Reaping What is Sown

A successful business man was growing old and knew it was time to choose a successor to take over his business.  Instead of simply choosing one of his directors or his children, he decided to do something different. He called all of the young executives in his company together for a meeting.

He said, "It is time for me to step down and choose the next CEO to run my business.  I have decided to choose one of you."  The young executives were shocked, but the boss continued.  "I am going to give each one of you a single plant seed today - one very special seed. I want you to plant the seed, water it, and come back here one year from today with what you have grown from the seed I have given you.  I will then judge the plants that you bring, and the one I choose will be the next CEO."

                                            

One man named Jim was there that day and he, like the others, received a seed. He went home and excitedly told his wife the story.  She helped him get a pot, soil, and compost and he planted the seed.  Every day he would water it and watch to see if it had grown. After about three weeks, some of the other executives began to talk about their seeds and the plants that were beginning to grow.

                                            

Jim kept checking his seed, but nothing ever grew.  Three weeks, four weeks, five weeks went by, still nothing.  By now others were talking about their plants, but Jim didn't have a plant or even any signs of life in his pot and he began to feel like a failure.

                                            

Six months went by and still there was nothing in Jim's pot. He just knew he had killed his seed. Everyone else had trees and tall plants, but he had nothing.  Jim didn't say anything to his colleagues; however, he just kept watering and fertilizing the soil.  He so wanted the seed to grow.

                                            

A year finally went by and the day came when the CEO called for the big meeting, and all the young executives of the company brought their plants to the CEO for inspection.  Jim told his wife that he wasn't going to take an empty pot.  But she asked him to be honest about what happened. Jim felt sick to his stomach; it was going to be the most embarrassing moment of his life, but he knew his wife was right.  He took his empty pot to the board room.

When Jim arrived, he was amazed at the variety of plants grown by the other executives.  They were beautiful -- in all shapes and sizes.  Jim simply put his empty pot on the floor and many of his colleagues laughed.  A few felt sorry for him.

                                            

When the CEO arrived, he surveyed the room and greeted his young executives.

                                            

Jim just tried to hide in the back. "My, what great plants, trees and flowers you have grown," said the CEO.  "Today one of you will be appointed the next CEO!"  All of a sudden, the CEO spotted Jim at the back of the room with his empty pot. He ordered the Financial Director to bring him to the front.  Jim was embarrassed and terrified.  He thought, "The CEO knows I'm a failure!  Maybe he will even have me fired!"

                                            

When Jim got to the front, the CEO asked him what had happened to his seed, so Jim told him the whole story.  The CEO asked everyone to sit down except Jim. He looked at Jim, and then announced to the young executives, "Behold your next Chief Executive Officer!  His name is Jim!" Jim couldn't believe it.  Jim couldn't even grow his seed.

                                            

"How could he be the new CEO?" the others said.

                                            

Then the CEO said, "One year ago today, I gave everyone in this room a seed. I told you to take the seed, plant it, water it, and bring it back to me today. But I gave you all boiled seeds; they were dead - it was not possible for them to grow.  All of you, except Jim, have brought me trees and plants and flowers. When you found that the seed would not grow, you substituted another seed for the one I gave you. Jim was the only one with the courage and honesty to bring me a pot with my seed in it. Therefore, he is the one who will be the new Chief Executive Officer!"

                                            

   * If you plant honesty, you will reap trust

                                            

   * If you plant goodness, you will reap friends

                                            

   * If you plant humility, you will reap greatness

                                            

   * If you plant perseverance, you will reap contentment

                                            

   * If you plant consideration, you will reap perspective

                                            

   * If you plant hard work, you will reap success

                                            

   * If you plant forgiveness, you will reap reconciliation

                                            

So, be careful what you plant now; it will determine what you will reap later.

H/T:  To my friend Paul Dubney who passed away over a year ago now.  You are missed!

A Refutation of the Case for Gay "Marriage"

I had made it a point to try and restrain myself from writing on temporal matters during Lent and so of course found much in the way of temptation that just cried out for my vitally-needed input into the various debates that occurred over the course of these past forty days.  Unfortunately one of those critically important debates was focused on the topic of gay “marriage” as our Supreme Court heard arguments on this matter last week during the holiest week on the Christian calendar.  Irony abounds as we as a culture further turn away our faces from God and His will and concentrate rather on what we want as self-indulgent adults in our “enlightened and compassionate society” today.

