Firearms Friday: For Whom Are You Really Voting?

This is how we started the year... how will it look in four years? 

Well, the campaigns are now in full swing and it seems like every other commercial is sponsored by the Clinton campaign (or some associated group). There are also the various campaign spots from local politicians filling the screen as well but that is another topic for another day. Back to the national campaigns… so far I haven’t seen much regarding the qualifications of Hillary Clinton being ‘promoted’ in these advertisements rather they have been going out of their way to attack Donald Trump and some of his statements which have been clearly taken out of context.

Heck, even my wife has been disturbed by this trend. But this shouldn’t really be a surprised for those of us who have put some thought into the presidential race as there are no ‘qualifications’ or ‘accomplishments’ to be found in her record that would, in any way, support her candidacy. After all, an ad buy promoting Obamacare, Benghazi, and private servers wouldn’t really be part of a winning strategy. It is actually rather pathetic the lack of concise information present to support her rather than simply opposing Trump.

However, I digress. What I really want to bring to the fore is what is of utmost importance in this election cycle. It isn’t Obamacare or the economy. It isn’t race relations or military operations. It isn’t international relations or the national debt. While these are all important in their own right they are not of primary concern this time around. In fact, it really isn’t about who is occupying the White House. It’s about the Supreme Court not the Presidency!

In addition to the seat left vacant upon Antonin Scalia’s death this past February, there are likely to be three other appointments which need to be made by the next president. After all, there are currently three associate justices who are 78, 80, and 83 years old respectively. For those of you interested, below is a list of the current court with ages and by which president they were appointed:

John Roberts (Chief Justice), 61, George W. Bush

Anthony Kennedy, 80, Ronald Reagan

Clarence Thomas, 68, George H. W. Bush

Ruth Bader Ginzburg, 83, Bill Clinton

Stephen Breyer, 78, Bill Clinton

Samuel Alito Jr, 66, George W. Bush

Sonia Sotomayor, 62, Barak Obama

Elena Kagan, 56, Barak Obama

The Supreme Court is the body that will determine the direction of this nation not the individual in the oval office. Whomever wins this election and takes office in January will determine the course of this country for the next generation not the next four or eight years. Personally, and I know I am not alone in this thinking, I would prefer a conservative court that upholds our rights (especially the second amendment), limits the power held by those in Washington, and, most importantly, support and defends the Constitution. It is scary to think about the possibility of a court where five of the justices where appointed by a Clinton and two more where appointed by Obama. That is a future that none of us can afford.  

DNC Aftermath

Heading into this past week I was curious as to how the “celebration of leftist ideals” was going to progress in the wake of the WikiLeaks hack and the transition of the disgraced DNC chair from her position with the party to an integral part of the Clinton campaign. It was interesting to say the least watching the Democratic National Convention unfold this past week as speaker after speaker leveled their attacks on Donald Trump and the Republican Party. From behind the wall requiring Photo ID to get in the speakers took the stage in rapid succession: Vice President Joe “Double Barrel” Biden, President Barak “You Didn’t Build This” Obama, First Lady Michelle “I Live In A Slave House” Obama, President Bill “I Hope To Open A First Gentleman’s Club” Clinton, Bernie “Burning and Itching” Sanders, Tim “I Have No Business Here” Kaine, and many other questionable speakers.

One of those brought to the stage was the father, with his repressed wife standing beside him, of a soldier who gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country, Khizr Khan. Given the treatment that the military and law enforcement has received during the event, the level of hypocrisy accentuated by those six minutes is rather astounding. While I respect and humbly appreciate his son’s sacrifice I cannot say the same about his punditry. Add to this questionable selection of a presenter with the fact that the stage at one point was filled with the mothers of those “killed by the police” and it truly demonstrates the fact that this was more of a circus rather than a convention.

