangerous to the welfare of Virginians at home.
See what elected leaders like Governor McDonnell, Lt. Governor Bolling, and Attorney General Cuccinelli have to say about Obama's Defense cuts here
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Getting the Most Bang for your Anger
Attention Friends,
In an effort to help my fellow citizens affect civic change, I feel that there are certain tricks of the trade that you may need to know. Every citizen has the right and the responsibility to participate in their government if they want the right to complain about it. Either try to change it or stop bitching. But writer, you may say, I have sent so many form emails blasted out to the entire legislature! Surely they cannot have ignored the opinions of a citizen! I also get a lot of, "I'm going to start a petition". These two strategies would not legislate you out of a wet paper bag in my opinion.
1. There are very few actions prescribed BY LAW that a legislator, executive, administrator, etc. MUST do when faced with a petition. They may make changes for fear of their position if you get enough signatures, but the number required to really make a hardened government stooge look twice would have to be a very large portion of their constituency. They are only afraid of a petition if that petition spells "Lost Election" if ignored. That means that at least half of the voting populace should be on board, and that is an extremely hard thing to do. Just ask Rick Perry, or Newt Gingrich. With millions of dollars and dozens of volunteers, they could not garner the petty 10,000 votes needed to appear on the Virginia Republican Primary ballot this year. Newt Gingrich currently resides in McLean VIRGINIA.
Instead of a petition with signatures, better to take a large group (5-10) in person to meet with the administrator, legislator, whatnot. The group is safely below protest levels, but serves to show that you are not alone in your fight. Having to look people in the eye is also a big draw, rather than cold signatures on a page. The next trick to this is to be an aggressive scheduler. Have a date and time in mind, and slowly work outwards until you can find a foothold in the guy's schedule. A "call back" or an "I'll let him know, and we'll return your call" is far too easily forgotten. Try to make your appointment with ONE call.
2. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT, take a website form and blast the whole legislature's/department's inbox that they have attached. Not only will you not change anything, they will most likely never see it. The official office email addresses that such issue sites use are available publicly. Odds are a couple of things will keep forms from being seen or cared about. First, with the kind of volume that such emails come in, the task of sifting through them often falls to some underpaid intern or office worker who is looking at hundreds a day and only looks at the town or state to see if the person matters. Also, the email addresses that are used for public servants have stringent spam filters to keep out penis enlargement ads and phishing schemes. Many times, since the server takes in so many of the same email (just with different signatures) it identifies the email as spam.
The trick is to distinguish yourself from the pack and if anything, only email your own legislator. Use a completely different subject line; one that identifies you as a contituent. Letting your guy know that you are right in his own back yard automatically distinguishes you as someone to respond to.
I hope that I have helped future activists. The need for government to change is never ending, and I'm here to help you guys fight for what you think is right.
In an effort to help my fellow citizens affect civic change, I feel that there are certain tricks of the trade that you may need to know. Every citizen has the right and the responsibility to participate in their government if they want the right to complain about it. Either try to change it or stop bitching. But writer, you may say, I have sent so many form emails blasted out to the entire legislature! Surely they cannot have ignored the opinions of a citizen! I also get a lot of, "I'm going to start a petition". These two strategies would not legislate you out of a wet paper bag in my opinion.
1. There are very few actions prescribed BY LAW that a legislator, executive, administrator, etc. MUST do when faced with a petition. They may make changes for fear of their position if you get enough signatures, but the number required to really make a hardened government stooge look twice would have to be a very large portion of their constituency. They are only afraid of a petition if that petition spells "Lost Election" if ignored. That means that at least half of the voting populace should be on board, and that is an extremely hard thing to do. Just ask Rick Perry, or Newt Gingrich. With millions of dollars and dozens of volunteers, they could not garner the petty 10,000 votes needed to appear on the Virginia Republican Primary ballot this year. Newt Gingrich currently resides in McLean VIRGINIA.
