2012 Post Election Thoughts: Am I OK?

Dear Friends,
I was asked yesterday if I was "okay" ... and frankly the answer is no, not at all, not even close. As with a death in the family, I'm on auto-pilot right now, just going through the motions in a world that has fundamentally changed for the worse and will never be the same again. I haven't slept much in several days, with my mind trying to understand what happened on Tuesday. I try to relax, to calm myself by reading, listening to music ... nothing has worked because my thoughts keep instantly returning to the fact that the country I grew up believing in and loving died this week ... and not from a major catastrophe compliments of Mother Nature, a Biblical plague, or an invasion of a foreign country ... worse ... what once was the greatest country in the world committed suicide by voting to reward wrong! 

The new norm? I truly don't understand. 

Unless one admits to being a leech, a thief, a traitor, or complete ignoramus ... i.e., a Kool-Aid gulping Progressive (there are no more Democrats), how could anyone vote for four more years of the worst President, bar none, in the history of this country?
I understand why some would vote for Obama the first time, though I didn't agree ... Here was someone with no known history, an empty shell onto which noble principals might be projected...the soaring rhetoric certainly sounded good and it was a chance to pat oneself on the back for putting the first black man in the Oval Office. I even understand how the brain dead, stupified by the incessant braying of the national media, could see their original vote for Obama as a negation of the George Bush years. But now? How does one ignore all the stuff that has happened in the last four years? How? 

How does someone vote for a party that booed God at their convention? How does a Jew vote for regime that shows disdain for our only Mideast friend, Israel, and is about to allow Iran to go nuclear? How does a Catholic vote for the party that tramples on religious freedom through mandates about abortion and contraception in Obamacare? How does one ignore what happened in Libya on 9/11 ... an administration that for misguided political expediency ignored our embassy's requests for security, watched four Americans murdered and did nothing as pleas of help were sent its way for over seven hours, and then lied to the American people for weeks and covered up what actually took place and why?
How does one ignore the Justice Department breaking the law with its Fast and Furious program and giving weapons to Mexican criminals which has resulted in over a hundred deaths, including the loss of United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry ... or the stonewalling which is still taking place by administration officials who do not make themselves available to Congressional investigators or by the President in the exercise of questionable "Executive Privilege?" How does someone ignore crony capitalism gone wild as millions of taxpayer dollars to go into Obama donor pockets under the disguise of "green" investments in solar energy like Solyndra and so many others? How does one ignore the cost of gasoline? How does one ignore the rising costs of simple groceries these days? How does one justify the killing of thousands of jobs by cancelling the Keystone Pipeline ... a project which would have brought us closer to energy independence and lowered energy costs?
If all this doesn't grab you, how about burying your head in the sand about our country going TRILLIONS of dollars deeper in debt and borrowing money from the Chinese just to pay the interest on the debt that we borrowed? Did you Libtards ever wonder why foreign leaders who support Obama are murderous Socialist thugs like Putin, Chavez, and Castro? Did you ever question policies that resulted in unemployment numbers being over 8% for over 40 months? How could you sit back and say nothing while the race card was played against anyone that opposed the hideous policies of this administration? Was anyone not aware of the hypocrisy of the Left calling for "civility" in political discourse while labeling a decent man that has provided thousands with jobs and given millions to charity a felon and a murderer?
How does someone prefer a bombastic idiot like Joe Biden over a man like Paul Ryan? How can over 60% of the country want Obamacare repealed, and yet vote in a manner that locks it in, quite possibly forever, guaranteeing high costs and government bureaucrats making life and death decisions about people's healthcare? How can this President be given four more years when he has established himself as so mendacious as to make a serial liar like Bill Clinton look like a fountain of veracity and light? How can a vote be given to a cast of vermin that sues its own states for trying to protect their borders or prevent voter fraud by requiring a photo ID at polling stations?
How can anyone who believes in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution cast their ballot for the communist and socialist vipers Obama has appointed to various government offices, or how he has used a myriad of executive orders to rule when his wants conflicted with laws passed by Congress? And on and on ... a vote Tuesday for Obama was a vote to ignore all the horrors that have been taking place on a daily basis since he was sworn in! Get ready for FOUR MORE YEARS IN HELL. 

And yet that is what happened Tuesday, November 6, 2012. 

