Tag: 1stAmendment

Refilling The Swamp – The 116th Congress

Today is a special edition of Odd Stuffing in honor of the One Hundred Sixteenth United States Congress, which includes the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It begins today and runs through January 3, 2021. With a new Democratic House majority and an expanded Republican Senate majority, we can expect our elected officials to do what they are the very best at – JACK SH!T!

Keep in mind this has less to do with what political party controls the House or Senate – or both – it has more to do with the goals, ambitions and willingness of the individual politicians who make up the parties to work together and with the Administrative branch. Both parties have made it abundantly clear they have no intention of doing anything bipartisan or in partnership with the President.

Separately, each party has displayed nothing but contempt for anyone other than themselves. The Republican Party, despite holding a majority in the House, Senate and having a Republican President hasn’t been able to get out of its own way for the past two years. Yes, they were able to confirm two new Associate Supreme Court justices, but look at what a fiasco those hearings were. The second one, instead of being a relatively clear process, was held up as much by individual members of the Republican Party as it was by the Democrats. Each one had to make sure the spotlight was on them instead of the job at hand.

So instead of being able to pass critical government reforms, the party in charge of both chambers clashed amongst themselves and with the Administration. No healthcare repeal and replace. No immigration reform. No border security. Of significance to those of us in the Second Amendment community; no Hearing Protection Act or National Concealed Carry reciprocity.  And we have a partial government shutdown since nobody wants to take a stand for national security.

The Democratic Party for their part has had just one agenda item for the past two years – resist. Anything put out by the Administration or the Republican Party was opposed, even if it was something they previously campaigned, championed and sponsored legislation for themselves. Instead of finding common ground, if it came from the White House or the other side of the aisle, it was wrong. Facts didn’t matter, lives didn’t matter, just being able to stand up and say “I RESISTED” mattered.

Sadly, what we’ve seen the last two years has been the fully entrenched Washington DC establishment, lifelong politicians and career bureaucrats, who have been more interested in protecting the status quo against an outsider than working for the benefit of their constituents. This is the swamp.

So who is responsible for allowing this to happen?  Guess what, it’s our own damn fault. You, me and every other citizen of this country who has allowed our government to become so completely unaccountable to us.

Where were we when our elected officials started passing laws that governed our behavior, which they were exempt from? Where were we when they set up special privileges for congressional members only, that we are not entitled to? Where were we when they voted for ever increasing pay, benefits and perks while voting against increased pay, benefit and perks for their constituents? Where were we when they set up a special process that handled sexual misconduct accusations against congressional members confidentially and paid out settlements funded by our tax dollars, for crimes we would have gone to jail for? Where were we when they violated their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States – in it’s entirety, not just the parts they agreed with, when we are losing our rights at an ever increasing rate?

What should we have been doing? We should have been marching to their offices with pitchforks and torches demanding they start acting on our behalf instead of their own or we toss them out and replace them with someone who will. BUT NO! We’ve been sitting on our asses letting this bastardization of our government continue unabated.

History tells us that following the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia spoke to Benjamin Franklin and asked,  “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Mr. Franklin was right to be concerned as a republic is the most difficult form of government to maintain. Despite this, our Founding fathers were well educated on the history of governments around the world and knew this would be the best for their new country. They knew we needed to be a nation of laws, from the United States Constitution down to the local level. They knew if the law didn’t apply to everyone, it applied to no one.

What can we expect for the next two years of the 116thCongress?  We can expect partisan bickering, accusations and investigations, grandstanding and backroom wheeling and dealing. We can expect both parties to claim the other is standing in the way of progress and everyone pointing the finger at the Administration. We can expect the 2020 Presidential hopefuls to focus on bolstering their campaigns by doing everything they can to look like THEY ALONE are the leader we have been looking for, even if it doesn’t make any sense.

In other words, we can expect exactly what the denizens of the swap have been wanting all along, a chance to puff up and get into a mudslinging smack down with the other party, all the while knowing it will all end in a stalemate.

Welcome to the 116thUnited States Congress! It’s going to be a long two years.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #FirstAmendment, #GunControlFails, #116thCongress, #RefillingTheSwamp,#mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Vote For Me, I Own A Gun!

