Header image alt text

Chronicle of Change

Documenting the Real Change

 

   Today’s job report which said 255,000 jobs were created was said by the NY Times to “reframe the economic outlook.” NBC reported that the report “crushed estimates” and “blew past expectations.” Of course ABC, CBS, CNN, and the rest of the liberals’ Ministry of Truth chimed in with universal puppies and rainbows. Of course, CNN, NBC, and the NY Times most likely had to clear their stories with the Clinton campaign before release as they did during the Democrat Convention. (No, that’s not a joke; they actually did).

A realistic look tells a slightly different story. The overall 255,000 jobs number is a large improvement over both the previous month and over expectations which is good. This number helps to raise the average monthly jobs number for 2016 to 186,000 per month. On the other hand, that number was 228,000 for 2015, 251,000 for 2014, and 193,000 for 2013. You have to go all the way back to 2012 to get a worse number. The bottom line is the trend is still down. Significantly down.

When you break down the splits between public and private sector jobs the picture turns significantly darker. Private sector job creation in this report showed very little improvement. The three-month average for private sector job creation is now 158,000 as opposed to 169,000 for the six months prior to that. In 2015 and 2014 those monthly averages were 221,000 and 240,000 respectively. Trend = down. Once again, most of those jobs were “service” jobs. If you want to wait tables or tend bar this is a great market for you.

What does all of this mean in plain language. It means that overall job creation last month was up but almost entirely due to public sector (government) growth. Private sector (real businesses that offer real products and services) job creation is still flat-lined and both public and private sector job creation is still heading south. Put this together with the recent GDP report that said growth was going to come in at less than 2% and you have an Obama economy.

Call me cynical, but could it be that the word is out among government agencies to hire as many people as you can to “juice” the numbers for the election season?

And one final question regarding all of those new government employees……… What do tens of thousands of government workers produce exactly?

TOH to the Wall Street Journal for the numbers.

 

After the attack in Orlando, the Democrat/liberal situation room went into full response mode. The classic formula was on display once again. Same formula as always. It will be the same formula when the next one happens. One. Two. Three.

1. Politicize and Distract – Within 13 seconds the subject was changed from a terrorist attack to yet another case of an evil “assault weapon” forcing a human being to pull its trigger. Among the left, worries are now emerging that AR-15’s will soon evolve into weapons that can fire themselves.

2. Cover-up – The Department of Justice (the same DOJ which will decide whether or not to cover up for Hillary’s crimes) released the transcripts of the 911 calls from the night of the attack. All references to “Allah” and “ISIS” were removed. Now, what could possibly be the reason for doing that? Another deadly dose of political correctness?  Even more outrageously, the word “Allah” was replaced with the word “God.” After a massive outcry, the unedited version was later released.

3. Use the attack as a political weapon – The Obama administration denied a request for emergency funding to the State of Florida.  Gov. Rick Scott requested “$5 million in federal funds under the Stafford Act to help with “emergency response efforts, law enforcement response, emergency medical care, counseling services and other social services to assist victims.” Governor Scott (R) pointed out that the Obama administration has approved emergency funds for a water main break in Massachusetts, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the Flint water crisis. All of those happen to be in Democrat states.

Yes to funds for a water main break and no to funds for the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. since 911?  And $5 million? That’s the interest on the interest of the money they borrow every hour (only a slight exaggeration).

John F. Kennedy, Patrick Moynihan, and the Democrats of the past must be turning in their graves.

 

Most of you have felt the force of peer pressure being intentionally used on you at least one time in your younger days. Maybe your classroom was unruly and the teacher canceled recess that day for the whole class even though only a couple of the students were causing the disturbance. Or maybe you were on the basketball team and, due to the mistakes of a few, the whole team had to run extra laps. Or maybe, at home, none of the kids were allowed to go out to play until somebody admitted to breaking the lamp. In each of these situations a larger number of “innocents” were made to suffer some discomfort for the bad behavior of a fewer number of “offenders.” The theory was that, to alleviate the discomfort, the group itself would use peer pressure to bring the few back into line with the acceptable behavior of the group. And it usually worked.