However, there were a few things that truly disturbed me about this past week. The first was the undenounced burning of the Israeli flag outside of the convention. The second was the simple fact that there was not an American flag to be found during the DNC until this exact fact was pointed out publicly in the media. But, the most distressing aspect of this whole charade was the blind sheep like accolades that kept filling social media. Seems as though there are too many blinded by gender and the eerily robotic call to “Join Us!”

And this brings me to the marquee speech of the event which really had me questioning the mentality of the American people who have proclaimed their rabid devotion to Hillary Clinton. Following her outline of countless programs for which there is no clear plan to pay for the government overreach, she insisted on promoting the idea of group think. Included in her “I alone can fix it” diatribe, she emphasized over and over the Utopian ideal that no one can do basically anything alone. Specifically, she said:

“20 years ago I wrote a book called “It Takes a Village.” A lot of people looked at the title and asked, what the heck do you mean by that?

“This is what I mean.

“None of us can raise a family, build a business, heal a community or lift a country totally alone.

“America needs every one of us to lend our energy, our talents, our ambition to making our nation better and stronger.”

And that is one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem, that we face in this country. We have forgotten how to be self-reliant. Too often people are turning to others to do the heavy lifting and, in some cases, take the blame. This mentality can be seen in the increased reliance that many have on government funds and also on the other side in assigning blame to a group of people rather than an individual. We must remember that individual rights still mean something in this country and we can’t simply follow the Pied Piper as she screeches from the stage “Join Us!”

RNC Recap

Well, it certainly was an interesting week in Cleveland as the Republican National Convention officially make Donald Trump the party candidate for President. It was also a week that introduced many voters to the other half of the ticket as Governor Mike Pence took the stage for his first significant speech since being named as a Vice Presidential candidate on July 15^th. And, of course, there was the speech given by Senator Ted Cruz who spoke for many of us when we said to “vote your conscious” in November. Simply put, Trump was never my first, second, or third choice (which I have made clear over the past year on this blog) but he is the party nominee and I will be voting for him. After all, for all of his flaws, he is the best option on the table.

What was rather surprising was the lack of protesting surrounding the event and the whispers that Bernie Sanders supporters were saving their energy for next week in Philadelphia. Not surprisingly is the fact that Trump received a rather significant bump following the pomp and circumstance from the previous week. It will be interesting to see if the Democratic inmates in the Philadelphia asylum will have the same impact on the polls. However, given the WikiLeaks announcement yesterday, that is becoming less likely and will probably result in some significant changes in the race bating party.

One moment that stood out for me was the emotional speech given by Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, one of the four Americans killed in the 2012 Benghazi attack in Libya, who stated “I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son — personally." Some have criticized the organizers for allowing such an “emotional attack not rooted in fact” but, honestly, what do you think the Democrats have been doing every time there has been a shooting in this country? The other “controversial” speech was that of Melania Trump plagiarizing Michelle Obama’s speech from the DNC in 2008. The amount of media coverage on this was astounding especially when you consider the fact that the questionable section is generic political filler for any candidate and by no means a verbatim copy. If that is what you are looking for you must turn to the President himself during his 2007-08 campaign.

For all the ups and downs that are usually associated with political events of this sort, it was interesting overall to see the mix this time around of ardent supporters, those who are just going along for the ride, and others whom you could tell were really hoping to see someone else on stage accepting the nomination. Honestly, it didn’t seem like the rallying moment happened until late on Friday evening when the WikiLeaks announcement was made regarding DNC emails. Could have been better, could have been worse, but, in the end, I’ll take it. Now all we have to do is wait, vote, and hope that some common sense is realized in this country come November.

Federal Bureau of Inconsistency

A little less than a year ago, on July 29, 2015, the FBI released a statement that wasn’t covered by any of the major news outlets, wasn’t the leading story on the local news, and was never committed to the black and white of the newspaper. It wasn’t news “worthy of dissemination” but, given the recent statement issued by FBI Director James B. Comey regarding Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server the verdict announced last summer is finally being brought to light. First, let us review a small section of the statement from 2015:

“Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced… According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.”