With the midterm elections just 15 days away, candidates have been ramping up the rhetoric and political posturing like never before.  For those of us in the Second Amendment community, there are some tough choices to be made. When it comes to the Second Amendment, many gun control candidates are tempering their message so as to appeal to their pro-gun constituents. But let’s not forget what their real goal is… to take away your right to purchase, posses and carry firearms.

From my own local city council to the county, state and federal representatives around the country, I’ve seen and heard preposterous claims of support for the Second Amendment from absolutely hard-core gun control candidates. They make statements like ‘I’m a life long gun owner’, ‘I’m a hunter’ or ‘I grew up in a family of gun owners’. By trying to paint themselves as part of the firearm community they attempt to make themselves more attractive to firearm owners who are concerned about more irresponsible, ineffective and unconstitutional gun control laws.

Ever since the absolutely ridiculous picture of the 44thPresident of the United States shooting a shotgun, politicians have put out campaign ads to bolster their firearm credibility. We’ve seen them in hunting orange holding a rifle. You’ve seen them holding a handgun at a shooting range. You’ve seen them holding a shotgun in a picturesque wildlife habitat. Guess what, it’s all staged bullshit.

Off camera and away from their constituents scrutiny, these candidates continue to promise to take up the most stringent of gun control schemes in exchange for the financial support from the billionaire funded gun control organizations.  Hot mic captured comments often portray a very different view from the campaign promises. This is where you hear how the gun control organizations are coaching their candidates to keep their gun control plans to themselves during the elections in order to get elected.

And of course, there are the qualifiers to their support for the Second Amendment. They generally follow-up the “I support the Second Amendment” with statements like “but I also support reasonable, common sense gun safety measures”.  The Democratic candidate for governor in Alabama follows up his claim of being “pro-Second Amendment” with this:

“[L]et me make my position clear. I will never favor taking any existing constitutional right away from any American unless we, as a people, come to the conclusion that restraint of some rights helps ensure the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by all.”

Does this sound like someone who is going to be protecting your Second Amendment rights?

Whenever you hear the words “gun safety”, realize they are not talking about being safe with firearms; they are talking about imposing draconian legal restrictions on the lawful ownership of firearms. To the gun control zealots, there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ firearm in the hands of the civilian population. Their idea of “gun safety” is when legal ownership of firearms is abolished.  The end goal has always been to slowly and systematically eliminate the right of private citizens to purchase, posses and carry firearm and ammunition.

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

So, who are the real Second Amendment candidates? These are the men and women who have been involved in Second Amendment rights BEFORE they became a candidate for public office. They are the ones who’ve had a hunting license EVERY year, not just election years. They are the ones you’ve been seeing at the local range or gun shop for years, not just since they declared their candidacy. They are the ones who already knew the issues and challenges surrounding the Second Amendment community BEFORE they decided to run for public office.  They are the ones who can proudly say “I support the Second Amendment” with no qualifying statements after it.

At times I’ve been accused of being a one-issue voter, the issue being the Second Amendment. Quite honestly, I’m okay with that because without the basic rights and freedoms protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, nothing else is going to stand.

Every elected seat in every city, county, state and federal race is important for the protection of your Second Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if you live in a constitutionally challenged area or free America, your vote matters.

The midterm elections are Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Choose wisely.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #GunVote, #Vote, #2018Midterm, #GunRights, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Respect

Sitting during the National Anthem or Pledge of Allegiance has become the latest wave of politically correct, social justice inspired protest. Supposedly, it is being done to show solidarity with the black lives matter movement, alleged law enforcement brutalities and economic disparities. In reality, it just makes the people doing it look stupid.

Is the National Anthem or Pledge of Allegiance associated with oppression of any minority group or way of thinking in this country? Does the United States flag symbolize hate and oppression of people? I’m going to say HELL NO! It’s just the latest made up distraction designed to inject more controversy and segregation in our country during an election year.

Let’s look at the pledge:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Somehow, somewhere, someone is translating this into hate. How exactly are they getting oppression out of “with liberty and justice for all”?

Then our National Anthem:

O! say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Written by a witness to the attack on our soil during the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812, it is a celebration of our strength, stamina and persistence as a nation against the forces wanting to suppress it. Interpreting “the land of the free and the home of the brave” into an oppressive society is beyond comprehension.

