Post Election Musings by Guest Contibutor Ron Burch

Election Day has come and gone. And as is always the case, there are winners and losers. I’m in the latter group … sold down the river for food stamps, cheap health insurance, a cell phone and a monthly supply of condoms or birth control pills.

It’s a sad, sad day.

As I think about it, I can’t help but wonder what has happened to our country: when did Americans lose all perspective on what it means to be an American? Have we lost all of our scruples? All of our values? Swapped ‘em both for a pocketful of false political promises?  Even in 2008 it was difficult for me to understand why a majority of Americans voted as they did. I reasoned that for some, it was the idea of the first black President – a handsome, articulate man preaching the gospel of ‘Hope and Change.’ Such a whimsical notion was scary to me, especially in a world precariously balanced between economic chaos and the chaotic acts of Islamic terrorists.

I had done my research. I knew about Obama’s good friend Bill Ayers, a convicted terrorist whose only regret was that he didn’t kill more Americans. I knew about Reverend Wright, Obama’s ‘Spiritual Mentor,’ and the preacher who baptized his children. (Oh yeah, he’s also the same guy who condemned America by saying “…no, not ‘God Bless America, …God Damn America.’) He blamed this country for the 9/11 attacks saying that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

I knew that Obama had zero experience as a businessman … no understanding of economics whatsoever. He was a community organizer from the south side of Chicago who became an absentee Senator; one who had spent most of his Senatorial career campaigning for President. There were so many things so wrong with him I couldn’t imagine a fictional dimension where electing Barack Obama wouldn’t be the worst thing that could ever happen to America.

Still, I understood that the U.S. had a distant history of slavery and a less distant history of racism. As opposed to Obama as I was, a tiny part of me was proud that I lived in a country that in my lifetime had gone from segregation to electing a black President. Not just any black man, mind you, one that could read from a teleprompter and speak with such confidence and enthusiasm he could literally charm the panties off a Nun – no wait, that was Bill Clinton, another democrat! Regardless, in recognition of the man’s gift of gab, I told many of my Liberal friends that I secretly wished the GOP had someone who could articulate a vision as well as this guy could. The only problem was I knew that everything he said was BS, and I couldn’t convince anyone else of that reality.

So, at the end of the day, I gave the general population the benefit of the doubt. Most of them were not as informed as I was. The President was energizing, especially to the young. People had heard what the mainstream media wanted them to hear and most of them hadn’t taken the time to research the validity of their rhetoric and out their lies. With no other option, I tolerated more than 1,400 days of this President frequent dishonesty … his foreign policy embarrassments, economic devastation and giant steps towards Socialism that will redefine America longer than I will be alive … even if I break the Guinness Records.

The President demanded $800 billion in stimulus money insisting that if he got it, America would never rise above 8% unemployment. If he didn’t, it would be a disaster. Unemployment stayed at more than 8% in excess of 44 months. He said he would halve the deficit and he doubled it; he said he would lower the debt; it rose more than every President before him combined to $16 Trillion. (I remember a time when the idea of a trillion anything was pure science fiction.)

Then there was the Benghazi disaster … people who get all their news from Brian Wilson, Dianne Sawyer, Scott Pelley or Wolfe Blitzer still don’t know what an extraordinarily profound scandal this is. God’s honest truth, other than killing Osama Bin Laden (which has much less to do with Obama than almost everyone realizes), I literally could not think of one single reason to vote for Obama.

After four years I thought that everyone would finally see what I’ve seen. As 2012 rolled around, at last there would be a rising of the American ideology that created this great nation. Until Obama was declared the winner, I couldn’t imagine a scenario where Romney wouldn’t run the table.

We live in a world where there is more communication, more access to information than was available to any generation in the history of humankind. I can only assume that the new social media is mired deeply in the youth who don’t yet understand the destruction they inspire. Winston Churchill once stated, “If you’re in your 20’s and not a Liberal, you have no heart. If you’re in your 30’s and aren’t Conservative, you have no brain.” The young advocates of the new social media need to develop a brain. Sadly, that requires years that I’m not sure we can afford.