When looking at the “crime” and the penalty it is pretty straightforward and should be easily applied to future situations. This is especially true when you consider the fact that this is pretty much a textbook example of Section 793, subsection (f),”Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information“, of the US Code which outlines the following:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

So now let us consider the case at hand. While clearly a much more complicated investigation than the one previously detailed, the results are much more concise in the transgressions committed by Secretary Clinton during her time at the State Department. First let us determine if any of those emails contained classified information that would warrant charges based on the aforementioned statute. For this, I reference two sections from the recently issued statement:  

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”

…

“Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

And, just as in the case of Bryan H. Nishimura, intention is not a factor in determining whether or not someone has broken the law. There is a reason why security measures are in place, systems are monitored, and all correspondences are catalogued… these are steps we need to take to protect our information and maintain the level of security necessary in this world. While the FBI is kid in the following section, I would qualify the actions of the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, as grossly negligent:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

What really matters here is that this was a breach of national security and, while they haven’t been able to determine whether or not hostile parties have accessed classified information the FBI admitted noted that “…we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” We were put at great risk by Secretary Clinton and she should be facing charges. But…

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case… To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

And there is the double standard clearly stated by the FBI Director himself. Of course, today’s testimony makes me think a little about his “interesting” perspective on the law:

Yet Comey said while Clinton showed “great carelessness,” he did not see evidence she and those with whom she corresponded “knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law.”

He said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based only on what is known as “gross negligence.” At the same time, he suggested that if Clinton had worked at the FBI, she could be subject to a range of disciplinary measures including suspension or termination.

“You could be walked out,” he said.

Basically, he is stating that if you get pulled over on the highway but you didn’t realize that you were speeding then you didn’t break the law. Yeah, my head hurts too. While there are many trying to assign motive to Director Comey, I am not going to do so, his more recent statements pretty much sum up his thought process and qualification to hold his position.

All I will say is that there is no way I will ever trust Secretary Clinton… not now and certainly not as someone running for the Presidency. But, if you believe in double standards and hypocrisy, by all means cast your vote for Hillary. Personally, I would much rather vote for someone who believes in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility… but I will settle for Trump.  

Caucus Results: Thinning the Hurd

Regardless of your party affiliation, it is always entertaining to watch the first votes cast of the year. Of course, having both tickets up for grabs makes for a much more interesting few weeks. As the results are tabulated in Iowa and then New Hampshire the following week, you can see the energy shift from one candidate to another. Sometimes the results are expected as they essentially meet the predicted percentages that the polling reflected days or weeks prior. However, sometimes there are little twists that basically throw the nomination back up in the air.

This year, Iowa gave us the first culling of the heard on both sides with O’Malley, Huckabee, Santorum, and, unfortunately, Rand Paul, suspending their campaigns following disappointing support. At the same time, there were a few candidates that got a surprising level of support in the first round with the socialist Sanders nearly edging out Clinton, Cruz winning by a surprising margin over Trump, and Rubio nearly taking second place from the lewd Billionaire. However, when all the votes were tallied and the concessions faded into the campaign records, Rubio seemed to be the most presidential both in the support that he received and the gracious yet substantive speech that he made. 

The Iowa Caucus made for some intriguing foreshadowing for what was to transpire in New Hampshire Primary where the outsider candidates, Trump and Sanders, claimed victory. Not surprisingly, following a poor debate performance over the weekend, Rubio fell a couple of spots. However, in the end, the primary did just what it was designed to do… it narrowed the field as both Christie and Fiorina suspended their campaigns following single digit turnouts.

If you want to know what role these initial dry runs have on the process, this is exactly it. We can’t head into November with a dozen candidates on the ballot. In a matter of two weeks a half dozen campaigns came to an abrupt halt. However, it seems as though the vote is still quite divided, more so than it has been in some time, and this whole process could drag on into the summer when Pennsylvania has a darn good chance of determining who will represent their party in the Presidential election. This is clearly case on the Republican side but is also a possibility on the Democrat side as the FBI may finally catch up to Clinton and the vacuum could draw a few more late entries into the fray… makes you wonder why Clinton’s campaign slogan isn’t “Catch me if you can!”