Who is doing this? High profile and very highly paid athletes and now the college and high school students who are emulating them. And let’s not forget the fringe elected officials at the state and local levels. They too need to have their 15 minutes of fame so it looks like they might actually care about their communities.

First off, let’s take a look at our nation. It is called a melting pot for a reason. Our population is the descendants of immigrants from around the world. Members of every race, religion, and belief system have come to our shores looking for the better life afforded by the freedoms our Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee. It continues, as it has since the beginning, as more come to share in the American dream.

Of course, that American dream came at a price. It was paid for with the blood of patriots, beginning with the Founding Fathers and continuing throughout our history with the men and women of our military forces. They have given their lives so that we can live free.

Among those rights is the right to free speech affirmed by the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Our First Amendment is unique in the world. The irony is of course that without it, the form of protest these individuals are engaging in would be unlawful and, in some nations to this day, severely punished.

So my reply to this latest group of social justice warriors, please do continue with your silent protests. It is your right and I shall defend your right to do so even if I disagree with your point of view. But don’t think it won’t come at a cost. It is also my right to reject you and those who support you. It is the right of your sponsors, employers, ad agencies and everyone who has to deal with you and your elitist views to cut their ties with you and let you dangle out there on your own.

Meanwhile, if you’d like to do something useful instead of sitting on your butt, how about spending a little bit of your eight digit salary trying to fix some of the issues you are complaining about? How about going into the communities yourself and mentoring at risk youth? How about giving a helping hand to those who don’t have and never will have the advantages you were able to obtain in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. Maybe, just maybe, if you were to teach them what our National Anthem stands for, they too would help our nation achieve “liberty and justice for all.” Maybe if you showed a little respect, they would too.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #respect, #nationalanthem, #pledgeofallegiance, #constitution, #billofrights, #firstamendment, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Defending Old Glory

On Independence Day, the Fourth of July, we celebrate the birth of our nation. It was on this date in 1776 the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence and thirteen former British colonies became the United States of America.

The American flag, also known as The Stars and Stripes, the Star Spangled Banner and Old Glory still has 13 red and white stripes representing the original 13 colonies and stars for each of the states, beginning with 13 and now numbering 50. The first official American flag was adopted on June 14, 1777, a date now celebrated as Flag Day.

Many of us older Americans recited the Pledge of Allegiance daily in school and can still recite it flawlessly today.

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”

The American flag is more than just the most recognized symbol of the United States. It has come to represent the freedoms and values that brought this country into existence in the first place. It is proudly worn and revered by our military around the world and as a sign of patriotism for us at home.

With this history in mind, I cannot help but look in disgust when our flag is desecrated. With this year’s Presidential elections, it has become an all too common practice. Our flag is ripped, trampled, burned – and worse – by those wishing to make a political statement. The irony is of course that the symbol of the nation that allows them the right to free speech, assembly and protest is the very symbol they destroy. Unfortunately, desecrating our nation’s flag has been ruled a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

If you have read anything I have ever written you’ll know I am a very strong advocate of our Bill of Rights. I have always maintained the First Amendment is the most difficult of our rights and this is a prime example. When it comes to desecrating our nation’s flag, I respectfully disagree.

While I could care less if someone wants to destroy their own property, the manner in which the desecration takes places is where I feel it crosses the line from protected free speech to inciting a disturbance. Protests staged to create and provoke conflicts are not free speech. Burning flags in the targeted presence of those who have fought to defend our nation, who have lost friends and family to ensure our rights, who have given parts of their own bodies and souls so that we can be a free country is not free speech.

It should be noted that flag desecration around the world is generally illegal and carries various forms of punishment from fines to prison sentences and more. But that’s not who we are as a nation.

While there will always be those who have no respect for our nation or the symbol of it, there are many who choose to defend it. These are the men and women who risk their own safety to rescue our flag. It could be a 75-year-old Vietnam War veteran or his 21-year-old granddaughter just returned from her first deployment overseas who choose to step in. It could be just another proud citizen who still believes in what our flag stands for.

To all of you patriots who stand by our nation’s flag, I salute you and thank you for defending Old Glory.

Bob

p.s. If you’ve never heard Johnny Cash’s Ragged Old Flag, I encourage you to take a listen. It’s a nice little reminder of what our flag has been through, along with the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our freedom.