It appears that the American voter has become so superficial that they still only see the glitz in this tarnished puppet and they wanted four more years of it. The entire country … perhaps the entire world … will suffer from the choice the ignorant majority made on November 6th in ways that only historians will fully understand … assuming we survive four more years of this President. History will consider for time immemorial what might have been, but will struggle with what Obama imposes upon us and all the ways that he will diminish us.

I, for one, am inconsolable, Mitt Romney is such a good man who truly loves America and wanted to make us great. I curse the ignorant among us even though by definition they don’t realize what they’re doing. Although it’s wrong of me, I’m coming to the point of hating them for their ignorance. Ignorance that is going to cause me and mine to suffer, and for four more years, there’s no way for me to fight back.

The Monday morning quarterbacks will have us pondering if Romney should have pushed Obama’s face into the Benghazi issue; the 100 rounds of golf, the ‘Apology Tour,’ and everything else already mentioned. Americans were warned after the first election, and now they deserve whatever happens next. Unfortunately I’m going to suffer as well, and I knew better.

When I went to bed last night, the electoral votes were evenly split, but it was not looking good for our side. I prayed that God would have the last vote and that the man that eventually went to the White House would be a man of his choosing. When I awoke on November 7th, I learned the bad news. I trust that the man upstairs understands what all of this means and where we are heading. His purpose is beyond me, but tonight I will again pray for the grace to accept it and endure the next four years.

The bad news is that Americans chose a Muslim moron over a devout Mormon. The worse news is now we are all one heartbeat away from Joe Biden becoming the most powerful man on Earth.

May God have mercy on us and may God bless America!



Is Government as Good as You Think it Is? By Daniel Phillips Guest Contributor

Like many Americans, I have been thinking a lot about politics lately.  I am not really sure whether I love to hate politics or I hate to love politics.  One thing is certain; it is getting pretty ugly these days.  A lot of people think that is something new, but really it isn’t. There was a time when rival politicians would sometimes duel to the death.  And then of course there was Tennessee Congressman David Crockett (he actually hated the nickname Davie) who famously in a fit of anger told his own constituents “you may all go to hell; I am going to Texas.”  No. politics has always been an ugly thing, but that is because it is so important and people get passionate about it.  It is important because if we do not all pay attention it is easy to be deceived.  Remember, Adolph Hitler and Hugo Chavez were not revolutionaries who led a civil war for power.  These guys were elected.  People voted for them because they liked the things that they said.

The important thing to understand is that government is not a good thing.  Philosopher Max Weber described government as a Monopoly of Violence.  Before you start freaking out that Danny is an anarchist let me finish explaining.  Government is necessary, a necessary evil if you will.  Without government there would be violence all over the place.  If you had a possession, or perhaps food, and your neighbor wanted it and was more powerful than you, he would simply take it.  In fact, anarchy as a permanent state is not even possible.  There are evil people who crave power and these evil people, if they can amass the weapons and pawns necessary, will rise up and declare themselves kings.  So, without a government, there will be violence and the strongest will keep rising until they monopolize the violence.  The subjects obey the ruler out of fear of violence and in turn the ruler prohibits violence by others in order to win enough support of the subject to stay in power.  So government, by definition is a monopoly on violence and a necessary evil.  This is something that many people in our modern world do not understand, but something that our founders understood well.

In the modern world we always hear politicians talking about and promising “good” government.  The important thing to remember is that those words are just what they think we want to hear.  Power and greed is primarily what motivates them.  It always has been and it always will be.  Believe me that any person who really has the ability to do the job of President of the United States also has the skills to be the CEO of a corporation, a job that pays many times what the job of President pays.  Who would want such a job?  I contend that such a person has to be a little evil.  You see, normal good people do not desire power over other people.  Yet here is a job that attracts not those who desire money like most people, but those who desire power over others.  I always hear Republicans talking about how scary the Democrat is and Democrats talking about how scary the Republican is when actually we should all be nervous about both of them just because they want the job.