Instead of a petition with signatures, better to take a large group (5-10) in person to meet with the administrator, legislator, whatnot. The group is safely below protest levels, but serves to show that you are not alone in your fight. Having to look people in the eye is also a big draw, rather than cold signatures on a page. The next trick to this is to be an aggressive scheduler. Have a date and time in mind, and slowly work outwards until you can find a foothold in the guy's schedule. A "call back" or an "I'll let him know, and we'll return your call" is far too easily forgotten. Try to make your appointment with ONE call.
2. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT, take a website form and blast the whole legislature's/department's inbox that they have attached. Not only will you not change anything, they will most likely never see it. The official office email addresses that such issue sites use are available publicly. Odds are a couple of things will keep forms from being seen or cared about. First, with the kind of volume that such emails come in, the task of sifting through them often falls to some underpaid intern or office worker who is looking at hundreds a day and only looks at the town or state to see if the person matters. Also, the email addresses that are used for public servants have stringent spam filters to keep out penis enlargement ads and phishing schemes. Many times, since the server takes in so many of the same email (just with different signatures) it identifies the email as spam.
The trick is to distinguish yourself from the pack and if anything, only email your own legislator. Use a completely different subject line; one that identifies you as a contituent. Letting your guy know that you are right in his own back yard automatically distinguishes you as someone to respond to.
I hope that I have helped future activists. The need for government to change is never ending, and I'm here to help you guys fight for what you think is right.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Tracy Thorne Begland, Explained
Free thinking minds all over the nation and the Commonwealth of Virginia were appalled at the recent rejection for judgeship of one Tracy Thorne-Begland. Begland would have been Virginia's first openly gay judge, and was also a veteran of the US Navy. He has been an outstanding prosecutor in his home district of Richmond Virginia. The move was seen far and wide as an act of bigotry and hate. Delegate Bob Marshall then chose to throw gasoline on the fire, coming out with a homophobic and backwards thinking interview in which he ACTUALLY SAID "Sodomy is not a civil right."
This blogger believes that he has hammered the last blue nail into Obama's victory in Virginia this November, but that is a post for another day. While my beliefs tend towards libertarian, and I am pro gay marriage and gay rights, when I take a look at the reasonings offered by select members of Virginia's legislature, this issue can certainly be seen in a different light. The misunderstanding that many people have is that a judge is a-political. A judge should have no strong convictions whatsoever that could affect their judgements. Judges are important to the legislative process, but they are NEVER meant to make the law. They are meant to interpret the law that exists and no more.
I believe that many of the reservations shown by the House of Delegates were not motivated by hate of gay people, but by a fear that Mr. Thorne-Begland would use his position on the bench to advance a particular cause over another. I believe that the legislature would strike down a devout Catholic activist as well, if the slide went all the way to the other end of the political spectrum. With Roe v. Wade in place, I would expect the legislature to strike down an ardent pro-lifer as well.
I believe that Mr. Thorne-Begland, with all of the support he has been shown, could have a very exciting run for the legislature, and there he could effect the changes he wishes to see. He just cannot do it from a jurist's bench, says Virginia. Thats just what one conservative thinks.
This blogger believes that he has hammered the last blue nail into Obama's victory in Virginia this November, but that is a post for another day. While my beliefs tend towards libertarian, and I am pro gay marriage and gay rights, when I take a look at the reasonings offered by select members of Virginia's legislature, this issue can certainly be seen in a different light. The misunderstanding that many people have is that a judge is a-political. A judge should have no strong convictions whatsoever that could affect their judgements. Judges are important to the legislative process, but they are NEVER meant to make the law. They are meant to interpret the law that exists and no more.
I believe that many of the reservations shown by the House of Delegates were not motivated by hate of gay people, but by a fear that Mr. Thorne-Begland would use his position on the bench to advance a particular cause over another. I believe that the legislature would strike down a devout Catholic activist as well, if the slide went all the way to the other end of the political spectrum. With Roe v. Wade in place, I would expect the legislature to strike down an ardent pro-lifer as well.