The video is just over three minutes long and may be found at: https://youtu.be/a6vwXbQZvJo

#oddstuffing, #1stamendment, #billofrights, #oldglory, #defendingourflag #raggedoldflag

2016 – The Year of the Butthurt Party

As the lead up to the 2016 general elections continue, more candidates are dropping off as the major candidates continue. As this quadrennial spectacle draws nearer to its climax, we see the emergence of the next great political group, the Butthurt Party!

Who are the Butthurt? These are the diehard supporters of the candidates that didn’t make it this far. They have been the fiercest, most vocal followers of their chosen one – and the most critical, rabid anti-whomever their candidate was running against. Their lawn, car and clothing are covered equally with pro-my candidate logos and slogans and anti-whomever logos and slogans. It’s been a bitter fight and they have been all in from the get go. If their candidate doesn’t win, they won’t vote at all!

But there’s a problem. Their candidate wasn’t selected. What do they do now?

As all primary and caucus contests do, they pit candidates from their own party against each other; the winner will go on to the final contest against the other party’s candidate in the general election. You know, sort of like the Stanley Cup Playoffs, only with more teeth and less civility.

You’ve spent months learning all the reasons why your candidate’s opponent is completely incompetent to lead – and now you’re expected to throw your support behind them in a show of party unity? You’re supposed to ditch all of your candidate’s logos, slogans, stickers and t-shirts for your hated opponents and be happy about it? What madness is this??

Welcome to the Butthurt Party of American politics.

One of the biggest issues with the way our political process operates is during all the run-up contests; the party members have been trashing the living crap out of each other to come out on top. Now they, and all of us, are challenged with how to turn all that hate and discontent towards each other into hate and discontent towards the rival party.

We’ve already seen some of the ‘reconciliation’ process begin. Stalwarts of the party are withholding their support until they can have meetings and, well… presumably negotiations over issues and points of power that are important to them. This is supposed to bring them, and their loyalists on board and ready to go into the general elections.

But what of the hard-core, anybody-but-my-candidate’s-opponent supporters? Will they be able to make that leap of faith or will they do as they are promising now and just not vote at all?

Here’s what it boils down to. For better or worse, we have a two party political system, especially at the national level. Like many people, I too wish there were more options available. But while there are always third party candidates, the elections are going to be decided by the two major parties.

It’s time to take a look at what is really important to you and decide if you can support what the candidates have to offer. Will it ever be 100% of what YOU personally want? Hell no! (If that’s what you expect then why isn’t your name on the ballot?) While you’re at it, also take a look at what the other candidate is offering and decide if you not voting is in your, or the country’s best interest.

Californians: Monday, May 23, 2016 is the last day to register for the June 7th primary.

If you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #elections, #getoutandvote, #butthurt

*Image from the great folks at ActionFigureTherapy.com

Arsenals, Stockpiles and Caches – Oh My!

We’ve all seen the press conferences where a high-ranking law enforcement official or political gun grabber stands up with a crew of concerned cronies looking on from behind. In front of them, a table of scary looking guns and accessories is displayed. The description of the items usually includes terms such as ‘high-powered’, ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’. Then, the requisite quote to emphasize how serious this really is: I’ve never seen a stockpile like this in all my years…

Whether called arsenals, stockpiles, caches or something else, the perp walk of guns is also commonly witnessed as ‘evidence’ is being staged on the front lawn of the suspect in question. The spectacle serves no crime fighting purpose other than to scare the neighbors and let the invited press get some good close-ups so the story will stick in the mind of potential jurors. I suppose it does also send a message. If you have a lot of guns and ammo, this could happen to you.

Just to be perfectly clear: I do NOT object to removing firearms from criminals. I DO object to using the criminal justice process to further political agendas with exaggerations and half-truths.

So, what exactly is an arsenal? In 1994, Handgun Control Inc., which later became The Brady Campaign, was trying to get legislation passed to create Arsenal Licenses using this definition:

Any person who owns 20 or more firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or primers would be required to get an “arsenal” license. To obtain a federal arsenal license, a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years. Their home would be subjected to unannounced, warrantless inspection by the government up to three times a year. “Arsenal” owners would also have to obtain a $100,000 dollar insurance policy.

When was the last time a criminal used 20 firearms and a thousand rounds of ammunition in the commission of a crime? Is that even possible? And other than the obvious Second Amendment argument, why are these numbers so completely meaningless?