Marriage throughout the millennia was primarily about a man and woman becoming one flesh and the raising of any children that resulted from their unitive and procreative marital embrace.  Marriage was necessary for protecting and caring for the wife and children.  Marriage was about the perpetuation of our species in the most efficient and logical manner.  With that being the case, I guess that one of the main questions of this debate is do children have a basic right to a mother and father?  I would argue that the answer is emphatically yes, and therefore I oppose the redefinition of marriage on the grounds that doing so would dramatically infringe on that basic human right of a child to have a mother and a father. 

Sociology and science reflects what common sense already tells us.  Children tend to fair far better when living with their own mother and father who are living in a committed marriage.  Most gay marriage proponents disagree.  A refreshing exception to the rule, Jean Marc, who is a mayor of a French city who has cohabitated with his male companion for twenty years agrees with me.  He said, “the LGBT movement that speaks out in the media . . . They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this…The rights of children trump the right to children.”

Unfortunately, many proponents do not see any harm in allowing two people in love, regardless of either’s genders, from engaging in matrimony.  After all, we are an enlightened society today.  If two men or two women love each other, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry each other?  Indeed!  Well what happens if both my wife and I decide that we both love Susie and want her to be our second wife?  Why should we be restricted from our polygamous marriage if love is the only standard?  For that matter, I love my mother too.  Why should society deem it inappropriate or taboo for me to marry her?  Shouldn’t I be allowed to marry the one I love after all?  And what about that 15 year old down the street?  We do so much enjoy playing video games together while listening to Justin Bieber CD’s.  Why should the government tell us that it would be wrong for us to marry?  And, what about my dog?  She has been a loyal companion for the last decade, and many folks already leave their estates to pets.  This would simply extend that path to its logical destination.  Why shouldn’t we codify it one step further and just allow human/pet marriages?  Continuing, there is already an instance of a woman “marrying” herself and another woman who has “married" the Eiffel tower.  And who are we to deny them this right to marry the person(s), animal, or object of their affections and love? 

 

You see, if the definition of marriage is so transitory and can be redefined based on what our newly enlightened society says it is, then we must also recognize these other “non-traditional” forms of marriage as being equally valid.  Of course if the definition of marriage is no longer the union of one man and one woman, but the union of any combination of individuals, then the term no longer holds any discernible meaning. A counterfeit will always devalue the real thing, and thus counterfeit marriages will lead to “everything is acceptable” unions. There will be no legal reason with which to deny anyone from falling under the penumbra of the new definition of “marriage.”  Since love is the determining benchmark, all of these "marriages" now become permissible.

Despite what many critics will characterize and dismiss as that slippery slope argument, it would seem today that many of the proponents of “gay marriage” still insist that traditional Christian morality on the topic is antiquated and unenlightened – indeed it is even bigoted and hateful to many peoples’ way of thinking in opposing gay marriage.  Sadly, many gay marriage proponents fail to realize that I and others can love someone without embracing everything they stand for, and likewise disagreeing (even vehemently) with someone on a particular issue such as gay marriage does not mean that I necessarily abhor that person.  Indeed we are called by God to love everyone, and although I do fail at this, such is nonetheless my goal.  I have gay friends and family members whom I do love and respect.  That does not mean that I accept or condone homosexual activity or the redefining of the sacrament of marriage.  That said, I choose to hate the sin and not the sinner, as we all are guilty of sin. 

This makes me wonder further though.  Is there such a thing as absolute Truth?  And if so what is the standard for that Truth?  Still today, many people would say that absolute and transcending truth is found in God and His will.  I know I am of this particular opinion.

It is my belief that God has placed in each of our hearts the essential knowledge of His truth and love.  We generally know if we are doing good or bad accordingly and this intrinsic knowledge typically transcends geography, cultures, faith, and time.   

So why is that throughout nearly all of recorded human history has marriage always been between a man and a woman? 

Marriage between a woman and a man is definitely something that has transcended thousands and thousands of years, across nearly all cultures, across nearly all religions, and across all continents.  Indeed, the concept of “gay marriage” was so aberrant that for all of these past millennia, humankind could not even conceive of the idea of it.  This is what the Inuit tribes of the Arctic taught.  It was the custom of dynastic China and Japan.  This was the case for the Mayan people of central America and such were the rituals of most of the tribes of Africa.  It was the way of our own Native Americans.  One male and one female marriage was the cornerstone of European society for all of the past ages.  Marriage between a man and a woman are what was recorded in the sacred scriptures and traditions of the world’s greatest religions from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, to Hinduism. 

