The Last Amendment Standing

The powers that be have their sights set on the second amendment.

                                   And the are relentless in their endeavor.   

A few weeks ago we offered an article addressing what little is actually left of the Bill of Rights.  Recent history has caused the Bill of Rights to become pretty emaciated.  Much of the loss of freedom and rights can be attributed to the USA Patriot Act and Homeland Security, but the reality is, it began before 9/11.  The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and Education and Welfare Programs of the Great Society are also a part of the demise of the Bill of Rights.  

One of the most troubling parts about targeting the second amendment are the number of subjective variables that could be assigned to the full demise of this right, being embraced by those who who were once staunchly Pro-Second Amendment.  It's as if there has been some sort of hypnotic trance placed over a great number of second amendment democrats and even stranger yet; over many young conservatives.  

In the past fifty years, we've seen "events" and read headlines that seem to trigger the outcry for the loss and removal of freedom under the guise of safety.  The reality that citizens are willing to give up their freedom in the pretense of safety is mindboggling.  If we willingly set aside the Bill of Rights, all other freedoms that weren't even mentioned in that document, will be lost as well.  

The two issues that continue to be introduced to limit gun ownership are mental health and senior citizens ability to maintain their own affairs.  As our nation continues to worship the gods of health care and Big Pharma continues to gain in money and power, there will be few if any citizens that do not fall into some category or label in the DSM-V.  Every veteran will have some sort of label, as will every hormonal woman, and vaccinated child.  Then we must consider the fact that schools receive more federal funding for labeled children, and a real bonus for medicated ones, as do long term health care facilities.  There is big, big money in a labeled, dysfunctional society, until . . . everyone "requires" care and maintenance.  As for senior citizens managing their own affairs.  With the advancement in technology, it could become very difficult for seniors to manage electronic financial transactions that they've done with checks and cash for years, but that should hardly disqualify them from hunting.  When that time comes, and it's rapidly approaching, gun ownership will be a real hindrance to corralling the citizens.   

Obviously, history shows us, our leaders are in much more potential peril than the average citizen, and yet it is average citizens being gunned down in "gun free zones" while our leaders are obviously making disgruntled political enemies; surround themselves with folks carrying guns.  Something else I've noticed as of late in all this "gun control" conversation.  Usually a threat to any leader makes headlines.  We've had "incident after incident" reported around the country, but the leaders just keep making enemies and being safe, surrounded by guns.  As a matter of fact, when innocent lives are reported lost at the hands of lone gunman, the people who are surrounded by armed guards always suggest gun ownership to be the problem.  Research indicates 1 in 3 Americans own at least one gun.  Clearly, the ratio between gun ownership and gun deaths have little place even on the same graph.  

Drugs appear to be a greater factor in murders, than gun ownership.  While on the subject of drugs and guns, according to one of the Presidential Candidates nearly a half million Americans die annually from medical errors.  According to this article, and there are many more with similar information, the third leading cause of death in America is medical errors.  Where's the outrage?  Where is the call to hold these practitioners accountable?  Where is the call to more extensive FDA and Big Pharma control?  Where is the legislation to get serious about the safety and use of pharmaceuticals?  I'll end my rant on pharmakeia and get back to the Second Amendment.      

This may sound conspiratorial, but I truly believe any rational individual will give this some consideration.  If our government is willing to send young people to fight in wars with no purpose, without consideration of the death toll; then bring back the survivors and offer them little to no care or time of recovery, what makes anyone believe the general citizens are more important or will be better treated?  If dedicated soldiers are dispensable, what makes the citizenry of such great value?  I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat, but one does have to consider the possibility that false flags and choreographed drills could be used to enact legislation.  We all admit we don't believe our media and trust few politicians, yet when it comes to these reported shootings and a call to lay down arms, the sheople are getting into formation.

. . . Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?  the Revelation of Holy Scripture

Quite the Quandry . . .

US Representative, Michael Grimm has reportedly made a plea deal to charges of tax evasion and hiring illegal workers.  

Although the sentencing has not yet taken place, according to SI Live  "Michael Grimm faces up to three years in prison."  