Collectors acquire firearms for the love of the craft, the history as well as for investments. Hunters, sport shooters, competitors and those who simply own firearms to defend themselves and their families know one firearm isn’t appropriate for every use. You probably own more than one pair of shoes too since even something that simple is purpose driven.

Buying ammo in bulk is no different than buying toilet paper in bulk; it’s cheaper in larger quantities. For anyone who shoots on a regular basis for training, competition, sport or recreation, buying in quantity and when it’s on sale can reduce the cost up to 50%. A single two-day training program can require over a thousand rounds. Buying in bulk also helps to insulate the firearm owner from temporary price spikes caused by political speeches about banning some kind of firearm or ammo.

Yet in the name of public safety and security, national, state and local politicians are trying to limit how many firearms or how much ammo you can have. In California where there is already a one-in-30-day limit on the purchase of handguns, anti-gun politicians are trying to extend that limit to include rifles and shotguns as well as party-to-party transactions. The result would be a strict one firearm a month acquisition limit. In New York, one ammunition-banning proposal would limit purchases to two times the capacity of your registered firearm caliber every 90 days. If you own a six-shot .38-caliber revolver you can buy 12 rounds of .38 ammunition every three months.

Are any of these laws going to prevent crime or limit it in any way when crimes are committed? Of course not. It’s as if these legislators are purposely trying to create a class of owners who are less competent to defend themselves because they can’t properly train with their firearms. Personally, I am a lot less concerned with someone who is investing their time and money in firearms, ammunition and training than with the gangbanger whose stolen six-shooter has five mismatched rounds because that’s all he has until he steals more.

So fellow patriots, be sure to hide your extravagant shoes and excessive rolls of quilted two-ply well. As soon as someone decides you don’t need those either, they’ll be laid out across your front lawn for all to view in horror and shame.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #gunandammobans, #gunconfiscation

Second Amendment Voter

Gun grabbers love to refer to Second Amendment supporters as single-issue voters. Portraying 2A supporters as being out of touch with the reality of the modern world and narrow minded is an effort to shame and ridicule them so they won’t be taken seriously. As you might expect, I disagree.

Let’s approach this from the context of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow ranked needs from bottom to top starting with physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. The psychological theory is that the lower level needs must be met before the individual will have a strong desire for the upper level needs. In a very simple example: if you don’t have food, water and shelter, your desire for the fine arts and cultural pursuits are going to be pretty dim.

You are supposed to progress upwards as stability is gained in the lower levels but may drop back down through the list at any time due to your individual circumstances. When your lower level needs erode due to a change or loss, your primary concentration will be on fixing those foundational needs before you go back up.

So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment and voting? Think of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the foundational, base level need on Maslow’s chart. Everything that was built in this country, by this country, was born as a result of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by these documents. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press, the right to bear arms – all necessary and the basis for the success of the nation we live in today.

Unfortunately, the foundation of our nation is under attack nationally and locally. The presumptive Democratic nominee for President is steadfastly opposed to the Second Amendment and will do everything in her power to gut this right or repeal it outright. In addition, an anti-Second Amendment appointee to the US Supreme Court, as has been proposed by our current President, would most certainly guarantee any future firearms rights cases would be rejected. Landmark cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago would be in jeopardy of being ‘reinterpreted’ or repealed.

Here in California, the list of anti-Second Amendment ballot initiatives and bills grows almost daily. Each new one coming up with unique ways of stripping rights away from honest, law abiding firearms owners while doing absolutely nothing to increase safety or reduce crime.

Some contend the Second Amendment is outdated and an unnecessary relic from colonial times. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The protections expressed in these documents were the result of living under an oppressive government that no longer represented them. If that doesn’t apply to all of the rights today, nothing does.

It’s not that Second Amendment supporters aren’t concerned with international monetary policy or global environmental issues, it’s that they are focusing on an essential principle of our country first. Destroying the Second Amendment would eliminate a key part of the foundation of our nation. Just as the foundation of a single story house is critical to it’s stability, the foundation of a 100-story building is even more critical.

Patriots fought and died for our liberty. Our Founding Fathers had the courage to defy their oppressors, risking their lives and the lives of their families, to document what our new nation would be established on. The men and women of our armed services have been protecting it with their lives for nearly 240 years now.