Looking at our current situation with Muslims in the U.S., could this effect be an extra benefit to taking common sense security steps regarding Islamic terrorists? We hear over and over again that the “vast majority” of Muslims are peace-loving people who have nothing to do with terrorist attacks in the U.S.  That is true. The vast majority of your brothers and sisters also did not break the lamp.

We must have the will to enact common sense steps for the protection of all even if it causes some discomfort to a large number of Muslims innocent of any wrongdoing. If necessary security steps make it more difficult to immigrate to the U.S. for Muslims than for others, even if that is unpleasant for the majority of Muslims, so be it. If we need legitimate access to a particular Mosque because we have “reasonable cause” to believe a terrorist attack is being hatched inside so be it. We can make it clear that we do not need access to your Mosque because it is “Muslim,” we need access to your Mosque because it may be hatching a terrorist plot. If it turns out to be nothing, we apologize for the inconvenience and move on. If we name a particular Imam who is preaching “death to Americans” in the press and that creates some discomfort for the members of his Mosque so be it.

That very discomfort may even have a positive effect in the long run. Over and over again we hear that we will never be able to end this threat without the cooperation of the Muslims themselves. If the necessary steps for security inconvenience Muslims more than the rest of us maybe that will motivate them to exert peer pressure on the radicals among them to create change. Maybe there will be fewer of the “terrorist factory” types of Mosques in business. Maybe some of the terrorist inciting Imams will be shunned by the masses. Maybe the millions of Muslims across the world will come up with a few ideas of their own how to rid themselves of their mutated brothers.

And let’s not assume that the Muslims who are innocent of wrongdoing are stupid enough to believe that we hate them all. Even as a 10-year-old you knew that you were being kept inside to force your brother to fess up to breaking the lamp. You knew it wasn’t really about you at all. You knew who did it and so did all your brothers and sisters. The group itself eventually forced the behavior your parents wanted. The millions of innocent Muslims out there know exactly what’s going on.

Political correctness only further enables the innocent majority to continue to do nothing. This irrational fear of offending someone must end for a very simple reason. It costs lives. It may require making Muslims a little uncomfortable to find out who broke the lamp (and who is planning to break more).

Finally, ask yourself, if one of your Christian brothers from a church in Mobile, Alabama was planning a terrorist attack would there be any hesitation in arresting him on the front steps of the church with full cameras rolling?

 

 

In Thursday’s post (2 days ago) we compared the results of the terror attack in Orlando to the results of daily life in Chicago as follows:

The results of the terrorist attack in Orlando – 49 shot and killed, 53 injured.

The results of daily life in Chicago for the last 15 days – 30 shot and killed, 167 injured.

 

A quick update this morning now shows 40 shot and killed, 191 injured in Chicago over the last 17 days. Please report in if you notice any news coverage of this latest American tragedy. If you notice any liberal politicians even admitting this is happening send up a flare.

 

 

There’s an old WWII era joke about the definition of hell. It says that hell is a world in which the British are the cooks, the French are the mechanics, and the Germans are the police. Obviously, in heaven the job assignments are different. In a similar way, most of the talking about guns these days is being done by those who know the least about the subject.

For example, Alan Grayson, Congressman (D) from the district where the shooting took place, said that the gun used by the terrorist could fire “700 rounds per minute.” This is absolutely not possible. This fire rate is a specification referring to the fire rate while there is ammunition available. It disregards time necessary to reload and, even if the gun was connected to an endless belt of ammunition, one could not fire 700 rounds in a minute. According to Steven Howard (a lawyer and gun expert), due to heat build up “in reality, you’ll get to 500 rounds and the gun will just melt.” 

Grayson also said of the killer on CNN, “If somebody like him had nothing worse to deal with than a Glock pistol which was his other weapon today, he might have killed three or four people and not 50.”  Let’s examine that with two scenarios; one with the Sig Sauer MCX actually used and one with a Glock 17. According to local news outlets, a total of 202 rounds were fired by the shooter and the police. Let’s assume the shooter fired 200 of those.

