You are here: Home / Archives for Shawn Paul

DHS Ammo Grab: No Longer “Conspiracy” But Plain Reality

May 20, 2013 by 40 Comments

world mexguns full 6328 300x200 DHS Ammo Grab: No Longer “Conspiracy” but Plain Reality

 

It now seems clear that the Department of Homeland Security’s stockpiling of ammunition and other warfare supplies can no longer be dismissed as “conspiracy theory,” but is a very real development in the actions of an overreaching federal government.

Many have suggested and assumed that the ammo and gun shortage experienced across the country is the result of private citizens’ unprecedented purchases, in recent years, in preparation for impending gun control measures. While this is true in part, it is only half of the logical explanation that can be assessed based upon available facts.

This phenomenon has been described as creating a perfect storm for private gun owners when paired with the reality that the DHS and other federal agencies are buying up once-available guns and ammunition like never before. Mainstream news sources such as Rawstory and Media Matters have attacked Fox News’ Lou Dobbs and others for their statements affirming that the government has indeed purchased at least 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (especially including hollow points), 7000 fully automatic assault rifles, and 2700 new light armored vehicles, as well as riot gear including body armor. DHS has also invested $2 million with a contractor that recently apologized for its production of shooting targets depicting elderly gun owners and even pregnant women and children in residential settings, after photos and publicity of the targets recently gained widespread exposure.

As it turned out, these claims have proven to be very accurate, as even Media Matters admitted that DHS officials made the 1.6 billion rounds purchase as they were also busy denying it. The organization also insisted that “the order for 2717 new light armored vehicles [came] from the United States Marine Corps – not the Department of Homeland Security.” This claim seems baseless, as all photos have clearly shown the DHS emblem emblazoned on the tanks in question.

All these dismissive reports against the supposedly “misleading” claim of the DHS stockpiling effort can be traced back to a February 14 Associated Press report, lacking any investigative basis, that simply repeated the statement from DHS official Peggy Dixon, who claimed the bulk ammo purchases to have been made in order to save money, and that the bullets were solely intended for military and federal law enforcement training purposes. This claim becomes weaker upon consideration that hollow-point ammunition is significantly more expensive than standard rounds, and military spokesmen and ammunition experts contend that such bullets are unsuitable for training purposes and have never been used for such a purpose.

Seemingly, at the very least, even if the government isn’t preparing to make war against its own people, they are preparing for civil unrest, which is suspect enough for the warranted concern of the American people. The government may well be, however, deliberately attempting to restrict the supply of ammunition, thus the functionality of firearms, from the American people. It has never been a well-kept secret that the Obama administration is no big fan of the Second Amendment. The longstanding fears of many have begun to be shared by several of our elected officials who are increasingly becoming more vocal in their concerns about the government’s attempt to strip citizens of their right to keep and bear arms. Recently, as a guest on Aaron Klein’s radio show, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inholfe accused the Obama administration of buying up unprecedented levels of ammunitions as a means to intentionally bypass the Second Amendment until law-abiding citizens “can’t even buy ammunition because government is purchasing so much.” Inholfe cited last month’s testimony from DHS Chief Procurement Officer Nick Nayak who said DHS has the right to buy up as much ammunition as it deems necessary. He mentioned that the ammo grab is an ongoing concern, as even still “they’re planning to buy 750 million rounds. Well, that is more than three times the amount that our soldiers are using for training to defend our nation. So, it’s just another effort to restrict gun activity and ownership.” The senator is in the process of introducing the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) bill that will limit “non-defense, armed federal agencies to pre-Obama levels of ammunition.”

There now seems to be ample evidence that our federal government, namely the Obama administration, is up to no good when it comes to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. Historically speaking, this is a very alarming cause for concern. Hopefully, this concern then will continue to be shared by more elected officials in our local, state, and federal governments, as well as among our military and law enforcement communities. Lou Dobbs likely said it best with the following statement: “It’s like I tell anyone who brushes off what I try to tell them as simple ‘conspiracy theory.’ At some point it stops being a theory, and is in fact a conspiracy. I also remind them that we’re not talking about science fiction or aliens here. We’re talking about the very REAL potential of government misconduct towards its own people; something that has happened time and time again in history.”

Photo: Standard Compliant

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

God Bless The North, South, East, And Especially West

May 11, 2013 by Leave a Comment

922083 4741603947386 1113412081 o 1024x576 God bless the north, south, east, and especially West

Recently, upon some last minute plans to take in the food and culture of West, Texas in celebration of my wife’s birthday, what we found there was astonishing, even given our knowledge of the disaster there.

