Worst Politician of the Week: Douglas Gansler

As part of a continuing series to expose any politician who is clearly unfit for office, we will expose the biggest lie, craziest statement, or most egregious behavior of an elected official or one running for office every week.

jpeg

Wave to the camera, Mr. Gansler

In this edition of the Worst Politician of the Week, we’re taking a look at Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler who was recently seen at a party his son was DJing at (pictured on the right).  Naturally, the party contained underage drinking.  The Attorney General (the person who represents the prosecutorial arm of the law in a state’s government) arrived, went upstairs to speak with his son, then left the party as if he had never been there.

“There could be Kool-Aid in the red cups,” he said, “but there’s probably beer in the red cups.” (source)

Obviously, it is his job to uphold the law as the Attorney General of Maryland, and many might expect even the slightest concern at the fact a party his son is at is filled with underage drinking. Even if he disagrees with a minimum drinking age law, he still represents an office that executes the law, not legislates it, and therefore has some modicum of responsibility.

Howeverthis is not the reason he wins the Worst Politician of the Week award.  Instead, he wins it because he’s a complete hypocrite surrounding underage drinking altogether. He has been a member of the Montgomery County Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commit since 2004, a member of the Washington Regional Alcohol Program to prevent underage drinking, a participant in Teen Court, and has been awarded the “Hero Award” from Mother’s Against Drunk Driving in 2002.

He’s been a staunch advocate against underage drinking for years, but apparently lost his principles at his son’s party – principles, of course, he so vigorously defended in his ascension to the Attorney General’s office.  He claims it is not his place. He is a parent and has no responsibility at the party. This would be fine and dandy except for the fact he is the Attorney General of Maryland with a history of staunch support against underage drinking. His defense?

“Assume for purposes of discussion that there was widespread drinking at this party. How is that relevant to me? . . . The question is: Do I have any moral authority over other people’s children at beach week in another state? I say no…. My responsibility is only to my child.” (source)

At this stage, he’s hardly a random private citizen who happened to wander aimlessly into a party. Nor is it a case where he has never gone on record about underage drinking. He didn’t even pull his 19 year old son out of the party after seeing the ‘widespread drinking’. If he wants to be responsible to his own child, you’d think he’d stick to his almost two decades of strong anti-underage drinking principle’s and pull his own underage son out of there.

At worst, a shameless charlatan who will say anything to curry favor to slither his way to the political top.  At best, he is your run of the mill simpleton who doesn’t understand the gravity of his position or respect for the rule of law.

For these actions, Douglas Gansler is hereby given the Worst Politician of the Week award in recognition of being a complete hypocrite who will only show his true colors when photographic evidence comes out against him.

Mass Killing in Brooklyn Leaves 5 Dead

The AP news wire has reported that as of this publication time, at least 5 are dead in Brooklyn, NY due to a mass stabbing, including a toddler.

The NYPD has stated early Sunday morning around 3:30 a.m. EDT, that emergency responders found three victims dead at a Sunset Park neighborhood residence before 11 p.m. EDT Saturday. Two others were taken to Brooklyn hospitals and later pronounced dead. Other news sources have reported a single man has been taken into custody, SmallGovTimes can not yet provide confirmation to support this.  (source from the AP news wire)

A tragedy, yet not a single firearm was used. This vicious act of crime was a mass stabbing and without the use of the firearms, including a toddler’s death. Should we move to ban all objects with a pointy-end to prevent such brutal atrocities? Can we point to knives as the downfall of our once great society? Where is the out-cry by America to ‘do something’ about it?

Sadly, you will find none. This story will pass from common memory like dust into the wind and those five that died today will just be known as another brutal statistic in the annals of American history. All because it lacks the word ‘gun’ in it.

However, here, we believe that these deaths are no less tragic or heart-wrenching simply because one tool was used versus another to commit this heinous act. Life is precious and there will always be villains who will seek out any means necessary to cause suffering and pain. Ban guns, they will use knives, ban knives, they will use sticks, ban sticks, they will use rocks.

Others have used incidents like Sandy Hook or Columbine to convince us guns need to banned. Therefore,  we should expect them, too, to use the Brooklyn mass stabbing of October 26th, 2013 as a call to ban all sharp objects.