Scenario #1 Sig Sauer MCX: A skilled shooter can fire 60 rounds per minute. Let’s give our shooter 50 rounds per minute. This gives us roughly 4 minutes actually pulling the trigger 200 separate times. Reload time is roughly 4 seconds. With the 30 round magazine he had that is roughly 27 seconds. Total gun operations time: 4 minutes, 27 seconds.

Scenario #2 Glock 17: The fire rate for the Glock is the same (as fast as you can pull the trigger) so we will still have 4 minutes actual firing time. Reload time is actually a little quicker but we’ll say it’s the same. With 10 round magazines he would have to reload 20 times. At 4 seconds each that’s 1 minute, 20 seconds. Total gun operation time: 5 minutes, 20 seconds.

So, it appears Mr. Grayson’s claim that only 3 or 4 people would have been killed had the evil “assault rifle” (a political buzzword only) been banned is also nonsense. With a display of his lack of knowledge it seems obvious he is grasping for political points at the expense of the death of 49 people. His is but one example of the sad politicization of a terrorist attack. When a major newspaper (using the term loosely) actually blames the NRA for a terrorist attack you know you’ve jumped the shark.

Remove every supposed “assault rifle” on the planet and a terrorist will use the Glock handgun. Remove all the Glocks and he’ll use a bomb. Remove all the bombs and he’ll use a pressure cooker. Remove all the pressure cookers and he’ll use box cutters.

Remember not to be distracted folks. The discussion of the weaponry used by a terrorist is meant to force you to look away from the fact that your government is failing to do the one thing that would help. Remove the terrorists.

 

 

The results of the terrorist attack in Orlando – 49 shot and killed, 53 injured.

The results of daily life in Chicago for the last 15 days – 30 shot and killed, 167 injured.

95% of the victims in Chicago were either Black or Hispanic.

Where is the outrage over this terrible loss of life that is not a rare event but one that goes on every day? Where are the Democrats wringing their hands on all the “news” shows of their lap-dog media outlets? Where’s President Obama trying to make his political points? Where’s Steven Colbert and the supposedly funny people using ridicule to try to make their political points? Why don’t the editorial pages of the liberal press churn out some of their professorial sounding nonsense about these deaths? Where are all the candlelight vigils in “solidarity with the Black community” or with the “Hispanic community?” Doesn’t anybody care about this “tragedy?”

It could have something to do with the fact that Chicago has been under the control of the Democrat Party for the last 85 years. These are their results. It could be that they do not want to draw attention to the fact that some of the strictest gun laws in the country are failing miserably. How could this be?

In the interest of human life, allow me to offer a suggestion. Maybe the Democrats running the city should enforce the laws they already have instead of wailing for more restrictions on law-abiding citizens. According to the Chicago Police Department, in the first 9 months of 2015 there were 2477 arrests on gun charges. Of those, 600 had been arrested on weapons charges before.

Now, hang on to your hat. 460 of those had one prior arrest on weapons charges. 132 had two prior arrests on weapons charges. 28 had three prior arrests on weapons charges. 6 had four priors and 2 had five prior arrests on weapons charges. Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said that the current system is “equivalent to a catch and release system.”

I have to ask…. What would passing yet another law really accomplish? Using their logic, we could crack down on repeat drunk drivers by making it impossible to buy a car.

As you venture out there into the world of discussion please do not allow yourselves to be drawn into discussions of the attack on Orlando that are designed to distract you from what is really happening. A few simple things to remember:

First, this is not about gun laws. There is no law that could be passed that a terrorist would not break.

Second, although the LGBT community suffered agonizing losses, this is not about the attitudes of the general population towards LGBT’s (which have actually been improving). If there was an anti-gay component to this attack (as opposed to just wanting to kill Americans of any kind) it was because terrorists are commanded to kill gays. In the Middle East they throw them off of buildings.

And finally, this is not about politics or elections. While these sad events should definitely help us consider who we want to lead us going forward we should not be discussing the “horse-race” aspect of how it will benefit which candidate.

Let’s stay focused on the fact the we are at war. We have been attacked on U.S. soil now at least five times. Our President refuses to acknowledge that fact to the point where he just gathered up enough nerve to even say the words “radical Islamic terror” yesterday after 7 1/2 years. Even at that, he did so in a mocking tone. It doesn’t match the narrative he wants in his little fantasy world. He wants to be President in the kind of world he wants it to be, not in the one he got.