I live in a country called America, but it has barely any resemblance whatsoever to the nation I was born into or have read about in history books all my life ... a special place that was a beacon of freedom and offered the chance for a person to become successful and participate in the American Dream through their own labors. My America was never a land of wealth re-distribution, class warfare, and millions of people looking to government to provide for them from womb to tomb like the "Life of Julia".
So no, I'm not okay ... and with the situation as it is I'm not sure I ever will be again. What I am at the moment is angry, sad, bitter, ashamed, sick, hurt, confused, disappointed and very fearful. I wonder if there is a word that blends all those feelings together ... if there is such a word I can't think of it right now. 

I am grateful to my friends, my family, and to God for the small amount of comfort I may still enjoy.
Richard Fineberg November 11, 2012

Pat Condell Says It All

I haven't posted much these days.  I'm experiencing what many of my friends are going through, and that's political information overload.  On top of that, it's mostly very, very bad.  I've been particularly distressed at what has happened in Libya, and what is going on in the rest of the world over a meaningless video trailer produced months before, but just now being used as an excuse to incite violence against America.  Making matters even worse is our Muslim in the Whitehouse apologizing to every jihadist who will lend an ear, and next week going to the UN so he can apologize yet AGAIN to the entire world.  Now the new Islamist President of Egypt is threatening America with more violence unless we neuter our First Amendment rights. Pathetic.  Anyway, here's my politically incorrect friend, Pat Condell speaking out on the subject that I highly recommend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCXHPKhRCVg&feature=player_embedded#!

Why Gun Control Doesn't Work

Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbade military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandated that “a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.” Instead of having the intended effect of protecting our soldiers from gun violence, and providing for them a “safer” environment, it had exactly the opposite effect. The anti-gun policies which were enacted provided a an environment at Ft. Hood for Major Nidal Hassan to open fire on soldiers and civilians as if they were “fish in a barrel”.

Beyond limiting high capacity magazines or the internet availability of ammunition, the ultimate in gun control of course would be an outright ban on guns. There is overwhelming evidence that total gun bans are essentially ineffective. One only has to look at the tragedy of the theatre shooting in Aurora Colorado. Colorado has tough gun control laws, and the theatre posted a sign that firearms were prohibited by all (including concealed carry permit holders). Nonetheless, the shooter was able to maim and murder large numbers of innocent victims without any effective resistance. Dr. John Lott Jr, author of the definitive study on guns called More guns, Less crime writes that with a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. Despite more than 4% of the adult population of Colorado having concealed handgun permits, the theatre gunman, intent on killing a lot of people, could be confident because of Colorado’s laws, that law-abiding citizens would literally be “sitting targets.” The ban against non-police carrying guns usually rests on the false notion that almost anyone can suddenly go crazy and start misusing their weapon or that any crossfire with a killer would be worse than the crime itself. But in state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. They can lose their permits for any type of firearms-related violation. After consulting with several of my law enforcement friends, none have been able to cite a single example on record of a multiple-victim public shooting in which a permit holder accidentally shot a bystander. And, not considered at all by the anti-gun crowd is the deterrent effect of a potential mass murderer having to worry that one of his targets might be armed.

The fact is that Chicago, New York City, and Washington, D.C. have the toughest gun control laws in the country. Their laws are so tough in fact that the Supreme Court has declared their anti-gun statutes as unconstitutional being an unreasonable infringement on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens. Yet Washington D.C. is often referred to as the “murder capitol” of the country, and gang-related gun violence in the city of Chicago is up almost 40% this year alone.

So, how effective would it be to liberalize the rights of citizens to carry firearms and to use firearms for the protection of life and property? Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead. Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number." Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery – from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing – produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success." When asked if additional gun laws would be beneficial or have no effect, most Americans, like Ice-T, get it. They oppose shifting power to the criminal. And they don't need the National Rifle Association to tell them: The only people willing to abide by additional gun laws are the law-abiding.

Gun Control according to Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly demonstrated profound ignorance yesterday when he went on this rant about how all sales of "heavy" weapons need to be reported to the Federal government. This opinion was espoused in reaction to the shooting in the theater in Aurora Colorado. He slathered on about thousands of rounds of ammo, bazookas, and grenades, lumping them all into one apocalyptic pile. Surely, Bill exclaimed in his most narcissistic demeanor, "The FBI would have been alerted to the Aurora Colorado theater shooter if they saw he was stockpiling all this dangerous ammunition." Confidently Bill stated, the authorities would have tracked the purchases and would have interviewed him and discovered he was a nut-job and this tragedy would have been avoided. Wow. That's pretty amazing considering the great job the authorities are doing now to protect us on our national borders as well as within our cities. Rising up on his podium, nostrils flaring, smoke emanating from his ears, O'Reilly then exclaimed that these days people could buy fully automatic machine guns, and the Feds would have no way of knowing about it. He mocked and excoriated his guest on the show for suggesting that Colorado already had very strict gun laws, that you couldn't just go out and buy a Class III weapon, and that there were constitutional concerns as well as privacy concerns if anything like what O'Reilly was advocating were actually implemented. I thought this was just the same old bloviating I'm used to seeing, but watching The Factor today, I sadly realized it's much worse. Today, in the segment of the show where O'Reilly reads emails he's received, a viewer said that "The devil is in the details. What do you mean by "heavy" weapons?" , to which O'Reilly responded that "Congress will define what they (heavy weapons) are. That's the job of Congress." The only thing I can figure out is that O'Reilly must have been drinking from the same water fountain as Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

