546 Bullets

O.K. This is probably one of the most controversial of my routine statements. It's definitely the one that gets me in the most trouble. Some of you may have heard me utter it on the talk show space @www.crookedhook.com - "It's High Time We Talk". It would be:

"It only takes 546 bullets to change the government."

Alright, now I suppose in this day and age of weak mentalities, you gotta watch what you say, and you probably should expect folks to take everything you say literally. There's no room for cleverness in this era of instant gratification. So with that in mind let me clarify once and for all what I mean by the 546 bullets comment.

I am definitely not advocating shooting members of our government - or anyone for that matter. What I am saying - albeit more graphically than necessary - is that 546 people need to be removed from their seats of power to effect a total change. Let's do the math:

The House of Representative contains 435 members

The U.S. Senate has in its rolls 100 members

The Supreme Court sits a total of 9 Justices

The Executive Branch - President & VP 2 Executives

For a TOTAL of: 546

This figure does not include cabinet members, czars, aides, pages or any other support staff. Adding just the primary cabinet members would raise the total by 15 to 561. So I'm gonna have to change that statement to 561 bullets to be more accurate. After all, many of the Secretaries are in the Presidential Line Of Succession, after the Vice President, Speaker of the House and President pre tempore of the Senate. So henceforth it is. 561!

The removal of all 561 by the ballot box at one time is simply not possible. It would leave with too unstable of a governance. Something of that nature needs far more preparation than just a "Hey you guys get outta here we need a change!". Wait a minute! THAT'S what happened in November!

What it's all about really is removing Washington insiders from their respective positions before it becomes a lifelong tenure as in the cases of Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, Ted Stevens, Jack Murtha, Barney Frank, Joe Biden, etc. There is a very strong case for term limiting here. Term limits would do a tremendous amount to rein in DC corruption. Unfortunately, those who are in the position to institute the legislation mandating this policy are the very same who would be affected by it's passage. So I guess it ain't gonna happen...

In case you were wondering about the Presidential Line Of Succession (and WHO doesn't!?!?!). I thought I'd lay them out here for ya (with a little help from Wikipedia), before I close out this post. So, here 'tis:

Presidential Line Of Succession - 06/01/09

1. Vice President and President of the Senate

Joe Biden

2. Speaker of the House of Representatives

Nancy Pelosi

3. President pro tempore of the Senate

Robert Byrd

4. Secretary of State

Hillary Rodham Clinton

5. Secretary of the Treasury

Timothy Geithner

6. Secretary of Defense

Robert Gates

7. Attorney General

Eric Holder

8. Secretary of the Interior

Ken Salazar

9. Secretary of Agriculture

Tom Vilsack

10. Secretary of Commerce

Gary Locke

11. Secretary of Labor

Hilda Solis

12. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Kathleen Sebelius

13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Shaun Donovan

14. Secretary of Transportation

Ray LaHood

15. Secretary of Energy

Steven Chu

16. Secretary of Education

Arne Duncan

17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Eric Shinseki

18. Secretary of Homeland Security

Janet Napolitano

And while we are in the dispensing of information mode here's all nine Justices of the Supreme Court of The United States:

John Roberts (Chief Justice), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alitto, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter (soon to retire).

Judge Stephens is the longest current sitting Justice, having been appointed by Gerald Ford. Justices Scalia and Kennedy were appointed by Ronald Reagan. Justice Thomas and Justice Souter by George H.W. Bush. Bill Clinton put Justices Ginsburg and Breyer on the bench. George W. Bush appointed Chief Justice Roberts to replace William H. Rehnquist in September 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito to replace the first female Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor in January 2006. Rehnquist was appointed to the court by Richard M. Nixon and promoted to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan. Sandra Day O'Connor's historic appointment was also enacted by President Reagan.

Supreme Court Justices are not voted on, so they also cannot be removed by ballot. I guess that means I should change the number to 552...