Somehow, I won’t hold my breath about it and these five individuals won’t see the same sympathy or sorrow expressed for them being murdered — and all just because it wasn’t with a gun.

 

Libertarian: naive, idealistic, and proud of it

The recent government “shutdown” has made some folks realize how little we need the federal government to control our everyday lives.  It also reinforces the notion that more government in your life isn’t always the answer, but also, it  reminds me of why we are libertarians – we believe in people over governments.

First, I want you to think of all the times that you have tried to talk to someone about your political viewpoint.  Think about the dialogue you had and how the other person reacted to your libertarian beliefs. I find, often, when I mention to someone that I am a libertarian, I generally get one of two responses from well-reasoned, rational individuals:

“You are too naive and the world doesn’t really work that way.”
OR
“You are being too idealistic about people and  humans need rules, regulation, and restriction to function.”

I am sure you have as well. Even as a teenager, this reaction always bothered me.  It seems to come from both the left and the right – in equal proportion – and it seems to engulf every aspect of political debate. Whether it is the economy, welfare, gun control, third parties, foreign policy, or any other hot button topic of the week – I’m always too “naive” and “idealistic”.

If I say that heavy taxation causes a deadening effect upon the economy, then I do not understand that people need the services the government provides to survive – and therefore taxes, even when exorbitantly high, are necessary.

If I state that social programs (welfare, medicaid, social security) are all government handouts that “give a man a fish, but do not teach them to fish for themselves”, I am too idealistic to assume that people can make wise financial decisions in their lives or maintain skills that make them desirable on the job market.

If I suggest that foreign intervention in other people’s lives for our profit leads only to resentment and aggression against us, I am being yet again too naive and we must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.

And the list goes on, and on, unfortunately.

I am always, and consistently, dumbstruck by this argument. It is gleefully uttered, usually with a condescending  and dismissive tone, as if it somehow denigrates my reasoning to that of a child or some other simpleton unable to comprehend the vast complexities of human behavior. At every turn, the notion that humans must be controlled in all aspects of their life (financially, socially, and religiously) is creeping into our government, slithering into our homes, and no one seems to care — as long as their political party sponsored it. It seems that these individuals do not mind trampling on the rights of the people as long as they inflict on others their will “for the greater good”.

And it hits me: both left and right genuinely believe people are evil, dishonest, and will trespass against their neighbor without constant supervision and control. They believe the people must be controlled, whether through something as obvious as gun control and forced subsidization of social programs or less obvious like the war on drugs, abortion and religion in schools — it’s obvious they believe their way is the only way. Not only is it the only way, but you will obey and accept it by the force of the gun.

However, to be a libertarian, one believes that people regulate themselves without government involvement in virtually every facet of our lives.  In order to do that, you must believe that people are inherently good. You must believe that the vast majority of people will not mass murder hundreds of innocent people with firearms, will not rob banks, be greedy and avaricious, and find their own religious path in life. Sadly, this is a scary notion to most who believe in either political party.

Truthfully, it should be scary to them - you have just announced that their party is not needed.

What a terrible world these individuals live in.  People are not inherently evil regardless of what the religious right wants us to believe. People are not too stupid to take care of themselves regardless of the self-aggrandizing left tries to force us to support.  So, I have come with a new response to those who believe I am too naive or idealistic about my fellowman: good, I am glad I believe in humanity, if I didn’t believe that most people were good  and capable of reasoning, why would I choose to live in the same society?  Why not return to caveman days, for civilization has clearly bred degenerates and miscreants, unfit to share space with one another.

So join with me in staying naive and idealistic. It might be the only shot for a better tomorrow we have left.

Debt: The New Religion

When our nation is faced with a presumed “crisis”, the government immediately jumps into spending mode.  The prevailing wisdom cites that the more the government spends, the more quickly our nation emerges once again as the shining superpower of the world.  However, what do the numbers prove about how “super” or power truly is?