As you watch, listen, or read coverage in the coming days remember the narrative your government fed you was that Benghazi was caused by a video. Remember, the architect of Obamacare admitted that they lied to take advantage of, in his words, the “stupid American voter.” Remember that White House aide Ben Rhodes recently bragged about lying to the American people about the Iran deal. They are, once again, trying to control the narrative and are, once again, counting on the “stupidity of the American voter.”

Stay focused. We are at war and our government is more concerned with their politics than with your security.

 

 

 

 

A legitimate question one could ask of the left these days is “When does a fear become a phobia?” If you Google the word “Islamophobia” you instantly get 4,360,000 hits and the word appears daily in almost every major publication, multiple newscasts, and reams of political thought. For the left, it has become an accusatory term to be used against anyone who expresses concern over Islamic terrorists, Syrian refugees, or the silent Christian genocide taking place in the Middle East. But is it an accurate term or is it a bastardization of the language? Where exactly on the scale do we flip the switch from fear to phobia?

Many activities involve a certain level of fear. Let’s take a look at crossing the street. An average person who crosses the street has a background level of fear in his mind that he could get hit by a car. Almost 100% of the time that fear is so far removed that it never really makes it to the conscious level; it’s embedded back in there from his childhood when his parents taught him how to cross the street. Moving up to a slightly higher spot on the fear scale, maybe our street-crosser notices that a car is coming from one direction and is forced to decide when to cross. At this point, some small level of fear may cause him to choose to wait rather than make a dash.

As the amount of vehicles increases from one car to two, the speed increases, and the decision eventually becomes about “traffic” rather than single cars the level of fear goes up slowly but surely. We can imagine ratcheting up the fear further by adding larger and faster vehicles (a speeding concrete truck is slightly more worrisome than a slow-moving Smart car) or adding the element of surprise (a vehicle that surprises you when you thought none were coming can definitely raise your heart rate).

Let’s imagine some even higher levels of fear of street crossing. Let’s say for some emergency reason our street-crosser decides he must cross an Interstate highway. Maybe it’s a medical emergency or he has to save his dog. Now, there is a palpable fear. His brain is shouting at him, “I better be careful. If I make the wrong choice here I could get hit by a car and killed!” Now we are to the level of real heart pounding fear. Let’s look at one final level of street-crosser’s fear. Let’s imagine a person who, on a clear sunny day with not a car in sight in either direction and absolutely zero real danger of having a problem crossing the street, is totally paralyzed with fear at just the thought of crossing the street.

So where does our fear of crossing the street become a phobia? The dictionary says a phobia is “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.” By this definition it seems that all of the fears we looked at for our street-crosser except the last one were normal, healthy survival mechanisms. The point where we flip the switch from fear to phobia is when the fear is no longer rational.

So, transferring this to our national discussion of Islamic terror, the question becomes is the current level of fear rational? It seems rational to have a certain amount of fear that the Paris attacks could be duplicated by Islamic terrorists here in the U.S. Many of our cities, our gatherings at sporting events, and our restaurants are almost identical. They only needed 11 terrorists to kill 130 people. We now also know that the death toll could have been much higher. The plan was to detonate a suicide bomb inside a soccer stadium (think Patriots football game in the U.S.) and then two more detonations outside the stadium when the panicked crowd rushed out. This plan was foiled when an alert member of security noticed the first bomber’s vest.

It also seems rational to have a certain level of fear that Islamic terrorists might try to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees. One of the 11 Paris attackers did just that. Those with such concerns have been mocked by the President as being “afraid of widows and orphans” as if such fears were ridiculous or irrational. Does it still seem irrational however when we realize that one of the Paris attackers was a woman? A woman who tried to entice a police officer to come nearer by pleading for help just before she blew herself up? Is it rational to be concerned about the influx of those the President mocks as “orphans” when we realize that the Boston bomber Tsarnaev brothers came to the U.S. when they were ten years old?