The Emasculation of America

WE'RE LOSING OUR BALLS!!! Yeah, that's right I'll say it. Ya know why ? 'Cuz I still have both of mine. I don't know if that would be the case were I coming up in today's modern society. Men are just simply bred to be less manly under the guise of political correctness, sensitivity and equality that is anything but. This societal castration occurs on many levels and starts almost from the cradle.

As young children, many of us played out in the woods or in an open lot. You fell down, you skinned your knee, went home (usually much later), washed it off and covered up. The next day you most likely repeated the process. No running to the doctor for every little boo-boo. We did many things considered heinous by today's standards - and it was all good clean fun. Most of us who blew up frogs or snake with firecrackers did not grow up to be psycho killers. Most of us who went out and shot at barn swallows with our BB guns or slingshots didn't become serial snipers. When we went camping we brought a sleeping bag, mess kit, matches, some chow, and - most importantly - a knife. No cell phones or iPods (we sang anything we wanted to hear). We climbed trees, whittled our own walking sticks, drank from streams and peed outdoors. I still do all of those things by the way. We only had three channels on television and cartoons only once a week on Saturday morning. When our bikes broke, we learned how to fix what we didn't know. Heck, we even did all our own customizations and didn't necessarily use items fabricated with those uses in mind. We played dodge ball in gym - killer dodge ball even. We kept score in little league and if you weren't as good of a player and happened to be the last one picked, you learned the game better so that you weren't the last pick next time around. In short, (by whose definition is THIS short?) by not being mollycoddled and not being chastised or medicated for being a high spirited, active children, we were allowed to become MEN.

We called girls Chicks or Babes or Broads (I even knew a few guys who still used the term Dames). We called gays Fags or Queers or Homos, and didn't idolize a one of them. They weren't in positions of leadership or authority and aside from a few rock musicians (Elton John, Freddie Mercury, etc.), they weren't really well regarded. A lack of testosterone was a detriment not a liability. We were allowed to be rude, crude, offensive and obscene - basically we were MEN. Now I'm sure a lot of the touchie-feelies out there will be disgusted with my sensibility, but I simply don't care. Someone has to stand up for the few remaining testicles in this country.

Here I am making light of a serious situation. One of the most serious aspects of this is the way we fight wars. I mean c'mon...putting panties on a prisoner's head is cruel and unusual punishment?!?!? Why don't we just whip them with daisies? Oooh, we could get tough and use roses, thorns and all. Bringing a dog into the prison - torture?!?! I dunno, I always thought of torture as something like battery cables attached to the testicles. Or bamboo shoots under the fingernails. Let's not be wusses here.

Along with this neuterization comes a lack of personal responsibility. This is true in both sexes. Everyone blames everyone else. It seems the "Not Me" gremlin rears it's ugly head all over Washington D.C. and in the national press on an hourly basis these days. It never hurts as much to stand up and be accountable for your actions as it does to cover them with lies and have to live with it.

Now, it sounds like I'm advocating that we revert back to feudalism or barbarianism or the like. Of course not! It's possible to be civil, yet still retain a bit of masculinity in this modern era. But, I'll tell you what, personal accountability was far more prevalent when we all wore six shooters on our hips...

The Lowest Common Denominator Theory

This is another post from "The Uncommon Manifesto":

One thing that really irks me is the lowest common denominator theory. Consider it settling for mediocrity at best. Do the powers that be consider us supremely stupid? Isn’t this a form of elitism? Well, it would be easy to blame this situation on the government or the media, but the fault must be placed squarely on the shoulders of those of us who accept these dumbing down practices.

We allow the media to sell - not tell - us the news. We accept mindless drivel as the supreme in pop culture. We idolize marginally talented indiviuals on the basis of the image that they portray.When a performer’s antics in their personal life has an equal or greater ability to propel their career into superstar status than the quality of their work, we are in serious trouble. The current standard places more weight on shock value than it does on creativity. It’s easier and more acceptable to actually use crude language and performances than it is to suggest those same ideas without being vulgar. We place far too much importance upon the almighty television, taking whatever information it spews upon us as gospel. Simply put, we seem to have confused what is information and what is entertainment because it comes from the same box.