First, before we proceed onward, a graph that everyone who cares about being an informed voter should take a look at. It depicts the amount of debt we have as a percentage of our national economy as measured by the Gross Domestic Product or GDP.  The graph starts with the aftermath of the Revolutionary war and covers through 2011.  This was posted last year by Quartz (source) and is a site not known for a conservative slant.  It shows, clearly, that when the nation is faced with a crisis, the national debt skyrockets as the government spends money.

One more time to let that sink in: when the nation is faced with a crisis, the government spends money. Simple enough logic and we’re easily able to see why. During war the government spends, after wars spending starts to curtail as we repair the damage done.  History clearly shows that even after World War II, spending declines in a trend that isn’t any different in slope (though greater in magnitude) than previous events. However, there’s two major anomalies to this graph.

First, we notice that spending stops its downward trend in 1980 and begins to climb despite the absence of war or a “crisis” The second is an increase in spending before World War II – The Great Depression.  These two sharp increases do not equate to any large scale conflict.  They also do not ‘trend downwards’ afterwards; instead, they seem to act more like spending floors which keep the average level of spending much higher than in previous generations.

In other words, when government spending increases, it rarely returns back to its original level.  Without a doubt, our obsession with keeping a massive debt started in the 1930′s and has continued today without ever falling back below World War I levels. Another graph is quite revealing:

Every year since 1936, the United States government has spent more relative to its GDP than it did during World War I.

That means, as cited by the Congressional Budget Office from which these graphs are derived, we are poised to spend more money on daily government operations then we did in World War II – during “crisis mode”. 

As a percentage of our GDP, we’re currently spending a hair over 35%, and if the spending trend continues past 2030, our nation will spend over 100% just for daily operation of our government.  Remember, these are not some conservative blogger’s opinion – this is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Spain, Greece, Italy, France and other countries now face 25% unemployment, and they all share something in common: their government spending as a percentage of GDP was far too high for their free markets to bear. Currently, according to the CATO Institute, Spain’s “government spending as a share of GDP leapt 2.3 percentage points to 41.5% in just one year.” (source)  That’s not much higher than we are currently spending. 

Not only is government spending a threat to free market economies, the graph below depicts the dramatic increase in the rate of total accumulated debt:

Currently held federal debt (source: Wikipedia)

These numbers look worse when you see the total amount of debt we’ve accumulated has tripled in just twelve years. Worse, the occurrence of negative real interest rates (whereby the inflation rate is greater than the interest rate of the debt) prevents the debt from ballooning even more. So in theory, we should have a very low debt due to reasonable temporary spending during periods where borrowing money was cheaper than interest paid on it — but we don’t. We simply have a slightly smaller mountain of debt despite all free market forces at work.

Why not spend reasonably and leave ourselves extra slack for when a true crisis emerges? Simply put, we have accepted the Religion of Debt in America. We accept it for ourselves when we buy cars or gadgets that we cannot afford. We accept it when we are told home ownership is the American dream. We accept it when we attend expensive colleges and universities. And, we accept it when it comes to our government.

Common rhetoric about anarchists, communists, socialists, and crony capitalists all serve to distract from the one truth: no one in government has any interest in reducing our spending to pre-World War I levels.  Not Republicans, not Democrats.  Instead, both are big government and argue over whose government gets to spend the dollars.

If we can balance the budget or (gasp) create a small surplus, the national debt will begin to erode itself naturally. Through both fiscal responsibility and natural market forces (such as negative real interest rates) we can get back to a modest, manageable debt and stop wasting so many taxpayer dollars on interest payments or government pork projects.

Want further proof that debt is the religion of the US?

Gallup poll on the power of the federal government today (source)

That’s right. The same folks who claimed the government was too powerful when President Bush was in power now find themselves wanting more power.  It is important to note, both government spending and power of the federal government has only increased since 2003.

Our nation is so consumed with debating the rationale of spending and flexing the powerful arm of the federal government that nobody asks whether nor not we should. The question needs to be “should we?” instead of “how should we?”, and every election, millions of voters are tricked into blindly pulling the R or D lever.  If you vote for ‘the lesser evil’ or for a single party a majority of the time, you need to get out of the voting booth. You’re the problem.

It’s time to wake up, kill the rhetoric, and disassociate yourself from a party. 

Please, you’re killing us all with your religion.

Would you buy this car?