Anyway, it should continue to be an interesting race throughout the year especially if Trump keeps putting his foot in his mouth and Cruz keeps hiring actresses that will put anything in their mouths. Maybe we get lucky and both happen opening the door for Rubio. Of course, this is only half of the ticket and I am curious to see the candidates that have been bandied about as running mates. Could Rand Paul still be in the mix? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Firearms Friday: Taking Over The NRA?

It really isn’t a surprise, especially with the campaigns in high gear, that following another incident of evil there are numerous politicians taking aim at gun owners and the NRA. This has been a potent topic for years and was particularly prominent during the first Democratic debate this week with Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continuing to be a vocal proponent of gun control. Oddly enough, this was in direct contrast with Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders who has a long record of voting against such legislation. Of course, that kind of stance never lasts with a socialist leader so I don’t give much credence to his past performance. Basically it doesn’t matter who ends up being the nominee for the Communist party, the rights of ALL law abiding citizens will be a particular point of contention between the parties.

While all of this back and forth was happening on the national debate stage, there were also a few headlines being grabbed by a New York State Senator, Liz Kreuger, who is advocating her fellow rights abolitionists to join the NRA and force a change in stance on the issue of gun control from the inside. As was reported by the New York Daily News, “Krueger first raised the issue at a roundtable on gun violence issues hosted by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) after someone suggested meeting with the NRA to try to find common ground on a gun control law, the New York Observer reported.” Yes, this is how far and how demented their ideas have become.

First of all, as was noted in the same article, Thomas King, president of the state Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA board member, “the NRA has more than five million members and scoffed at the suggestion there are enough "anti-gunners" to make an impact on the organization.” This is true, and those of us who are proud members would not stand for that kind of drastic “change” in policy… that is not why we donate our hard earned money. We choose to support and strengthen our rights be fighting those who wish to continue limiting our freedom.

Secondly, keep in mind that the same people who support this kind of radical action are the ones that would be filing suit if every Republican in this country were to register as a Democrat in order to change the party and support candidates that would oppose those policies that they currently hold so close to their empty hearts. Either action should be seen simply as perpetuating a fraud against those who support the basic principles of the organization. And what they are underestimating is that by proposing such actions they are actually galvanizing support for the NRA by the current membership (especially those of us who are life members), including me, which is why I have decided to join the NRA Golden Eagles. 

Which One Is The “Old White Men’s Club”?

Here is a screen shot of the potential GOP candidates for 2016
(not all have announced or formed committees).

It is interesting to read the news with the media still labeling the Republican Party as the “old white men’s club” rather than using descriptors that are based on principles. While I will discuss the latter of the two dilemmas later in the post, let’s first take a look at the slander that is still being bandied about. Here is the current list of those who are running for President in 2016 (this includes those who have announced and those who have formed exploratory committees):

Democrats:

Former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee: White, Male, 62

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: White, Female, 67

US Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders: White, Male, 73

Former US Senator from Virginia Jim Webb: White, Male, 69

Summary: 4 candidates; 3 men, 1 woman; all white; average age of 67.75.

Republicans:

Dr. Ben Carson: Black, Male, 63

US Senator from Texas Ted Cruz: Hispanic, Male, 44

Former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson: White, Male, 60

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina: White, Female, 60

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: White, Male, 59

US Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul: White, Male, 52

US Senator from Florida Marco Rubio: Hispanic, Male, 43

Summary: 7 candidates; 6 men, 1 woman; 4 white, 2 Hispanic, 1 black; average age of 54.43.

While there is no denying that politics on both sides are still dominated by men, the other characteristics of the candidates paint a much different picture than those on MSNBC would have you believe. Diversity is nearly nonexistent among the Democrats while nearly half of the Republican candidates are ‘minorities’. Additionally, the average age of the Republican candidates is over 13 years younger than those of their counterparts on the Democratic side. So, tell me again, which one is the “old white men’s club”?

