Dr. Franklin R. Canada on July 11th, 2016

In this, the final post in this series, we will address the hypocrisy of those in positions of power who advocate strict gun control.

Every time there is a mass shooting our president, and others, jump on the “guns kill people” bandwagon and call for laws making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase a firearm. They don’t want the average citizen to have the right to carry a concealed handgun for protection, yet they are surrounded by guards in civilian clothes with concealed handguns. They set up gun-free zones but their bodyguards are exempt from compliance. Only the law-abiding citizen has to comply.

If we all had the means to be surrounded by armed guards 24-7,

hit counter
hit counter
Dr. Franklin R. Canada on December 16th, 2015

So, why do certain legislators, government officials, and civil authorities push for gun-free zones? Do they honestly believe that by denying law-abiding citizens the freedom to bring guns into an area make it safe, or safer, from gun violence? Or is there rhetoric nothing more than an appeal to the emotions–as a cover for their real purpose? If so, what could that real purpose be?

The issue calls for logical thinking. First, as the term implies, law-abiding citizens are law-abiding. And law-abiding citizens own and carry guns. However, those who oppose gun ownership don’t seem to be interested in this fact. They keep harping on taking guns away from law-abiding citizens without addressing the killers.

Since when have mass murderers abided by a nations laws? Can mass murderers be expected to comply with the intent of a gun-free zone? The answers are unambiguously obvious. Mass murderers not only defy gun-free zone requirements, but use the law to their advantage.

It’s common knowledge that mass murderers, whether foreign or home-grown, whether Islamic or otherwise, being the cowards that they are, seek out soft targets, targets with a high concentration of personnel and little or no defense. That scenario provides a window of opportunity for them to carry out their horrendous acts unimpeded.

So, the suggestion that law-abiding citizens engage in gun violence is preposterous. On the other hand, it is natural for murderers and terrorists to engage in gun violence. After all, that is what murderers and terrorists do!

Now, back to the question, does designating an area as a gun-free zone make if safer? The answer is no. Mass murderers and terrorists seek out soft targets because they realize there is little chance they will be stopped. If however, they know beforehand that an area is not a gun-free zone, that law-abiding citizens can bring concealed guns into the area, they will think twice. The last thing a mass murderer or terrorist wants is to come face to face with a law-abiding citizen carrying a concealed handgun.

Concealed handguns within the citizenry is a real deterrent to those who wish to do us harm. And when pushed for the truth the government, politicians, and civil authorities admit as much. The perfect example is the Air Marshal program, where federal law enforcement personnel dressed in plain clothing fly alongside regular passengers.

Do legislators, government officials, and civil authorities understand these facts when they propose gun-free zones? Yes! But they are not concerned with facts. Nor are they concerned with the average person being protected. What they are concerned with is a disarmed citizenry, and will go to great lengths to bring it about. A disarmed citizenry has no real defense against a tyrannical government. A disarmed citizenry is easily controlled!

It was reported that the U.S. population in 2013 was an estimated 317 million, whereas the number of possessed firearms was thought to be 357 million. If those numbers are accurate, and if more people are presently purchasing firearms than ever before, as the news seems to suggest, then there are far more firearms in America today than people.That is good news.

Let’s hope those who wish for a disarmed America understands this.

hit counter
hit counter

Tags: ,

Dr. Franklin R. Canada on December 14th, 2015

Probably no subject ignites greater debate than the right to bear arms versus gun control. On the one side we have those who honestly believe they have a God-given right to unrestricted gun ownership, and any attempt to subvert that right is tantamount to tyranny. On the other side are those who suggest gun ownership has no place in a civil society apart from highly controlled hunting or sports shooting. The only exceptions are law enforcement authorities, government officials, and the military. Which is right? In this and follow-on posts we will peel away the myths and falsehoods and take a good look at the truth.

From a purely emotional viewpoint, those who favor strict gun control probably have the advantage. For, if no guns were in public hands, it could be said there would be no public shootings. And that is pretty much their position. Hard position to oppose, isn’t it? It’s like saying, “If you don’t go near the water it is unlikely you will die of drowning.”

Putting their position to work, gun opponents across this nation in positions of authority have legislated gun-free zones, to include schools, theaters, etc., places where large numbers of people gather on a regular basis. What is significant about gun-free zones is that they are areas where law-abiding citizens are barred from carrying guns. The theory is that barring guns from an area will make the area safe from guns. But is that theory supported by reality?

Before actually delving into that question we need to consider that most if not all mass shootings of the recent past including Columbine, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech., San Bernardino and others, were gun-free zones. That is, law-abiding citizens were not allowed to bring guns into the areas. Yet, guns were brought in. The rest is history — helpless law-abiding citizens died at the hands of individuals who had no regard for the law. Or maybe to be more precise, the law provided the murderers immunity from any opposition so they could carry out their horrendous acts.

In the next post we will attempt to understand just what motivates legislators to create gun-free zones. Why do they believe it makes areas safer? Are they correct, or is their reasoning merely a façade for a sinister motivation?

hit counter
hit counter

Tags: , ,

Dr. Franklin R. Canada on April 5th, 2013

This post was originally submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 – 2:04pm. http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/3949. It was downloaded and reposted here because of its importance. Please check out Jonathan’s site!