I guess I expected to see people who could not and have not returned to any normalcy in their daily lives. I assume I expected to find a community whose citizens were holed up in their houses (those still fortunate enough to have one) who wouldn’t dare to grace a smile upon their faces, much less crack a joke. For the most part, I found just the opposite to be true.

As we looked around town for an establishment that served authentic Czech cuisine, we waited in a line of vehicles of locals going about their daily routine who had also stopped for a passing train. I saw some men standing and conversing beside their motorcycles as they waited to continue on their weekend ride. I spotted a bumper sticker with an encouraging line dedicated to West in a song by a nearby local band. Inside that authentic establishment, we finally found, was delicious food, friendly service, light-hearted humor, and a downhome atmosphere. The spirit of this community was astonishing!

The information I had learned from available news sources, though, also didn’t prepare me for the devastation I saw. As we drove around town, I saw some relief stations set up here and there, with very few people gathered around them. I began to see more and more boarded up windows along the way, but there was eventually no doubt when we had finally arrived at the most affected part of town. There weren’t just a few damaged homes, as I was led to believe, but several entire city blocks, an apartment building, and an elementary school that were, for all practical purposes, totally destroyed. For a historical record, my wife snapped pictures of some of the devastation we saw along the way.

I saw large receptacles of potable water placed at the curb in front of each of these homes. Messages could also be seen, spray-painted on the fronts of these homes (not caused by vandalism, but placed there to convey words of sympathy and encouragement.) One home, obviously that of a fallen firefighter, donned the crest of the local fire department, with the name of the fallen hero and the letters “R.I.P.” One home especially evoked emotion for us as we read its message: “God Bless West.” My wife snapped a photo of this home (above); and when we took a glimpse of the photo after returning home, we were filled with emotion once again to see that the captured image was of a home with its damage completely obscured by the radiant light of a setting sun that completely enveloped it. My wife and I don’t often go out of our way to look for supernatural signs beyond what can be observed daily in our natural surroundings; but we both took this as a blatant sign that God had never left the side of this community, and that he does indeed remain there to bless them once again. This community is resilient; but we should offer our prayers for them daily, as well as our continued assistance in any way possible.

Biblically speaking, we live in a cursed world as the result of mankind’s original decision to accept sin and disobey our maker. In such a world, disasters can and will happen. If we follow His will for our individual lives and for our communities, however, He will bless us (even in the face of such tragedy) in such a way that our lives will serve as examples to those who need His presence. West is just such a community. They serve as just such an example. To quote The Chris Lowe Band’s song previously referenced to: “Our town might be shaken, but our faith is not stirred.”

Photo credit: Shawn Paul

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

The New Yorker Picks On Scalia

April 3, 2013 by 4 Comments

Antonin Scalia SC The New Yorker Picks on Scalia

In its March 28 issue, The New Yorker published an article titled “Bitter Scalia Leaves U.S.,” by Andy Borowitz in his Borowitz Report.

The article presents Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s supposed decision to resign from the Court and leave the United States. It also quotes Scalia as saying that this past week of hearings concerning same-sex marriage had been “by far the worst week of my life.” The article went on to include contrived quotes about his considered choices of new national citizenship and described his supposed angry outburst at his fellow Justices upon his dramatic exit. The article closed with an inclusion of a stoic and immovable Clarence Thomas, presented as Scalia’s last and only friend that he was doomed to leave behind.

Though this article was posted under “humor” on New Yorker.com, it reads as a straightforward news story and offers few clues that it is intended as satire when posted elsewhere on the web.

Once an unsubscribed and unsuspecting reader is directed to the web page, the first “Subscribe” tab is seen highlighted at the top left corner of screen instead of the “Humor” tab that is found further to the right. As usual, it seems that the “humor” of this far-left rag has left those of us on the right without even a slight case of the chuckles. The only direct clue left connected to the shared or printed version of the article is the keyword “humor,” found under the keyword “Supreme Court,” underneath the body of the article’s text.

In a modern media that almost universally now attempts to appeal to a younger, “hipper” audience, it’s no wonder that The New Yorker would stoop to this level of supposed humor. This sort of article is no doubt directed to those who would also typically rely on such faux news sources as “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” in order to stay connected with current events. They all, at best, provide examples of unethical humor and offer dishonest journalism when measured by any objective standard.

For those of us who understand how the media elite operate, it’s obvious that the New Yorker, which has traditionally catered to a liberal audience, as well as Mr. Borowitz would be quick to cite their First Amendment rights to free speech and expression if they were to be challenged for such things as slander. They would likely offer the excuse that this is “a satirical piece,” not intended to be taken seriously. Our question, then, is why is the joke so well guarded and so devoid of humor for the objective consumer?