American Dhimmi

Pat Condell is an Atheist.  And he's very proud of it.  That's the only thing which prevents me from otherwise really liking Pat.  I do have a great respect for him, and have found that he is a moral person of great integrity.  Other than our difference of opinion as to the existence of a Deity, I find myself in agreement with what he says. In this video, he talks about the Islamic concept of Dhimmi, a reference to all non-Muslims who are treated as second class citizens and subservient to Islam through Sharia Law.  He sets forth the proposition that our President sees himself as Dhimmi.  The implications are alarming.  Draw your own conclusions.

The SCOTUS ObamaCare Decision

Having been a trial lawyer for over 30 years, and having taught Constitutional Law, many of my friends have asked my opinion of Justice Roberts' decision on ObamaCare.  They have asked me to review a blog  written by attorney Richard Bolen, of Lexington, Kentucky, which suggests a positive spin to the decision and purports to give us hope the Republic will be saved. (You can "Google" it folks, I'm not going to print the whole thing here).  To all of my friends, and to Mr. Bolen, I say "RUBBISH".  There is no silver lining to this decision.  As a retired lawyer and one who certainly knows more about the Constitution than Barack Obama, I can tell you this decision has severely damaged the reputation of the Court, but more importantly has fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship between "We the People" and government.  Justice Roberts had to re-write the statute, and define a tax where none was to be found.  He expanded the taxing authority of Congress beyond any definition of a tax authority found in the Constitution.  His decision was not based on the Commerce Clause.  And indeed, because the taxing authority formed the basis for this decision, the Commerce Clause didn't even have to be considered.  Anything Justice Roberts said about the Commerce Clause, was as we lawyers call it, mere "dicta".  I submit that anytime in the future, all of the big-government State-ists can pass a new law, again not call it a tax, and argue it is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, so they won't be accused of raising taxes.  We are now screwed both ways.  Our very freedom is now in jeopardy for Justice Roberts has given the green light to government to tax "in-activity".  What is to stop the government from imposing a tax on you if you don't by a Chevy Volt? Or if you're overweight? The possibilities are endless.  The only way to save us from truly becoming another socialist society with all it's implications is to defeat Obama in November and immediately repeal ObamaCare.  America is bleeding out financially and unless we apply a tourniquet, the future is bleak for the patient.

The Impact of ObamaCare: Taxing Your Firearms/Ammo out of Existence

Conservatives still reeling from Chief Justice John Roberts's decision to uphold the 2,700-page ObamaCare legislation as a Federal tax are rightly worried that Roberts opened the door to unlimited Federal coercion of the American public through the tax code. One possibility that should generate grave concern is that the Federal government could use to the tax code to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark decisions affirming Second Amendment rights in Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago. This is not a new idea; it is an old one. The New York Times reported in 1993 that the late Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY) proposed adding a 10,000% Federal tax to 9mm handgun ammunition as part of "HillaryCare." Yes, you read that correctly; it is not a typo. Ten thousand percent. Did John Roberts just open the door for a future Democratic Congress to actually enact such a tax as part of ObamaCare? Of course, like most left-wing Democratic proposals, the truly rich would be unaffected. The goal of the gun-controllers has never been total disarmament, just the disarmament of the common man. The rich will always have a loophole, a political connection, or be able to hire private armed security firms. A truly wealthy person – say, a Warren Buffett – could easily pay a 10,000 per cent tax on a box of handgun ammunition, and it would be an absolute bargain if he ever had to use it to save his life. But most people would probably not be able to afford it – and they'd just have to submit to the will of the armed criminal who stole his ammunition or purchased it on the black market without paying the tax. (It may be recalled that, when the FDR administration was trying to circumvent the Second Amendment with the National Firearms Act that would be passed in 1934, a sympathetic SCOTUS justice suggested they could do so by couching it as a tax, albeit a prohibitive one.) http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/can_government_now_tax_handgun_ammunition_10000.html