Our society has handcuffed our educators, in the name of compassion for those less adept and those less willing to conform to a structured educational atmosphere. In addition, each successive generation has accepted lower academic standards for their children in spite of the fact that our world has become increasingly complex, thereby demanding a greater - not lesser - knowledge of a wide range of subjects. Another form of acceptance of lesser standards is the grade curve. Basically, when it comes to testing a student’s assimilation of knowledge, pass or fail is a simple black and white issue. Introducing the grade curve adds a dangerous grey area to our already woefully inadequate educational system. Many individual educators who strive for higher standards quite often end up exasperated from wrangling the system and frustrated when their attempts are subverted by administrators seeking to be “politically correct”. Hats off to those who succeed and those who continue to try. These people are our key allies in our battle against mediocrity. Some of the blame must of course, fall upon the shoulders of us, the parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents of today’s youth. We have to instill from an early age the desire for knowledge, the quest for excellence and the reasoning to make the right decisions.

These are problems that cannot be solved by simply increasing budgets or by builing new schools (although these are not bad first steps). New teaching methods and atmospheres are simply not enough. Neither are regulations on what we see on televison or hear on the radio. Changes in overall attitude towards the educational process, the media and the things we accept as excellent are what is necessary. The beginning and ending lies with each and every one of us.

Single Warrior Combat

This is the first in a series of revisits to some of my previous ramblings. I hope to add and/or re-edit them as a means of updating and revisiting. I actually did a limited printing of these articles called "Uncommon Manifesto - A View From Smack Dab In The Middle". I was ranting about a different president then and a lot has changed since. The previous versions can be found on the Crooked Hook website.

www.crookedhook.com/ramblings.

Hope ya enjoy!

In this modern era of technological wonderments and increasing global conflict, the natural inclination would be - and has always been - to utilize the latest and greatest gadgets to aid us in fighting our wars. Smart bombs, precision missiles, GPS tracking, sattellite imagery - the list goes on. Certainly, it makes perfect sense to do so - after all, we devote a tremendous amount of resources to developing and outfitting the greatest military power in the world. The sad fact is that no matter how advanced our toys become, lives are still lost during combat. While we must continue to look forward into the future and continue to be innovative in our technologies and methods, we should also acknowledge past ways that had proven successful in a day and age when human lives were considered the most valuable asset. One simply has to study mankind’s history of warfare with an open minded approach in order to make the observation that single warrior combat would appear to be the most efficient form of battle.

Single warrior combat. An all out, no holds barred fight to the finish. The Victor takes all. This concept sure sounds barbaric. But is it more brutal to put forth a sole willing and capable individual into combat as opposed to sending potentially thousands of young troops into harm’s way.

In fact, we could hold a national competition for our warrior. Everyone would be eligible. Military combatants, professional atheletes, incarcerated felons, the average blue collar worker, doctors, lawyers - even Indian Chiefs would be considered. Hey, I bet we could turn a buck on this whole ordeal. An ongoing televised contest in the vein of “American Idol” would generate tremendous viewership and, an enormous amount of advertising revenue. Through this type of system we would be able to maintain a “Top Ten” group of warriors ready to act at a moment’s notice. These individuals would enjoy a celebrity stature that is above and beyond that of movie stars, rock stars or sports superstars. Even the merchandising - action figures, posters, tee Shirts, bobble-head dolls, would be extremely lucrative. Once it was time for an actual battle, a massive worldwide pay-per-view would provide further impetus for victory - again, to the victor go ALL the spoils of war. We had might as well get in on the the betting action too, before all that dough goes into the “underground economy”. Hmmm, maybe even a DVD release after the fact...

Now, I’m certainly not advocating the dismantling of our military. Absolutely not. A single warrior can’t provide the peacekeeping services that we have been supporting Europe with since the end of World War II or South Korea since the end of that war. Realistically, we need to maintain a top notch military force in order to have the ability to negotiate peace from a position of strength. But, the military would become just that - an instrument of peace by virtue of being a superior war machine. The tremedous amounts of revenues made from the commercialization of our warriors could be utilized to finance the reasearch and development of of advanced technological weapons delivery and electronic surveillance systems. Only the actual combat would fall on the shoulders of the single warrior, leaving the military free to shore up our national borders and concentrate on the ongoing War on Terrorism and other issues that could not possibly be solved in this manner.