Amazingly, at this point in my writing of this post, Islamic terrorists did attack here in the U.S. In San Bernardino two terrorists claimed 14 lives and were suspected to have another attack planned. One of the attackers was a woman. Should we still be unconcerned about “widows and orphans” Mr. President? CBS also reports this morning that the woman, Tashfeen Malik, passed DHS counterterrorism screening. It now seems extremely rational to demand an even higher level of screening than we now provide for the entry of Syrian refugees if we decide to allow any at all.

And, finally, there are multiple reports that an individual in the neighborhood where the terrorists lived witnessed large numbers of packages arriving, large numbers of Middle Eastern men coming and going, and work going on in the garage late at night. Although suspicious of these activities he did not report it to anyone because he feared he might be accused of profiling. In this case it seems the problem is not Islamophobia but Islamophobia-phobia (an irrational fear of being called an Islamophobe). This is the fear that Islamic terrorists want to cultivate and our current administration is helping them do it.

Let’s cut to the chase on Islamophobia in this country. There is no irrational fear. There is fear. It is completely rational and highly deserved. It needs to be addressed. You could make the case that it is currently being ignored by our government officials but let’s just say that it is not getting the attention it requires. Worst of all, our current administration mocks those who demand stronger actions as victims of a phobia.

Is it not more irrational to stick your head in the sand and invite tens of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees into the country when you cannot properly screen them? Especially, when ISIS has told us they would infiltrate them and have already done so in other places?  Real fear is a survival mechanism which must lead to action if you wish to survive.

All we really have to fear is the fear of Islamophobia.

 

There is a huge void on college campuses these days and it might not be where you think. Here’s just a small sampling of some of the insanity:

At Amherst College protesters demanded “a statement of apology to students, alumni and former students, faculty, administration and staff who have been victims of several injustices including but not limited to our institutional legacy of white supremacy, colonialism, anti-black racism, anti-Latinx racism, anti-Native American racism, anti-Native/ indigenous racism, anti-Asian racism, anti-Middle Eastern racism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, mental health stigma, and classism.”

They had further demands in regard to the student(s) who posted the “All Lives Matter” posters, and the “Free Speech” posters that stated that “in memoriam of the true victim of the Missouri Protests: Free Speech.” “Student Affairs may require them to go through the Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed, and that they will be required to attend extensive training for racial and cultural competency.”

At Boston College activists demanded “the introduction of compulsory, in-person, and regular anti-oppression training” to be “led and organized by people of color with significant experience in anti-oppression activism or scholarship” who should be compensated and acknowledged for their labor beginning in spring 2016.” At St. Louis University activists demanded “Mutually agreed upon commissioned artwork” for minorities.

At Princeton protesters occupied the president’s office and demanded “eradication of every reference to progressive racial segregationist Woodrow Wilson at Princeton”,cultural competency training for all staff and faculty,” “a racially segregated safe space dedicated specifically to Black students who oppose racial segregation,” and “classes on the history of marginalized peoples” because “learning about marginalized groups, their cultures, and structures of privilege is just as important as any science or quantitative reasoning course.”

Such nonsense continues ad nauseam across the university spectrum to the point where the very meaning of the word “university” no longer applies. “Safe spaces” (public spaces taken over by PC warriors) where certain types of speech are not allowed? Limitations on media attendance at rallies to only those who are willing to pledge to provide favorable coverage (Smith College)? Do these seem like places where independent thought and a free exchange of ideas are encouraged?

Although well beyond that point now, I can say that were I to have high school aged children I would be wondering where the hell can I actually send my kid to college to actually get an education? I would also be willing to bet that there are thousands of parents across the country right now wondering the same thing.

The first group of trustees and or school administrators who can actually show some intestinal fortitude and run a school properly will have students and parents beating down the doors to get in. A simple reply to these protesters would have to include only a few simple items. First, the students do not run the school. Second, there is a system in place to deal with serious offenses and it is run fairly. Third, if your feelings are hurt by thoughts different than your own maybe you should transfer to another school. This would also apply to newly formed schools. Parents with their heads screwed on straight are seriously looking for places where their kids can get a classical, useful, education. Will the free market start generating some of these? We’ll see.