For me, a free citizen of the United States for the sacrifices of those who have come before me, walking into a voting booth and placing my ballot for candidates who will support and protect the Second Amendment is an honor and my duty as a voter.

And when someone calls me a single-issue voter, I just reply: Damn right I am – for now.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #billofrights, #2ndamendment, #1stamendment, #2ndamendmentvoter, #singleissuevoter, #gunvote

Sticks & Stones

By now you’ve likely heard of the latest American college student fad – the “safe space”. A protected haven from the cruel outside world, it is a place where words that injure or harm cannot be spoken so feelings cannot be hurt.

What the hell has happened to our youth?!?

The epicenter of this sub-societal trend seems to be the students of the University of Missouri. The poster child for which is the now terminated Assistant Communications Professor Melissa Click who was seen assaulting a student journalist and yelling profanities at a police officer. As part of this saga, the University Police Department even encouraged students to report incidents where their feelings were hurt.

 

The most recent example comes from Georgia’s Emory University where 40 students reported feeling “afraid” and “in pain” due to a number of political messages written in chalk around the campus. The messages? Trump 2016.

The following quote seems to capture the essence of the situation there: “I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here]. But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well. … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”

Afraid? Afraid of what??

When I was a child – many, many years ago, my parents taught me a simple saying: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. The lesson is ever so easy. No matter what the words, they cannot harm you.

Fast-forward to our college campuses today. What kind of a country have we become where our college students, the next generation of community, business and political leaders, need to be protected from words? These are supposedly intelligent young men and women who displayed enough intellect to be admitted to an institution of higher learning. What does this say about the colleges and universities themselves? Is setting up “safe spaces” where feelings won’t be hurt actually preparing them for… well, anything in the real world? What are the job prospects for a college graduate who – when they see or hear something that falls outside their narrow belief system – feels ‘hurt’, ‘afraid’ or ‘in pain’, and thinks protesting from a “safe space” is the preferred course of action? And when the HELL did we stop teaching kids about Sticks and Stones?

This nation’s Founding Fathers were so concerned with freedom and individual rights that the first set of Amendments to the United States Constitution is the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Notice it does NOT say – unless someone’s feelings could be hurt. I have no doubt the Founding Fathers understood granting everyone freedom of speech would be problematic. Inevitably, there will be times when views opposite to one’s own will be spoken. No other person is under any obligation to listen or even pay attention to them, but the person speaking does have the absolute right to speak.

This is why I have always felt the First Amendment is simultaneously the most difficult and the most important of rights. I may not like and I could even be disturbed by what someone else has to say. But if I do not defend that person’s right to speak it, who is to say my right to speak won’t be taken away next. Rights are funny that way. If not vigorously defended by everyone, for everyone, they can easily slip away.

An update: A recent report from University of Missouri indicates they are bracing for a 25% decrease in enrollments this year resulting in significant facility and staff layoffs. At the same time all other colleges and universities in Missouri are expecting record increases in applications.

Maybe there’s a chance for a few of our youth after all.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #sticksandstones, #safespace, #1stamendment, #constitution #billofrights

The Boss vs. The Leader

Sorry Springsteen fans, he isn’t The Boss I’m talking about. This is nonetheless a slight tangent from my usual post topics. A Facebook post I shared this past week brought to light a topic I have been thinking about for a while and I thought this would be a good opportunity to explore it further. Bear with me for a bit and I’ll bring it back around.

The boss is known by many titles: owner, manager, supervisor, crew chief, team lead and so on. Unless you work for yourself, it’s the person you work for. The leader on the other hand is the one who leads or commands others. Is there a distinction? I say there is. While a boss may be a leader, the leader doesn’t necessarily have to be the boss.

Workplace bosses may or may not be person we want to work for. They may just be the person who has been there the longest, had the right connections or was in the right place at the right time to get the job. Managing other workers or operations isn’t always the career path people want. Some get tossed into it with hopes they’ll be able to make it work. Some absolutely excel while others do not. Often times the only choice for unhappy employees is to go elsewhere.

If it sounds like I’m being hard on the boss, I am. It’s an extraordinarily difficult job and not everyone is cut out for it. It’s a lot more than policies, processes, procedures and catch phrases. I’ve always contended that managing mechanical, technical or other ‘things’ is easy, it’s the human part of the job that is difficult. Like many people, I’ve been on both sides of the equation and have seen the good, the bad and the very, very ugly.