Imagine you are at your favorite car dealership shopping for a new vehicle.  They dealer has several makes and models in a variety of colors. Some are sports cars, others trucks, some minivans, and, of course, the ever popular sedan. Quickly, you find a newer version of your car and immediately connect with it. It is familiar, yet new, and is the most emotionally comfortable choice.  Naturally, you tell the dealer you want to take it for a spin and you step inside of it to for a test drive. You turn the key and the engine roars to life, the air conditioning kicks on and your favorite song begins to play on the pre-installed satellite radio. Talk about  dream car!

Then, the dealer tells you to turn off the car and they’ll have it towed to your house. With a puzzled look you ask why on earth would anyone ever suggest that? That is, until you look down and notice this (pictured to the right):

noreverse

Hmm, something seems to be missing here….

You can’t back out of the parking spot because the car doesn’t include a reverse gear! You look to dealer and express your dismay at the insanity of building a popular car without a reverse gear. The dealer looks at you, very deadpan, and retorts, “Why would anyone ever need to go backwards? We’ve done everything right up until now, so just trust us.”

Would you buy this car?

Odds are, you wouldn’t. Now, instead of a car, imagine it being a country. Would you want to live in a country that blindly marchs ahead, continuing programs that do not work and never reversing course and learning from their mistakes? Well, you do. We have a serious problem with American politics.

The problem is the inability to go in reverse.

You notice it when a new tax gets levied, a new social program installed, or when we get into wars we don’t belong in. Rarely do we ever reverse course from the previously held decision (read: mistake).  This mentality has led to massive debt, costly foreign wars, unsustainable social programs and dated subsidization policies for things like corn.  Sadly, this is not the worst of it.

Our failure to throw our country into reverse results in the inability for anyone to admit when they are wrong in American politics. No one dares to change their mind.  Our political landscape does not allow policymakers to change course, back out of a clearly bad decision, and re-evaluate their choices.  Instead, society rewards blind adherence to bad policy.

We the people shoulder much of this societal burden. Speak to someone from a major political party and ask how many times their party has made the wrong decision and should have reversed course.  How many politicians can you remember admitting their own wrongs?

Do you want a responsible government that can moderate itself, adapt and experiment to find the best solution, and objectively admit when it is wrong? Then you need to start to demand it from those whom you vote for.  Stop deriding them for flip-flopping when the people have historically looked the other way.  Stop mindlessly excusing the most insane words that come out of candidate’s mouths just because you dislike the ‘other’ side more.  Most importantly, stop calling yourself Democrat and Republican because neither party has any interest in uncovering the answer.

We need to correct ourselves first before pointing fingers to the politicians who vie for our votes. Congress’ track record is terrible, but we’re the ones who put them there – it is our fault. Every vote for a lesser evil creates a bigger evil – an evil that is born out of the ignorance of Americans across the political spectrum who are more interested in being a “winner” than doing what is right.

If you hate Obama, is it due to reasons that you believe are legitimate? Or, are you more incensed at him because he is a member ‘of the other party’? If you hate him, what makes him so much different than G. W. Bush? Or for that matter, if you think Boehner is the spawn of the devil…why? What makes him more or less qualified than any other sitting member of the living failure we call the House of Representatives?

Here’s a few statements taken from the media recently that are absolutely indefensible by any reasonable, intelligent individual. Do you know who said them?

“To some of us the role of government is about doing things for the American people to help them reach fulfillment.”

“You know, the incidences of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.”

“There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.”

“My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”

“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’

“We’re $14 trillion in debt, but that doesn’t include the unfunded massive liabilities. That’s $107 trillion, and that’s for Social Security and Medicare and all the rest. You add up all those unfunded net liabilities, and all the traps that could go wrong we’re on the hook for, and what it means is what we have to do is a reorganization of all of that, Social Security and all….But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off. ”

“Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.”

“This is the end of prosperity in America forever, if this passes. This is the end of America as you know it.”

Okay, you got me, the last one was Glenn Beck, but maybe you can see my point. The fact of the matter is Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner are both more interested in being right than doing what is right.  They have no reverse gear and no intention of owning up to their mistakes – are Americans prepared to continue allowing this insanity?  One can not effectively defend a candidate or follow a party when they portray their ignorance in such breathtakingly stupid ways.  After all, these politicians represent us, and if we continue to re-elect failed politicians, it ultimately reflects poorly on us.