In a semi-related story, the newly renamed University of Missouri “Special Snowflakes” played a basketball game against Kansas State on Monday. Apparently during the game, one of the K-State players blocked a Snowflake player’s shot and taunted him with something like “don’t bring that weak stuff in the lane.” This was enough to trigger a microaggression response from the Snowflake team. They retreated to their “safe space” at center court, demanded that the player in question be ejected from the game, have his scholarship revoked, and thrown out of school. After all, it upset them. They also demanded the opposing coach be fired. Just as a side note, the Snowflakes lost 66-42.

Civility, Fear, and Power

Posted by GB on November 20, 2015
Posted in Uncategorized  | No Comments yet, please leave one

The other day my wife shared with me a  Facebook post which appeared on a page she followed. I would like to share my reactions here (I don’t do Facebook). In the interest of complete and total accuracy the entire text of the post follows:

“I’m a 44-year-old white man. I grew up in a middle class homophobic racist home and went to an evangelical christian college and then went into corporate management. Basically the most hated type of human in the world right now.  I became a leader in the evangelical church I attended and believed with all my heart that I was loving the people in my life that I invited to church. I rejected much of the disgusting beliefs of my childhood but I still voted Republican like a champ. Ten years ago, my life transformed as I was rejected by my church and embraced by many of those that I thought needed my message of love. Hah. I needed them. I went into coaching which is a decidedly liberal profession and I spend my life teaching, learning, and living what I hope is authentic love. But here is my problem: my Facebook feed is like the civil war. Blue States vs Red States. Obama lovers vs Obama haters. It’s all too much for me. I love you all. But you are all fucking wrong. Well, not wrong about what you believe–but wrong about how you treat each other. A clever meme might get a laugh from your friends but you are not convincing anyone–except you are convincing them to hate you more. I get it–the other side needs to be shouted down because their voice is too loud. Please, for the love of all that is good, see the human over there behind your belief about them. They woke up with fear and love in their heart just like you. They are managing their fear and love differently than you. A couple of clues for you to notice yourself–if you find yourself feeling like you are better or worse than the group of people you are describing–you are probably dehumanizing them or yourself. If you find you find yourself saying “I  ….” you are probably dehumanizing them. If you find yourself saying “I need to be seen as smart, clever, loving, patriotic, fill in the blank” you are probably dehumanizing them. What would the human in you say to the human in them? Try that! Please! Creating peace is hard work but we an (sic) do it.”  *** End of post ***

I absolutely agree with the sentiment that we should all be civil to one another. On the other hand, that does not exclude a passionate and sometimes loud debate about our beliefs. More on that in a minute.

I would first like to suggest (quite politely and respectfully) that the author shine the light of his observations on himself and take a good look. He says he “shed his disgusting beliefs” but “still he voted Republican like a champ.” That sure sounds to me like, to use his words, he is “feeling like he is better than the group of people he is describing” and “dehumanizing them” in the middle of his plea to not dehumanize anyone. My intent here is not to tear apart this gentleman’s post (because I agree with the general premise) but to argue for its equal application.

I agree that the social media world is on fire these days. Along with increasing demonstrations in the streets, media stunts, and other attention-grabbing tactics Facebook, Twitter, and the entire social media world seem to have gone nuclear. Why exactly is that? I believe there are several reasons.

First, I believe the lack of civility comes from the top. Our current president is quite comfortable using the bully pulpit to insult those who do not agree with him. There is a list as long as your arm of him publicly insulting opponents of his policies including members of his own party. Just in recent memory, he called opponents of the Iran deal “crazies” and taunted those advocating for greater screening of Syrian refugees as being “afraid of widows and orphans.” Never mind that one of the suicide bombers in Paris was a woman and that the Boston bomber Tsarnaev brothers came here when they were ten years old, but I digress. Those who are just reaching voting age now have known nothing but this example of being “presidential” since they were old enough to begin paying attention to politics in 2008. Perhaps our author would offer the same advice to the President he offered to all who read his post, “A clever meme might get a laugh from your friends but you are not convincing anyone–except you are convincing them to hate you more. I get it–the other side needs to be shouted down because their voice is too loud. Please, for the love of all that is good, see the human over there behind your belief about them.” A president leads people in some direction whether he wants to or not; his example is out there for all to see.