Leaders on the other hand tend to be those we make a conscious decision to be with. In employment, we gravitate towards or stay with those we see as leaders with a vision we share. Leaders take the time to understand motivation and how it relates to individual and group success. They are fiercely protective of those they lead and are often more critical of their own abilities than of those around them.

Leadership skills, just like management skills, can be taught, trained, nurtured and grown. However just as wealth, stature, family or association does not equal success; education, training and experience don’t make one successful either. There is that something extra, that personal secret sauce an individual brings with them that determines the outcome.

Leadership is also very situational dependent. The individual contributor in one situation may be the leader in the next. Each of us has times we lead as well as times we follow. And not every situation demands a strong and dynamic leader to be successful. Standing in the produce section of your local market with a dory yelling THIS IS SPARTA!! isn’t going to get you extra discounts at checkout. There is also one of my favorite leadership quotes: “You know what they call a leader with no followers? Just a guy talking a walk.”

So why is this pertinent? This is an election year and a lot is riding on our vote. Our next President will shape national and foreign policy as well as determine the balance of the Supreme Court for at least the next generation to come. The results could very well gut the protections we now enjoy under the Bill of Rights. Elements of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments could be dramatically reinterpreted or revoked in totality in the name of progress towards a self-serving political agenda.

Our votes will decide who sits in the President’s chair as well as many other critical matters on Election Day. We can choose the leader we want to follow, or the boss we have no choice but to follow.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #thebossvstheleader, #leadership, #2016elections, #billofrights, #bornintheusa

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

There’s a popular anti-gun argument that their right to be safe from guns trumps the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They are specifically referring to the phrase: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The logic stems from a section of the United States Declaration of Independence, which reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Whether or not the Declaration of Independence should be incorporated into the body of United States case law on the same level as the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as proponents of Declarationism insist, is actually irrelevant here. I’ll even stipulate this single phrase establishes the concept of natural, unalienable rights critical to all that followed for our nation.

At the same time, the concept of claiming an infringement of rights based on a subjective personal preference to not have firearms legally possessed by others around them – because not feeling safe restricts their ‘pursuit of happiness’ is just plain ridiculous. The opposite side of course is where would that right apply to someone whose personal preference is to own and use firearms for their own protection?

Beyond the academic argument, I used to think my Second Amendment rights; my right to bear arms for self-protection meant nothing to your feeling of safety. I now realize it is the exact opposite. My firearm, or more accurately firearms in the hands of private citizens who are willing to defend their lives and the lives of their families, DOES impact you. It makes YOU safer, even if you don’t like it or understand why.

A potentially armed citizen means the criminal doesn’t know if his intended victim is armed or not. Criminals don’t like armed victims because they turn out not to be victims at all. Proactively taking away legally owned firearms because it will give someone else a false sense of security actually makes them less safe. Knowing private citizens are unarmed and no threat to the criminal makes them more willing and able to attack.

If you want to blame someone for not feeling safe, start with the politicians you put into office. By making it harder for honest citizens to defend themselves, they make it easier for criminals to victimize them. Instead of helping their constituents become hard targets instead of soft ones, they refuse to prosecute those that do break the law, fail to insist on harsh sentences for the very few who are convicted, and let the offenders out of jail early or avoid incarceration all together. Remember, “common sense” “tough on criminals” “safety for all” gun laws do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns illegally and using them against you. News flash: Criminals break the law! More laws aren’t going to change that.

Rights in the United States are difficult and we take a lot of it for granted. For example, the First Amendment right to free speech means others are going to have the same ability to speak their mind as we are, even if it’s completely opposite or offensive to us. The same goes for the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with it or not, that right is as much a part of the United States way of life as free speech and is protected by the same Bill of Rights.

In the context of the Declaration of Independence, happiness was about an individual’s contribution to society rather than pursuits of self-gratification. Reimagining the definition of this phrase as means of disarming law-abiding citizens is the epitome of self-righteousness.

Perhaps it is time for all of us to be more concerned about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, for our nation – and not for ourselves.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #lifelibertyandpursuitofhappiness, #constitution, #billofrights, #2ndamendment