The objective consumer already knows the answer to this question. The New Yorker and others are attempting to once again redefine journalism under the guise and protection of satire and the same First Amendment that they so vigorously attack when “freely” expressed by those with an informed or opposing view.

There should also be no wonder that Justice Clarence Thomas is connected to Scalia in this article, as liberal media outlets and their audiences all recognize steadfast conservatives when they see them. Thomas has been attacked since Reagan appointed him to the Court in 1986, including trumped-up charges of rape; and since this piece of satire (P.O.S.) has been published, others have also taken to renewing their attacks against him.

Outnumbered patriots such as Scalia and Thomas deserve our respect and support as long as they exhibit the same for us. To date, it seems that these and countless others have done just that. We would do well to not fall prey to the hearsay and nonsense that is so readily available to us every day.

The liberal powers that exist in our government and in their media mouthpieces are well-organized in their efforts to support causes that were never intended by our founding fathers or our founding documents, nor our Heavenly Father who was revered by both.

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

The Fourth Estate, Or For The State?

March 9, 2013 by 5 Comments

Obama Liberal Media Weapons Gladiator SC The Fourth Estate, or For the State?

It’s very unlikely that the traditional media we know today at all resembles the entity our founding fathers wished to protect in their day.

It’s not even very likely that it resembles the group admired by Edmund Burke when he is said to have coined the term “the fourth estate” in reference to the press in the middle of the 19th century.

Based on their writings and the documents they co-authored, our founding fathers wished to preserve a free press for the purpose of preserving a free people. The current remnant of a once-free press is now simply an extension and arm of the government, which means that they aren’t really a “free press” at all. They have come to be, knowingly or not, for the state, or the current ultimate powers of the U.S. federal government.

To put Burke’s term into context, it’s necessary to look at the history of medieval “estates of the realm,” which formally recognized the three “estates” of the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners. Burke and Thomas Carlyle, who popularized the term “the fourth estate,” recognized the press as a group of distinction that played an important role in lending a democratic voice to the people of a true republic. It now seems, unfortunately, that those days are gone and that once again, only three estates are represented, with the press, or media, being encompassed by the estate of the nobility. In more modern and recognizable terms, those in our government and “media” are often referred to as “the elite,” even if only in terms that denote the self-perception of many in this estate.

Sean Hannity declared in 2008 that “the media is dead”; but in a historical sense, it was already dying long before then.

Ever since Cronkite’s field coverage of the Vietnam War, the mainstream media has continued on a downward spiral. The difference between the journalists of that era and the so-called “journalists” of today is that the inquiring public news consumers’ sense of objectiveness and sincerity from these anchors has now been decimated. Many journalists of the recent past at least seemed sincere in their dedication to reporting truth. Today, the messages of the media mainstream are blatantly and admittedly laden with hearsay, inaccuracy, half-truths, and whole lies.

Still, Hannity seems to be on to something, as the media has continually sunk to new lows over the course of the last five years. It can be seen in Newsweek’s post-print fake cover honoring Obama’s second inauguration as “The Second Coming,” penned by Evan Thomas, who once described Obama on MSNBC as “sort of like God” in being above the traditional political fray. We should also remember CBS Political Director John Dickerson’s plea in a January 2012 Obama-Biden ad to “Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party”… and declare and wage he has.

The legendary CBS reporter Bob Schieffer, after an Obama gun control speech, suggested that “the president is going to have to do more than just make a speech about it. This is one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard him deliver, but it’s going to take more than that from the White House. He’s going to have to get his hands dirty.”

On January 27, ABC’s Martha Raddatz of The Week conducted a six minute interview with Democrat Senator Bob Menendez without asking even one question about the ongoing FBI investigation into allegations that he solicited underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. By now, this is a predictable double-standard that would have obviously surfaced had this interviewee been affiliated with the Republican Party.

Another example is provided by The Washington Post, who after crafting a report from a satirical piece by the Daily Currant, falsely reported in early February that former vice presidential candidate and former Fox News contributor Sarah Palin was joining the Qatari-owned news network Al Jazeera.

On several occasions, Obama himself has named Fox News as a media organization that stands in the way of “progress.” On even more occasions, in this modern era of “new media” choices, he has cited this entity without naming names. In his relentless assault on honest journalism and any who would dare stand in the way of his agenda, Obama told TNR in a recent interview that “If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News…for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

Most recently, the mainstream media have given the president an unprecedented pass on his actions and inactions in the scandalous turn of events surrounding the terrorist attacks on our consulates in Cairo and Benghazi that led to murder, including the first of a standing ambassador to the United States in decades.