However, let’s step back and look beyond the demographics of the candidates. Would you rather support a party that prides itself on limiting the rights of the people to support and defend themselves or would you rather vote for someone who will maintain the rights of every citizen of this country to be self-sufficient, hardworking, and accountable for their own actions? Would you rather have the government make choices for you or would you prefer to have the freedom to choose what is best for yourself and your family? Would you rather have the power reside in the individual states and the people therein or in a large, centralized, government dictating policies and handing down executive orders?

Consider your responses to those questions carefully. I have had to answer those questions for myself which is why I continue to support the party of the people, the party which continues to fight to preserve my rights, the Republican Party. This is also why, when considering the changes that need to be pursued and the decisions that have to be made moving forward, that I am supporting Rand Paul for President in 2016 (still up in the air as to running mate but I am currently leaning toward Marco Rubio). I have made my decision, who are you going to support?

California Politics = SNAFU

I don’t hide the fact that I am a rather partisan person when it comes to politics. However, in my life, there are instances when I have broken with party lines and voted for another candidate. Granted, there has to be darn good reason to do so but it has happened and I believe that I made the right choice at the time. There are people in this country that are ardent supporters of one party over another regardless of the actions of the candidates… welcome to California!

Back in March, anti-gun California State Senator Leland Yee (D) was arrested by the FBI on corruption and bribery charges. Unfortunately, it is not surprising these days to hear such charges being leveled on a politician. However, what made this case unique and rather disturbing is the fact that the anti-gun legislator, who has attached his name to nearly every anti-gun piece of legislation since he took office, was also arrested by the FBI on charges of conspiring to illegally import and distribute firearms, allegedly including machine guns and “rocket launchers”. Since that time additional details have surfaced. Specifically, he was arrested for conspiring with the Chinese mafia (Triads) to import and sell full-auto rifles and rocket launchers (I wonder if any of them were “ghost guns”). The full warrant affidavit can be read here.

This week, Leland Yee was back in the news. Mr. Yee, supposedly possessing either the worst memory or biggest balls in history, was running for Secretary of State. This is not a punch line, this is reality. I heard about this some time ago and, like many law abiding gun owners, I was confident that no one would vote for such a criminal. Well, like many times before, I underestimated the stupidity and partisanship of many voters. Leland Yee collected nearly ten percent of the vote in the California primary. This translates to a third place finish with 300,425 Californians who decided that legal firearms are bad but illegal guns are perfectly acceptable.

Results such as this really bring to light that not all the issues in politics can be blamed on the politicians themselves, it all comes down to the voters. This isn’t a new problem, this has been a part of politics since the beginning when politicians realized that they had four primary ways of running a campaign: run an honest race and position yourself as the best person for the job; manipulate the perceptions of the voters and attack your competition; use your celebrity status (entertainment, sports, politics, etc.) to garner popularity votes; or, run for office in a place where your party is guaranteed to win by blind party vote. The first has long since withered away while the other three strategies are what have taken root in this country. This is why it really doesn't matter if you are an adulterer (happy belated 50th birthday to Monica Lewinsky), left someone to die after driving your car off a bridge, you are an arms trafficker, or your biggest accomplishment is finishing second on American Idol... you still have a chance to be elected.

A blind vote is supporting the Political SNAFU that we all despise. While I don’t think this is ever going to go away, we should at least do all we can to stunt it’s growth by educating ourselves as to the candidates that are running, knowing who is currently representing us, and giving a crap about the decisions that these people are making in office. While we may all have opinions as to whether their actions are good, bad, right, or wrong, we should take those policies, actions, and charges into account before we pull that lever or hit that button. I am not against voting along party lines so long as you know who you are voting for.

“The economy, stupid”

You may have noticed yesterday that when I spoke about the State of the Union address I glossed over a huge topic. That was not a mistake, I chose to focus on the other items that came to my attention rather than having economic issues dominating the post. And that is exactly what it would have done. With all that is happening (and, more accurately, not happening) with the economy it would have overwhelmed the post.