I believe that Mr. Thorne-Begland, with all of the support he has been shown, could have a very exciting run for the legislature, and there he could effect the changes he wishes to see. He just cannot do it from a jurist's bench, says Virginia. Thats just what one conservative thinks.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Will Someone Please Talk About Ron Paul!?!?
"The way the Republican party treats Ron Paul is like a sinking ship shooting torpedoes at the rescue boat". — Pat Kerby
Folks, I'm sitting here with my coffee and wondering why this plucky Texan Libertarian just cannot get any play so to speak.
Newt Gingrich has electability, but he can't connect with the younger voters who are starting to be a major voice in the Republican Party.
Mitt Romney is the choice of the moderates, but many wonder if his views are suitably conservative to contrast to Barack Obama's.
Rick Santorum is sitting cushy on his new Iowa laurels but his true base, the evangelical vote, will not be enough to beat Barack on its own.
And for some reason even with all of these problems people flock to them, and away from Ron Paul. The man has the real conservative views on fiscal policy that the graybeards want. He also holds the kind of Libertarian social views that should attract the younger folks. He defers to the states on a load of issues, as he should.
He wants to deconstruct the spending drain hole that keeps us in debt and he wants to shrink the Federal government. Some of his foreign policy smacks of a Clint Eastwood movie, but if taken with his wholly progressive plan to rehabilitate and lean down the government, Paul emerges as the clear common-sense choice. He is against the War on Drugs (as am I), he is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (as are we all), and he has a long record being against Federal spending.
I should not say that Rep. Paul has no support. He has the kind of grassroots and dedicated followers that the other candidates dream of. Truly, he has a lot of people fighting for him on the ground. The problem is that Paul's cash reserves aren't as big as Santorum's, let alone the two multi-millionaires above him. He is one of only two "serious" contenders for the Republican nomination that had the sense and the drive to make it onto my own home state's primary ballot (and an important battleground state at that). All I'm asking is will someone PLEASE TALK ABOUT RON PAUL.
P.S.: Oh and did I mention that the entire military are rabid fans of his. And I hear a lot of them are pretty good people.
Folks, I'm sitting here with my coffee and wondering why this plucky Texan Libertarian just cannot get any play so to speak.
Newt Gingrich has electability, but he can't connect with the younger voters who are starting to be a major voice in the Republican Party.
Mitt Romney is the choice of the moderates, but many wonder if his views are suitably conservative to contrast to Barack Obama's.
Rick Santorum is sitting cushy on his new Iowa laurels but his true base, the evangelical vote, will not be enough to beat Barack on its own.
And for some reason even with all of these problems people flock to them, and away from Ron Paul. The man has the real conservative views on fiscal policy that the graybeards want. He also holds the kind of Libertarian social views that should attract the younger folks. He defers to the states on a load of issues, as he should.
He wants to deconstruct the spending drain hole that keeps us in debt and he wants to shrink the Federal government. Some of his foreign policy smacks of a Clint Eastwood movie, but if taken with his wholly progressive plan to rehabilitate and lean down the government, Paul emerges as the clear common-sense choice. He is against the War on Drugs (as am I), he is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (as are we all), and he has a long record being against Federal spending.
I should not say that Rep. Paul has no support. He has the kind of grassroots and dedicated followers that the other candidates dream of. Truly, he has a lot of people fighting for him on the ground. The problem is that Paul's cash reserves aren't as big as Santorum's, let alone the two multi-millionaires above him. He is one of only two "serious" contenders for the Republican nomination that had the sense and the drive to make it onto my own home state's primary ballot (and an important battleground state at that). All I'm asking is will someone PLEASE TALK ABOUT RON PAUL.
P.S.: Oh and did I mention that the entire military are rabid fans of his. And I hear a lot of them are pretty good people.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Swinger of the House, Newt May Face Problems
Newt Gingrich's ex-wife (his second at that time) has come out with a scandalous ABC News interview, claiming that he wanted an open marriage.