This is where our founders were so brilliant.  They created a government that is limited in scope and power.  They drafted and ratified a document which restrains that government to those powers specifically enumerated to it is.  They attempted to bind and restrain that government in a way that would protect the American people against the most dangerous thing in the country, the government itself.  Sadly, over the years that leviathan has grown and grown.  The people whom we have elected to manage that government have pushed and strained and all too often outright ignored the limits placed upon them by the founders.  They expand this power by convincing the very people who have entrusted that precious Constitution to them that they are doing whatever they are doing for our own good.

There was a video playing a few days ago at the DNC that said “Government is the only thing that we all belong to.”  This is absolutely backward.  It is the government that belongs to the people and not the other way around.  Both the Party and the Obama campaign have disavowed any involvement in the making of the video.  However, the party has not disavowed the ideas of collectivism and ever expanding government.  Almost every speech has echoed this theme.  Sandra Fluke claimed that if the government does not force another individual to pay for something she wants she is somehow being denied her right to it.  President Clinton said that his party believes in a “we are all in this together” philosophy whereas as Conservatives believe that you are on your own.  As benign as this sound, and even attractive to some, this is NOT the role of government.  A bunch of guys in a prison are “all in it together.”  When you are outside those bars you are sort of on your own.  You are not marched to the cafeteria at lunch time, but instead have to find a way to feed yourself.  Of course, people pull together through tragedy and trials.  They do this through their local communities and churches and civic groups.  But government sponsored collectivism is the elimination of individualism, individual rights, and freedom.  I would much rather stay outside those bars.

Over the next 60 days you are going to hear speeches and debates.  Both guys are going to tell you how horrible the other guy is.  In the end, one of them is going to get elected.  Sadly, he is probably going to continue expanding the size and scope of government.  Romney has promised smaller more limited government.  History tells us that he and his party will probably manage a slower rate of growth than Obama and his party.  I hope that I am wrong and that he keeps his promise.  What you need to keep in mind is that it may all sound like sunshine and dreams when they promise you all these things, but anything the government is doing for you, any decision the government is making for you, is another freedom you have lost and another step closer to tyranny.  Government cannot give you anything for free.  It can only force you to buy it by taxing you first (or borrowing the money from China and taxing your children).  Isn’t it better to make your own choices what to do with the fruits of your labor?  Of course, the left will tell you that you aren’t going to pay for it.  They will just get the money from the “rich.”  Well, once they have taken everything from them, they are coming for you next.  You can count on that.  There simply are not enough of those super rich out there to pay for everything they are promising.  Not to mention that this will result in fewer of them.  After all, what is the point of doing all of the hard work required to succeed if it is only going to be taken away?

If you love government and think that it is just the best thing since sliced bread you are probably going to vote for Obama as he has promised and he is giving you even more of it.  But if you are one of those on the far left I have a question for you.  Do you agree with all of those delegates at the DNC who were saying that we should ban corporate profits?  If so I will not take the time to explain how stupid this is, how no profit means no more corporation and no more jobs. What I would like to ask though is this.  Why is a corporation, run by people so horribly evil while a government (also run by people) is so, so good?  That company that you hate so much will not get your business or your money unless you chose to do business with them.  The government on the other hand is going to take your money whether you choose to use their services or not.  And if ordinary human beings suddenly become evil when they enter the business world, I need you to explain why they are trustworthy when you give them all the power of government.

Daniel Phillips :Graduate of University of Houston Law Center.
Licensed to practice law in Texas and North Dakota.
Employed by the Department of Homeland Security.
Veteran of Afghainstan and Iraq.
Retired Texas Army National Guard.
Live in Houston

The Food Police have Arrived!