And after all these millennia of wisdom from man and the heavens, we as a people have finally become so smart and enlightened that we can reject them all.  We can now disavow all of human history as wrong and bigoted in order to redefine the term of marriage to allow for the union of same sex couples.  If all of these cultures, faiths, and traditions taught such a fundamental falsehood, then that would tend to indict them all as being false themselves.  All of the world throughout human history has been wrong, and now in the last two decades of our history we have finally evolved to know that we now have the Truth. 

But truth is not to be found simply in a majority of voters’ ballots or in a Gallup poll.  Real truth transcends time.  It is found in God.  And since the sides of history and the present are mutually exclusive in their view points on this topic, obviously both cannot be right.  Many of our progressive friends ironically decry the fact that those of us who fail to support gay marriage will ultimately end up being on the wrong side of history.  The wisdom of the millennia of past history screams out to be heard and is ignored by such people accordingly.  And while history does teach us what is right in this case, shouldn’t we be more concerned with being on the right side of Truth?

If we are to legalize marriage between same sex couples, does this not enshrine into law and teach our children that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and ultimately irrelevant?  Doesn’t it say that there are no significant differences between the genders?

Regardless of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court a few months from now, I think it is sadly likely that “gay marriage” will eventually become the new norm of the land.  It would seem that we are indeed continuing to slouch towards Gomorrah in our new enlightened society.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone when interviewed on the topic of gay marriage last year stated, “Everyone should be treated equally, but it is not discrimination to treat differently things that are different. Marriage really is unique for a reason.”

Simply identifying what is “right” with the will of the majority is a dangerous thing.  At one time in America’s history, a majority in the South thought that owning slaves was right.  Indeed a majority of the crowd on that first Good Friday called for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Christ. A majority does not necessarily lend itself as a credible moral authority.  As the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, “there is a world of difference between an authority on which you rely when it pleases you, and one which you trust absolutely whether it pleases you or not; for what the world needs is a voice that is right not when the world is right, but right when the world is wrong.” 

I hope and pray that the Supreme Court will concur with the wisdom of all of human history and God, but whether it does or not, the Truth about what constitutes true marriage will not be altered.

Good Friday: I Make All Things New Again!

As we enter into Good Friday and the most solemn day of the year for most Christians, I wanted to share this beautiful and haunting music video.  It is sung by two of my favorite artists, Brad Paisley and Sara Evans, and they do a masterful job.  The video itself contains excerpts mainly from the Passion of the Christ film.  Please be warned that the film and the clip can be difficult to watch in parts for many folks due to the realistic and graphic portrayal of the crucifixion of our Lord and Savior.

Nevertheless, as Blessed Pope John Paul II was reported as having said upon seeing a private screening of the film upon its release, "It is as it was." 

My people, what have I done to you?  Or in what have I offended you?  Answer me.  What more should I have done, and did not do?  I led you out of the land of Egypt, and you prepared a cross for me.  I opened the Red Sea before you, and you opened my side with a lance.  I gave you a royal scepter, and you have given me a crown of thorns.  With great power I lifted you up, and you hung me upon a cross.  My people, what have I done to you, or in what have I offended you?  Answer me.    (~ From the Reproaches of Good Friday)

Blessed be God forever!  Amen!

Lent, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, and Hope

During this season of Lent, I have tried to remove myself as much as possible from blogging, especially on temporal things such as politics.  That said, I came across this wonderful meditation for Lent at The Little Catholic Bubble  that Leila Miller has done regarding some radio addresses that the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen had done in the 1940's. 

Now Archbishop Sheen was a wonderful and faithful man who was pretty much a household name throughout the middle decades of the 20^th century.  He had a national radio program and even an Emmy-award-winning national television show. 

I recall having watched several of his long-ago recorded episodes of that TV show where he came out in his full clerical regalia and then spoke to the camera and his audience in front of a chalk board for the entire time.  Pretty boring stuff you would surmise.  Not so.  It was captivating and I hungered for the meaty information he proclaimed to us.  Many Americans, even millions of non-Catholics, loved and admired him for his straight forward talk and wonderful sense of humor in teaching us about the Gospels, Faith, and Christ, accordingly.