So America, stop voting for politicians who can’t, themselves, admit mistakes and compromise with others. If they can’t hit reverse and admit their own mistakes, how can they effectively lead our country?

Full disclosure:  three of those quotes are from die-hard conservative Michelle Bachmann. She’s insane. I don’t mean that figuratively, I mean she literally operates in her own world of magic, make believe, and has a very tenuous connection to reality at best. If you are voting for her, and you know who you are, knock it off. We have enough problems with dysfunctional, barely informed congressmen as it is – we don’t need to add crazy to the mix as well.

Worst Politician of the Week: Ted Yoho

As part of a continuing series to expose any politician who is clearly unfit for office, we will expose the biggest lie, craziest statement, or most egregious behavior of an elected official or one running for office every week.

WPotW Winner
10/06/2013

Kicking off the series of the Worst Politician of the Week, we’ve got the congressman from Florida’s 3rd district: Ted Yoho. An interesting gentleman, he was a veterinarian before being elected to Congress in the last congressional election (2012). He is a freshman congressman, but not to worry, what he lacks in experience and knowledge, he makes up for in sheer stupidity and ignorance.

In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Yoho was quoted as saying:

““I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we’re] going broke,” Yoho said. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, that will sure as heck be a moment. “I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets,” since they would be assured that the United States had moved decisively to curb its debt.” – The Washington Post (source)

We double checked the statement’s truth of origin given its absurd nature in order to make sure it wasn’t taken out of context or somehow misrepresented, we found it is not.  Indeed, Yoho said this to The Washington Post and still continues to back this sentiment.

Not only would things be most certainly less stable if the United States were to default to the creditors, but it would cause a myriad of further harmful consequences. Our dollar would lose value, interest rates would rise, and our credit rating would be downgraded. Nothing positive can come from a default. Period.

This cow doctor (seriously) without the slightest clue in what or how the debt ceiling works – and lacking even the most basic modicum of understanding of economics – is playing with the fate our nation’s financial future as if it were a game of chicken. Proudly defiant, he punctuates his ignorance with certainty in the statement:

“You’re seeing the tremor before the tsunami here,” Yoho said. “I’m not going to raise the debt ceiling.”

Regardless of whether you believe the debt ceiling can be used as a political negotiation tool or not, the truth of the matter is: the debt ceiling must be raised to avoid a default. It doesn’t matter the mistakes we’ve made in the past – defaulting on our debt will in no way help rectify or better anything. It will only lead to unnecessary pain.

This lunatic has decided to put his ‘foot down’ without actually knowing what he is putting his foot down over. The worst part is that  he hasn’t taken the time or effort to become educated about this important, critical issue and he is a new representative . If he can’t be bothered to learn anything now, while he is new to the capitol, what will he be like next term? Or ten terms from now?

For his failure to do any research or attempt to be reasonable as a member of the United States Congress, Yoho is hereby given the Worst Politician of the Week award in recognition of his incredible ignorance and stupidity.

As always, sources are provided below that we’ve used for fact checking, this week:

For general information on the debt ceiling, readers can visit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/04/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-debt-ceiling/

For why defaulting or hitting the debt ceiling would be a bad thing: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-13/u-s-risks-joining-1933-germany-in-pantheon-of-deadbeat-defaults.html

Source link for Ted Yoho’s comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-ted-yoho-government-shutdown-is-the-tremor-before-the-tsunami/2013/10/04/98b5aa8c-2c3c-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html

Two seconds is too much freedom

don't tread on meTwo seconds isn’t a lot of time, but those two seconds are an intense focal point of the gun control movement: magazine capacity. The folks over at Demand A Plan (www.demandaplan.com) have gotten some big name actors to, naturally, demand a plan from Congress. Their gun control agenda is the same tired one that’s been kicked around for years and the focus on high capacity magazines seems to be more intense than ever.