They have also largely handed Obama a free pass concerning the impending “sequester” budget cuts they have repeatedly described as “severe,” even though these cuts only account for about two weeks of current annual government spending. They have stated that these cuts will devastate child care institutions (few of whom receive government assistance) and end the jobs of thousands upon thousands of public educators. The most conservative of verifiable projected figures as to losses of public education jobs is about 500 positions, and the high end of these figures lands at about 2,000.

We should keep in mind that these “cuts” only amount to a 2% cut to the initially projected plan for additional spending for the remainder of the year and beyond. The real pain of these cuts…that is NEVER reported in the mainstream media…will be felt by the U.S. military, with this, by design action, to be the most significant step by this administration to carry out a verifiable agenda for a reduction in U.S. armed forces personnel comparable to post World War II levels.

Recently, even The National Review has proved to be subject to the pressures to water down truth and liberty in their concession to establishment “RINOs’” unchallenged path for modern conservatism. What would Mr. Buckley say to them now?

William F. Buckley, in the mission statement for his magazine, The National Review, once stated that “Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic.” This reality is now most painfully true.

Thankfully though, “There are those of generous impulse and a sincere desire to encourage a responsible dissent from the Liberal orthodoxy. And there are those who recognize that when all is said and done, the market place depends for a license to operate freely on the men who issue licenses — on the politicians.”

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

A Liberal History Of Union Thuggery And Civil Rights Perversion

January 19, 2013 by 4 Comments

Democrat SC A Liberal History of Union Thuggery and Civil Rights Perversion

In the unfolding of recent events, well-informed citizens have likely noticed the hypocrisy that has shown through the actions and inactions of many affiliated with trade unions and the modern civil rights movement.

Most recently, this hypocrisy related to union practices could be seen in last month’s union protest of then-pending right-to-work legislation in Lansing at the Michigan State Capitol.

Just as is almost exclusively true with all public union activity, many of the protestors gathered in this assembly spewed insults and foul language and carried out violence against not only their outspoken detractors, but even against reserved individuals who they perceived might be in disagreement with their cause.

Two examples gaining much exposure involved Steven Crowder and Clint Tarver.

Steven Crowder, Fox News contributor, comedian, and political activist, is known for his irreverent and politically incorrect humor, as well as his outspoken conservative stances on practically every major current issue. That said, based on video captured at the event featuring his encounter with union protestors, he seemed to be on his best behavior. At least one of the union protestors, though, launched a profanity-ridden verbal attack on Crowder, only before launching a physical one on him that left Crowder with significant injuries.

Clint Tarver, on the other hand, was on the sidelines of the event, simply doing his job when he became a victim of the violence. Tarver had been hired by the pro-right-to-work group Americans for Prosperity to serve hotdogs in a tent set up for the organization at this event. Racial slurs were spouted at Tarver, who happens to be a black man, before his vending equipment and other property was overturned, trampled on, and destroyed. As he scrambled to try to salvage what he could of his property, a friend reportedly told him “You gotta get out of here.” It seems obvious that as the stirred-up protestors were looking for their next victim, he must have made for an easy target in that he was perceived to be associated with AFP. The fact that he was also a black man seems to have only fueled the fire of the attack, in that popular sentiment now tells us that black Americans who stand up for, or associate themselves with, conservative causes are somehow disloyal to their race (or, to quote a recent statement from a certain sports commentator, they are “not down with the cause.”) The objectives of this “cause” seem to become more painfully clear every day.

It is very telling that in just these two examples, so much typical liberal hypocrisy comes to light. The same liberal crowd that aligns themselves with union interests is also typically the one that presents themselves as the exclusive champions of free speech and assembly and of the modern civil rights movement. If that’s true, the attacks on these two men and others serve as another of many poor examples in showing their loyalty to these interests; and they seem to tell an entirely different story. The message of this mob of union thugs (and of most other liberals) seems to be: “We support your right to free speech and assembly as long as you agree with us and fall into the roles and stereotypes we’ve assigned to you.”

President Obama and various union officials and supporters have continually maintained that unions remain vital to the survival of certain industries, as well as regional, state, and national economies. On their watch and under their control, though, businesses, entire industries, and state economies have increasingly failed. The outcome has been no different for the auto industry in Detroit and for the state of Michigan, the birthplace of the UAW and the nation’s organized labor movement, under union control. As the unions have gained power and saturated the local market, industry has increasingly taken a downturn.

With this knowledge, union proponents continue to hide their selfish and power-hungry intentions behind the lies of supposed intentions for the good of the public and business majority. The fallout that follows hurts the economy and industry (at all levels), as well as the public at large and even union members themselves.