There is a book of his entitled The Seven Last Words and the Seven Virtues which was transcribed from Sheen's radio talks in 1940 and is a meditation on the seven last statements ("words") that Jesus spoke from the Cross, corresponded with the seven virtues of fortitude, hope, truth, faith, temperance, justice, and charity. 

In this age of moral relativism in the secular world and often banal homilies and watered-down catechesis in the religious world, I find myself once again captivated by Sheen's simple and profound way of exploring and explaining the Faith.  His is a voice that is sorely needed in today's world.  Archbishop Sheen died in 1979, and the cause for his canonization to saint-hood has been recently opened. 

Happening across this wonderful article, I wanted to share some of the excerpts on the chapter regarding the virtue of hope as I think it is particularly relevant for this Lenten season.  Enjoy!

The Second Word:

"This Day Thou Shalt Be With Me In Paradise."

The Corresponding Virtue:

Hope

Excerpts from Sheen's February 18, 1940 address:

[W]e speak of the virtue of Hope to differentiate it from the emotion of Hope. The emotion centers in the body and is a kind of dreamy desire that we can be saved without much effort. The virtue of Hope, however, is centered in the will and may be defined as a divinely infused disposition of the will by which with sure confidence, thanks to the powerful help of Almighty God, we expect to pursue eternal happiness, using all the means necessary for attaining it. The virtue of Hope lies not in the future of time, but beyond the tomb in eternity; its object is not the abundant life of earth, but the eternal love of God.

…

[Jesus was crucified between two thieves.]

As one gazes on that spectacle of three crosses silhouetted against a black and frightened sky, one sees in prospect the future judgment of the world; the Judge in the center and the two divisions of humanity on either side: The Sheep and the goats; the blessed and the lost; those who love and those who hate; for the end shall be as the beginning, except that Christ shall appear for the final judgment not on the cross of ignominy but in glory in the clouds of heaven.

…

In a single moment a soul with a genuine fear of God can come to a greater understanding of the purpose of life than in a life-time spent in the study of the ephemeral philosophies of men. That is why death-bed conversions may be sincere conversions. The hardened soul disbelieves in God until that awful moment when he has no one to deceive but himself. Once the spark of salutary fear of God had jumped into the soul of the thief from the flaming furnace of that central Cross, fear gave way to faith.

…

Two thieves there were: One who loved and one who hated. Each was on a cross. Neither the good nor the bad can ever escape the cross. One thief was saved; therefore let no one despair. One thief was lost; therefore let no one presume. The two extremes to be avoided then are presumption and despair. Presumption is an excess of hope and despair is a defect of hope.

…

What we all have to realize is that when we sin we turn our back on God. He does not turn His back on us. If we are ever to see His face again we must turn around, that is, turn from sin. That is what is meant by conversion…. God cannot save us without that conversion; if we die in our unrepentant sin we are forever turned away from God. Where the tree falleth, there it lies. There is no reversal of values after death. We cannot love sin during life and begin to love virtue at death. The joys of heaven are the continuance of the Christ-like joys of earth. We do not develop a new set of loves with our last breath.

…

If He forgave the thief and Magdalene and Peter, why not you? What makes many in old age sad is not that their joys are gone, but that their hopes are gone. Your earthly hopes may decrease with the years, but not heavenly hope. Regardless of the sinful burden of the years, God's mercy is greater than your faults. Only when God ceases to be infinitely merciful and only when you begin to be infinitely evil, will there be reason for despair; and that will be never.

…

If you insist that you are disgusted with yourself, may I say that you can come to God even by a succession of disgusts? What does your disgust mean except that everything earthly has failed you? That is one of the ways God makes you feel hunger for the Divine. Do you not crave food most when you are hungry? Do you not want water most when you are thirsty? Your own disgust, if you knew it, is the distant call of Divine Mercy. If then the  poverty of your merits makes you shrink from the Divine Presence, then let your needs draw you to it. And that, incidentally, is why we Catholics find comfort and solace in the Sacrament of Penance. When we are disgusted with our sins we can go into a little booth called a confessional box, unload our misery, have our sins washed away, and start life all over again. I know a thousand psycho-analysts who will explain sins away, but that is not what we want. We want them forgiven.

The Way Things Are Done In California

As a RF engineer working for a national wireless phone carrier, it is my job to design, build, and optimize cell site towers and most particularly the associated radio equipment for each cell site.  I currently work in the politically and culturally conservative state of Utah, and although I am not a member of the predominate religious faith here, I find myself liking the area quite well.  Most of the people are courteous and the culture on the whole tends to celebrate traditional American values. 