If you have never watched the documentary “TheWar Room” I encourage you to do so as soon as possible. If you have seen it but it has been a while I think it is time for you to watch it again. Regardless of your political affiliation, it offers fascinating insight into the daily operations of a presidential campaign and shows just how effective a simplified message can be and how much power can be harnessed by hammering home a single, unified message that resonates with people.

I have written on this topic before but, now, when looking back and applying that messaging to the current political climate it is interesting to see how much things haven’t changed. In 1992, a long shot candidate won the democratic nomination for the Presidency. Facing an incumbent President with an unmatched war chest, Bill Clinton had to find a strategy that would turn the election tables. While Clinton is known for his speaking ability, it was a simple trilogy of tenets that served as the backbone of his campaign.

1. Change vs. more of the same.
2. The economy, stupid.
3. Don’t forget health care.

James Carville scrawled these three principals on a white board in the Little Rock, Arkansas campaign headquarters known as “The War Room.” These points kept the staff and the candidate focused. By hammering these basic points both in supporting Clinton and criticizing Bush, Carville was able to bring the rain that would lead to the electoral landslide in November.

Over two decades have passed since that stunning election and yet the same three points resonate today. However, this time the tables have turned, a Democrat is in the White House (can we still say white house or is that now deemed racist), and the Republican party is in need of a lesson in messaging. So, why don’t we take a page from history, from the radically changed opposition, and use their own three points against them? I find myself asking that very question on a daily basis.

All of the problems that the country is currently facing can be distilled into these three principles. We are facing more of the same policies and tactics that have shut out the press, dictated policies, and questions regarding the Constitutionality of many decisions. All of this while we face an increasing healthcare crisis that is crippling the ability of doctors to offer the service and attention that was once a source of pride in their practice. And questions have come to the surface as to the negligence that may be caused by the forced reporting of certain medical records so as to limit the freedom of people seeking assistance.

Of course, there is the economy. Most of our problems are rooted in the heinous economic policies currently running rampant. The debt ceiling has been treated with such disregard that inflation is becoming more of a probability rather than a farfetched possibility. Unemployment and underemployment has become a matter of false facts with fewer jobs being created than the number of people coming off unemployment while reports state that the unemployment rate continues to fall. Yes, like many financial decisions made in Washington, 1 + 1 = 3.

Even many of the economic policies that seem like great ideas the first time we hear them are nothing more than utopian fantasy. A prime example would be raising the minimum wage. Of course people want to get paid more but what happens when the other dominos fall. When the person making $8 per hour gets bumped up to an hourly rate of $10, what do you think the person who was originally getting paid $10 per hour is going to want? That’s right, they are going to want a bump in salary to at least $12. The dominos continue to fall and while some businesses may be able to support the radically increased overhead costs, many if not most small businesses will either have to decrease staff or close their doors completely. This is not the path to economic growth and a stronger middle class.

Some of the issues that don’t seem related to the economy are actually a part of the crisis as well. People today are polarized by one of the rights that the majority of the country exercises, firearms ownership. While not the determining factor in the debate (by a long shot), the limitation of gun rights has had a detrimental effect on many states. In addition to the hours spent by politicians and law enforcement (salaries paid by the people), many manufacturers have moved factories, offices, and other resources from one state to another because of limitations placed on the people (Magpul moving out of Colorado exemplified this issue). Also to be considered is the increased costs faced by government and law enforcement agencies due to the refusal to sell to certain states and departments which is their right as privately owned companies (see Ruger, STI, Barrett, Smith & Wesson, and others).

There are many issues that this country faces and it is going to be a painful recovery when we are finally able to right the ship. Can it be done? Yes! Change may be difficult but it is not impossible and as long as we have hope there is nothing that can keep us from returning to prosperity. While the times have changed the challenges remain the same and while we have not been able to prevent the repetition it is never too late to learn from the past.