Well, it seems that the working public and state legislatures in Wisconsin, Indiana, and now Michigan are forming a consensus that right-to-work states allow for greater growth and opportunity and that union membership and dues are no longer necessary. Closed shops now seem to account for little meaningful workplace protection but only offer unequal promotion, waste, a decline in product and service quality, and a lack of marketplace competition as a return on their investment.

As it turned out, of course, in spite of all the threats and violence of these union thugs, Michigan became the nation’s 24th right-to-work state.

If these events alone are not enough to show the hypocrisy and destruction that is union control, the modern civil rights movement, and liberalism in general, then we need only to look into their history in this country.

While it’s certainly true that many involved in the efforts and in receiving the rewards of these causes have remained honest and sincere, the core of their power structure has historically been dishonest and self-serving; and so it also remains today.

As for unions, American unions can be traced back as far as 1786, when Philadelphian printers conducted the first recorded labor strike for higher wages. But the tradition of 20th century unionism was largely the work of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and its leader, Samuel Gompers.

This movement, beginning in 1881, enjoyed a small but growing membership throughout the 1880’s and 1890’s. Gompers and his federation enjoyed their greatest influence, though, during WWI, when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson appointed Gompers to the Council of National Defense, a position he used as leverage in convincing the president to enable government support for trade unions and collective bargaining in WARTIME! As this may sound familiar and similar to the current relationship between our government and unions, it also shows that unethical union practices are nothing new.

In fact, on AFL-CIO’s own official website, it is admitted that Samuel Gompers “…socialized with a group of émigré socialists and labor reformers whom he would always credit for his commitment to trade unionism as the essential vehicle for bringing about social reform.”

Like me, do you remember a time when “socialism” and “socialists” were seen as dirty words that were best kept unspoken, held at bay, or at least kept in secret? They now seem to be gaining acceptance and viewed, by some, as words to associate with and to be proud of. Even so, socialism and communism have always lain at the root of many societal problems that have been unnecessarily kept alive until the modern day.

Even to my own dismay in some respects, much of the history of the civil rights movement has evolved from less-than-honorable legacies. This is not in reference to the brave souls who defied an evil system, at the risk of their own lives, to rid society of very real and dangerous racism (they are to be commended and honored), but to those who used this cause, like many others, for personal and political gain, generally to the detriment of those they claimed to protect and defend.

The American civil rights movement of the 20th century is often traced back to 1948 when President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which states: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”

The next notable advance usually cited in this movement occurred on July 2, 1964, when Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only after facing alienation from a Republican Congress that penned and passed the bill.

The same Congress also passed the Voting Rights Act the next year.

Johnson then issued Executive Order 11246, which first enacted “affirmative action” in the workplace. This was apparently a presidential overreach intended to secure a personal, politically expedient stance for the civil rights movement. In actuality, it was and remains a very discriminatory policy that placed race above qualifications for prospective employees.

The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the president’s executive order were all met with strong opposition and opposing votes from the president’s own Democrat party.

Many have seen through what they believe to have been obviously dishonest intentions on the part of President Johnson, based more upon personal, political, and party-line gain of power and money than upon civil rights or equality. Many more seem to speculate that this historical reality seems plausible.

To that effect, after weathering strong racist and segregationist resistance from fellow Democrats to his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson is quoted in John Kessler’s Inside the White House as saying, “I’ll have those n*gg*rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years!” That’s not the sort of language we usually look for in a modern champion for civil rights!

In the person and presidency of Barack Obama, American liberals and Sharia law proponents find an unprecedented 21st century dream connection of possibilities. What a veiled imposter, thinly as it may be applied, this president has turned out to be.

We would all do well to prepare ourselves for the damage that such an American leader and commander-in-chief might inflict upon his own nation and the world.

In spite of this overly cautious era of political correctness, we ought to consider that this man, in some measure, shares similar appearance and DNA with those brave and peaceful civil freedom advocates of the 1960’s, but with demonstrated racially divisive, anti-Israel, and pro-Islamic allegiances that could not be further from the noble cause so bravely fought by those devoted men and women of history.

Ironically, in the face of this reality, the sitting president now invokes the name of the most honored leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., every time it is politically expedient to do so (and will evoke his memory, as he reportedly intends to use the “traveling Bible” of King in the inauguration ceremony to usher in his second term.)

It should be obvious to even newcomer students of American history that there is a pattern of government interference into public life that is always followed by failure and destruction. Although our government is always seeking new avenues for corruption (i.e. green energy incentives) that always end in failure, their fraudulent use of unionism and the civil rights movement has become their traditional institution of deception. Gun control now stands to be their next institution, capitalizing upon tragedies that could not be thwarted by the addition of yet another law to the already saturated legal system. As informed and concerned Americans, we should not only be aware of the tricks and trade of the left. But we should also be vigilantly involved in the political processes of our communities, states, and country; in regular communication with our representatives (because corruption knows no bounds); and always relying on the Creator and ultimate founder of America, our Almighty God.