A part of my job is to continuously improve our wireless network, and that will sometimes entail adding new cell sites to accommodate customer growth or fill in various coverage holes.  With zoning in some jurisdictions becoming rather onerous, we always try to co-locate our antennas on existing towers or taller commercial building rooftops first.  Unfortunately when we try to cover larger swaths of residential areas, existing towers and tall buildings are sometimes very hard to come by.  We thus have typically found a good solution to this problem for many residential areas.  We speak with local school principals and the associated PTA etc. as necessary and request to build a tower on school properties.  This usually works out quite well.  We are able to provide needed coverage to our subscribers in their homes, and the always cash-strapped schools are able to get a monthly lease amount of money.  Additionally, once a carrier goes to the trouble of leasing and zoning such a tower in a residential area, it usually isn’t too long before other carriers come along and ask to co-locate on that tower too thus providing even more rent to the school.  The school wins, the carriers win, and everyone is happy.  Or not.

About five years ago I proposed building a new cell tower to an elementary school principal who’s school lied directly in the middle of a dense residential area for which all carriers had trouble providing adequate coverage to their subscribers.  The principal was enthusiastic and on the verge of giddy over our proposal as he would only have to give up a 20 by 20 foot unused corner of his playground in exchange for a much-needed influx of cash to be used by the school as he deemed necessary.  He even negotiated for us to provide a new marquee sign at the front of the school as an added bonus for them.  We had completed a draft lease and agreed on all of the terms in theory.  The only hurdle was to get approval from a parent advisory board.  I showed up at the meeting and presented my case and answered all of their questions accordingly.  Everyone seemed well pleased with the proposal and were preparing to vote on the issue, when a middle-aged professional-looking lady arrived late to the meeting. 

I could tell right away that she was going to be a problem.  Her tone to me and others on the board was adversarial and condescending.  She proceeded to ask me many questions that had already been asked by the crowd.  I found it rather interesting and quite telling that neither the principal nor anyone else reigned her in and told her so.  Her biggest complaint was regarding the “safety” of my proposed tower.  She was certain that such cell towers, particularly ones placed at schools, would irradiate her precious little child and undoubtedly lead to cancer.  It was a question that had already been addressed.  Nevertheless I calmly and patiently presented her my independent studies AGAIN and explained that the site operated at frequencies and power levels that were orders of magnitude lower than what was required to even begin causing any health risk whatsoever.  In fact, the 1996 Telecommunications act even made it illegal to reject a new site based on RF safety concerns accordingly.  Of course, the lady began to pontificate on what a liar I was and that I was just a shill for the industry that wanted to make money and to hell with the consequences for the kids.  I could see that her ranting diatribe was irritating many of the other parents and making others rather uncomfortable.  When it appeared that most of the parents and staff weren’t buying her hysteria, she pulled out her trump card.  “As many of you already know, I am a lawyer who moved her from the San Francisco Bay Area last year, and I stopped many of these sites from being built out there.  The fact that you people would consider putting such a dangerous site in the middle of our school ground is ridiculous.  That is not the way we did things in California, and I am going make sure it doesn’t happen here.  If you proceed forward with this site, I will bring a lawsuit forward here too.”   Ironically, I noticed she answered her CELL PHONE and immediately dropped the call as she was leaving the meeting.

Anyway, the principal asked for a recess and said that we would postpone a vote until next month’s meeting.  I spoke to him two days later and he informed me that he was no longer interested in our proposal and that he was sincerely sorry.  It was a reminder of a lesson that I have seen repeated in various iterations time and again since then. 

  

California is dominated by large cities that are overwhelmingly progressive, and have basically ruined a once great state accordingly.  They have nearly bankrupted the state in their ridiculous and never-ending attempts to be the nanny to all constituents and involve themselves in every aspect of people’s lives.  Their state debt now dwarfs that of the nation of Greece’s accordingly.  Many businesses have fled the state to escape the confiscatory tax rates and regulatory burdens, including Fortune 500 companies such as Northrop.   According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California ranks 49^th in unemployment at 9.8% as of December 2012.  The people there don’t seem to realize that there are ramifications for the burdens that the state places on those that provide jobs for the citizens.  People, families, and especially businesses are often times voting with their feet and leaving the Golden State accordingly. 

