How important is this election?

If you have to ask, you're not paying attention!

This coming November, you may think you will only be electing a President. but you're wrong. believe it or not, you will be making a dramatic and profound statement to the electorate.
You will be saying you care!

   I hate to use this word, because people mistake it for something its not. when you say the word "REVOLUTION", people immediately think of guns and battles and people dying. REVOLUTION is simply a means to change, an uprising of an oppressed group of people against injustice. But it doesn't have to be bloody or fatal. It simply has to be effective.
   WE NEED A REVOLUTION in this country, a revolution to remind people THEY, not the government, are in charge! We need to quit listening to the constant media disinformation that continues to set black against white, citizen against immigrant, homosexuals against heterosexuals, Christians against Muslims, anyone against anyone in order to keep us distracted from the real issue. The HAVES are trying selfishly to keep the HAVE NOTS from getting any of what they have.

   Why? Because they are just as frightened as the rest of us. Because they see the world changing and we, human beings, hate change. Oh, I am sure there are a few of them who are evil and greedy and just don't want to see anyone else with their "hard earned" profits. (They do seem to forget their profits were earned on the backs of the "common" folks, don't they?) But the majority of the 1% are the same as the rest of us. They want to protect what they have, and try to give their children a better life. They want their children to live a better life than we did.

   Somewhere along the line they bought into a lie, a profound and invasive lie which permeates our society and threatens to destroy this nation, a nation built on the premise that people, regardless of race, religion, or ethnic background, are fundamentally the same. The lie? They're out to get you, to steal from you, to destroy what you believe, to take what is yours. The lie? If we allow them to be different, they will destroy what we have! The lie? If they do not believe as I believe, they are the enemy!

   We are all Americans! AMERICANS! Our color is not important, our heritage is not important, our faith is not important. Not when it comes to preserving a nation which allows these things to be important to all of us. If I am to call myself an American, then I must place the needs of this nation above my own. This is the Responsibility that accompanies the Rights I have as a Citizen. I can assert my rights to worship and speak and defend myself and enjoy the simple pleasures of my life as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others! In other words, as long as I accept the Responsibility to ensure those Rights are protected. That is the price I pay for being an American, for living in a nation where I am free to choose, free to consider, and free to vote!

   That last one is the important one. We hear accusations fly back and forth on the television, on the radio, and now on the internet. Every election we are bombarded with claims from both Democrats and Republicans who vehemently accuse the other side of being to blame for our nation's woes. Elections are no longer about placing leaders in office, but have come down to "lesser of two evils" philosophy we have been sold by the media, by the 1%, and by the politicians. An old saying goes "The greatest trick of the devil is convincing the world he doesn't exist." In this case,the greatest lie ever sold to the American people is their vote does not matter.

   

I am calling for a revolution!

I'm not asking for blood in the streets or armed rebellion. What I am calling for will take more courage than any assault in any conflict in history! What I am calling for is the revision of the Congress and the Senate and the States by electing leaders, not politicians, to office. What I am calling for is the American People to care!

Thoughts on a spring afternoon - The Peoria Smith Review

Thoughts on a spring afternoon - The Peoria Smith Review

Seems we are National again...and never for the right reasons.

Just got this juicy little tidbit from MoveOn.org.

It seems Peoria has hit the national spotlight again, and as usual, not for anything we did right.

As pastors and teachers, Catholic bishops are supposed to lead their flock in sharing the love of God with our neighbors. So why did a Catholic bishop in Peoria, Illinois, just use his Sunday homily to compare President Obama to Hitler and Stalin?
Bishop Daniel R. Jenky of Peoria launched a vicious tirade against politicians who disagree with the bishops' views on health care reform, culminating in the outrageous claim that "Barack Obama seems intent on following a similar path" to Hitler and Stalin, who "would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open."
This kind of hateful and incendiary rhetoric is inappropriate coming from anyone—but it's simply outrageous coming from a religious leader in a position of public trust. Bishop Jenky needs to hear immediately that reasonable people are appalled by his remarks.

Now of course, MoveOn.org wants you to sign a petition, which is a reasonable request if you are so inclined. They're easy to find, and if you would like to sign it, please do. But I actually have another point to make here, and I hope you will bear with me.

Over a year ago, when C. J. Summers was publishing the Peoria Chronicle on a regular basis, I submitted a Guest Editorial concerning some actions by the Peoria City Council. C. J. returned it to me because I referenced Nazi's in the article, along with a lengthy sermon on why he would not publish an article with a reference to the Nazi's because of a journalism rule which states the reference is overused and inaccurate. All well and good, I edited the article and it ran. So case closed, right? Wrong!

C.J., if you are so outraged and incensed about using the Nazi party as the inaccurate descriptor of actions and persons, where is your outrage now? You were so careful to research your latest article on the highway versus rail fiasco, an argument that has little to no merit since people do not ride trains, yet when a Catholic Bishop runs amok with a statement as offensive as this, you are silent. I would think, since I know you are not in danger of excommunication, you would be all over this shameful event, imploring the good readers to speak out against such an unreasonable and unwarranted attack on the President of the United States. Especially when what Bishop Jenky is really asking for is government sanctions of religious beliefs.