Photo Credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

American Tragedy, Grief, And Fortitude

December 15, 2012 by 3 Comments

US Flag 3 SC American Tragedy, Grief, and Fortitude

In the wake of the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the burdens of Americans’ hearts have grown especially heavier upon learning of the events that unfolded yesterday at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

A lone assailant entered the school and ended the lives of 26 people, including himself. Twenty of the victims were kindergarten children at the school. This attack apparently occurred after he had killed his own mother in her bed at home, which brought the death toll to 27. Some reports maintain that he had also earlier shot and killed a former roommate at a separate location, which would bring the death toll to 28 people.

It has been reported that the 20-year-old shooter suffered from a number of mental and emotional conditions, including Asperger’s Syndrome, and that medications for these conditions had been prescribed to him in the past. Most other information about his personal situation seems to remain as speculation.

Personal thoughts and prayers for the comfort, safety, and well-being of the survivors of this assault are now no doubt shared with millions of Americans across the country.

Mass killings of this sort, however tragic, are not new to this country. According to statistical experts, there has been an average of 20 such mass killings in America annually for decades. For many years, the death toll, as a result of these mass murders, has averaged to about 150 deaths annually.

The popular notion of the seemingly rising trend of such events is likely due to an increase in the media exposure devoted to such tragedies. Such accounts sound terrible, and they are terrible. There are a few reasonable explanations, though, for this heightened media attention. First, there has been a trend, in recent years, of such homicides occurring in such public places as schools and movie theatres and involving the deaths of young children. Many such massacres in recent years have also resulted in high numbers of casualties. Finally, there is the now obvious slant toward the “progressive” movement shared by the gamut of mainstream media networks. This movement (and their media) tells us that such massacres are precedented examples of the need for additional gun control legislation.

In fact, for those of us who remain as free-thinking, common-sense people, such events only serve as examples for the need of further deregulation of 2nd Amendment rights for law-abiding Americans. All other thoughts and loyalties aside, it is a fact that if that principal in Connecticut (the first victim of this massacre) had been legally armed, the carnage of the assault would very likely have included many less people, and maybe no people.

Developments such as this have inspired many of us to only grow more determined to retain our personal rights and the first principles of our nation that have made it so unique and blessed among the peoples of the world.

It is curious that in the public schools of our ally, Israel, teachers and other school employees are routinely allowed the right to securely maintain registered firearms in the workplace for protective purposes. Even more, we do not hear about such school shootings ever happening in Israel.

At the root of things, the antidote for America’s personal, social, and political woes should be so obvious to us all. As God (He upon whom our nation was founded) is increasingly pushed out of our affairs and associations, our troubles mount higher by the day. If there is any hope for the future of America, it will only be realized when we finally turn our eyes back toward the author of the universe and inspiration for our country as the only source of our aide.

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

What Does It Mean To Be A Conservative?

November 24, 2012 by 2 Comments

Ronald Reagan What does it mean to be a conservative?

With the political winds now blowing favorably for liberals, or “progressives” as they have more recently labeled themselves, another label (conservative) seems to have gained a negative connotation among some.

Actually, there’s really nothing negative about conservatism, at least compared to all other alternatives.

First, we should think about what conservatism actually is.

The first definition in Webster’s Online Dictionary, by Wordnet, defines conservatism as “A political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.” The second definition, by Webster, defines the term as “The disposition and tendency to preserve what is established; opposition to change; the habit of mind; or conduct, of a conservative.”

Alright, I can already hear the static anti-establishment crowd now. Relax. If conservatism means the preservation of an establishment, what is that establishment?

It obviously can’t be any current establishment, or conservatives like myself would be silent and content with any political winds that blow through. The establishment that conservatives mean to preserve is that of our founding, including American first principles like contribution to society, independence from unnecessary assistance or control, common-sense in financial matters, honesty, free speech and religious practice, the pursuit of happiness, the protection of human life, and ultimately reliance on God as the giver of all rights and possessions and provider of all needs.

In this dictionary, definitions for the terms liberal or liberalism can’t be found…hmm. The term “progressivism”, however, can be found. As the first listed definition, Wordnet states,:”The political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society.” Well, that’s a vague no-brainer. It’s no secret that’s how those who follow this philosophy want the rest of us to perceive it. But don’t give up on me yet.