The assumption holds that if you somehow limit the carrying capacity of magazines, it will prevent crazed mass-murdering shooters from racking up double or triple digit body counts. The reasoning behind this?  The shooter will have to constantly reload, of course. But how does that actually affect the shooter? Let’s consider a few things.

1) Do the rounds in 6 different magazines weigh more than rounds in 3 magazines?

2) How much does the reloading delay effect the shooter and his or her capability to kill?

3) Is it easier to obtain a dozen low capacity magazines or a few, specialty high capacity magazines without raising much suspicion?

Now, the answers to 1 and 3 are pretty self-evident, but what about point number 2? The idea is that if you delay a shooter to make them reload, you will save countless potential lives.

Well, the average reload time for a Glock or an AR-15 (both used in the Sandy Hook killings) is around two seconds. Two seconds. Most shootings last for several minutes, sometimes quite a bit longer. Two seconds is enough for the shooter to pause and re-aim at another target . The cold truth is that most shooters walk from area to area and carry multiple guns — two seconds is nothing to them and they will continue to swap guns and reload as they go about their brutal agenda of evil. The videos below further illustrate the hilarity that reloading slows down an active shooter with no opposition; if you are particularly practiced, you can cut it down to under one:

[embedplusvideo height="200" width="290" standard="http://www.youtube.com/v/yHYARkMZiig?fs=1&start=15&hd=1" vars="ytid=yHYARkMZiig&width=450&height=365&start=15&stop=&rs=w&hd=1&autoplay=0&react=0&chapters=&notes=" id="ep5371" /] [embedplusvideo height="200" width="290" standard="http://www.youtube.com/v/EjHjur-_dho?fs=1&start=13" vars="ytid=EjHjur-_dho&width=450&height=365&start=13&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=" id="ep7791" /] [embedplusvideo height="200" width="290" standard="http://www.youtube.com/v/_IVeFmHNzVk?fs=1&start=59" vars="ytid=_IVeFmHNzVk&width=450&height=281&start=59&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=" id="ep9596" /]

Banning high capacity magazines does nothing positive and removes freedom

So, what does this ban give us? Nothing. What does it take from us? Liberty. It may not seem like much.  After all, it is just a frivolous ban on something most of us don’t use or care about.  But, it is very important. It’s always important to protect your freedom – even if it’s one that you don’t use, especially when there’s no sound evidence or science to support an outrageous claim because of emotional grief.

Yes, any mass murder is terrible and school shootings are especially heart-breaking, but selling out your liberty for the idea of safety is what the United States did after September 11th and why we have the Patriot Act and the TSA.

Are we really any safer? Or did we permanently trade away our liberties for more government control without gaining any real safety? If you want government-controlled safety, if you want a society where no one harms or even insults another, if you want a society where the government ordains a preset destiny for you to follow your life by — then clearly you do not belong in the United States of America as the founding fathers would have intended it to be.

With liberty comes excess. With liberty comes pain. With liberty comes chaos. It is a natural order and while these cold, idealistic words offer no comfort to those who have lost loved ones in senseless acts of evil — it is these ideals that many have fought and died for through our existence as a nation.

The victims of Sandy Hook died for the same reason that those in 9/11 did — for our freedom. Not all enemies of the US are foreign, not all target soldiers, and not all try to gain from it. Some are just evil who want to hurt us, and the way they hurt us is to use our own liberty against us and terrorize us into a state of perpetual fear.

Those twenty young kids who were brutally murdered in the coldest of blood were not killed by some high capacity magazines - they were killed because they were Americans with freedom and an evil, deranged lunatic took advantage of the freedoms we are given to wound us so deeply.

If we lived in a closed, 1984-esque society, then we are no longer the United States of America, where our freedoms are cherished and our liberties held dear. 

It’s easy to talk about freedom on a warm sunny evening waiting for the 4th of July fireworks to start. It becomes a bit tougher to do when a soldier dies in the line of duty. This time it was 20 young children and talking about freedom becomes a great deal harder when you are looking at a hysterical mother beating on the casket of her 7 year old son…but he is no less heroic than the soldier and these terrible sacrifices need to never go in vain. You owe it to the victims of Sandy Hook and every American before them to defend liberty at all costs.

Those two seconds of freedom has an ugly, terrible price. Let us never forget that.