I debated long and hard with myself over the last two days as to whether this incident really rose to “blogworthiness” in an election year political blog.  The right side of my brain won the debate so here’s my rant!

Last month in an elementary school in Hoke County North Carolina, the food police ( under the guise of a school official) arrived with a vengence – saving a four year old toddler from her Mother’s home packed lunch. Be afraid, American parents, be very afraid.  Uncle Sam has now decided that the government is better equipped to feed your children than you are.

According to the Carolina Journal,  A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs – including in-home day care centers – to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.
The girl’s mother – who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation – said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
“I don’t feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.
The girl’s grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.
“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told CJ. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”
When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.
“She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,” her mother said. “You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. your lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”
While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.
“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.
There are no clear restrictions about what additional items – like potato chips – can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.
“If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child,” Kozlowski said.
Ultimately, the child care provider can’t take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she “would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child.”

Now for clarification, here is the state regulation that was cited in this case:

“Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.
“When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????  A parent sends a perfectly acceptable home made sack lunch to school with their child, and our government thinks its THEIR business to OVERSEE the meal. A school official, citing a state regulation, decides that chicken nuggets are a healthier alternative to a turkey on Whole wheat sandwich?  Excuse me? Isn’t this just one more example of BIG BROTHER government over stepping its boundaries and trying to insinuate itself into our daily lives.  Enmeshed and entangled!  Get out of my lunch box!  One more slippery step on this slippery slope of government intrusion into our private lives.  Looks like I’m going to have to put the ACLU on my speed dial.

NOW the White House is Against Civil Disobedience?

For months, American cities were held hostage by the hooliganism that is the Occupy movement (which brought with it loitering, destruction, drug use and violence).  It is a movement, however, that had great support from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  They viewed it as a fine form of democracy at its best ; a shining example of the first admendment.  When the lawlessness of many of the protesters was raised, the administration’s whitewash attempt of such incidents was the term “civil disobedience”.  They brandished that term like a badge of honor. Civil disobedience…hmmm.

Fast forward to this past week as Army chaplains were instructed not to read a letter in Mass on Sunday that expressed disapproval of a new regulation in the administration’s health care law. It was thought that the language in the letter spoke too strongly against the President.

According to a senior Army official, Chief of Chaplains Donald Rutherford was asked not to let chaplains read the Jan. 26 letter sent by Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio because of the sentence that states: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

“There was a worry that would be a call for civil disobedience,” said a senior Army official.  CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, you say?  Hmmmmm…

The letter states in part, that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule that requires coverage of sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans is a direct violation of the First Amendment allowing religious liberty.

It continues, “As a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to choose between violating our consciences or dropping health coverage for our employees (and suffering the penalties for doing so),” he wrote.

“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom”.

Now let me see if I am fully understanding this. Let’s contrast and compare when Civil disobedience is ENCOURAGED by this White House and when it has the rug swiftly pulled from underneath it by the SAME administration.


As of January 30, 2012,  6,455 arrests connected to the Occupy  protests have been documented.  Protesters have been charged with a number  of crimes, including rape, arson, vandalism and assault.

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit notes:

It’s certainly not the first time the occupy criminals have resorted to  violence. In fact, the occupy movement is based on lawlessness and  destruction. So far we’ve witnessed:

9 deaths, 5 found dead in tents, One found  dead after 2 days – 2 murdersTens of millions of dollars in damages,  layoffs, vandalism, law breaking – Multiple Rapes – Thousands of  arrests – Public masturbationFecesChild molestation and baby abusestrangled parents in a PT Cruiser

Nevertheless, Democratic lawmakers – including the President – continue to  support the movement.

One should not be surprised the administration would turn a blind eye to the  violent nature of the movement that has been endorsed by Communists, Nazis and Islamists  worldwide.  They have, in fact, stood in solidarity with the Occupy protesters  from the very beginning.

Now contrast the White House’s allegiance to Civil disobedience as it applies to Occupy, with its disdain for the Catholic church’s stand on the violation of their religious liberties as pertaining to HHS.  They Church, thru Army chaplains, let their dissent be known – or tried to let it be known- and they were shut down from the get go.  WHERE IS THE ACLU screaming about First Amendment rights and  Free Speech?  Does Civil disobedience get protected only when those in power agree with their agenda. The Occupy movement is glorified in the Media, while people of faith are portrayed as ignorant, narrow minded bigots. The media and this White House want to marginalize believers and their voices.  Free Speech for ALL Mr. President, otherwise,  we are sliding down the slippery slope of thought policing.

DId Congress Just Vote Away our Liberty?

Did our Congress just vote away our Liberty?

“We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – the Preamble of the Constitution
What exactly is “Liberty”?  Webster’s Dictionary describes it as: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice.
In my first foray into the world of political blogs, there was so many headlines that sparked my interest (frustration and incredulity as well)- the 2013 election, protest movements, unemployment, a nuclear Iran, turmoil in the Middle East, rising oil prices, or a roller coaster stock market.  They all vied for my attention, but the voices in my head got my immediate attention by shouting one word over and over again…LIBERTY!  Without liberty, the other problems don’t amount to a hill of beans. (Thank you Humphrey Bogart and Casablanca) Ever since the 9/11 attacks, we Americans have felt that terrorists were the biggest threat to our freedom -our very way of life- and we have vigilantly guarded against these foreign dangers.  However, we didn’t expect the threat to our individual liberty to come from within.
On December 1, 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, S. 1867, passed the Senate with a 93 to 7 majority.
As stated in Conservative Action Alerts, “the Senate failed to approve amendments curtailing the power of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, a bill crafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) that would declare the entire United States of America as a military battlefield. The DoD Bill also provides the President power to hold American citizens indefinitely and waives the right to trial, which is codified in the Bill of Rights.
On Tuesday, the Senate rejected Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s amendment 1064 to modify S. 1867; Senator Mark Udall’s amendment 1107 was also rejected.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, on Fox News, commented on S. 1867 last week saying, “It basically says that the President can arrest whoever he wants anywhere in the United States of America, and keep them without charging them for a crime, without letting them see a lawyer, without bringing them to a judge for as long as he wants. How is that consistent with the Constitution?”
Judge Napolitano knows the Constitution.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) wrote recently on his Facebook page that S. 1867 is “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.” Moreover, Amash maintains that the bill capitalizes on misleading semantics; regarding section 1032, he says “‘The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.’ This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public. Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.”
Senator Paul warned on the Senate floor Tuesday: “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won … detaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.”
Here is a link to Senator Paul’s passionate attempt to kill the Indefinite Detention bill before the Senate.
Once you watch this clip and begin to understand the ramifications of this bill, you’ll discover just who the government views as threats?  Could it be your neighbor, your Pastor or a close friend?  Is it me?  Or You?? For starters, any citizen with seven days or more food stored in their home is suspect.  Well, uh-oh.  That’s me AND a lot of other people I know. Trust me, I’m no threat.  I’m a proud American who loves her country dearly and just happens to be a great shopper that stocks up when a deal is on hand. More threats? Anyone missing fingers on either hand.  REALLY, are you kidding me? This would be amusing if it wasn’t so dang scary. THIS IS A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE, my fellow Americans!  What starts out as the government’s attempt to protect its citizens from foreign terrorists, can then easily be used against the very citizens it swore to protect.  What if the powers that be decide they don’t like what I’m saying?  If my opinions aren’t acceptable?  Will they monitor my Facebook page or this blog and decide I am a threat?  When those in power feel the need to silence dissenting voices, this bill could be the very club they will wield.
President Obama, I implore you, for the sake of Liberty and Freedom, to veto the National Defense Authorization Act.  If it stands, the terrorists have already won by destroying what has always made America great without ever having to launch another attack on our soil.
We have seen the enemy and it is us.