If the Catholic Church had any say in it, Roe V. Wade would be thrown out, abortions would be illegal, as would any form of contraceptive, and we would be back to the days of women being second class citizens. As a Christian, I abhor the act of abortion, but it is not my body, nor is it my decision. Perhaps the day will come when people arrive at the conclusion to practice safe and responsible sex, but until such a day comes, abortion and birth control are necessary evils. Most of us reasonable people figured out that letting religious institutions dictate the way government operates is a bad idea back in the 1700's. I'm sure you've heard of some of those events, like the American Revolution, the French Revolution, etc., etc.

C.J., I'm disappointed to say the least. You rant and rave about government decisions, yet when a local church official makes a statement that is both incendiary and flagrantly inaccurate...well, I guess that's what you call journalistic discretion. You decide to publish what you want people to hear.

Guest editorial with a little family pride

Jack Smith III

"By raising the taxes on the rich business owners, instead of taking so much of the profits as income, they will be forced to reinvest in there companies. When they do that, it will mean higher pay for their employees, better work environments, more jobs because they will expand. Which means fewer people on welfare and unemployment. Oh, and by the way, the government will also be getting more tax money from the middle class: (1) because of higher wages; and (2) because there will be more of us. The business owners would be making even more money because they will be selling more. So everyone wins when the rich are forced to share!!!!!"

Don't you love it when your nephew makes you proud? The logic here is undeniable, and this scenario would work exactly the way he said it will. To add to his logic, I give you one more fact. If the business owners put more of their profits into reinvestment instead of taking it as income, you guessed it, they pay less tax. Damn, talk about a win-win situation.

We need to pay attention to this next election, folks, if we are ever going to get this country back in the right direction. Just Saying!

The Second Amendment and You - Why should you care?

I've been thinking about this lately and wondering just how many people actively think about their right to bear arms.

I know at least a few of you do, judging from comments made on my blog and other sources, but I'm kind of concerned that most of us "sane" (for lack of a better term) individuals don't seem to be on the same page here. One comment about passing concealed carry laws and allowing 17 year old black males to "defend themselves" against overzealous white vigilantes has me particularly concerned.

For the benefit of the uninformed who were cheated out of a decent education in high school, here is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, by the wording of that amendment, the reason for people to have firearms is to protect themselves from aggression. Since a militia is defined as civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army, this would pretty much cover just about anyone who isn't wearing a uniform. And since the 14th Amendment has stated that all people in this nation are to be regarded as equals (I know, saying it doesn't make it so, but that is another can of worms we can discuss later), then why would we need to pass extra laws to state teenage black males should have special consideration to keep and bear arms?

The first part of this Amendment is the part I'd like to focus on for a moment, if you will bear with me. Specifically the word "militia", and further the part about being trained. Obviously training would include the mechanics of the weapon, how to aim it, how to load it, how to clean it...etc. But since the definition included above says "civilians trained as soldiers", is this really the training we are discussing?

When I was in the military, and when I was a reserve and military police officer in the San Diego area, I received the training mentioned above for a variety of weapons. I learned to aim properly, care for and clean the weapons, and how to secure them when they are not in use. But I also learned the rights and responsibility of using a firearm.

You see, in order to have a firearm, it is not enough to simply know how to use it, but much more important to know WHEN to use it, and when not to. Simply thinking you might be threatened or being afraid is not enough. You need to justify the use of "deadly force" before you use it.

Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.
The use of force is generally illegal unless it fits within the strict requirements of one of the four legal justifications. They are: self-defense, defense of a third person, crime prevention, and law enforcement. Each of these areas has specific requirements that must be met to avoid criminal liability. You may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary in the situation.. This is judged by what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation, it is only when the aggressor uses or attempts to use deadly force that you have the right to respond with deadly force.

Without getting into specifics, this would appear to mean that the individual holding the firearm in any given situation is burdened with a tremendous responsibility to be sure the situation warrants the use of deadly force. But this also begs the question: "Is it reasonable to assume that a person acting under duress in any of the situations mentioned above is capable of responsible, dispassionate action?".

Since we employ people to cover the areas of Crime Prevention and Law Enforcement, and there are already procedures to hold them accountable for their use of deadly force (i.e., laws, civilian review boards, internal affairs protocols, etc.), let's concentrate on the use of deadly force in the first two circumstances: Self Defense and Defense of a Third Person.

Self Defense has several legal definitions, depending on the state or country you live in, but I think we can reasonably agree in this discussion we are talking about defending ourselves from someone who is intent on doing us physical harm. One example I can think of is a man or woman who is concerned about a number of muggings and robberies occurring in an area who arms him or herself with a firearm to avoid being injured. If the person in question is attacked, and the attacks which have occurred prior to this instance have resulted in serious bodily injury or death, does that person then have the right to use deadly force?

You might think the answer is yes, but what if the criminal flees as soon as he sees the gun? Is the person being attacked still entitled to use that deadly force? Since the use of deadly force is for self defense, and since the threat of bodily harm no longer exists, would that shooting be justified?