Second, and most importantly, there are times when shouting is necessary. When the theater is actually on fire it is necessary to shout “Fire!” Again, I agree whole heartedly with the author when he speaks of his fellow citizens saying, “They woke up with fear and love in their heart just like you. They are managing their fear and love differently than you.”  All kinds of people have all kinds of fears. Homosexuals fear being persecuted, blacks fear racism, the religious fear a loss of their freedom, and businessmen fear a crushed economy.  Everybody has their own bag to deal with. There has now emerged, however, a fear that eclipses all the rest. That is the fear that our system of government which for centuries has protected all of its citizens from those aforementioned individual fears is now being (or may already be) lost. People are feeling that their voice in government is no longer heard and, thus, try to influence their society in other ways. Some feel that they can influence culture through demonstrations and social media and, in that way, indirectly influence government. This fear is also currently visible in the popularity of candidates on the Republican side who are perceived as “outside” of government.

As someone old enough to be the father of our author, I would like to offer a little history. The first President of which I was really aware in a political sense was JFK. For most of my life my impression was that the pendulum of political policies swung back and forth but within a limited range. JFK-LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush.. no matter your disposition sometimes things moved your way, sometimes they moved the other way but there was always a sentiment that everything was OK, you could affect things with the next election if you weren’t happy with your representation. All of that has changed drastically with the current mix of politics in Washington. A power-grabbing President, a weak Congress, and a Supreme Court not interested in actual law have created a huge shift in power from the people to the Executive branch. Washington is ruling against the will of the people and does not care what you or I think about it. A couple of examples might be in order.

Neither the Cap and Trade proposals nor the Immigration Reform proposals ever had the votes to pass Congress even with a President and a majority of both houses of Congress of the same party. Just let that sink in a little. The Cap and Trade provisions are now being back-doored into effect by regulations generated by the Executive Branch (the EPA) against the will of the people. The provisions of the Immigration Reform Act are being back-doored into effect by Executive Order of the President against the will of the people. This is to say nothing of Obamacare which was force-fed to the public by a one vote margin of that same super-majority Senate in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve. At no time did it ever have the approval of a majority of the country.

Some people who agree with the policies which are being “back-doored” might be actually smiling thinking that “their guy” is getting things done or that “their team” is winning. I would suggest they temper their joy with a healthy dose of “what if.” Even if 50% of people favor these things and 50% oppose, 100% (everybody) should oppose them being done in this way. The danger here is not the particular issue or which policy one favors. The danger is the allocation of power. Once the power is transferred to the executive branch the precedent is set for future presidents to use that power to do the absolute opposite of what you may favor today. Suppose that two or three presidents down the line from today we get a president who directs his EPA to regulate the wind and solar businesses out of existence (based on bird kills and environmental impacts of solar disposal this would not be difficult). At the same time this president might give massive subsidies to his friends in the coal industry. Would the people who are applauding today’s results still be applauding? What if a future president decided to enforce federal immigration laws against “sanctuary cities” but not to enforce federal abortion laws against a new phenomenon called “pro-life cities?” Would today’s smiling liberals be happy about that? Outraged? Freaking out on Facebook? How about if a future president decided to turn a blind eye to the enforcement of federal gun laws in the same way our current president is not enforcing immigration laws?

Again, it is not about which side of the political spectrum you occupy, it is about the changing of the very mechanism of government and how it serves (or does not serve) the will of the people. This concentration of power was the greatest fear of our founding fathers and was the reason for the Bill of Rights. This is not about a single issue. It is about the loss of our very essence and many who love what this country used to be are standing up and loudly entering the political arena for the first time out of a terrifying sense that we are losing America.

I vow to be civil. I vow to be respectful of my fellow-man but I will not be silent. In the name of the 1.3 million soldiers who gave their very lives in the formation and preservation of this formerly great country I will stand and be heard. I will honor their sacrifice. I owe my children no less than what my elders gave to me. When the government takes away my voice is when I will shout the loudest.