  1. Awesome! I hope Obama is listening. Of course, he might be the one who wants to throw us in jail.


Where is the Decision on the Keystone Pipeline?

President Obama recently delayed making a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline project until after the 2012 election, throwing just about everyone into a fury.  In a nutshell, the environmentalists want the pipeline to go away and just about everyone else wants it to be approved. So why delay the decision? The only reason I can think of is political – if you don’t want to tick anyone off, don’t do anything. While this may be good politics, it is lousy leadership.  What do you really stand for, Mr. President? From this writer’s point of view, the risk of the pipeline is minimal, compared to the potential gain. Here are the pluses:

  • It allows access to an additional source of oil, providing downward pressure on prices.
  • It reduces America’s dependence on oil from the Mideast, where we are hardly very popular.
  • It is a clear, shovel-ready project that provides a multitude of jobs (they say 20,000 as soon as approved, with many more indirect jobs soon after).
  • It would provide much needed stimulus to the economy.  Even the unions, whom I don’t usually agree with, like the idea.

The only negative I can think of is the risk of environmental damage from a spill. While this is always possible, new technology developed over the last few years for preventing spills and cleaning them up has reduced and mitigated that risk to a large degree. In my humble opinion, the benefits far outweigh the risks.
But regardless of the direction, it’s time for our President to get off the fence and make a decision and live with the consequences.  Mr. President, forget the election for a change and show some leadership.  The American people are smarter than you think and they are watching.
Saint Leo


Welcome to Liberty Leaking!

After months of responding to stuff we saw on Facebook and trying to elegantly express our thoughts in that medium, we decided to branch out into the blogosphere.
We’re two friends who have maintained a philosophical commonality and, at long last, decided to make our voices heard on a bigger scale. From time to time, we’ll probably feature some guest viewpoints that we think folks would like to hear.
We are basically conservative, though it could be said that we lean toward libertarianism – we want smaller government and better compliance with the US Constitution. We have many friends in the military and wholeheartedly support them as patriotic individuals, but do not always agree with our government’s interference in the foreign affairs of other countries where our national defense is not the objective.
This post will be one of the few that we do jointly – just to kick off the blog.  Most of the time, we’ll post separately since we don’t necessarily agree on everything.
Additionally, we’ll be presenting viewpoints and our personal observations, which don’t require much research or justification.  The reason for this is that we want to reflect what our impressions are and the impressions of the folks we know.  Most Americans don’t do much research into the facts, but react (and vote) based on the general feeling they get from their friends, politicians, business leaders, and the military.  Additionally, there are very few news outlets that can really be considered objective.
We invite your comments, including dissenting viewpoints.  However, inappropriate or insulting comments will be deleted with extreme prejudice. If you disagree and want to support your position, please cite your supporting sources so we can review them –  repeating sound bites does not qualify.
What’s the last thing that we want?  Easy question.  The last thing we want is for folks to think we have all the answers.  It shouldn’t be a news flash to anyone that we don’t.  But we will consider ourselves successful if we get more people thinking about this stuff and talking to others about it.
Talk to your neighbors.  Talk to your kids.  I know this sounds crazy, but talk to your spouse. Post respectfully on Facebook and Google+. Start a blog like we did – it’s really easy.  But don’t sit back and complain that you can’t make a difference. And please, please vote for the candidates that best represent your beliefs on how our country should be run.
In the age of the Internet, everyone can easily get their thoughts out there.  If you’re not sure about your ideas, put them out there as a question – “I heard someone suggest this.  How come this isn’t a good idea?”  If your idea is good, folks will gravitate toward it.  If it has merit, folks will comment and you can refine it.  If it’s a bad idea, someone will point out why and you’ll have a new perspective.  I can’t see anything wrong with that approach.
And so it begins.  We look forward to some meaningful, constructive discussions. Subscribe to our blog “LibertyLeaking” – we look forward to hearing from you.