Here Goes Amendment #2 - CIFTA

The 2nd Amendment to the great Constitution of The United States is ready to go down. As I've mentioned in the previous post, the leftists have been trying to take away the right to bear arms for quite some time now. There have been many attempts to do so in various forms, most notoriously being Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns, which was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2007.

Well, the new attack comes from an old angle. CIFTA - aka the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms or Convención Interamericana contra la Fabricación y el Tráfico Ilícitos de Armas de Fuego, Municiones, Explosivos y otros materiales relacionados. Sounds like a good idea, no? NO! Any impingement upon an article or amendment without ratification is just wrong. It is contrary to the very nature of the system set up for us by our founding fathers. CIFTA has actually been lurking in the wings since at least 1997 - right about the same time as NAFTA. Bill Clinton, buffoon that he was as POTUS actually signed the treaty in 1999, but Congress at least had enough sense to know that this would not fly with We The People. The same cannot be said for the current administration. Not only is Mr. O considering being a signatory to el Convención, but he is attempting to pull this off in a manner that would bypass Congress completely. In a meeting recently with Pres. Felipe Calderón of Mexico, BO stated that he would urge Congress to ratify the beast. In a nutshell what CIFTA does is put all gun & ammunition manufacturing under a stricter government control. Not too bad, right? WRONG! This would mean that an outdoor hobbyist, hunter, or sportsman would be forbidden from loading their own shot or in any way modifying their own firearms without first obtaining a license from the government. Fat chance of that happening. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe it will be easy for anyone and everyone to get put in the database...Ooops, I meant obtain a license.

Rather than dissect CIFTA when so many have already done the hard work for me, I've included a couple of links for further information. Remember, I'm only here to rant, not educate. The first is from http://www.gunlaws.com.

http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate5-CIFTA.htm

The Next is from the State Departments website. It is a post of the entire treaty. If this doesn't spell it out for you, nothing will.

www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/49907.htm

Additionally, under the Vienna Convention of Laws treaties, international treaties, such as this one, take precedence over national law - EVEN IF THE NATIONAL LAW IS PRESCRIBED BY THE NATION'S CONSTITUTION ! This would usurp American laws and subject U.S. citizens (We The People, again) to laws created by foreign powers. This one should be a no-brainer.

BEWARE! They're continuing to attempt to chip away at your Constitutional Rights and they are relentless.

Oh, and by the way - I DON'T own a gun, but I'll fight to my death for your right to own one...

One Right at a Time...

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is going down in pieces. The passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913) by the U.S. House of Representatives is but another step in the curtailing of personal freedoms. Every time a law is passed regarding things one can or cannot say it is an impingement upon our personal liberties. Granted one should not use hateful speech, but neither should morality be legislated - nor should it have to be.

As our personal freedoms are eroded so are those of the individual states. As the federal government provides more and more funding for state services - and dictate how the funding is spent - it usurps control of the programs it pays for and the states become increasingly beholden to the almighty Fed. This is one of the reasons that the Beltway is so smitten with pork barrel spending. The more pig you bring back home the longer they keep you around. The longer you're around, the more pig you're able to bring back home. The longer they keep you around... A good reason for term limits. Three others are Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd and the "King of Congressional Pork" - John "Jack" Murtha.

The next Amendment to be attacked will be the Second - the right to bear arms. The leftists have been drooling over this one for a long time. Now that they control 2 of the 3 branches of government (And the Judicial branch is not safe either with David Souter announcing his retirement and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg in poor health), THEY will make an attempt to curtail this unalienable right. It's extremely important not to let the smokescreens created by crises - both real and manufactured or the talking points on both sides of the political spectrum cause distraction from the hidden agenda.

BEWARE...