SI Live also states, while his future is in question:  "But a few things are clear: He will be disbarred due to the felony, as a guilty plea is equal to a conviction, and he is not eligible for a pension from Congress."

What I find strange is the fact that although he is resigning his seat in Congress, there is no law stating he must do so.   Each state makes laws as to who can run for elected office, but there is no federal law prohibiting felons from serving in Congress.  Interestingly there are federal laws determining which citizens can enjoy their Bill of Rights before and after a felony conviction.  

In many cities, a permit is now required to legally assemble, and there is a "protest box" for those who choose to exercise their right of free speech, if they so choose to publicly and peacefully stand in disagreement.   One does not even have to be a felon to have lost their 4th amendment right regarding illegal search and seizure . . .  

According to my research, gun ownership is off the table for anyone convicted of a felony punishable by at least one year in prison.  States can choose to restore civil rights, but according to federal law, a person who has committed a felony cannot own a gun without full restoration of rights and the conviction expunged. 

In many states felons can't vote, and federal law prohibits gun ownership, but they can serve in Congress.  One can also admit the commission of a felony, and be elected to the Highest Office in the land, according to "Dreams From My Father."   

It would seem as long as an individual isn't caught and charges are not pressed, the lack of integrity to respect the law is irrelevant.  

While there's nothing in the Constitution or House Rules barring felons from serving in Congress, the situation created an unwanted headache and negative attention for Boehner as he seeks to head into the new Congress starting with a clean slate.  
Included in the link below is a map.
http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/02/26/felon-voting

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.  a Proverb of Holy Scripture

And the Beat Goes On . . .

I think I understand and recognize a pattern, here.  When a president is elected, the first four years are spent, claiming to be cleaning up the last guy's mess.  If he is convincing enough, or the economy is good enough or the anger at "them," whoever "they" are, is strong enough, he is elected to a second term.

The second term seems to amount to two years of a choreographed effort by politicians and media to firmly divide the people for the midterm election, usually with some sort of major issue.  Sadly, in this administration it was the death of four Americans in Libya.  This one was particularly horrible as usually, the scandals don't involve the loss of life.  So the first two years of the second term amount to two years of "frustration" waiting for the midterm election to change majority with a scandal, that the media can really sink their teeth into.  Think Watergate, Iran Contra, or Monica . . .  Bush 43 has his own paragraph.

Then the midterm election through the president's second term guarantees lameduck and gridlock, with everyone talking about working together . . . "talking" being the operative.  When the president is in his second term, the rumbles of the next presidential campaign begin the the day after the midterm.  Presidential campaigns now last nearly 2 years.  Since it's gridlock, half of the Senate can be on the campaign trail . . . If I remember correctly, 10 Senators were running in the primaries in '07 - '08.

As for the second term of Bush 43.  He had so much going on most of the time, that he didn't really need a specific scandal, and it wasn't until after the midterm election of his second term that most of America realized the economic calamity that was already occurring.  With the war in Iraq still so new, re-election in 2004, especially against Kerry or Edwards seemed pretty simple.  The democrats simply had no worthy opponent against Bush in '04.  Six years of controversy still brought about the usual midterm party majority switch, lameduck, and gridlock.  Then for real hope and change to be ushered in, we had economic collapse with loss in housing values and the auto industry . . .

The last two presidential campaigns have seemed quite orchestrated.  The republicans chose, both times, to run a candidate that their own party had rejected in an earlier primary.  John McCain lost to G.W. in 2000 and Romney lost to John McCain in 2008.  The intention to give Obama no competition was obvious.  While Obama is changing the landscape of America from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the business background is undoubtedly changing with the other party in the private sector.  The elected officials are just doing what the highest bidder tells them to do.

When it's said and done, the pattern has been pretty much the same in over 50 years of American politics, and very consistent in the last 20 some.  I'm not suggesting that everyone should stop voting, I'm just saying I see no real change of direction, regardless of the vote.  Rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking ship while hoping a new captain will magically change the fact the ship is taking on water and sinking, doesn't seem to be working.  Unlike sea captains, America's politically elite don't go down with the ship.

. . . and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.  Torah of Holy Scripture