Moving down the list, there are more specific definitions of progressivism, such as for Economic Progressivism, defined as “…a political economic ideology that supports a progressive tax.” But wait, there’s more. It gets better.

Progressivism in the United States is defined as “…a cluster of political, activist, and media organizations ranging from left-liberal to democratic socialism.” Oh, it’s a cluster, alright.

Sold yet? Within the given definition for Social Progressivism, it is stated that this philosophy “…today generally supports same-sex marriage, birth control, and women’s right to choose an abortion.”

There are plenty of examples of progressive or liberal figures we could discuss. They’re plastered all over NBC, CNN, CBS, and ABC on a daily basis. If you occasionally check up on these figures from news and commentary on FoxNews or talk radio, then double-check the facts next to other sources (especially official public records and statistics such as with the CBO); you’ll likely see the hypocracy of these liberals.

I’m much more interested, though, in the figures who have stood for conservatism, as we now understand it. In modern history, Ronald Reagan comes to mind as the most influential figure for conservatism in our lifetimes. He is often praised, myself included, as a great leader in this regard. But what made him great?

He was a great conservative because he supported the same basic principles that our nation was founded upon. He might not have been great if it hadn’t been for our founding fathers, whom he resembled, such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, etc.

These great men are now often misrepresented (even in public school textbooks) but always examples of what can be possible with little more than faith in our Creator and in His creation, when bound only by His will and the principles of His Word.

To cite the “establishment” definition of conservatism, it does seem that the establishment that even many elected Republicans seek to preserve is the Republican Party itself, by any means necessary, and not our founding documents, principles, or conservatism.

If this is true, they’re going about this preservation in all the wrong ways, bowing down to the president and the liberal democrats in concession just moments after the re-election of the president and others.

Neither the Republican Party, while obviously our last organized hope in our government, nor conservatism or our republic will survive if this approach continues. That will only lead to an even more unified effort by our government to further raise taxes of the working people, redistribute those dollars to the non-workers, and further erode the constitutional rights and freedoms of the majority of American citizens.

What we instead need to do, as conservatives, republicans, and as a nation, is to hail back to those founding  principles, make our voices heard, and turn back to the God of the Bible and first God of America for help.

We can only accomplish this by first placing our trust in Him through the sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ as the payment for our sins.

As of now, it’s still my right to share this belief; my intention is to do so more by the day, and my hope is that you’ll come to this belief while there’s still time for you and for our country.

God Bless.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Post-Election State Of The Union

November 10, 2012 by 3 Comments

flag day Post Election state of the union

Among conservatives and Christians in this country, the outcome of the recent presidential election has incited a gamut of emotions and feelings ranging from disappointment to hopelessness, fear, and anger.

While any of these feelings are understandable (and most of them may be useful for the future), given the right control and direction, a feeling of hopelessness is never justifiable for us.

After all, this is still America; and even more, as Christians, we’re still protected by the Almighty God!

I’ve tried over the last few days to find the words to sum up my personal feelings as to the present challenges facing our nation and the right way to look at them. It was then that I had the privilege of reading an article penned by my Dad, W.P. Paul, Jr., the day after the election. It seems that I could not have expressed these concerns more accurately or concisely. It reads as follows:

 

Dear friends,

In 2007, Barack Hussein Obama declared that America was no longer a Christian nation. I believe he proved that with yesterday’s election.

Four years ago, America elected a Godless reprobate, Muslim man with communist roots as our first black president. Since then, he has dismantled our nation and attacked our basic freedoms!

Can God bless and protect a nation that continues to kill precious unborn babies by the thousands each year?

Can He bless a nation where copulation without marriage is the norm?

Can He bless a nation where homosexuality, or even bestiality, are things to be desired?

God is God! He can bless, but He also can judge righteously!

Earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes on the east coast: just a coincidence caused by “climate change”, or could it be God’s judgment on an evil nation that is no longer “Christian?”

Our founding fathers realized that this nation could not survive without following God’s plan for humanity.

His plan has now been thrown out the window in America!

But, make no mistake, God can and will protect and deliver those that are His! He still hears our prayers!

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:35-39)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports

Election Day Pep Talk

November 6, 2012 by 1 Comment

I Voted SC Election Day Pep Talk

With Election Day upon us, we could all probably use some final, general memory-refreshers and a last minute pep talk.

For those of us who have long since decided to support Governor Mitt Romney, we have made that decision, at least partly, because of the record displayed over the past four years by President Obama. For many of us, Romney wasn’t our first choice for the Republican nomination or for president; but we still see a far more qualified and capable leader in him than in our incumbent president.