Now this blogger hasn't seen any more of the video than his humble readers, but if the clip that they showed is any indication, ABC may be holding a hammer over Gingrich's presidential coffin nails. There will certainly be some follow up to this piece.
Without personally passing judgement on Ol' Newt, he will really face a lot of scowls from his hard socially conservative base. Marianne Gingrich's comments echo out from even the 2010 Gingrich Campaign.Some of these facts aren't new to American voters. They knew that he had a couple old marriages before he met his darling Callista. They knew that those marriages did not end well.
But with the suspension of Herman Cain's campaign over similar female issues of his own, will Gingrich take the hit and continue his neck and neck race with Mitt or will this signal the curtain for Newt's bid to the Presidency? We will certainly keep you updated. I'm just 1 conservative who is very interested in the twists and turns of this new race.
Now this blogger hasn't seen any more of the video than his humble readers, but if the clip that they showed is any indication, ABC may be holding a hammer over Gingrich's presidential coffin nails. There will certainly be some follow up to this piece.
Without personally passing judgement on Ol' Newt, he will really face a lot of scowls from his hard socially conservative base. Marianne Gingrich's comments echo out from even the 2010 Gingrich Campaign.Some of these facts aren't new to American voters. They knew that he had a couple old marriages before he met his darling Callista. They knew that those marriages did not end well.
But with the suspension of Herman Cain's campaign over similar female issues of his own, will Gingrich take the hit and continue his neck and neck race with Mitt or will this signal the curtain for Newt's bid to the Presidency? We will certainly keep you updated. I'm just 1 conservative who is very interested in the twists and turns of this new race.
With McDonnell's Support, VA Nat. Guard Seeks A Little Support
Even though Lobby Day happened on Monday, recently the Adjutant General (Civilian Liaison/Lawyer-ish guy) of the Virginia National Guard came to the General Assembly yesterday with a simple request.
Maj. General Daniel E. Long, Jr. came to thank Virginia for its support of its National Guards but also to ask for a little support. Since the troop cut-downs in Afghanistan and the total withdrawal from Iraq, the National Guard has since been re-pigeon-holed to its former status as the underfunded, undermanned strategic reserve of Virginia. Many of the men comprising our Guards today have served tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and they don't deserve to be put back up on a shelf without funding or training.
The Virginia Department of Military Affairs has put forth two bills to the Assembly this year to help Guards re-acclimate to their old posts and duties. One that will provide automatic in-state tuition to Virginia Guards and another that would give former Guards a leg up trying to find employment with the state. Governor McDonnell has thrown his support behind both of them in an admirable show of support for our military and we applaud him.
Gen. Long warned the Assembly that underfunded, and without the proper training, that the future Guards would not be able to rise to the demands of the Commonwealth the way that they can now. With President Obama's plans to re-organize the American military, the funding that keeps these brave men and women waiting in the wings is in jeopardy.
Maj. General Daniel E. Long, Jr. came to thank Virginia for its support of its National Guards but also to ask for a little support. Since the troop cut-downs in Afghanistan and the total withdrawal from Iraq, the National Guard has since been re-pigeon-holed to its former status as the underfunded, undermanned strategic reserve of Virginia. Many of the men comprising our Guards today have served tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and they don't deserve to be put back up on a shelf without funding or training.
The Virginia Department of Military Affairs has put forth two bills to the Assembly this year to help Guards re-acclimate to their old posts and duties. One that will provide automatic in-state tuition to Virginia Guards and another that would give former Guards a leg up trying to find employment with the state. Governor McDonnell has thrown his support behind both of them in an admirable show of support for our military and we applaud him.
Gen. Long warned the Assembly that underfunded, and without the proper training, that the future Guards would not be able to rise to the demands of the Commonwealth the way that they can now. With President Obama's plans to re-organize the American military, the funding that keeps these brave men and women waiting in the wings is in jeopardy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)