The problem is that many of these fine people move to new states, such as Utah.  They then get involved with city councils, PTA boards, and state governments.  All of that would be wonderful if they would use and proclaim the lessons they should have learned about living in an intrusive hyper-progressive state and how destructive it becomes to prosperity and freedom.  Unfortunately, they often seem to forget the conditions there that were the catalyst for them moving from California in the first place.  I have since heard time and again that old refrain I heard from the Bay-Area-lawyer Lady years before of “that’s not how we did things in California.”  Many of these folks want to seemingly re-create the mess that they fled in their previous home state. 

I’ve got a suggestion for all such progressive Californians.  If you don’t like the way we do things in our conservative state, stay in your own progressive swamp.  At the very least, do NOT come to our state and tell us how we are doing things wrongly. 

That is especially true for Utah.  We have been ranked #1 for three years in a row for “Best State for Business and Careers” by Forbes Magazine.   We have also been ranked first for “Economic Dynamism”, and the “Top State for Volunteerism” for seven years in a row.  Our state unemployment has remained considerably lower than the national average and far below California’s.  Our cost of living is well below the national average and our culture of family values tends to be far more traditional and conservative than the nation’s as a whole.  The state has been recognized as one of the best managed states governmentally and according to the recent census, Utah was ranked 3^rd for “Overall Economic Health”.  In other words, I think Utah has a pretty good handle on things judging by any number of objective standards;  all of which are far better than California’s.  In other words, if you good California folks want to move to Utah and other conservative states and work to productively contribute to it, then I am sure you will be happily welcomed.  When you come here and tells us we are doing wrong and use your state of California as the model, we are going to laugh at you uproariously.   

I had a beloved uncle that died a few short years ago that lived in Oregon most all of his life.  He was not one for being politically correct, and always insisted that it was the government’s obligation to build a very secure border fence – a fence around the borders of California to keep them in there.  I laughed at the time, but in retrospect I am beginning to think that he was right.

The Continuation of Disarming American Citizens

United States Marine Corporal Joshua Boston recently penned a letter expressing his anger at Senator Dianne Feinstein which was posted in the CNN iReport last month on December 27.  It evidently got the attention and support of many Americans who felt similarly because it has since been widely circulated around social media sites.  Personally, I think Corporal Boston was right on the mark.  Considering the fact that the hypocritical Senator from the state of California is putting forth legislation to ban many firearms from being sold or even manufactured anymore in an effort to gain support with those that think that inanimate objects are what are responsible for killing people, I have to admit that I share Corporal Boston’s anger.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.  I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.  I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.  I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.  We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps

2004-2012

Feinstein famously admitted to having a concealed carry permit and weapon as far back as 1995, and yet she wishes to deny that same right to other law abiding Americans, assuming that their choice of firearm doesn’t meet her criteria of what is acceptable and less scary to her.

“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." 

           ~ Senator Feinstein 

Such is Senator Feinstein’s right to carry a weapon as an American citizen.  The fact that she would deny the rest of us that same right is shameful. 

Following is a summary of the gun control legislation she wishes to introduce now, which I pulled from her senate website:

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

·         Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

o    120 specifically-named firearms;

o    Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and

o    Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

·         Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

o    Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;

o    Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and

o    Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

·         Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Yep, she touts that she exempts over 900 specific firearms from her ban as if that will pacify those that are okay with the “common sense” infringements on our 2^nd amendment right.  Never mind the fact that those of us Americans that currently own any of the weapons on her “banned list” will be required to have another background check, be fingerprinted, register those weapons with the local and federal authorities and then pay a $200 tax per weapon.  Not going to happen for a lot of folks, I suspect. 

 Luckily, it is unlikely that this legislation will ever make it to the president’s desk, but then again I never expected to see Chief Justice Roberts declare Obamacare to be constitutional through his contortionist illogic, nor did I ever expect a majority of Americans to give up their liberties for free stuff and reelect Obama.  So what is foolish and patently unconstitutional legislation that should be killed quickly in congress, may indeed have a fighting chance if enough senators and congressmen fail to abide by their oaths to defend and protect the Constitution.  I’d hate to bet my life against our 2^nd amendment rights being safe in their care anyway.

It really doesn’t affect them personally regardless though, including the pernicious and hypocritical Senator Feinstein.  She, like many other politicians, realize that the laws they pass are not intended to be applicable to those in the politburo (oops, I mean congress) but rather only to us comrade citizens.  I for one stand in solidarity with Corporal Boston, and I hope an overwhelming majority of Americans feel similarly on this matter.  We will all know very shortly.