DICK ACT of 1902… CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.


The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.

The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:

“The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.

Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

hit counter
hit counter

Tags: ,

Dr. Franklin R. Canada on March 16th, 2013

If that question sounds odd, just consider what is presently going on in this country. A large Chinese company has teamed up with a small Utah firm to build liquid natural gas (LNG) stations. Some are already in place, with plans for a total 500. This Chinese firm is also working with Duke Energy, a really big player in the energy business.

Read full document: http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2013/03/15/chinese-firm-investing-big-in-u-s-natural-gas/

So, what is LNG? LNG or liquid natural gas is what you get when you drop the temperature of natural gas to -259 degrees (F). At that temperature, the gas not only turns to liquid but requires less space for storage. In fact, one cubic foot of LNG is equivalent (BTU wise) to 600 cubic feet of natural gas.

Read full report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas

The hot item in transportation today is the conversion of diesel vehicles to run on LNG. It’s clean, is readily available, and greatly reduces the need for imported oil.

Earlier this month, BNSF announced plans for testing locomotives to run on LNG. If that goes well, it will be only a matter of time before all trains and semis will be fueled by LNG. As you travel along the interstates and see major construction work at truck stops, it likely will be for LNG filling stations.

Read full report: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/bnsf-to-test-lng-locomotives-this-year.html

Just how important is this? It’s very important because semi-trucks and trains use a lot of diesel fuel. And by reducing the need for diesel, refineries can produce more gasoline. And that should bring down costs. It will also provide the Muslims with less money to buy arms to kill Americans.

There is also another point to consider. As you know, rumors are that Obama will attempt to pay off our national debt by transferring our energy resources to the Chinese. Could this be the start of that plan?

If you say this venture involves a private company, not the Chinese government, you would be right. But, it must be understood that all major Chinese companies have heavy financial alliances with the Chinese government. That is to say that the Chinese government has control over all major Chinese business. For comparison, just think of General Motors being bailed out by taxpayers, giving the government veto power over all corporate decisions. In other words, the U.S. government can tell GM what to do and what not to do. The Chinese government has the same authority over Chinese firms.

So, is it possible the U.S. government will soon begin to pay off the Chinese with our natural gas resources and/or property for LNG facilities? Remember the old saying, “Never say never.”

hit counter
hit counter

Tags: ,

Dr. Franklin R. Canada on January 25th, 2013

This article is posted here with permission of the author. His blog address is:http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com. Please check it out.

Posted on January 3, 2013by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

Click Here to Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

IMPORTANT UPDATE From Dean Garrison!!! When this post originally went viral I was trying to answer every single comment and that lasted for almost 48 hours. Then I came to grips with the fact that I am human and I can’t do it. If for no other reason I value my family and I can’t steal time from them to constantly be on the site. I want you all to know that I appreciate your support and good debate whether you agree or disagree. I also want to thank each and every American Patriot who has made the honorable choice to serve their country. Anyone who wants to repost this on their blog or website is also given permission to do so, so long as nothing is changed in the text of the article, and a link is provided back to this site. Again, thank you so much. I am humbled. It’s now 16 days later and this is still the most popular post on our blog. Keep fighting for what is right. We must stand united. -Dean Garrison 1-20-13

hit counter
hit counter

Tags: ,

Dr. Franklin R. Canada on January 10th, 2013

The following is a quote from Federalist 46 by James Madison:

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties . . . . It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

Although the numbers have changed, it is clear that the author of the Bill of Rights and our fourth president knew all too well the greatest threat this republic would ever face would come from a tyrannical government. Having only recently shaken off the shackles of one despot, he was reminding us there would be others lurching in the shadows.

The Second Amendment debate is not about whether the citizenry has the right to possess firearms simply for hunting and target practice as some suggest; it is about the most fundamental liberty we possess, that of having the means to protect oneself, his family, and property from an oppressive, self-serving government hell-bent on enslaving the very ones it is supposed to protect.

Any action by Congress or the White House to nullify, diminish, or circumvent this God-given liberty by limiting types of weapons or magazines one can purchase, registration, or a national database, however noble they may claim their intentions, is an attack on our Constitution, unwarranted, and illegal.

If the Conservatives lose this debate to the Progressives, who foolishly would like nothing better than obtaining a ban on all citizen-owned firearms, this republic will be finished!

In its place will be a socialist nation not unlike those of today’s Europe, or worse yet, a Western Islamic Caliphate, where individual liberties can only be found in early history books, if any will yet be unburned.

How can anyone forget the thousands protesting in the streets of Cairo against an illegal, oppressive government with nothing more than rocks as weapons, while the army intensely watched from tanks, with mortars, RPGs, and automatic rifles?

So, when Sen. Feinstein and Pres. Obama ask why regular American citizens need assault rifles and high capacity magazines, it is because the government has assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

Neither the Senator nor President is the least bit concerned about the safety or welfare of school children, or the general public for that matter. Let’s get serious; what these hard-core Commulamists1 want is total government control over the lives of every American from cradle to grave.