Governor Romney has a successful record of leadership as governor of Massachusetts, as host of the Olympic Games, and in his business endeavors. As we have learned more about Mr. Romney throughout the course of the campaign, we may still have our various differences of opinion with him; but we have learned of his patriotism, charity, enthusiastic personality, and devotion to his faith and family.

On the other hand, we’ve seen Obama’s failed stimulus and omnibus bill, his dangerous and system-breaking universal healthcare plan in “Obamacare,” his coldness toward our longstanding allies and emboldening of our nation’s enemies, his attack on personal and religious liberties, and his record-breaking debt and unemployment figures. We’ve also recently witnessed an unprecedented foreign policy failure and cover-up in the Benghazi scandal. We also know this to be simply an abbreviated list of the many failures, broken promises, and dishonest objectives of this president.

For those voters who are beginning to feel uncertain about their support for the president, and for those who are still undecided, you would do well to take a closer look at what the president has and hasn’t done over the course of his first term. Maybe we should then concentrate on some of the specifics concerning his most recent job performance and consider whether his actions represent your personal convictions.

For example, did you know that the president is a strong supporter of your tax dollars being sent involuntarily to organizations like Planned Parenthood, who have made abortion their big business, raking in yearly profits in the billions of dollars with our help? This organization gets rich by ending the lives of innocent unborn children, under the guise of providing “women’s health services.”

Did you know that, under Obamacare, faith-based healthcare institutions are being forced to provide birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to their patients, in violation of their own right to the free practice of religion?

Also, did you know that President Obama has accumulated more debt and total spending over the last four years than that of all the presidents who came before him combined?

Finally, did you know that Obama and his administration watched on, through live drone footage, as our Libyan ambassador and security personnel died while denying their three desperate requests for help?

For those who are still displeased about both candidates to the point that you plan on sitting out on this election or writing in a candidate who can’t win, we urge you to reconsider. The stakes of this election are far too high. We have two choices: a country that can retain and regain its liberties and thrive again, or a statist, socialist system that will drain and eventually enslave its citizens.

As the candidates are nearing the end of the campaign trail, they have shared some thoughts with us that may stick with us as the final, defining messages of their campaigns. Recently, Mr. Obama said of his opponent that “Voting is the best revenge.” Romney’s recent message, though, is that we should vote for “love of country.”

Even if you haven’t paid much attention to our leaders or politics in general, over the last four years, the choice should now be clear.

Photo credit: Cali4Beach (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

The Gay Agenda’s Double-standard For Free Speech

October 28, 2012 by 2 Comments

gay pride flag 3 SC The gay agenda’s double standard for free speech

Recently, gay marriage advocates attacked Chick-Fil-A’s rights to opinion and free speech; but this crowd has displayed a history of holding to a double-standard for free speech, as was shown in their 2009 attack against a disagreeing High School teacher.

Don Mendell, a School Counselor at Maine’s Nokomis High School, had provided 36 years of exemplary service to his students and vocation, for which he was nominated to be the district representative for Maine Teacher of the Year.

All of this appreciation for him and his service, though, seemed to quickly disappear in 2009 when he stood up for marriage.

Some time earlier in that school year, Sherry Gould, a gay activist and English teacher at the same school, did an ad for a gay marriage campaign that was taped inside the school of her employment. This ad featured such points as the right to willfully raise children without the benefit of a father. It was then that Mr. Mendell was approached by supporters of Maine’s Referendum 1, that sought to strike down a law for gay marriage in the state. He agreed to be featured in an ad for this purpose that, unlike Ms. Gould’s ad, was taped off campus in a private studio. His ad was done from the perspective of the “rights of children to have an opportunity to be raised by mom and dad.”

Within weeks, complaints were launched against him, and gay marriage advocates filed formal charges against him in an attempt to strip him of his professional license. As a result, the Maine State Board of Licensure then investigated him for competency to practice social work and went on to report their findings before the school board. Their allegations were based only upon the ad and his failure to “put rainbow signs up around his office, etc.” and not upon any legitimate claims against him or his job performance. Many of Mr. Mendell’s colleagues also turned on him; he was denied committee assignments, and he was essentially fired by way of transferring him from school to school at a rapid pace.

In assessing what he has observed throughout his unfortunate experience, he stated that “For me the most disturbing and shocking thing is how quickly people can turn away from what I believe is written inside of all of us, regardless of any religious beliefs or anything like that, as human beings, that mother, father, and child is something that’s unique and can’t be duplicated in other ways, and marriage between a man and a woman is the seal, society’s seal, [of a family unit]. I’ve heard it called the gold standard, and I’ll stand by that, too.”

Well said, Mr. Mendell, and rest assured that many of us will stand with you in standing by that gold standard of marriage as it has been and should continue to be.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: