novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts tagged Politics

I was going to incorporate this into another post I am doing but didn’t want to muddy the waters. This needs to stand alone. Joe B. steered me to bringing up the importance of OPSEC and what it means to our daily lives. I have posted on this issue before but the importance of it keeps occurring in news stories and with political pundits. That is, the LACK of it.

In WWII, there were many slogans posted throughout the US for the citizens to see. It had to do with not talking about anything considered useful information that the enemy (“we have spies everywhere”) could use against us. It was a process of indoctrination and maybe it is time to bring that program back. There are cleared spouses out there who can’t even discuss things between themselves because of disseminating information that the other might not have privilege to. The way secrets are kept is with the understanding that you only get to know what is directly related to your contribution and need on the subject. I have stated this before: Congress is EXEMPT from having to be polyed or having a clearance. Clearances are a lengthy and in-depth process to discern who can be trusted with classified information. Every organization uses some of their own requirements in this vetting process. Organizations have a “death” clause that that states any information received can not be disseminated until death do us part. That means regardless when you received that information or procedure or way of doing business, and regardless when you have left that position or organization, you may NEVER discuss anything learned…..until you are dead. Serious stuff. So why is it politicized?

You have had your Pentagon Papers and your Watergate and these “news” people did the general public a great service by bringing the truth out in the open. Or did they? We have internal ways of dealing with politicians who wrong America and desecrate their oath of office. There are things that the “people” of America just don’t need to know or get involved with. 50 years ago, John Kennedy had done some pretty heady things that put America in jeopardy, some of which we are still learning about today, but for the most part had been kept “secret”. So why does Mr. Transparency think it is allowable to tell OPSEC to the general public, which puts everyone in this country (and others) in grave jeopardy yet we aren’t allowed to know how political parties deceive the citizens with bills (behind closed doors) or even find out about rouge operations directly attributable to the White House and its cronies? Operations where people die and the only secrets involved are the ones that “cover our ass cause we really screwed up”.

Citizens need to understand OPSEC and how it affects their lives. ANYONE with access to any classified material should always be put through the process to see whether they qualify to have that access. Any individual, from the President on down, should be held accountable through fines, dismissal, imprisonment and death for disclosing that information to others who DO NOT HAVE the need to know. If severe acts of recourse are put upon those who leak, maybe then the individuals who take OPSEC lightly and the US citizens who don’t have the understanding of importance, would view this in the light of which it belongs. Bottom line is: When secrets are told-people will die. Of that you can be assured.

“It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license …”

It has started already. H.R. 45 has nothing to do with safety. England (an island no less) has completely suppressed the rights of the people to defend themselves, and rather than a decrease in crime as predicted, violent crime (including murder) has dramatically increased.

The right to bear arms is lost bit-by-bit. Do NOT sit idle, act now … Write your representative to ask him to vigorously oppose this scheme to chip away at our second amendment rights.

When I see what I’ve seen around this country and the inane reasons people give for supporting Obama, I have to believe that it is what Laura Hollis said on townhall.com.

One of the things I can’t stomach about almost any politician is double speak: saying one thing that clearly means something other than what you mean. The Demoncrats are at it in spades with this paragraph from their platform document (page 50).

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we ill preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that he right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

The second amendment clearly states that the people have an individual right to arms, and if anything, those arms should be what would clearly be useful in self-defense and defense of a family. The rights of the people are not contingent upon location. The rights of those in Cheyenne clearly do apply to those in Chicago, as long as both are within the United States.

The Democrats what to change the constitution, but not through constitutional means. In a sense, they are traitors to the constitution. Pragmatism is no excuse. Even if “what works in Cheyenne may not work in Chicago” that is beside the point. The rights are not given based on “what works” or what does not work. If change is needed, the change is to be done through amendment … not through laws or even the court (I suppose I should make that “The Court”). Changes to the constitution through any other means is not upholding the constitution, it is subversion of the constitution.

Those “common sense laws” are neither common, nor sensible. There is no “gun show loophole” in that ordinary citizens are allowed to sell their personal property anywhere they want. While nobody wants to sell guns to criminals, any sane man will not want to give up liberty for security. Liberals tend to see that as stop the government from knowing what I do, restrict police in their ability to search, wiretap, read internet communications. For these they see “do not give up liberty for security” as a good thing. But there is another side to that same thought. The right to own just about any personal firearm is a liberty which we enjoy. Those that want to restrict it for security (even if that security was in fact real) are doing exactly what they don’t want in another context. They fear a “police state” that is intrusive into their personal lives, yet they hold no fear for a police state (or criminals) in an even broader sense. How foolish to fear the government has too much power in one case, and then want to give the government even more power in the other. How forgetful of history.

The Democratic platform is one of fear. Fear based on a premise that the goverment is the only one you can trust to take care of problems. If someone has a problem, the government should fix it. Insecure people that have no sense of self-reliance and self-determination. People that think 2 minute response times for police calls is more than enough (until they are the ones that have someone taking a baseball bat to their head in 20 seconds–but they won’t think it too long for very long … they will be dead.)

If people are going to have such fears and insecurity that they feel they must live with everyone they know unarmed they should move to a true police state. (By the way, it won’t be everyone around them disarmed, because even the most staunch gun control advocate still sees a need for the police to have guns, and some of them do go bad.) They want to force their views on others. They are so insecure they become intolerant. I fully respect someone for believing they are either incapable, or even just don’t want to, carry a gun. What I don’t respect is that person attempting to force others into the same position.