They must not be successful!

1. Commulamist is a word coined to describe anyone who openly accepts, fosters, or promotes the tenants of both the Communists and Islamists. Although their end goals differ, in the early stages they have much in common.

hit counter
hit counter

Tags: ,

Dr. Franklin R. Canada on December 21st, 2012

Such is the debate that will suck up all the oxygen in Washington and many state legislatures for the foreseeable future – or until we are confronted with yet another national human tragedy.

The “left” says yes, we need stricter gun laws; we need laws to keep guns out of the hands of potential criminals. By potential criminals they mean law-abiding citizens.

President Obama has said he will be pushing for gun legislation in January. Specifically, he wants to outlaw “so-called” assault rifles and large capacity ammo clips. If Congress fails to act quickly, he has been advised to revert to executive order, an act with which we are all too familiar.

If strict gun control was the answer, Chicago would be one of the safest cities in the U.S. because it has one of the most restrictive gun laws – yet it is ridden with crime. Remember, criminals don’t abide by laws – that’s why they are called criminals.

If the government took guns away from all law-abiding citizens, criminals would still have guns – the criminals’ work would simply become easier while their prey became more vulnerable.

What about our schools; what can we do to better protect our children from killers? If you say arm the staff you would be right.

Think about it, if the first adult the killer confronted at the school in Newtown, Conn. had been armed, it’s possible he would have been stopped – and lives saved. As Wayne LaPierre, EVP, NRA says, “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

According to Yahoo News that is the attitude of Harold, Texas, its school board voting unanimously to allow teachers to be armed. Superintendent David Thweatt said, “We don’t have the money for a security guard, but this is a better solution.” He stated further that, “A shooter could take out a guard or officer with a visible, holstered weapon, but our teachers . . . have had extensive training. And their guns are hidden. We can protect our children.”

Tennessee does not allow teachers to be armed. However, “State Sen. Frank Niceley (R) Told TPM . . . he believes it’s time for that to change. He plans to introduce legislation in the next session, which begins Jan 8, that will require all schools to have an armed staff member of some kind.” And “Gov. Bill Haslam (R) has said the idea will be part of his discussions . . . .”

No doubt, this debate will continue. I just pray that whatever action our elected officials take will not be like a TV pharmaceutical add where the side effects are worse than the ailment.

hit counter
hit counter

Tags: ,

Dr. Franklin R. Canada on December 13th, 2012

We are told we should be respectful of others’ opinions. Have you noticed that those making such demands are the least tolerant of what others say; that when they are unable to debate an issue they always revert to general statements and personal attack?

I welcome legitimate debate as I often learn from others. I even welcome comments from those whose only agenda is to attack anyone whose opinion differs from theirs. I don’t learn from them, but I respect their right to free speech.

Every tax-paying, freedom loving American citizen has not only the right but duty to openly express his or her feelings about those issues affecting their society – to include agreeing or disagreeing with political decisions and those making those decisions. Such is one of the very pillars upon which this great republic was founded.

Should we HUSH about:
• An administration that pushed homosexuality onto an unwilling military?
• An administration that refuses to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which says marriage is only between a man and a woman?
• An administration that has never presented a budget to Congress, although required to do so, but has created more debt than any prior, and has no intent on putting an end to its wasteful, borrowed spending?

I suspect the political correct crowd would say yes, we should HUSH. Is that not what happened in Europe leading up to World War II, when, because of intimidation people did not speak up and 6-million Jews were murdered? Might that also explain that when I asked for directions to Dachau from people living close by, that they acted as though they did not know there was such a place?

It is true that the present administration is not responsible for all our nation’s ills. The last administration was not much better. But it is also true that the present administration is the one presently in charge.

No, we will not be HUSHED!

hit counter
hit counter

Tags: ,

Dr. Franklin R. Canada on December 3rd, 2012

The sequestration idea came from the White House. But more troubling – why did the Republicans agree to it and let it become law? The President says he is not in favor of it going into effect. Why, then, did his people introduce it as a bill? But now that sequestration is law, the President holds all the winning economic cards.

So, what does this mean for the citizenry? It means taxes will go up come January 1, 2013, no matter what is agreed upon. For the Republicans, the negotiations are like having to go first in Russian roulette with no shells removed from the cylinder.

There will also be more so-called stimulus spending with borrowed money, driving the national debt even higher. And there is little chance adjustments will be made to Social Security and Medicare.

This is the good news – this is what will happen if the White House and Republicans come to an agreement.

The bad news is that no agreement will be reached and sequestration goes into effect; in other words, we go over the “fiscal cliff.” And if that happens, there will be massive tax increases coupled with massive cuts in spending, likely driving the economy back into recession.

How is it possible we find ourselves in such situation? Because we consistently elect and re-elect the wrong people to represent us. When will we wake up?

Did the President snooker the Republicans with sequestration (fiscal cliff)? You be the judge.

hit counter
hit counter

Tags: ,