I could go on and on with examples, and we could argue all sorts of variables, but I think the point to be made here is it takes responsible ownership of a firearm to fully comply with the intent of the law.

So back to the idea of arming 17 year old persons and sending them into the street under the protection of concealed carry laws. Personally, I think that is a horrendous idea, sort of like the mayor of Detroit several years back who wanted to arm young men and send them out in the streets. Or the mayor of the small town in Texas who made it mandatory for citizens to be armed. Firearms are not toys, and they should not be handed out indiscriminately. But the firearms themselves are not the problem.

Firearms are tools, mechanisms which in the right hands can provide food, stave off danger, and defend against violence. But it is ultimately the individual who is holding the firearm who is held accountable for their actions. To issue a license to an untrained, uneducated person is to invite chaos and murder. At 17, most of us have tempers which are fueled by knee jerk reactions to supposed insults, real or imagined. We often lack the emotional discipline to restrain ourselves, which is probably the greatest reason I can think of to restrict concealed carry laws to those individuals who have successfully passed a rights and responsibilities course.

By the way, this is the primary reason I am a member of the NRA. This organization is adamant in their belief that firearms should be available to persons who understand the responsibility of ownership and use.

On the Trayvon Martin incident

"I think the issue is: if there wan't an outcry in the social media world, WE would never have know anything about this. To say we don't know YET, is absurd. If it wasn't forced we wouldn't know anything in the first place. Our justice system is a joke as it stands, so that the prosecutors 'said' they didn't have a case of a black kid being murdered, doesn't prove anything. All those things need to be brought to a jury, altho that doesn't necessarily mean justice either. The stereotypes don't do anything to help this case, either in the media or the courtroom, for Trayvon or Zimmerman. The fact that there were crimes committed in the area and this kid was wearing a hoodie (in 75 degree RAINY weather) have no correlation with each other. And the idea of drugs has 'just' been thrown into the mix. Why is Trayvon's body undergoing a toxicology test and Zimmerman never was tested for anything? Additionally, I think a fatal gunshot wound is assault injury enough. You mentioned the video - do you see any wounds on Zimmerman? Questions? Yes, that need to be addressed in a court of law."

(This is just one comment typical of the many I have read in several discussion groups across the web. - FS)

I have been following this for a few days now. Several points have been made that are valid, others not so much.

The facts:

(1) An armed vigilante reported a suspicious person in his neighborhood while acting as an agent for the police and was instructed not to follow the suspect.
(2) Said vigilante disobeyed orders and followed and confronted the unarmed suspect.
(3)The suspect was shot and there was no justifiable reason that has been given to shoot him.
(4) The objective of the police at this point is to attempt to cover their asses by backing the vigilante in order to save their neighborhood watch program.
(5) If they pull this off, their message is clear...it is open season on young black men if they happen to be in the wrong neighborhood.

The attempts to vilify the victim by characterizing him as a drug dealer only show how racist and vile these accusations have become. Even if Trayvon was a drug dealer, he was an unarmed black man who was committing no crime. Since the agent for the authorities disobeyed orders, I would think they would have thrown his ass to the wolves long ago and cut their losses, but because the victim is young and black, and they fear young black men with any power over their own lives, they are attempting to justify this shooting. It is disgusting, it is reprehensible, and the killer must be brought to justice. To think that any other factor than racist hate is the issue here is absurd. Trayvon deserves Justice. His family deserves Justice, and unless Justice is served, this nation deserves what happens.

And the sad part is, they think they have won!

18th Congressional District
Updated 12:08 a.m. March 21, 2012 100% of precincts reporting Source: Associated Press
Democratic -------------Votes ---Pct.
Steve Waterworth--------10,180---69.6%
Matthew Woodmancy--------4,447---30.4%

Three days ago, Steve Waterworth, a spoiler candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party who originally had no intentions of running for the 18th Congressional District, received 69.9% of the votes, while Matthew Woodmancy received 30.4%.

Congratulations Mr. Waterworth, and congratulations to the 18th district incumbent, Aaron Schock, for now having an opponent he knows he can defeat without hardly breaking a sweat. The Democratic party in Illinois has once again guaranteed two more years of Republican representation. Guess they were worried about upsetting CAT and ADM if, God Forbid, a Democrat ever gets into office here.

All sarcasm and disdain aside, my hat is off to the Woodmancy campaign and Mr. Woodmancy for claiming a victory! Yes, that's right, a

VICTORY!

This entire campaign has been run on a shoestring budget, and it has gotten ZERO help from the Democratic party, not one red cent from anyone except the few blue collar people who wanted to see a politician who is not owned in Washington D.C.

Matthew Woodmancy is being gracious and looking toward 2014. He knows it will be another uphill battle, but he also knows the people who believe in what he wants to accomplish will continue to support him. If you haven't read Matt's platform, it is still available on the Woodmancy for Congress FB page.

In my opinion, the only people that won in this primary are the people who are happy with being screwed by the Republicans. Which means almost all of us lost.